Appeals Lawyer Decides That Attorney That Was Unaware Of His Suspension Cannot Resume Practice

An attorney that claims he was unaware of a 2010 ruling that resulted in his own suspension will remain on suspension for the immediate future due to a decision made by the New York court of appeals.

The Attorney Grievance Committee reported to the court that attorney M. Scott Vayer continued practicing law despite the fact that he had been suspended in 2010. The Grievance Committee asserts that Vayer should face a disbarment or long-term suspension for unauthorized practice.

Vayer explains that he was not made aware that he had been suspended until a year ago when a colleague brought the matter to his attention.

Vayer did acknowledge that he did not take the necessary steps to renew his registration and had in fact not met any continuing education requirement since 2001.

Vayer says that the reason he did not know about his suspension in 2010 because he had no subscription to the New York Law Journal which posted a notice of the suspension for five consecutive days. Vayer also moved both his home and office in the fall of the same year which could provide the explanation of why he did not receive notice by mail of his suspension.

Vayer has taken the steps to bring his continuing education requirements up to date and has also made current his once delinquent registration fees as of June 2017.

The appeals court has ruled that he suspension will be upheld in the interim while the Attorney Grievance Committee continues its investigation.

The committee has characterized it as “incredible” that Vayer could believe that he possessed a valid license to practice law in the state of New York after neglecting to renew his registration and complete CLE requirements for 17 years.

M. Scott Vayer did not resond to requests for comments made by email or phone.

DC Lawyer Promises To Represent Trump Officials Who Break Nondisclosure Agreements

A top Washington, DC attorney has promised to defend any official in the Trump Administration who is willing to break the non-disclosure agreements they were required to sign before entering the government, and he is willing to do so free of charge.

Mark Zaid, who is a lawyer who specializes in cases involving government workers and their free speech rights, made the offer in response to a report that indicated that all Trump officials had signed non-disclosure agreements that forbid them from talking about their work within the Trump administration, both while they are on the job, and forever thereafter.

According to the report, any infraction of the non-disclosure agreements would be subject to a fine of $10 million. The agreements supposedly cover conveying information both to members of the media and to other government employees. It also prevents officials from conveying information even under the guise of fiction.

One of the founding partners of a nonprofit law firm called Whistleblower Aid, Zaid said that legally government officials could only be prevented from disclosing classified information after their government service was completed. Other civil rights and free speech experts concur with Zaid, and believe that the non-disclosure agreements in question are unconstitutional, which means that they cannot be enforced by law.

Ben Wizner, who works for the American Civil Rights Union (ACLU), said that the speech of public employees cannot be suppressed by private agreements. Heidi Kitrosser, who is a law professor at the University of Minnesota, agreed with him, saying that the agreements clearly violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Mark Fenster, who is a law professor at the University of Florida, added that public employees cannot sign away their right to speak.

Many of these experts further noted that officials in the Trump Administration do not actually work for the president, but for the United States. Therefore, only the government itself could enforce the agreements, which is highly unlikely to happen.

Wisconsin Judge Orders Special Elections

On Thursday, a Wisconsin judge ordered Governor Scott Walker to schedule special elections for a pair of legislative seats that the governor has refused to schedule since the end of last year.

Due to Walker’s refusal to schedule the elections, Democrats in the state had sued the governor. They also indicated that governor was delaying the elections because he was afraid that Republicans would lose them.

Josann Reynolds, who is a Dane County Circuit Court Judge and an appointee of Governor Walker, told the governor that he must schedule an election within the week. Though the governor is expected to appeal the order. Amy Hasenberg, who is the governor’s spokesperson, said that the governor was presently conferring with state attorneys to determine what actions they will take next.

The two seats in dispute concern one in the state senate and another in the state assembly. They both became vacant in December of last year when both office holders took positions in the Walker administration. The governor has insisted that the two seats should not be filled in special elections, but that they instead should be filled during the normal November 2018 elections. The winners of those elections would then be seated in January of next year.

The governor stated that he had no legal obligation to hold special elections, and that by not holding them he was actually saving the taxpayers money. But Democrats believe that he was more motivated by the fact that a Democrat won a special legislative election this past January in a heavily Republican district that overwhelmingly supported President Trump in 2016. Governor Walker himself called the outcome of that election a wake up call.

According to Wisconsin law, if a seat vacancy occurs before May 1 during an election election year, a special election must be called. But Walker believes that this does not apply in this case because the vacancies occurred last year, which was not an election year.

John Dowd, Trump’s Lead Lawyer, Resigns

The New York Times is reporting that Trump’s lead lawyer resigned today. Just last week, Trump claimed in a tweet that he is very happy with his legal team. The President lashed out at the report that Trump was looking for different legal talent. Regardless, changing lawyers in the middle of any litigation or controversy is 1) a sign of being on the losing end, and 2) a catalyst for even more loss.

Thousands of hours are involved in litigation. Beyond what the public sees in any legal fight, lawyers spend days, weeks and months researching, brainstorming, and writing. The lawyers supporting any potential criminal defendant are numerous. Typically, each attorney is tasked with the procedural and substantive law for a particular subset of the total case. For instance, one lawyer might be responsible for determining whether jurisdiction could be an issue in the case. While this research and information belongs to the client, the knowledge and strategy involved in all of that work remains with the lawyer and his or her team. So, when you no longer have that lawyer’s expertise and strategic framing, as a client…not a good thing.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, the other side of any litigation relishes picking off an opponent’s legal team. If litigation is war, then each and every step in the process is a battle to the end. So, when the other side starts losing lawyers – for whatever reason – one side looks to be winning the legal fight. Lawyers also spend time attempting to dislodge opposing parties from their legal team. Citing conflicts of interest or other ethical missteps, lawyers will typically have teams devoted to the single task of researching the law on conflicts and bar rules.

So, overall, lawyers resigning is not a good thing. It is doubtful that the recent news of Trump’s lead attorney, Dowd, will be a benefit for the President’s legal fight against special counsel Mueller. The only possible good news would be if Trump hired a much better lawyer to replace Dowd. Since learning that Ted Olson, one of the country’s finest litigators, turned Trump down, it seems that Trump is losing his legal entanglement.

Jeremy Goldstein Gives His Stance On EPS And Employee Incentives

Getting better prospects within the company that you are working with is always something that every salaried employee is looking forward to. The number of people that human resource departments receive asking for raises or any kind of incentives within a fairly large company every month is enormous. Large corporates are sometimes in the position to grant these incentives but choose to not for some of the other reason. Smaller companies, in particular, face the issue of wanting to grant their employees with incentives, but not being able to do so because of the many restrictions that come their way. It is a constant tug of war that corporates and employees face when it comes to the matter of incentives. Learn more: https://nycinquirer.com/2018/01/15/nyc-lawyer-jeremy-goldstein-recommends-compromise-for-employment-incentives/

 

 

Jeremy Goldstein, a notable corporate lawyer from New York had outlined, in an article the various aspects of employee incentives and their implications. In particular, he spoke about EPS, which is an employee based incentive program that a number of well-known corporates have been known to employ. This program has proven to be incredibly effective in determining the amount that people need to be able to receive, and the conditions of them receiving this incentive. However, Goldstein outlined that just because this system is in place doesn’t mean that it is the best, or implemented in the best way possible. There are times when corporates decide no take the road that leads to employees not getting paid and them getting used to their services with no incentives to do better.

 

 

In the article, Goldstein outlined how compromise is one of the best routes to take when trying to come up with incentives that can benefit companies and the employees working for them as well. It is one of the best ways to also be able to form a platform through which employers can receive knowledge of what the employees need and vice versa for the betterment of both parties.

 

 

Jeremy Goldstein is a prominent corporate lawyer and expert in financial law who has been practicing in the state of New York for the past several years. He has worked with some of the biggest names in the industry and leads his own law firm called Jeremy Goldstein And Associates. The company has been offering legal services to clients coming to them from all around the country and stands as one of the most sought-after corporate law firms in the city.

 

Pennsylvania law changes to allow residents access to new fireworks

Pennsylvania residents could only purchase Class C fireworks for many years. This prevented fireworks stores from selling many different types of fireworks used by people in other states for many years. The legislature quietly changed the law in August to use fireworks labeled as consumer. While fireworks store owners across the state celebrated this decision, fire chiefs were less excited about the change. The fire chief for the city of Lancaster cautions people to leave fireworks shows to professionals.

The law changes do not let people use fireworks designed for professional displays. These fireworks still require a special license. The law banning Pennsylvania residents from owning and using anything other than Class C fireworks. The law prevented many injuries related to fireworks, but every year, fireworks still made it into the state, especially during the Independence Day weekends. Some people also set off fireworks to celebrate New Year’s Eve. The changes to the state’s law allow citizens to set off their fireworks on any day at any time, according to Lancaster Online. Lancaster’s fire chief expressed disappointment in the legislature for changing the law to allow Pennsylvania residents access to different types of fireworks.

Although the new law allows consumers to legally use different types of fireworks, it is still best to exercise caution. The Lancaster Online article announcing the news also links to a story about a Pennsylvania woman who entered a coma because of a fireworks accident. The house bill that changed the law regarding fireworks usage also featured several other changes that did not make big headlines in the state. In the meantime, fireworks stores continue to do a brisk business across the Keystone state.

Are More People Representing Themselves in Court?

Nowadays, it seems like more and more people are going to court for a variety of different reasons. Unfortunately, hiring a lawyer can be incredibly expensive, especially if your case is larger and needs additional visits to the courtroom. If this has been a problem for you, you might find it incredibly beneficial to know that most people are now representing themselves in court. Not only does this save them a ton of money and prevents their settlement from being divided into lawyer fees, but it also saves hassle and time for you as well.

The key to representing yourself in court is knowing what to do. There are a lot of people who actually make things worse because they do not know what to do in terms of representing themselves. You need to know a bit about law in order to make this work in your favor. You also need to have enough witnesses to help your case when you are in front of the judge. This is going to encourage the entire case to go as well as possible, and it prevents problems down the road because of the fact that you’ve decided to do this on your own.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of people representing themselves each and every day. There is nothing worse than finding that this is something that hinders your ability to win the case. Because of this, it is so important that you file the case in advance to when it is actually going to happen. There is nothing worse than not being able to go to court because you cannot afford to hire a lawyer who is going to be able to help you and represent you in court. This is why you need to make sure that this is important for when you’re looking to get the most out of the case and know that this will help.

Judge Turns Nasty Into Nice

Orders of protection often involve what are known as no contact provisions, but when Daren Young violated a no contact order, his punishment was somewhat extraordinary. The presiding judge ordered Young to write 140 “nice” things about his former girlfriend, without repetition. As per the Associated Press, Judge Rhonda Loo told Young that “for every nasty thing you said about her, you’re going to say a nice thing.”

In Hawaii, orders of protection are enforceable for a year. They can also be extended, and violators can be prosecuted criminally.

Young already knew about how harsh the law can be when somebody threatens, harasses, intimidates or otherwise interferes with the civil liberties of another person. He spent 157 days in jail for calling and texting his victim more than 140 times in about three hours after a “no contact” order was entered against him by his ex-girlfriend. Part of that probation order likely requires Young to remain free from alcohol and drugs. Random testing is usually required.

The 140 “nice” things were just part of Young’s sentence. He was put on two years of probation, and he was fined $2,400. Young is also required to perform 240 hours of community service. He is still not allowed to directly or indirectly contact his former girlfriend, and if he is found to have done so, his probation can be revoked, and he can be sentenced to additional jail or even state prison time on top of the 157 days that he has already served.

The 140 “nice” things part of Young’s sentence falls into a gray are of Hawaii’s laws involving violations of orders of protection. Everything else appears to be within both those laws and Loo’s sentencing discretion. The sentence might be permitted by law, but the handwriting is already on the wall unless a timely appeal is filed.

President Trump Adds More Legal Muscle To Prove The Russian Thing Is A Witch Hunt

Donald Trump can’t get a break. In fact, he can’t seem to get anything done in Washington, and that makes him angry and belligerent. His healthcare bill is toast, and his immigration bill is a political nightmare. The Republican Party can’t put a team on the political field that works together. And the Russian accusations are turning into a Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue for the president. Plus, people around the country have no faith in Trump.

But Trump has a plan. His plan is to fight lawyers with lawyers. The President now has one of Washington’s big legal dogs to fight for him. Ty Cobb, the Washington criminal attorney with a winning track record, is now the White House special counsel. Trump now has five lawyers working on the Russian thing, and they are all huddling to protect Trump from special Justice Department lawyers as well as congressional committees. Collusion with the Russians is the battle cry of Trump opponents. And those opponents include heavy duty political hitters with deep pockets.

There is little doubt. Trump is in for some nasty Washington battles. But the president is sending a strong message to the people that want to bring him down. The message is, he’s not going down. Trump is Teflon through and through, according to his allies. Nothing sticks to him even when it looks like something will stick. The president likes controversy. He likes to be in the trenches and tweet, even when there is nothing substantial to tweet about.

Cobb is a criminal lawyer, and he likes to be in the middle of turmoil. Mr. Cobb is a former federal prosecutor, and he was in charge of the organized crime and criminal division in Baltimore. Cobb has a private practice now, and he handles cases in 35 countries and 44 states, according to his law firm Hogan Lovells.

President Trump reveals his Nominees for the United States Attorney Positions

Presidents Donald J. Trump has announced his first list of the United States Attorney candidates. The function of a United States Attorney is to act as the lead federal law enforcer in the federal judicial district that he or she is in charge. All the nominees that the president submitted share his vision of “Making America Safe Again,” and he has announced his intent to make them United States Attorneys.

 

  1. Michael Dunavant has been nominated to act as the United States Attorney for Tennessee’s Western District. Since 2006, Dunavant has been serving the 25th Judicial District in Tennessee as its District Attorney General. The position enabled him to handle significant prosecutions and several criminal offenses in five counties.

 

The candidate for the Middle District of Alabama’s United States Attorney is Louis V. Franklin, Sr. He spent 27 years serving the office and also acted as a criminal chief for about 16 years. Franklin has also held the Assistant United States Attorney position. He once served as a partner at Sirote and Permutt.

 

President Trump also nominated John W. Huber to take the District of Utah’s United States Attorney position. He once acted as a presidential appointee at the district for two years and was also offered the United States Attorney job by the Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions.

 

The president’s nominee for the Northern District of Ohio’s office is Justin E. Herdman. He currently serves as an associate at a Jones Day-based firm that is called Investigations & White Collar Defense. Herdman once acted as Cleveland’s Assistant United States Attorney and was involved in a couple of terrorism cases.

 

Another United States Attorney candidate is Brian J. Kuester, and he has been proposed to serve the Eastern District of Oklahoma. He has been serving District 27 in Oklahoma as a District Attorney since 2011. Other nominees that were presented by President Trump for approval include Richard W. Moore for Southern District of Alabama, Jay E. Town for District of Alabama, and Jessie K. Liu for District of Columbia.