The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Ex-Teacher's Lawyer Makes Closing Argument in Church Sex-Abuse Trial

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

A priest who denied committing a sex crime when testifying after being called by prosecutors had a lot to lose by giving that testimony, adding credence to the defense theory that the alleged victim made up that he was sexually attacked by two priests and a Catholic school teacher in a year's span, a defense attorney argued in court today.

Edward Avery already pled guilty to sexually assaulting D.G. in early 2011. When he was called to testify in the trial of the Rev. Charles Engelhardt and former schoolteacher Bernard Shero, Avery said that he was only able to plead guilty because he was asked by Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, after a recitation of facts by a prosecutor, if those were the facts to which Avery was pleading guilty, said defense attorney Burton Rose, who is representing Shero. Avery said he would not have been able to plead guilty if he had been asked directly, Rose said.

"Edward Avery has a lot to lose and nothing to gain [by coming into court and saying] that, 'I took the guilty plea to avoid dying in jail,'" Rose said. Prosecutors will be able to write to the state Parole Board indicating that Avery is not cooperating with the criminal justice system, and that would weigh heavily on Avery being able to get out of prison when he is first eligible for parole on his 2.5-five year sentence, Rose said.

The Legal does not name alleged or confirmed victims.

The defense attorney for Engelhardt and the prosecution are slated to give their closing arguments Friday morning.

Shero and Engelhardt had their cases severed from the trial of Monsignor William J. Lynn, the first Catholic Church official in the country to be charged with harming sexual-abuse victims whose abuse he was responsible for investigating.

The Legal will have further coverage on the case.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or [email protected] Follow her on Twitter @AmarisTLI.

Reporter's Notebook: Pro Bono Program May Help Traffic Court Image

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

As part of reporting a story on the future of the Philadelphia Traffic Court after allegations of ticketing-fixing have become widely publicized, I learned about an upcoming program that is aiming to help ex-convicts set up payment plans for past traffic infractions in order to get their driver’s licenses restored. The full story on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court weighing the future of Traffic Court can be found here. 

One new program that has its auspices from people outside of the FJD may help public perception of the court, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer, administrative judge of the Traffic Court, said.

Two students from Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, under the supervision of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads attorneys, including Ellen Brotman, are going to work with ex-convicts on setting up payment plans for past traffic tickets so that they can get their driver’s licenses restored.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, one of the judges presiding over a court that gives federal prisoners a break on their prison terms if they successfully complete reentry court, said the idea for the program came about because so many of the reentry court participants have past traffic infractions that built up fines while they were incarcerated.

Not having a driver’s license is the biggest impediment, besides not having a general equivalency diploma, for former defendants getting jobs, Rice said.

Many employers will hire people who have been convicted of felonies, but they need licenses in order to get to work, Rice said.

“It has the potential to be a marvelous addition and help to the system,” Glazer said.

Rice also said that, while the program will initially focus on helping reentry court participants, that the program may expand to help other defendants.

(In full disclosure, Rice is teaching a course in which the author of this blog is enrolled.)

Trial Set for Indicted Traffic Court Judge

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Robert Mulgrew, who has been suspended from his judicial duties until his federal criminal case is resolved, is set to go to trial with two co-defendants June 5, 2013, U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said during a court hearing today.

Jones also asked if there was any objection to him presiding over the case because he "vaguely" recalled that he might have sworn Mulgrew into office when Jones was still the president judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Mulgrew stated that Jones had not sworn him in, and all of the attorneys said they had no objection to Jones presiding over the case.

Mulgrew and Lorraine Dispaldo, an aide to state Representative William Keller, D-Philadelphia, have been indicted in an alleged scheme to defraud the state Department of Community and Economic Development.

Mulgrew and Dispaldo were charged with 30 counts of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud in an alleged scheme to use state grant funds intended for community groups for improper uses.

Mulgrew and his wife, Elizabeth, also were charged with seven counts of tax fraud, including allegedly filing false tax returns, tax evasion and obstructing the administration of federal internal revenue laws. According to the indictment, the Mulgrews did not list more than $67,000 in additional taxable income and allegedly listed false business deductions in their tax returns.

Dispaldo was charged with four counts of tax fraud for allegedly not listing more than $55,000 in additional taxable income and one count of bankruptcy fraud for allegedly concealing $27,000 in income from her creditors.

Philly Likely to Come Off 'Judicial Hellholes' List

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

A spokesman for a conservative group that aims to change tort law, the American Tort Reform Association, said Philadelphia will be coming off its "judicial hellholes" list as the Court of Common Pleas sees a dramatic drop in mass tort filings and the administrative judge of the trial division has repeatedly said that out-of-state plaintiffs should file their suits elsewhere.

Darren McKinney, director of communications for ATRA, said that, ahead of the release of the group's annual list, "I can't with a straight face call Philadelphia a hellhole right now." But McKinney said Philadelphia likely would be on its watch list.

McKinney attributed much of the improvement to Judge John W. Herron, who was appointed administrative judge of the trial division a little under a year ago. As administrative judge, Herron has several times made comments that plaintiffs lawyers should file their cases elsewhere and issued protocols to change the rules for the Complex Litigation Center, which houses mass tort cases.

"He's going to be our prince, our king" in the report, McKinney said.

ATRA said in 2010 that Philadelphia was a judicial hellhole because, among other reasons, scheduling mass tort cases involving multiple plaintiffs put pressure on defendants to settle cases because of the challenge of preparing to go to trial in a case with several plaintiffs represented by multiple law firms. The new protocols included ending reverse-bifurcation for asbestos cases and ending both reverse-bifurcation and consolidation for pharmaceutical cases. The Court of Common Pleas is projecting that 60 percent fewer mass tort cases will be filed this year than were filed in 2011.

The number of mass tort cases grew after Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas President Judge Pamela Pryor Dembe said in 2009 that the center's administrators wanted to take "business away from other courts" and that the court's budget would benefit because of filing fees generated because of mass torts.

Herron’s reforms, at least thus far, are “rolling up the red carpet” for out-of-state plaintiffs, McKinney said.

Amaris Elliott-Engel can be contacted at 215-557-2354 or [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @AmarisTLI.

 

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 Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Allan L. Tereshko resigning as supervising judge of the city’s civil cases. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, Tereshko was taken to task by the Pennsylvania Superior Court for failing to disclose that his spouse worked for a law firm representing a defendant in a motor vehicle insurance case.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Morgan, Lewis & Bockius has hired former acting U.S. attorney general and current White & Case white-collar practice group leader George J. Terwilliger III. He will join the firm’s Washington office next month, along with three partners and a group of associates.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that all but one of the claims lodged by Montgomery County’s recorder of deeds alleging that Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems Inc. has circumvented Pennsylvania law requiring the recording of mortgage assignments have survived a motion to dismiss in federal court.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Jeff Mordock writes that the Delaware Chancery Court heard arguments on receivership authority.

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 Employment Law column on Page 5, Jeffrey Campolongo writes that the circuits are split on considering prior settlement offers in relation to attorney fees.

In a Franchise Law column on Page 7, Craig R. Tractenberg and Gregg Rubenstein write that the forum selection clause is an important provision in franchise agreements.

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

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 latest in the family courthouse saga. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Senior Judge Stanton R. Wettick Jr. ruled that attorney Jeffrey B. Rotwitt cannot claim that he and his ex-firm, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, are joint tortfeasors and that the law firm owes him contribution. Wettick did say that Rotwitt can amend his claim for contribution.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge has confirmed a $35 million arbitration award, plus $5.6 million in attorney fees, for a security services firm following a soured business deal.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge has dismissed two of three counts against Aetna Life Insurance Co. in a suit where the plaintiff is seeking to recover life insurance benefits she said she is owed under ERISA.

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 Cyberlaw column on Page 5, Jeffrey N. Rosenthal writes about whether lying on Facebook or in online profiles is a crime.

In this week’s Young Lawyer column on Page 7, the YL Editorial Board writes that the voter ID law infringes on the fundamental rights of citizens.

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

Welcome to your Wednesday 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 voter ID case again going before Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, the case is back in Simpson’s hands after being remanded by the state Supreme Court, and presents a fast-developing set of facts as state officials continued to attempt to craft the voter ID program on the eve of Tuesday’s hearing.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that senior judges have been restored to the Philadelphia court system after the Court of Common Pleas was required to reduce its complement of senior judges by the same number of judges confirmed to fill vacancies on the bench.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Ben Present writes that a York County jury has awarded $6 million to the estate of a woman who died from internal bleeding after a resident from an area hospital allegedly failed to properly diagnose and communicate her condition to a cardiologist.

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 this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 5, Hayes Hunt and Jillian R. Thornton write about the effects of social media on the workplace.

In a U.S. Supreme Court column on Page 7, Stephen A. Miller writes the second part in a preview of the upcoming term.

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 .

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday 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 judge rejecting a discovery request on former state Senator Vince Fumo in the First Judicial District’s legal malpractice lawsuit against its ex-attorney on the family courthouse project. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the request was for Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel to answer questions on whether Fumo requested the firm compensate him for including state funds for a new courthouse in the state’s capital budget for public works projects.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that allegations that more than a dozen Lackawanna County employees were fired as “political retaliation” following the county’s shift to Democratic control after the 2007 election survived summary judgment in federal court.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that managing employee 401(k) plans could be dangerous for lawyers, as Philadelphia litigation firm Harvey Pennington recently learned when the U.S. Secretary of Labor filed suit against the firm alleging it mishandled employee contributions.

In more Regional News on Page 3, two New Jersey defense lawyers have been hit with ethics charges for their use of Facebook’s friend request tool.

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 Intellectual Property column on Page 5, Anthony S. Volpe and Max S. Morgan write about applying patent teachings in products liability cases.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 7, Bruce Green and Jordan Thomas of Legal affiliate Corporate Counsel write about when a corporation’s lawyer can blow the whistle.

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.

On Day 8 of Deliberations, Priest Sex-Abuse Trial Jurors Ask About Intent, Conspiracy

By Amaris Elliott-Engel
Of the Legal Staff

As jurors in the Philadelphia priest sex-abuse trial ended their eighth day of deliberations, they asked the trial judge that if endangering the welfare of a child was the result of criminal conspiracy, does that crime have to have been the intent of participants in the conspiracy.

After hearing arguments from both sides’ counsel, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina told them that endangering the welfare of a child is alleged to be the conspiracy between defendant Monsignor William J. Lynn and former priest Edward V. Avery. “The intent does not have to be criminal in nature,” the judge concluded.

Lynn is accused of endangering the welfare of two men who testified they were respectively abused by former priest James J. Brennan, who is maintaining his innocence, or Avery, who pled guilty to the abuse.

Lynn also is accused of conspiring with Avery to endanger the welfare of D.G. and other unnamed youths. Sarmina acquitted Brennan and Lynn of a conspiracy charge levied against both of them regarding M.B.

The Legal is not naming alleged victims.

After Sarmina gave the answer to the jury, Lynn’s defense attorney, Thomas A. Bergstrom, said that he thought telling the jury “the intent does not have to be criminal” would effectively remove the intent element from the jury’s consideration.

Bergstrom’s arguments inspired prosecutor Patrick Blessington to launch into heated criticism of Bergstrom. “I’ve seen better manners in a barnyard,” Blessington said.

Bergstrom retorted, “I’m getting tired of personal attacks on counsel.”

Sarmina did not address the attorneys’ discourse, instead announcing that the jury was ready to go home.

The jury also had asked if the overt act required for a conspiracy could be an act of concealment. Sarmina told them that it could be.

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 the U.S. Supreme Court again rejecting a holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a habeas case. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, some legal observers see a trend developing with the high court, as it has been routinely reversing circuit courts in habeas cases, often invoking the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas has reduced its backlog of cases waiting to be tried by around 35 percent since Jan. 1. There had been more than 500 cases awaiting trial at that point, but now there are only 321 remaining.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the state Supreme Court has denied Wolf Block’s appeal in a severance suit brought by a former partner who wants his pay.

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 Litigation column on Page 5, Denis James Lawler, Daphne Goldman and Mackenzie W. Smith write about attorney-client privilege, asking if there is a fiduciary exception.

In this week’s Law Technology News page, Craig Ball writes about 10 bonehead e-discovery search mistakes.

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.