Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  15835-15841 displayed

1  2261 2262 2263 2264 2265  3627

---

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell Attorneys At Law

RKC Attorneys Win Verdict Rejecting $10 Million Termite Damage Claim
RKC attorneys Daniel J. Gerber, Douglas B. Brown, Richard S. Geller, and Sara Burton won a jury verdict on behalf of a leading termite control company. After a three week trial in the case of Lighthouse Bay Apartments v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., the jury entered a verdict on all counts in favor of RKC's client, Orkin.

Lighthouse Bay, a partnership owning a 320 unit apartment complex in Tampa, sought over $10 million in damages for past and alleged future termite damage. Lighthouse Bay also sought $30 million in damages under the "Florida Civil Remedies Act." Lighthouse Bay's attorney announced on his web site he would seek $100 million in punitive damages; however, the Court never reached the trial's punitive damages phase due to the jury's verdict, rejecting all of Plaintiff's claims.

Lead attorney Daniel Gerber, in his closing argument, reviewed evidence of thousands of gallons of termiticide applied to the property. Gerber demonstrated how the apartment complex maintained the buildings poorly, allowing rain water to enter into the structures. Photographs taken by Lighthouse Bay's engineer showed termite damage occurring in patterns, mostly following the water intrusion.

The Plaintiff has moved for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge James Barton presided over the trial.

10-31-2006

---

Day Pitney, LLP

Day, Berry & Howard LLP and Pitney Hardin LLP Announce Agreement to Merge
Day, Berry & Howard LLP and Pitney Hardin LLP today announced an agreement to merge firms by year-end, with both firms voting unanimously on the merger. The resulting firm, which will be known as Day Pitney LLP, will extend both firms’ geographic reach and regional strength throughout the Northeast, from Boston to Washington, D.C. Day Pitney will have approximately 400 attorneys, operating in nine offices located in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Boston and Washington, D.C.


“The merger of Pitney Hardin and Day, Berry & Howard will put us in a stronger position to serve our clients,” said Dennis LaFiura, managing partner at Pitney Hardin. “As a joint entity, we will have a deeper legal expertise and broader geographic reach to work with our clients more efficiently and on a greater scale. At the same time, this opportunity will allow Day Pitney to attract new clients in different regional markets to gain increased traction in the Northeast.”


This merger will bring together two firms that are established leaders in their respective markets. Day, Berry & Howard’s strength in Boston, Connecticut, New York and Washington, D.C. will complement Pitney Hardin’s status as a premier New Jersey and New York City law firm. As a joint entity, Day Pitney will combine both firms’ traditional strengths in litigation and corporate law, while also offering clients deeper capabilities in areas such as government investigations, labor and employment, employee benefits, trust and estates, international estate planning, energy law, and intellectual property prosecution and litigation.


In addition, Day Pitney will offer individual clients a greater depth and breadth of service offerings, expanding on both firms’ longstanding traditions and core values of client-focused thinking and satisfaction. Working as a team, the Individual Clients Department will have greater resources to foster Day Pitney’s 100-plus years of experience advising individuals and their families.


“As we looked to increase our firm’s service offerings, merging with Pitney Hardin was a natural choice. Our firms share a history of market leadership, we both embrace similar core values focused on client service, and most importantly, we share the goal of expanding our capabilities in the Northeast market, including New York,” said Jim Sicilian, chair of the executive committee at Day, Berry & Howard. “The excitement is high and we look forward to combining our traditions to extend the reach of key firm practices, while still providing the personal focus on our clients’ needs that has been at the heart of both firms’ past success.

10-31-2006

---

Phelps Dunbar LLP

New Associates at Phelps Dunbar LLP
Phelps Dunbar LLP is pleased to announce the that following new associates have recently joined the firm.

Jacqueline M. Brettner is an associate in the tort litigation practice group in the New Orleans office. she was a member of the Order of the Barristers and the Tulane Moot Court. Ms. Brettner received her Certificate in International Business Union Law from Queen Mary School of Law in 2005 and her B.A., cum laude, in Political Science and Mass Communication from the University of Florida in 2001. She is admitted to practice in Louisiana.

Jaclyn C. Hill is an associate in the commercial litigation practice group in the New Orleans office. she was a managing editor of the Loyola Law Review and a member of the Moot Court. Ms. Hill received her B.A. in Biology from the University of Texas in 2002. She is admitted to practice in Louisiana.

Rebecca W. Hinton is an associate in the business practice group in the Baton Rouge office. she was the Production Editor for the Louisiana Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. Ms. Hinton received her B.S., summa cum laude, in Accounting from Louisiana Tech University in 2003. She is admitted to practice in Louisiana.

Kimberly R. LaHaye is an associate in the general litigation practice group in the Baton Rouge office. She was a member of the Louisiana Law Review and the Order of the Coif. Ms. LaHaye received her B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from Southeastern Louisiana University in 2003. She is admitted to practice in Louisiana.

A. Simone Manuel is an associate in the insurance and reinsurance practice group in the New Orleans office. she was a managing editor of the Loyola Law Review and a William L. Crowe Scholar. Ms. Manuel received her B.A. in Political Science from the University of Louisiana in 2001. She is admitted to practice in Louisiana.

Robert Gregg Mayer is an associate in the general litigation practice group in the Jackson office. he was Editor-in-Chief of the Mississippi Law Journal. Mr. Mayer received his B.S. in Journalism from Middle Tennessee State University in 1997. He is admitted to practice in Mississippi.

Mark V. Watts in an associate in the admiralty and tort practice group in the Gulfport office. He is admitted to practice in Mississippi.

Monique O. Wright is an associate in commercial litigation practice group in the Tampa office. She was Executive Editor of the Law Review. Ms. Wright received her B.A., cum laude, in Criminology from Florida State University in 2003. She is admitted to practice in Florida.

10-31-2006

---

Phelps Dunbar LLP

Phelps Dunbar LLP and Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey, LLP Merge
Phelps Dunbar LLP is pleased to announce that the law firm of Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey, LLP will join Phelps Dunbar on October 1, 2006. The resulting merger will produce an Admiralty practice with internationally recognized breadth of service and depth of experience.

Terriberry’s extensive Admiralty capabilities will strengthen Phelps Dunbar’s existing Admiralty practice and benefit from association with Phelps Dunbar’s broad practice base. Terriberry has long served owners, operators, and insurers of oceangoing vessels that carry cargo in and out of deepwater ports. Another significant Terriberry strength is its substantial marine pollution experience.

“As long as the nation needs energy and trades cargo internationally and domestically, these industries will remain strong both in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast. We are excited at the prospect our firms’ combined strengths offer our clients,” said Richard Dicharry, Phelps Dunbar’s Managing Partner.

Phelps Dunbar is widely known for its Admiralty practice, which is more traditionally focused on the oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the tugs and barges trading north/south in the Mississippi River and east/west in the Intracoastal Waterway. Phelps Dunbar is recognized by Chambers USA, America’s Leading Lawyers for Business* as a number one nationally ranked law firm in Transportation: Shipping (outside New York). The firm is also ranked internationally by Chambers Global* among law firms for the Admiralty practice.

“The addition of the Terriberry law firm significantly expands our regional Admiralty practice and provides further capabilities and experience to service our maritime clients,” explained George Gilly, the firm’s Regional Admiralty and Tort Litigation Practice Coordinator.

The merger is an opportunity of growth for the Terriberry practice as well. Five of Phelps Dunbar’s regional offices are located in port cities including New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; Gulfport, Mississippi; and Tampa, Florida. Terriberry currently works on many matters in Louisiana, Mississippi and internationally.

“The marriage of our capabilities provides the opportunity to improve and to expand our practices,” said Hugh Straub, Terriberry’s Managing Partner. “In addition, Phelps can provide our existing clients with experience in over 30 non-maritime practices.”

Ten of Terriberry’s attorneys will join Phelps Dunbar’s regional Admiralty practice group. Robert J. Barbier, Michael M. Butterworth, Gary A. Hemphill, Kevin J. LaVie, David B. Lawton and Hugh Ramsay Straub will join as Partners, Charles F. Lozes and Cynthia Wegmann as Counsel, and John A. Bolles and G. Edward Merritt as Of Counsel.

“It is unique in this legal community that two firms with such long histories, origins in New Orleans, and complementary Admiralty practices and reputations combine their resources to enhance client services.

10-31-2006

---

Pepper Hamilton, L.L.P.

More Frequent Background Checks of Employees & Applicants Increases Potential Liability Problems For Companies
More employers are conducting criminal background checks on prospective and current employees, and asking questions relating to prior arrests and convictions in the application process. This raises the need for companies to develop procedures and practices to avoid potential liability from discrimination complaints and other legal actions, according to Pepper Hamilton, a multi-practice law firm with 450 attorneys in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Michigan, California, and Washington, D.C.

80 percent of employers performed criminal background checks in 2003, compared to 51 percent in 1996, according to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). InfoLink Screening Services, an employment screening firm, found that 8.5 percent of the people they investigated in 2005 had criminal records. In addition, 33 percent of employers today perform credit checks, reflecting an increase of 55 percent over the last five years, according to a Harris Interactive poll conducted for Spherion, a recruitment and staffing firm.

“Background checks can help companies reduce costs arising from employee thefts, embezzlement, violence, absenteeism, and turnover; minimize their exposure to negligent hiring claims; and encourage honesty among employees and applicants,”
said Hope Comisky, a partner with Pepper Hamilton LLP.

“Background checks can also help employers determine whether applicants are qualified for employment, and identify job-seekers who provide incorrect personal and work histories. They can establish whether current employees are qualified for promotions or transfers, or are appropriate for positions involving confidential information,” added Comisky, who specializes in employment law counseling, training, and litigation.

However, companies must develop proper procedures and practices regarding background checks to avoid potential liability from complaints about discrimination, or stemming from the actions of improperly screened workers, according to Comisky. Employers should be aware of applicable state laws pertaining to background checks, as well as federal guidelines.

Many employers choose third-party vendors to conduct background checks due to their cost-effective expertise in pre-employment screening, and their ability to conduct a nationwide search to obtain an applicant’s most accurate and complete data and records Vendors are better able to detect attempts to use false identities, and to sort out cases of mistaken identities.

Background checks also should be conducted on temporary or outsourced workers by the corresponding staffing agencies. “Employers who fail to screen temporary workers are exposed to liability, which may offset any economic benefits they may realize from the use of temporary or outsourced workers,” said Comisky.

Included among the legal cautions employers should consider are:


Actions must be job-related: “Employers who use background checks during the hiring process must, when faced with a challenge, be able to establish that the practice is job-related and consistent with the needs of the business,” said Comisky. Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, a “disparate impact” claim will be successful if the complainant demonstrates that a particular employment practice had an unequal impact on him or her because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin; and the employer cannot establish that it was job-related with respect to the position in question, and was consistent with business necessity.

Governments may be liable for improperly screened workers: Individuals may sue certain government entities if their civil rights are violated by government employees who were not properly screened by a background check at the time they were hired, according to Comisky.

Special situations apply to criminal arrest records: Employers who make decisions based on an employee’s or applicant’s criminal arrest record must examine the circumstances surrounding the arrest; provide an opportunity for the individual to explain it; and then conduct an additional investigation to assess the person’s credibility, according to guidelines established by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). “The asserted conduct for which the applicant or employee was arrested must be job related and relatively recent,” Comisky said. “For example, an employer may closely scrutinize an applicant’s character and prior conduct for law enforcement-related positions, or those that would involve giving the employee easy access to the property of others, or involve responsibility for the safety of others.”

Proper disclosure required for credit checks: Employers performing credit checks on employees or applicants must obtain their written authorization before seeking a report, as well as provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure stating that the employer may obtain a report for employment purposes. “If an employer takes an adverse action based on the report – such as terminating an employee, or not hiring an applicant – the employer must give a copy of the report received from the outside agency that performed the search and a written description of the rights of a consumer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to the individual.

10-31-2006

---

Mayer Brown LLP

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw gains victory for Krombacher - injunction against Rainforest advertisement lifted
International law firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP has succeeded in having the injunction against Krombacher Brewery's Rainforest advertisement lifted by the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). Dr. Christofer Eggers, a partner in the firm, represents Krombacher in the four-year long litigation.

Competition associations had filed a suit against two of the brewery's advertising campaigns from 2002 and 2003 as they considered the campaigns to be anti-competitive on the grounds that they were not transparent and were misleading. However, as the lower courts had not made any findings regarding a possible risk of the consumer being misled, the cases were referred back to these courts.

Eggers commented on the Supreme Court judgment, as follows: "We are pleased the Senate has given the necessary clarification. Given that it has now been found that the campaign was sufficiently transparent, I am also confident that the consumer cannot be found to have been misled.

10-31-2006

---

Lowis & Gellen LLP

Another appellate victory for Lowis & Gellen LLP's Appellate Lawyers.
In the trial court, Lowis & Gellen partner Mark Smith represented a physician in a case tried to verdict involving the death of a two year old girl. A pharmacy, named as co-defendant, settled prior to trial, paying $90,000. At trial, the girl's mother testified that she had administered viscous lidocaine to her daughter by mouth. The issue in the case was whether the defendant doctor had properly instructed the mother on how the medication was to be administered. The doctor testified that he had told the mother to administer the medication by applying it to the sores in the girl’s mouth with a Q-Tip. The mother testified that she received no such instruction, even though the first time she administered the medication, she administered it using a Q-Tip. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff with the jury finding that the defendant doctor and mother were both 50% negligent. A judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $75,000, but this amount was subject to a set off in the amount of the co-defendant's prior settlement, resulting in a net obligation of $0 for Mark Smith's client. This award was not based on any evidence as to economic damages but was solely for the loss of society suffered by the parents and three siblings.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the jury's award of damages and moved for a new trial. Joan M. Kubalanza, also a partner at Lowis & Gellen, wrote the Defendant's Response to the Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial and won in the trial court. The plaintiff appealed and Joan along with Mehreen S. Sherwani wrote the Appellee's Brief. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the request for a new trial on October 27, 2004.

10-31-2006

---

25383 matches |  15835-15841 displayed

1  2261 2262 2263 2264 2265  3627