The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

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.)

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at whether Pennsylvania is being forced to decide the Restatement issue it is facing. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, after the Third Circuit said for the third time that the Restatement (Third) of Torts governs products liability cases in the state, some attorneys said the federal appeals court seems to be trying to force the issue.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that employees of West Penn Allegheny Health System have been barred by collateral estoppel from filing a class action in state court when a Pittsburgh federal judge already ruled against certifying a collective action in a similar suit by the same plaintiffs.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that key claims against Prevacid, a heartburn drug, have survived in a federal lawsuit.

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 a Health Care Law column, Vasilios J. Kalogredis and Karilynn Bayus write that hospitals are beginning to feel the effects of quality initiatives.

In a Supreme Court column on Page 7, Stephen A. Miller and Thomas M. O’Rourke write a look into the effect of the ¬Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes case and expansion of “rigorous” review.

Today’s lead story in PLW is a look at campaign fundraising in the attorney general race. As reporter Ben Present writes, Kathleen Kane has bolstered her coffers, narrowly outpacing David Freed.

Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that a Commonwealth Court en banc panel allowed General Motors to unilaterally suspend an injured worker’s benefits without the required paperwork because the man had taken a voluntary retirement package.

On Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that the Superior Court has blocked the discovery of past surgical notes in a medical malpractice suit.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about violating attorney-client privilege when a client’s financial situation changes; Caren E. Morrissey’s Family Law column in which she writes that mental health records should be discoverable in custody matters; and Peter J. Bietz’s Trusts and Estates column, in which he writes that attorneys may need to change their practices after the EGTRRA’s sunset.

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 Friday 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 Third Circuit restating its prediction that the Restatement (Third) of Torts, not the Restatement (Second), will be adopted in Pennsylvania by the state Supreme Court. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, some district courts have said the Restatement (Second) should apply because the high court has not affirmatively adopted the Restatement (Third).

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that Jerry Sandusky filed post-sentence motions arguing the judge presiding over his trial denied him due process by failing to grant him several motions for a continuance before his June trial.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the state Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s Coroner’s Act does not give a county coroner the discretion to deny a request for immediate disclosure of someone’s manner of death.

In more Regional News on Page 3, a former Dechert associate’s retaliation claim has been allowed to proceed in a case alleging the firm’s “macho culture” caused his work troubles.

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 Family Law column on Page 5, James W. Cushing writes that substantial evidence must be used to convince the court in child abuse cases based on a recent case that profoundly changed the burden of proof to have someone listed on the ChildLine and Abuse Registry as a perpetrator of child abuse.

In a Bankruptcy Update on Page 7, Eric Scherling writes that the Third Circuit has protected post-confirmation appeals in the case of In re Philadelphia Newspapers.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to email any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

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.)

Also inside of today’s paper is the latest Intellectual Property supplement, so be sure to give it a read.

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at the law surrounding third-party liability of law firms, which has recently been in the spotlight as appeals have been made to the Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Courts. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, law firms have been targeted as third-party defendants for their alleged roles in allowing fraudulent, or simply bad, business practices to continue by their clients.

Also on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a lawsuit over the ownership of a LinkedIn profile is now set for trial after an Eastern District judge dismissed all of the federal claims and decided to proceed on the remaining claims under state law.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that an orthopedic surgeon who won a $392,000 verdict against the law firm that used what he claimed was an unfinished expert report and the medical professional organization that subsequently suspended him has sued the doctors’ association for refusing to remove from its website an article detailing the suspension proceedings.

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 Appellate Law column on Page 5, Howard J. Bashman praises the Superior Court’s increased access to opinions after a recently policy change announcement.

In a Family Law column on Page 7, Michael E. Bertin writes about a recent case in which the Superior Court analyzed relocation under the new custody statute.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Superior Court ruling that state law does not allow for underinsured motorist recovery to offset an award against a third-party tortfeasor. As reporter Ben Present writes, the holding overrules the court’s decision in Pusl v. Means.

Below the fold on Page 1, Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has ruled that general practitioners are not barred from consensual sex with patients in a case of first impression regarding a GP who was providing “incidental mental health treatment” to a patient.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that the state Superior Court has imposed corporate liability on nursing homes in a recent decision.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about nonrefundable fee clauses; Daniel J. Siegel’s Legal Ethics column on proposed changes to the rules affecting legal advertising; and Daniel E. Cummins’ Politics column on where the presidential candidates stand on tort reform and judicial selection.

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.

The Pros and Cons of a Cut-Rate Divorce

By James W. Cushing
Special to the Legal

I am sure you have seen billboard or newspaper advertisements that read something like “$250 Divorce!” or “Divorce Only $350!” Usually, the prices indicated are less than $500; indeed they are so low that they are less than the typical lawyer’s hourly rate for one hour of work, let alone a proper full retainer. How can these rates be so low for this sort of work? Clearly there has to be a catch.

Like most unbelievable deals, the cheap rates do come with a catch, but for some people it may be a risk worth taking. The key to one of these low-cost divorces is that they require filing in a distant Pennsylvania county, usually where neither party resides - Potter County, for example - and a guarantee that there will be no resistance from the opposing spouse or any sort of property division.

The reason for filing in places like Potter County is that the total court fees and costs for a divorce are $69. This is in contrast to the court fees and costs for a divorce, in Philadelphia, which currently are $316 for the complaint and $66 for the praecipe to transmit, plus other fees required for motions and/or seeking equitable distribution, etc. So, right off the bat, there is more than a $300 savings in court costs and fees alone. It should be noted that the opposing party must stipulate to the jurisdiction of a foreign county over the divorce or else the entire endeavor to file the divorce in that county is a non-starter.

The reason for restricting these divorces to matters where there is complete cooperation and no property division is because, perhaps obviously, fees begin to add up when the parties start bickering over various things or need to seek some sort of property division, whether by agreement or order of court. As soon as either one of the above begins to occur, the low rate is immediately untenable for the lawyer representing one of the parties. If the parties are completely cooperative without any sort of property division, litigating the divorce only involves preparing some form documents and filing them at the correct times and in the correct order. Obviously, litigating in this fashion will take very little time or effort on the attorney’s part, which justifies taking the case at such an extremely reduced rate.

So, from the client’s point of view, there is a risk or tradeoff. On one hand, filing in your local county is more expensive, but if something goes wrong you have the security of being able to litigate the issues conveniently and locally without having to withdraw your complaint and start afresh elsewhere. On the other hand, filing in a different county is very cheap and easy, but if something goes wrong, the cost to litigate in a very distant county likely becomes prohibitively expensive and extremely inconvenient. Either way, you will have to withdraw your complaint in the foreign county and file a new complaint in your own county, potentially wasting the time and money that was spent filing elsewhere.

Both of the above options are viable and legitimate; it just depends on whether the circumstances suggest one over the other. Ultimately, the decision of where and how to proceed lies with the client as long as he or she is fully aware of the pros and cons, and costs and benefits, of each of the options described above.

James W. Cushing is an associate at the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen and research attorney for Legal Research Inc. He is licensed to practice law in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

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.)

This year’s Lawyers on the Fast Track supplement is also inside today’s paper, so be sure to give it a read.

The top story in today’s Legal is a preview of the return of the voter ID case to Commonwealth Court. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, the case is back in the hands of Judge Robert Simpson after the state Supreme Court remanded it to assess the actual availability of photo ID cards to Pennsylvania voters.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that a products liability trial alleging Johnson & Johnson illegally marketed the antipsychotic drug Risperdal for use by kid has opened in Philadelphia.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that Reed Smith has formed a strategic alliance with an Athens, Greece-based business law firm, Papapolitis & Papapolitis.

Also below the fold on Page 1, Saranac Hale Spencer writes that attorney Charles Naselsky was convicted Monday on charges related to a tax evasion scheme carried on while he worked as a real estate lawyer at Cozen O’Connor.

In a From the Chief column on Page 3, Hank Grezlak writes that the voter ID decision was one of the state Supreme Court’s finer moments.

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 a U.S. Supreme Court column on Page 5, Stephen A. Miller writes the first in a two-part preview of the upcoming term.

In a Guest Commentary on Page 7, Robert L. Byer writes in a response to an editorial board column that possible split decisions are not related to party affiliation in the Supreme Court.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the Supreme Court vacating the reinstatement of a worker who was fired for sexually harassing his colleague. As reporter Ben Present writes, one lawyer involved in the case said it may mark the first time the high court has applied a public policy exception in vacating an arbitration award.

Below the fold on Page 1, Zack Needles writes that the Pennsylvania legal community might be becoming less forgiving of the disbarred.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that a Superior Court panel declined to force a father to release his mental health records in a custody trial.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes that criticizing opposing counsel is a big mistake; Sean P. McCusker’s Family Law column on child support when a parent’s role is greatly diminished; and Cliff Rieders’ Politics column on the Supreme Court after Sebelius.

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 and Pa. Law Weekly

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.)

The Family Law supplement is also inside today's paper, so be sure to give that a read.

The top story in today’s Legal is the Third Circuit taking a skeptical view of reverse-payment settlements in a pharmaceutical patent case, rejecting the scope-of-the-patent test used by several other circuits to determine whether a settlement violates antitrust laws. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, the Third Circuit has instead adopted a rule-of-reason analysis to determine if the settlements warrant antitrust review.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that Pittsburgh-based Tucker Arensberg has defeated a legal malpractice claim.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a judge has denied a doctor a new trial in a case of test question theft.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Hank Grezlak writes in a From the Chief column that the Freeh Report is a case study in how people rationalize ignoring evil.

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 a Securities Law column on Page 5, Robert L. Hickok and Gay Parks Rainville writes that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption.

In an Asset Management column on Page 7, Irvin G. Schorsch III writes about going beyond a lawyer’s fiduciary role in estate planning.

Today’s lead story in PLW is Lackawanna County outspending other counties on guardian ad litem services. Reporter Zack Needles writes that the county’s full-time guardian ad litem, Danielle M. Ross, made about $110,000 per year between 2009 and 2011.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that cross motions for Facebook discovery were denied in an auto case.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that the Superior Court has affirmed a $7.8 million verdict against Consol Energy.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about ex parte communications with a judge; Daniel E. Cummins’ Civil Practice column on Medicare liens and personal injury matters; and Jeff Jubelirer’s Public Relations column on what to say when you can’t really say anything.

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 and Pa. Law Weekly

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.)

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at the Pennsylvania Am Law 200 firms’ 10-year results. Reporter Gina Passarella compares the numbers from the Am Law 200 in 2003 to those from 2012, noting that the gap between those toward the top and the rest of the list has widened over the past decade.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporters Zack Needles and Ben Present write that lawyers and litigants are taking issue with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts’ guardian ad litem report, which found “no evidence” that the Lackawanna County guardian ad litem had been billing hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigants.

Also below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge has extended attorney-client privilege to a third-party contractor who worked closely with a company.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Ben Present writes that the Superior Court has created a webpage for filings in cases of public interest, spurred on by the sex-abuse trial of Jerry Sandusky.

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 Eastern District column on Page 5, Peter F. Vaira writes about the do’s and don’ts of proposed findings and conclusions.

In a Commentary on Page 7, Jordan Furlong writes that most large firms today are overlawyered.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the Supreme Court granting allocatur in a Tender Years Act sex-abuse case. As Ben Present writes, the issue is whether a young girl’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted in her father’s child rape case when the girl had previously been determined incompetent to testify.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes about the latest attempt in Harrisburg to reduce the state prison population by changing criminal law.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that an arbitration clause between two companies has been ruled a nonfactor in a lawsuit against a CEO.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about “black robe disease”; Matthew T. Mangino’s Criminal Practice column on the Supreme Court striking mandatory life sentences for juveniles; and Carolyn R. Mirabile’s Family Law column on what happens when a spouse dies during a divorce.

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.)

The Intellectual Property supplement is also inside today’s paper, so be sure to give that a read.

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at the new markets opening up for Pennsylvania firms in the wake of Dewey & LeBoeuf’s slide. Reporter Gina Passarella writes that the attorneys leaving Dewey have allowed area firms to open offices in Dubai, Los Angeles and potentially Moscow and Kazakhstan.

Also above the fold on Page 1, Gina Passarella writes that Kansas City, Mo.-based Shook Hardy & Bacon is finalizing plans to open a Philadelphia office with the hire of Dechert partner Sean Wajert to its litigation group.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a bankruptcy court must first grant leave before a trustee can be sued in another venue.

Also below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which it’s been asked to hear whether an insurer can be ordered to pay a medical provider’s attorney fees even if the employer properly employed the peer review process before denying coverage.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes about Thomas G. Wilkinson Jr.’s new role at the helm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. Youth and the law top the new president’s agenda.

Also on Page 3, Zack Needles writes that a class action has been filed over NHL Winter Classic tickets that the Flyers did not give to season ticketholders.

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 Eastern District column on Page 5, Peter F. Vaira writes that two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have raised troublesome plea bargain issues.

In a Law Office Technology column on Page 7, Morgan C. Smith writes about using iPads to make compelling presentations at trials.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Supreme Court justices asserting their control over the definition of the constitutional phrase “purely public charity,” as reporter Ben Present writes.

Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that the Supreme Court has dialed back the independent source doctrine.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes a preview of Supreme Court oral arguments set to open in Harrisburg today, in which the justices will hear the H&R Block class action case for the third time.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes that an increase in technological savvy should not overshadow the basic tenets of good lawyering; Matthew T. Mangino’s Criminal Pratice column, in which he writes that disparity again pervades federal sentencing; a ruling that a landlord must know of danger to incur liability for a dog biting a person; and Jonathan Hoffman’s Family Law commentary, in which he writes about securing your client’s future with insurance.

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 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 a look at Pennsylvania firms and how they fared in the latest Am Law 100 rankings. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, the same nine firms appeared as did last year, and none were able to move up the list. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Reed Smith were the only Pa. firms to maintain their rankings, while the other seven slipped down the charts.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that a request for proposal is schedule to go online today giving lawyers the opportunity to bid on a deal potentially worth $1.85 billion that would privatize Philadelphia Gas Works. PGW is one of the last municipally owned utilities in the country and the largest of its kind, with more than half a million customers.

Below the fold on Page 1, Gina Passarella writes that a federal judge has denied a motion for sanctions a former Elliott Greenleaf partner filed against the firm for alleging in a complaint that he misused escrow funds. This is the latest chapter in the ongoing battle between Elliott Greenleaf and Stevens & Lee, the firm the partner, William R. Balaban, moved to.

Also below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Nutter administration has agreed to pay counsel fees directly, as per the First Judicial District’s request.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that a West Virginia firm, Jackson Kelly, has merged with Western Pennsylvania energy boutique Gormly Gormly & Yuhas.

Also on Page 3, a judge has trimmed the claims in an egg price-fixing class action suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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 the Law Technology page, social media can give firms an inside voice and LexisNexis has debuted e-book software for law libraries.

In a Family Law column on Page 7, Andrew D. Taylor writes about the relocation provision of the new Child Custody Act and how it will be handled going forward.

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.)

The top story in today’s Legal is a Berks County trial judge issuing what is believed to be the first order in Pennsylvania suppressing evidence from a Global Positioning System based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Jones. As reporter Zack Needles writes, the high court barred evidence obtained through a mobile tracking device used to monitor a suspect’s vehicle in that case, because authorities failed to adhere to the terms of a search warrant. In the case of Commonwealth v. Burgos, Berks County Common Pleas Court Judge Paul M. Yatron reversed “with extreme reluctance” his prior order denying a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that U.S. Steel’s failure to provide a copy of a letter sent to a special master to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not void the master’s recommendation, a Western District judge has ruled. The EEOC has been engaged in a lengthy dispute with the employer.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the state Supreme Court has rejected a new trial for a defendant on death row because a police interview that was not turned over to the defense before trial did not exculpate him.

Also on Page 3, Dan McCormick writes that noted white-collar litigator Donald J. Goldberg has died at 81.

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 Immigration Law column on Page 5, Suzanne B. Seltzer writes that a federal judge has reminded the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to play by the rules.

In a Family Law column on Page 7, Michael E. Bertin writes that the Superior Court has ruled declaratory judgment in a divorce action is unappealable.

Today’s lead story in PLW is a look at the upcoming state Supreme Court oral arguments to be held in Pittsburgh this week. As reporter Ben Present writes, the case attracting the most attention is the $18.5 million verdict being appealed by Genuardi’s in a case that involves a long list of appellate lawyer heavyweights filing amicus briefs.

Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that the state Supreme Court has denied the extraordinary jurisdiction petition of an attorney who has accused a Washington County judge of tampering with the transcripts of the underlying murder trial he defended.

On Page 3, Zack Needles writes that the state Superior Court has ruled a sheriff’s sale cannot be set aside for a late bidder.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he discusses privileged information in joint defenses; Matthew T. Mangino’s Criminal Practice column, in which he writes that the Supreme Court has opened the door to ineffective plea-bargaining claims; the Superior Court saying that a jury may decide an injured worker’s employment status; a religious school ruled not exempt from paying unemployment compensation benefits; and David Mandelbaum’s Environmental Law column on the high court and pre-enforcement review under the Clean Water Act.

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.