May It Please The Court

RSS Feeds
MIPTC Author
About J. Craig Williams

May It Please The Court
by Leonard Rivkin
Barnes & Noble CLE Books
Latest Blogs
12/4/2008 - How to Get Sued

1/5/2005 - Your City Leaders Aren't Listening To You

12/29/2004 - Niagara Falls? Slowly I Turned, Step by Step, Inch by Inch.

12/25/2004 - Season's Greetings

This Month's Posts
Links of Interest [more]
Quote of the Day - It is time I stepped aside for a less experienced and less able man. - Professor Scott Elledge on his retirement from Cornell
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
There are 2034 Journal Items on 255 page(s) and you are on page number 167

What's The Statute Of Limitations For Retirement?

Disclaimer here: I'm nearing 50 (if you really want to know, send me an email), and this headline: For lawyers, 60 is the new 50 caught me off guard. Somebody thought 50 was old?

Sure, when I was a kid, it was "Don't trust anyone over 30." But I always thought lawyers could practice until late in life, and I'm glad to see that it's apparently true.

The headline above comes from a story written by Ellen Rosen of the New York Times, and she points out in her article that most large law firms require mandatory retirement at 60, and some extend it to 63 or 67. One of our lawyers is in his 70's, well beyond that time limit. Rosen cites several examples of lawyers who found new challenges and practically new careers after 60.

Our experience is similar. We find a tremendous value in seniority, and welcome the guidance that comes from seeing practically everything that law has to offer. There are plenty of other older lawyers out there, too.

Should law firms even have a set age for mandatory retirement? What is your law firm's experience?


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 at 23:25 Comments (0) |

As If We Didn't Get Enough Junk Mail Already

While you weren't watching, Pioneer Electronics has been watching out for your privacy rights. Sounds kind of crazy, doesn't it? A big company watching out for the little guys like you and me.

What may surprise you even more was who was not watching out for your privacy rights.

Someone who ostensibly was trying to protect your rights against big companies - a regular guy like you and me. But that's only part of the story. You see, I haven't been completely honest with you.

Here's what's really going on. Both sides in this dispute were really looking out for there own interests. Let me explain. The Plaintiff in this case, Patrick Olmstead bought a DVD player from Pioneer. He claimed it was defective, and brought a class action suit against Pioneer. In the discovery process, Olmstead found out that 700-800 of us complained to Pioneer about the same DVD player.

Olmstead had found his class of Plaintiffs, and Pioneer's troubles were about to multiply by a factor of 700-800. That's what I wasn't completely honest with you about. Pioneer obviously didn't want a class action lawsuit, and Omstead (read: Olmstead's lawyers) wanted a bigger class to earn more attorneys fees.

Olmstead wanted the names and addresses of the people who had complained to Pioneer. To keep the class size as small as possible, Pioneer sought to enforce yours and my privacy rights. The company argued that we had a right to determine - before opting in or opting out of the class - whether we wanted to give our private information to Mr. Olmstead and his lawyers.

Pioneer has just succeeded in establishing another roadblock to class action suits. Now, before we get those 20-page class action notifications in six-point type that requires us to fill out five pages of blank lines without instructions seeking forgotten information and submit 30 box-top ends with the SKUs on them from software long since thrown away just to get our measly $2.25 individual share of the $1.1 billion settlement with Microsoft, we get one more piece of junk mail.

Just what we need: A letter from the court asking us if we want to give our private information to today's hero who is protecting our interests and taking most of the settlement payment in the form of attorneys fees.

Did I hit a chord with you? Not that I wanted to get on a rant here, but ...


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 00:13 Comments (0) |

New Server, New RSS Feeds, Same MIPTC Legal News and Observations

MIPTC has finished its move to a new server, so podcasts will return in short order, and videocasts will start again in a week or so. As you may remember, we ran out of space at one gigabite of storage. The new server has 25 gigs, so we should be OK for awhile.

One unintended consequence of the switchover, however, is that the RSS and Podcast feeds now have new URL addresses. So, if you read or listen to MIPTC via your RSS feed, please click on the new URL and update your feed. We apologize for the inconvenience, but since you work on computers, you likely understand that nothing associated with servers, computers, feeds and the like rarely goes as smoothly as you would like.

Thanks for your indulgence, and thanks for reading and listening. We thank you for your support.


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, April 11, 2005 at 11:06 Comments (0) |

Si Vou Plait, Eh? English For French Quebecers? Non!

Eh? It's Canada, and it's cold. But then again, that's a good thing considering where I am. Possible snowfall tonight, and great skiing tomorrow.

I'm in Whistler for a week-long international law conference.

So, you'll understand if you hear this week about Quebec's language law issues, and other Canadian mishaps.

If you're French in Quebec, your child won't have ready access to English schools. That upsets some, and pleases others. The Canadian Supreme Court upheld the Quebec law restricting access to English schools, ruling that restricting access to English-language education is constitutionally valid.

It just depends on what language you speak, and what language you want to speak.


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, April 10, 2005 at 23:28 Comments (0) |

A Jiffy Utility To Size Your Windows To Your Specs, Not Microsoft's

Looking for that perfect program to do exactly what you want?

Are you frustrated with Windows having a mind of its own when it comes to window sizes? One day it's full-sized, the next day it's half-sized and not completely on your computer screen, with one side off to the right or left.

Well, take charge of Windows' windows like you never have before. Try Autosizer, a peach of a program that eliminates one of life's little annoyances.

And you don't need a little blue pill to make it work.


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, April 09, 2005 at 15:25 Comments (0) |

Welcome News To Your In-Box

A Death Knell For Email Spam?

One of the nation’s most prolific spammers was sentenced to nine years in prison early yesterday after being convicted in November under Virginia Law. He stood accused of sending unsolicited bulk email while masking his identity. Although the judge postponed the sentence while the case is appealed, the spammer’s comment to the judge that he would “not be involved in the e-mail marketing business again,” is positive news to my inbox.

The amount of time I spend each day sorting through multiple email accounts to filter out spam could certainly be used more efficiently elsewhere. How much Canadian herbal male enhancer do I really need anyway? In addition, I know that there must be legitimate email from friends and colleagues that I accidentally delete in the process. The last thing I need is to accidentally dump some vital email from my bank or student loan processor.

This is not the first time that MIPTC has lamented the invasion of our privacy through spam, junk mail, unsolicited telemarketers, or junk faxes and I am sure it won’t be the last. The Federal Do-Not-Call list has done wonders to lead to peaceful pleasant dinners at my house, but spam still ruins my morning café.


Printer friendly page Posted by Michel J. Ayer on Saturday, April 09, 2005 at 07:55 Comments (0) |

Texas Messes With Mars Mineral Rights

Texas is a big state. So big, in fact, that if you want to file a mining claim, you can, as you would expect. Not only in Texas, but also on Mars. That's right. In Texas. For mining and mineral claims on Mars. You know, the planet Mars.

In fact, you can get licensed in Texas for just about anything.

So it shouldn't surprise you that Texas allows people to record mining and mineral claims for other, celestial bodies. Don't mess with Texas, right?

If Texans are batty enough to give people a legal basis to sue NASA for trespassing on those mining claims, then this headline shouldn't surprise you either:

"Man Who Represented Himself Appeals Competence of Attorney."

Go ahead. Read that headline again. Even once more, if it just seems too incredible to be true. Yep, your eyes do not deceive you - you got it - an in pro per Defendant claims that he shouldn't have been able to represent himself, and because the judge allowed him to, he should be given a retrial.

So what's the connection with Texas? According to the link above, our hero Defendant Thomas P. Budnick "tried to file and peddle mining claims in such diverse places as George's Bank, the asteroid belt, Mars and the moons of Jupiter. After trying several states without success, he finally persuaded Texas authorities to accept his astral mineral rights claims in 1984."

I don't even know what "astral mineral rights" are, but I know I want some. Especially if somebody's buying them.

But let's get back to our hero. Right after he got out of a mental hospital, he was accused of giving poison, otherwise used to polish meteorites, to one of his friends - in a beer. His appeal is from the lesser of two charges, assault with a dangerous weapon. He was acquitted of the primary charge of attempted poisoning. Not bad for a guy who defended himself. The lesser charge resulted in a two-year sentence, which is now on appeal.

Here's the kicker: Brudnick gets out of jail this summer. Somehow it all makes sense, doesn't it?


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, April 08, 2005 at 00:00 Comments (0) |

Attorneys Fees Loser Becomes The Winner

Everyone's got their hand out. What am I talking about? Well, what makes the world go around?

When there's an attorneys fees provision in a contract, the parties are justifiably concerned over who will be the prevailing party. You know, winner takes all. Especially when fees get high - in the hundreds of thousands and into the millions.

But let's get back to reality. Here's the setup:

You want to buy some land to build a house. Luckily, the land you want to buy is for sale. You both enter into escrow (aka "contract"). That escrow has an attorneys fees provision in it. Uh oh.

Yep, the dreaded consequence of loser pays. Don't get ahead of me, though.

The buyer and seller got into a dispute, as you expected they would. Then, they looked to the escrow contract and discovered the attorneys fees provision. The winners claimed they were entitled to recover attorneys fees.

The loser wasn't pleased with that outcome (an award of almost $400,000), and appealed. Who won? The loser.

Go figure. The court reasoned that the attorneys fees provision in the escrow contract was designed to deal with disputes that arose out of the performance of the escrow, not disputes between the buyer and seller that revolved around their relationship as buyer and seller.

Does it pay to be the winner?


Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, April 07, 2005 at 00:51 Comments (0) |

Page:  << Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167 168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  Next >>