The Legal Intelligencer Blog

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 Women in the Profession supplement, so check out the whole thing, including videos of the roundtable discussion.

The top story in today’s Legal is reporter Gina Passarella’s look at multi-office lateral groups in the wake of Cozen O’Connor wooing nine intellectual property attorneys from four different Duane Morris offices. There can be logistical challenges in making moves like this, but the benefits can make up for it in the end.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporters Ben Present and Zack Needles write that the Lackawanna County guardian ad litem has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed against her for allegedly threatening parents with sanctions if her recommendations were not followed. The guardian ad litem, Danielle Ross, claims she has judicial immunity. The county’s common pleas court was also named a defendant in the lawsuit, and earlier this month asked to be dismissed from the matter, asserting 11th Amendment immunity.

Below the fold on Page 1, Zack Needles writes about an Erie County judge’s siding with the defense in a slip-and-fall case, ruling that residents in snowy locales should expect icy hills.

Also below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the judge presiding over the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia priest sex-abuse trial must decide whether to hear from additional accusers who claimed in 2010 that they were sexually abused by defrocked priest Edward Avery.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that an anti-fracking group has added defamation and conspiracy claims to its suit against a private surveillance company that the government allegedly hired to watch over it.

Also on Page 3, Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a Medicare contractor has claimed immunity before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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 Legal Marketing column on Page 5, Stacy West Clark writes about time she has spent with multimillion-dollar rainmakers and some tips and observations she gained from it.

In a Cyberlaw column on Page 7, Jeffrey N. Rosenthal writes about online dispute resolution.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the Pennsylvania Superior Court granting a new trial to a Pennsylvania couple pursuing a bad-faith claim against their insurance carrier. As Ben Present writes, it shows that a consumer law violation may provide a path for proving bad faith.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Pennsylvania custody law has changed for deployed soldiers.

On Page 3, Dan McCormick writes that cost of living adjustments are marital property, according to a Superior Court panel.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he says that clients’ notes subject to attorney-client privilege must be clearly marked as such; Matthew Weisberg’s Commentary on the legal profession in which he writes about when and how to seek a judge’s recusal; a billboard ban passing constitutional muster, according to a Delaware County judge; expert testimony is required in a dispute involving SEPTA and a supplier; and Joel A. Rose’s Law Firm Management column, in which he writes about proven strategies for effectively implementing the two-tier partner structure.

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 a prosecution expert in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia priest sex-abuse trial testifying that church law requires the reporting of sex abuse. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the Rev. Thomas Doyle testified on behalf of prosecutors that, “You’re supposed to respect the civil laws of the country you’re in.”

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that a Philadelphia judge has decided to bring a lawsuit filed by Penn State against its insurance company to Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. The insurer had filed its own lawsuit in the First Judicial District, while the university filed its own action in Centre County.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the Superior Court has ruled that a juvenile court can’t impose a jail term on someone over the age of 18 but under 21 for violating probation related to a crime committed when the defendant was a juvenile.

Also below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes about state Supreme Court oral arguments this week in which an attorney representing a man found guilty of murder said that his client was wrongly denied the right to testify in his own defense after the guilt phase of his trial had closed.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Dan McCormick writes that Pepper Hamilton has created a veterans affinity group.

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 Environmental Law column on Page 5, Bryan P. Franey writes a primer on the electric vehicle charging networks that will soon become much more common.

In a Commentary on Page 7, Frank H. Wu of Legal affiliate The Recorder writes about the perils and consequences of ranking law schools and law firms.

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.

 

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.

How Should We Handle Juvenile Offenders?

By Dan McCormick
For the Legal

As the U.S. Supreme Court debates whether juveniles should be sentenced to life without parole, at the University of Pennsylvania Law School there was a similar conversation: should juveniles even be tried as adults?

On March 16 at the Penn Law Edward V. Spaer Symposium, a panel that included lawyers, a psychologist and a Philadelphia judge discussed the role of age in the criminal justice system. The conversation focused mostly on how to treat serious offenders who are juveniles.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Benjamin Lerner, who has been the city’s decertification judge for the past few years, said that since the Direct File Act was passed, the system of certifying juveniles has been “stood on its head.” Psychological reports, which used to be the standard method of determining if a serious offender should be tried as an adult, are now only one issue that the defense must deal with, because now they have the burden of proving that it’s in the “public interest” for the offender to be tried as a juvenile, he said.

Marsha Levick from the Juvenile Law Center pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court is actually moving toward a more scientific approach for juvenile offenders. In recent years, the court has relied on scientific evidence of juveniles’ inability to make proper judgments in its decisions regarding treatment of juvenile offenders, she said.

Dr. Steven Berkowitz spoke further on issues of brain development, arguing that social and family circumstances also need to be considered in the treatment of juvenile offenders because of psychological trauma’s adverse effect on a child’s ability to make judgments.

Yumari Martinez, a lawyer from the Vera Institute Center on Youth Justice, argued that the criminal court system should be the last resort for juvenile offenders. He also said lawyers need to be aware of the disproportionate minority representation of the juvenile justice system.

Finally, R. Daniel Okonkwo of DC Lawyers for Youth, said the juvenile penal system should be treatment-based rather than punitive, because a system based on punishment does not produce juveniles who are prepared to be members of a healthy community. For all the talk of consequences that is raised in the discussion of juvenile offenders, adults need to be conscious of the consequences that their own justice system has on communities, he said.

The panel members agreed that the justice system needs to recognize that juveniles are inherently less capable of making proper judgments and that juveniles subject to traumatic circumstances are even less capable. Together, they advised the auditorium full of law students to remember that their future profession plays an important role in the treatment of young people who have committed crimes. Listen to their stories, the panel said, and keep their best interests in mind.