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.