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 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.