As the World Turns

Once again, my continual refrain that Scranton is the center of the universe proves true.

As I noted before, during the recent Presidential election, almost all of the candidates visited the Electric City or touted their ties to Scranton, from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden. Even Obama enlisted hometown boy, Senator Bob Casey, to his side early in the campaign and made several stops there with Casey by his side.

Now that the election has receded, Scranton has still managed to stay in the news for one thing or another. The latest newsworthy item is former Bishop Joseph Martino, who recently resigned after an 8 year reign of terror in the town, as I noted the other day. See Exit, Stage Right.

One of the LLWL gang returned today from a Cape Cod vacation and mentioned that she heard the news of Martino's giving up his throne while she was at the Cape. The news traveled far and wide.

Likewise, Time Magazine has also featured the story of Martino's sudden departure from the diocese of Scranton in its latest issue. They have an interesting take on what caused Martino to suddenly step down, Bishop Martino: Too Outspoken on Abortion for Vatican?:

For suddenly departing politicians and CEOs, the standard line is to "spend time with family." Now the Catholic Church may have its own version of this unconvincing, stock answer. On Aug. 31, Joseph Martino, the controversial bishop from Scranton, Pa., stunned longtime church watchers by announcing that he was resigning his post because of problems with insomnia and fatigue.

The Catholic leader, who has gained national prominence for his outspoken pro-life advocacy and aggressive criticism of pro-choice Democratic politicians, is still more than a decade away from reaching the church's automatic retirement age of 75. Martino's abrupt resignation, along with the fact that he was not reassigned to another position within the church, has some church insiders suggesting that the highly unusual move was far from voluntary — and quite possibly the work of a Vatican that has been decidedly less openly critical of the Obama Administration.

Whether Martino is leaving willingly or not, his departure means that one very vocal critic of the Administration has lost his bully pulpit.

Time suggests that Martino's constant castigation of pro-life Scrantonian Senator Casey may have been the deciding factor in the Vatican ditching Martino, particularly since the jabs were related to Casey's support of President Obama. As the piece observes:

Building bridges has also been the public posture of the Vatican when it comes to the Obama Administration. The Vatican remained silent on Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama to speak. And although Pope Benedict XVI expressed his disappointment with Obama's support for abortion rights when the two met in July, a Vatican spokesman went out of his way to state that the Holy Father was "very impressed" by the Democratic President.

With the substantial shortage of priests in the Church these days, it has to be pretty extreme for the Vatican to permit a priest to step aside for other than a very good reason. Of course, I'm glad he's gone, whatever the reason. Friends & family have long reported that the Bishop was deeply dividing the membership within the diocese. At least now the parishioners in Scranton can now begin the healing process.

Exit, Stage Right

Shrouded by the same mystery that has surrounded his tenure, Bishop Joseph Martino has resigned as Bishop of the Diocese of Scranton after a 6 year reign of terror. See Scranton's Bishop Martino stepping down.

Rumors of his departure have been rampant for some time, but the official word from Rome came this morning. Vatican accepts Bishop Martino's resignation. As the Scranton Times reported over the week-end:

Bishop Martino's resignation at the age of 63 is unusual – it comes more than a decade before the age, 75, at which bishops must submit their resignations under canon law – and caps six years of a tumultuous tenure as head of the 11-county diocese.

Sources in the diocese say the bishop stepped down because of health reasons.

Today, Martino cited his reasons for his early retirement -- by quoting from the lyrics of Kenny Rogers' song, The Gambler, “You have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." he then aptly added, "And I think it's time to move on." In other words, as noted by Whispers in the Loggia, Calming the Waves:

Bishop Joseph Martino admitted to the assembled media that 'there has not been a clear consensus regarding [his] pastoral initiatives or way of governance' of the 350,000-member diocese following parish and school closings which, however necessary due to changing demographics, caused considerable controversy in the 11-county church.

The 63 year-old prelate said that the difficulties led to bouts of insomnia and a weakened immune system which, having taken a toll on his physical vigor, led him to submit his resignation to Pope Benedict in June, nearly a year after he first mentioned to his metropolitan that 'moving on' might be the best plan for himself and the diocese.

Of course, his critics (and there are legions of those) believe that "health reasons" is just a cover for the fact that he got the boot by the pontiff for his heavy-handed administration of the diocese. With the reign of Martino, who knows what the truth is. And with the closed world of the Catholic Church, who knows if we'll ever find out. Turns out that he tendered his resignation in June, which was accepted by the Pope in July. However, it was only disclosed after the rumors started when Martino was seen moving out of the Scranton rectory that is the home to the Bishop of Scranton.

Yet, one thing is for sure -- the resignation is very unusual. In fact, according to Clerical Whispers, "The Vatican statement it noted that the pope had accepted the resignation under a provision of church law in which a bishop due to illness or "some other grave reason, has become unsuited" to carry out his duties." So much so that, as Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia notes, Sede Vacante: "Today's move is just the third time this decade that a Stateside red-hat has been called in to oversee a local church amid emergency circumstances."

I've written about Martino many times, observing his antagonistic, combative, hostile style. Some of the highlights are chronicled in In Scranton, the Curtain Falls:

At the helm of one of the nation's most staunch, reliable bastions of Catholicism, while the kind, bookish cleric's fierce advocacy for the pro-life cause has won him fervent admiration from church conservatives nationwide, the quarter-million member Scranton church has been roiled since Martino's 2003 arrival by swaths of contentious parish and school closings, strained relations with the presbyterate, a perceived indifference to the media, clashes over the diocese's de-recognition of the local union for Catholic high school teachers (a move upheld by the Vatican) and, most famously, a steady stream of statements on politics, parades and public officials which served to draw lines in the sand in the socially conservative, heavily-Democratic area, home to both the revered Casey clan and, in his boyhood, Vice-President Joe Biden.

No doubt, Martino was brought to Scranton to handle a difficult job, to oversee the consolidation and closure of various schools and Churches in this diocese with a dwindling number of parishioners and priests. No one would have been loved after implementing those difficult changes, especially in a city as traditional as Scranton and its surrounding towns. While Martino was brought to town to be the henchman, to chop the excess, he just didn't need to be such an aloof, dictatorial in his carrying out his mandate. A bit of compassion -- need I say, empathy, would have perhaps made parishioners feel that the Church understood their pain, instead of looking like they frankly didn't give a damn.

In an excellent essay on the reign & departure of Martino, David Gibson of Politics Daily observes, Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino, Biden's Nemesis, Resigns Under Cloud:

But church insiders say Martino had also worn out his welcome with his brother bishops and the Vatican. So his resignation may be further evidence that the U.S. hierarchy is divided between moderate voices and a more strident conservative minority that is struggling in the wake of Obama's success with Catholic voters.

* * * *

The chief cause of Martino's local problems was his controversial plan in 2007 to close and consolidate Catholic schools in the diocese, which have been struggling with declining attendance, and declining donations. Closing schools is never popular, yet the need to do something is a harsh fact of life for many bishops, especially in the Northeast. But Martino's peremptory style did not help matters, and growing protests were followed by still steeper declines in church attendance and donations, a dropoff clearly exacerbated by the recession, which has ravaged the Scranton area. Then in February of this year, Martino announced that he was closing 91 of the diocese's 209 parishes, cutting the number of Catholic churches in this storied Catholic community by almost half.

But it was the presidential campaign last year that brought Martino to national prominence, and seemed to bring out the more volatile aspects of his personality.

In September, as Biden was barnstorming Pennsylvania -- the vice-president was born and baptized Catholic in Scranton before moving to Delaware later in life -- Martino declared that Biden would be denied communion if he tried to receive at a church in the Scranton diocese. "I will be truly vigilant on this point," Martino said. It was a step not even Biden's own bishop in Delaware would take.

Then in October, Martino had priests read a letter during all Sunday masses in the diocese telling Catholics that voting for a pro-choice politician was equivalent to endorsing "homicide."

* * * *

But it was an event in late October last year, on the eve of the presidential vote, as religious rhetoric was growing white-hot, that may have pushed Martino over the line in the eyes of many.

A parish was holding a regular voter-education forum on the election, featuring discussion of a document, "Faithful Citizenship," the election guide endorsed almost unanimously by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB. Martino showed up at the parish hall unannounced, causing a stir. Then he took the microphone and proceeded to critique the organizers for not using his own letter on abortion as the basis of the discussion.

When a nun at the forum reminded Martino about the document of the enitre bishops conference Martino responded, "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn't speak for me," Martino declared. "The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

It was a bizarre episode and one that not only capped Martino's reputation as a divisive figure, but also seemed to set him against his other bishops -- a stance that may have been the ultimate cause of his downfall.

As Gibson concludes:

Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.

And I can certainly say Amen to that.

Both Sides Now

Like Judy Collins, Robert Simels could say that he's looked at life from both sides now. He's gone from criminal lawyer to criminal. The prominent New York criminal defense lawyer was convicted of plotting to kill witnesses last week. N.Y. Defense Attorney Found Guilty of Bribery, Attempted Witness Tampering:

Attorney Robert Simels was convicted Thursday of 12 felony counts -- including bribery of a witness, attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering -- stemming from his efforts to prevent potential witnesses from testifying against his client, Guyanese drug-smuggler Shaheed "Roger" Khan.

Simels was acquitted of only the least-serious charge against him, making a false statement to a corrections officer in order to visit an inmate.

* * * *

"The defendants' crimes were an affront to the criminal justice system," Eastern District U.S. Attorney Benton J. Campbell said in a written statement Thursday. "This case demonstrates that those who seek to use their license to practice law as license to commit crimes will be brought to justice."

When Simels was indicted last September, he ranked among the city's better-known defense attorneys, with a roster of clients that had included mobster Henry Hill (of "GoodFellas" fame), drug-trafficker Kenneth "Supreme" McGriff and former New York Jet Mark Gastineau.

As Jonathan Turley explained, Two New York Criminal Defense Attorneys Convicted of Witness Tampering:

Simels is a former prosecutor who often appeared on Fox and CNN as a legal expert. The charges stem from his representation of Shaheed (Roger) Khan, a major cocaine trafficker from Guyana. He was convicted of tampering with eight witnesses and both Simels and Khan were convicted of possessing illegal eavesdropping equipment.

Much of the trial focused on Simels taped statements boasting to a gang member. He is heard saying such things as planning to “neutralize,” “eliminate” and “destroy” a government witness against Khan. Simels insisted that he was just talking “street” to a lowlife (who proved to be a government informant): “Guyana is a Third World country. They sometimes speak in a very unappealing fashion, so I spoke down in a manner he would appreciate.”

On his website, Simels tell prospective clients: “I have been providing personalized legal services to individual and corporate clients in criminal and civil matters for more than 30 years. My exceptional success as a litigator has earned me a renowned reputation in the legal community.” Prosecutors insist that it became a bit too personalized in this case and crossed over into criminal acts.

It's more than a truism to say that lawyers like to win. From my days practicing as a young lawyer at a large firm, I can recall the senior attorneys preaching a "scorched earth" view of litigation. That is, in order to be a really good attorney, it wasn't enough just to win. You had to destroy your opponent as well.

And I also spent some time in the DA's office, where I experienced the "win at all costs" mentality of many prosecutors first hand. This personality trait is not left behind when moving over to criminal defense work. The case of Robert Simels may be an extreme example of the line crossing that sometimes results. See Judge rips 'dark side' of attorney Simels in murder plot conviction to protect drug lord client.

Stony Olsen of Law Crossing humorously explains the difficulties and perils of crossing the line when zealous advocacy, in When Zealous Advocacy Goes Too Far:

It's important to be zealously engaged on behalf of your client. But there are lines that no attorney should ever cross. Sometimes the ethical decisions are hard. . . .

But sometimes the ethics are completely clear. It's just too bad that Robert Simels didn't think so. Simels was once a Special Assistant Attorney General for New York's Special Prosecutor Office, and thereafter he went into criminal defense.

And in that defense practice, he managed to represent some real winners. Simels claims, for example, to have represented mobster Henry Hill, whose story was retold in the movie GoodFellas. Simels also represented another drug kingpin who is now in prison for life without parole and, according to the IRS, once targeted rapper 50 Cent.

But this time Simels went too far. He was representing one Shaheed Kahn, who was facing charges of cocaine trafficking. Or rather, he was representing Kahn until the federal government arrested him on September 10th, 2008, on charges of witness tampering. Apparently, wiretaps have Simels urging various witnesses against Kahn to be ''eliminated'' or ''neutralized.''

* * * *

Now, my memory of professional responsibility in law school is admittedly a bit hazy. But, I do think that arranging to eliminate witnesses against your client is against the rules. Of course, with the kind of trouble Simels is in, I imagine his law license being yanked is the least of his worries.

Still, in case other attorneys are reading this, let me warn you that witness tampering and trying to eliminate the other side's case against your client will not be looked on favorably — not by the bar or by the authorities. So don't do it!

And like most lawyers, Simels certainly didn't help himself when he ended up taking the stand in his defense during the trial. In another instance of seeing both sides now, the former defense attorney who was known for killer cross-examinations, was crushed when he himself was on the stand. As the NY Daily News noted, Robert Simels, lawyer who defended drug kingpins, convicted of plotting to kill witnesses:

At one point, Simels' became so combative on the stand that Judge John Gleeson ordered the jury out of the courtroom and chided Simels.

"Your career is at stake, your liberty is at stake . . . but I'm not going to allow this to continue," Gleeson said. "I'm going to step on you in front of the jury, and it's not going to help your case."

As unfortunate as it is for Simels to end his career in such an ignominious fashion, it is even worse for his associate, Arienne Irving, who was convicted of five of 11 counts, including attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering. Irving was a 2003 law school graduate who had been employed by Simels as an associate only since December 2006. As her lawyer noted:

The evidence, he contended, as he did throughout the trial, repeatedly showed that Irving was not present when any of Simels' crimes took place, and that she did little more for her boss than forward phone numbers and addresses to private investigators.

"It's devastating not only for her, but for any associate," Solano said. "What is someone in her position to do? Every time a boss or a partner or a supervisor tells them to do something that's totally within the realm of their employment, do they have to ask, 'What is this about?' For anyone in the legal profession this is a scary case."

Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice echoes this sentiment about Irving, Simels Goes Down:

What is troubling is that Simels associate, Arienne Irving, who has been largely forgotten in this case although she too faces life in prison, was convicted along with Simels. It's my read from the news reports that there was essentially no evidence against her, other than being Simels associate. While Simels is master of his own fate and made his own choices, I question what role she had in this fiasco, and whether her indictment was a ploy to get her to flip on Simels. Now she's convicted, and it's not clear what she did or how she shared Simels' intent to justify it.

While it's fair to rip Simels to shreds, give some though to Arienne Irving.

The final experience of both sides now will come with when the prison door closes.

A Claim of Innocence

Surprising. Shocking. Highly Unusual. Extraordinary. Stunning. Those are some of the reactions (the last one's mine) to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Troy Davis case.

As the NYTimes reports, Supreme Court Orders New Look at Death Row Case:

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of Troy Davis, who is on death row in state prison there for the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer.

* * * *

The Supreme Court’s decision was unsigned, only a paragraph long and in a number of respects highly unusual. It instructed the trial court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact” about whether new evidence clearly established Mr. Davis’s innocence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court this month, did not participate.

See also, U.S. Supreme Court orders new hearing for Troy Davis.

The SCOTUSblog explains the unusual nature of the decision, Hearing on innocence claim ordered:

The action was highly unusual, because Davis had filed what is called an original writ of habeas corpus — that is, a plea for his release, filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than in lower courts. Such claims rarely succeed. Justice Scalia noted in his dissent that the Court had not taken a similar step “in nearly 50 years.”

The action also was unusual because the Court normally does not take actions of this significance during its summer recess. The case had been ready for the Justices’ consideration near the end of their past Term, in late June, but they simply took no action at that time. There was no word on why the Court took it up again at this time, rather than waiting until a new Term had opened. The length of the two opinions released Monday, however, may have taken some time to prepare, especially with most of the Justices traveling during the summer recess.

Considering the implications of this move by the Court, the LATimes notes, Supreme Court orders new hearing for Georgia death row inmate:

In a surprising move that could indicate a more liberal stance toward death penalty appeals, the Supreme Court on Monday granted a new day in court for a Georgia death row inmate whose two-decade legal saga gained international attention after seven trial witnesses recanted their testimony against him.

The court's order was the first of its kind in nearly 50 years. The recantations have helped Troy Anthony Davis, 40, earn powerful allies in the court of public opinion, including Pope Benedict XVI and President Carter.

Davis' attorney considered the petition a long shot, but the Supreme Court instructed a federal district court to hold a hearing to determine whether Davis' innocence could be established by evidence that wasn't available in his 1991 state trial.

"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in concurring with the order.

* * * *

Legal experts were taken aback by the rare move, which came during the court's typically sleepy summer recess. A number of experts said it could indicate that the federal justice system may be loosening its conservative position toward death penalty appeals.

Federal court rulings in recent years had been making it harder for inmates to win writs of habeas corpus, or pleas for their release. Congress also raised the bar in 1996 with the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.

I have followed the Troy Davis case for some time. After his last appeal was denied by the court of appeals in Atlanta, I did not have much hope for success in further avenues of appeal. As I said then, We Remain Unpersuaded: "Unfortunately, the news is not surprising. Even when the court granted the appeal, I noted in Hold On, that 'the remaining hurdles that Troy Davis still faces are still overwhelming. Although there is much evidence that brings his conviction into question, even getting approval to hold a hearing where such testimony would be considered is difficult. The legal standard that must be met before a hearing would be permitted is exceedingly stringent.'" With the number of conservative members on the Supreme Court, I would have expected that Davis' claim would have been denied. Luckily, I was wrong.

Of course, the decision of the Court was not unanimous. The NYTimes observed:

The decision set off a sharp debate between Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia about Supreme Court procedure, the reach of a federal law meant to limit death row appeals and the proper treatment of claims of innocence.

“The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice Stevens wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”

Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the hearing would be “a fool’s errand,” because Mr. Davis’s factual claims were “a sure loser.”

He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr. Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence.

“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

See also, Split Supreme Court Orders Review of Death Row Inmate's Claims That Witnesses Recanted Testimony.

Scalia & Thomas epitomize the problems of having Justices without empathy on the court. Thankfully, that was not ultimately found to be a bar for Justice Sotomayor. These two compassion-less conservatives would defer to the jury's decision on guilt -- even in a death penalty case -- despite the myriad cases where a wrongful conviction have later been established. See Two Readings of Scalia. While I understand the need to have finality in court proceeding, the considerations are obviously different when death is the penalty. As I noted before, in Hold On:

And yet, when a life is at stake, it is unconscionable to impose a standard that impairs the ability to get at the truth. I am somewhat heartened by the fact that the Court of Appeals requested that the parties address the question whether a person who may be able to establish innocence may nonetheless be denied an opportunity to establish his innocence because of a procedural requirement.

In other words, are we as a society willing to permit an innocent man to die merely to satisfy some legal rule that may prevent the truth from ever being discovered? And if so, what does that say about us?

Josh Patashnik of the Plank echoes this sentiment in The Troy Davis Case and Standards of Review:

But the problem is that . . . we generally don't think that level of certainty should be sufficient to put people to death. And this is a conflict between the way we think about the death penalty and the way the federal court system works in death penalty cases under AEDPA. Out of necessity, appellate courts grant immense deference to the factual findings of a trial court. You can't constantly be relitigating complex factual matters on appeal; the system would grind to a halt. Ordinarily, we're willing to tolerate the possibility that the trier of fact might have made a mistake, in order to provide some finality and preserve scarce judicial resources. In death penalty cases, for obvious reasons, people are inclined to throw such prudent procedural niceties out the window and say that the question of factual guilt or innocence should always be on the table in an equitable fashion, whether in state court or on habeas review in federal court, without stacking the deck in favor of the jury's verdict. But the system isn't set up that way.

Ultimately, the Davis case demonstrates the problems with the current law itself. In Preventing Another Troy Davis, Adam Server explains:

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to send consideration of Troy Davis' habeas case back to a federal court in Georgia for review, its worth reconsidering the law that made Davis' journey so harrowing in the first place. Despite the mountain of exculpatory evidence that emerged in the aftermath of his conviction (recanting witnesses, allegations of police coercion) and the weakness of the initial case (zero physical evidence) Davis' appeals were denied time again on legal technicalities arising from provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which limited habeas petitions from prisoners sentenced to death in most circumstances.

* * * *

In this case though, what the law did was prevent a potentially innocent man from obtaining habeas relief in a case where he almost certainly deserved it. I understand the government's interest in preventing frivolous appeals from the convicted in capitol cases, but it's not in the interest of the government or society to execute the innocent, no matter what Antonin Scalia says. It's worth revisiting the habeas provisions of this law and seeing whether it can't be amended to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. Constitutional concerns about AEDPA also aren't new, even if the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past.

No Ham Sandwich

A New York Judge famously joked that a prosecutor could persuade a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

That's because the DA decides which evidence to present to the grand jury (and what is not presented). The Prosecutor decides which witnesses to call, and which questions to ask -- or not to ask. And then there's the fact that defense lawyers are not permitted in the grand jury room, so there is no cross-examination or way to point out any flaws in the government's presentation.

The result is as carefully orchestrated as opening night on Broadway, with the closing act carefully calculated to reach the desired result. If the DA wants an indictment, she will get one.

Unfortunately, that Judge didn't know Philly's Lynn Abraham -- at least when it comes to prosecuting cops.

Lynne Abraham, the long time DA of Philadelphia, has been called a "tough cookie" over the years and was crowned the Deadliest DA a few years ago because she's so fond of the death penalty. See Lynne Abraham: for better or worse, an institution in Philadelphia.

Yet she's also notorious for her failure to aggressively prosecute police brutality cases.

In the latest example of that, unlike the ham sandwich, she wasn't able to get the Grand Jury to indict the police in an egregious police beating case. As the Inky reports, Grand jury exonerates Phila. police in beating video:

To Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey, then newly arrived in Philadelphia, last year's news video of police officers beating three suspects was a black eye for the department.

In the days after May 5, 2008, when police stopped a fleeing car and arrested the three men, the Fox29 news helicopter video was telecast locally, nationally, and internationally. Ramsey took prompt action, firing four officers and disciplining four others.

Yesterday, a Philadelphia grand jury vindicated the officers who arrested Dwayne Dyches, Brian Hall, and Pete Hopkins. The grand jury recommended that no criminal charges be filed and decided that the officers used only the force necessary to subdue three men they had reason to believe were armed and had just fired into a crowd, wounding three others.

"The video, in fact, did not speak for itself," District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham said in announcing the grand jury report.

"We found that the design of the force applied by the police was helpful rather than hurtful," the grand jury report concluded.

"The kicks and blows, in other words, were aimed not to inflict injury, but to facilitate quick and safe arrests. We found that the kind of force administered was completely consistent with police training and guidelines and the laws of the commonwealth."

When I heard the news that the Grand Jury declined to prosecute, it was just what I expected from Abraham. There was no doubt in the outcome in my mind. Likewise, if things had been reversed -- the victims had attacked the police -- she would have aggressively pursued them, with an array of charges.

And once again, Abraham's propensity to take a dive for the police is being questioned. As observed in Cops-D.A. ties questioned:

Close ties between the Philadelphia Police Department and the District Attorney's Office, which presided over a grand jury investigation into a police beating caught on tape, have led some to question the jury's findings.

The D.A.'s office announced yesterday that a grand jury found that a group of police officers did not commit a crime while trying to subdue three shooting suspects last year.

Now, some, including attorney Paul Messing, who specializes in civil rights litigation including cases related to police misconduct, are asking whether the grand jury was unduly influenced by the D.A.

Lucky Abraham will be retiring soon. Unfortunately, it's not soon enough.

It's Not What You Do, It's Who You Are

Of all of the of the consequences of the current economic downturn, the worst is the rising number of suicides (especially family member murder/suicides). It seems to be a weekly, if not daily occurrence. And it seems that no one is immune.

Just last week, a Manhattan lawyer killed himself and his family in a Baltimore hotel room, while visiting their daughter at college. In that case, it appears that the lawyer, may have been involved in a financial scam that was about to be exposed.

As I've mentioned before, the legal community has been experiencing the same economic pain as is felt everywhere. Wolf, Block, a large Philly firm, decided to close last month. Lawyer layoffs are becoming a common occurrence, especially at the large firms and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight any time soon.

Another casualty of law firm layoffs was the suicide of an attorney who was told that he was being laid off by his firm. As reported by the Washington Post, Bethesda Lawyer Who Argued Before High Court Kills Self in Office on Layoff Day:

A 59-year-old lawyer with an Atlanta-based firm who was about to lose his job because of the economy was found dead in his Washington office yesterday of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound, according to police.

Mark I. Levy, a Bethesda resident who was a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration, was discovered by a co-worker about 8 a.m. in his 11th-floor office at Kilpatrick Stockton, in the 600 block of 14th Street NW, police said. They said evidence indicates that Levy shot himself in the head with a .38-caliber handgun.

In typical lawyerly fashion, Levy made sure all of the details were taken care of. The ABA Journal reports, Reportedly Laid-Off Lawyer is an Apparent Suicide at Kilpatrick Stockton:

An e-mail sent to Levy this morning produced this auto-reply message: "As of April 30, 2009, I can no longer be reached. If your message relates to a firm matter, please contact my secretary ... . If it concerns a personal matter, please contact my wife ... . Thanks."

His body was discovered at about 8 a.m. by a co-worker in his 11th-floor office, apparently shot with a .38-caliber handgun of which Levy was the registered owner. Today was to have been his last day, although he was to receive four months of severance pay, the Post reports, citing an unidentified source.

"The source said Levy left a note in his home, saying he loved his family and instructing his wife on how to handle finances and other matters," the newspaper writes. His teenage son found the note this morning and a Montgomery County police officer was in the home and broke the news to the family when someone called from Kilpatrick Stockton to report his death.

By all appearances, Levy was a successful lawyer. He was a Yale Law School graduate who headed Kilpatrick's Supreme Court and appellate advocacy practice group. He also worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as a senior political appointee during the Clinton administration. Yet, I'm sure that for him to face the loss of his career this way, at the age of 59, without another potential opportunity, had to be devastating. Lawyers, especially those who have done well, have a difficult time losing their identity as a lawyer. For many in the legal profession, a legal career defines them. In other words, "it's not merely what you do, it's who you are." That was the first thought that came to mind when I heard of the sad news of the suicide at the firm.

And apparently, Mark Levy was just that kind of person. It certainly didn't help that he had an appellate practice, which is extremely difficult to sustain. As noted in Mark Levy's Battle for Success:

In his 59 years, Mark Levy, head of Kilpatrick Stockton's Supreme Court practice, achieved more than many lawyers ever hope to. But friends and former colleagues believe he felt the pressure to accomplish even more.

After spending the past five years at Kilpatrick, Levy was found dead in his office Thursday morning, in what police are investigating as a gun-related suicide. Friends describe Levy as an upbeat but reserved person, who always turned out top-quality briefs and often arrived at the office before the sun came up. His career included stints at some of the most prestigious law firms around, as well as the Department of Justice.

But friends say he wasn't satisfied. And just two days prior to his death, Kilpatrick laid off 24 associates and counsel, including Levy, according to a close friend of Levy. . . .

Levy, who joined Kilpatrick as a counsel in 2004, had struggled to establish his appellate and Supreme Court practice, according to lawyers that knew him. Levy, who argued a total of 16 times before the high court, won a case for DuPont last October in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings. But prior to winning that employee benefits matter, Levy hadn't argued in front of the high court since 1989.

* * * *

Levy's age, however, may have been a factor in his unhappiness, according to psychologists.

"At age 60, you're starting to think of retirement. You're thinking that you should be immune to layoffs due to your prominence and your position," says Sherry Molock, a professor of clinical psychology at George Washington University, who studies suicidal behaviors. "You've paid your dues. You feel that you should have arrived by now."

An accompanying ABA Journal piece discusses the higher risk of suicide among attorneys, Lawyer Personalities May Contribute to Increased Suicide Risk:

Personality characteristics often associated with lawyers, such as perfectionism and competitiveness, when combined with depression may be contributing to a higher suicide rate in the legal profession, an expert says.

Lanny Berman, executive director of the American Association of Suicidology, a group devoted to suicide prevention, says risk factors for suicide include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide ideation, divorce and stress. And lawyers experience many of these risk factors at higher rates than the general population, he says. Lawyers are also more likely to be perfectionist and competitive, personality traits that make a person considering suicide less likely to seek help.

Those factors may be contributing to the increased suicide rate for lawyers, he says. A major study conducted some 20 years ago by the National Institute for Safety and Health found that male lawyers between the ages of 20 and 64 are more than twice as likely to die from suicide than men of the same age in other occupations.

What did Levy's firm have to say about this news? As noted by the Washington Post, it was PR all the way:

Diane Prucino, a co-managing partner of the century-old firm in Atlanta, confirmed the layoffs Tuesday in a statement quoted by the Fulton County Daily Report.

"These actions are driven by the economic downturn," she said, adding that the belt-tightening was "structured to further the long-term success of the firm and to enhance the achievement of our strategic goals."

Of course, achievement of our strategic goals is another way of saying that cutting lawyers & staff comes before cutting compensation for the big partners. These guys deserve the big bucks, you know, even if the rest of the world is cutting back. So, I wonder, how's that working for you now?

Going Once, Going Twice

The obituaries for newspapers have come fast & furiously of late -- some due to the actual closure of papers, others from essays predicting the end of newspapers generally. Based upon the latest circulation figures, the prophesied demise of newsprint is certainly supported. According to E&P, New FAS-FAX Shows (More) Steep Circulation Losses:

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released this morning the spring figures for the six months ending March 31, 2009, showing that the largest metros continue to shed daily and Sunday circulation -- now at a record rate.

According to ABC, for 395 newspapers reporting this spring, daily circulation fell 7% to 34,439,713 copies, compared with the same March period in 2008. On Sunday, for 557 newspapers, circulation was down 5.3% to 42,082,707. These averages do not include 84 newspapers with circulations below 50,000 due to a change in publishing frequency.

The NYTimes and Washington Post were the only papers spared the deep decline:

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circ was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

The Washington Post lost 1.6% of its daily circ to 665,383 and 2.3% to 868,965.

Of course, there is no end to reasons why, with the rise of the internet proffered as the main culprit. Yet that's just an easy excuse to avoid looking at the real reason for the failure of newspapers, which is the decline in providing real news and reportage that the public finds useful. As Will Bunch of Attytood said in another context, which applies here as well:

For the most part, we've failed so far. It was more than a little disheartening to learn of the crippling fear inside the newsroom of the New York Times, where editors and reporters were so afraid of offending, so afraid of anyone thinking that the newspaper was taking a side, that the news staffers refused to label globally outlawed practices such as waterboarding as "torture."

* * * *

Almost every flaw of our craft has been on display in the last week or two -- the pleading for a middle-of-the-road answer to a problem where there is no middle ground, the phony "he said, she said" journalism that gives a 50 percent voice to the advocates of American-bred torture, the use of unnecessary anonymous quotes to defend the indefensible, the need for an elite inside-the-Beltway clique to circle the wagons, to insist that aggressive prosecution is only for the crimes that "regular people" commit.

In other words, perhaps journalists should have been exposing torture rather than figuring out what to call it?

See also, Are newspapers to blame for their own demise?.

And then there are the statistics for Philly's own local paper, the Inky:

The Philadelphia Inquirer lost 13.7% of its daily circulation to 288,298. Sunday was hit just as hard, down 12% to 550,400. Daily circulation at its sister publication the Daily News fell 7.6% to 99,103.

The struggles of the Inquirer (and Daily News) are longstanding, with the paper currently in bankruptcy. It was just about 2 years ago that the papers were bought by a group led by adman extraordinaire Brian Tierney. See The Good News and Bad News. Since then, he has managed to make the paper a shadow of its former self. As I noted not long ago:

I hardly read the print version anymore (although we still get it delivered because my husband likes to read an actual newspaper). Except for one or two articles on the front page, the entire front section of the paper consists of reprints of AP, NYTimes and Washington Post articles. I can read those at the original source, so why bother reading them on a delayed basis in the paper? Even the opinion section mostly carries reprints of op ed pieces from elsewhere, along with the likes of Rick Santorum -- just the sort of outlandish conservative that a liberal town like Philly wants, so I skip over that too. The only thing worth reading is the Local section, to see what is happening in the region. Sometimes, I let the paper pile up over a few days and then just skim through to see what, if anything, is worth reading. This from a person who used to read 5 papers daily (including the Inky), from cover to cover! Overall, with cutbacks in staff and content, the old Philly paper ain't what she used to be.

He has implemented such brilliant moves as imitating the Metro, a free local paper, by adding an "express section" of the paper, summarizing what's covered in the paper elsewhere. The Reader's News Digest. I suppose it may also have been needed to fill up the pages with the missing news from reporters who had been laid off.

Another good move by Tierney was the decision to hold posting news and article on-line until the paper version was printed and delivered -- a great way to stay relevant in a digital world. I guess Tierney adopted the "if you can't fight it, resist it" theory of journalism. However, as co-founder of the Huffington Post, Ken Lerer observed at a recent lecture, Tough Love with Ken Lerer:

Kenneth Lerer to newspapers: You blew it.

The media executive and Huffington Post co-founder, in a lecture he delivered last night to a packed audience at Columbia’s J-School, pulled few punches when it came to newspapers’ culpability for the crisis in which they now find themselves. In the years when the expansion of the Web made it clear that news had an online future—the years when they should have adapted to that future, Lerer said—papers “barricaded themselves in an echo chamber.” Losing, in the process, not only their perspective on the future of news, but also their claim on it.

And then there was the Inky's piece de la resistance, the addition of Rick Santorum to the op-ed page. A brilliant move by Tierney, as I noted before:

I wonder if Inky owner/publisher Brian Tierney is channeling that other great rightwing media mogul, Richard Mellon Scaife, in trying to follow his vision of a publishing empire -- by creating a vast right wing conspiracy like Mellon Scaife. For a glimpse at Tierney, see Inquire No More. It hardly needs to be said that Philly is heavily democratic, but even the Philly 'burbs are trending Democrat these days and most of the remaining Republicans are hardly of the extremist ilk of Santorum. Considering the "popularity" of Santorum in this area (and his overwhelming loss in his last Senate race is further proof of that), it doesn't make sense to alienate so many of your readers at a time that you are trying to increase readership. And Santorum most certainly will -- it's his persona.

In fact, I'm sure for all his efforts on behalf of the paper, Tierney deserves yet another bonus. After all, where would the paper be without him?

We Remain Unpersuaded

Via Philadelphia Freedom Blog, I discovered that the federal appeals court in Atlanta had denied the appeal of Troy Davis. I've written about the case several times before. Unfortunately, the news is not surprising. Even when the court granted the appeal, I noted in Hold On, that "the remaining hurdles that Troy Davis still faces are still overwhelming. Although there is much evidence that brings his conviction into question, even getting approval to hold a hearing where such testimony would be considered is difficult. The legal standard that must be met before a hearing would be permitted is exceedingly stringent."

On the latest decision, the Atlanta Constitution reports, Georgia Death Row Inmate Loses 11th Circuit Appeal:

In a 2-1 opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Davis could not establish by clear and convincing evidence that a jury would not have found him guilty.

Davis’ innocence claims have attracted international attention. They rely largely on the recantations of key prosecution witnesses who testified at trial and on statements by others who say another man told them he was the actual killer.

* * * *

On Thursday, the two-judge majority noted that state courts and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles had exhaustively reviewed Davis’ claims and rejected them.

Judges Joel Dubina and Stanley Marcus said they agreed with those conclusions. “Davis has not presented us with a showing of innocence so compelling that we would be obligated to act today,” they wrote.

The judges said they view the recantations with skepticism and, after reviewing Davis’ claims, “remain unpersuaded.”

Although the article suggests that Davis' claims of innocence were reviewed in detail and found to be insufficient, the reality is that his appeal merely focused on granting him the right to assert his claims before a federal court. As explained by the ACLU's blog, Troy Davis Suffers Another Blow:

Late last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Troy Davis’s petition for a hearing to prove his innocence. Although seven of the nine non-police witnesses against him have recanted or contradicted their trial testimony, that evidence will not be heard unless the United States Supreme Court decides differently. Troy Davis still has a 30-day stay of execution to file a petition with the Supreme Court.

The 11th Circuit refused to hear Davis’ claims of innocence by a 2-1 vote. The decision was largely based on the onerous procedural obstacles that a death row inmate must overcome before a federal court will consider the merits of his or her constitutional claims – in Troy’s case, his claim that the execution of an innocent person violates the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis added).

This is echoed in the dissenting opinion of the Court, by Judge Rosemary Barkett Georgia Death Row Inmate Loses 11th Circuit Appeal:

The third judge on the panel, Judge Rosemary Barkett, dissented. She said executing an innocent person violates the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.

Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel of the Southern Center for Human Rights, echoed Barkett's dissent in an e-mail.

'The judges have completely lost sight of justice,' said Bright. 'They are lost in a maze of procedural rules that obscure the truth instead of revealing it.'

I guess it's not hard to "remain unpersuaded" when you're not really reviewing the full record on guilt or innocence. Justice is definitely missing in this case.

And, let's not forget what is at issue here. As Mary Shaw of Philadelphia Freedom says:

This is despite the fact that the evidence could show that Davis is innocent.

Does Georgia really want to risk executing an innocent man?

And what's to lose by granting him a new hearing? Doesn't Georgia want to be absolutely certain that they are punishing the right guy?

Stop, Look, Listen

Last Sunday, someone other than the Easter Bunny visited one of our neighbors. That's right, there was no Easter Egg Hunt for the Boyd family.

Instead there was another visit from a reckless driver who landed in their yard after running a red light, causing another accident on Lincoln Drive. I was sitting in our sunroom on Easter Sunday afternoon when I heard the loud crash. Based upon the noise & the sirens that followed, I knew it had to be pretty bad. My daughter, PhillyAngel, & I took a walk down the block to see what had happened this time.

The same neighbors who had a car land in their sunroom last year, see Lift-off on Lincoln Drive, were the unlucky recipients of another accident on their property. As the Inky reported, Renewed effort to slow Lincoln Dr. speeders, one of the homeowners, Sharon Boyd, was in her yard when an accident happened as she watched:

Boyd saw a blue car traveling east on Hortter Street sail through the red light and slam into a tan sedan heading north on Lincoln Drive.

She felt Peaches' heart quicken, and her own, as the two cars spun toward the house.

Boyd shouted for her husband, Larry, and her son Kevin to run.

The blue car knocked over a fire hydrant and took out some irises and shrubs on the side of the house. The tan one ripped the curb, then slammed into a utility pole in front of the house.

Yet again, there was a scene of screaming and crying passengers, swirling police lights, ambulances, and tow trucks, and broken glass on Lincoln Drive. In just the last two weeks, there have been six crashes on the drive - all in the residential area north of Johnson Street, with no fatalities.

Another neighbor, Policie Commissioner Ramsey, also reacted to the Easter hop:

Since Ramsey became commissioner last year, he has grumbled publicly about speeders on Lincoln Drive, which winds through Fairmount Park into the city's northwest neighborhoods.

After learning about the latest accident outside the Boyds' home, Ramsey said: "People just drive too doggone fast. Even when surfaces are wet they do not slow down. They slide into your lawn, your porch, anything because they lose control of their car."

To slow down drivers entering Lincoln Drive from Kelly Drive, a traffic-unit patrol car has been stationed for more than a year at the side of the road, a police spokesman said.

Unfortunately, Lincoln Drive is out of control. Even though we live nearby, I avoid it if at all possible. There are an average of 3 accidents a week. As the Inky noted, there were 6 accidents in the last 2 weeks, all in the 1 mile residential stretch past Johnson Street. Those who live along the Drive, including Ramsey, have had to take the initiative to protect their homes:

Several residents along the drive have posted "Keep Kids Alive Drive 25" signs on their lawns and placed large boulders around their properties to thwart wayward cars.

Ramsey said that about five months ago a car crashed into one of his boulders. "Again, somebody driving way too fast. Ruined their car . . . their undercarriage, anyway."

Part of the problem is that it is unclear who is responsible for the problem. A neighborhood group was formed to address the issue, once they figure out who to talk to:

"It's not clear who's supposed to address it: the city or the state," [Committee member Kittura] Dior said, noting that the drive is a state highway. "Everyone seemed to have an interest, but it wasn't a focused interest."

In fact, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation owns and does major reconstruction of the drive, mayoral spokesman Luke Butler said. The Streets Department is responsible for regular maintenance, and Fairmount Park crews plow part of the road.

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.) said he believed Lincoln Drive was a city highway but said: "In either instance . . . we're going to work with the community to make sure they get the resources they need to get it done. The city has tried a number of things over the years as far as staging entry on the drive, but further up is still a problem."

OK, this much is true, that the road is a big problem. Now what? Any chance we could maybe fix it??

The Tipping Point

Saturday morning, after I heard about the shooting in Pittsburgh, a mere day after the massacre in Binghamton, I posted my reaction/thoughts on my Twitter:

Yesterday Binghamton, today Pittsburgh. Is there ever a tipping point where gun control is the answer?

Of course, I knew the answer to my rhetorical question. There is no answer or Tipping Point. After all, as I've written about before, the NRA & its adherents believe in the Last Man Standing theory of gun control. As long as there is one man standing, that man has a god-given right to bear arms.

Cenk Uygur expresses my thoughts more cogently at the Huffington Post, Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Guns?:

How many shootings does there have to be in the news before we wonder about the wisdom of allowing just about anyone to get a gun in America? Our gun culture is completely out of control.

In just the last two days we have had 13 people killed in Binghamton, NY with a 9 mm and a .45-caliber, three police officers shot and killed in Pittsburgh with an assault rifle and two other guns, and a five children killed with a shotgun in Washington at the hands of their own father. How many will it take before we say enough is enough?

How about the eight people killed in a nursing home in North Carolina a couple of days before these shootings? How about the ten killed in Alabama a couple of weeks earlier? Is there any point when gun rights advocates would admit that we have too much gun violence in America? What will it take for them to acknowledge the most obvious thing in the world?

Of course, their answer is that we don't have enough guns in the country. If we just allowed concealed weapons at schools, nursing homes, work, bars, airports and just about anywhere else you can imagine, then we would have less gun violence. Yes, maybe in bizzaro world, but in this world the more guns we have had in this country the more people have been shot ... with guns.

Right. It's the Last Man Standing philosophy.

(Poster via Phawker)

All A Twitter

When I first read this post, captioned "What a Twit" via How Appealing, my initial thought was that Twitter had invaded the jury room and had compromised deliberations.

The linked AP story made it sound like a juror had been twittering about the case during the jury's deliberations:

A building materials company and its owner have appealed a $12.6 million verdict against them, alleging that a juror posted messages on Twitter.com during the trial that show he's biased against them.

The motion seeking a new trial was filed Thursday on behalf of Russell Wright and his company, Stoam Holdings. It claims juror Johnathan Powell sent eight messages - or 'tweets' - to the micro-blogging Web site via his cellular phone.

According to the motion, one posting listed the company's Web address and read in part: 'oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.'

Another described what "Juror Jonathan" did today: "I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money."

In his motion, filed in Washington County Circuit Court in Fayetteville, lawyer Drew Ledbetter wrote that the messages show Powell "was predisposed toward giving a verdict that would impress his audience."

See also, Juror's Tweets Prompt New Trial Request.

However, based upon later reports, it appears that the juror in question, Johnathan Powell, did his "tweeting" before and after the trial, not during. First of all, he sent out a tweet saying he had been picked for jury duty and had spent some time researching what's involved. Sounds like he was trying to do his civic duty, not compromise it. Afterward, he posted about the verdict. See Twittering Juror Explains Posts and An interview with the juror “who tweets”.

Here's what he twittered:

"Juror Jonathan" sent the following eight tweets out through Twitter before, during and after the case, according to the motion for a new trial.

Those messages were:

• "Well, I finally got called for jury duty. It is kinda exciting"

• "trying to learn about Jury duty for tomorrow, but all searches lead me to Suggestions for getting out if it, instead of rocking it"

• "I guess Im early. Two Angry Men just wont do"

• "Im the only one who brought toys: my laptop and a book"

• "I got selected!"

• "And the verdict is ... Penguin Eds can not make fries"

• "So Jonathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else's money"

• "oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they'll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter. http://www.stoam.com"

The fact that his ruminations about jury duty and the case itself came before and after the case makes all the twitter to be much ado about nothing. Just a bunch of twitter-twatter.

As Anne Reed, who blogs about juries and jury trials at Deliberation concludes, The One Simple Rule When Jurors Go Online, Powell's conduct didn't violate any rules:

He's right. There's nothing wrong with his 'tweets'. If we weren't so busy making the issue of jurors on the Internet more difficult than it needs to be, this story would never have gotten any play and Johnathan would be sleeping just fine.

One simple rule

Little band of people who read this blog, we can resolve this issue once and for all if we just tell every lawyer and judge we know that there is One Simple Rule for handling every case in which jurors access the Internet. One Simple Rule. Here it is:

If the juror had done the same thing off line, what would we do?

She reviews the circumstances of each tweet & concludes he's OK, since "after the verdict, he can say anything he wants to. It is, as they say, a free country."

And this gives me an excuse to post Jon Stewart's Twitter skit:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Twitter Frenzy

Daily Show Full Episodes

In the end, I think The Next Web called it: "This will make an interesting Law and Order one day…"

Law Street Blues

I've been watching the legal (gossip) news, wondering what was happening on the lawyer lay-off front. Last I heard, after the pre-Friday the 13th massacre, Friday The 13th, A Lucky Day for Lawyers, K&L Gates was going to decide on layoffs at the end of this month. Having spent some time there during my Pittsburgh days, I was interested in seeing what had happened.

However, when I checked the blog for all things gossip/legal, Above the Law, I was shocked to learn that 400 attorneys/staff had been terminated by Latham & Watkins, Latham Cuts 440 (190 Associates, 250 Staff), which is more than any law firm has ever done, short of dissolution, to date. As the Washington Post describes, Latham & Watkins Cuts 190 Lawyers:

In a vivid illustration of how the global recession is battering the legal profession, Latham & Watkins, one of the largest law firms in the nation, announced yesterday that it will let go 190 lawyers and 250 paralegal and support staff.

Latham & Watkins, which represents clients such as District-based Carlyle Group, Goldman Sachs, Harrah's Entertainment and UBS, has nearly 270 lawyers in Washington and more than 2,000 worldwide.

The firm is struggling with declining profits as corporate clients slash legal spending because of a reduction in mergers and acquisitions, capital finance and transactions. The job cuts are among thousands that have roiled through the industry in recent months.

In February, hundreds of jobs were cut at firms with District offices, including 243 at Holland & Knight, 134 at Bryan Cave and 29 at Dechert.

* * * *

Bob Dell, who is Latham's chairman and managing partner and works out of the firm's San Francisco office, said yesterday that the 440 jobs being eliminated represent 12 percent of the firm's associates and 10 percent of its paralegals. The cuts will occur in several of Latham's 28 offices, including those in the District, New York and Los Angeles, the firm said.

See also, Law Firm Layoff Watch: Latham Cuts 190 Lawyers, 250 Staff.

This follows news that Sonnenschein has decided to Shutter its' Charlotte Office, a "decision affects 11 lawyers and eight staff members." Not to mention that 53 people were laid off at Lowenstein Sandler -- 21 attorneys & 32 staff members (about 8% of the New Jersey firm's lawyers, Lowenstein Sandler Cuts 53 And Rescinds 3L Offers. They also rescinded offers to new hires, graduating law students who would have started in the fall.

This is apparently the newest thing in legalworld and is not limited to private firms. The Philly District Attorney's office just rescinded offers to its newly hired recruits. As reported by the Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia DA's Office Rescinds Offers to Incoming Class of Lawyers:

Large law firms aren't the only ones faced with the stark reality of staffing concerns in this economy. The already budget-crunched Philadelphia District Attorney's Office -- a large law firm in its own right -- has had to do something it has never done: Rescind offers to its incoming class of attorneys.

The office rescinded offers to the 12 incoming attorneys who were set to start in the fall, according to Kathleen McDonnell, chief of legislation and head of the hiring committee in the District Attorney's Office.

McDonnell said it was a 'heartbreaking' decision that was only made after several other measures failed to improve the office's staffing situation.

The 300-attorney office typically sees about 10 percent attrition each year, which enables it to bring in a class of up to 35 people, as it did last year. But in this latest fiscal year, only about two people left, McDonnell said.

No news, however, on K&L -- except the signs are ominous. Above the Law reports, The Curious Case of K&L Gates, firm partner meetings and rumors of impending layoffs abound. Sounds like Monday may be the day for K&L (although one commenter notes that some people received COBRA notices, which suggests that the decision set for Friday, but was deferred for some reason). Even worse:

Just after 2:00 p.m. on a Friday, K&L Gates decided to send around a reminder to "all U.S. personnel" about the mental health services the firm provides . . . .

It's probably nothing. It's probably just a coincidence. People really are stressed all over, and nobody wants a layoff story to turn into a true tragedy.

But, the timing is certainly curious. Why would H.R. choose a random Friday at the end of February to remind people to take care of mental health during "life events and personal transitions?"

As a health law attorney, I (as well as my LLWL colleagues) have been very lucky so far. Health care has always been considered recession-proof, so we generally aren't impacted by the downturns in the economy the way other industries are. However, that may be changing, as the economy seems to continue its devastating downward spiral, and health care may be next. Will Consumers Keep the Health Care Industry Growing?.

This all certainly portends more bad news, which is now impacting those in the upper income reaches. As Law & More aptly observes, in Latham Cuts 190 Associates: End of Era of Magical Thinking:

America's middle and upper classes have had a genius for pulling off magical thinking or superimposing fantasy on what should be on reality. That might have just ended. Not only are we getting it that things are that bad. We're also digesting that this economic ordeal could go on for years.

UPDATE: Of course, after I wrote my summary of the week that was, Above the Law, along with Law Shucks, provides a comprehensive overview of the carnage. The totals are stunning, as noted by Law Shucks:

All told, 560 people were laid off by major firms this week - 252 attorneys, 308 staff. To put that in context, more people were fired this week than in any month in 2008. Last year, the two busiest months at major firms were December, which had 435 layoffs (186 attorneys, 249 staff), and November, which had 431 (223/208).

Friday The 13th, A Lucky Day for Lawyers

Yes, today is Friday the 13th.

After yesterday's news in the legal profession, today may be a lucky day for those lawyers left standing.

Traditionally, Friday the 13th is considered the unlucky day. For true believers, it's known as Paraskevidekatriaphobia Day.

But, for lawyers, Thursday the 12th may be the unluckiest day of all.

Legal news blog Above the Law reports that over 800 lawyers & staffers were let go by big firms across the country at the end of yesterday. See So, What Are We Calling Today Exactly?

According the the Wall St. Journal Law Blog, The Darkest Day Ever for Big Law Firms?:

The day’s wreckage:

* DLA Piper announced it was laying off 80 lawyers and 100 staff members in the U.S.
* Goodwin Procter announced it was cutting 36 lawyers and 38 staff members
* Dechert cut 19 lawyers
* Faegre & Benson (yesterday) axed 29 lawyers

A later update from WSJ added:

Holland & Knight has fired 70 lawyers and 173 staff.

Of course, that doesn't mean lawyers have escaped the wrath of the 13th. See K&L Gates Battens Down the Hatches: Salary Freezes, Delayed Start Dates (But good news: no layoffs. For now.). And who knows what may yet to come. After all, there happen to be three such occurrences in 2009, two of them right in a row. That means next month brings yet another Friday the 13th (and even worse, Thursday the 12th).

Take the Money & Run

With the shady practices employed by Bank of America, I'm frankly not sure how they've gotten into the financial trouble that they have. They should be in great shape. They sure know how to take the money & run.

Of course, the latest news of the dastardly deeds of BOA is the attempt to collect the credit card debt from the son whose mother had died, with an outstanding balance due on her credit card. Despite the fact that a family member is not legally obligated to pay this bill, the BOA representative tried to mislead the son when he called to report that his mother had died. The rep also suggested that the son had a moral, if not legal, duty to pay. Finally, he added that the financial crisis was due, in part, to defaults such as this. As TPM reports, How Theresa Hatt Caused The Financial Crisis:

The rep's apparent intention, as Kelleher described it, was to mislead him into believing that he was obligated -- at first legally, then, failing that, morally -- to cover his mother's debt (which, in any case, was not large: she had had a $1000 limit on her card). Of course, Kelleher was sophisticated enough to know that's not true. But how many other less savvy callers in similar situations, he wondered, might respond to the rep's breezy "how are you planning to take care of her balance?," with a confused "I guess I'll mail in a check"?

The clear impression was that this was part of the routine collection practices engaged in by BOA, which Zackary Roth of TPM had confirmed by a former rep. As to these sleazy practices, he noted:

Bank of America and its competitors have already taken billions in taxpayer dollars. So it seems logical to insist on a similar set of public interest conditions -- and the industry's range of deceptive and rapacious lending practices would be a natural place to start.

Good luck with that! That's just standard operating procedure for these guys.

I'm having my own battle with BOA over a student checking account that my daughter tried to open at school in Miami. BOA is big in South Florida, and they have ATMs on campus, so she wanted to open an account with them. She first tried to open an account on-line and shortly after that, the Bank sent reps to the campus, to sign students up. My daughter told the rep that she had already opened an account, but he said to sign up for a new one with him. Of course, not knowing any better, she did. And, surprise of surprises, he gave her false & misleading information.

She then received a letter from BOA saying that they were closing her accounts. After several calls to "customer service," she was told they had closed the accounts because of suspected fraud (since she opened more than one account). First of all, I didn't know that it was illegal to have more than one account with a Bank. Second, although she tried to explain that the rep misled her about opening the second account, they brushed her off & advised her that it could affect her credit in the future.

When she came home for break, we went to a local bank office & explained the situation. The Bank manager took the information and said he would have the account re-instated. At the end of the holidays before she went back to school, we went back to BOA and we told that the account was re-activated. So, she deposited two checks, totalling $250. A few days later, she received her debit card. The next day, she received another letter saying that the account had been closed.

A few days after that, she received a letter stating that the Bank had confidential information that the checks would not be honored. I checked my account & the money I had given her was deducted the day after it was deposited. I just confirmed that the other check had been paid as well. So this accusatory letter was just wrong.

We tried to call the local Bank manager & were told that she had to speak to someone in "corporate." Several calls later & she was told that she'd have to go back to a local branch office to have the account re-instated, but that the account was closed and the money was being refunded. I said I wanted nothing to do with such a bad bank, so I wouldn't allow her to have an account there.

A few weeks later, she received a check from BOA in the amount of $190, stating that it was the full amount in her account at the time it was closed. What happened to the other $60? No explanation given -- then or since. A 24% charge for a student account that she was never able to access, after holding the money for three weeks before refunding it?

Of course, now that I've confirmed that they did in fact take the money from the other check, I certainly don't plan to let this one go. I will make a fuss, write a few letters (including to her college, suggesting that they considering switching on-campus banks), but I know that it won't matter in the end. That's the problem with BIG Banks, BIG business. They don't have to be responsive. There aren't as many choices, so you're stuck & they don't care.

Google "Bank of America Sucks" & you find 394,000 hits.

BOA stands for Bunch of Assholes.

Scranton Chain-saw Invasion

During the primary, President elect Barack Obama got in a heap of trouble for saying that the working class voters in Pennsylvania were bitter, which caused them to cling to guns or religion or a dislike of those who aren’t like them, such as anti-immigrant sentiment, as a way to vent their frustrations.

Well, he obviously spent some time in Scranton, for he knows about which he speaks. Scranton is not just "home" to his new VP to be, Joe Biden, or just like home to Hillary Clinton or the TV show, The Office. No, Scranton is much, much more.

Scranton is also home to the woman who was arrested for cussing out her toilet (as well as her neighbor, an off duty police officer). See The Terrible Toilet. And Scranton is also home to the most recent example of a brim full of bitterness -- the man who attacked his neighbor's door with a chainsaw because the neighbor allowed friends to park their car in front of the man's house.

As the Scranton paper reports, Jury convicts Scranton man in chain-saw incident:

A Scranton man who took a chain saw to his neighbor’s door walked out of Lackawanna County Courthouse in handcuffs Tuesday after a jury convicted him on four criminal counts.

* * * *

The incident occurred March 5 at Jamie Zaleski’s 730 Maple St. apartment. Mr. Zaleski was there with several friends when someone knocked on his door.

When he asked who it was, the man replied, “Your worst (expletive) nightmare. Open the door or I’ll cut it down.”

The group fled out the back door as the chain saw tore through the middle of the front door, leaving a gash that began at the bottom and stopped about halfway up.

During their investigation, police learned Mr. Kane and another neighbor, Earl Fedrick of 733 Maple St., approached Mr. Zaleski about a month before the incident to ask him to refrain from parking in front of their homes across the street.

* * * *

The chain-saw attack was precipitated March 5 when one of Mr. Zaleski’s friends parked in front of Mr. Kane’s home, according to police.

This is hardly a situation like Center City Philly, where parking is a premium. This is a residential section of Scranton, with single family homes and plenty of street parking.

That's certainly a new twist on road rage. In fact, it's a twist with a saw.

(Via From Pine View Farm).