|
|
|
Lawyer in Katrina Case Faces Bribery Charge
Headline News |
2007/11/29 10:17
|
A 40 percent contingency fee negotiated by a Manhattan law firm retained by the widow of a real estate developer involved in a multimillion-dollar estate dispute was not "unconscionable on its face," an appeals court ruled yesterday. The court said that "at first blush," the 40 percent fee — worth about $42 million — that was claimed by the law firm, Graubard Miller, from Alice Lawrence, the 83-year-old widow of the real estate developer Sylvan Lawrence, "might arguably seem excessive and invite skepticism." But a majority of the five-member panel of the court, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, ruled that whether the fee was reasonable should be determined at a trial, based on a further exploration of the discussions that led to the fee agreement and the difficulty of the case. In a dissent, one justice, James M. Catterson, called the fee "exorbitant." He said that the retainer agreement was signed when a $60 million settlement offer was already on the table. The estate was settled just five months later for more than $100 million, the judge said, meaning that the law firm's fee was almost equal to the additional amount it won. Mark Zauderer, a lawyer for the firm, said in a telephone interview that Graubard Miller was delighted with the decision, which was issued in response to Mrs. Lawrence's appeal of two decisions in Surrogate's Court. Mr. Zauderer said that the fee had been justified by the law firm's success in winning about $115 million for Mrs. Lawrence against Seymour Cohn, her husband's brother, business partner and executor — against an adversary who, he said, was "extremely wealthy and well defended." "What the courts recognize is that a fee agreement is not unconscionable simply because it can produce a big fee," Mr. Zauderer said. "You have to look at the value rendered to the client." Leslie Corwin, Mrs. Lawrence's current lawyer, said there was a "strong possibility" that she would seek to have the Court of Appeals hear the case. Mr. Lawrence died in 1981. At the time, he and his brother owned "more than 90 commercial buildings and parcels of real estate," the dissent said. Mrs. Lawrence wanted to sell them. Mr. Cohn, who died in 2003, opposed her. "This is now the third time a court or a judge has affirmed the right of the Graubard firm to be paid a well-earned fee in which it got a tremendous result in a highly complex case," Mr. Zauderer said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ford Agrees to Settle Rollover Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/29 01:03
|
Ford Motor Co has agreed to settle class-action litigation covering plaintiffs in four states who claimed its Explorer sport utility vehicles were prone to rollovers, Ford said on Wednesday. "From Ford's position, we believe the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best in interests of our customers and our shareholders," Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said. A preliminary approval hearing was scheduled for Monday, Kinley said, but declined to estimate the cost to Ford. The settlement applies to about 1 million people in California, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas, according to the Associated Press, which cited Kevin Roddy, a New Jersey attorney and co-counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit. The attorney, who could not immediately be reached, told the AP that the settlement would be filed later on Wednesday in Sacramento County Superior Court. It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln Mercury products. The settlements apply to Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, Roddy said in the report. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court Skeptical of Maine Tobacco Law
Court Feed News |
2007/11/28 19:03
|
Cast in the good-guy role of stopping Internet cigarette sales to children, Maine's deputy attorney general got roughed up Wednesday by several Supreme Court justices who suggested the law is not on his side. Paul Stern argued that his state, like many others, is trying to keep tobacco from underage smokers and that cannot be done without the help of companies that deliver cigarettes bought over the Internet. Congress has encouraged the states "to deal with the significant public health problem of youth access to tobacco," Stern told the court, arguing for Maine's right to regulate shipment of cigarettes bought online. Shipping industry associations that are challenging the law object to delivery requirements that they say only the federal government can impose. Federal law bars states from regulating prices, routes or services of shipping companies and Maine's law "certainly relates to the service" of the shipping companies, Chief Justice John Roberts said. "It talks about what carriers have to do," Roberts added. Recent research says children as young as age 11 were successful more than 90 percent of the time in buying cigarettes over the Internet. At last count, there were 772 Internet cigarette vendors, a nearly nine-fold increase in seven years, according to Kurt Ribisl, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina's school of public health who has spent the past eight years studying the issue. In 2002, at the start of the boom in Internet cigarette sites, a study found that Internet vendors sold 400 million packs of cigarettes a year, 2 percent of the cigarettes consumed in the United States and a figure that anti-smoking groups say is growing. The case also involves the issue of uncollected state taxes. One study found that three-quarters of Internet tobacco sellers say they will not report cigarette sales to tax collection officials. A private research firm found states lose as much as $1.4 billion annually in uncollected tobacco taxes through Internet sales. The lost revenue is a concern to Maine and about 40 other states that have tried to prohibit or severely restrict the direct delivery of tobacco products to consumers. The differences in the state laws are a burden to business, several justices suggested. "What if every state enacted a slightly different law relating to this and a slightly different law relating to every other product that they might want to restrict for health or safety reasons?" asked Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Stephen Breyer said it would be a "nightmare" if every state were to pass a different law on what it takes to prove that a shipping company knowingly delivered an unlicensed product. To Justice David Souter, the federal ban on state regulation of interstate shipping was intended "to end the economic effects of state patchwork transportation regulation." If Maine's tobacco delivery law is not tossed out, "there will be different delivery laws in states across the country, and that patchwork will eliminate the efficiency and the cost savings that was Congress' intent," said lawyer Beth Brinkmann, arguing for the transportation associations. Maine says delivery companies must check packages against a list from the state of known unlicensed tobacco retailers. The shipping companies must deliver only to the person to whom the package is addressed and a recipient under 27 must present identification before the package can be delivered. Facing legal trouble in New York state in 2005, United Parcel Service Inc. agreed to stop shipping cigarettes to individual consumers in all 50 states. The company says it did so because of the varying state laws. FedEx and DHL have signed similar agreements. Two lower federal courts have rejected Maine's law. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case by next June. The case is Rowe, v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 06-457. |
|
|
|
|
|
Penn Prof Pleads Guilty to Killing Wife
Criminal Law Updates |
2007/11/28 16:07
|
An Ivy League professor pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter for beating his wife to death with a chin-up bar as she wrapped Christmas presents last year, telling a judge he "just lost it" during an argument. Rafael Robb, a tenured economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, faces a likely prison sentence of 4 1/2 to seven years for the Dec. 22 bludgeoning of his wife, Ellen. She was planning to move out the next month and seek a divorce after a rocky 16-year marriage. Robb, 57, testified Monday that he argued with his wife about a trip she and their daughter were taking over the holiday break. He did not want the 12-year-old to miss any school. "We started a discussion about that. The discussion was tense," Robb said. "We were both anxious about it. We both got angry. At one point, Ellen pushed me. ... I just lost it." Robb said he picked up the chin-up bar, which was lying nearby, and struck his wife with it repeatedly. He later threw the weapon in a trash bin in Philadelphia and tried to make their home look as if it had been burglarized. Detectives were suspicious from the start, though, because the scene was poorly staged and nothing was missing. The 49-year-old homemaker was found dead in the kitchen, near the partially wrapped presents. Robb's trial had been scheduled to start Monday. He could have faced a life sentence if convicted of first-degree murder, but prosecutors felt there were no guarantees given the circumstantial evidence. The professor pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter, which is defined as an intentional, unlawful killing, with provocation, in the heat of passion. Montgomery County prosecutor Bruce Castor called the case "a classic heat-of-passion killing." Robb adored his daughter Olivia and feared he would see less of her in a divorce, both sides agreed. University spokesman Ron Ozio said a Penn official spoke to Robb's lawyer after Monday's hearing and asked for his resignation. Ellen Robb's brothers, Art Gregory of Haddonfield, N.J., and Gary Gregory of Boston, said their sister suffered verbal abuse throughout the marriage, eroding her self-esteem. "What kept them there was their undying love for their daughter Olivia," said Art Gregory, who is now raising the girl. "Both of them put Olivia first, beyond anything else, unfortunately to a very tragic end." Rafael Robb apologized to Olivia, who was not in court, and said he was "very remorseful." "I know she liked her mother. ... And now she doesn't have a mother," he said, stifling tears. Robb, who has been held without bail, talked to his daughter by phone over the weekend and admitted that he was responsible for her mother's death. They have not seen each other since his arrest in January. Sentencing will likely take place in a few months. Guidelines call for a prison term of 4 1/2 to seven years, but Castor said the statute allows for anything from probation to 10 to 20 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
Judge removed after jailing entire court room
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/28 15:53
|
A judge who jailed 46 people who were in his courtroom when a cell phone call interrupted proceedings was removed from the bench Tuesday by a state commission. Niagara Falls City Court Judge Robert Restaino "snapped" and "engaged in what can only be described as two hours of inexplicable madness" during the March 2005 session, Raoul Felder, chairman of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, wrote in the decision to remove Restaino from the $113,900-per-year post. A phone rang while Restaino was hearing the cases of domestic violence offenders who had been ordered to appear weekly to update the judge on the progress of their counseling. A sign in the courthouse warns that cell phones and pagers must be turned off. "Everyone is going to jail," Restaino said. "Every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going." When no one came forward, Restaino ordered the group into custody, and they were taken to jail, where they were searched and packed into crowded cells. Fourteen people who could not post bail were shackled and bused to another jail. Restaino ordered them released later that afternoon. Restaino told the state panel he had been under stress in his personal life. His attorney, Terrence Connors, said Restaino would appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware River Dispute at Supreme Court
Court Feed News |
2007/11/28 14:56
|
Delaware and New Jersey squared off in the Supreme Court Tuesday over which state gets to decide whether a liquefied natural gas terminal gets built on the Delaware River. The dispute centers on a proposed LNG terminal that energy giant BP wants to build on the Jersey side of the river. New Jersey officials approved the project, which could bring more than 1,300 construction jobs. Delaware officials, however, have refused to authorize the construction of a 2,000-foot-long pier, which would be built on the part of the river bottom that belongs to Delaware. Without the pier, the project could not go forward. New Jersey concedes that Delaware owns the land, but says a century-old agreement allows each state to control piers on its side of the river. A pier on the New Jersey side that can't stretch onto Delaware territory to reach the main shipping channel is worthless, said H. Bartow Farr, who is representing New Jersey. "That's where the ships are," Farr said. But David Frederick, representing Delaware, told the justices that decisions on what to build on Delaware land belong to Delaware. "Boundaries matter," Frederick said. On a practical level, he said, Delaware has only twice in 160 years denied permission to build a pier on the Jersey side of the river and both instances involved LNG facilities. Up to 150 ships a year would dock at the proposed pier, which would be directly across the river from Claymont, Del. Delaware says the proposal raises safety fears because an estimated 22,000 residents living near the river's main shipping channel would be at risk in case of a major accident. BP said the facility would be able to deliver up to 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the Mid-Atlantic region. The justices puzzled over the states' authority. What if a murder occurred on a wharf on the Jersey side that sits on Delaware land, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered. "Is it prosecuted in Delaware or New Jersey?" Roberts asked. New Jersey, Farr said. Justice David Souter asked Frederick whether Delaware could pass a law saying no more piers could be built on the Jersey side of the river. "It depends," Frederick replied, although he later said such a measure probably would not be upheld. A court-appointed special master concluded earlier this year that Delaware has the authority to block the pier. Justice Stephen Breyer is not taking part in the case. He owns $15,000 to $50,000 in BP stock, according to his most recent financial disclosure. His absence could present a complication if his eight colleagues divide 4 to 4. In most Supreme Court cases, a tie means that a lower court ruling is upheld. But disputes between states are initially decided by the Supreme Court, not lower courts. What would happen in the event of a tie vote is unclear. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|