• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Debra Cassens Weiss

Firearm Game Changer?

17 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Connecticut Supreme Court, Gun Control Laws, Second Amendment

≈ Comments Off on Firearm Game Changer?

Tags

ABA Journal, Connecticut Supreme Court, Debra Cassens Weiss, Federal Firearms Regulations, Sandy Hook

Families of Sandy Hook Victims May Sue Gunmaker Over Marketing Practices, Top State Court Says, by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal

https://bit.ly/2F7FgRA

On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza killed 20 twenty first-grade children, 6 adults, his mother, and himself in Newtown, Connecticut, with a Remington Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and other guns. In 2014, the children’s families sued Remington and others. That wrongful death civil lawsuit was dismissed in 2016 relying on federal law that protects gun manufacturers and retailers. The families appealed. In a recent surprise decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to reverse and remand the case to the state trial court relying on Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has protected gun makers and retailers against civil liability – until now. In its analysis, the Connecticut Supreme Court specifically noted that (1) the Bushmaster is a military-style rapid semiautomatic fire rifle with a large magazine; (2) the force and velocity of its bullets create a shock wave and catastrophic injuries; and, (3) the shooter killed 26 people in less than 4 and a half minutes. The Court dismissed many of plaintiffs’ claims. But, it agreed with plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ advertising and the way in which it did it was a CUTPA exception for illegal marketing practices.

Plaintiffs can proceed with their theory that Remington knowingly marketed and promoted the gun ‘for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies,’ the court said.

This is a case to watch. Expect much speculation about the impact of this ruling and the case’s eventual outcome. It has the potential to be a game changer for gun makers, distributors, retailers, and victims of gun violence. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Do You Use the Cloud for Document Storage or Production? Read This First.

28 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Clouds, Confidentiality, Discovery, Dropbox, Emails, Encryption, Evidence, Insurance Defense, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Litigation, Passwords, Privilege and Confidentiality, Requests for Production, Sanctions, Subpoena Duces Tecum

≈ Comments Off on Do You Use the Cloud for Document Storage or Production? Read This First.

Tags

ABA Journal, Attorney-Client Privilege, Cloud Storage, Confidentiality, Debra Cassens Weiss, Discovery, File Sharing, Legal Ethics, Work Product Doctrine

Upload To File-Sharing Site Was Like Leaving Legal File On A Bench, Judge Says; Privilege Is Waived, by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal©

http://bit.ly/2mxwEcF

Many use the cloud for file storage and sharing when attachments are too big to send by email. If you use the cloud for storage, file-sharing or transfer, document management, project management, or anything similar, here is a cautionary tale.

The plaintiff insurance company sued the defendants, and sought a declaratory judgment on the defendants’ claim of loss by fire. The plaintiff’s investigator uploaded the entire claims file, including surveillance footage, to a drop-box cloud, Box, Inc. The link had no encryption or password. Access to the link alone allowed anyone to see the file.

He then sent the link by email to the plaintiff insurance company, who sent it to the insurance company’s attorneys, who inadvertently sent it the defendants’ counsel in response to a subpoena duces tecum.

The defendants’ counsel looked at it, but didn’t tell the plaintiff they had seen the privileged and confidential information. Inevitably, the defense sent the information back on a thumb drive to the plaintiff’s attorneys during discovery.

After vigorous arguments about confidentiality, work-product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, and disqualification of defense counsel, the facts and court’s reasoning make this an interesting read. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Who Knew Adverbs Were So Dangerous?

10 Sunday May 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Writing, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Who Knew Adverbs Were So Dangerous?

Tags

Adverbs, American Bar Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss, Grammar, William P. Statsky

Using Adverbs Recklessly Can Hurt Your Appeal And Vex The Courts, by Debra Cassens Weiss, American Bar Journal – Appellate Practice (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)

http://tinyurl.com/mvggq6p

Adverbs can be a boon and a bane to lawyers who argue over the meaning of words such as ‘knowingly,’ ‘intentionally’ and ‘recklessly’ and sprinkle them throughout their briefs.

Indeed, the number of disputes over how to interpret adverbs in criminal statutes has surged since the 1980s, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports, citing research by Brooklyn Law School professor Lawrence Solan. But losing an argument over statutory construction isn’t the only downside to adverbs. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Lawyer Sanctioned For Throwing Paralegal Under The Bus To Explain Mistake To Court.

24 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Discipline, Lawyer Supervision, Legal Ethics, Paralegals/Legal Assistants, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Supervising Support Staff

≈ Comments Off on Lawyer Sanctioned For Throwing Paralegal Under The Bus To Explain Mistake To Court.

Tags

ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss, Lawyer Supervision, Legal Ethics, Paralegals

Judge Sees ‘Self-Congratulatory Blather’ In Biglaw Brief; Paralegals Blamed For Error, by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal (with hat tip to William Statsky!)

http://tinyurl.com/na9l6gy

A Florida bankruptcy judge overseeing a fight between investors in a shuttered fashion mall made no secret of his dissatisfaction with a Duane Morris pleading during a sanctions hearing on Friday.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Olson said the law firm appeared to be throwing a paralegal ‘under the bus’ when it blamed her for a mistaken court filing, and its sanctions brief was lacking the proper tone, the Daily Business Review (sub. req.) reports.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is Claustophobia A Viable ADA Lawsuit?

04 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Americans With Disabilities, Disabilities, Employment Law, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Is Claustophobia A Viable ADA Lawsuit?

Tags

ADA, Claustrophobia, Debra Cassens Weiss, Employment Law, Motion to Dismiss, U.S. District Judge Berle Schiller, Undisputed Legal Inc., Wrongful Termination

Lawyer’s Claustrophobia ADA Suit Survives Motion To Dismiss, by Debra Cassens Weiss, Undisputed Legal Inc.

https://undisputedlegal.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/lawyers-claustrophobia-ada-suit-survives-motion-to-dismiss/

A Philadelphia lawyer who claimed her law firm failed to accommodate her claustrophobia may proceed with her lawsuit, a federal judge has ruled. E refused to dismiss the disability suit against the law firm Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, the Legal Intelligencer (sub. req.) reports. The plaintiff, former law firm associate Erica Serine, had claimed the law firm refused to accommodate her disability and then fired her.

According to Schiller’s Feb. 25 opinion (PDF), Serine had requested a transfer in 2012 from a Marshall Dennehey office in Moosic, Pennsylvania, to an office in Philadelphia or Cherry Hill, New Jersey, to be close to family in the area. The firm allowed a transfer to the Philadelphia office.

But Serine says she experienced anxiety and other symptoms of claustrophobia beginning with her elevator ride to the 24th floor of the Philadelphia office on Oct. 1, 2012. She ‘obsessively researched evacuation plans’ and had trouble sleeping and eating, the opinion said. She was extremely nervous at work, particularly when in the elevator or when away from a window.

The law firm allowed Serine to work from home while she sought treatment with a psychologist, but turned down her request to work at the Cherry Hill office or Pennsylvania offices in King of Prussia or Doylestown.

In December 2012, Serine was advised she could work in Philadelphia or Moosic, but she could not continue to work from home. She was fired the next month. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 455 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: