Monday, October 5, 2009

False Equivalence

The Georgia Supreme Court denied an appeal of a decision by its Board of Bar Examiners declining to waive the requirement that the applicant graduate from a law school accredited by the ABA. The applicant had graduated from the John F. Kennedy Law School in 2006 and has not been admitted in any state. An applicant seeking waiver of the requirement must demonstrate legal knowledge and experience equivalent to that of an accredited law school: "Despite repeated requests...[he] never submitted this documentation. Without this information, the board had no objective basis to evaluate [his] legal education or compare it to that of an ABA-accredited school. While [he] provided several references, and an admirable history of public service, these alone fall well short of the showing of good cause required..." (Mike Frisch)

October 5, 2009 in Teaching & Curriculum | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Hard Labor Suspended

The story of the attorney convicted of felony theft in his role as chief financial officer of Kiko Foods Inc.has ended in permanent disbarment. The thefts had totaled almost $360,000 and resulted in a suspended sentence of five years at hard labor. The Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the attorney was already serving a suspension for unrelated misconduct involving a $40,000 fee that the attorney had taken without required court approval. (Mike Frisch)

October 4, 2009 in Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Readmission Leads To Permanent Disbarment

An attorney was permanently disbarred by the Louisiana Supreme Court, ending a rather remarkable career at the bar. He was admitted in 1982 and first suspended in 1986 as a result of a felony conviction. He consented to disbarment in 1987. The court, in a decision it would come to regret, granted readmission in 1999.

Here, the court affirms findings in connection with a wide array of ethics violations after reinstatement. While many of the complaints involve findings of neglect and failure to return unearned fees, two in particular stand out. The first involved a conviction on plea of no contest to the theft of a $7 pair of shoes from Walmart. The second involved his unwanted sexually suggestive comments to the mother of a prospective client who was considering  retaining him as her son's counsel in a criminal matter. She believed that he was suggesting a sexual arrangement in lieu of a fee. After she declined to hire him, he visited him in jail and falsely claimed to have been retained. (Mike Frisch)

October 4, 2009 in Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

M & A Trivia - How MGM Came to Be

Posted by Jeff Lipshaw

I bought a copy of the 2002 David Thomson's The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, which I found sitting on a shelf in a used bookstore somewhere in Cambridge, Boston, or Ann Arbor (I can't remember which), Images-1 and it answered a question I had pondered once in a while.  There was a man named Samuel Goldwyn (left), there was a production company called The Samuel Goldwyn Company (whose films included Wuthering Heights, The Best Years of Our Lives, The Bishop's Wife, Guys and Dolls, and Porgy and Bess, among others) and a company called Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, whose legendarily evil boss was Louis B. Mayer.  How did that all come to be?

A man named Schmuel Gelbfisz emigrated from Poland, arriving in the United States in 1899.  He anglicized his name to Samuel Goldfish and got involved in the motion picture business with his brother-in-law, Jesse Lasky and Cecil B. DeMille.  That business merged with Adolph Zukor's company but Goldfish and Zukor didn't get along.  Goldfish left and in joined in 1916 to form a new company with the Selwyn brothers.  (Thomson notes they had the good sense to name the company "Goldwyn" and not "Selfish.")  Goldfish changed his name (again) to Goldwyn to match the company.

Meanwhile, back on the East Coast, Louis B. Mayer formed a production company called Alco, which became Metro.  Mayer broke away from Metro in 1917 to form The Mayer Company, which had a studio in Brooklyn and then in L.A.

Meanwhile, back on the West Coast, Goldwyn (nee Goldfish) didn't get along with the Selwyns, so he broke away in and formed The Samuel Goldwyn Company, which produced independently through United Artists and later RKO. 

Metro, now owned by Loew's, but originally formed by Mayer, reconsolidated all of the businesses by acquiring The Mayer Company as well as the original Goldwyn business, in which Samuel was now merely a shareholder, and so we had Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.  The year before the Metro acquisition, Mayer had hired Irving Thalberg away from Universal, and after the acquisition, Loew's sent Mayer out to manage the West Coast operations, and the rest was history.

Many years later (around the time MGM was producing Ben-Hur in the late 1950s), Loew's Incorporated itself became involved in proxy litigation that became a staple in Delaware corporate case law.  Got it?

October 4, 2009 in Lawyers & Popular Culture | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Not Every Violation Warrants Discipline

The Louisiana Supreme Court has dismissed a disciplinary matter in which its Attorney Disciplinary Board had proposed public reprimand. The matter involved representation of a client with a redhibition claim against Ford Motor Company. The retainer agreement allowed the lawyer to be paid at an hourly rate with any fee contingent on recovery. The case settled for $10,000 with the client receiving $5,400 of the proceeds. The client complained to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, claiming he was unaware of the total amount of the settlement. A hearing committee proposed dismissal of the ensuing charges. The disciplinary board disagreed, concluding that the attorney's failure to keep contemporaneous time records meant that the client's consent to the arrangement was not fully informed.

The court found any violation to be de minimis and noted that not every violation of the Rules warrants professional discipline. Based on the hours worked, the attorney had reduced his fee from $7,900 to $4,000. The lawyer acted without improper or dishonest motive. The change in fee charges were for the client's benefit. However, the court reminded lawyers of the need to obtain informed consent to changes in a fee calculation.

The court also held that there is no ethical ban to the combined hourly/contingency fee agreement. (Mike Frisch)

October 4, 2009 in Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)