Welcome to your Monday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)
The top story this morning is defense counsel arguing that a letter to an expert’s employer written by a defense attorney in a medical malpractice case was not “sinister.” As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, plantiffs counsel said that such an action casts “great doubt on the sanctity of the litigation system” and should be sanctioned by the defense attorney being disqualified from representing her client in any retrial, disgorging fees and paying the plantiff’s costs in litigating the sanctions motion.
Also above the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the First Judicial District is clearing homicide cases at a faster rate than new prosecutions are being filed. This comes after the court had faced an increasing backlog in such cases.
Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that a Philadelphia judge has said a dispute between Penn State and its insurance company stemming from the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal should be litigated in Philadelphia.
In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has let stand an $8.75 million products liability verdict.
As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.
In an Insight on Diversity column on Page 5, Virginia G. Essandoh writes about the Rainmaker Mentor Program and its impact.
In a Law Technology News column on Page 7, Robert J. Ambrogi writes about maintaining ABA ethics while using social networking.
If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.
It is not always so easy to prove medical malpractice. Sometimes the case is not evident and the complainer has to present a lot of necessary certificates.
Posted by: business insurance | Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 04:59 AM
I can agree with "business insurance", who ever this is. My recommendation would be to seek out a malpractice lawyer and schedule a consultation. This way you, will be able to get first hand knowledge and solidify a great reference.
Posted by: Giana Forzareli | Tuesday, October 09, 2012 at 06:59 AM
It is vague. But it's not difficult to assess when a medical malpractice is present. If they fail to do what MUST do, then you can consider it as a malpractice.
Posted by: steve technology | Tuesday, November 06, 2012 at 05:02 PM
I am really thankful to all your squad for sharing specified inspirational substance.
Posted by: insurance | Monday, November 12, 2012 at 05:15 AM
It is not always so easy to prove medical malpractice. Sometimes the case is not evident and the complainer has to present a lot of necessary certificates.
Posted by: video seo | Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 01:40 AM