There aren’t many things on this planet that are more devastating to the environment and its natural resources than an oil spill. If we think back through all the varying spills in the headlines over the past 20 years, none of them have ever amounted to anything worthwhile or revolutionary. And the same goes for Fleet Management Ltd.’s spill in the San Francisco Bay in 2007.

The Hong-Kong based company pleaded guilty last Thursday (August 13, 2009) to criminal charges for the devastating damage to the Bay Area. Taken from BreakingLegalNews.com, “The Cosco Busan sideswiped the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge on a foggy morning on Nov. 7, 2007. The ship spilled 53,000 gallons of oil into the water, killing thousands of birds and other wildlife and fouling miles of shoreline.”

The result will be 10 million USD – pending a federal court judge’s approval. But even though that is a staggering number, it still isn’t enough for some. The damage that the 2007 spill caused will not be amended for some time and that angers many in the Bay Area.

The pilot of the ship was sentenced to 10 months in prison. However, there is still a lot of debate around the issue of whether or not he is even to blame. Many say that the controller of the port never should have let him go through such a dense fog. Be that as it may, the ship is still at fault and finally some justice will be brought to this grim situation.

It is always quite a shameful experience when one’s credit card gets declined at the register. Often times there is a long line and when you’re finally told you have been declined, everyone gives you that ‘oh poor you’ face as you scramble for alternative means of payment. Then the luxury of calling your given credit company sets in, usually for a flustered debacle of a debate that could last hours.

The only thing I wonder is why it is perfectly legal for credit card Companies to cancel without any notice, reason or seemingly a purpose. When one calls customer service to get some answers – often times, there are no answers to be had besides the fact that your card has simply been cancelled.

Mary Pilon of the Wall Street Journal wrote a similar article and there she highlighted the experience of one Mar Harowitz. After a long and relaxing day at the spa (a birthday present to herself), Harowitz found herself amidst a credit card battle – cancelled without her knowledge. This came of surprise for Harowitz because she has perfect credit.

She is definitely not an isolated case. According to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, an issuer is allowed to cancel an account due to inactivity, default or delinquency, notification without cardholder’s knowledge. Sometimes a notice is required after the cancellation but many say what is the use?

There will be some new regulation passed in late august of this year, and I look forward to seeing if it addresses these unwarranted cancellations – although the outlook is grim.

Tell us your story!

Hal Turner, the infamous bigoted, white supremacist, foul-mouthed, intolerant, jaw-flappin’ web and radio host has been denied bail for his allegations against three appellate court judges. Taken from Law.com, on a “posting in early June (Turner Radio Network), Turner said 7th Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer “deserve to be killed” for their ruling in the handgun case that day.” Then, on June 24, 2009 Turner was brought in by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Turner for these blinkered remarks

Isn’t that a perfect case-study for irony? A man sentenced for making death threats because judges chose to ban a weapon that kills more people that the bird flu, swine flu and west-nile virus combined (actually much much much more). But Turner’s intellect isn’t on trial here, it is why he is in prison that is causing some stir. Is he really a danger to authority or is this political free speech?

At first glance, it seems like a definite ban on free speech. After all, the beauty of the internet is that there is no regulation. People can say and do whatever he or she pleases whenever he or she feels like it. But this case goes to prove that ‘big-brother’ is always watching, especially on the unregulated internet. The real interesting part of this piece is that Turner was denied bail for his remarks in yesterday’s decision.

Law.com’s Lynne Marek says “At Turner’s arraignment hearing on July 28, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Hogan argued that Turner should remain in custody based, in part, on the fact that he continued to threaten authorities even after his arrest. Hogan said that while Turner was in custody in New Jersey, he called in additional postings naming three FBI agents who interviewed him. He called in those postings despite court restrictions on his Internet use.” And consequently, he was denied bail.

We have been seeing more and more of these loud-mouthed radio and web jockeys getting in trouble for the nonsensical “shock” vernacular oozing from their mouths. I don’t think that the law is zoning in on free speech as much as I believe some people just talk without thinking.

I mean, if overturning a gun ban is worth jail with no bail – mission accomplished, except the ban still stands.

How do you feel about these ‘shock jocks’ hogging the airwaves? Are they worth it? Do they provide at least some service? Or are they just over-the-top figureheads for cultish communities?

Join the discussion on Twitter:

@VintageBen

@VintageAlli

@VintageJaz

@VintageJonny

A new survey of 912 small to medium-sized business owners across the United States by management consulting firm George S. May International found that 46 percent of respondents don’t offer health insurance to their employees.

Of the 54 percent that do offer health insurance to their employees, the split between employer and employee paid premiums is as follows:

“This survey speaks volumes to what we’re seeing with troubled clients everyday,” said Paul Rauseo, managing director of the George S. May International Company. “A recipe for disaster is looming among small businesses that are already not profitable, as they struggle with this very difficult challenge to try and provide for their own employees.”

“The most glaring number is the fact that 22 percent of those small businesses that offer health insurance only pay 50 percent, which is a clear sign of being in survival mode,” Rauseo said. “These are the same employees that are being driven harder and harder each day to keep the very business alive that simply does not have the means to provide 100 percent employer-paid health insurance; many cannot afford any employer participation, much less holiday bonuses or other benefits.”

“One of the best arguments for the longevity of the current economic rebound is temporary hiring,” said Prabakaran Murugaiah, CEO of Corp-Corp.com. “Many companies that cut back to bare bones staff during the worst of the recession are now beginning to hire contract workers.”

According to Murugaiah: “Full-time, regular employment may not pick up until corporate management believes there is sustainable growth in the US economy, but they continue to be willing to spend on contract positions, and our analysis projects growth of at least 6% in Q3 2009.”

For the second year in a row, Boston’s Nutter McClennen & Fish ranked number one overall on work satisfaction. Associates said that the firm’s size at just 150 lawyers allowed them to take more of a leadership role in their work. St. Louis’ Thompson Coburn ranked second overall, up from tenth place last year. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher at fourth place overall was the highest-ranked Am Law 100 firm. White & Case dropped to last place in the 2009 overall rankings, while Winston & Strawn received this year’s lowest rating on the handling of layoffs and communications.

Columbus Ohio’s Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease rose in the overall survey ranks from 156^th place to seventh this year—the biggest jump of any firm—by freezing legal fees without freezing associate pay, even though partners saw a 4.5 percent drop in their profits.

Since January 2008, Am Law 200 firms have laid off more than 2,900 lawyers. But despite their job anxiety, only 8 percent of respondents said they were actively looking for another job, and almost half said they expected to be at their current firms in five years. Seventy-three percent said they considered themselves to be on a partnership track.

To find out how third-, fourth-, and fifth-year associates rate their firms as workplaces, the annual midlevel survey examined 12 areas that contribute to job satisfaction. They include relations with partners and other associates, the interest and satisfaction level of the work, training and guidance, policy on billable hours, management’s openness about firm strategies and partnership chances, the firm’s attitude toward pro bono work, compensation and benefits, and the respondents’ inclination to stay at their firm for at least two more years. This year, almost 6,200 third-, fourth- and fifth-year associates from 165 firms responded to the expanded survey questionnaire, representing a 38 percent response rate.

Lawyers have the illustrious opportunity to essentially be two people at once, both hated scoundrels and loved soldiers of the law. The career itself is lucrative and can often be the voice behind an excellent cause all while continuously facing the blunt-end of jokes, puns and knee-slappers. While we are all the instigators of such blithe remarks, there is just as much discontent within the practice and many are taking the fall of ‘big-firms’ to start a career of their dreams.

Whether by force (lay-off) or mere self-induced psychosis (stress of the job), the resiliency of the law community is something to applaud. Many are heading towards careers that couldn’t be further away from practicing law but are finding new and creative ways to keep food on the table.

In June, both the Washington Examiner and abovethelaw.com (a legal tabloid) featured a story about Gordon Chin. Chin, an American University graduate, had a great career at Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell before being laid off in November of last year. Since then, Chin has followed his passion of interior design and is making quite a name for himself in the D.C. area- accomplishing anything from interior design to stage/set planning.

And the list goes on….

The superstar of the ex-lawyer community is probably David E. Kelley. The one-time successful lawyer turned Hollywood writer is responsible for some of the highest grossing sitcoms around. He is responsible for the timeless ‘lawyer-friendly’ shows such as “The Practice,” “Ally McBeal” and “Boston Public.”

The trend is even hotter for fresh graduates of law-school. Facing the grim outlook of potential unemployment, many students are seeking other means. A perfect example being New York Law School Grad Lev Ekster who turned entrepreneur and founded Cupcakestop.com – a mobile cupcake service offering delectable sweets to New Yorkers on the go. Ekster keeps his loyal followers updated on location via twitter and is slowly establishing himself as a New York icon.

As history would prove, innovation always comes out of necessity and the law community is definitely not an exception. Everyone is being hit hard right now, but in the end it is what we make with what we have that really judges success.

Are you an ex lawyer facing a new career? In a field you never thought you would be in? Join the discussion! I want to hear your thoughts…

The comprehensive ruling in Kilper, et al. v. City of Arnold, Missouri, et al., adds onto the list of other cases across the United States in stating that photo-enforcement programs are constitutional public safety programs. Today’s ruling is consistent with a January ruling by the Seventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, affirming the constitutionality of red-light photo-enforcement programs.

“We have long held that this lawsuit was frivolous, and we are pleased that the U.S. District Court of Eastern Missouri has confirmed this fact. This opinion further negates unfounded claims against red-light camera safety programs and confirms the legality, constitutionality and safety benefits of photo enforcement,” said James Tuton, President and CEO of American Traffic Solutions. “Red-light camera safety programs successfully modify driver behavior by increasing compliance with traffic laws. These programs have proven to improve safety on the roadways by reducing red-light running, which causes unnecessary crashes, injuries and deaths.”

The U.S. District Court held that the ordinance allowing for the City of Arnold’s red-light camera safety program “…has a legitimate, non-punitive, public safety purpose. Moreover, the use of red light cameras and related proceedings are rationally connected to the valid public safety purpose of reducing traffic accidents at traffic light intersections.” The court further held that because enforcement of a red-light camera ordinance is a civil proceeding, issuing notices of red-light violations to the owner of the vehicle did not violate due process or wrongfully shift the burden of proof.

Boston attorney Joan Griffin, who with Chris Robertson of Seyfarth Shaw represented the Company and Dr. Platt at trial said, “Unfortunately, even meritless claims against intellectual property can be difficult to extinguish, creating an unwarranted cloud over a strong company with promising new technology. The post-trial dismissal of this case is the right result.”

Jonathan Guest, of Greenberg Traurig, corporate counsel to the Company which provided intellectual property support to the trial team, praised the high quality and cost-efficiency of Ms. Griffin’s and Mr. Robertson’s trial preparation and presentation. He commented that “this was an important victory for a company that desires to devote resources to its drug development program.”

“Putting this lawsuit behind us is a significant event,” said Theodore Zucconi, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, Pro-Pharmaceuticals. “This decision enables us to forge ahead with the commercialization of DAVANAT through partnerships with pharmaceutical companies, and gaining FDA approval for DAVANAT. We believe DAVANAT will dramatically improve the quality of life for cancer patients.”

On May 15, 2009, Prospect announced that it was liquidating and had assigned all of its assets for the benefit of creditors. In response, the Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit on various grounds, including failure to prosecute. At a post trial hearing on July 14, 2009, in a ruling from the bench, the Court allowed the Company’s motion to dismiss.

The imprisoned ex-Enron Corp Chief Executive Officer Jeffery Skilling is back at trial today. Skilling is currently serving a 24-year sentence for deceiving investors and employees about Enron’s fiscal health, consequently leading to a cluster of financial atom-bombs. However, Skilling stands before the court today to not receive more backlashes from his peers but to reduce his sentence…?

District Court Judge Sim Lake in Houston, Texas did the original sentencing. But complaints via friends, family and even law professionals felt that the 24 year and 4 month sentence was a bit tough. Lake was under the impression that Skilling’s wrongdoings endangered a financial institution which is what led to the harsh punishment.

With new evidence and guidelines surfaced, Skilling is likely to have his sentence reduced somewhere between 188 and 235 months – roughly 15 ½ years.

However, the controversy is not likely to cease. There are still a lot of angry Enronites out there who enjoy the fact that Skilling is behind bars. And given that it is also feasible for Judge Lake to simply reinstate the first sentencing, it should make for quite the courtroom showdown. Both sides are braced with the best and brightest of their given practices and with the likelihood that Skilling’s sentence could be upheld – there may be even more appeals to come.