The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday 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 an analysis of the general election and the challenges it poses to attorney general candidates Kathleen Kane and David Freed. As reporter Ben Present writes, observers indicate that the Republican Party cares more about the position than any other row office. The GOP has held the position since it became an elected posted in 1980.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the out-of-county judge presiding over the First Judicial District’s legal malpractice suit over the Philadelphia family courthouse project said the first Supreme Court justice to preside over the initiative, Sandra Schultz Newman, is not entitled to protective order from having to give a deposition.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the state Supreme Court has granted allocatur in a negligent infliction of emotional distress insurance case.

Also below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel has the latest from the priest sex-abuse trial. Yesterday, a witness testified he was not warned about defrocked priest Edward V. Avery.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that claims against British Airways are time-barred under an international agreement governing aviation.

Also on Page 3, Ben Present writes that Penn State has again lost a venue fight after a judge ruled the First Judicial District was not an inconvenient forum for the university.

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.

On the Paralegals Page, Judy Stouffer writes that the time has come to consider digitizing your law firm’s case files, while Christine Flynn writes about the benefits of paper records and the pitfalls of their digital counterparts in a point-counterpoint.

In a Young Lawyer Editorial Board column on Page 7, the board writes about the challenges and opportunities of shingle hanging for those fresh out of law school.

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.

Voters to Decide AG Primary Tuesday

By Ben Present
Of the Legal Staff

On the day before an increasingly heated Democratic attorney general primary race is settled, a snowy forecast for Western Pennsylvania echoed a theme prevalent throughout the entire race: low visibility.

Tuesday, voters will tap one of two Democrats – former Lackawanna County Prosecutor Kathleen Kane or former U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy – to take on David Freed, the Republican who hopes to continue what has been a clean sweep for the GOP since the office became an elected one. And despite what political observers have called the best chance for a Democrat to replace the Republicans for attorney general, a number of distinctions between Kane and Murphy and no shortage of on-air negative advertising to point them out had one political observer saying there was simply no way to predict who is ahead.

“I don’t think the Democratic voters have a clear sense about these candidates,” said G. Terry Madonna, the director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster. “In a low turnout [situation], who can get to the polls certainly matters.”

Madonna noted there were a number of interesting issues over which the hopefuls have been duking it out, but questioned whether any of it was hitting voters to an extent that could turn Tuesday’s primary. Something like increased female turnout, he suggested, might have just as significant an impact as the millions of dollars candidates have spent on TV.

Madonna pointed to issues such as contraception and abortion, which are resonating with Democratic women voters in recent weeks, noting those would favor Kane.

But that may or may not play into Tuesday’s primary, he added, reiterating that political watchers have little to go off of to predict the winner.

“If you’re not getting answers out of those of us who follow politics, it means two things,” Madonna said. “It means we don’t have good polls” and that it’s a low-visibility race.

What information voters do have would likely be from television.

Kane, through several TV advertisements, has called out Murphy for not having prosecuted a case in Pennsylvania and for having taken the Minnesota bar exam. Boasting an endorsement from former President Clinton, Kane used television advertising to point out her 13 years in the Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office and the 3,000 prosecutions under her belt.

Murphy’s televised attack has focused on a $500 donation Kane made to the campaign of Governor Tom Corbett’s re-election campaign for attorney general in 2008. He said Kane presented an inflated resume to the public by saying she prosecuted 3,000 cases and called her family’s trucking company “anti-union.”

On Monday, both were in the state’s Democratic epicenter at some point.

A Kane spokesman told The Legal the campaign would hit Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Scranton by the close of business Monday.

Murphy, now an attorney at Fox Rothschild, planned to spend Monday night knocking on doors in his native Northeast Philadelphia, a campaign spokesman said.

Meanwhile, both campaigns offered levity facing a late-April snowstorm in the already-uncertain western part of the state.

“We talked to the folks out in Western Pennsylvania,” said Nat Binns, a Murphy spokesman. “They’re not scared of a little snow.”

Binns was referring to campaign volunteers. He was optimistic voters would feel the same.

Josh Morrow, a Kane spokesman, also shrugged off the forecast, noting it was set to taper off by Tuesday afternoon.

Morrow said Kane’s campaign was heading into the primary with the momentum, pointing to the Clinton endorsement.

“The candidate with the momentum usually wins,” he said.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday 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 the First Judicial District leaders deciding not to change the FJD’s foreclosure program. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the leadership had planned to put time limits on mandatory conciliation in cases of a Philadelphia homeowner facing mortgage foreclosure. Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judges John W. Herron and Allan L. Tereshko said in a notice to the bar Tuesday that they were not going to change the widely praised residential mortgage foreclosure diversion program.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a second witness testified that he reported alleged abuse to Monsignor William J. Lynn. The witness, M.B., was the second to say he was abused by defrocked priest Stanley Gana and reported it to Lynn when Lynn was the secretary of clergy from 1992 to 2004 and was in charge of priests’ assignments.

U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy responded to The Legal’s questionnaire for the attorney general candidates. His responses are available here.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Gina Passarella writes that an ex-Pittsburgh Steeler has won workers’ compensation benefits but not attorney fees, because he went on to play for other pro teams and was therefore not disabled.

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 a Legal Marketing column on Page 5, Adrian Dayton of Legal affiliate The National Law Journal writes about building better lawyer bios to give potential clients the information they want.

In a Young Lawyer column on Page 7, Ellie Austin writes the last part in her series, “Making the Leap,” about leaving her first legal job and entering back into the uncertain world of job hunting.

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.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. 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.)

Today's paper also includes the Workers' Compensation supplement.

The top story in today’s Legal is reporter Ben Present’s look at the state attorney general race, in which candidates Kathleen Kane and David Freed diverge on health care and the investigation of former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Both candidates answered questionnaires, which appear in full in the paper.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that an ex-priest said Monday that he reported alleged abuse to Monsignor William J. Lynn, a defendant in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex-abuse case. The ex-priest said he left the priesthood because one of his colleagues, whom he claims abuse him for four years, was not removed from ministry by church officials.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Stevens & Lee has filed a sanctions motion against Elliott Greenleaf and its chairman for alleging that a partner who left Elliott Greenleaf for Stevens & Lee misused escrow funds. This is the latest chapter in an ongoing battle between the two sides.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge has ruled in favor of South Philadelphia sandwich shop Steak’em Up in a trademark suit filed by national frozen food giant Steak-umm.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an E-Discovery column on Page 5, Ross Cunningham and Elizabeth Lemoine write about preparing for e-discovery supplemental obligations.

In a Litigation column on Page 7, Harrie Samaras and Judy Weintraub write about what you need to know about selecting a mediator for ADR.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Supreme Court grappling with PTSD benefits for police during oral arguments last week. As Ben Present writes, the question of “abnormal working conditions” and “extraordinary” events loom large.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that the plaintiffs bar is criticizing the state Supreme Court’s ruling that courts must consider a product’s multiple uses when assessing that product’s risk. Some plaintiffs attorneys have said it gives defendants an unfair advantage.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that a Lackawanna County judge has ruled that a pair of Pennsylvania homeowners may proceed with their claim that Wells Fargo committed a breach of contract by failing to offer the permanent changes to their mortgage payments after a trial period with lower rates.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he says a lawyer must be careful if paying a non-expert witness; Sam Pond and Allison Wheeler’s workers’ compensation commentary about proposed legislation extending treatment time that promotes “doctor shopping”; a defamation suit against a mortgage company pre-empted by the FCRA; a ruling that PennDOT highway plans were de facto taking; and Jeff Jubelirer’s public relations commentary about how to respond to commenters.

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.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday 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 the state Supreme Court granting allocatur in a case in which it has been asked to stop a scientific debate over whether shale is a “mineral” before the debate even begins. As reporter Zack Needles writes, this could potentially lead to “chaos” according to one Pennsylvania lawyer, if it is determined that shale is in fact a mineral.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Stevens & Lee and one of its partners have rebutted a lawsuit filed against them by Elliott Greenleaf over alleged theft of client files through remote software. Stevens & Lee have said the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to interfere with client relationships the partner took with him when he left Elliott Greenleaf to join Stevens & Lee.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel details the graphic testimony heard yesterday in the priest sex-abuse trial.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Dan McCormick writes about a new scholarship initiative created by Archer & Greiner to award scholarships to diverse Temple University law students and allow them to work in the City of Philadelphia Law Department as well as at the firm.

Also on Page 3, reporter Ben Present writes that a defamation suit filed by Daniel D. McCaffery has been allowed to move forward. McCaffery claims that the Philadelphia Board of Ethics and its executive director defamed him days before he came in second in the race for Philadelphia district attorney three years ago.

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 Asset Management column on Page 5, Michael A. Gillen and Stanley V. Todd write that parallel IRS investigations have returned after a 35-year hiatus.

As it is Thursday, this week’s Young Lawyer column is on Page 7, as Martha “Frannie” Reilly writes about reasons to join a nonprofit board and concerns to address before doing so.

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.

House Speaker Blasts Supreme Court for Special Election Decision

By Ben Present
Of the Legal Staff

The speaker of the state House of Representatives issued a strongly worded statement Thursday accusing what he called an “activist majority” of the state Supreme Court of “creating a constitutional collision between two of the three constitutionally created co-equal branches of government.”

The statement follows the Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision Wednesday, delivered as a per curiam order, requiring Rep. Samuel H. Smith, R-Jefferson, to issue special election writs to fill six vacancies in the House of Representatives.

“Make no mistake,” Smith said, “they are tipping the scales of power in their own favor.”

Smith said the majority of the court ignored the high court’s own precedent in the ruling Wednesday. The court decided that a citizen’s right to be represented trumped an Election Code provision that Smith had argued would allow him to delay issuing any special election writs until after the state Legislative Reapportionment Commission issues a final plan.

Smith said Thursday that the court had still ignored thousands of voters, though, whom he said would be displaced by conducting elections on dated legislative maps. Last month, the justices indicated that the state’s primary elections would have to go along legislative districts created in 2001. Following failed federal challenges to the 4-3 court’s instruction, it seemed likely the primary would use the 2001 lines.

“While the court rightly expresses concern for those citizens of the six districts that are currently vacant, it showed no concern for the thousands of voters deprived of equal representation, many of whom have special minority status under the Voting Rights Act, in its order on the reapportionment plan recently discarded by this same majority,” Smith said. “That decision requires elections to be held in districts that, based on the 2010 census numbers, are wildly and undeniably unconstitutional.”

“Perhaps someday, the agenda of this activist majority will be unveiled,” he added.

In an interview with The Legal, Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said he was “shocked” by Smith’s comments Thursday.

While Castille could not comment on the merits of the court’s decision because the matter is still before the justices, he did respond to Smith’s comment about the court’s “agenda.”

“There’s no hidden agenda anywhere,” Castille said. “I’d like to know where the hidden agenda might be.”

“I’ve always had great respect for Speaker Smith,” Castille added. “I don’t know what caused the speaker’s office to go to this extreme reaction because we did our constitutional duty as we saw it.”

High Court Orders Speaker to Issue Special Election Writs for Vacant House Seats

By Ben Present
Of the Legal Staff

The state Supreme Court, exercising its King’s Bench powers, has ordered Rep. Samuel H. Smith, R-Jefferson, the speaker of the state House of Representatives, to issue special election writs for six vacancies in the House.

The decision from the high court grants the request of 11 citizens, at least one from every district, who asked the high court to guarantee them elected representation after challenges to the state Legislative Reapportionment Commission’s 2011 legislative maps garnered unprecedented remand from the Supreme Court.

Smith had argued that a provision in Section 2778a of the Election Code allowed him to delay the writs of election indefinitely until a final reapportionment plan has the force of law, the court said.

But the justices disagreed, noting the right to be represented trumped that provision. The 4-3 court said in a per curiam order Wednesday that the provision “obviously is in tension with the plain terms of the Constitution.”

Following the order, the special elections to fill the House vacancies were set to be held on April 24, the same day as the Pennsylvania primary election. In a footnote, the court said the General Assembly has yet to take action to push the primary back. The special elections would fill seats that were elected November 2010 and will finish out 2012. They would run along the 2001 legislative lines and the newly elected representatives would “merely step into the shoes of their predecessors,” the court said.

“We find that petitioners here have met their burden and are entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering [] Smith to issue writs of election for special elections to fill the currently vacant seats in the House of Representatives,” the order said. “The right at issue is the fundamental right to representation in these House districts.”

The vacancies fall in Legislative Districts 22, 134, 153, 169, 186 and 197, the order said. Three of those district seats are in Philadelphia County.

Justice Thomas G. Saylor filed a dissenting statement in which he agreed with Smith that Section 2778a granted him discretion to put off issuing writs of special election until a final reapportionment plan. Justices Joan Orie Melvin and J. Michael Eakin joined Saylor.

Eakin filed a separate dissenting statement, joined by Orie Melvin.

Kevin Greenberg, one of the attorneys for the petitioners, said that if the court had ruled the other way, more than a quarter of a million Pennsylvanians would likely not have been represented for the upcoming hearings on the state budget.

“We’re gratified the court recognized the importance of representation of these approximately 350,000 citizens,” said Greenberg, of the Philadelphia office of Flaster Greenberg. “The speaker was abusing his authority and was on course to unnecessarily extend the disenfranchisement due to these six representatives being elected to other [offices].”

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. 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.)

Today’s top story is the third and final installment in a series looking at law firm growth in a no-growth market. Reporter Zack Needles writes that midsized firms are mining their existing client base as a method for revenue growth, seeking to provide the most value to existing and prospective clients.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina has denied the latest defense motion to dismiss charges in the priest sex-abuse case. Prosecutors called the motion to dismiss charges “a press release … [that] spews false information that serves no purpose other than to pollute the pool of jurors.” The case is in the second week of jury selection.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that a federal judge’s comments affected sentencing in a $74 million fraud case. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the case for resentencing.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Ben Present writes that a RICO claim has survived an early motion in the “kids-for-cash” suit. A federal judge allowed the claim to move forward, but dismissed claims under the Civil Rights Act because they were barred by the statute of limitations.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

On Page 5 today is a Commentary written by Troy Crichton, who writes about the Barristers’ Association of Philadelphia celebrating its “Meet the Judges and Legislators” event.

In a Litigation column on Page 7, Harrie Samaras and Judy Weintraub write about determining whether mediation is the right choice for your dispute.

As it is Tuesday, it’s also your chance to read this week’s Pennsylvania Law Weekly. The lead story for PLW comes from Ben Present, who writes an analysis of the campaign funds for the Pennsylvania attorney general race. Former Lackawanna County prosecutor Kathleen Kane has more cash in her coffers, but former U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy has a wider array of supporters.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes about a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation certification process that is set to launch in the fall.

On Page 3, reporter Dan McCormick writes that a judge has denied a grocery store company’s request for a plaintiff’s cellphone records in a slip-and-fall case.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he discusses lawyers making campaign contributions to judges; Sam Pond and Allison Wheeler’s commentary on proposed utilization review changes that they believe will prove unfair to injured workers; the state Superior Court ruling that a deactivated e-mail account can still be searched; and David Mandelbaum’s Environmental Law column on tracking environmental debts.

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.

Kane Challenges Murphy to Sit for Pa. Bar Exam

By Ben Present
Of the Legal Staff

Kathleen Kane, one of two Democratic candidates running for Pennsylvania Attorney General, has challenged Patrick Murphy, her party opponent, to take the Pennsylvania bar exam.

The Associated Press reported Friday that Kane, who leads all candidates in cash-on-hand, challenged the former U.S. Congressman to take the state’s bar exam, after he took the Minnesota bar following law school. Kane’s campaign issued a statement noting that Minnesota’s bar exam carries a higher pass rate than that of Pennsylvania.

Murphy’s campaign has said the former JAG attorney took the Minnesota test because it allowed him to get his results the fastest so he could be stationed as an Army attorney.

Murphy, currently a partner at Fox Rothschild, was sworn in to practice in Pennsylvania in 2004. Kane’s campaign responded in a statement that there is “little or no difference” in how quickly results were provided to test-takers from each state.

“His claim doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny,” the statement said.

Murphy’s campaign, under similar fire last month from the GOP, provided comments from several military officials and Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams backing up Murphy’s credentials.

Williams then called the questions about Murphy’s status as an attorney “a ridiculous attack from a desperate opponent.”

Kane even provided dates for Murphy to take the test, noting in the statement that he can take the test at the end of this month or again in July.

"If Patrick Murphy aspires to be the top lawyer in Pennsylvania, he should take and pass the Pennsylvania Bar Exam just as every elected and appointed attorney general in Pennsylvania has done since it first became an elective office, and put an end to at least one of the questions regarding his suitability for the office,” said Kane campaign spokesperson Frank Keel. “It’s of no comfort to Pennsylvania’s residents that Murphy passed the less difficult Minnesota Bar Exam, which carries an 87 percent pass rate, as opposed to Pennsylvania’s 70 percent pass rate.”

According to the AP, Murphy campaign spokesman Nat Binns said Kane’s challenge was an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Kane’s campaign was given a hearty financial boost from contributions made by her own family members.

Binns provided the following statement after Kane’s challenge:

"Patrick was sworn into the Pennsylvania Bar nearly a decade ago by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice after serving in Iraq as a prosecutor in the Army JAG Corps. Kane is intentionally misleading voters because she's getting desperate. Kane is trying to buy this election, but no matter how much she spends, she is still so far behind in the polls that she's resorting to ridiculous political stunts."

Kane reported a cash balance of just over $2 million at the end of last month. Murphy, with a significantly larger list of donors, reported a $1.4 million bankroll.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. 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.)

Today’s top story is the first in a series looking at law firm revenue trends and how firms can find growth in a no-growth market. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, Pennsylvania firms are lagging behind their national brethren in revenue growth in a post-recession market.

Below the fold on Page 1 is a story about litigator Diane Sullivan departing Dechert to take her practice to Weil Gotshal & Manges in New York. Reporter Zack Needles, along with Sara Randazzo of Legal affiliate The American Lawyer, writes that Sullivan decided to make the move after spending two years brushing off calls from Weil.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that Montgomery County Common Pleas Court’s new president judge believes that the lawyer-driven civil system is a reflection that attorneys should have responsibility for handling their cases. In a recent interview, Judge William J. Furber Jr. discussed a variety of topics regarding the Montgomery County system.

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.

On Page 5 is today’s Appellate Law column, as Howard J. Bashman writes about the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ negative views toward requests to exceed word limits on briefs.

Today’s Page 7 column is Technology Law, where Matthew P. Keris writes about reducing medical malpractice-related e-discovery issues and costs.

As it is Tuesday, it’s also your chance to read this week’s Pennsylvania Law Weekly. The lead story for PLW comes from Zack Needles, who writes about a Luzerne County case in which an insurer was prejudiced by an insured’s failure to timely notify it that a phantom vehicle had been involved in an accident before filing a claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes an analysis piece that takes a look at the redistricting lines for the upcoming primary. Following the recent decision, it appears likely that the 2001 lines will be used.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that an addition to a house can be consider an “improvement,” and therefore invoke consumer protection law.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he discusses judicial officers using social media; Matthew Mangino’s Criminal Practice column in which he takes a look at cross-examination and inaccurate eyewitness identification; a government contracts article detailing a contractor unable to collect a seven-digit debt owed to it by the city’s redevelopment authority; and an error that forced a man to testify at his wife’s trial.

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.