The nation's largest court system is in the midst of a painful budget crisis that has shut down courtrooms and disrupted everything from divorce and custody proceedings to traffic ticket disputes.

The Los Angeles court system has already closed 17 courtrooms and another 50 will be shut down come September unless something is done to find more money. The judge who presides over the system predicts chaos and an unprecedented logjam of civil and family law cases in the worst-case scenario.

The crisis results from the financially troubled state's decision to slash $393 million from state trial courts in the budget this year. The state also decided to close all California courthouses on the third Wednesday of every month.

What has emerged is a hobbled court system that is struggling to serve the public.

Custody hearings, divorce proceedings, small-claims disputes, juvenile dependency matters and civil lawsuits have been delayed amid the courtroom shutdowns in Los Angeles. Drivers who choose to fight traffic tickets now have to wait up to nine months to get a trial started.

Complex civil lawsuits, those typically involving feuding businesses, could really feel the hit. It now takes an average of 16 months for such cases to get resolved, but court officials expect the cuts to bog down these civil matters to the point that they take an average of four years to finish.

The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered a judge removed from the trial of a man suspected of killing 11 women whose remains were found around his home.

An order signed by acting Chief Justice Paul Pfeifer on Thursday says Cuyahoga (ky-uh-HOH'-guh) County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold must step down to avoid an appearance of bias or prejudice.

Attorneys for Anthony Sowell (SOH'-wehl) asked the court to remove Saffold. They claim Saffold made biased comments about him and a defense attorney in postings on a newspaper's website.

The judge has denied posting the comments. Her daughter has claimed responsibility.

Saffold is the second judge off the case. The first judge stepped down in December after a newspaper published his e-mails.

Sowell has pleaded not guilty in the Cleveland killings.

Attorneys from top Atlanta law firms announced this week the formation of a new law firm, focused exclusively on intellectual property law. McKeon, Meunier, Carlin & Curfman, LLC launched in Atlanta on Monday, April 19, 2010. The new firm will provide patent prosecution, IP transaction and trademark services along with intellectual property strategy and management services. The firm will focus heavily on the life sciences sector, drawing on the Principals' strong legal and technical backgrounds in biotechnology, chemistry, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

The four founding principals include Tina McKeon, Ph.D. and Andrew "Drew" Meunier from the Atlanta office of Fish & Richardson, an international IP law firm. Christopher Curfman, Ph.D. joins from Ballard Spahr's Atlanta office and Gregory Carlin joins McKeon Meunier from his role as Intellectual Property Counsel with Edwards Lifesciences, a medical device maker in Southern California. Carlin was previously affiliated with Alston & Bird, an Atlanta-based law firm.

Also joining from Fish & Richardson are Miles Hall, D.V.M., who will be an Associate Attorney; Andrew Baraniak, Ph.D. and Kimberlynn Becnel Davis, Ph.D. join as Patent Agents.

"I am pleased to be stepping into a small firm with such an elite team. We have had a great response so far from clients who seem eager for an alternative to big-firm IP law but who still want and need quality legal work," said Dr. Tina McKeon. "Our new firm gives us the flexibility to be very client-centric. I think our timing, focus, and flexibility offer a welcome change," added Drew Meunier.

McKeon Meunier has leased 8,000 square feet of Class A office space in the Historic Biltmore Hotel in Midtown Atlanta, located at 817 W. Peachtree Street. The firm has also launched a website with more information about the firm and its professional staff at www.m2IPlaw.com.

The Senate has voted 98-0 to confirm Judge Denny Chin to fill an opening on a New York-based appeals court. He will be the only Asian-American currently serving on a U.S. Court of Appeals.

Chin is a U.S. district judge in New York. He will serve on the 2nd Circuit, covering New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

There are 23 judicial nominations pending on the Senate calendar.

Tully Rinckey PLLC is pleased to announce the addition of attorney David Myers as an Associate in its Washington, D.C. law office. Myers will focus his practice on federal sector labor and employment law as well as security clearance representation.

David’s practice will provide representation to government employees in all areas of employment law including discrimination claims relating to age, race, gender and sexual harassment. Prior to joining Tully Rinckey, David worked as a Law and Policy Analyst at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security in Baltimore, Maryland. There, he researched and developed materials discussing tort liability of emergency responders and potential issues associated with emergency powers for Maryland courts.

David has previously served as a Clerk in the Consumer Protection Division & Department of Human Resources at the Maryland Office of the Attorney General. He also was a Law Clerk with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, collaborating with Administrative Judges and independently writing findings of fact and legal analyses for several published EEO opinions.  

David received his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Maryland School of Law in Baltimore, MD and was a member of the Labor & Employment Law Trial Advocacy Team. David also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, VA.  He is admitted to practice in Maryland.

For more information about David Myers’ addition to Tully Rinckey PLLC or the firm’s federal labor and employment law practice, please contact Jessica Brociek at 202-787-1900 or via email at jbrociek@tullylegal.com.

Q. Do I need a lawyer to review my contract before I sign it?

Yes.  The number one mistake an employee can make is to sign an employment contract without seeking legal counsel beforehand.  Often the employee fails to ask for contract terms that will protect what he brings to a new job.  For example, if an employee brings his customers with him to a new job, he must have the employment contract exclude these customers from being considered the new employer’s customers.  Otherwise, when the employee leaves the company and tries to take those customers with him, the company has a claim that those customers are no longer his to take.  The cost of litigating over this dispute will be far greater than the cost of seeking legal counsel to review the employment agreement before signing it.

Dallas Emploement Lawyer

Q. I have an employment contract that states it is for a one (1) year term.  Does that mean the company must employ me for one year?

Not necessarily.  The contract may provide that the company may terminate the agreement for any reason after providing an employee 30 days notice.  In such a case, the employee only has a 30 day term contract, not a one (1) year contract.

Q. I have a contract that states the company will   “consider” me for bonus payments.  Does this mean it is obligated to pay me the bonus payments?

No. Such language only obligates the company to consider you for possible payment.  The company can simply state they considered you and decided not to pay you any bonus payments.  More specific language is needed to guarantee an employee will receive bonus payments.

Weinberg Law Firm
6425 Willow Creek Drive
Plano, Texas 75093

Tel. (972) 403 - 3330

A federal appeals court has handed the government a victory by temporarily blocking a judge's finding that Congress shouldn't have halted federal funding to the activist group ACORN.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued the order Wednesday, a day after the government lawyer argued the stay of the ruling was necessary.

The government had argued that it was necessary to block the ruling to ensure that federal agencies were not required to commit funds that have not been appropriated by Congress.

A lawyer for ACORN says it may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court because the cutoff of funds is crippling ACORN and jeopardizing housing for poor people.