News & Politics
The Recorder has just published a very long “feature” article about the L.A.-based litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges. Although Quinn does not sound like a place I would like to work as an associate (it sounds like “type A personality” central), I found the article fascinating.
The Christian Science Monitor has just published this interesting article about the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The author speculates that the Fourth Circuit might be a likely source of any new Supreme Court appointments.
“What happens when your lawyer gets disbarred three weeks before your trial and, without letting you know about this development, goes on to defend you anyway?” The New York Lawyer answers that question here.
It took six separate opinions for a divided Supreme Court to rule that a California police officer did not violate the constitutional rights of a wounded suspect who was questioned without having his Miranda rights read to him. Those rights say in part, “You have the right to remain silent.” “But justices never answered a central question in the case: whether law enforcement officials can be held liable if they coerce self-incriminating information, including confessions, out of defendants when those statements are never used in court,” CNN reports here. You can read the opinion in the case of Oliverio Martinez here.
The Mississippi office of New Orleans based law firm Phelps Dunbar was having trouble recruiting top law school grads, given the competition from big city firms paying big city salaries. So they devised an interesting strategy. They target federal law clerks from top schools who want to teach, but need to gain experience and to publish before they are qualified. Phelps Dunbar aims to hire two such associates per year. They bill a reduced 1,500 hours a year (to allow time to write), make at least $75,000 plus bonus, and work on appellate briefs. Sounds like a win-win to me. Read all about it here.
So says U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in an order dismissing Shramban v. Aetna Inc., a Title VII suit brought by a white, Jewish, blonde woman from Moldavia who claims she was harassed on the basis of her gender, race, religion or national origin, it says here.
Howard Bashman of How Appealing has the scoop here. UPDATE: (5/27) The Recorder has picked up the story here.
“Late last month, appeal court justices in San Francisco did something unusual: They mailed out a letter asking lawyers in a massive vitamin price-fixing class action to explain a few things. Why, the 1st District Court of Appeal wanted to know, are so many law firms involved? How did the number of coordinated cases grow by 12 in one six-month period? How many out-of-state law firms are involved? Which of the defendants previously entered guilty or no contest pleas to criminal charges?” Read about the unusual request here.