Sleeping Juror Prompts Conviction Reversal

A conviction of two counts of cocaine distribution by a lower court was reversed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts because the judge failed to investigate the claim that one of the jurors was sleeping. The ruling reversed the case Commonwealth v. Braun, during which the judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel noticed one of the six jurors was looking down for extended stretches of time.

It was determined that the judge abused his discretion when he failed to conduct a voir dire for which there was a legitimate basis—that the juror was sleeping during testimony and therefore was unable to fulfill her oath to evaluate the evidence.

Facebook Executive May Run for CA Attorney General

The chief privacy officer of Facebook is considering a campaign for Attorney General of California in 2010. Wednesday, Chris Kelly announced the formation of a committee to explore a potential run for the position. With two hundred million active members, Facebook provides Kelly with an excellent base of contacts to begin a campaign—though many of them are not in California — or of voting age.

Political aspirations are not new for Kelly. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1997 and worked on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Then, he served as policy adviser to the White House Domestic Policy Council, where he helped launch AmeriCorps. Currently, as Face book’s chief privacy officer, he oversees the privacy, security and safety of its users—and plans to continue that job for the time being.

Kelly expresses his reasons for considering a run for the office of AG, “California’s justice system, and our political system as a whole, needs radical change to serve our citizens more effectively. Politics as usual won’t cut it anymore.” Further, he explains that his involvement in technology stems from his desire to inspire change.

Tentative Ruling on Brobeck Partners’ Client Rights

On Monday, ten former partners of firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison argued that it was within their rights to continue to work with their clients. The trustee of the bankrupt firm Brobeck claims the former partners stole business.

The ten former partners claim that their last partnership agreement with the firm—one that was enacted as the firm collapsed in 2003—allowed partners to retain clients and work with them in new firms. The main debate on Monday boiled down to whether an agreement can waive the rights of partners to sue for profits under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act and the case precedent set by Jewel v. Boxer in 1984. Jewel claims are generally used to obtain settlements rather than litigation.

Last Friday, a tentative ruling was issued by Judge Dennis Montali of the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court. The ruling would grant the defendants summary judgment on five of the suit’s nine counts, but the final four counts–those dealing with fraudulent conveyance—were left undecided. A victory on behalf of the defendants would have far-reaching implications on hiring practices of partners from defunct firms all over the country.

Montali is no stranger to cases involving bankruptcy of large firm. He has presided for six years over Brobeck’s case and handled Heller’s bankruptcy when that firm filed in December. He heard three hours of arguments Monday. On Friday, he tentatively ruled that the final partnership agreement invalidates arguments that the former Brobeck partners took “unfinished business” with them when the firm collapsed. After that point, the business would be classified as new business. The question that remains is whether the partners could have fraudulently taken assets from the collapsing firm, thereby contributing to its demise. He stated that the waiver in the final partnership agreement was valid; however, the trustee would not accept that Monday.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Shares Perspective

Ginsburg spoke at a symposium attended by law students at Ohio State University reflecting on personal topics including her aspirations to serve for many more years despite a setback in her recent health that seems to be resolved. She also provided insight and perspective into her position as the only female Justice currently serving the Court.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed that she intends to match the tenure of Justice Louis Brandeis who served the Supreme Court for over two decades until age 82. Ginsburg had surgery for pancreatic cancer in February. Now age 76, she has confirmed that the procedure removed the cancer and looks forward to serving on the Court for many years.

Justice Ginsburg also reflected on her perspective and experience as a lone female Justice. She stated that feels that the United States could benefit by looking at the legal systems of other countries like Canada that includes four women, including the chief justice. Ginsburg also expressed that she misses her former colleague Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006.

Overall , Ginsburg characterized her services of the Supreme Court with gratitude and positive reflection, “It’s the best and the hardest job I’ve ever had.”

Bankruptcy Mergers and Acquisitions Increase

Bankruptcy-related merger and acquisition deals have hit a global peak that is the highest since 2004. The Financial Times recently made the announcement citing data compiled by Thomson Reuters. Considering the current economy that has forced companies to slash budgets and watch revenue fall, bankruptcy M&A cases are not expected to slow down anytime in the near future.

Some experts, including J. Gregory Milmoe, restructuring Co-chair of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, feels that mergers and acquisitions will continue to increase. He tells the Financial Times, “Given the dearth of capital and the substantial increase in the number of companies that will be troubled, one would expect the M&A rate to increase dramatically.”

Thomson Reuters identified 67 deals that have taken place so far this year, the bulk of which occurred in the U.S. and Japan, the Financial Times reports. This is likely due to the length of time these countries have been in recession and more liberal bankruptcy rules allowing companies to continue operations as they restructure.

Finally, because it can take a year to a year and a half for insolvencies to peak, the Financial Times reports that data suggests that more merger and acquisitions will be taking place this year.

Connecticut Courts See Jury Duty Concerns

The economy is making it harder for the courts to find willing jurors, according to a recent report by the Connecticut Law Tribune. Prospective jurors are expressing more and more concern that reporting for jury duty might result in losing a job. What’s more, even jurors who are unemployed are expressing concern that jury duty could interfere with a productivity of job searches.

Generally, attorneys on both sides of a case release jurors who express concerns about the loss of a job. This makes sense, as neither side would want jurors who have grave concerns that might result in decisions made in order to hurry cases to completion. Unfortunately, as fewer and fewer people are willing to serve as jurors, jury selection is taking longer.

In efforts to keep jury selection and cases running smoothly, Connecticut courts are making sure to inform prospective jurors that employers are not allowed to fire them for attending jury duty; in addition, employers are required by state law to pay an employee for the first five days he or she serves on a jury. After the five days, jurors are paid $50 per day by the state, if employed full-time. For unemployed jurors or those who work on a part-time basis, the state pays between $20 and $50 per day.

Sperm Bank Liable for Genetic Defect

A federal judge has ruled that a sperm bank can be sued under product liability laws should the organization fail to detect genetic defects of a sperm donor. Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O’Neill Jr. ruled that according to New York law, sperm is considered a product. Therefore, O’Neil wrote, sperm from a sperm bank “is subject to strict liability.” The ruling under Donovan v. Idant Laboratories specifies that a New York sperm bank can be sued by a teenage girl whose mental retardation stems from a genetic mutation carried by her biological father.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Daniel L. Thistle, regards the verdict as a victory, as it clears the way for his client, Brittany Donovan of Philadelphia, to pursue tort and contract claims against New York sperm bank Idant Laboratories. The bank sold sperm to her mother in 1995. According to the suit, the teen’s mother, Donna Donovan began research in 1994 to find a sperm bank. She claims that Idant Laboratories assured her that its donors go through a rigorous screening process to ensure that donors have a healthy genetic background.

Though the company stated that their screening program far exceeded mandated standards, the mother claims, her daughter showed signs of being a carrier of “Fragile X” shortly after birth. She consulted with doctors at Idant Laboratories and, she claims, was told that her daughter’s issues were not caused by Fragile X and could not stem from the sperm the purchased through Idant Laboratories. Further test results showed that Donna is not a carrier of Fragile X, while the anonymous sperm donor, named Donor G738, is a carrier of the gene.

Among many complications in the case, one of the most complex has proved to be the differences between Pennsylvania and New York tort law. Both states have legislation making for “blood shield statutes” that prohibit products liability suits based on blood or blood products. Pennsylvania’s blood shield statute covers human tissues other than blood, but the statute in New York includes only blood and its derivatives. O’Neill determined that there was a “true conflict” between the state laws because “semen is not a blood derivative,” thereby giving Brittany Donovan a valid cause of action under New York law, rather than Pennsylvania law.

Top 100 Firms Welcome More Female Partners

According to recent studies, female attorneys are being welcomed as partners of law firms in increasing numbers—though there is still lots of room to grow. Studies by the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), an organization that facilitates legal career counseling and planning, and the Project for Attorney Retention (PAR), an organization that works to promote the advancement of women in the legal profession, show similar trends.

Studies released in late 2008 by NALP indicate that the ratio of female to male associates is nearly equal, while the ratio of female to male partners is still extremely low. The studies show that 45% of associates at US law firms are female; however, about 19% of partners are women. Five years ago similar data was collected, and each percentage was lower. In 2003, 43% of associates were women, and only 17% of partners were women. Some states, like Ohio, however, show vastly different ratios—there, 67% of associates and 27% of partners are women.

PAR released studies this and last year on the on the Top 100 firms that shows data that looks slightly more optimistic. Last year, half of the new partners at 12 large firms were women. This year, in 23 of the top 100 firms, 40% of partners at are females. In essence, the number of firms with significant numbers of new female partners has doubled. These firms ranked highest for having the largest percentage of female partners admitted: Cravath (67%), Dickstein Shapiro (67%), Wiley Rein (60%), Andrews Kurth (57%), and Bryan Cave (56%).

Even the statistics released by PAR, however, are offset by disappointing data. This year, 14 of the top 100 firms failed to admit female partners, including Cadwalader, Cleary Gottlieb, Dechert, Foley Hoag, Kaye Scholer, Lowenstein Sandler, Milbank, Schulte Roth, Steptoe, Stroock, Venable, Wachtell, White & Case, and Wilkie Farr. Last year, only one failed to admit a single female partner—Parker Poe.

In addition to firms that admitted no female partners, 12 of the top 100 admitted female partners at very low rates, including the following: Pillsbury Winthrop (9%), Latham & Watkins (10%), O’Melveny (11%), Howrey (13%), Finnegan Henderson (13%), Morrison & Foerster (13%), Winston & Strawn (13%), Locke Lord (14%), Nixon Peabody (14%), DLA Piper (15%), Ropes (17%) and Akin Gump (17%).

Mayer Brown Cuts 135 Lawyers and Staff

It is no secret that the nations’ top firms are cutting jobs across the board, and today Chicago-based firm Mayer Brown announced that 135 employees will be cut from the payroll. The global firm currently employs nearly 1,000 lawyers in North and South America, about 500 in Europe, and 300 in Asia. These aren’t the first round of cuts for the firm, and in addition to downsizing, the company is seeking other ways to cut expenditures.

Mayer Brown announced this week that 45 attorneys and 90 administrative staffers in its US offices will be let go—but this is not the first round of lay-offs for the company this year. Just last November, Mayer Brown let go of 33 attorneys from its global network. In March, the firm announced that 55 jobs in London, both attorneys and staff, are at risk of getting cut. As with the other top legal firms, Mayer Brown’s leadership attributes the cuts to the global economy and resulting reduced activity from clients.

While Mayer Brown is making news due to its size and prominence among firms, it certainly isn’t alone. To date over 50 of the nation’s top law firms have been forced to make cuts, many of them drastic, and several firms have entered the second and third wave of lay-offs, which have included senior partners, associates, and staff members across the board.

As many other firms have already done, the company also announced that the start date for most incoming associates will be deferred until January of 2010. The firm is seeking alternatives to full-time schedules for some attorneys and placement opportunities with pro bono organizations and in-house legal departments for other associates. Those signing up for this option will also receive a monthly stipend from the firm for one year.