Firms and Salary Information - Ohio

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by spookyfish
"A cow is self-propelled, does not run on rails and could be used as a conveyance," the court ruled recently. "However, there is no indication in the records that this particular cow had wheels."

I'm wondering if this wouldn't have come out differently had someone been riding the cow, or if the lack of wheels was dispositive.

This isn't going to help our rep on this board.

are you sure it wasn't the lack of rails that did it?

apparently i haven't missed very much during the last couple of months.

[andViolins]

Is getting more brazen. Two shootings on same day:


Shots hit van, car south of Columbus

Firing from two Interstate 71 overpasses in Fayette County, a freeway gunman shot two cars shortly before noon Sunday, allowing the victims to provide authorities with their best description to date.

At least one of the victims described the shooter as a white man, in his 30s or 40s, who was standing near a dark-colored parked car on the overpasses, Franklin County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Steve Martin said.

A third person, a Columbus man traveling on I-71 who called 9-1-1, partially corroborated the description. A tape recording of his call indicates that he saw a man standing on one of the overpasses next to a black, newer-model sports car.

Martin said the witnesses and physical evidence appear to link Sunday's shootings to previous incidents.

He was heartened by the audacity of the twin attacks, saying they produced important witness information and unspecified physical evidence that is being examined by the Columbus police crime lab.

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaind...2735305031.xml

aV

[andViolins]

3 Partners and 1 Associate move from Duvin to Baker

Three partners in the Cleveland law firm Duvin Cahn & Hutton have left to join the much larger Baker & Hostetler firm across town.

Leading the move is Marty Wymer, who started with Duvin Cahn in 1984 after working as a summer law clerk there in 1983. He made a name for himself representing the Cleveland Municipal School District Schools in contract negotiations in the 1990s. For the last several years, however, Wymer has focused on complex employment litigation.

His largest client is Electronic Data Systems Corp. of Plano, Texas, which has fol lowed Wymer to Baker & Hostetler. Wymer left Duvin and worked for EDS from October 1989 to February 1993.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/pl...6734165382.xml

The question has always been, "what happens when Bob retires?" I guess partners (with a little "p") there have the same question.

aV

[andViolins]

Federal appeals court blocks Clarett from draft

NEW YORK (AP) -- Maurice Clarett's bid to jump to the NFL was blocked Monday by a federal appeals court that left open the possibility he could enter a supplemental draft.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold a lower-court decision to allow the former Ohio State star and other athletes, like Southern California's Mike Williams, to enter this weekend's draft.

Players are barred from the NFL until three years after high school graduation under current league rules.

The appeals court said it stayed the earlier ruling to safeguard the NFL from harm and to ensure a more thorough review. Its final opinion will probably be issued after the draft, perhaps weeks from now.

Any potential harm to Clarett would be lessened by the NFL's agreement to hold a supplemental draft if the appeals court later ruled in his favor, the court added.

The ruling came on the same day Williams filed his own lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan, saying the NFL had issued conflicting statements about eligibility for the draft, thus causing him to sacrifice his college career. Williams hired an agent, which usually means a player cannot return to play in college.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

aV

*See, you're in my world now. And you know what? Your post has nothing to do with Ohio.

Bu-bye.

aV

[Flinty_McFlint]

Aloha. Just cleaning up the front page.

[andViolins]

In a recent survey conducted by Robert Half Legal, most law firms and legal departments reported that they would be hiring more attorneys in the next 12 months.

The survey results:

Increase . . . . . . . 62%
Stay the same . . . 35%
Decrease . . . . . . . 2%
Don't know . . . . . .1%

This was reported in the May/June 2004 Ohio Lawyer magazine.

aV

[andViolins]

Dayton Daily News

Former Coolidge Wall attorney files suit against firm
Barbara L. Sager, also a shareholder in Coolidge Wall, claims discrimination

DAYTON | A prominent corporate attorney who was expelled from one of Dayton's oldest and largest law firms filed a 51-page lawsuit Thursday against the firm, claiming corporate misconduct, age and sex discrimination and breach of contract.

Barbara L. Sager, represented by Dwight D. Brannon and Andrea G. Ostrowski, filed the lawsuit in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court against Coolidge Wall Womsley & Lombard Co., LPA, 33 W. Third St.

Sager writes a column that appears weekly in the business section of the Dayton Daily News. Coolidge Wall, a firm of more than 50 attorneys, represents the Daily News in some legal issues.

Sager, a 1985 graduate of Harvard Law School, joined the firm in 1994, working on complex business transactions, and within two years became a shareholder, the lawsuit said. She became the first and only woman shareholder to rise to management in the firm, the lawsuit said.

In June 2003, the chairman of the firm's Compensation Committee accused Sager of "bad lawyering" in an unidentified case she was working on, the lawsuit said. She denied the allegation, but that month, her compensation was reduced by $42,000, the lawsuit said. An attachment to the suit shows Sager's 2002 salary was $180,000, and includes other documents purporting to show the compensation for shareholders, the ranking attorneys in the firm.

Sager was expelled from the firm in November 2003.

The lawsuit claims Sager's compensation was damaged by more than $3 million. A three-page document indicates Sager was among the firm's top five attorneys for hours of billing from 1997 through 2002.

The lawsuit also includes allegations of misconduct by other members of the firm and contends the male attorneys were never expelled as she was.

J. Stephen Herbert, president of Coolidge Wall, said that he received a copy of the lawsuit Thursday but had not had an opportunity to closely review it.

"It was not a surprise that this was coming," Herbert said. "The allegations in the complaint are false . . . We're confident those claims will be shown as false. We're going to undertake defending it.

"In today's world, she can allege what she wants and file it in court," Herbert said.

Brannon and Sager could not be reached for comment after the lawsuit was filed.

In a press release from Brannon, he said, "Ms. Sager has filed this lawsuit not just to recover her damages, but to vindicate her reputation which has been badly damaged by Coolidge."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/busin...0611sager.html

aV

[andViolins]

Ban on Sunday sales of liquor ends today

Whiskey and vodka worshippers rejoice.

A Prohibition-era state law that prohibited stores from selling liquor on Sundays ends today, which means liquor stores can be liquor stores, even on the Sabbath.

The owners of Simone's Beverage & Deli on Detroit Avenue in Lakewood plan to take advantage of the new rules and open today at 1 p.m., the earliest the law allows for Sunday liquor sales.

"We are increasing consumer convenience," said co-owner Marc Zkiab.

His brother Simone said that previously, he would have to turn away at least six customers seeking the hard stuff on Sundays.

Several of Simone's customers on Saturday said Sunday sales wouldn't matter much because they usually planned ahead to avoid coming up empty on Sundays.

"But the one day that I need it, it will be nice," Dave Courtney of Westlake said.

His North Olmsted friend, Paul Konold, agreed. "In a pinch . . ." he said.

Sunday is no longer exclusively a day of worship and rest. It has become the second-busiest shopping day of the week, behind Saturday, retailers say.

The 71-year-old liquor law had already been loosened for bars and restaurants in communities where voters approved of Sunday sales. Today, Ohio becomes the 32nd state to allow full Sunday sales, according to the Distilled Spirits Council.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...8621528211.xml

aV

[andViolins]

opens Florida Office:

McDonald Hopkins Opens Office in West Palm Beach, Fla.


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Oct. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- One of the leading law firms in the Midwest, McDonald Hopkins Co., LPA, has its sights set on the Sunshine State and expanding its capabilities with the opening of a new office in West Palm Beach, Fla.

The new McDonald Hopkins office is headed by two of the area's top-rated attorneys: John Metzger, formerly a managing shareholder of the law firm Reid, Metzger & Bernhardt, PA, and Peter Bernhardt, also a shareholder with the firm. Metzger and Bernhardt form the nucleus of McDonald Hopkins' new office in West Palm Beach, along with other lawyers and an excellent client roster of area businesses.

"We are extremely excited about combining our talents and experience with those of McDonald Hopkins," said John Metzger, who has assumed managing shareholder responsibilities for the new office. "Their skills in the areas of real estate and business law are complementary to ours, and they bring added depth and experience in a wide range of complex business matters. We look forward to having them and their team working with us, and us working with them, to expand our respective capabilities in order to better serve our clients."

The new McDonald Hopkins Co., PA office is located in the former office space of Reid, Metzger & Bernhardt in the One Clearlake Centre building in West Palm Beach. Two associates, along with four paralegals and assistants, have also joined the firm.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041001/clf051_1.html

aV

[andViolins]

for July 2004 bar exam are now available.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Admiss...SP/default.asp

Out of 1343 applicants, 985 applicants (73%) received passing scores; out of 1127 first time applicants, 82% received passing scores.

aV

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by andViolins
for July 2004 bar exam are now available.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Admiss...SP/default.asp

Out of 1343 applicants, 985 applicants (73%) received passing scores; out of 1127 first time applicants, 82% received passing scores.

aV

That seems like a much higher pass rate than usual, though I could be wrong.

And there is someone I know on that list who passed on em's fourth try. Which I am certain is a huge relief.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by spookyfish
That seems like a much higher pass rate than usual, though I could be wrong.

And there is someone I know on that list who passed on em's fourth try. Which I am certain is a huge relief.

I don't know how it compares to recent years, but way back in the day when I took the bar, the pass rate was 90% and up.

Too many frickin lawyers!

aV

[andViolins]

U.S. judge blasts Benesch

A federal judge criticized the conduct of a Cleveland law firm as “utterly inexcusable” in a case involving accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers and its alleged destruction of documents.

The Cleveland firm, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, was excoriated by Judge Patrcia Hemann for acting in “bad faith” in failing to produce documents relating to PWC’s financial audit of Telxon Corp., the former Fairlawn-based maker of scanners and handheld computers.

In a report dated July 16, 2004, and released Tuesday, Judge Hemann said Benesch Friedlander, PWC and another law firm “know without warnings from this court what the penalties are for conducting discovery in bad faith — and must be deemed to know that their conduct in instant litigation has been utterly inexcusable.”

John Banks, chief operating officer of Benesch Friedlander, said Tuesday he was aware of Judge Hemann’s criticism of the law firm, but maintained that the firm and its lawyers have not done anything wrong. Mr. Banks said the firm and its lawyers adhere to the strict ethical codes and professional responsibilities required of all lawyers and law firms.

"We believe we've done that in this case, too," Mr. Banks said.

Beyond saying that Judge Hemann's report has been appealed, Mr. Banks declined to comment on the report in regard to her findings on PWC.

PWC, which is one of the nation's largest accounting firms and is based in New York, was ordered by the court to produce documents relating to the financial audits of Telxon for the years 1996 through 1999.

Telxon was acquired by Symbol Technologies Inc. of Holtsville, N.Y., in 2000

Telxon shareholders filed a 1998 lawsuit against PWC for accounting irregularities that allegedly occurred while PWC conductedTelxon’s financial audits. Telxon and its shareholders then filed another suit against PWC, alleging that the accounting firm was responsible for Telxon’s financial misstatements.

Judge Hemann found that PWC and its legal representatives resisted court orders to provide Telxon and the Securities and Exchange Commission with work papers, e-mails and all software used in its audits, despite repeatedly assuring the court that it had submitted all relevant materials.

“The only conclusion the court can reach is that PWC and/or its counsel engaged in deliberate fraud or was so recklessly indifferent to their responsibilities as a party to the litigation that they failed to take the most basic steps to fulfill those responsibilities,” Judge Hemann wrote in her report.

“The magistrate judge has considered, but cannot recommend, any lesser sanction than the entry of default judgment against PWC,” Judge Hemann wrote.

Regardless, Judge Hemann’s recommendations are not binding.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen O’Malley will make the final decision in the case, but will take Judge Hemann’s statements into consideration.

PWC spokesman David Nestor issued a written statement saying that the firm disagrees with the Judge Hemann’s report.

“We have filed extensive objections with the district court to the magistrate judge's recommendation,” Mr. Nestor said. “We acknowledge an error in discovering and producing documents in the litigation later than that should have occurred. At the same time, we believe that our objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are well-founded.”


http://www.crainscleveland.com/news.cms?newsId=2893

aV

[andViolins]

Claim: Unwed abuse victims left unprotected under Issue 1

Ohio's new constitutional amendment aimed at denying special legal rights to gay and unmarried couples also may strip legal protections from thousands of unwed victims of domestic violence.

Legal and victim-advocacy circles are buzzing over motions from the Cuyahoga County public defender's office to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants.

The argument: that the charge violates the amendment to Ohio's Constitution known as Issue 1 by giving spouselike status and protection to victims who live with, but aren't married to, their accused attackers.

"The thing is, you can only get a domestic-violence charge now if you are a wife beater, not a girlfriend beater," said Jeff Lazarus, a law clerk for public defender Robert Tobik and chief architect of the motions to dismiss.

Issue 1 became law on Dec. 1, and none of the cases in Cleveland Municipal and Cuyahoga County Common Pleas courts has produced a judge's ruling yet. But the filings have stunned domestic-violence victims advocates, who expect that the office's novel tactic will start an avalanche of copycat pleadings across the state.

"It's a bad, bad thing," said Cathleen Alexander, director of the Domestic Violence Center in Cleveland. "We're very worried that some victims will not be granted the protection they need because they're not married. That could jeopardize people's lives.

"I think," she added, "that this is consistent with the law of unintended consequences."

Yet the public defender's tactic gives hope for opponents of Issue 1, which Ohio voters approved in November. Some lawyers who oppose the amendment say if a judge sides with the public defender's reasoning, the court could declare the amendment a violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. Specifically, a married victim of domestic violence would have more protection than an unmarried neighbor beaten by a live-in lover, and married and unmarried defendants would be treated differently as well.

Alexandria Ruden, a Legal Aid Society domestic-violence lawyer and battered-women's advocate, said she hopes that instead of having the unintended consequence of undermining part of the domestic-violence law, Issue 1's unintended consequence will be its own self-destruction.

"Hopefully, instead of the [domestic-violence] statute, it will blow out the constitutional amendment," said Ruden, who co-authored a leading legal text on Ohio's domestic-violence law.

That, Lazarus acknowledged, is exactly why he concocted the public defender's line of attack.

"Personally, when I was brainstorming this, it was with an eye toward, 'How could we make this amendment look not so good?' " he said Wednesday.

Phil Burress, a leader in the drive to pass Issue 1, said the claim that it would undermine parts of the domestic-violence law "on its face is absolutely absurd." He dismissed the prospect of that as an unintended consequence as "a lot of hypotheticals."

Ohio's quarter-century-old domestic-violence law gives special criminal status to an assault by a family or household member and establishes unique protections for the victim. Courts also have consistently applied it to homosexual couples.

It is one of only two criminal offenses - along with menacing by stalking - that automatically gives the victim access to a protective order to keep the defendant away, and police are obligated to enforce it. Further, a violation of the protective order, or any second offense, "accelerates" misdemeanor domestic-violence charges to a felony.

The law treats anyone "living as a spouse" the same as a spouse when it comes to domestic violence: It defines domestic violence as an attack, or attempted or threatened attack, against a household member, and includes unmarried couples - so-called cohabitants.

Therein lies the rub, the public defender's office motions contend. The new amendment forbids any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design . . . of marriage."

Yet, that is exactly what the domestic-violence law does for unmarried couples living together, says Lazarus, a third-year law student who drew up the boilerplate motion to dismiss. The law, he wrote, "clearly creates a legal relationship between unmarried individuals."

"The two just completely butt heads," he said in an interview this week.

At least two of Lazarus' colleagues, assistant public defenders John Stanard and John Martin, filed the pleadings in felony cases this week. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman will hear arguments Jan. 27.

"We have some real serious issues here," Friedman said Thursday. "It is an interesting twist on the law, and the ramifications of it are so great that I don't want to make a decision without thorough consideration.

"You toss a pebble into a pond, and you never can tell where all the ripples will end up."

The Cleveland prosecutor's office declined Friday, through Mayor Jane Campbell's spokesman, to comment on the pending cases. But Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason called the motions "ridiculous."

Lisa Reitz Williamson, one of Mason's assistant prosecutors who is handling an affected felony case, said it is folly to argue that the domestic-violence law creates any special legal status for unmarried couples that would "approximate" marriage.

All it does, she insists, is describe the sorts of relationships to which it applies. Ohio criminal law, she said, protects special classes of victims - children and the elderly, for instance - and stiffens penalties where they are victimized, yet doesn't bestow special rights on the victims.

Further, Williamson said, the courts must look at the intent of the amendment.

"Issue 1," she said, "was not meant to be a license to abuse."

Lewis Katz, a Case Western Reserve University criminal-law professor, said the conflict most likely must be settled by the Ohio Supreme Court. While courts may divine and apply the amendment authors' intent, Katz said, the letter of the law gives strong support to the public defender's position.

Legal scholars say thousands more could follow. According to the Ohio Domestic Violence Network in Columbus, more than 20,500 people were arrested for domestic violence in 2003 (the most recent year for which figures were available), and courts issued 16,219 protective orders. As many as one in five such cases involves unmarried partners, estimated Nancy Nealon, the network's executive director.

In any such case, defendants' lawyers now may be ethically and legally bound to file a motion to dismiss on the constitutionality grounds, said Tim Downing, a lawyer and gay-rights activist who opposed Issue 1. If the defense succeeds and a defense lawyer fails to use it, he or she could be accused of malpractice.

"It's one of the consequences of passing this amendment that we tried to warn people about," Downing said. "And for whatever reason, the majority of people in the state didn't listen."

http://www.cleveland.com/

aV