Sunday, March 22, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
From the Connecticut Law Tribune
Friday, March 6, 2009
| Top Stories | 
Authorities Search For Missing   Prosecutor
  By CHRISTIAN   NOLAN 
  Joseph Kristan Jr. has been a juvenile prosecutor in Connecticut for 30 years. On Jan. 15 his   family thought he was headed to work, as usual, at the Rockville courthouse. But he never arrived   at work, never came back home, and was reported missing to State Police later   that day. He has not been seen since. Family members have, however, heard   from him since. He has sent letters with return addresses in Florida, Tennessee and   Mississippi.   But efforts by the family to contact him at the addresses have been   unsuccessful. State police have not released a lot of details, but according   to spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance, the following is known: Kristan left his   family’s South Windsor home on Jan. 15   wearing a black down jacket and baseball cap. He was driving a red Chrysler   convertible with the Connecticut   license plate of 599-UBA. Investigators believe he took about a weeks worth   of clothing with him. Kristan is described as 5-foot-10, 178 pounds, green   eyes, gray hair with a receding hairline, a goatee, tri-focal glasses, olive   complexion and a four-inch scar on the back of his head. Investigators and   family members have not publicly stated any possible motive for   Kristan’s disappearance.
 
  Bill Would Allow   Judges to Alter Mortgage Terms
  A plan to give debt-strapped homeowners a chance to lower   their mortgage payments through bankruptcy courts won approval in the U.S.   House of Representatives on Thursday, but is facing a much tougher road in   the Senate amid because of lending industry opposition. The legislation would   give bankruptcy judges — who now can modify loans for such items as   cars and student loans but not for primary residences — new power to   reduce the interest rate and principle on a home mortgage. Supporters regard   the threat of a mortgage modification in bankruptcy as a crucial tool to prod   banks to negotiate with homeowners for more affordable terms. Critics argue   the measure will create a flood of bankruptcy filings that ultimately will   drive up mortgage rates and further destabilize the housing market. The House   bill is the product of a compromise between dueling Democratic factions. A   group of moderates and refused to support the measure unless it included   several changes the banking lobby had sought. The resulting compromise would   bar homeowners from getting loan modifications in bankruptcy court unless   they have first tried to work out a deal with their lenders and have no other   way of affording their mortgages. It also would let judges consider whether   the home loan company had made a reasonable offer to change the terms to   those embodied in President Barack Obama's housing plan — allowing the   homeowner to reduce his monthly payments to about one-third of his income. –   Associated Press
 
  Web User Challenges   Suit By Yale Law Students
  A Texas man is seeking the dismissal of a   lawsuit filed by two female Yale    Law School   students who say he made sexually charged slurs against them on the Internet.   A lawyer for Matthew Ryan of Austin was   scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in Hartford Friday afternoon for arguments on   the motion to dismiss. Attorney Joseph G. Fortner, of Halloran & Sage in Hartford, represents   Ryan, who is one of more than 20 defendants being sued by the two women, who   are not named in the proceedings. The women accuse Ryan of making defamatory   comments about them on a law school discussion forum on the Web site   AutoAdmit, including anti-Semitic slurs and a false claim that one of the   women had a sexually transmitted disease. Ryan says in court documents that   he has never made statements on the Internet that he believed affected people   in Connecticut.  
  – Associated Press
 
  Reports: State To   Lose 60,000 More Jobs
  The latest quarterly report from University    of Connecticut   economists says the state probably will continue to feel the impact of the   recession for at least another 15 months. The report predicts that the state   will likely see the loss of another 60,000 jobs during the next 15 months.   The authors of the UConn quarterly review say the state has already lost   between 28,000 and 30,000 jobs as a result of the recession. UConn economist   Steven Lanza says the pace of layoffs is speeding up. He says when the   quarterly report came out with its winter edition in December, it included   projections of between 11,500 and 42,000 jobs being lost over the next two   years. 
  –   Associated Press
 
  Submit Your New   Partner Information
  The Law   Tribune’s annual New Partners Yearbook will be   published March 16. Even in a souring economy, law firms have sent dozens of   announcements about new partners in their ranks. If you want your firm to be   included, log on to www.newtofirm.com,   fill out the questionnaire and make sure you provide a high-resolution color   photo of the new partner. Also, please make sure you label the photo with the   partner’s name. We will accept submissions until this Friday, March 6.
 
  | Comment on these stories   |
| Featured Columnist | 
Friday, March 6, 2009 
 
  Nothing Funny About Drinking And Driving
  By AMY GOODUSKY
  Usually, this column is devoted to the lighter side of the legal profession.   Maybe, as a music reviewer once noted about my vocal performance, the column   is "occasionally somewhat pleasant" to read. What I wish to say   here may not really be pleasant, to write or to read, and certainly is not   intended to be funny. More 
Governor’s   Seizure Should Shake Up Judiciary
  By NORM PATTIS
  Governor’s Seizure Should Shake Up Judiciary BIO: Norm Pattis is a   criminal defense lawyer and civil rights attorney in Bethany. He blogs most days at   normpattis.blogspot.com. By NORM PATTIS Buried deep within Gov. M. Jodi   Rell's proposed budget is a provision that would get a lawyer disbarred, were   the lawyer foolish enough to act on it. But the governor is no lawyer. She is   the head of the executive branch. And she is asking the legislature to help   her rob a fund created by the judiciary for purposes of helping clients and   lawyers in need. What will be done to stop her? At issue is the Client   Security Fund. This fund is a creature of the judiciary. Its stated purpose   is to provide relief to clients who lose property or money as a result of the   dishonest conduct of lawyers. It also funds a crisis intervention and referral   service for lawyers who crumble under the weight of the world. Lawyers are   assessed an annual fee to go into this fund, which, constitutes a trust. The   governor's budget proposes that the state seize $2 million from the fund to   help meet the current shortfall in revenues. It has folks in the judiciary   seeing red, and not just red ink. It seems a doubtful proposition as a matter   of law that these funds can be seized without so much as wink and a nod to   the separation-of-powers doctrine. We have three branches of government,   after all. To the judiciary falls the regulation of lawyers and the   relationship between lawyers and clients. If the judiciary creates a fund by   taxing lawyers and then puts those monies in trust to assure that both   lawyers and clients are protected from the vagaries of life, what possible   legal theory supports an executive or legislative branch seizure? I hope the   judiciary is considering a constitutional challenge to this proposal. When a   lawyer dips into to a trust fund for an unauthorized purpose, he or she faces   disbarment, if not criminal prosecution. When public charities run afoul of   accounting requirements, the Attorney General's office has plenty to say.   What precedent supports the governor's seizure of trust funds? Of course,   Rell is nothing if not shrewd. So perhaps she is bluffing. Perhaps this feint   at what looks to be a form of theft is merely a way of laying siege to a   different fortress. "What? I cannot violate this trust? Oh, well, then I   shall have to do what I hesitate to do: I shall tax legal services, even if   that means the costs of those services shall increase for clients." The   economy is in tatters and the state's budget is awash in red ink. Revenues   are needed. But so are savings. What is the governor doing to cut state   expenses? I saw a recent list of the top 250 wage earners in state service.   The salaries ranged from $1.6 million for UConn basketball coach Jim Calhoun   to a low of $217,000 for an emergency room physician. Buried within the list   are registered nurses making a quarter of a million dollars and a whopping   $400,000 for the state's top prison doctor. These salaries are, I suspect,   well above the mean for lawyers. There is something obscene about these   salaries for state employment at a time in which many folks face unemployment   and the loss of homes. The state's safety nets will be stretched mighty thin   in a time of crisis. Among those safety nets is the Client Security Fund.   Sucking the life out of the Client Security Fund makes no sense. Need a few extra   million? Give the state's basketball and football coaches a call. They're   swimming in cash.
| Decision of the Day | 
Arbitration Not Condition Precedent To Litigation  
  CASE: Liebig v.   Farley 
  COURT: New London   J.D., at New London 
  DOC. NO.:   08-5005405 
  COURT OPINION BY:   Martin, J. 
  DATE: Feb. 13,   2009 PAGES: 22 
  Although the parties agreed in 2002 to arbitrate claims that arose from the   defendant financial planner’s assessment of the plaintiff’s   financial condition, arbitration did not constitute a condition precedent to   the plaintiff’s suit alleging that in 1995 the defendant wrongly   advised her to obtain a reverse mortgage. Plaintiff Beonne Liebig’s   complaint alleged that defendant Andrew Farley persuaded her to obtain a   reverse mortgage in the amount of $383,098 in 1995. Allegedly, Farley   attended the closing and signed as a witness on the mortgage deed. When the   plaintiff’s health deteriorated, Farley allegedly paid the   plaintiff’s bills and managed the plaintiff’s investments. The   plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Farley failed to inform her she was   a member in a class action suit of individuals who were defrauded about the   terms of reverse mortgages, and he invested the $6,000 the plaintiff received   as a settlement. In 2007, the plaintiff sold her property for $2.4 million   and was required to pay $1.7 million in non-contingent interest, contingent   interest and maturity fees. The plaintiff sued Farley and his employer,   Ameriprise Financial Services, alleging breach of contract, breach of   fiduciary duty, and violation of CUTPA, the Connecticut Unfair Trade   Practices Act. The defendants moved to stay, pending arbitration. Although   the parties agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of a 2002 contract to   supply advice about the plaintiff’s finances, the court was not   persuaded that arbitration constituted a condition precedent to litigation of   the plaintiff’s complaint. One contract governed the assessment of the   plaintiff’s finances and investments in 2002 and restricted the scope   of arbitrable disputes to those subjects. Other contracts that the parties   signed were likewise restricted. The plaintiff’s allegations pre-dated   the signing of the arbitration contracts. The court denied the   defendants’ motion to stay, pending arbitration.
 
  More decisions...   
| This Week's Special Focus | 
Forensic Accounting &   Valuation Litigation 
  Forensic Accounting & Valuation Litigation Forensic   accountants’ services are coming into sharp focus 
  in an unstable economic climate. Marital dissolutions are   fertile ground for such work, especially with an 
  increase in post-judgment modifications due to diminished   income. Commercial litigators are leaning on 
  forensic accountants to determine whether financial fraud   and mismanagement are part of a case. Read 
  more about the hot topics within forensic accounting and   valuation litigation.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Risking my skin?
After appearing at a public hearing at the Hartford Capitol Legislative Office Building, it is my belief that a division of the Connecticut State Police, the Capitol Guard, were out to terrorize and intimidate Chris Kennedy, and I, for exercising our right to Free Speech, contrary to what police want us to be able to say. Should I fear arrest and imprisonment, just for exercising my right to redress grievances to public officials?
I am posting this email to you [here].
What I am talking about can be [found here], and that is my opinion on today's legislation regarding whether or not police should be able to keep their information secret from the public.
If you don't see me appear before you today, please look into my being falsely arrested to prevent me from expressing my opinion.
Thank you,
Steven G. Erickson
stevengerickson@yahoo.com
 
