|
|
|
Mark D. Pierce Adds Expertise to Slack & Davis
Law Firm News |
2008/01/04 17:23
|
While the attorneys of Slack & Davis, L.L.P. bring years of legal experience to each personal injury case, the firm’s range of aviation expertise is what sets it apart. With the addition of attorney Mark D. Pierce, that range just got a little wider.
Mark Pierce, formerly of El Paso, is an experienced trial lawyer as well as an FAA-licensed commercial pilot and flight instructor who will add specific background in aircraft systems, piloting, regulations, navigation, weather, air traffic control, human factors, training and many other aviation disciplines. His other credentials include:
* Board certified in civil trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
* Martindale-Hubbell AV-Rated
* Past president, El Paso Trial Lawyers Association, 1994 to 1996
* Graduate of The University of Texas at Austin (J.D., with honors, 1979)
“Slack & Davis’ hands-on aviation knowledge makes us the go-to team for aviation-related legal matters – not just in Texas but throughout the U.S.,” managing partner Michael Slack said, “but it’s our reputation for winning cases that seals the deal. Mark’s skills as an aviator and as a trial lawyer will boost our reputation on both fronts.”
In addition to plaintiffs’ cases, Pierce will offer legal services on the business side. The firm, founded in 1993, has seen a rise over the past two years in requests for legal representation related to aviation business transactions. Ladd Sanger, managing partner for the Dallas office, offers this reason for the growth: “We found that as more people choose private and corporate jet travel, they’re needing attorneys to help them navigate the aircraft acquisition and sales process. People know us as ‘the aviation lawyers’ so naturally they come to us for help. We’re simply staffing to meet the demand.”
ABOUT SLACK & DAVIS, L.L.P.
Founded in 1993, Slack & Davis, L.L.P. is known nationwide for its success representing families who’ve experienced loss as a result of an airplane or helicopter crash. The firm’s diverse legal expertise includes other complex personal injury cases that involve heavy trucks and defective automobiles, dangerous consumer products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Our team of attorneys, which includes aviators and aviation professionals, is also highly skilled at handling business disputes related to aircraft acquisitions and sales. With offices in Austin and Dallas, Slack & Davis has the track record, talent and resources to handle major cases throughout the U.S. – and achieve optimum results. Find out more at slackdavis.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
McGuire Woods Elects 15 Partners to Firm
Law Firm News |
2008/01/04 17:12
|
McGuireWoods LLP is pleased to announce that 15 associates have been elected partners of the firm, effective January 1, 2008.
The newly elected partners for McGuireWoods include:
Lisa A. Atty, Real Estate Department, Los Angeles Office
Ilene A. Bailey, Real Estate Department, Baltimore, Md., Office
Robert A. Cox, Jr., Restructuring & Insolvency, Charlotte, N.C., Office
C. Simon Davidson, Government Investigations, Washington D.C. Office
Walter J. Dunn, Energy & Utilities Department, Richmond, Va., Office
William G. Fendley, IV, Tax & Utilities Department, Richmond, Va., Office
David E. Finkelson, IP Litigation/Patents Department, Richmond, Va., Office
John S. Hilten, IP Litigation/Patents Department, Tysons Corner, Va., Office
John A. Leja, IP Litigation/Patents Department, Chicago Office
Elena D. Marcuss, Labor & Employment, Baltimore, Md., Office
Perry W. Miles, IV, Products & Consumer Litigation, Richmond, Va., Office
Amy Miller, Labor & Employment, Tysons Corner, Va., Office
Derek A. Roach, Technology & Business, Chicago Office
Christopher J. Verstrate, International Department, Chicago Office
John R. Visconsi, Real Estate Department, Los Angeles Office
McGuireWoods LLP is a full-service law firm with approximately 750 lawyers in 15 offices in the United States, Europe and Central Asia providing legal counsel to clients around the world. For more information, visit www.mcguirewoods.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Husch Blackwell Sanders Merger in KC
Law Firm News |
2008/01/04 17:01
|
The law firms of Blackwell Sanders & Husch Eppenberger will be known as Husch Blackwell Sanders following their merger in a few weeks.
The name was decided by a coin toss “because we felt that in a true merger of equals this was the most fair way to determine the new name,” said Joseph P. Conran, co-chairman of the new firm.
Partners at the two firms last month overwhelmingly approved the merger, which will create a firm with 630 attorneys in offices in Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield and Jefferson City, Mo.; Omaha and Lincoln, Neb.; Chattanooga and Memphis, Tenn.; Peoria and Belleville, Ill.; Overland Park; Washington, D.C.; and London. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navy must cut sonar use off California
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/01/04 16:33
|
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Thursday ordered the toughest set of restrictions ever imposed on the U.S. Navy's use of mid-frequency sonar off the Southern California coast as part of a protracted court battle to protect whales and other marine mammals from underwater sonic blasts. The order was the first time the judge has spelled out specific rules the Navy must follow to avoid a court-imposed ban on training missions with a type of sonar that has been linked to the death and panicked behavior of whales and dolphins.
U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ordered the Navy to refrain from using the powerful submarine-hunting sonar within 12 miles of the coast, a corridor heavily used by migrating gray whales, dolphins and other marine mammals.
She also ordered that the Navy spend an hour before it starts any training mission searching for marine mammals in the area and that it continue using shipboard observers and aircraft to monitor for whales and dolphins while the sonar is in use.
If any marine mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards of a ship using sonar, the Navy will have to cease its use immediately.
In her 18-page order, Cooper said the Navy's proposed strategy of slowly reducing sonar power and then shutting it off when whales or dolphins come within 200 yards "is grossly inadequate to protect marine mammals from debilitation levels of sonar exposure."
The judge, who has spent years poring over studies about whale deaths and injuries after Navy exercises, has suggested in her rulings that she wants to balance competing interests of national security and fleet readiness with environmental protections.
She noted that the Navy's own study concluded that upcoming exercises off Southern California "will cause widespread harm to nearly 30 species of marine mammals, including five species of endangered whales and may cause permanent injury and death."
Because scientists have chronicled panicked responses from marine mammals as far as 40 kilometers away, Cooper said the 2,200-yard shutdown requirement "represents a minimal imposition of the Navy's training exercises" while preventing the harshest sonar-related consequences.
Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman, said the Navy is considering its options.
"Despite the care the court took in crafting its order, we do not believe it struck the right balance between national security and environmental concerns," Davis said.
Davis said the Navy is mostly concerned about having to shut down sonar completely in a safety buffer zone that is far larger than it planned. Defense lawyers argued that the scientific evidence doesn't clearly show such safeguards are necessary.
The Navy has also asserted that some restrictions may hamper its ability to adequately train its sailors in antisubmarine warfare and may put sailors and national security at risk of attack by the quiet diesel-electric submarines operated by some potentially hostile nations in various hot spots around the globe.
Meanwhile, environmental groups and a state official considered the order a victory.
"It's a complete vindication" of the California Coastal Commission's actions, said Peter Douglas, the commission's executive director. "We know there are things that the Navy can do to protect marine mammals while they conduct their exercises, but the Navy refused. The court said, 'No, you have to comply.' "
The Coastal Commission, which has the legal authority to comment on federal activities off the California coast, joined a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups that have tried to force the Navy to take greater precautions.
"We've said from the beginning that we don't want to stop the Navy from training but substantially increase protections against unnecessary harm to whales and other marine mammals," said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This order does that."
In addition to the 12-mile buffer along the coast, the judge forbade the use of mid-frequency active sonar in the Catalina Basin, an underwater canyon between Santa Catalina Island and the Navy-owned San Clemente Island, because it's an area known to have a high density of whales.
But the judge refused to bar the Navy from conducting exercises off the Tanner and Cortez banks, and the Westfall seamount -- undersea mountains that tend to attract whales. Nor would she set any restrictions on operations at night or in the fog or other times of low visibility, when spotting marine mammals may prove difficult.
Instead, she opted for a more rigorous effort to keep watch for whales, including using passive acoustic monitoring to listen for whale clicks, chirps and songs -- especially for those of deep-diving beaked whales, which appear to be particularly sensitive to sonar activities. These mysterious whales have washed ashore injured or dead after naval exercises using mid-frequency sonar in the Bahamas in 2000 and the Canary Islands in 2003.
In August, Cooper issued a temporary injunction banning all training exercises off Southern California waters until she could sort out the merits of the lawsuit. The Navy took the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which instructed Cooper to narrow her injunction to specific safeguards the Navy could adopt to continue its training missions while the legal issues are thrashed out in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanofi says to fight class action bid
Class Action News |
2008/01/04 13:34
|
Drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis, the target of a lawsuit seeking class-action status filed on behalf of shareholders, on Friday vowed to fight allegations it hid the side-effects of its anti-obesity drug Acomplia.
A Sanofi-Aventis spokesman told Reuters that the company had seen the statement issued by the U.S. law firm that filed the lawsuit, Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, and that it was "disputing the allegations contained in the statement and plans to vigorously defend itself". Sanofi-Aventis had no further comment. In a statement available on its website, the law firm said the suit was filed in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York "on behalf of all purchasers" of Sanofi-Aventis securities from Feb 17, 2006 through June 13, 2007. "...the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose material adverse data concerning Zimulti's tendency to cause a statistically significant increase in psychiatric problems, including suicidal thoughts and actions," the statement said. On June 13 an advisory committee said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should reject the proposed pill, called Zimulti in the United States, because of concerns it could increase suicidal thinking and depression. The recommendation triggered a sharp fall in Sanofi's share price in the following days. This is not the first time Sanofi has faced possible Acomplia-related lawsuits seeking class-action status. In November 2007, U.S. law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Tobbins LLP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging Sanofi-Aventis misled investors about prospects for Acomplia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fla.: Feds Approve Gambling Agreement
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/01/03 17:06
|
| Federal authorities approved an agreement between Gov. Charlie Crist and the Seminole Tribe that allows expanded gambling at the tribe's casinos in exchange for payments to the state, officials said. Attorney General Bill McCollum and the governor's office said the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday approved the compact Crist signed with the tribe. It now has to be published in the Federal Register to take effect. It was not immediately clear when that would happen, and a spokeswoman for the department's Bureau of Indian Affairs didn't return a call seeking comment. McCollum said he is asking a federal judge to quickly hold a hearing on a lawsuit he filed last month to keep the agreement from going into effect until the Florida Supreme Court decides whether Crist was authorized to sign the compact without legislative approval. The agreement allows Las Vegas-style slots and card games like blackjack and baccarat at the Seminole's seven casinos. The state would get $50 million immediately and $100 million guaranteed in the first year. In the second year, the state is guaranteed $125 million and at least $150 million in the third year. Following that, the amount depends on revenues - but everyone involved in the negotiations said it will quickly add up to billions. Without the compact, the tribe would have at least been able to install Las Vegas style slots without paying any money to the state because the Florida approved slots at Broward County jai-alai frontons and horse and dog tracks. Crist signed the compact in November. House Speaker Marco Rubio and Senate President Ken Pruitt are challenging Crist's authority to enter into the agreement on his own and the Supreme Court plans a hearing on the case Jan. 30. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
