By Jaime Bochet
Of the Legal Staff
Welcome to your daily round-up of stories in today's edition of The Legal Intelligencer. Click the links below to access stories directly, or head to The Legal homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)
Today's top story is by our U.S. Courthouse Correspondent, Shannon P. Duffy, who writes that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, adopting a nine-factor balancing test for deciding when litigants may keep their names secret, has ruled that pseudonyms should be reserved for those who can show a "reasonable" fear of "severe" harm.
Also leading the front page is a story from reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel: The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office moved Friday to disqualify law firm Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young from representing both the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia and retired Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua in the latest round of allegations of church sex abuse.
Below the fold, senior reporter Gina Passarella writes that a Philadelphia attorney suspended for five years after her conviction for mail fraud related to a cash payment to disgraced former city treasurer Corey Kemp has been reinstated to the bar with the blessing of all but one state Supreme Court justice.
In our Page 3 Regional News section, reporter Zack Needles has a story about the Philadelphia Parking Authority: As the question of whether PPA has the power to create its own taxicab regulations without public input awaits argument before the state Supreme Court, the Commonwealth Court has ruled that agency-issued citations based on those regulations remain unenforceable in the meantime.
Our first contributed article on this Monday morning is our "Insight on Diversity" column by Stacy Hawkins of Rutgers School of Law-Camden, who wonders if the legal profession is unconsciously undermining its diversity commitment.
Our second contributed article is our "U.S. Supreme Court" column by John S. Summers and Dylan J. Steinberg of Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin, who take a look at the court's June 23 decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
Have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole? E-mail me or any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal!