|
|
|
US Supreme Court refuses to hear rendition case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/10/12 15:12
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear an appeal filed on behalf of a German citizen of Lebanese descent who claims he was abducted by United States agents and then tortured by them while imprisoned in Afghanistan. Without comment, the justices let stand an appeals court ruling that the state secrets privilege, a judicially created doctrine that the Bush administration has invoked to win dismissal of lawsuits that touch on issues of national security, protected the government’s actions from court review. In refusing to take up the case, the justices declined a chance to elaborate on the privilege for the first time in more than 50 years. The case involved Khaled el-Masri, who says he was detained while on vacation in Macedonia in late 2003, transported by the United States to Afghanistan and held there for five months in a secret prison before being taken to Albania and set free, evidently having been mistaken for a terrorism suspect with a similar name. Mr. Masri says he was tortured while in the prison. After prosecutors in Germany investigated the case, a court there issued arrest warrants in January for 13 agents of the Central Intelligence Agency. The German Parliament is continuing to investigate the episode, which has become a very public example of the United States government’s program of "extraordinary rendition." Mr. Masri, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, brought a lawsuit in federal court against George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence from 1997 to 2004; three private airline companies; and 20 people identified only as John Doe. He sought damages for treatment that he said violated both the Constitution and international law. Shortly after he filed the lawsuit in December 2005, the government intervened to seek its dismissal under the state secrets privilege, asserting that to have to provide evidence in the case would compromise national security. That argument succeeded in the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., which dismissed the case without permitting Mr. Masri’s lawyers to take discovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld the dismissal in March. In their Supreme Court appeal, El-Masri v. United States, No. 06-1613, Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that these rulings allowed the state secrets doctrine to become "unmoored" from its origins as a rule to be invoked to shield specific evidence in a lawsuit against the government, rather than to dismiss an entire case before any evidence was produced. The Supreme Court created the doctrine in a 1953 decision, United States v. Reynolds, which began as a lawsuit by survivors of three civilians who had died in the crash of a military aircraft. In pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs sought the official accident report. But the government, asserting that the report included information about the plane’s secret mission and the equipment that it was testing, refused to reveal it. The Supreme Court upheld the government, ruling that evidence should not be disclosed when "there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that this decision, which the court has occasionally invoked but has not revisited, did not justify dismissing a case before any evidence was requested. Ben Wizner, Mr. Masri’s lawyer at the civil liberties union, said in an interview that the courts had permitted the doctrine to evolve from an evidentiary privilege to a broad grant of immunity, a way for the executive branch to shield itself from judicial scrutiny. In this case, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement offered to let the justices see, "under appropriate security measures," the classified declaration that the government filed in the lower courts to support its claim of privilege. The court evidently did not think that step was necessary. The court will soon have other opportunities to revisit the state secrets issue. Last week the A.C.L.U. filed an appeal that raises the issue as part of a challenge to the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without court warrants. |
|
|
|
|
|
Study: Law firm technology expected to grow
Headline News |
2007/10/12 13:18
|
Although the largest U.S. law firms have average annual technology operating budgets of almost $10 million - about 17,000 per lawyer - market penetration by most legal software products is still relatively moderate, according to a new Legal Technology Market Assessment study released today by ALM Research and Cogent Research. The study, by Cambridge, Mass.-based Cogent and New York-based ALM Research, measured user satisfaction, market penetration and brand loyalty to technology products in five legal technology areas: case/management, document management, electronic discovery, client development and online research. Online research tools proved to be the most widely available and used technologies at law firms, according to the study. The study also documents the proliferation of free legal information on the Web. The average respondent spends about 40 percent of his or her research time using search engines such as Google, to find free, basic information. |
|
|
|
|
|
'Mansion Madam' pleads guilty to prostitution
Criminal Law Updates |
2007/10/12 12:38
|
Former Penthouse model Lisa Ann Taylor pleaded guilty Wednesday to prostitution and drug charges, culminating a high profile criminal case involving sordid allegations in an exclusive neighborhood. Judge William Ray of Gwinnett Superior Court sentenced the so-called "Mansion Madam" to seven years of probation. The judge also ordered her to pay $150,000 within one year. If she doesn't, authorities plan to seize her house — valued at more than $1 million — in Sugarloaf Country Club. District Attorney Danny Porter of Gwinnett County said the $150,000 figure represented Taylor's earnings as a prostitute in 2006, when she received roughly $3,000 or more each week. "In the end it was a hooker case," Porter said. "She was treated no differently than someone that was charged with the possession of cocaine and prostitution and didn't have a prior record. ... And the judge gave her a chance to straighten out her life. Whether she does, we'll see." The case made national headlines because Taylor and another woman, Nicole Probert, were accused of running a brothel in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in metro Atlanta. Sugarloaf Country Club is home to some high-profile entertainers and athletes. Taylor's own celebrity status as a former Penthouse Pet of the Month and a stripper who went by the name of Melissa Wolf added to the media frenzy. Probert has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial, as are several men authorities say were their customers. Porter said Taylor's plea will likely bring a quick resolution of the other cases. When asked whether Probert would accept a similar plea deal, her attorney Steve Sadow said, "The simple answer is no. My expectation is that the case can be resolved without a trial and without a guilty plea." Max Richardson, Taylor's attorney, said Taylor plans to "get on with her new life" and hopes "she can sell real estate if she doesn't get blackballed by everybody. News of Taylor's arrest sent shockwaves through the gated community and made national news. Days after police arrested Taylor on Jan. 3, 2007, neighbors told reporters about loud parties and lewd behavior at Taylor's house. Yet they also said other neighbors sometimes threw loud parties. "We've got athletes and rock singers, and on occasion they throw big parties; they tend to be loud," one neighbor, Richard Hassberger, told reporters then. Soon, however, prosecutors painted a lurid portrait that detailed something very much out of the ordinary happening behind closed doors in Taylor's house. Taylor was Penthouse Pet of the Month in 1985 and starred in several X-rated films. Probert performed as an adult entertainer under the name "Naughty Nikki." Together, authorities said, they charged clients $5,000 to $10,000 for sex in the country club home. Prosecutors also charged them with providing cocaine to some clients. A Gwinnett County grand jury later indicted Taylor and Probert on drug, prostitution and racketeering charges. The charges said the women offered to perform sex acts as "a duo" on 12 occasions beginning in January 2006 but that the last four occasions were not completed because of the womens' arrest. The case against Taylor took an unexpected turn about three weeks ago, on Sept. 21, when police in Duluth pulled over a car in which she was riding. Authorities said the car was weaving. They also said they found cocaine and prescription drugs; police charged her with three felony and one misdemeanor drug charges. Richardson, her attorney, said that the prescription drugs were prescribed for depression and related problems. Up to that point, Taylor had been out of jail on bond, awaiting the resolution of the prostitution charges against her, but her arrest on Sept. 21 sent her to the Gwinnett County Jail with no bond allowed. The prospect of remaining in jail until her trial on the prostitution and drug charges played a key role in Taylor's decision to plead guilty on Wednesday afternoon, her lawyer said. Now, he said, she's eager for a fresh start. "We're just hoping somebody gives her a chance," he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Denver, Calif. Law Firms to Merge
Headline News |
2007/10/12 11:39
|
An influential Denver law firm said it would merge with a California firm that specializes in water law, a move it said would position it to represent clients across the West in water cases. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's merger with Hatch & Parent is effective Jan. 1. The merged firm, which will still be called Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, will be based in Denver but will have 210 lawyers and advisers in 12 locations mostly in the West but one in Washington, D.C. Brownstein already handles water cases in addition to real estate, lobbying, litigation, corporate law and gaming cases. Jim Lochhead, a Brownstein lawyer who specializes in water, said Thursday that the merger will allow the combined firm to handle cases across the West at all stages, from arguing for water rights in court to securing permits from regulators. Lochhead said water will become the most important natural resource in the West over the next 20 to 30 years because of climate change and population growth. He thinks utilities and private industry will increasingly be looking for new ways to provide it and willing to go farther to get it, such as recycling water or converting sea water to drinking water. "Those kinds of projects and that kind of thinking is really going to require a broadbased approach," Lochhead said. He said the firm would not be able to represent any cases in which California and Colorado water interests are in direct opposition. But increasingly he thinks complicated water disputes will be worked out by negotiating, as happened recently among upper and lower basin states who depend on water from the Colorado River. Brownstein's current clients include the Denver suburb of Aurora, the Idaho Power Co. and real estate developers in New Mexico and Colorado. Hatch & Parent represents the San Diego Water Authority, the cities of Fresno and Oxnard and the South Tahoe Public Utility District. |
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwater USA Sued by Philadelphia Law Firm
Court Feed News |
2007/10/12 10:35
|
Blackwater has had a suit filed against it by a Philly law firm on behalf of the families killed and hurt last month in Iraq. The lawsuit dubs the incident 'a senseless slaying' and says that it's part of 'Blackwater's lengthy patter of egregious misconduct.' Iraqi officials call the incident 'premeditated murder.' Blackwater still claims that its contractors acted lawfully. Burke O'Neil LLC was asked to file the suit. The firm has represented others who were in the Abu Ghraib prison scandals. Blackwater has recieved over $1 billion in contracts. The suit claims Blackwater had already dropped off its passenger and wasnt protecting anyone. Blackwater says the team was going to aid another team proecting a diplomat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm fears government is tapping phones
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/10/12 10:21
|
A law firm that represents clients at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan is warning its Vermont clients that it believes the federal government has been monitoring its phones and computer system. In a letter sent to clients of the St. Johnsbury firm of Gensburg, Atwell & Broderick, the three attorneys said they can't guarantee their communications were confidential. "Although our investigation is not complete, we are quite confident that it is the United States government that has been doing the phone tapping and computer hacking," said the letter, dated Oct. 2.
The attorney for Robert Gensburg, David Sleigh of St. Johnsbury, said Thursday that it could turn out there is an innocent, nongovernmental reason for the problems with the telephone and the firm's office computer system.
"Bob is an incredibly cautious and deliberate guy," Sleigh said. "We don't want to make allegations that are not supportable. We do have hard evidence that his phone was compromised and his computer was compromised."
U.S. Attorney Thomas D. Anderson, the federal government's top law enforcement official in Vermont, said Thursday that he couldn't comment. Verizon has consistently refused to comment on whether it is involved with national security issues, spokeswoman Beth Fastiggi said Thursday.
A Verizon Vermont technician who investigated problems with Gensburg's phone last month found crossed lines, but didn't explain what caused the problem, Sleigh said.
A forensic examination of Gensburg's computer found an application that disabled all security software and would have given someone access to all information on the computer, Sleigh said.
Sleigh said it could be a routine infection introduced into the machine by e-mail.
"Given the phone situation, a number of another anomalies we've observed over time ... we think we have legitimate cause for concern," Sleigh said.
Gensburg represents a client in Afghanistan and one of the prisoners held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay.
Sleigh said that under federal law, he thought the U.S. government could argue it was entitled to tap Gensburg's phone and computer without a warrant.
This summer, Congress passed a surveillance law that allows the government to eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States, even when the communications flow through the U.S. communications network -- or if an American is on one end of the conversation -- so long as that person is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.
The Bush administration said this was necessary because technological advances in communications had put U.S. officials at a disadvantage.
Congress is considering a bill to extend that law.
Last month, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Gensburg complained to the Vermont Public Service Board, which oversees utilities in the state, about the alleged monitoring of Gensburg's phone lines.
The Public Service Board is trying to decide whether to investigate if Verizon Vermont and AT&T gave the federal government access to Vermont residents' phone records as part of an anti-terrorist surveillance program.
Sleigh said that to the best of his knowledge, none of the firm's clients has expressed concern that their legal communications could have been overheard. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|