Showing posts with label Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

New York personal injury lawyer Perecman from comments in the Elevator ...-Albany Times Union

New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman comments Bronx Elevator accident that injured teenager Thursday. Elevator, he plunged three of the stories, in the basement of the building housing the community after the end of the cable into the Elevator. New York personal injury lawyers at the Perecman firm is treated in the Elevator in the event of an accident, the number of cases in the last 30 years.

New York, New York (PRWEB) 03. April 2012

The cable, sending the teen launching appliances-free three-story drop, elevator car reported in the New York Daily News (3/30/2012).

New York personal injury lawyers at the Perecman firm for a full investigation by the New York Elevator accident.

"The cable is taken literally, Lift n the life-cycle. If the cables, safety equipment is intended to kick. Perecman, David New York personal injury lawyer, which is represented in the entire New York City customers which Elevator accidents hurt something catastrophic is usually occur when someone if you have Elevator free-fall, "said.

New York Daily News says that Kenneth had stopped the Bronx apartment Lacen, the fifth floor of the elevator. As the car neared on the second floor, divided into the cable. Lacen "flew to the maximum as he was a rocket" as the car plunged into the basement.

Lacen has caused his head to neck back and foot injuries due to accidents in the Elevator, of New York City, the tabloid said.

"As it has become clearer, the manufacturers and the Elevator, Elevator maintenance companies can be liable for the Elevator accident conditions," the New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman said. "On a daily basis, many people depend on the elevators."It is of the utmost importance that the lifts are safe, reliable and safety codes and regulations are complied with. "

If you have been injured or lost a loved one in the event of an accident or personal injury New York Elevator in the event of an accident, contact the New York personal injury lawyers at the Perecman firm at http://www.perecman.com.

David Perecman Perecman firm PLLC and:

In the last 30 years, New York City, and in the event of an accident, medical malpractice, caused by construction, accidents and auto accident lawyers at the Perecman firm, PLLC has been subjected to all types of cases, including Elevator and escalator accidents. Perecman, David, the company's founder, has been recognised for his achievements in the national law, in the Hall of Fame New York Magazine "Best lawyers in America" and The New York Times Magazine, "the New York Super Lawyers Metro Edition" Honoree for the years 2007-2010. The prestigious US News and World Report ranks the Perecman firm 2011 and 2012 New York City's "top 20 companies in the case of personal injury.

The firm has returned to its customers millions of dollars. Among the later gains Mr. Perecman won the 15 million dollar verdict * * for construction accident (112370/03), $ 5.35 million dollar verdict *** car accidents (212/04) and a $ 40 million dollar facility, a medical malpractice settlement (index 2146/03) * * * *.

Perecman firm serves Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Upstate NY, Morris County and Rockland.

* at a later date, it is settled case-law that, in the case of an appeal 7.940 million dollars
* resolved at a later date, in the case of the 3.5 million dollar
* * * * total any profit

"By advertising"
"Prior results do not guarantee similar results."

The version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebNYpersonalinjurylawyer/NYpersonalinjurylawyer/prweb9352216.htm


View the original article here

Monday, April 2, 2012

Lawyer Says Zuccotti Park Demonstrators Broke No Law - New York Times (blog)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Police officers in Zuccotti Park, on Nov. 15, 2011 where they removed tents and arrested Occupy Wall Street protesters.Robert Stolarik for The New York TimesPolice officers in Zuccotti Park, on Nov. 15, 2011 where they removed tents and arrested Occupy Wall Street protesters.

When hundreds of police officers entered Zuccotti Park early on Nov. 15, they dismantled tents and other structures that had been erected by Occupy Wall Street protesters in defiance of rules established in September by the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties.

The police also arrested dozens of protesters who refused to leave the park, charging them with offenses that included trespassing and disorderly conduct, as officers set up metal barricades around the park’s perimeter.

On Friday, a defense lawyer argued in Criminal Court in Manhattan that such charges filed against two of his clients should be dismissed.

While it might be appropriate for Brookfield to establish rules governing behavior in the park, the lawyer said, the company could not order people out of the park, because an agreement with the city required it to be open to the public 24 hours a day.

“Brookfield lacked the authority to exclude people,” the lawyer, Jethro M. Eisenstein, argued in support of a motion to dismiss the charges, contending that it was “unseemly and unjust to allow Brookfield to harness the power of the state” to clear the park of protesters.

But an assistant district attorney told Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. that the company was within its rights to revoke permission for protesters to be in the park while the police and sanitation workers removed banned structures.

“They have to have the ability to enforce rules,” the prosecutor, Ryan Hayward, said. “They did deem it necessary to close that park.”

Judge Sciarrino asked both sides to clarify certain points. He asked Mr. Eisenstein if he thought the rules allowed people to use Zuccotti Park for any purpose. Later, he told Mr. Hayward that experience had taught him that sometimes, “the law is not simply what the city says it is.”

At the heart of the arguments is the issue of what authority and responsibilities Brookfield has in managing Zuccotti Park, a half-acre granite expanse in the financial district that the Occupy protesters turned into a headquarters in mid-September. The park was created under an agreement that allowed developers of a skyscraper across Liberty Street to build 500,000 extra square feet of office space.

In return, the developers created a public space that would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

According to papers filed by Mr. Eisenstein and the New York Civil Liberties Union, Brookfield can limit public access to the park only after going through a process that involves gaining the approval of the City Planning Commission.

The district attorney’s office, along with the city’s Law Department, disagreed, writing that “Brookfield Properties was faced with a situation where the volume of tenting, structures, sleeping bags, pillows, clothes, trash and other personal property had created a safety condition,” and that the only effective remedy involved clearing people from the park.

At one point, Judge Sciarrino asked Mr. Hayward if he agreed that there was a distinction between rules of conduct and rules of access. Mr. Hayward replied that he did and that in order “to ensure compliance with rules of conduct that temporary closure needed to be effectuated.”

Mr. Eisenstein countered that the closure could not accurately be termed temporary because metal barricades surrounded the park for nearly two months after Nov. 15, and that people entering during that time were subject to searches by private security guards.

Judge Sciarrino did not rule immediately on the motion.


View the original article here

Sunday, April 1, 2012

The lawyer next to Lindsay Lohan-Los Angeles Times

Lindsay Lohan showed up for court on Thursday, the crowd was not as large as it has been for the actress — anticipating perhaps a resolution, rather than the kind of dramatic turn who has created her five year legal saga as compelling as any TV reality Show.

The 25-year-old Lohan been in and out of jail and rehab so often, her story line seemed to arc to failure.

They blew therapy and community service, angry counselors and judges. You never knew what to expect from her in the courtroom — a tearful plea, a beetle, a fingernail painted with a vulgar taunt.

But one thing never seemed to change: the constant presence of lawyer Shawn Holley, which is like movie star free as her client, but has the gravitas Lohan's rough edges smooth.

I have been pulling for Lohan from the beginning. She is a talented actress whose angsty portrayals on the screen are a mix of innocence and rebellion. Her films "Mean Girls" and "Freaky Friday" are classic favorites of my daughters.

But talk about bad role-modeling. As a fan I found Lohan's missteps disappointing. As a mother I found her jaunts tiring. They became a symbol of the reckless self absorption that has become routine for some young women — and I don't just mean Hollywood starlets.

As I watched her legal troubles mount — two DUIs and a jewelry theft — I took a strange kind of comfort of Holley's presence. They seemed to me more than client and lawyer.

When Lohan was sentenced to prison in 2010, she sobbed in the courtroom on Holley's shoulder. When Lohan was handcuffed in 2011, Holley looked down as her client was led from the Court, if the lawyer could not bear to watch.

Scribbled notes on Thursday on her legal path if the judge Holley, Lohan's progress complimented. She showed the slightest smile when the judge pronounced Lohan's probation "ended".

We witnessed the hug between Lohan and Holley. We didn't get to hear that Lohan's whispered "I love you."

::

A few hours after Lohan was released, I went on her way to meet her lawyer. In my 30 minute drive I heard the story of the Lohan's court session three times on the radio. She wore a "tight blue Pantsuit," intoned one announcer.

She was not. It was more like teal, and it was customized and tasteful — conservative, if you're 25.

It seems that we can't resist a dig, even at its most triumphant morning. That reflects our investment in her bad-girl persona. And those problems Holley.

"Lindsay's incredibly strong, but she's also very vulnerable," Holley said. "I can't imagine what it must have been for her to be and feel how many people kind of waiting your demise. That's difficult, hurtful. And they don't deserve it. "

That is the celebrity lawyer speak-but it is also the mother of a 9-year-old daughter, a lawyer who got her start as a public defender, a woman who has her own youthful misadventures still recalls.

"Let's just say that I had fun," said Holley, who went to UCLA of Fairfax, spent a year teaching English in high Washington Prep, then enrolled at the southwestern Law School because they don't know what to do with her life.

They spent much time around lawyers. Her mother — who was single and 19 when Holley was born — was a legal Secretary who earned her MBA in night school and years long management of law firms.

Holley got her legal start interviewing car thieves and crack addicts. "You walk in this [courtroom] company tank, and it's hot and it stinks and it is nasty," she said. And nobody understands their legal rights. Most were ready to plead guilty, she said, even if they had a legitimate defence.

"You start to see that you with the concept of freedom in real life."


View the original article here

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Lawyer Says Zuccotti Park Demonstrators Broke No Law - New York Times (blog)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Police officers in Zuccotti Park, on Nov. 15, 2011 where they removed tents and arrested Occupy Wall Street protesters.Robert Stolarik for The New York TimesPolice officers in Zuccotti Park, on Nov. 15, 2011 where they removed tents and arrested Occupy Wall Street protesters.

When hundreds of police officers entered Zuccotti Park early on Nov. 15, they dismantled tents and other structures that had been erected by Occupy Wall Street protesters in defiance of rules established in September by the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties.

The police also arrested dozens of protesters who refused to leave the park, charging them with offenses that included trespassing and disorderly conduct, as officers set up metal barricades around the park’s perimeter.

On Friday, a defense lawyer argued in Criminal Court in Manhattan that such charges filed against two of his clients should be dismissed.

While it might be appropriate for Brookfield to establish rules governing behavior in the park, the lawyer said, the company could not order people out of the park, because an agreement with the city required it to be open to the public 24 hours a day.

“Brookfield lacked the authority to exclude people,” the lawyer, Jethro M. Eisenstein, argued in support of a motion to dismiss the charges, contending that it was “unseemly and unjust to allow Brookfield to harness the power of the state” to clear the park of protesters.

But an assistant district attorney told Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. that the company was within its rights to revoke permission for protesters to be in the park while the police and sanitation workers removed banned structures.

“They have to have the ability to enforce rules,” the prosecutor, Ryan Hayward, said. “They did deem it necessary to close that park.”

Judge Sciarrino asked both sides to clarify certain points. He asked Mr. Eisenstein if he thought the rules allowed people to use Zuccotti Park for any purpose. Later, he told Mr. Hayward that experience had taught him that sometimes, “the law is not simply what the city says it is.”

At the heart of the arguments is the issue of what authority and responsibilities Brookfield has in managing Zuccotti Park, a half-acre granite expanse in the financial district that the Occupy protesters turned into a headquarters in mid-September. The park was created under an agreement that allowed developers of a skyscraper across Liberty Street to build 500,000 extra square feet of office space.

In return, the developers created a public space that would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

According to papers filed by Mr. Eisenstein and the New York Civil Liberties Union, Brookfield can limit public access to the park only after going through a process that involves gaining the approval of the City Planning Commission.

The district attorney’s office, along with the city’s Law Department, disagreed, writing that “Brookfield Properties was faced with a situation where the volume of tenting, structures, sleeping bags, pillows, clothes, trash and other personal property had created a safety condition,” and that the only effective remedy involved clearing people from the park.

At one point, Judge Sciarrino asked Mr. Hayward if he agreed that there was a distinction between rules of conduct and rules of access. Mr. Hayward replied that he did and that in order “to ensure compliance with rules of conduct that temporary closure needed to be effectuated.”

Mr. Eisenstein countered that the closure could not accurately be termed temporary because metal barricades surrounded the park for nearly two months after Nov. 15, and that people entering during that time were subject to searches by private security guards.

Judge Sciarrino did not rule immediately on the motion.


View the original article here

Keith Olbermann's lawyer vows 'bad result' for Al Gore's Current - Los Angeles Times (blog)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Keith Olbermann off Current TV

Keith Olbermann's lawyer is coming out swinging against Al Gore and Current TV.

The tiny network, co-founded by the former vice president and Nobel laureate, announced Friday that it had fired the liberal host because he didn't share its "values" of respect and collegiality.

In response, Patty Glaser, a veteran litigator who represents Olbermann, blasted Current in a phone call with Show Tracker.

"Keith Olbermann's termination is baseless," she said. "We will sue them for their improper conduct. They made a bad decision; they can expect a bad result."

The war of words comes after Current informed Olbermann on Thursday morning that his services were no longer needed. A source familiar with the situation said bosses grew frustrated after Olbermann took repeated unexcused absences from his talk show "Countdown," including the night before the March 6 Super Tuesday primaries, when interest in his brand of political talk was at a premium.

The two sides tried to hammer out a settlement Thursday and into Friday, but with Olbermann insisting on tens of millions of dollars to pay out his contract, they remained far apart, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.

Olbermann accused Gore and Current co-founder Joel Hyatt of a cynical money-saving move. "For more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I've been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff," Olbermann tweeted. "Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract."

Olbermann's ouster comes just two months after Current bosses assured journalists that previous conflicts with Olbermann had been settled.

"We're fine," Gore told Show Tracker in January when asked about the Olbermann situation.

RELATED:

Conservatives rejoice at Keith Olbermann's Current ouster

Keith Olbermann sacked by Current

Al Gore looks beyond Current spat

— Scott Collins (twitter.com/scottcollinsLAT)

Photo: Keith Olbermann was fired by Current TV and now plans to sue, his lawyer says. Credit: Jason Kempin/Getty Images.?


View the original article here

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Injury lawyers: explaining whiplash claims - Banking Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Russell Thomson is an injury claims lawyer working at The Injury Lawyers, who explains that while whiplash is a clear and serious issue, the whole subject has become badly distorted through insurance companies selling customer details for referral fees.

Like Tony Blair and his “Education, Education, Education” speech at the start of Labours last bout of parliamentary power, the topic we’re looking at here is “Whiplash, Whiplash, Whiplash” – it’s all about whiplash!

You have heard all about it in the news, and you may well have experienced it yourself, or know someone who has made a whiplash claim. The fact that remains in today’s society is the real negative viewpoint people have of this injury. So I decided, as a representative of a firm of lawyers that deal with whiplash, and a whiplash sufferer myself, to give you some enlightenment from the other side of the coin; because all you will hear about in the press is everyone slating the validity of whiplash as an injury.

Is whiplash even a real injury?

Well, yes, of course it is. If you grab an elastic band and stretch it, it returns back to normal so long as you haven’t pulled it too far. Which is kind of my point; stretch it too far and you will either shred it or snap it. Pull anything too much and it will eventually ‘give’ and break or stretch too much and cause damage.

There are apparently over 50 muscles in the back structure alone. Now, imagine 50 muscles being stretched beyond their normal range of movement, and hey-ho, you have whiplash! It’s not always just a little bit of an ache that goes away over a few days; it can sometimes be a severely debilitating injury that is caused by the muscles in the neck, back, and shoulders being pulled beyond their normal range of movement.

Upon an impact or a sudden stop, you are thrown forwards and backwards within the restraint of your seatbelt, assuming you are wearing one. This lurch forward is what stretches the many ligaments and tendons in the neck, shoulders and back structure beyond their normal range of movement, resulting in obvious damage to them. You can pull a muscle in your leg from playing football – a similar principle applies. So yes, whiplash is a real injury.

But we hear too often in the news about it being difficult to diagnose. I’m not sure why really, because whiplash is diagnosable – there are physical symptoms that can be felt. A person with whiplash may have stiff areas in the neck, shoulders and back which are definable to the human touch. The stiffness is caused by the damage which was caused by the overstretching of the muscles. Yes, there are occasions where it may be more difficult to see; but with a little common sense and deductive logic, apply the earlier principle of muscles being overstretched in an impact or a sudden stop and its quite clear to understand you can end up with a whiplash injury.

When it comes to making a claim, the injury must be medically assessed to prove its validity. An assessment with a qualified medical expert who has access to the Claimants medical records is a common part of the claims process. A report is completed and the expert will give their opinion as to the severity of the injury and the affects it has had on the Claimants life. The expert is entirely independent – their duty is to the court, NOT to the Claimant; so there is no bias. They get paid for their work either way, and they must give their professionally qualified opinion. They will only agree with what is reasonable in the report.

Surrounding the “whiplash epidemic” or “whiplash problem” as its often termed is the government’s movement to ban personal injury referral fees that are thought to be at the centre of a surge in whiplash claims over the last decade. However, there appears to be a cultural trend that has crossed over in to the campaign to rid the UK of the referral fee system which focuses on whiplash itself being the problem; which it isn’t.

Yes, whiplash claims can be sometimes difficult to prove; however, former Justice Secretary Mr Jack Straw has lost a great deal of respect for the following quotation from a speech regarding the bill in the House of Commons last year:

“Often such claims are for whiplash, which is not so much an injury, more a profitable invention of the human imagination—undiagnosable except by third-rate doctors in the pay of the claims management companies or personal injury lawyers”

This is what I will professionally term as a “seriously stupid statement”. The above is not true. As I said earlier, whiplash IS diagnosable, and it CAN be felt to the human touch. The experts that are instructed are not “in the pay of the claims management companies or personal injury lawyers”; in fact, their fees are recovered from the insurers, and the expert, who must be independent, must be agreed with the insurers before instruction. The insurers have the right to object to any proposed experts, and can even get their own medical evidence for claims!

Quickly turning to my own experience of whiplash, which I am still suffering from since last May (although one reason may be an unrelated leg injury I have from this January that may have exacerbated the whiplash through the use of crutches for months), I was seen by a Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon with all the qualifications to boot.

I therefore ask the right honourable gentleman speaker Mr Jack Straw if he is seriously suggesting that the Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon I saw for my medical report whom confirmed my whiplash is nothing more than a “third-rate doctor”!??

Furthermore, was the qualified physiotherapist I received treatment from also some useless “third-rate” practitioner whom just wasted her time poking and prodding my back for no good reason?? Were these two medical professionals both lying when they could feel the damage in my back muscles which I still get trouble with today, and never had issues with prior to the accident? Am I, Mr Straw, also lying through my back teeth because I want a quick cash payout for an invented injury?

Are you calling us all liars, and claiming that the firm I work for is fraudulently suing the bus company responsible for my injuries??

The real issue is simple – due to the referral fee system that insurance companies push people in to making claims through, we see a higher proportion of fraudulent or frivolous claims. There could easily be a small minority who could try and “milk the system” but that doesn’t mean all whiplash sufferers are doing the same. There are, and have been in the past, unbelievable amounts of people cheating the benefits system, for one example. The simple fact is that these are not symptoms of a “whiplash problem” but rather more they are the common symptoms associated with anything that involves financial gain in today’s society. You simply cannot escape fraud!

So what about the lawyers claiming high fees for whiplash claims? Well as a matter of fact we lawyers are capped to restricted legal fees, so that’s not really an issue. The fact does remain however that a lawyer is needed to protect the rights of the Claimant from being fobbed off by the insurers.

Third Party Capture is a term used to describe the insurers of the party at fault contacting the victim to settle the claim directly. The amount of times we get calls from people who have been suffering for two months and the insurers are sticking to their offer of £500.00 is unreal. The insurers know full well that a two month whiplash injury is worth more than £500.00, yet they see the opportunity to save themselves some money by purposefully trying to under settle a claim. Where is the justice in that?

In the past, insurers would pay independent companies and agents to settle claims directly with the innocent victims. The cheaper the claim was settled for, the more commission these agents would receive. It’s no secret that insurers have, and will continue to try and save money at the expense of the victims to which they are legally responsible for paying out. Think of it like this – you get your vehicle assessed for valuation of repairs before you settle the claim with the insurers; why wouldn’t you do the same for your injury? This simply requires a lawyer.

So how do we solve the problem?

Well, realistically, there isn’t a problem per-se. There are no more problems than there already are in other situations in life were people can “milk the system”. All this talk of cutting whiplash claims and making it harder to make a claim will only serve to be an injustice for the majority genuine whiplash victims who have suffered at the hands of a negligent driver. We have car insurance for the sole purposes of making a claim from – it’s there to be used! Perhaps what we should be focusing on is making sure there are less dangerous drivers on the road, and improving safety in vehicles to prevent or reduce the damage a whiplash injury can cause. Research is already underway in to ways that vehicles can prevent a whiplash injury, or reduce the affects.

We can of course continue to improve efficiency in the way claims are dealt with, but the new system we have had since 2010 whereby legal fees are further reduced and claims are dealt with through an online portal system is pretty efficient.

So, to our dear government who are content on making life cheaper in today’s harsh economy (irrelevant of whether it’s for the votes or for the greater good!) – look closer and focus on the real problem at hand! We know insurers are the top conspirators for referral fees and pushing people in to making claims, so step one is complete the legal ban, and step two is making the process even more efficient.

Category: Banking News, Opinion


View the original article here

New York Personal Injury Lawyer from The Perecman Firm Comments on Escalator ... - Albany Times Union

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman comments on New York escalator accidents following the death of an 88 year old woman who choked to death while riding an escalator at the LIRR station in Lindenhurst. The New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm have handled a number of New York escalator accident cases over the past 30 years.

New York, NY (PRWEB) March 22, 2012

An 88-year-old woman choked to death in a New York escalator accident when her clothes got tangled in the treads of an escalator at the Lindenhurst Long Island Rail Road station, according to The New York Times (3/14/2012).

“Escalators have long been a safety worry for the elderly,” said David Perecman, a New York personal injury lawyer who has represented a number of clients injured in escalator and elevator accidents.

In some cases, escalator accident injuries to the elderly are caused by slips, trips or falls. Other escalator accident injuries in New York may be caused by negligence in the design, maintenance or operation of the escalator.

“The reliable, regular inspection of escalators especially those with long running hours and heavy use, is of the utmost importance,” said New York personal injury lawyer Perecman, founder of The Perecman Firm, one of New York's personal injury law firms.

Victims of New York escalator accidents and/or their families may be entitled to significant compensation for New York escalator accident injuries, especially when they are caused by improper maintenance or negligence.

Please contact the experienced New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm at http://www.perecman.com.

About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC:

For the past 30 years, the New York auto accident, medical malpractice, civil rights violation, and construction accident lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of New York vehicular accident cases including truck accidents and car accidents discrimination. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, has been recognized for his achievements as an Honoree in the National Law Journal's Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine's "The Best Lawyers in America" and The New York Times Magazine "New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition" for the years 2007-2010. The prestigious U.S. News & World Report ranks The Perecman Firm among the top 20 personal injury firms in New York City for 2011-2012.

The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $15 million verdict** for a construction accident, a $5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident, and a $40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice****.

The Perecman Firm serves Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Upstate NY, Morris County, and Rockland County.

**later settled while on appeal for $7.940 million????????????
*** later settled for $3.5 million
**** total potential payout

"Lawyer Advertising"
"Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebNYpersonalinjurylawyer/NYescalatoraccidentlawyer/prweb9299980.htm


View the original article here

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

MF Global's Top Lawyer Will Break Her Silence - New York Times (blog)

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

MF Global’s top lawyer will break her five-month silence on Wednesday to tell Congress that she was unaware of a gaping shortfall in customer money until hours before the brokerage firm filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31.

Laurie Ferber, MF Global’s general counsel, was expected to tell a House panel that she “had no reason to believe” that the firm had raided customer accounts to meet its own obligations, according to a copy of her prepared testimony. While Ms. Ferber learned of a shortfall in customer money in the afternoon of Oct. 30, she said she believed it to be an accounting error.

“My impression throughout the afternoon and late into the evening was that the apparent deficit was a reconciliation issue and did not represent an actual shortfall in customer funds,” she planned to tell the oversight panel of the House Financial Services Committee.

Ms. Ferber, who previously worked at Drexel Burnham Lambert and Goldman Sachs, is a central figure in the collapse of MF Global and the ensuing hunt for more than $1 billion in missing money. As legal counsel, she helped oversee attempts to sell MF Global as it careened toward failure and advised the firm on a dispute over a crucial transfer of money to JPMorgan Chase.

That transfer contained customer money, a fact that MF Global officials have said that they did not know at the time.

The firm on Oct. 28 transferred $175 million to patch an overdrawn account at JPMorgan in London. The bank questioned the origin of the money, and an earlier related transfer, seeking assurances that it did not belong to customers.

In that effort, the bank sent a letter seeking confirmation that all “past, present and future” transfers complied with laws preventing the misuse of customer money.

But Ms. Ferber felt the letter was too broad, and urged JPMorgan to revise the wording.

“Although I had no reason to believe that any noncompliant transfers from segregated accounts had occurred or would occur, I did not think that any individual officer or employee should be asked to issue such a broad certificate unless that employee personally had handled all such transfers or was able to review all the transactions within the available time frame,” she was expected to tell Congress.

Ms. Ferber then spoke to an official in MF Global’s Chicago office whom JPMorgan named as the person involved in the suspect transfer. That person was not identified in Ms. Ferber’s testimony, though previous Congressional testimony and news reports have identified the employee as Edith O’Brien. Ms. O’Brien, an executive in the firm’s Chicago office, will also appear before the House panel but she is expected to invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The employee, Ms. Ferber said, gave the impression that she would sign the JPMorgan letter “if it were limited to the two transactions that the bank had expressed an interest in.”

After some back and forth, JPMorgan sent a third version of the letter limiting the scope to the transfers in question. Ms. Ferber, obtaining what she saw as a “satisfactory” letter, turned it over to a colleague in the legal department.

But that toned-down letter was never signed.

The hearing on Wednesday, the fifth Congressional examination of MF Global’s demise, will include testimony from the firm’s North American chief financial officer, Christine Serwinski, and the chief financial officer, Henri Steenkamp.

In his second appearance before Congress, Mr. Steenkamp is expected to offer little new insight, at least in his prepared testimony.

“While I am deeply distressed by the fact that customer monies have not yet been fully repaid, I unfortunately have limited knowledge of the specific movement of funds at the U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, MF Global Inc., during the last two or three days prior to the bankruptcy filing,” Mr. Steenkamp is expected to say in his prepared testimony.


View the original article here

Monday, March 26, 2012

For Lawyer in Afghan Killings, the Latest in a Series of Challenging Defenses - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
A litigious lifetime would pass before he would become the lawyer for the soldier accused of one of the worst American war crimes in decades, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who was charged on Friday with 17 counts of murder in the shooting deaths of Afghan civilians, including nine children. But even 40 years ago, long before Mr. Browne was known as one of the Pacific Northwest’s most prominent and controversial defense lawyers, he was inclined to make a distinctive case.

“I did all the research and learned that you would not qualify if you were over 6 feet 6 inches tall,” Mr. Browne recalled.

He was tall, but was he tall enough? He consulted with pacifist Quakers. He received notes from two doctors. He did stretching exercises. Then he faced the recruiter.

“They made me take my shoes off, push my arches down to the ground and do all sorts of things,” Mr. Browne said. “I was still well over 6-6.”

It was not the last time Mr. Browne would prove expansive and elusive. And although he never went to war, he did go into a kind of perpetual combat. For four decades, he has been the voluble and sometimes victorious defender of the virtually indefensible.

“Attorney John Henry Browne,” read a headline on the cover of Pacific, a Seattle news magazine. “He shoots from the hip to defend the notorious.”

That article ran in 1983.

Benjamin Ng, convicted of killing 13 in the 1983 Wah Mee massacre, this city’s worst mass murder? Mr. Browne saved him from the death penalty by arguing that Mr. Ng had suffered a brain injury earlier in life.

Martin Pang, who set a fire that killed four firefighters in 1995? Charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Colton Harris-Moore, the teenager known as the Barefoot Bandit, whose two-year, three-country crime spree terrorized families, littered the landscape with crashed stolen planes and ended in 2010 with an armed boat chase in the Bahamas? He should be free by the time he is 25.

Now, at 65, Mr. Browne has taken on still another case of a lifetime, one that will play out far beyond any Seattle courtroom.

Sergeant Bales, a decorated veteran of three tours in Iraq before he went to Afghanistan in December, is accused of killing 17 civilians and trying to kill six others on March 11. Some reports say he set some victims on fire. The killings have enraged Afghans and Americans and have increased calls for the United States to exit Afghanistan.

The Army kept Sergeant Bales’s identity secret for five days after he was arrested, and it has tried to purge the Internet of information about him.

But global tension and military reserve have done little to quiet Mr. Browne, a talkative man who works out of a century-old brick building in Seattle’s Pioneer Square.

“He’s definitely a renegade among defense attorneys,” said Daniel T. Satterberg, the King County prosecuting attorney, who has known Mr. Browne for a quarter-century and has clashed with him more than once. “And I mean that in a respectful sense. He is his own man. He calls his own shots, and he doesn’t have to answer to anybody.”

Mr. Browne is as loose and improvisational as the Army is buttoned-up and scripted. They wear camouflage and crew cuts. He wears blue velvet blazers and shoulder-length hair. Ask him a question, and he might not stop answering it.

“People understand that we have created these soldiers,” Mr. Browne said in an interview. “Your tax dollars, my tax dollars are funding this. We all have responsibility there. That’s why the government wants to paint him as a rogue soldier, because the government doesn’t want to take responsibility. I’m not sure if this is a good metaphor, but in the Frankenstein movies, Frankenstein was not the monster. The monster was Dr. Frankenstein, who created Frankenstein.”

“We’re putting these young men and women in impossible situations,” he continued. “I think the general public knows that, and I think this has brought to the public attention a dialogue about the war that the government would rather not have.”

Mr. Browne has plenty of detractors. He is all flair and splash in a city not known for either. He does not mix frequently with the city’s other powerful lawyers.

When he rides the ferry home to Bainbridge Island in the evening, he sits alone, reading or listening to an iPod. (The guitarist William Ackerman is a favorite.)


View the original article here

A Lawyer Who Can Simplify the Complex Draws a Big One: Obama's Health Overhaul - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Less than a year after becoming solicitor general, Mr. Verrilli will go before the Supreme Court for three days next week to defend the Obama administration’s health care overhaul law, one of the president’s signature and most controversial accomplishments.

Mr. Verrilli, a veteran of 17 cases before the Supreme Court, five of them since taking over as solicitor general, has been an advocate for the rights of death row inmates and has successfully argued fine points of telecommunications law. He has also had at least 30 cases before federal appeals courts and state supreme courts.

But this will be the first time he has argued the health care law in public.

Former colleagues and court opponents say he is ready. “He will be able to make the best case for the legislation,” said Theodore B. Olson, a Washington lawyer who has argued 58 cases before the justices and served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Verrilli’s strength, Mr. Olson said, is that he “marshals his positions in clear and understandable terms” rooted in law and common sense.

Neal K. Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who defended the health care overhaul as one of Mr. Verrilli’s predecessors, recalled watching Mr. Verrilli argue a case before the Supreme Court in 2006. He called him “poised, confident, concise and brilliant.”

“I came out of the courtroom thinking, ‘There’s no way in heck I can ever do this,’?” Mr. Katyal said.

A tall man with a baritone voice and a salt-and-pepper mustache, Mr. Verrilli, 54, is described by friends as exceedingly polite and disarmingly self-effacing. During trials, he makes a habit of graciously acknowledging opponents when he thinks they make a fair point.

For all his gentility, Mr. Verrilli is also known for being passionate.

“Don can get a little intense right before a major Supreme Court argument,” Paul Smith, a longtime friend who worked with Mr. Verrilli for about two decades in private practice in Washington, said as he described Mr. Verrilli’s salmon-eating ritual.

Before the bench, Mr. Verrilli is serious and methodical, his voice getting deeper the more impassioned he becomes.

His demeanor strikes a stark contrast with that of Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under Mr. Bush, who will also appear before the justices next week — to argue against the health care law.

Mr. Clement, who was a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other lawyer since 2002, comes across as more relaxed in court appearances. Mr. Clement argues without notes, citing, from memory, the specific page numbers of legal documents. He has also been known to crack jokes.

Both men are known for distilling complex issues into straightforward arguments.

Even when Mr. Verrilli was not the highest-ranking official at a meeting, his thoughtfulness, preparation and civility gave him a gravitas that commanded the respect of others, said Joseph Guerra, a Washington lawyer who has known him for more than 20 years and served with him in the Justice Department.

“His openness to other points of view ultimately makes him a better lawyer,” Mr. Guerra said.

Mr. Verrilli has at times broken ground by raising new legal theories. In the 2005 case MGM v. Grokster, his best-known Supreme Court victory, he successfully argued that companies could be liable for inducing piracy if their business plans encouraged illegal downloading.

In 2009, while working in the Justice Department, he developed limits on the state secrets privilege, intended to make sure that it is invoked only when there are legitimate national security concerns.

In 2003, Mr. Verrilli successfully argued before the Supreme Court that if defense lawyers failed to investigate their clients’ background and inform a jury of mitigating evidence during a capital sentencing hearing, they denied their client effective assistance of counsel. This argument helped overturn the death penalty for a pro bono client of Mr. Verrilli’s, Kevin Wiggins.

Kitty Bennett contributed research.


View the original article here

In Health Care Case, Lawyers Train for 3-Day Marathon - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Last week, there were so many of the mock arguments that lawyers call moot courts that they threatened to exhaust something that had never been thought in short supply: Washington lawyers willing to pretend to be Supreme Court justices.

The problem, said Paul D. Clement, who represents the 26 states challenging the law, was not just the length of the arguments the court will hear, but the variety of topics to be addressed.

The law itself is a sprawling revision of the health care system meant to provide coverage to tens of millions of previously uninsured Americans by imposing new requirements on states, employers and insurance companies and, through what has been called the individual mandate, by requiring most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

The decision in the case will have enormous practical consequences for how health care is delivered in the United States. It is likely to land in June, with large repercussions for both Mr. Obama and his Republican challenger just before the two parties hold their nominating conventions.

The justices have broken the case into four discrete issues, scheduling a separate session for each, for a total of six hours, the most in one case in more than 40 years. Mr. Clement, like his principal adversary, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., will be arguing three times.

Walter Dellinger, who was acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, said he was worried about “the enormous endurance challenge this will be for Verrilli and Clement.” Mr. Dellinger, who has argued more than 20 cases in the Supreme Court, said making even a single 30-minute presentation is draining.

“The day or two after a Supreme Court argument, I just basically collapse,” Mr. Dellinger said.

The central issue in the case, to be argued for two hours on Tuesday, is whether the individual mandate is constitutional.

But first, on Monday, the justices will hear 90 minutes of arguments from three lawyers about whether they should be hearing the case at all.

An 1867 federal law, the Anti-Injunction Act, bars suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., and a prominent federal appeals court judge in Washington have issued opinions saying that the 1867 law means a decision in the health care case must be deferred until 2015, when Americans will first be penalized if they do not have health insurance.

But neither the Obama administration nor the parties challenging the law agree with that ruling. So the court appointed a Washington lawyer, Robert A. Long, to speak on behalf of that argument. The court makes such appointments every year or so, and the practice has been the subject of some skeptical academic commentary.

Mr. Long will be followed on Monday by Mr. Verrilli and a lawyer for the private challengers, Gregory G. Katsas.

The Obama administration initially agreed that the court could not rule on challenges to the law for a few more years, but it reversed course in the appeals courts. It has since relinquished other opportunities to slow down the case and insists it wants a prompt decision.

Mr. Long was one of three lawyers who presented mock arguments in the grand ceremonial courtroom at the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center. On other days, the moot court program there helped prepare Mr. Clement, twice, as well as Michael A. Carvin, who represents private challengers to the law.

Mr. Clement and Mr. Carvin will face Mr. Verrilli on Tuesday for the main event, the argument over whether the requirement to obtain insurance was authorized by the Constitution as a regulation of interstate commerce or by the power to levy taxes. The administration says the health care law is well within the powers granted by the Constitution, while the challengers say it plainly exceeds what the federal government may do.

For Wednesday, the court has scheduled a double feature.

In the morning, the justices will hear 90 minutes of arguments about what should happen if they strike down the mandate. The federal appeals court in Atlanta, whose decision is under review, ruled that it was possible to remove just the mandate and leave the balance of the law intact.

As with the 1867 law, neither side agrees with that ruling. So here, too, the court has appointed an outside lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III, to argue the point.

Mr. Clement will contend that the entire law must fall. A colleague of Mr. Verrilli’s in the solicitor general’s office, Edwin S. Kneedler, will argue for a middle ground, saying that most of the law should stand but that two other provisions — one forbidding insurers to turn away applicants, the other barring them from taking account of pre-existing conditions — are intertwined with the mandate and would have to fall along with it.

On Wednesday afternoon, the two main lawyers, Mr. Verrilli and Mr. Clement, will return for a one-hour encore, this time to argue over whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in expanding the eligibility and coverage thresholds that states must adopt to remain eligible for Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people.

There is room for only about 400 people in the courtroom, and prominent lawyers and politicians have been scrambling for tickets. The court has set aside about 60 seats for members of the public, and the line started forming on Friday morning.

Emmarie Huetteman contributed reporting.


View the original article here

A system of plea bargains - Los Angeles Times

AppId is over the quota AppId is over the quota  Justice Antonin Scalia made one point that deserves further discussion: that the pervasiveness of plea bargains may actually harm the innocent. (J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press / March 23, 2012)


The right to a fair trial by a jury of one's peers is one of the most sacred guarantees of the Bill of Rights, but the dirty secret is that it isn't exercised very often. More than 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas. Recognizing that reality, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 this week that defendants have a constitutional right to be informed by their lawyers about the possibility of a plea bargain and the implications of turning one down.


The 6th Amendment guarantees a defendant not only a trial by jury but also "the assistance of counsel for his defense." In 1984, the court held that a defendant could challenge his conviction or sentence on the grounds that his lawyer's ineffectiveness "so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." But what if a defendant is harmed by his lawyer's malpractice at an earlier stage in the process? That was situation in the two cases decided by the court this week.


Galin E. Frye was charged by the state of Missouri with driving with a revoked license, a felony because he had several previous convictions. The district attorney offered Frye's lawyer two possible plea deals, one of which would have required him to serve only 90 days in prison. The lawyer, however, didn't inform Frye of the offers, which expired after six weeks. Ultimately Frye pleaded guilty and received a three-year sentence. In the second case, Anthony Cooper shot a woman in her buttock and thighs, causing serious injuries. Prosecutors offered Cooper's lawyers a plea deal in which he would have served a minimum sentence of 51 to 85 months. Cooper turned down the offer because his attorney inaccurately told him that he couldn't be convicted of intent to murder because his victim was shot below the waist. Cooper went to trial, was convicted and was sentenced to 185 to 360 months.


Writing for the majority in both cases, JusticeAnthony M. Kennedyabandoned the abstraction that often defines Supreme Court opinions and confronted the hard fact that "criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials." (Were it otherwise, the courts would be clotted with cases.) Given that reality, Kennedy announced two rules: First, a defense counsel must "communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused." Second, if a plea bargain has been offered, "a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it." If a lawyer fails in either duty, a defendant can challenge his conviction or sentence in court.


That doesn't mean that lapses by a lawyer will always result in a shorter sentence. In the case of Frye, the unlicensed driver, Kennedy said that he would still have to prove not only a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the plea offer his lawyer neglected to tell him about, but also a reasonable probability that the prosecution would have adhered to the agreement and that it would have been accepted by the trial court. In Frye's case that might be difficult because he was arrested again for driving without a license after the original plea offers expired. In the case of Cooper, who was convicted at a trial after being discouraged by his counsel from accepting a plea bargain, Kennedy said that a convicted defendant must demonstrate to a court that there was a reasonable probability that he would have pleaded to a lesser charge if his lawyer hadn't misled him. If he successfully proved that, then a judge would use his discretion in deciding whether to order a shorter sentence.


In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia called such speculation "retrospective crystal-ball gazing posing as legal analysis" and accused the majority of creating "a whole new boutique of constitutional jurisprudence" that would generate endless litigation. But Kennedy suggested ways in which frivolous claims could be prevented — for example, adding a requirement that plea offers be placed in writing.


Scalia made one point that deserves further discussion: that the pervasiveness of plea bargains may actually harm the innocent. The system, he said, "presents grave risks of prosecutorial overcharging that effectively compels an innocent defendant to avoid massive risk by pleading guilty to a lesser offense." As legislators and judges work to implement this week's decision, they also should ponder ways to address Scalia's concern. But, as Scalia acknowledged, plea bargaining is not going away. As long as this is a "system of pleas, not a system of trials," lawyers must be held to a high standard.


View the original article here

Sunday, March 25, 2012

New York Personal Injury Lawyer from The Perecman Firm Comments on Workplace ... - Albany Times Union

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman comments on the dangers of food slicers and meat grinders in the workplace following an accident in a New York Costco, reported in the New York Post (3/9/2012). The New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm have handled all types of personal injury cases in New York over the past 30 years.

New York, New York (PRWEB) March 24, 2012

A worker’s hand was mangled in a slicing machine accident in the meat section of a Harlem Costco, according to the New York Post (3/9/2012).

Fortunately, the worker’s hand was not amputated, reported the tabloid.

Amputations are among the most disabling workplace injuries, explained New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman.

According to New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm, unsafe working conditions, improper machinery maintenance, improper employee training, unsafe conditions, or lack of safety guards/protective equipment can often lead to amputation injuries.

Food slicers and meat grinders are among the machinery associated with amputation hazards, according to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA).

Approximately eighty percent of injuries caused by working with food slicers resulted in cuts and lacerations. One in 80 of those workplace injury claims was an amputation of a finger or thumb, according to WorkSafeBC.

“If the amputation is caused by work-related condition, defective machinery or lack of training, the victim may be entitled to compensation claims,” said New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman, a personal injury lawyer in New York for over 30 years.

A worker injured in a workplace personal injury accident in New York may suffer lost wages, high medical bills and, possibly, permanent disability.

Regardless of the New York workplace accident circumstances, it is important for an employee, injured in the workplace, to consult a New York personal injury lawyer.

For more information, please contact the New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm at http://www.perecman.com.

About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC:

For the past 30 years, the New York personal injury, medical malpractice, civil rights violation, and construction accident lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of New York personal injury accident cases. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, has been recognized for his achievements as an Honoree in the National Law Journal's Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine's "The Best Lawyers in America" and The New York Times Magazine "New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition" for the years 2007-2010. The prestigious U.S. News & World Report ranks The Perecman Firm among the top 20 personal injury firms in New York City for 2011-2012.

The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $15 million verdict** for a construction accident, a $5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident, and a $40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice****.

The Perecman Firm serves Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Upstate NY, Morris County, and Rockland County.

**later settled while on appeal for $7.940 million????
*** later settled for $3.5 million
**** total potential payout

"Lawyer Advertising"
"Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebNYpersonalinjurylawyer/NYpersonalinjurylawyer/prweb9272753.htm


View the original article here

For Lawyer in Afghan Killings, the Latest in a Series of Challenging Defenses - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
A litigious lifetime would pass before he would become the lawyer for the soldier accused of one of the worst American war crimes in decades, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who was charged on Friday with 17 counts of murder in the shooting deaths of Afghan civilians, including nine children. But even 40 years ago, long before Mr. Browne was known as one of the Pacific Northwest’s most prominent and controversial defense lawyers, he was inclined to make a distinctive case.

“I did all the research and learned that you would not qualify if you were over 6 feet 6 inches tall,” Mr. Browne recalled.

He was tall, but was he tall enough? He consulted with pacifist Quakers. He received notes from two doctors. He did stretching exercises. Then he faced the recruiter.

“They made me take my shoes off, push my arches down to the ground and do all sorts of things,” Mr. Browne said. “I was still well over 6-6.”

It was not the last time Mr. Browne would prove expansive and elusive. And although he never went to war, he did go into a kind of perpetual combat. For four decades, he has been the voluble and sometimes victorious defender of the virtually indefensible.

“Attorney John Henry Browne,” read a headline on the cover of Pacific, a Seattle news magazine. “He shoots from the hip to defend the notorious.”

That article ran in 1983.

Benjamin Ng, convicted of killing 13 in the 1983 Wah Mee massacre, this city’s worst mass murder? Mr. Browne saved him from the death penalty by arguing that Mr. Ng had suffered a brain injury earlier in life.

Martin Pang, who set a fire that killed four firefighters in 1995? Charged with murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Colton Harris-Moore, the teenager known as the Barefoot Bandit, whose two-year, three-country crime spree terrorized families, littered the landscape with crashed stolen planes and ended in 2010 with an armed boat chase in the Bahamas? He should be free by the time he is 25.

Now, at 65, Mr. Browne has taken on still another case of a lifetime, one that will play out far beyond any Seattle courtroom.

Sergeant Bales, a decorated veteran of three tours in Iraq before he went to Afghanistan in December, is accused of killing 17 civilians and trying to kill six others on March 11. Some reports say he set some victims on fire. The killings have enraged Afghans and Americans and have increased calls for the United States to exit Afghanistan.

The Army kept Sergeant Bales’s identity secret for five days after he was arrested, and it has tried to purge the Internet of information about him.

But global tension and military reserve have done little to quiet Mr. Browne, a talkative man who works out of a century-old brick building in Seattle’s Pioneer Square.

“He’s definitely a renegade among defense attorneys,” said Daniel T. Satterberg, the King County prosecuting attorney, who has known Mr. Browne for a quarter-century and has clashed with him more than once. “And I mean that in a respectful sense. He is his own man. He calls his own shots, and he doesn’t have to answer to anybody.”

Mr. Browne is as loose and improvisational as the Army is buttoned-up and scripted. They wear camouflage and crew cuts. He wears blue velvet blazers and shoulder-length hair. Ask him a question, and he might not stop answering it.

“People understand that we have created these soldiers,” Mr. Browne said in an interview. “Your tax dollars, my tax dollars are funding this. We all have responsibility there. That’s why the government wants to paint him as a rogue soldier, because the government doesn’t want to take responsibility. I’m not sure if this is a good metaphor, but in the Frankenstein movies, Frankenstein was not the monster. The monster was Dr. Frankenstein, who created Frankenstein.”

“We’re putting these young men and women in impossible situations,” he continued. “I think the general public knows that, and I think this has brought to the public attention a dialogue about the war that the government would rather not have.”

Mr. Browne has plenty of detractors. He is all flair and splash in a city not known for either. He does not mix frequently with the city’s other powerful lawyers.

When he rides the ferry home to Bainbridge Island in the evening, he sits alone, reading or listening to an iPod. (The guitarist William Ackerman is a favorite.)


View the original article here

New York Personal Injury Lawyer from The Perecman Firm Comments on Escalator ... - Albany Times Union

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman comments on New York escalator accidents following the death of an 88 year old woman who choked to death while riding an escalator at the LIRR station in Lindenhurst. The New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm have handled a number of New York escalator accident cases over the past 30 years.

New York, NY (PRWEB) March 22, 2012

An 88-year-old woman choked to death in a New York escalator accident when her clothes got tangled in the treads of an escalator at the Lindenhurst Long Island Rail Road station, according to The New York Times (3/14/2012).

“Escalators have long been a safety worry for the elderly,” said David Perecman, a New York personal injury lawyer who has represented a number of clients injured in escalator and elevator accidents.

In some cases, escalator accident injuries to the elderly are caused by slips, trips or falls. Other escalator accident injuries in New York may be caused by negligence in the design, maintenance or operation of the escalator.

“The reliable, regular inspection of escalators especially those with long running hours and heavy use, is of the utmost importance,” said New York personal injury lawyer Perecman, founder of The Perecman Firm, one of New York's personal injury law firms.

Victims of New York escalator accidents and/or their families may be entitled to significant compensation for New York escalator accident injuries, especially when they are caused by improper maintenance or negligence.

Please contact the experienced New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm at http://www.perecman.com.

About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC:

For the past 30 years, the New York auto accident, medical malpractice, civil rights violation, and construction accident lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of New York vehicular accident cases including truck accidents and car accidents discrimination. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, has been recognized for his achievements as an Honoree in the National Law Journal's Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine's "The Best Lawyers in America" and The New York Times Magazine "New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition" for the years 2007-2010. The prestigious U.S. News & World Report ranks The Perecman Firm among the top 20 personal injury firms in New York City for 2011-2012.

The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $15 million verdict** for a construction accident, a $5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident, and a $40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice****.

The Perecman Firm serves Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Upstate NY, Morris County, and Rockland County.

**later settled while on appeal for $7.940 million????????????
*** later settled for $3.5 million
**** total potential payout

"Lawyer Advertising"
"Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebNYpersonalinjurylawyer/NYescalatoraccidentlawyer/prweb9299980.htm


View the original article here

Schwartzapfel Partners, Personal Injury Lawyers, Sponsor Labor Conference - Albany Times Union

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

1st Annual Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York Brings to Light Safety in Workplace

Hollywood, FL (PRWEB) March 19, 2012

Over 100 labor leaders and their guests were in attendance at the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York and Schwartzapfel Partners, personal injury lawyers, was proud to be a sponsor of this event. It was the first such annual event of its kind, a groundbreaking forum for labor leaders in the Greater New York area.

“It is our hope that by providing a forum, many advances will be made for workers’ rights,” said Steven Schwartzapfel, of Schwartzapfel Partners P.C. “It’s important to support unions and union leaders because they help protect workers against unfair employer practices and make sure that the safety of their members comes first before employer profits.”

The conference was held at The Westin Diplomat Resort in Hollywood, FL. Many of the conference registrants are decision-makers in their respective organizations and some even hold dual roles as union leaders and Taft-Hartley Benefit Fund Trustees. Schwartzapfel Partners P.C. was a proud sponsor of the event and was present for the entire conference.

“We’re proud to sponsor a conference that tackles the important issue of safety in the workplace,” Schwartzapfel added. “Everyone has a right to feel safe at their job. It’s when safety measures fail that personal injury lawyers like myself need to step in and stand up for the working man.”

About Schwartzapfel Partners P.C.
Schwartzapfel Partners P.C. is one of the most prominent and well respected plaintiff personal injury and litigation firms in New York. The firm has handled tens of thousands of cases and helped thousands of clients obtain the money and benefits they deserve. The firm's pledge is to make a difficult situation easier and the firm's lawyers are proud of a success rate of over 98%. Schwartzapfel Partners P.C. fights to protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

The personal injury lawyers at Schwartzapfel Partners focus on all types of personal injury litigation, including vehicle accidents (bus, car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian) medical malpractice, wrongful death, defective products and drugs, construction accidents, workplace accidents, workers’ compensation, Social Security disability, nursing home neglect and abuse, and complex highway design defect cases. To contact the law firm, call (800) 966-4999 or use the firm's online contact form.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/3/prweb9303175.htm


View the original article here

New York Personal Injury Lawyer from The Perecman Firm Comments on Workplace ... - Albany Times Union

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman comments on the dangers of food slicers and meat grinders in the workplace following an accident in a New York Costco, reported in the New York Post (3/9/2012). The New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm have handled all types of personal injury cases in New York over the past 30 years.

New York, New York (PRWEB) March 24, 2012

A worker’s hand was mangled in a slicing machine accident in the meat section of a Harlem Costco, according to the New York Post (3/9/2012).

Fortunately, the worker’s hand was not amputated, reported the tabloid.

Amputations are among the most disabling workplace injuries, explained New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman.

According to New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm, unsafe working conditions, improper machinery maintenance, improper employee training, unsafe conditions, or lack of safety guards/protective equipment can often lead to amputation injuries.

Food slicers and meat grinders are among the machinery associated with amputation hazards, according to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA).

Approximately eighty percent of injuries caused by working with food slicers resulted in cuts and lacerations. One in 80 of those workplace injury claims was an amputation of a finger or thumb, according to WorkSafeBC.

“If the amputation is caused by work-related condition, defective machinery or lack of training, the victim may be entitled to compensation claims,” said New York personal injury lawyer David Perecman, a personal injury lawyer in New York for over 30 years.

A worker injured in a workplace personal injury accident in New York may suffer lost wages, high medical bills and, possibly, permanent disability.

Regardless of the New York workplace accident circumstances, it is important for an employee, injured in the workplace, to consult a New York personal injury lawyer.

For more information, please contact the New York personal injury lawyers at The Perecman Firm at http://www.perecman.com.

About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC:

For the past 30 years, the New York personal injury, medical malpractice, civil rights violation, and construction accident lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of New York personal injury accident cases. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, has been recognized for his achievements as an Honoree in the National Law Journal's Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine's "The Best Lawyers in America" and The New York Times Magazine "New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition" for the years 2007-2010. The prestigious U.S. News & World Report ranks The Perecman Firm among the top 20 personal injury firms in New York City for 2011-2012.

The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $15 million verdict** for a construction accident, a $5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident, and a $40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice****.

The Perecman Firm serves Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Long Island, Westchester, Upstate NY, Morris County, and Rockland County.

**later settled while on appeal for $7.940 million????
*** later settled for $3.5 million
**** total potential payout

"Lawyer Advertising"
"Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebNYpersonalinjurylawyer/NYpersonalinjurylawyer/prweb9272753.htm


View the original article here

Fight Over Lawsuits Now Shapes State Politics - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Maybe you’ve heard this one: A small town had only one lawyer and he was going broke, so it got another one. Both lawyers got rich.

That is a reasonably good description of the relationship between the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and Texans for Lawsuit Reform.

“The Trials,” as the lawyers’ association is known, have been around for ages. (The Texas Trial Lawyers Association is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune.)

The opposition has changed over the years, depending on what was going on in the overlapping worlds of commerce and law. People who sue and people who are sued, basically, are all represented by trade groups. The Trials on one side, and someone else on the other — a Texas Chemical Council, or the old Texas Chamber of Commerce — representing business groups that want to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform came to Austin almost 20 years ago, delivering heavy three-ring binders to legislative offices and highlighting its positions on a series of legal issues. Its members argued that the state’s legal system was out of control — in favor of plaintiffs — and that businesspeople had to limit the size of awards and throttle the conditions under which people could sue.

A short version of what happened: George W. Bush was elected governor in 1994, and in his first legislative session, watered-down versions of what Texans for Lawsuit Reform had initially proposed were passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Mission accomplished, right?

The group still had some things to do, and to be fair, some of what it had hoped to accomplish had not happened. It came back for more, several times over, and gradually became a lasting part of the special-interest tapestry in state government and politics.

It has taken over part of the job of the second lawyer in that joke: Texans for Lawsuit Reform, like the Trials on the other side, has become a force to be reckoned with. Each has a partisan lean, and each makes exceptions. T.L.R. generally supports Republican candidates, with enough Democrats in the mix to call itself bipartisan. The Trials generally support Democrats, with enough Republicans in the mix to have friends on both sides of the aisle.

The two groups and their satellites are crucially important to the financial fabric of Texas politics. Each spends more than either political party, and if you allow for some exceptions in the top-of-the-ballot races, they are two of the most influential voices in state elections.

Successful organizations don’t seem to go away when their original goals are fulfilled. The March of Dimes did not disappear after polio was cured. And if the original idea for Texans for Lawsuit Reform was to change the law and go home, that is clearly not the plan today. That is not their favored comparison anyway.

“It’s more like polio is standing over there waiting to come back in,” Sherry Sylvester, a spokeswoman for the group, said of the Trials. The first thing was to change the laws to make it more difficult to pursue what T.L.R. believes are inappropriate kinds of legal challenges. With that box checked off, it has gone into vigilance mode, fending off attempts to move those laws back in the other direction. And, in fact, the opponents have battled over dozens of bills in each session.

Battling over civil law isn’t the only fight in the Legislature, and these aren’t the only two groups in the fight. But this is one of the permanent wars in Texas politics. It is not just when the Legislature is in session every two years. Both play in elections. Each had — and has — experts working on redistricting maps, trying to gain an advantage that might help in coming legislative fights.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform started endorsing candidates before the maps were final. The Trials do it differently. The term “trial lawyer” can stick to a candidate the way food poisoning can to a restaurant. Most of the time, the support is quieter from that side, sometimes coming from individual lawyers, sometimes from affiliates — Texans for Insurance Reform is an example — that don’t have those two loaded little words in their names.

Too much money is at play for either faction to disappear. They might change their names, hide behind storefronts or even change the parties they tend to support.

Just do not expect this particular fight to ever end.


View the original article here

Saturday, March 24, 2012

A Lawyer Who Can Simplify the Complex Draws a Big One: Obama's Health Overhaul - New York Times

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Less than a year after becoming solicitor general, Mr. Verrilli will go before the Supreme Court for three days next week to defend the Obama administration’s health care overhaul law, one of the president’s signature and most controversial accomplishments.

Mr. Verrilli, a veteran of 17 cases before the Supreme Court, five of them since taking over as solicitor general, has been an advocate for the rights of death row inmates and has successfully argued fine points of telecommunications law. He has also had at least 30 cases before federal appeals courts and state supreme courts.

But this will be the first time he has argued the health care law in public.

Former colleagues and court opponents say he is ready. “He will be able to make the best case for the legislation,” said Theodore B. Olson, a Washington lawyer who has argued 58 cases before the justices and served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Verrilli’s strength, Mr. Olson said, is that he “marshals his positions in clear and understandable terms” rooted in law and common sense.

Neal K. Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who defended the health care overhaul as one of Mr. Verrilli’s predecessors, recalled watching Mr. Verrilli argue a case before the Supreme Court in 2006. He called him “poised, confident, concise and brilliant.”

“I came out of the courtroom thinking, ‘There’s no way in heck I can ever do this,’?” Mr. Katyal said.

A tall man with a baritone voice and a salt-and-pepper mustache, Mr. Verrilli, 54, is described by friends as exceedingly polite and disarmingly self-effacing. During trials, he makes a habit of graciously acknowledging opponents when he thinks they make a fair point.

For all his gentility, Mr. Verrilli is also known for being passionate.

“Don can get a little intense right before a major Supreme Court argument,” Paul Smith, a longtime friend who worked with Mr. Verrilli for about two decades in private practice in Washington, said as he described Mr. Verrilli’s salmon-eating ritual.

Before the bench, Mr. Verrilli is serious and methodical, his voice getting deeper the more impassioned he becomes.

His demeanor strikes a stark contrast with that of Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under Mr. Bush, who will also appear before the justices next week — to argue against the health care law.

Mr. Clement, who was a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other lawyer since 2002, comes across as more relaxed in court appearances. Mr. Clement argues without notes, citing, from memory, the specific page numbers of legal documents. He has also been known to crack jokes.

Both men are known for distilling complex issues into straightforward arguments.

Even when Mr. Verrilli was not the highest-ranking official at a meeting, his thoughtfulness, preparation and civility gave him a gravitas that commanded the respect of others, said Joseph Guerra, a Washington lawyer who has known him for more than 20 years and served with him in the Justice Department.

“His openness to other points of view ultimately makes him a better lawyer,” Mr. Guerra said.

Mr. Verrilli has at times broken ground by raising new legal theories. In the 2005 case MGM v. Grokster, his best-known Supreme Court victory, he successfully argued that companies could be liable for inducing piracy if their business plans encouraged illegal downloading.

In 2009, while working in the Justice Department, he developed limits on the state secrets privilege, intended to make sure that it is invoked only when there are legitimate national security concerns.

In 2003, Mr. Verrilli successfully argued before the Supreme Court that if defense lawyers failed to investigate their clients’ background and inform a jury of mitigating evidence during a capital sentencing hearing, they denied their client effective assistance of counsel. This argument helped overturn the death penalty for a pro bono client of Mr. Verrilli’s, Kevin Wiggins.

Kitty Bennett contributed research.


View the original article here

Friday, March 23, 2012

Attorney-lawyer market for new low prices and guaranteed savings of ...-Albany Times Union

Attorney lawyer legal resource to people in need nationwide by a lawyer or attorney. Legal need, anywhere in the country. The Attorney is trained in each of the legislative branch. In the event of an accident, a lawyer and personal injury lawyers and Dui Bützow – in the family.

(PRWEB) 19. March 2012

Attorney-lawyer, visit at http://www.attorney-lawyer.co. Attorney-lawyer is a nationwide legal aid provider. All legal needs anywhere in the United States. Bützow is a permanent locally to help. Attorney, lawyer, and the lawyer is to serve the entire United States is expected to deal with all the legal problems of the cities in the Bützow and or questions that arise.

Attorney-lawyer has been serving the communities from all over the United States since 2001. Committed to quality and service that sets the Attornay-lawyer, with the exception of the competition. All the legal needs of the personal injury, divorce lawyers, the Attorney from Bützow lawyer is the number 1 in customer satisfaction. Attorney, lawyer, represented by the best lawyers in the United States and onlys Bützow – in the very area. Legal problems can be a scary and find the right attorney to make or break a case. Let the experts, Attorney, lawyer,

The version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/3/prweb9297912.htm


View the original article here