February 4, 2012
Guide to eBook Collections Identity eBook Providers Features
For the following eBook collection providers:
- ACLS Humanities E-Book
- Blackwell Reference Online
- Books 24x7
- EBSCO e-Books
- Hathi Trust
- National Academies Press
- Oxford Reference Online
- Oxford Scholarship Online
- Royal Society of Chemistry Ebooks Collection
- Safari Business Books Online
- Science Direct Ebook Collection
- Springer Ebooks Collection
- Wiley Online Library
Yes, no listing of our commercial legal publishers. They are still way behind the curve on this one. See Indiania University, Bloomington, Library's Using Electronic Book Collections for details. [JH]
February 3, 2012
Scholars v Elsevier STM in the Court of Public Opinion
Following up on LLB's post, Won't Publish, Won't Referee, Won't Do Editorial Work: Professors boycotting Elsevier STM journals because of the Company's business practices, see also The Chronicle's recent article. It reports on Elsevier's response to the boycott and interviews boycotting scholars and a university library administrator.
[T]he protest has also reached junior scholars like Mr. Abrahams of Albert Einstein, who has yet to gain tenure.
"I have three papers I'm hoping to submit in the next 12 weeks. One was destined for Cell, and another for Neuron," also published by Elsevier, he said. "It would have been a real feather in my cap to publish there. But I won't, based on this week's discussions." His work, focused on identifying genes related to autism, will go other places. "There are other good journals. And, long term, I'd like my library to be able to use its limited resources to better ends" than high journal prices, he said.
That could signal real problems for Elsevier, says Kevin Smith, director of scholarly communications at Duke University Libraries. "Librarians have long complained about prices and bundling journals together, and nothing has changed," he says. "Now it's not just the customers who are complaining. It's the suppliers."
Academic librarians may buy journals, but it's the scientists who produce and submit articles that make them worth buying, he says. "If they are upset, there is a chance they may change the system."
Quoting from Josh Fischman's As Journal Boycott Grows, Elsevier Defends Its Practices. Do note the comment trail. [JH]
Friday Fun: The BigLaw Job Interview
BitterLawyer.com's original series: Nick interviews for his dream job at a prestigious law firm. But that turns into a nightmare. [JH]
Reducing Law School Tuition to Zero
Pointing to Great Britain as an example, Northwestern Law prof John McGinnis and K&E attorney Russell Mangas argue the case that legal education should be taught as a major at the undergraduate level. From their Jan. 17, 2012 WSJ opinion piece titled First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Law Schools:
States should permit undergraduate colleges to offer majors in law that will entitle graduates to take the bar exam. If they want to add a practical requirement, states could also ask graduates to serve one-year apprenticeships before becoming eligible for admission to the bar.
In addition to reducing the cost of training a lawyer, an undergraduate law degree could facilitate innovation in legal teaching. Because an undergraduate major would be situated within a college of arts and sciences, it would be easier to provide an interdisciplinary education, mixing elements of social science and humanities with legal doctrine.
The authors also note that "the undergraduate option would improve graduate education by forcing law schools to justify their cost by offering additional benefits." The authors point to LLMs. One could also add the possibility of offering doctorates in all the "Law & ..." areas.
[T]he great benefit of the undergraduate option would be lowering the cost of legal education, thus increasing the supply of lawyers willing to charge lower fees. Lower fees mean broader access for middle- and lower-income Americans. Ultimately, law exists to serve the public. Legal education needs to provide more diverse options to assure a more diverse bar and a better-served public.
Makes too much sense to me. So I don't expect any such transformation of legal education in my lifetime.
- Imagine law school deans -- "I don't want to become some lowly liberal arts and sciences academic department head."
- Imagine university administrators crunching the numbers for tuition revenue loses.
- Imagine law profs complaining about the loss of their pay scale differential and higher tenure standards (good-bye student edited law reviews; hello peer reviewed law journals).
On a lighter note. The authors fail to add that graduating with a BA in Law could also improve the prospects of finding some sort of gainful employment outside of law if practicing law jobs aren't available. See ATL's What ‘Can’t’ You Do With a Law Degree? and 140 Things You Can’t Do With a Law Degree on Constitutional Daily. [JH]
February 2, 2012
Complaints in Law School Employment Data Cases Available
Anyone wanting to see the complaints filed yesterday against 12 law schools over job data should visit this page from the web site of attorney David Anziska. The new documents join the two filed earlier against the New York Law School and The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. All of the filings follow a similar pattern. The first several pages are customized to representations of how the law schools present themselves to prospective students, a deep examination of the employment data each school reported, and alleged details of ABA complicity, if one could call it that, in the affair. Words such as “Enron-style accounting” and “Madoff-style consistency” are some of the ways each school’s conduct is described. This is followed by three actual counts: (1) violation of the state’s deceptive practices statute; (2) fraud; and (3) negligent misrepresentation. Exhibits to the complaints include articles about the state of the job market and the various letters sent by Senators Boxer and Grassley to the ABA.
I can’t suggest at this point whether the plaintiffs will or will not succeed in the suits. Discovery should be very interesting. This story will not go away easily for all involved. Bloomberg has a story on the suits here.
As a matter of disclosure, I work for DePaul University, one of the defendant law schools. Nothing I say about this suit, no matter how general that may be, should be construed as any kind of statement, official or unofficial, from DePaul or its law school. [MG]
"Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011"; US drops 20 positions in Reporters Without Borders' World Press Freedom Index, 2011/2012 Rankings
This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world. Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.
Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.
Do note that the United States' position in the annual index fell some 20 positions to 47th, sharing that "pride of place" with Argentina and Romania. Why?
The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.
Quoting from the World Press Freedom Index 2011/2012. The moral of the US story is, perhaps, be very, very careful when trying to report on protests against the 1%. [JH]
Constitutional Chiffhangers: Learning the "hard way" or fixing some ahead of time
Last month, Brian C. Kalt, Harold Norris Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law at Michigan State Univ., published a series of The Volokh Conspiracy posts devoted to topics addressed in his new work Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies (Yale UP, Jan. 24, 2012)[Amazon] including one responding to the comment trails of his posts.
In his final post, Kalt writes
There are two kinds of cliffhangers: those in which the main problem is a bad result, and those in which the main problem is uncertainty. An example of the former is Chapter 1, where a sitting president might get prosecuted (with the attendant disruption) or might not (with the attendant injustice). The fact that, in the meantime, presidents and prosecutors go about their days unsure of the answer is much less of a problem. The chapters on self-pardons and late impeachment fit in this category as well. Legislation requires energized consensus, and there wouldn’t be one. Best, then, to just wait for an actual case to deliver a final resolution: either an acceptable result or an unacceptable one that motivates Congress to act.
When the problem is uncertainty, by contrast, the case for proactivity is stronger. In Chapters 3 and 4, constitutional uncertainty could rip the country in half, with two people claiming presidential power, issuing contradictory orders to the military, and purporting to fire cabinet members. The cost of resolving such cliffhangers “the hard way” is so high that it should soften opposition and make it easier — albeit still not easy — to reach a consensus and fix things ahead of time.
All in all, not a bad way to promote interest in the work. Hopefully, Robert William Bennett's blurb review is right because I bought a copy to reading on the plane.
"Brian Kalt's Constitutional Cliffhangers is full of insights into constitutional interpretation, a lively topic of concern among both scholars and the public more generally. Without in the least diminishing its scholarly contribution, the book is also playfully written, so that it is a delight to read." — Robert William Bennett, Northwestern University
February 1, 2012
Another Shoe Drops: 12 Law Schools Finally Sued Over Law School Employment Data
The National Law Journal is reporting that class action attorneys are making good on their threats to sue several law schools for misrepresenting employment data. The intention to sue was announced last November. The schools in question are Albany Law School of Union University, Brooklyn Law School, California Western School of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, DePaul University College of Law, Florida Coastal School of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law, The John Marshall Law School, University of San Francisco School of Law, Southwestern Law School, and Widener University School of Law. I look forward to reviewing the complaints against individual schools and I will post links when they become available.
In somewhat related news, the Yale Daily News reports on the reaction to a previous proposal by Professors Akhil Amar and Ian Ayre that the reported statistics include LSAT and GPA information to give students comparative information on how graduates with those measures are employed. The reaction is that while the information is interesting, it doesn’t predict how things such as personality and temperament affect career path. I don’t know. Maybe we could just read their Facebook pages to gauge their law school experience and job outcomes.
One last related note, it appears that the GAO had issued two reports in the last four years on law school costs and the ABA’s handling of accreditation. If anyone is interested, see Issues Related to Law School Accreditation, GAO-07-314, Mar 8, 2007, and Issues Related to Law School Cost and Access, GAO-10-20, Oct 26, 2009. [MG]
Won't Publish, Won't Referee, Won't Do Editorial Work: Professors boycotting Elsevier STM journals because of the Company's business practices
On Jan. 21, 2012, Timothy Gowers, Royal Society 2010 Anniversary Research Professor, Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at Cambridge University, [web profile; Wikipedia entry] called for boycotting Elsevier because of the Company's business practices with respect to its STM journals. At issue:
- They charge exorbitantly high prices for their journals.
- They sell journals in very large "bundles," so libraries must buy a large set with many unwanted journals, or none at all. Elsevier thus makes huge profits by exploiting their essential titles, at the expense of other journals.
- They support measures such as SOPA, PIPA and the Research Works Act, that aim to restrict the free exchange of information.
Any of the above criticism ring true in your ears in the context of the business practices of some of our major legal vendors?
In Elsevier — my part in its downfall, Gowers explains:
I don’t think it is helpful to accuse Elsevier of immoral behaviour: they are a big business and they want to maximize their profits, as businesses do. I see the argument as a straightforward practical one. Yes, they are like that, as one would expect, but we have much greater bargaining power than we are wielding at the moment, for the very simple reason that we don’t actually need their services. That is not to say that morality doesn’t come into it, but the moral issues are between mathematicians and other mathematicians rather than between mathematicians and Elsevier. In brief, if you publish in Elsevier journals you are making it easier for Elsevier to take action that harms academic institutions, so you shouldn’t.
Since his Jan. 21st post, over 2,500 profs have signed a "won't publish, won't referee, won't do editional work for Elservier" pledge on The Cost of Knowledge website (NB: I believe the website wasn't online until Jan. 23rd).
Do I even need to comment that we make it easier for our major legal publishers to take action that harms law libraries and their users because we have not taken similiar consumer advocacy actions? In the age of legal information commodization, a case can be made that we don't need one specific legal publisher's services because another one is available. Of course, our options tend to be limited to two in the duopoly of the market place but the publishers can be distinguished on the basis of their objectable business practices. My hunch is that if the instiutions we represent are well-informed, they would agree.
Targeting a specific bad corporate practice and/or a specific product line is probably the best way to go about doing this. One that comes immediately to mind is boycotting TR Legal's ProView eBooks because of how licensing is exectued. No doubt there are issues applicable to other legal information vendors as well.
It is one thing to quietly execute cancellations in the Shed West era, downsize (even kill) licenses for commerical online databases with respect to (because of) bundled plan coverage, user accounts, cost increases, licensing restrictions, etc.. It is quite another to say so publicly in specificity and call on others to join in a concerted manner.
Let's close this post with a final comment by Gowers:
So I am not only going to refuse to have anything to do with Elsevier journals from now on, but I am saying so publicly. I am by no means the first person to do this, but the more of us there are, the more socially acceptable it becomes, and that is my main reason for writing this post.
David Segal's Bloomberg Law Interview: "Largely focusing on real issues"
Hat tip to Chicago Law prof Brian Leiter for calling attention to the Jan. 26, 2012 Bloomberg Law interview of NYT reporter David Segal. You know who he is, right? (The author of a long running series of New York Times stories critical of the current state of legal education that some, many, most(?) members of the legal academy find ill-infomed, to put it mildly.). In his post, Leiter writes:
[Segal] does much better [than his NYT articles on legal education] ... in this interview, largely focusing on real issues, including correctly discussing the role of U.S. News in so much of the mischief.
That got my attention! And after viewing the video (below) I agree but would add there is also a fair amount of ABA-legal academy mischief discussed in the interview and a depressing but probably realistic assessment of the likelihood of substantive reformation.
Segal's responses to questions asked by Bloomberg Law's Lee Pacchia, while brief, were not simplistic. Alas, about seven minutes into the interview, Pacchia could have but did not ask about Duncan Law and Segal could have but did not bring up his reporting of the Duncan Law story. [JH]
January 31, 2012
New Jersey Proposes Merging Rutgers-Camden With Rowan University
The plan to merge Rutgers University-Camden with Glassboro-based Rowan University (about 20 miles away) is meeting resistance, or at least shock and outrage by students at the law school. Various press outlets interviewing students for their articles has them expressing concern that the Rutgers name would go away. It’s a brand, after all, and students are attached to it for all kinds of reasons. Current students wonder if the Rutgers name would be on their diplomas, something that helps them distinguish themselves in the job market. One article quotes a student:
Dean Rayman Solomon is quoted in the same article as saying:
“The name of Rutgers is crucial to this law school and it is part of what has made us an outstanding school. It is necessary to continue (the name) and I will continue to advocate that as long as I’m able.”
The merger was proposed in a report issued January 25th by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Advisory Committee. Ostensibly looking the organization of medical education in New Jersey, the single reference in the report to the law school is on page 23:
To meet the medical school’s future needs and the higher education and workforce and economic development needs of this growing region in the most expeditious, responsible manner possible, the Committee’s view is that a full integration of Rutgers‐Camden into Rowan University should be undertaken. This integration should include the law school and business school at Rutgers University in Camden. It must be carried out in a manner that protects the critical academic interests of all students. It is the best and most efficient means of getting the most from existing programs and educational capacity in the region while also enhancing Rowan’s programs and laying an important building block not only for the development of the medical school but also, in the Committee’s view, for providing the elements necessary for Rowan to become a comprehensive public research university.
Students are mobilizing support through Facebook and urging concerned individuals to contact their legislators.
Faculty are not thrilled either, and that reaction is not limited to the law school. The concern is that by merging duplicate programs, Rutgers-Camden faculty would lose tenure through layoffs. The report’s language that the merger “must be carried out in a manner that protects the critical academic interests of all students” pointedly does not mention faculty. The merger, if it goes through, will likely generate lawsuits, indirectly supplying jobs for lawyers. Governor Christie’s office declined comment on what he intends to do with the recommendation according news reports.
Rowan’s claim to fame is that it was the site of the summit between President Lyndon Johnson and then Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin in 1967. The Glassboro State College, as it was called then, was chosen as it was the mid-point geographically between the United Nations building in New York and Washington D.C. The College received a $100 million donation from industrialist Henry Rowan in 1992 and changed its name in his honor.
Rutgers-Camden is a second tier law school and is ranked 77th by U.S. News. For now. [MG]
Holy Mary, Mother of God, Is Fastcase Buying Bloomberg?
All of Bloomberg? Just BLaw? Details here. [JH]
Should Librarians Care About Privacy Anymore? Live stream for free UNC Chapel Hill conference on Feb. 3
Celebrating the 80th Anniversary of the UNC School of Information and Library Science (SILS), SILS is hosting in conjunction with ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom and the UNC School of Law a presentation, titled, "Should Librarians Care About Privacy Anymore?" The event will feature Barbara M. Jones, director of the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom and a panel discussion with Anne Klinefelter, associate professor of Law and director of the UNC at Chapel Hill Law Library, Christopher (Cal) Lee, SILS associate professor and Zeynep Tufekci, SILS associate professor. SILS Dean, Gary Marchionini, will moderate the panel discussion.
Quoting from the conference abstract:
Libraries must and should care about privacy. We have a long legal tradition of creating and defending library confidentiality statutes in every state in the U.S. We serve as a model for the rest of the world in how we treat our user requests with such considerations for their privacy. We need to remain as a model as new technology in libraries threatens to compromise that legislation we fought so hard for. Libraries can only provide the best service if user privacy is ensured.
Libraries can continue to play a leadership role in this field, as we have with the unforeseen consequences of the USA PATRIOT Act. ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom has done some groundbreaking work in libraries with their grant from the Open Society Foundations. During her presentation, Jones will review some of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom activities past, present, and future.
Additional information including joining the conference via the live stream here.
SILS 80th Anniversary Event - "Should Librarians Care About Privacy Anymore?" A Webinar
Start Time: February 3, 2012 - 1:00pm - 3:00pm (Eastern)
January 30, 2012
Sixth Circuit Rules In Religious Discrimination Claim Over Counseling Gay Clients In University Program
There is an interesting case out of the Sixth Circuit where a graduate counseling student is challenging her dismissal from Eastern Michigan University. Julea Ward claimed her religious beliefs conflicted with certain aspects of counseling gay and lesbian clients, and when placed in that situation during her practicum, she requested that the client be given a referral. The faculty member advising with Ward granted her request but was disturbed enough by it to convene an informal hearing on what had happened. Circumstances developed into a more formal hearing setting where Ward was dismissed from the program.
The University based the decision on the violation of provisions of the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics which is incorporated in the Student Handbook. The two provisions cited by the University forbid the imposition of values inconsistent with counseling goals and engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ward sued, claiming she was dismissed from the program because of her religious beliefs. The District Court granted the University summary judgment.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court considered basic First Amendment law as applied to education and concluded that educational institutions, including universities, have great leeway in controlling speech in regard to furthering pedagogical goals. Some of the commentary to this decision notes that the Court relied on precedent developed in a high school setting. The Court nonetheless stated that the logic of the precedent apply to students rather than the type of program.
An examination of the limited record showed that the ACA Code of Ethics contemplated counselors referring clients in circumstances where conflicts would arise, including a clash of values between counselor and client. The University seemed to ignore this provision at Ward’s hearing. Moreover, the University’s no referral policy seems to have been created after the fact to justify its decision. At least there is no documentation that provided notice to Ward of such a policy, one which the University violated by actually allowing the referral. The Court stated that the University could possibly win at trial with a chance to make its case to the jury depending on the evidence both side presented. In any event, the case as it existed could not be decided on summary judgment motions.
The case is Ward v. Polite, et al. (10-2100/2145) decided January 27, 2012. [MG]
RIP pCasebooks, 1871 - 2021: 150 years is a long run but the time is ripe for a change
"From entrenched businesses, such as Wolters Kluwer, to a nonprofit, like the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction, there is agreement that physical textbooks and particularly traditional case books will, sooner or later, become educational relics alongside fountain pens and manual typewriters," writes Evan Koblentz in Apple, Publishers, Open-Source Dictate Law School Textbook Evolution (Legal Technology News, Jan. 25, 2012).
When? CALI Executive Director John Mayer thinks it will take about a decade.
"Certainly the print side of the business is going to be on the decline, but it's going to take a decade. Paper has served us well for a century. It doesn't go away overnight," Mayer continued. "The casebook is dead. It's time to break the thing up into small, repurposeable materials," he noted.
Damn right, John. Of course, that's not why TR Legal is trying to sell off its law school publishing division now, right?
Book format, whether print, online, or e-book, isn't a factor in our decision.
Quoting from an email by TR Legal's General Manager for Law School Publishing, Chris Parton, sent to Law Technology News.
One can view TR Legal putting its traditional law school publishing division on the auction block as a logical continuation that started with selling off BAR/BRI to Leeds Equity Partners in April 2011. "Let's just get the hell out of this entire legal education market!" Good luck with the attempt to sell the law school publishing division. When TRI couldn't get the $$$ it wanted for Health, the Company took down the For Sale sign. Will history repeat itself?
Of course, one can also view the asset divestiture as a means to a new end, namely, inventing a 21st century legal education product line, one that "grow[s] from its core of subscription-based research and reference products, workflow solutions, software and services" by way of very, very, very tight integration. (Yes, quoting text from TR Legal's "we're gonna bail on you, law profs" notice out of context.) It could become the new normal for law student indoctrination.
Hell if I know but I seriously doubt law school students will be carrying all that many law pBooks to class in 10 years. By "all that many," I am not just referring to pCasebooks. See the comments by Kristine Clerkin, General Manager and VP, Legal Education, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, at Apple, Publishers, Open-Source Dictate Law School Textbook Evolution.
Whoa ... wait a minute ... what's stopping TRI CEO Jim Smith from launching Eagan Law School Online, "a trusted legal education from Thomson Reuters"? (Think law profs earning $25 per hour). On that scary note, let's close this post with another quote from CALI Executive Director John Mayer published in the Legal Technology News article:
Our premise is that if it's educational, you've got to give people the freedom to repurpose the material for educational goals. If anytime you have to ask yourself, "Does this make us money," then you're not really serving educational goals.
John, you pinko, you commie ... ! [JH]
January 29, 2012
Browsing On Sunday: Words, Social Media and the Courts, and SCT Opinions
Business Insider highlights the Google Ngram Viewer which searches the Google book database for frequency of words. The viewer can take multiple words and graph their usage between 1800 and 2000. It’s a good way to measure how terms for the similar things change over time. The word “dirigible” is the overwhelming favorite term between 1880 and 1950. “Blimp” was popular during World War II. That’s not much of a surprise given how many lighter-than-air aircraft were used for reconnaissance then. That term is now the popular preference over “dirigible” and “zeppelin.” The latter never made much of an impact compared to the other two. Business Insider includes a series of word check examples as part of the article.
In a somewhat related note, there is a story on Medicalxpress.com that highlights a study of the English Language relating to the frequency of terms that are positive and negative. The study drew on four sources: twenty years of the New York Times, Google Books, Twitter and a half-century of music lyrics. The expectation was that there would be more usage of negative terms given the sources, but English was found to be more expressive of positive terms. Is that a measure of language or the people who use it? Positive is a positive, in any event. It would be interesting to do a similar study using transcripts from political debates. I wonder what that would show about politics.
The New York Times is taking a look at the e-reader and how it’s changing the publishing industry with a focus on Barnes & Noble. The Nook may represent the company’s strategy to transition to electronic distribution, if and when that time ever comes. The industry is very much in favor of keeping Barnes & Noble as a seller of physical goods. The alternative is a distribution network dominated by Amazon, a company not known to suck up to the publishers. The article is called The Bookstore’s Last Stand.
The Federal Judicial Center published a study late last year on the use of social media by jurors. It found that 30 judges out of 508 who responded to the survey study encountered the use of social media by jurors. Some of the activity was benign, such as updating status on Facebook, and some of it included attempting to research the case or trying to contact parties involved in the case. Benign or not, it’s all forbidden. A big concern is detecting it. The report did note that fellow jurors typically turned in violators to the court. One deterrent is the use of jury instructions that lay out the prohibition of the use of social media. The report has several examples of instructions submitted by a number of judges. Hat tip to Gary Price at INFOdocket.
Finally, the Washington Post examines recent high-profile decisions from the Supreme Court and notes that the decisions are too narrowly drawn to draw meaning for those beyond the defendant. Some legal scholars were a bit disappointed in the GPS tracking case of United States v. Jones because it wasn’t a game changer in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. That case involved the use of surveillance technology which has the potential to change drastically over time. These kinds of decisions give the Court some flexibility in addressing those changes when they become issues in a case. Perhaps that is something to not complain about. [MG]
Round-Up of Law Practitioner Blogs
San Diego Patent Attorney Blog
Examines patent law cases, news, and related matters in California. Published by Mandour & Associates
San Jose Bankruptcy & Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Lawyer Blog
Examines bankruptcy and fair debt collection news, cases and related matters in California. Published by Ronald Wilcox, Esq
California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog
Examines nursing home abuse cases, news, and related issues in California . Published by Law Offices of Ben Yeroushalmi
New Jersey ABC Lawyer Blog
Discusses liquor licensing, alcoholic beverage control news and related matters and in New Jersey. Published by Villani & DeLuca, P.C.
New York Employment Lawyers Blog
Examines employment law cases, news, and related matters in New York. Published by The Derek T. Smith Law Group.