The National Law Journal - July 2, 2012 - American Business Media
The National Law Journal - July 2, 2012 - American Business Media
The National Law Journal - July 2, 2012 - American Business Media
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
this week<br />
NLJ.COM<br />
Check out exclusive<br />
daily news coverage,<br />
blogs, videos and more<br />
at our Web site.<br />
John Roberts: <strong>The</strong><br />
chief justice’s decision<br />
may have kept the<br />
Court from becoming a<br />
major political issue in<br />
this year’s election.<br />
Tough Medicine<br />
<strong>The</strong> health care decision may have been controversial, but it could push the Supreme Court out of the political spotlight.<br />
By Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro<br />
the label, a conservative chief justice<br />
the health care decision<br />
With its landmark decisions on health<br />
care and immigration, the Roberts Court<br />
extricated itself from one of the most<br />
politically charged terms in decades.<br />
Some commentators called the health<br />
care ruling, in particular, “a defining<br />
moment,” a “moment of truth” and a<br />
“step back from the brink.” Whatever<br />
and his more liberal colleagues moved<br />
toward each other in surprising ways<br />
that kept the Court from becoming a<br />
major political issue from now until the<br />
November election.<br />
“It was a moment in which the Court<br />
was potentially in jeopardy, and that was<br />
See ANALYSIS, Page 4<br />
Justice Scalia is taking increasing heat for his<br />
biting remarks from the bench. PAGE 5<br />
<strong>The</strong> big winners after the decision may be<br />
health care lawyers. PAGE 8<br />
<strong>The</strong> health care case was just one of a series<br />
of blockbuster decisions this term. PAGE 9<br />
For even more coverage of the Supreme Court<br />
and the health care opinion, visit NLJ.com.<br />
Alex Wong/Getty Images<br />
Worked 12 Hours,and Only Billed for 5?<br />
Track down your billable time fast! Introducing the new version of PC<strong>Law</strong> ® .<br />
Now you can solve the billable hours mystery and see exactly where<br />
your time is spent with the new Time Entry Advisor only available in<br />
PC<strong>Law</strong> ® billing and accounting software from LexisNexis ® .<br />
PC<strong>Law</strong> ®<br />
888.432.9876<br />
Visit www.CaptureMoreTime.com<br />
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under<br />
license. PC<strong>Law</strong> is a registered trademark of LexisNexis Practice Management Systems Inc. © <strong>2012</strong> LexisNexis. All rights<br />
reserved. LFPM061912-0
2 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
contents<br />
Volume 34, Number 44<br />
the health care decision<br />
1 <strong>The</strong> U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the health care case may have<br />
been controversial, but it could remove the Court from the political spotlight.<br />
In that case, a stunning victory for the Obama administration, the<br />
Court upheld the centerpiece of the nation’s new health care law—the individual<br />
mandate to buy insurance—as a constitutional exercise of Congress’<br />
taxing authority. Plus, a spotlight on Chief Justice John Roberts’ role; Solicitor<br />
General Donald Verrilli’s vindication; memorable quotes from the decision<br />
and the term; and what the decision will mean for health care practitioners<br />
who must counsel companies on implementing the law.<br />
In-House counsel<br />
12 Vincent Maffeo serves as general counsel for Scientific Applications<br />
International Corp.<br />
the practice<br />
14 Gregory Joseph discusses recent federal court rulings concerning<br />
experts, privilege and civil procedure.<br />
opinion<br />
30 A sampling of instant reactions by practitioners to the health care<br />
ruling.<br />
FROM WASHINGTON: Proposal to give D.C. Bar board<br />
more control over budget for disciplinary arm draws fire.<br />
Legal Services Corp. may face more budget cuts. page 15<br />
also in this issue<br />
in brief 3 Verdicts & Settlements 11 Movers 13<br />
inadmissible 16 Classified 28<br />
How to reach the national law journal<br />
120 Broadway, 5th Floor • New York, NY 10271 • (212) 457-9400<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> (ISSN 2163-8756) is published weekly, except the last week<br />
of the year, by ALM <strong>Media</strong> Properties, LLC, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271.<br />
Annual subscription rate is $485: outside U.S. $600. For subscription inquiries call<br />
1-877-256-2472 or write to <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, Customer Service, PO Box 70162<br />
Philadelphia, PA 19176-9628. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY and additional<br />
mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, ALM<br />
Customer Service, 4 Metrotech, 21st floor, Brooklyn NY 11201.<br />
Brett Robson/Global Photographics<br />
voir dire<br />
One Direction, U.K.<br />
Omnidirectional<br />
One Direction, USA<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is more than one One Direction. <strong>The</strong>re’s the English<br />
boy band that won <strong>The</strong> X Factor in 2010, but there also is<br />
an <strong>American</strong> punk quintet who claim they’ve been calling<br />
themselves One Direction since 2009. And they’re suing.<br />
<strong>The</strong> U.S. band filed suit against One Direction U.K.<br />
this spring, claiming trademark violation. <strong>The</strong>y cited the<br />
iTunes release of their debut album in February 2011,<br />
several months before the U.K. group released their own<br />
debut in the United States. <strong>The</strong> U.S. band is claiming<br />
their rivals’ profits because of the “substantial confusion”<br />
caused by the name. <strong>The</strong>y pointed to NBC News footage<br />
in which images of the U.K. band were accompanied by<br />
the U.S. band’s music. Now, according to the Daily Mail,<br />
they also have filed suit against Sony Music Holdings Inc.<br />
and Simon Cowell’s record label for $1 million.<br />
Cowell has countersued, claiming the U.S. band “is<br />
guilty of fraud, oppression or malice” and seeking actual<br />
and punitive damages. —Ri c h a r d Bi n d e r<br />
Blotted out <strong>The</strong> depiction of Jerry Sandusky on<br />
a well-known mural across the street from the<br />
Pennsylvania State University campus has been replaced<br />
by an image of Dora McQuaid, a graduate who is a poet<br />
and an advocate for domestic and sexual violence victims.<br />
Sandusky was removed from the mural days following<br />
his arrest in November. —Associated Pr e s s<br />
Plunder An Ohio federal judge must reconsider<br />
whether the government must share $250,000 in buried<br />
treasure with the victims of convicted fraudster A.<br />
William Erpenbeck Jr. As the U.S. Court<br />
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted,<br />
the case has “a fact pattern befitting a<br />
John Grisham novel.” After Erpenbeck’s<br />
arrest, a friend of his buried the money<br />
in a cooler near the third hole green of<br />
a Cincinnati-area golf course. FBI agents<br />
found the loot, and the government and<br />
Erpenbeck’s bankruptcy trustee have been arguing over<br />
the money. <strong>The</strong> trial judge sided with the government, but<br />
the appeal court ruled that the trustee received inadequate<br />
notice of the forfeiture claim. Erpenbeck defrauded home<br />
buyers and banks of $34 million. —Sh e r i Qu a l t e r s<br />
I would walk on my hands or do<br />
somersaults.<br />
Jeffrey Lindy, lawyer for Monsignor William<br />
Lynn, explaining what he would do should<br />
Lynn flee his proposed house arrest. Lynn is<br />
the first Roman Catholic Church official who<br />
did not personally molest a child to be convicted<br />
of a related crime (child endangerment).<br />
Juror Combat Pay After a fight between jurors that<br />
had to be broken up by sheriff’s deputies, a Georgia jury<br />
awarded $800,000 to a teacher whose SUV was hit by a<br />
dump truck running a stop sign. <strong>The</strong> panel was so close<br />
to a verdict that members had canceled lunch. Suddenly,<br />
two sheriff’s deputies ran to the jury room, according to<br />
plaintiffs attorneys Jonathan Hayes and Curtis Anderson.<br />
<strong>The</strong> latter heard “significant yelling and screaming.” <strong>The</strong><br />
dispute concerned the amount of the award; all but one<br />
juror wanted to give more money. —Da i l y Re p o r t<br />
istockphoto/Blue_Cutler<br />
Find Out How Peers In Your<br />
Region Responded in the<br />
<strong>2012</strong> Annual Compensation<br />
Survey for Paralegals/Legal<br />
Assistants & Managers<br />
This annual survey is an essential tool for paralegal management—providing<br />
the information you need to attract, motivate and retain the most talented staff.<br />
Purchase the Survey now to find out how compensation packages compare for<br />
10 distinct paralegal positions.<br />
[ ]<br />
“ <strong>The</strong> Survey is an invaluable resource. I rely on the data provided to<br />
analyze and assess our internal salary bands, and prepare compensation<br />
grids based on staff levels and years of experience, among several other<br />
applications. I make sure to purchase this survey every year because it<br />
offers the most detailed source of data.”<br />
– Carolyn Hilgers, Director of Paralegal Services, King & Spalding<br />
Purchase Today!<br />
http://bit.ly/ParalegalCompSurveyInfo
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 3<br />
istockphoto/acilo<br />
in brief<br />
Big win for EPA<br />
<strong>The</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals<br />
for the District of Columbia on<br />
June 26 upheld regulations<br />
limiting the emission of greenhouse<br />
gases, concluding that<br />
the U.S. Environmental Protection<br />
Agency’s interpretation<br />
of the Clean Air Act is “unambiguously<br />
correct.” Industry<br />
groups and states had sued to<br />
block EPA rules limiting emissions<br />
of six greenhouse gases.<br />
Jump in securities actions<br />
Securities class action filings<br />
involving accounting fraud<br />
allegations jumped during<br />
2011, following one of the<br />
steepest declines in recent<br />
years, according to a report<br />
by Cornerstone Research. <strong>The</strong><br />
increase in number—to 70<br />
cases, from 46 during 2010—<br />
was accompanied by a jump in<br />
the percentage of such cases to<br />
37 percent, from 26 percent in<br />
2010. Cornerstone attributed<br />
the boost to a rise in Chinese<br />
reverse-merger filings, many of<br />
which have resulted in financial<br />
restatements.<br />
Dewey partners dunned<br />
Former Dewey & LeBoeuf<br />
partners report that Citibank<br />
N.A. and Barclays Bank PLC<br />
have demanded repayment of<br />
loans they took out to fulfill<br />
their capital-contribution<br />
obligations. Citibank has gone<br />
as far as to initiate legal action<br />
against at least one former partner,<br />
Steven Otillar of Houston,<br />
seeking nearly $210,000.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> is accepting nominations for our <strong>2012</strong> Hill<br />
Hot List. We will highlight lawyers who make their living on Capitol Hill.<br />
This includes counsel and other staffers with law degrees who work for<br />
members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff<br />
David R. Tribble<br />
HILL hot list<br />
<strong>Law</strong> school transfer<br />
By this time next year, Texas<br />
Wesleyan University School of<br />
<strong>Law</strong> could have a new name:<br />
Texas A&M University School<br />
of <strong>Law</strong> at Texas Wesleyan<br />
University. <strong>The</strong> schools have<br />
signed a letter of intent to<br />
transfer the law school to the<br />
public institution for $25 million.<br />
A&M System Chancellor<br />
John Sharp said the acquisition<br />
“rounds out” the A&M<br />
system’s professional schools.<br />
City heads for Chapter 9<br />
<strong>The</strong> City Council of<br />
Stockton, Calif., filed for<br />
–from staff and alm reports<br />
Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection<br />
on June 28 after large<br />
budget cuts failed to ease a $26<br />
million deficit. It would be the<br />
largest city in the country to<br />
file for bankruptcy, but not the<br />
first in California to take that<br />
path—Vallejo filed in 2008 and<br />
only recently emerged from<br />
restructuring.<br />
<strong>Law</strong> prof fights firing<br />
A former tenured professor<br />
at Nova Southeastern<br />
University Shepard Broad <strong>Law</strong><br />
Center is fighting to get his job<br />
back after university administrators<br />
fired him amid concerns<br />
that he might bring a gun to<br />
campus. Anthony Chase has<br />
been battling with the school<br />
in federal court since June 7,<br />
2011, when he filed suit alleging<br />
breach of contract and violations<br />
of the <strong>American</strong>s With<br />
Disabilities Act. He denied that<br />
he owned a gun.<br />
agencies—though we are not looking for lobbyists. We want to hear<br />
about important legal matters these lawyers worked on during the past<br />
year. <strong>The</strong> deadline is <strong>July</strong> 13. For more details, please go to NLJ.com.<br />
NLJ.COM<br />
Print subscribers get full access to<br />
all of our online coverage and can<br />
sign up for our twice-daily e-mail<br />
news alerts. Online right now at<br />
nlj.com:<br />
Richard Hark of Hark & Hark<br />
writes that the U.S. Supreme<br />
Court’s ruling on GPS tracking<br />
devices may have limited impact<br />
because most <strong>American</strong>s already<br />
carry tracking devices—their<br />
cellphones—and amendments to<br />
the Stored Communications Act<br />
gave the government unfettered<br />
access to cellphone records.<br />
CORRECTIONS: In “DOJ’s clash over<br />
conduct” in the June 25 edition,<br />
the last name of a lawyer<br />
in the D.C. Office of the<br />
Public Defender was misspelled.<br />
<strong>The</strong> correct name is Anna<br />
Rodriques. In “D.C. Moves” in<br />
that edition, Michael Maricco,<br />
who has joined Groom <strong>Law</strong><br />
Group as of counsel, was incorrectly<br />
described as a member<br />
of the corporate and securities<br />
group. <strong>The</strong> firm does not<br />
include such a group.<br />
THE How To GuidE<br />
for<br />
legal Market<br />
intelligence<br />
<strong>The</strong> ALM Legal Intelligence Database connects you to the most trusted source of market data and<br />
business intelligence in the legal industry—harness our network of competitive, career and customer<br />
information to achieve your business goals.<br />
S TEp<br />
1<br />
Clarify your market<br />
position with more<br />
than 50 Surveys, Lists<br />
& Rankings annually<br />
S TEp<br />
2<br />
Cut into the largest<br />
300+ global law<br />
firms with <strong>Law</strong> Firm<br />
Reports<br />
S TEp<br />
3<br />
Compare and<br />
contrast data points<br />
with the robust<br />
search tool<br />
get started today: request a deMo<br />
almlegalintel.com | almlegalintel@alm.com | 888-770-5647
4 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
the health care decision<br />
To an unusual degree this term,<br />
Supreme Court justices made comments<br />
in decisions and oral arguments<br />
that were politically charged<br />
or at least related to outside political<br />
events. Some examples:<br />
This aggressive use of power<br />
by the SEIU to collect fees from<br />
nonmembers is indefensible.<br />
—Justice Samuel Alito Jr.<br />
in Knox v. Service Employees<br />
International Union, June 21.<br />
<strong>The</strong> President said at a news conference<br />
that the new program is ‘the<br />
right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s<br />
failure to pass the Administration’s<br />
proposed revision of the Immigration<br />
Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona<br />
may not think so. But to say, as the<br />
Court does, that Arizona contradicts<br />
federal law by enforcing applications<br />
of the Immigration Act that the<br />
President declines to enforce boggles<br />
the mind.<br />
—Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent in<br />
Arizona v. U.S., June 25.<br />
It seems to me that the Federal<br />
government just doesn’t want to<br />
know who is here illegally or not.<br />
—Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. during<br />
oral arguments<br />
in Arizona v. U.S., April 25.<br />
Montana’s experience, and experience<br />
elsewhere since this Court’s<br />
decision in Citizens United, make<br />
it exceedingly difficult to maintain<br />
that independent expenditures by<br />
corporations ‘do not give rise to<br />
corruption or the appearance of corruption.’<br />
A petition for certiorari will<br />
give the Court an opportunity to consider<br />
whether, in light of the huge<br />
sums currently deployed to buy candidates’<br />
allegiance, Citizens United<br />
should continue to hold sway.<br />
—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined<br />
by Justice Stephen Breyer, in Feb. 17<br />
statement regarding then-pending<br />
Montana case <strong>American</strong> Tradition<br />
Partnership v. Bullock.<br />
<strong>The</strong> consequence of your proposition,<br />
‘would Congress have enacted<br />
it without this provision,’…That<br />
would mean that if we struck<br />
down nothing in this legislation but<br />
the—what you call the Cornhusker<br />
kickback, okay, we find that to violate<br />
the constitutional proscription<br />
of venality, okay?<br />
—Justice Scalia during oral argument<br />
March 28 on the issue of severability in<br />
the Affordable Care Act cases<br />
Could you define the market—<br />
everybody has to buy food sooner<br />
or later, so you define the market as<br />
food, therefore, everybody is in the<br />
market; therefore, you can make<br />
people buy broccoli?<br />
—Justice Scalia during oral argument<br />
March 27 on the individual-mandate<br />
issue in the Affordable Care Act cases.<br />
A move out of the political spotlight<br />
ANALYSIS, from page 1<br />
completely sidestepped,”<br />
said Barry Friedman of New<br />
York University School of<br />
<strong>Law</strong>. “It turned the spotlight<br />
away from the Court.<br />
It could have been an enormous<br />
issue in the presidential<br />
campaign. One has to<br />
believe [Chief Justice John<br />
Roberts Jr.] did not want<br />
that.”<br />
A 5-4 majority, led by<br />
Roberts, held that the individual<br />
mandate to purchase<br />
insurance was a valid exercise<br />
of Congress’ taxing<br />
power, but Roberts, in a different<br />
5-4 majority, rejected<br />
the argument that the individual<br />
mandate was constitutional<br />
on commerce clause<br />
grounds.<br />
David Strauss of the<br />
University of Chicago <strong>Law</strong><br />
School called the health care<br />
decision a “defining point<br />
avoided” because of the<br />
ramifications for the Court if the health<br />
care decision had gone against President<br />
Obama.<br />
“If you look back a lot further than<br />
the Obama administration, the last time<br />
you saw the Supreme Court strike down<br />
a federal law of this scale and importance<br />
was in the 1930s, which led to the<br />
confrontation with FDR,” he said. “<strong>The</strong><br />
chief justice knows all about that, and I<br />
think he didn’t want to repeat that.<br />
“He really went as far as he could in<br />
saying bad stuff about the Affordable<br />
Care Act but then, at the last minute so<br />
to speak, voted to uphold it and avoided<br />
that confrontation.”<br />
A potential tsunami for the Supreme<br />
Court was stirred by the potent combination<br />
of a close presidential election<br />
campaign, public cynicism about the<br />
Court after Bush v. Gore and the Citizens<br />
United campaign-finance decisions, and<br />
public anxiety over a limping economy.<br />
Whether this is a “defining moment”<br />
that will be good for this time only, no<br />
one knows. Next term is likely to be a<br />
major test again of the justices’ ability to<br />
find common ground as they face questions<br />
involving race and gay rights.<br />
Another ‘Marbury’?<br />
For now, however, the health care<br />
decision is one of those opinions that<br />
ranks with Marbury v. Madison, said<br />
Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University<br />
School of <strong>Law</strong>. “Marshall seemingly<br />
gave credit to all of the federalist ideas<br />
and yet the bottom line was he found<br />
common ground: Justice<br />
Elena Kagan seems to have a<br />
“happiness factor and comfort<br />
level” with her conservative<br />
colleagues, historian David<br />
Garrow said.<br />
the Court lacked the ability to hear the<br />
case. Roberts took a page right out of<br />
that handbook—he lionized, praised the<br />
limits of federal power that conservatives<br />
would applaud, and at the same<br />
time, he said, ‘That’s not what Congress<br />
relied upon and Congress wasn’t limited<br />
to that.’ ”<br />
Besides a John Roberts-John Marshall<br />
parallel, historian David Garrow of the<br />
University of Pittsburgh said he sees a<br />
John Roberts-Owen Roberts connection<br />
(Owen Roberts being the justice who<br />
switched in 1936 to uphold New Deal<br />
legislation in the “switch in time that<br />
saved nine”).<br />
“I think it’s hard to avoid concluding<br />
that there was a political attraction for<br />
“[T]he last time you saw the Supreme Court strike down a<br />
federal law of this scale was in the 1930s.…<strong>The</strong> chief justice<br />
knows all about that, and I think he didn’t want to repeat it.”<br />
—David Strauss, University of Chicago <strong>Law</strong> school<br />
John Roberts to avoid the appearance, if<br />
not the reality, of a big interbranch confrontation,”<br />
Garrow said.<br />
Kmiec agreed, adding that the Court<br />
came close to another Bush v. Gore. “In<br />
essence, I think the Court prudently<br />
recognized that by putting themselves at<br />
the center of the debate, the president<br />
would have been left with making an<br />
argument against the Court and that<br />
would have been unseemly,” Kmiec<br />
said. “[Presidential candidate Mitt]<br />
Romney is now left with the argument<br />
he doesn’t like the policy.”<br />
Although Roberts was the key to the<br />
outcome in both the health care and<br />
immigration decisions, Court scholars<br />
and others noted that it was important<br />
to recognize that justices Ruth<br />
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia<br />
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan played<br />
instrumental roles as well.<br />
Breyer and Kagan joined Roberts’<br />
holding that the Medicaid expansion in<br />
the health care law unconstitutionally<br />
coerced the states into participating in<br />
the program.<br />
This was particularly surprising<br />
given Breyer and Kagan’s comments to<br />
the states’ advocate, Paul Clement of<br />
Bancroft, during arguments. Kagan said<br />
at that time:<br />
“So that really reduces to the question<br />
of why is a big gift from the federal government<br />
a matter of coercion? In other<br />
words, the federal government is here<br />
saying, we are giving you a boatload of<br />
money. <strong>The</strong>re are no—there’s no matching<br />
funds requirement,<br />
there are no extraneous<br />
conditions attached to<br />
it, it’s just a boatload of<br />
federal money for you to<br />
take and spend on poor<br />
people’s health care. It<br />
doesn’t sound coercive to<br />
me, I have to tell you.”<br />
<strong>The</strong>re already were<br />
five votes without<br />
Breyer and Kagan to<br />
find the expansion coercive.<br />
Breyer and Kagan joined an opinion<br />
that for the first time since 1936<br />
found a problem with Congress’ exercise<br />
of its spending power, said Neil Siegel of<br />
Duke <strong>Law</strong> School.<br />
“It seems like there is a desire on both<br />
sides to forge a working coalition,” he<br />
said.<br />
“<strong>The</strong>y are concerned not just about<br />
their own view of the law but the<br />
Court’s institutional position.”<br />
Although many former clerks insist<br />
there is no “horse-trading” among the<br />
justices, there is a desire among some,<br />
notably Breyer and perhaps Kagan, to<br />
find play in the joints if others can find<br />
it, too. “[Kagan] seems to have a happiness<br />
factor and comfort level” with her<br />
conservative colleagues, Garrow said.<br />
See ANALYSIS, Page 5
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 5<br />
the health care decision<br />
ANALYSIS, from page 4<br />
“Kagan is an important presence for<br />
the long term—much more than a oneninth<br />
presence.”<br />
And although Ginsburg and Sotomayor<br />
would have upheld the Medicaid<br />
expansion in its entirety, they<br />
joined Roberts, Breyer and Kagan in<br />
Roberts’ remedy for the constitutional<br />
violation—striking down the threat to<br />
withhold existing Medicaid funds from<br />
noncomplying states.<br />
An Aggressive Kennedy<br />
Besides Roberts’ decision upholding<br />
the health care insurance mandate on<br />
the grounds of Congress’ taxing authority,<br />
the other major surprise to many<br />
following the case was Justice Anthony<br />
Kennedy, who joined a dissent that<br />
would have struck down the entire law.<br />
“I wasn’t shocked Kennedy decided<br />
the mandate was unconstitutional,”<br />
Chicago’s Strauss said. “It seems kind of<br />
rash and imprudent to want the whole<br />
law struck down.”<br />
Kmiec, too, was surprised by Kennedy’s<br />
aggressive position. “He was in<br />
fact the voice of this type of institutional<br />
protection in the past. He’s the<br />
one Justice [John Paul] Stevens always<br />
used to rely upon for cooler heads to<br />
prevail. I think he was convinced the<br />
commerce power here was so extraordinary<br />
that he didn’t focus on the full<br />
extent of the tax issue.”<br />
Kennedy, however, did write the<br />
5-3 decision in the Arizona immigration<br />
challenge—the second politically<br />
charged case of the term.<br />
<strong>The</strong> decision pre-empted three core<br />
provisions of Arizona’s anti-immigration<br />
law but upheld the so-called “show<br />
me your papers” requirement. Clearly<br />
concerned about the latter provision,<br />
Breyer and Sotomayor intensely questioned<br />
Arizona’s lawyer—Clement—<br />
about it during arguments. Breyer’s<br />
questions led to answers by Clement<br />
that Kennedy subsequently used to<br />
uphold, but cautiously, that requirement.<br />
Both Breyer and Sotomayor, along<br />
with Roberts and Ginsburg, joined<br />
Kennedy’s opinion—another sign of<br />
movement from both sides, noted some<br />
Court scholars.<br />
a new era?<br />
In the end, those scholars and others<br />
seem to agree that it is difficult to<br />
predict whether those two rulings and<br />
Roberts’ role in them signals a new era<br />
in the Roberts Court.<br />
“It was a signal moment for the<br />
Court and an incredibly important<br />
decision, but I don’t think the ground<br />
is shifting,” Friedman said. In fact, he<br />
suggested, “What this decision does is<br />
allow the Court to return to business as<br />
usual next term” with 5-4 splits in big<br />
cases.<br />
Duke’s Siegel added, “Roberts and<br />
several of the liberals have forged a<br />
working coalition here. It’s not likely<br />
you can say that’s going to happen<br />
when they get to affirmative action or<br />
the Defense of Marriage Act. Roberts is<br />
a real conservative.”<br />
Marcia Coyle can be contacted at<br />
mcoyle@alm.com. Tony Mauro can be contacted<br />
at tmauro@alm.com.<br />
Scalia takes flak over sharp dissent<br />
BY Tony Mauro<br />
During a little-noticed oral argument<br />
over Indian lands in April,<br />
Justice Antonin Scalia did what<br />
he often does with lawyers whose<br />
positions he supports: He threw the<br />
advocate a lifeline.<br />
Scalia stated his helpful view and<br />
told the lawyer, novice U.S. Supreme<br />
Court advocate Matthew Nelson, “You<br />
don’t disagree with that, do you?”<br />
Nelson, a partner at Warner Norcross<br />
& Judd in Grand Rapids, Mich., dutifully<br />
replied, “We don’t disagree.”<br />
Scalia’s quick retort: “You’re supposed<br />
to say ‘Yes, sir, good.’ ”<br />
It was a line meant to be humorous,<br />
no doubt, and it earned Scalia<br />
laughter from the audience—the kind<br />
of response that routinely puts him at<br />
the top of the list of funniest justices.<br />
But to some in the Court chamber, it<br />
came across as unusually flip.<br />
Advocates and commentators<br />
usually shrug off Scalia’s sometimes<br />
barbed comments from the bench,<br />
as well as his stinging dissents, in the<br />
same way that retired Justice Sandra<br />
Day O’Connor did when she would<br />
say, “That’s just Nino.”<br />
During this term, partly because of<br />
the politically fraught cases the justices<br />
faced, Scalia’s behavior has come in for<br />
less forgiving scrutiny. His dissent on<br />
June 25 in Arizona v. U.S. has brought<br />
a wave of sharp public criticism.<br />
In the dissent, Scalia criticized<br />
President Obama’s new policy of lax<br />
immigration enforcement against the<br />
children of illegal aliens—a policy<br />
not at issue in the case. “To say, as<br />
the Court does, that Arizona contradicts<br />
federal law by enforcing applications<br />
of the Immigration Act that the<br />
President declines to enforce boggles<br />
the mind,” Scalia said. No other justice<br />
joined him in the opinion, which<br />
he ended with the words “I dissent,”<br />
omitting the customary adjective<br />
“respectfully.”<br />
Liberal pundit E.J. Dionne called<br />
for Scalia to resign in a Washington Post<br />
column that went online on June 27.<br />
“He’s turned ‘judicial restraint’ into an<br />
oxymoronic phrase,” Dionne wrote.<br />
Nan Aron, president of the liberal<br />
Alliance for Justice, said in a Huffington<br />
Post column that Scalia this term has<br />
spouted “recitations of Rovian talking<br />
points that more properly belong on<br />
Fox & Friends than in the Supreme<br />
Court of the United States.”<br />
Even Judge Richard Posner of the<br />
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh<br />
Circuit, usually simpatico with Scalia’s<br />
views, seemed unnerved by his outspokenness.<br />
“It wouldn’t surprise me<br />
if Justice Scalia’s opinion were quoted<br />
in campaign ads,” Posner wrote in<br />
Slate on June 27.<br />
Scalia’s in-your-face tone in the<br />
Antonin Scalia<br />
Arizona dissent has been mirrored<br />
at oral argument, prompting several<br />
veteran high court advocates to criticize<br />
his demeanor this term—though<br />
none would speak on the record, for<br />
fear of incurring his wrath.<br />
Pointed comments<br />
Much of that criticism was triggered<br />
by Scalia’s pointed comments<br />
during the six hours-plus of oral<br />
argument in the health care cases in<br />
late March. His comments about the<br />
government forcing individuals to<br />
buy broccoli and his reference to the<br />
“Cornhusker kickback” that preceded<br />
passage of the law have been criticized<br />
as unusually political.<br />
And then there was his odd reference,<br />
during the debate over the<br />
expansion of Medicaid, to an old Jack<br />
Benny joke. Even after it fell flat, Scalia<br />
persisted until he finally gave up and<br />
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. cut off<br />
the discussion with a school-marmish,<br />
“That’s enough frivolity for a while.”<br />
A recently published detailed study<br />
of the oral arguments in the health<br />
care cases found that Scalia spoke<br />
more often than any other justice—<br />
88 times—and directed 87 percent of<br />
his “challenging” questions toward<br />
the lawyers defending the health care<br />
law. (Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s percentage<br />
was higher, at 95 percent.)<br />
“We find it ironic that Justice<br />
Scalia’s biased questioning dominates<br />
oral arguments, but yet he is one of<br />
the strongest proponents of textual<br />
objectivism,“ wrote authors Ryan<br />
Malphurs and L. Hailey Drescher.<br />
“Apparently his objectivism may not<br />
apply to oral arguments.”<br />
Since he joined the Court in 1986,<br />
Scalia has relished his role as the<br />
“happy warrior” of the conservative<br />
wing, enjoying combat as much as<br />
victory. His energetic approach to<br />
arguments has transformed a oncequiet<br />
bench into a free-for-all in<br />
which justices interrupt advocates<br />
and each other without apology.<br />
For her 2009 biography of Scalia<br />
entitled <strong>American</strong> Original, author<br />
Joan Biskupic asked him about his<br />
high-octane questioning. He said,<br />
“Why does the argument have to<br />
be dull, for God’s sake?” From that<br />
answer, Biskupic observed that ”he<br />
often could not hear himself as others<br />
heard him.” Or, she suggested, “he<br />
simply does not care.”<br />
As the 76-year-old justice ages, that<br />
latter explanation may be gaining<br />
more traction. Aware that he won’t<br />
be chief justice and won’t be viewed<br />
by history as a coalition-builder, Scalia<br />
may be content to toss firecrackers<br />
and watch the sparks fly, hoping that<br />
his dissents will someday prompt the<br />
Court to change course.<br />
“He’s just letting it hang out,” said<br />
<strong>Law</strong>rence Wrightsman, a University<br />
of Kansas psychologist who wrote<br />
<strong>The</strong> Psychology of the Supreme Court in<br />
2006. “Everything is so adversarial<br />
now, and he is letting the belligerent<br />
aspect of his nature come out.”<br />
Others see no significant change<br />
in Scalia’s demeanor. “He’s always<br />
been a tough questioner and a forceful<br />
opinion writer,” said Kevin Walsh,<br />
a University of Richmond School of<br />
<strong>Law</strong> professor and 2003-04 law clerk<br />
to Scalia. “<strong>The</strong> diet of cases this term<br />
just presented a lot more opportunities<br />
to clash.”<br />
Conservative commentator Edward<br />
Whelan, president of the Ethics and<br />
Public Policy Center, said Scalia was<br />
“making a legal argument” in his<br />
Arizona dissent, responding to the<br />
Obama administration’s assertion that<br />
its immigration policy—even a policy<br />
of nonenforcement—should trump<br />
Arizona’s law.<br />
As for Scalia’s temperament, Whelan,<br />
who clerked for Scalia in 1985-86,<br />
said, “He has a classic Latin temper.<br />
He can get very upset and then blow<br />
past it and be exuberant.”<br />
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@alm.com.<br />
diego m. radzinschi
6 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
the health care decision<br />
<strong>The</strong> decision: a 5-4 vote for health care law<br />
Court says individual mandate is constitutional exercise of taxing authority, tweaks Medicare requirement for states.<br />
BY Marcia Coyle<br />
In a stunning victory for the Obama<br />
administration, the U.S. Supreme<br />
Court on June 28 upheld the centerpiece<br />
of the nation’s new health care<br />
law—the so-called individual mandate to<br />
buy insurance—as a constitutional exercise<br />
of Congress’ taxing authority.<br />
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who<br />
wrote the Court’s opinion, secured the<br />
majority on the tax issue by joining with<br />
his more liberal colleagues—justices Ruth<br />
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia<br />
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Court also ruled that the Affordable<br />
Care Act’s major expansion of the federalstate<br />
Medicaid program unconstitutionally<br />
coerced the states. <strong>The</strong> coercion was in<br />
the federal government’s threat to withhold<br />
all of its existing Medicaid funds to<br />
states that failed to participate. But instead<br />
of striking down the program expansion,<br />
the court held only that the federal government<br />
could not withhold those funds.<br />
States now can decide whether to participate<br />
in the expansion.<br />
Four justices—Antonin Scalia, Anthony<br />
Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and<br />
Samuel Alito Jr.—would have struck<br />
down the entire law.<br />
Roberts opened the morning and final<br />
session of the term before a packed courtroom.<br />
Outside the building, a line of visitors<br />
stretched from the front<br />
plaza across the street to the<br />
Library of Congress. A large<br />
group of supporters and opponents<br />
rallied on the sidewalk.<br />
As the solicitor general of<br />
the United States and the other<br />
lawyers in that office sat at the<br />
lawyers’ table directly below<br />
the bench, Roberts began his<br />
summary of the health care<br />
decision by tackling what had<br />
been the government’s primary<br />
argument in defense of the<br />
law: Congress’ authority under<br />
the commerce clause.<br />
“As expansive as our cases<br />
construing the scope of the<br />
commerce power have been,<br />
they all have one thing in common:<br />
<strong>The</strong>y uniformly describe<br />
the power as reaching ‘activity,’<br />
” he wrote in his opinion.<br />
“<strong>The</strong> individual mandate, however,<br />
does not regulate existing<br />
commercial activity. It instead<br />
compels individuals to become active in<br />
commerce by purchasing a product on<br />
the ground that their failure to do so<br />
affects interstate commerce.”<br />
Roberts and his four conservative colleagues<br />
rejected the government’s commerce<br />
clause argument, saying it would<br />
open a new and potentially vast domain<br />
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: In her separate opinion, she called Chief<br />
Justice Roberts’ commerce clause analysis “a stunning setback.”<br />
to congressional authority. Roberts also<br />
said the mandate could not be upheld<br />
under the necessary-and-proper clause,<br />
explaining that, even if the mandate<br />
were necessary to achieve the insurance<br />
reforms in the act, this expansion of federal<br />
power was not a proper means for<br />
making the reforms effective.<br />
rick kopstein<br />
Roberts then turned to the taxing-power<br />
argument, writing that if a law has two<br />
possible meanings, one of which violates<br />
the Constitution, courts should adopt the<br />
one that does not. He said the penalty<br />
for not purchasing minimum insurance<br />
functioned as a tax: It is collected by the<br />
Internal Revenue Service; there is no<br />
punitive sanction, such as criminal punishment;<br />
and it will raise revenue.<br />
“<strong>The</strong>…requirement that certain individuals<br />
pay a financial penalty for not<br />
obtaining health insurance may reasonably<br />
be characterized as a tax,” Roberts<br />
wrote. “Because the Constitution permits<br />
such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or<br />
to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> majority’s reliance on the taxing<br />
power was somewhat surprising, because<br />
the government as well as numerous<br />
legal scholars and commentators across<br />
the political spectrum had focused most<br />
of their arguments on whether the individual<br />
mandate was a valid exercise of<br />
Congress’ commerce clause power. <strong>The</strong><br />
government, however, did argue forcefully<br />
in the Supreme Court that the taxing<br />
power was another valid basis for the law.<br />
On the Medicaid issue, Roberts wrote<br />
that the financial inducement that<br />
Congress chose to get states to participate<br />
is “a gun to the head.” He said the threatened<br />
loss of more than 10 percent of a<br />
See HEALTH CARE DECISION, Page 7<br />
Key passages from the opinions<br />
Notable quotations from the justices’ opinions in the<br />
Supreme Court case upholding the Affordable Care Act.<br />
Majority opinion by John Roberts Jr.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty<br />
for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the<br />
Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or<br />
fairness.<br />
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither<br />
the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted<br />
to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with<br />
them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.<br />
<strong>The</strong> individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the<br />
Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not<br />
to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what<br />
Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but<br />
choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.<br />
Concurring and dissenting opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg<br />
In the Social Security Act, Congress installed a federal system to provide monthly benefits<br />
to retired wage earners and, eventually, to their survivors. Beyond question, Congress could<br />
have adopted a similar scheme for health care. Congress chose, instead, to preserve a central<br />
role for private insurers and state governments. According to the Chief Justice the Commerce<br />
Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense<br />
and is stunningly retrogressive.<br />
Whatever one thinks of the policy decision Congress made, it was Congress’ prerogative to<br />
make it. Reviewed with appropriate deference, the minimum coverage provision, allied to the<br />
guaranteed-issue and community-rating prescrip tions, should survive measurement under the<br />
Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.<br />
[T]he Chief Justice’s limitation of the commerce power to the regulation of those actively<br />
en gaged in commerce finds no home in the text of the Constitution or our decisions.<br />
Dissenting opinion by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,<br />
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health<br />
insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. <strong>The</strong>se parts of the Act<br />
are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been<br />
enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.<br />
Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to<br />
tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private<br />
conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs. That clear<br />
principle carries the day here.<br />
We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an<br />
earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty.…<br />
Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the<br />
power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 7<br />
the health care decision<br />
HEALTH CARE DECISION, from page 6<br />
state’s overall budget is “economic dragooning<br />
that leaves the states with no real<br />
option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid<br />
expansion.”<br />
When Roberts finished his summary,<br />
Kennedy read a summary of the joint<br />
dissent. <strong>The</strong> act, he said, exceeds federal<br />
power both in mandating the purchase<br />
of insurance and in denying nonconsenting<br />
states all Medicaid funding. Because<br />
those parts are central to the act, he said,<br />
it followed that all of the act must fall.<br />
Kennedy said the Court had abandoned<br />
judicial modesty and engaged in “judicial<br />
overreaching.”<br />
Ginsburg wrote separately and also<br />
summarized her opinion, saying she would<br />
have upheld the mandate on commerce<br />
clause grounds and the Medicaid expansion<br />
exactly as Congress enacted it. She<br />
called Roberts’ commerce clause analysis<br />
“a stunning setback” that should not have<br />
staying power. And the Medicaid expansion,<br />
she said, is funded almost entirely<br />
by the federal government, “hardly something<br />
that states can complain about.”<br />
“In the end, the Affordable Care Act<br />
survives largely unscathed, but the court’s<br />
commerce clause and spending clause<br />
jurisprudence has been set awry,” said<br />
Ginsburg, adding that she expects the setbacks<br />
to be “temporary blips, not permanent<br />
obstruction.”<br />
Reaction to the decision flew from<br />
across the political and ideological spectrum.<br />
“Today’s decision validates our claim<br />
that a congressional power to compel<br />
that all <strong>American</strong>s engage in commerce<br />
was a constitutional bridge too far,” said<br />
Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown<br />
University <strong>Law</strong> Center, one of the legal<br />
architects of the activity/inactivity argument<br />
accepted by Roberts. “By rewriting<br />
the law to make it a ‘tax,’ the court has<br />
now thrown ObamaCare into the political<br />
process where the People will decide<br />
whether this so-called ‘tax’ will stand.”<br />
His frequent health care sparring partner,<br />
Walter Dellinger of O’Melveny &<br />
Myers, said the decision was a “modest<br />
incursion” on congressional power. “What<br />
is breathtaking is how sweeping the<br />
restrictions would be if the four justices<br />
in the dissent had prevailed. <strong>The</strong> Court is<br />
just one vote away from severe limits on<br />
the authority of Congress.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> justices’ ruling ended—at least for<br />
now—a remarkable and riveting period of<br />
public focus and debate on not only the<br />
health care law, but also on the role of the<br />
Supreme Court, the power of Congress<br />
vis-à-vis the states, the scope of the<br />
Constitution, and the decision’s potential<br />
political fallout on the presidential election.<br />
<strong>The</strong> lead-up to the arguments drew an<br />
outpouring of more than 100 amicus briefs<br />
from a broad range of ideological, historical,<br />
medical, business and civil rights organizations.<br />
A battle also ignited over the<br />
participation in the case by Thomas and<br />
Kagan. Groups on the left sought Thomas’<br />
recusal because his wife had lobbied against<br />
passage of the health care law for an organization<br />
that she had headed. Conservative<br />
groups called for Kagan to step aside<br />
because, they charged, she had worked on<br />
the government’s case when she served as<br />
solicitor general. In the end, nothing came<br />
of the recusal movement as both justices<br />
took their seats on argument day.<br />
Contact Marcia Coyle at mcoyle@alm.com.<br />
By Tony Mauro<br />
Roberts shuffles the deck<br />
He managed to stay true to his conservative roots while upholding the health care law.<br />
John Roberts<br />
Before John Roberts Jr. became<br />
chief justice, he was known as<br />
one of the most nimble oral<br />
advocates to argue before the U.S.<br />
Supreme Court. To prepare for his cases,<br />
he would write hundreds of potential<br />
questions on index cards, and then<br />
shuffle them so he could be ready to<br />
answer them in any order.<br />
On June 28, the final day of his sixth<br />
term as chief justice, Roberts showed<br />
he has carried that skill of shuffling the<br />
deck with him. In leading the majority<br />
ruling on the landmark Affordable Care<br />
Act cases, Roberts managed to stay true<br />
to his conservative roots while still, at<br />
the end of the day, crafting a majority<br />
that upheld the law that conservatives<br />
so roundly hate.<br />
In so doing, he may have pulled off<br />
what once seemed impossible: a 5-4 ruling<br />
against the individual mandate on<br />
commerce clause grounds, while keeping<br />
the Court—and his legacy—unsullied by<br />
charges of elbowing Congress aside or<br />
deciding the case on the basis of political<br />
or policy preference. In Arizona v. U.S.<br />
on June 25, Roberts was also the crucial<br />
vote in a key immigration case that<br />
struck down all but one provision of an<br />
Arizona law embraced by conservatives.<br />
In the health care cases, Roberts<br />
was able to attack the health insurance<br />
requirement as something that would<br />
“vastly expand power,” and he described<br />
the Medicaid deal offered to states as a<br />
coercive “gun to the head.” Six other<br />
justices joined him striking down the<br />
Medicaid expansion. But Roberts could<br />
also profess judicial modesty, leaving in<br />
place a law that Congress passed, but<br />
one he clearly dislikes.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se conflicting themes may not<br />
have been easy to mesh together for a<br />
divided Court. Justices Antonin Scalia,<br />
Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito Jr.<br />
and Clarence Thomas, usually Roberts’<br />
allies, joined in a dissent that bears some<br />
marks of having once been a majority.<br />
For one thing, it was called a “joint<br />
dissent” with four authors—whereas a<br />
dissent usually takes the form of being<br />
authored by one justice and joined by<br />
the others.<br />
“I wonder if it once was 5-4 the other<br />
way, but somewhere along the way,<br />
the conservatives lost Roberts,” said<br />
Fordham University School of <strong>Law</strong> professor<br />
Abner Greene. If Roberts made<br />
that switch, he may have had the<br />
Court’s legacy in mind. “He was clearly<br />
aware of his place in history,” Greene<br />
said. “Striking down the entire law could<br />
have been a black mark on this Court.”<br />
stephane de sakutin/afp/getty images<br />
“One can only speculate about<br />
Roberts’ motives for proceeding as he<br />
did,” said Brookings Institution scholar<br />
William Galston. “It is certainly possible<br />
that, like Chief Justice Charles<br />
Evans Hughes in the mid-1930s, he had<br />
one eye focused on jurisprudence and<br />
another on the standing of the institution<br />
he heads. This may be another<br />
‘switch in time’ that saved the Court<br />
from becoming embroiled in a fullfledged<br />
confrontation with the executive<br />
and legislative branches.”<br />
Roberts’ opinion reflects that sense<br />
of history. “Members of this Court are<br />
vested with the authority to interpret<br />
the law; we possess neither the expertise<br />
nor the prerogative to make policy<br />
judgments,” Roberts wrote. “Those decisions<br />
are entrusted to our Nation’s elected<br />
leaders, who can be thrown out of<br />
office if the people disagree with them.<br />
It is not our job to protect the people<br />
from the consequences of their political<br />
choices.”<br />
Roberts also wrote, “Resolving this<br />
controversy requires us to examine both<br />
the limits of the government’s power,<br />
and our own limited role in policing<br />
those boundaries.”<br />
Critics of the Affordable Care Act<br />
were disappointed with Roberts. <strong>The</strong><br />
Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro said he was<br />
“shocked and appalled that he would<br />
illegitimately rewrite the law—twice,<br />
making the mandate a tax and changing<br />
the terms of the Medicaid expansion—in<br />
order to save it. He judicially<br />
enacted a law much different than the<br />
one Congress passed.” Shapiro added,<br />
“I wonder if Michael Luttig would’ve<br />
done differently had he been George W.<br />
Bush’s choice instead of John Roberts.”<br />
But liberal commentators who are<br />
unaccustomed to applauding Roberts<br />
were positive on June 28, some of them<br />
framing it wishfully as a new chapter<br />
in his chief justiceship. “Today, it really<br />
became the Roberts Court,” said Erwin<br />
Chemerinsky, dean of the University of<br />
California, Irvine School of <strong>Law</strong>. “Chief<br />
Justice Roberts joined with the liberal<br />
justices to uphold the individual mandate.<br />
In his seven years on the Court,<br />
rarely has he done so when the Court<br />
has been ideologically divided.”<br />
“It was an act not only of judicial<br />
statesmanship but judicial creativity and<br />
in keeping with his hero, John Marshall,<br />
who engaged in legal twistification,”<br />
said George Washington University <strong>Law</strong><br />
School professor Jeffrey Rosen. “He is<br />
clearly differentiating himself from his<br />
conservative colleagues.”<br />
But Rosen cautioned not to expect a<br />
total transformation from Roberts. “This<br />
is by no means an end to 5-4 decisions;<br />
in some ways it will increase his ability<br />
to preside over polarized decisions such<br />
as next term in affirmative action, and<br />
voting rights.”<br />
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@alm.com.
8 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
the health care decision<br />
Who wins? Health care lawyers, that’s who<br />
<strong>Law</strong>yers say they expect an uptick in demand for their services as clients assess the impact of the health care law.<br />
By Jenna Greene<br />
Count health care lawyers among<br />
the winners in the U.S. Supreme<br />
Court’s decision upholding the<br />
Affordable Care Act.<br />
<strong>Law</strong>yers say they expect an uptick in<br />
demand for their services as clients that<br />
took a wait-and-see approach to compliance<br />
must now forge ahead to meet key<br />
deadlines in 2014.<br />
“What health care lawyers across the<br />
country are now confronting is getting it<br />
done, and implementing those portions<br />
of the law that implicate [client] businesses,”<br />
said SNR Denton health care<br />
partner Bruce Fried. “<strong>The</strong> potential for<br />
chaos had the Court ruled otherwise has<br />
obviously been resolved.”<br />
Of course, if the Court had struck down<br />
the law, lawyers would also have seen<br />
demand for their services soar. Stephen<br />
Bernstein, who heads McDermott Will &<br />
Emery’s health industry advisory practice<br />
group, said that either outcome “would<br />
have equally created work”—albeit of a<br />
different variety.<br />
One major area where businesses<br />
are now likely to seek assistance is in<br />
implementing the employer mandate.<br />
By 2014, businesses with 50 or more<br />
employees must offer “affordable” minimum<br />
health insurance coverage or pay<br />
a penalty. Deciding which is the better<br />
course of action is not an easy call,<br />
said Jennifer Kraft, a partner at Seyfarth<br />
Shaw who penned an amicus brief in the<br />
case on behalf of the <strong>National</strong> Restaurant<br />
Association complaining of the burdens<br />
that the law places on employers.<br />
“<strong>The</strong>re are a number of employers who<br />
were waiting to see if they really needed<br />
to get into the weeds on this,” she said.<br />
“It’s in their best interest now to move<br />
ahead with the analysis.” Because the<br />
requirement is entirely new, companies<br />
“are looking to us for how to interpret<br />
the guidance” and help them make goodfaith<br />
decisions, she said.<br />
Insurance carriers face new considerations<br />
as well, said Cindy Gillespie,<br />
who leads the health care policy team<br />
at McKenna Long & Aldridge—namely<br />
whether to move into the health insurance<br />
exchange market. States, too, face choices<br />
about their involvement in exchanges—<br />
new entities which will offer a choice of<br />
plans and are intended to create a more<br />
competitive market for insurance.<br />
“On a practical level, industry has to<br />
make some decisions,” Gillespie said, noting<br />
that while many have done analysis<br />
and background research, they “now<br />
have to move to the decision point.…<br />
<strong>Business</strong>es need to ramp up.”<br />
Another area where health care providers<br />
may now be more inclined to act<br />
is in forming accountable care organizations—collaborative<br />
networks of doctors,<br />
hospitals and other providers, said Arent<br />
Jennifer kraft: Many employers have been taking<br />
a wait-and-see approach to the law, she said.<br />
Fox partner Jill Steinberg. “<strong>The</strong>re’s more<br />
certainty now, so they may consider it”<br />
more seriously.<br />
To Stephen Weiner, who chairs the<br />
health law practice at Mintz, Levin, Cohn,<br />
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, the greater<br />
sense of certainty that the ruling provides<br />
is crucial for all industry participants.<br />
<strong>The</strong> high court’s decision “alleviates an<br />
incredible amount of anxiety…that had<br />
left the system in a total state of uncertainty,”<br />
he said. “Fundamentally, for<br />
people in the field who are not political<br />
ideologues, it’s a relief to be able to move<br />
forward understanding what the ground<br />
rules will be.”<br />
Perhaps the biggest sighs of relief<br />
came from the biotechnology industry.<br />
Tucked in the 2,600-page health care<br />
law is a provision that created a regulatory<br />
pathway to make generic versions of<br />
high-tech biologic drugs—products that<br />
account for $40 billion in sales a year.<br />
Had the Court thrown out the health<br />
care law in its entirety, it would have also<br />
voided “a very carefully negotiated, painstaking<br />
compromise,” said Zuckerman<br />
Spaeder partner Carlos Angulo, and renegotiating<br />
it would have been no simple<br />
matter. “<strong>The</strong>re are a lot of relieved people<br />
out there,” he said.<br />
Still, lawyers caution that the Supreme<br />
Court may not have the final word on<br />
health care.<br />
“This is not the end of it,” said Venable<br />
partner Ted Ramirez, chairman of the<br />
firm’s health care public policy group. “It’s<br />
almost a repoliticization of the process.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> presidential election in November<br />
and the 113th Congress next year “may<br />
trigger a whole new scenario,” he said.<br />
In the meantime, “the Court has spoken,”<br />
he said. “We simply have to help our<br />
clients cope and identify opportunities.”<br />
Jenna Greene can be contacted at<br />
jgreene@alm.com.<br />
How they fared<br />
For many on both sides of the intense debate over health care reform, the<br />
stakes were high when the Supreme Court ruled June 28 on the constitutionality<br />
of the Affordable Care Act. Here is how it worked out for six key players.<br />
diego m. radzinschi<br />
diego m. radzinschi<br />
Randy Barnett: Georgetown professor<br />
Randy Barnett moved the commerce clause<br />
argument against the individual mandate from<br />
the fringe to the mainstream, and it convinced<br />
a high court majority, even though the mandate<br />
survived on other grounds.<br />
Paul Clement: <strong>The</strong> former solicitor general<br />
set a modern-day private-practice record of<br />
arguing nine times in the term just ended. But<br />
in the case that will make the history books, he<br />
mostly lost—though not by much. And his success<br />
in defeating Medicaid expansion may spell<br />
trouble for other federal spending laws.<br />
diego m. radzinschi mark makela/zumapress.com<br />
Mitt Romney: Political pundits say that by<br />
upholding the individual mandate, the Court<br />
gave the GOP presidential candidate the gift<br />
of a winning issue against Obama. But the gift<br />
may be a mixed blessing, because he embraced<br />
the concept as governor of Massachusetts.<br />
Donald Verrilli: Pundits called his oral<br />
argument in defense of the law a “train<br />
wreck,” but the train made it to the finish line<br />
victorious. <strong>The</strong> win, plus his victory on June 25<br />
in the Arizona immigration case, gave Verrilli<br />
extra cause to celebrate on his 55th birthday<br />
June 29.<br />
marice cohn/miami herald/<br />
mct/zumapress.com<br />
President Barack Obama: Early (and<br />
incorrect) reports of defeat were a nasty shock,<br />
but then Obama reveled in the victory. For the<br />
first time since the law passed in 2010, he was<br />
able to explain the law to the public without<br />
the cloud of reversal hanging over him.<br />
diego m. radzinschi<br />
Walter Dellinger: Like Barnett on the<br />
other side, O’Melveny & Myers’ Dellinger generated<br />
ideas and optimism that kept his side<br />
going; unlike Barnett, Dellinger’s side won. <strong>The</strong><br />
former acting SG correctly predicted early on<br />
that the tax argument might be a winner.
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 9<br />
<strong>The</strong> term’s top cases<br />
Health care stole the spotlight, but the Court’s latest term was bursting with big cases.<br />
What follows is a rundown of how the justices decided 10 top cases of the term.<br />
the health care decision<br />
Case: <strong>National</strong> Federation of Independent <strong>Business</strong> v. Sebelius Result: 5-4<br />
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan John Roberts Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito<br />
<strong>The</strong> Court largely upheld the Obama administration’s signature health care reform<br />
law, a big win for the White House and Democrats in Congress. Chief Justice John<br />
Roberts Jr. delivered the key vote upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable<br />
Care Act’s key provision, the so-called individual mandate, which requires <strong>American</strong>s<br />
to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. “Upholding the individual mandate<br />
under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines<br />
that Congress has used an existing one,” Roberts wrote for the majority.<br />
Case: Arizona v. U.S. Result: 5-3*<br />
*Kagan recused. Result refers to the five justices who voted for pre-emption of three provisions of the Arizona law.<br />
*Alito joined the majority on the pre-emption of one provision.<br />
In a decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court found that federal<br />
law pre-empts most provisions of Arizona’s anti-immigration law—with one key<br />
exception. <strong>The</strong> Court unanimously upheld a controversial provision requiring police<br />
checks of immigration status. Kennedy said the provisions that were struck down<br />
either conflicted with federal law or Congress had “occupied the field” with federal<br />
regulation. <strong>The</strong> immigration-checks provision, Kennedy said, raises concerns about<br />
prolonged detention, but does not immediately conflict with federal law.<br />
Case: Miller v. Alabama Result: 5-4<br />
A 5-4 majority, led by Justice Elena Kagan, said the Eighth Amendment prohibits<br />
a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for juvenile murderers.<br />
Kagan asserted that juveniles’ “lesser culpability” makes it unconstitutional for<br />
them to be sentenced under a scheme that does not give the judge the ability to<br />
consider factors such as the defendant’s age, maturity and upbringing in determining<br />
the sentence. “Youth matters,” Kagan said from the bench.<br />
Case: Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper Result: 5-4<br />
<strong>The</strong> Court extended Sixth Amendment protections to the plea bargain process<br />
and said defendants can sue their lawyers for ineffective assistance if they mishandle<br />
plea offers. “Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas,<br />
not trials,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. Because of the modernday<br />
importance of plea bargains, Kennedy said, defense lawyers have significant<br />
responsibilities “that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that<br />
the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages.”<br />
Case: U.S. v. Alvarez Result: 6-3<br />
On First Amendment grounds, the justices overturned a federal law—the Stolen<br />
Valor Act—that made it a crime to lie about having earned a military honor. Justice<br />
Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said “when content-based speech regulation<br />
is in question…exacting scrutiny is required. Statutes suppressing or restricting<br />
speech must be judged by the sometimes inconvenient principles of the First<br />
Amendment. By this measure, the statutory provisions under which respondent was<br />
convicted must be held invalid, and his conviction must be set aside.”<br />
Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC Result: 9-0<br />
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion in this unanimous decision, which<br />
found that the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” bars employment discrimination<br />
lawsuits when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the<br />
group’s ministers. “When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that<br />
her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for<br />
us,” Roberts wrote. “<strong>The</strong> church must be free to choose who will guide it on its way.”<br />
Case: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders Result: 5-4<br />
<strong>The</strong> Court ruled that strip searches do not violate the privacy rights of individuals<br />
arrested for minor offenses. “In addressing this type of constitutional<br />
claim, courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record<br />
contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified<br />
response to problems of jail security,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the<br />
majority. Kennedy maintained a majority only through the concurring votes of two<br />
justices who wrote separately to emphasize the limits of the holding.<br />
Case: Maples v. Thomas Result: 7-2<br />
Case: U.S. v. Jones Result: 9-0<br />
<strong>The</strong> Court ruled that an Alabama death row inmate should not be penalized for<br />
missing a crucial appeal deadline when the error was caused by his pro bono lawyers<br />
from Sullivan & Cromwell. “Abandoned by counsel, Maples was left unrepresented at<br />
a critical time for his state post-conviction petition, and he lacked a clue of any need to<br />
protect himself pro se,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “In these<br />
circumstances, no just system would lay the default at Maples’ death-cell door.”<br />
Moving cautiously in an era of rapidly changing technology, the Court ruled that<br />
law enforcement’s warrantless installation and use of a GPS device to track a suspect’s<br />
vehicle violated privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. Justice<br />
Antonin Scalia wrote for the unanimous Court: “We have no doubt that such a<br />
physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of<br />
the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”<br />
Case: Sackett v. EPA Result: 9-0<br />
Justices in the majority are in color; dissenting justices are in black and white.<br />
Property owners, the Court said, have the right to judicial review of orders by<br />
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to stop development of land that may<br />
be protected by the Clean Water Act. “[T]here is no reason to think that the Clean<br />
Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties<br />
into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review,” Justice<br />
Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.<br />
NLJ file photos
10 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
the health care decision<br />
Vindication for Verrilli in two key cases<br />
Solicitor general’s argument in health care case was far from a ‘train wreck’; he also scored victory in immigration case.<br />
By Tony Mauro<br />
Toward the end of his much criticized<br />
oral argument over the<br />
health care individual mandate<br />
on March 27, Solicitor General Donald<br />
Verrilli Jr. made a spirited pitch for a little-noticed<br />
argument in favor of the law.<br />
He said the insurance requirement could<br />
be justified under the enumerated power<br />
of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.”<br />
Even though Congress and the Obama<br />
administration shied away from using the<br />
“tax” label to describe the penalty for not<br />
buying health insurance, Verrilli insisted<br />
that “it was clear they [Congress] were<br />
exercising the tax power.”<br />
Several justices were clearly not buying<br />
that rationale any more than they<br />
were embracing the more controversial<br />
commerce clause argument. It became a<br />
minor part of what some commentators<br />
quickly called Verrilli’s “train wreck” of<br />
an argument.<br />
On June 28, that argument looked a<br />
lot better, because the “taxing power”<br />
rationale carried the day before a divided<br />
U.S. Supreme Court. And it gave Chief<br />
Justice John Roberts Jr., the key fifth<br />
vote, a way to uphold the mandate without<br />
expanding federal commerce power.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ruling, paired with June 25’s victory<br />
for the Obama administration in<br />
the Arizona v. U.S. immigration case, has<br />
vindicated Verrilli’s role as oral advocate.<br />
And it reaffirms the truth that oral<br />
arguments should not be critiqued like<br />
Donald Verrilli<br />
Broadway plays. Verrilli’s low-key style<br />
did not hurt him nearly as much as many<br />
commentators thought it would.<br />
“Don elevated the taxing-power argument<br />
in the oral argument and in the<br />
briefing,” said Mayer Brown partner<br />
diego m. radzinschi<br />
Andrew Pincus, a veteran of the solicitor<br />
general’s office. “It just shows that<br />
when you look at the oral argument as a<br />
debate, that doesn’t capture what really<br />
goes on.” Oral argument gives an advocate<br />
a chance to plant unnoticed seeds in<br />
justices’ minds that can come in handy<br />
later during internal deliberations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> final week of the Court’s term was<br />
a triumphant cap to an otherwise mixed<br />
term for the solicitor general’s office. <strong>The</strong><br />
Court has been hostile to a number of<br />
positions taken by the Obama administration<br />
on issues ranging from the “ministerial<br />
exception” to workplace regulation<br />
by the Equal Employment Opportunity<br />
Commission (in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC),<br />
Clean Water Act regulation (in Sackett<br />
v. EPA) and GPS surveillance (in U.S. v.<br />
Jones). <strong>The</strong> administration scored wins<br />
in the copyright case Golan v. Holder and<br />
on qualified immunity for Secret Service<br />
agents in Reichle v. Howards.<br />
But for now, Pincus said, Verrilli is entitled<br />
to feel that he has served his client<br />
well. “When you are a lawyer and bring<br />
victory on the issues most important to<br />
your client, it is a very good feeling.”<br />
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@-<br />
alm.com.<br />
presents<br />
VIRTUAL<br />
FORUM<br />
ONLINE | JULY 19, <strong>2012</strong><br />
• Free registration for corporate counsel<br />
• CLE eligible online educational sessions<br />
• Network with peers<br />
• Visit the virtual exhibit hall<br />
• Save travel costs and time out of the office<br />
REGISTER TODAY!<br />
www.virtualcorporatecounselforum.com<br />
Sponsors:<br />
Association Partner:
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 11<br />
Verdicts & settlements<br />
–from staff and alm reports<br />
Banking<br />
PNC settles out of MDL<br />
over debit card fees<br />
MIAMI—PNC Bank has agreed to pay<br />
$90 million to settle a class action accusing<br />
the bank of manipulating<br />
its customers’ debit<br />
card transactions to generate<br />
more overdraft fees.<br />
<strong>The</strong> case was part of<br />
multidistrict litigation<br />
involving more than<br />
30 banks. U.S. District<br />
James <strong>Law</strong>rence King<br />
Senior Judge James <strong>Law</strong>rence King must<br />
approve the settlement.<br />
<strong>The</strong> lawsuit against the Pittsburghbased<br />
bank claimed its internal computer<br />
system rearranged the order of debit card<br />
and ATM transactions by posting them in<br />
highest-to-lowest dollar amounts rather<br />
than in chronological order as initiated by<br />
customers and authorized by the bank.<br />
<strong>The</strong> practice allegedly resulted in customers<br />
being charged substantially more in<br />
overdraft fees.<br />
Bankruptcy<br />
Houghton Mifflin case<br />
pulled out of New York<br />
NEW YORK—A bankruptcy judge has<br />
ruled that the pre-packaged bankruptcy<br />
of textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin<br />
Harcourt Publishing Co. must be transferred<br />
out of New York, even though the<br />
debtor and all the creditors had agreed on<br />
the city as the venue.<br />
Houghton Mifflin, based in Boston,<br />
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May<br />
with $2.68 billion in assets and $3.54 billion<br />
in liabilities. All of its creditors had<br />
already agreed on a reorganization plan<br />
that would convert much of its secured<br />
debt into equity and leave its unsecured<br />
creditors unimpaired.<br />
However, U.S. Trustee Tracy Davis<br />
moved to have the case transferred out of<br />
New York on the ground that Houghton<br />
Mifflin did not have its “domicile, residence,<br />
principal place of business or<br />
principal assets” there. U.S. Bankruptcy<br />
Judge Robert Gerber ruled that he lacked<br />
discretion to block the transfer.<br />
Civil procedure<br />
Challenge to D.C.’s ban on<br />
rolling papers is dismissed<br />
WASHINGTON—A federal judge granted<br />
the District of Columbia summary judgment<br />
in a lawsuit challenging a 2010 law<br />
that banned the sale of cigar wrappers.<br />
U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins<br />
found that the <strong>National</strong> Tobacco Co. L.P.<br />
lacked standing to challenge the law. He<br />
granted the city’s motion and denied the<br />
cigar manufacturer’s cross-motion for<br />
summary judgment.<br />
<strong>National</strong> Tobacco makes the Zig Zag<br />
brand of tobacco rolling papers and,<br />
according to court filings, is the fourthlargest<br />
producer of these “roll your own”<br />
products. <strong>The</strong> company claimed that as a<br />
result of the 2010 law, it had lost business<br />
with local sellers in the district.<br />
Constitutional law<br />
Judge orders trial in test<br />
of Montana campaign law<br />
HELENA, Mont. (AP)—A federal judge<br />
has ordered a trial in the latest case seeking<br />
to undo Montana’s election laws following<br />
the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen<br />
United ruling.<br />
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell on<br />
June 26 rejected the Sanders County,<br />
Mont., Republican Party’s request for an<br />
immediate ruling in its favor. He ordered<br />
a Sept. 25 trial. <strong>The</strong> case involves a ban<br />
on party endorsements and spending for<br />
nonpartisan judicial candidates.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ruling favorable to the state attorney<br />
general came just one day after state<br />
lawyers were handed a defeat by the<br />
U.S. Supreme Court, which tossed out<br />
Montana’s ban on some corporate political<br />
spending.<br />
Criminal law<br />
D.C. defender convicted<br />
of fabricating evidence<br />
WASHINGTON—A federal judge on June<br />
22 found a criminal defense lawyer guilty<br />
for his lead role in a<br />
scheme to fabricate evidence—a<br />
win for prosecutors<br />
in a closely watched<br />
case that raised concern in<br />
the defense bar.<br />
<strong>The</strong> attorney, Charles<br />
Daum, was charged in a<br />
Charles Daum<br />
conspiracy to dupe jurors in a drug case<br />
in 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the<br />
District of Columbia. Prosecutors alleged<br />
that Daum, working with two private<br />
investigators, presented staged photos to<br />
jurors to trick them into thinking that the<br />
drugs belonged to his client’s brother.<br />
U.S. District Senior Judge Gladys<br />
Kessler found Daum and the private<br />
investigators, Iman and Daaiyah Pasha,<br />
guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice.<br />
She rendered additional obstructionof-justice<br />
guilty verdicts against Daum<br />
alone. Prosecutors indicted Daum and<br />
the Pashas in April 2011.<br />
Intellectual property<br />
Judge sides with Apple,<br />
blocks Samsung tablet sales<br />
SAN FRANCISCO—Apple Inc. has<br />
secured a major pretrial victory in a suit<br />
against Samsung Electronics<br />
Co. Ltd., with a<br />
federal judge halting sales<br />
of a Samsung tablet computer.<br />
U.S. District Judge Lucy<br />
Koh on June 26 granted<br />
a preliminary injunction<br />
Lucy Koh<br />
stopping the importation and sales in<br />
the United States of the Galaxy 10.1 Tab,<br />
saying Apple has shown that it was likely<br />
to succeed on its claims that the tablet<br />
infringes an iPad design patent.<br />
Koh ruled in advance of a hearing<br />
scheduled for June 29, noting the matter<br />
had been argued and briefed before it<br />
went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the<br />
Federal Circuit, which remanded the case<br />
on the sole issue of the tablet.<br />
LEGAL PROFESSION<br />
NFL players settle with firm<br />
that handled earlier case<br />
SAN FRANCISCO—Former <strong>National</strong><br />
Football League players have reached a<br />
settlement in a malpractice<br />
action against class<br />
counsel at McKool Smith,<br />
according to court papers.<br />
<strong>The</strong> details were not made<br />
public.<br />
In 2008, lawyers from<br />
McKool Smith helped<br />
William Alsup<br />
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips represent the<br />
players in a $28 million settlement with<br />
the NFL Players Association over licensing<br />
and marketing revenue. <strong>The</strong> players<br />
later sued both firms, claiming that they<br />
blew the chance to win greater damages.<br />
U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed<br />
the suit and the players appealed<br />
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth<br />
Circuit. A ruling was pending, but on<br />
June 25 the players asked the appeals<br />
court to send the case back to district<br />
court “for the limited purpose of effectuating<br />
a classwide settlement, the terms of<br />
which have been agreed to by counsel for<br />
plaintiffs and McKool.”<br />
Firms settle claims that they<br />
failed to block fraud scheme<br />
NEW YORK—Greenberg Traurig and<br />
Quarles & Brady have agreed to pay a<br />
combined $87.5 million to resolve claims<br />
that they failed to put the brakes on a<br />
$900 million Ponzi scheme carried out by<br />
two mortgage-industry clients.<br />
Greenberg agreed to pay $61 million<br />
to settle a class action brought in federal<br />
court in Phoenix by investors in mortgage<br />
lender Mortgages Ltd. and securities<br />
dealer Radical Bunny LLC. <strong>The</strong> plaintiffs<br />
filed settlement papers on June 20 with<br />
U.S. District Judge Frederick Martone—<br />
the same day the judge preliminarily<br />
approved a $26.5 million class settlement<br />
with Quarles & Brady.<br />
<strong>The</strong> plaintiffs sued the firms in May<br />
2010, claiming they violated Arizona<br />
state securities laws by aiding and abetting<br />
a Ponzi scheme run by Greenberg<br />
client Mortgages Ltd. and Quarles client<br />
Radical Bunny.<br />
<strong>Media</strong> law<br />
Investment company settles<br />
libel case with juice maker<br />
LOS ANGELES—A Chinese fruit juice<br />
company that had sued an investment<br />
management firm for allegedly spreading<br />
rumors in order to short its stock has<br />
settled its libel claims.<br />
SkyPeople Fruit Juice Inc. sued<br />
Absaroka Capital Management LLC on<br />
<strong>July</strong> 7 in federal court in Wyoming, alleging<br />
that the investment firm circulated<br />
a false report in June 2011 that caused<br />
SkyPeople’s stock value to decline.<br />
<strong>The</strong> details of the settlement, reached<br />
on June 21 with Absaroka and principal<br />
Kevin Barnes, who authored the report,<br />
were undisclosed. However, Absaroka<br />
has agreed to remove the report from its<br />
Web site and any third-party locations,<br />
according to the plaintiff’s attorney.<br />
Torts<br />
Asbestos verdict called the<br />
nation’s highest this year<br />
LOS ANGELES—A state court jury has<br />
awarded $48 million to a California man<br />
and his wife after he was diagnosed with<br />
mesothelioma attributed to his exposure<br />
to asbestos while working on construction<br />
sites in Southern California during<br />
the 1960s and 1970s.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Los Angeles County Superior<br />
Court verdict was the largest in the nation<br />
so far this year, according to an attorney<br />
at Baron & Budd who represented the<br />
plaintiffs, Bobbie and Helen Izell. <strong>The</strong> jury<br />
found Union Carbide Corp. responsible<br />
for $37.5 million of the verdict.<br />
Izell, 86, was an independent general<br />
contractor who built houses and other<br />
buildings from 1950 through 1994,<br />
according to plaintiffs attorney John<br />
Langdoc.<br />
Aixa Montero; diego m. radzinschi; jason doiy
12 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
in-house counsel<br />
York’s Davis Polk & Wardwell (corporate,<br />
securities and regulatory matters) and<br />
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson<br />
(government contracts, litigation); Los<br />
Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher<br />
(general representation, corporate, litigation);<br />
and McKenna Long & Aldridge<br />
(government contracts, litigation). He<br />
mostly pays hourly fees.<br />
Maffeo reports to chairman and chief<br />
executive officer John Jumper.<br />
Daily duties<br />
<strong>The</strong> job is unpredictable—and stimulating,<br />
Maffeo said. He oversees all legal<br />
activities and procurement, plus risk<br />
management and internal audits, and<br />
manages contracts. During the past year<br />
or so, he worked on a number of acquisitions,<br />
including the purchase of Vitalize<br />
Consulting Solutions Inc., which provides<br />
the risks, costs and distractions of continued<br />
litigation,” Maffeo said. In March, it<br />
reached a $500 million settlement with<br />
federal prosecutors involving fraud allegations<br />
concerning work done on New<br />
York City’s computerized payroll system.<br />
“<strong>The</strong> settlement was an important step<br />
in our efforts to move forward as a stronger<br />
company,” Maffeo said. “We have<br />
implemented process improvements and<br />
control enhancements and remain dedicated<br />
to the highest level of business<br />
ethics.”<br />
Route to the top<br />
Maffeo launched his legal career as an<br />
associate with New York-based Simpson<br />
Thacher & Bartlett. In 1977, he joined ITT<br />
Corp., serving as senior vice president and<br />
general counsel from 1995 until 2009.<br />
While at ITT, he worked in Brussels for<br />
Be a facilitator when possible, but know<br />
where to draw the line.”<br />
Vincent Maffeo, executive vice president, general counsel and audit,<br />
Company profile<br />
If you wanted to build an impenetrable<br />
space shield capable of destroying flocks<br />
of incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles,<br />
who would you call? You might try<br />
Scientific Applications International Corp.<br />
(SAIC)—Ronald Reagan did. <strong>The</strong> company<br />
participated in the technical aspects<br />
of the Strategic Defense Initiative, better<br />
known as “Star Wars.”<br />
SAIC provides scientific, engineering,<br />
technical and cybersecurity services for<br />
a range of government and commercial<br />
clients, prominently including the U.S.<br />
defense establishment. It also works on<br />
research into cancer, robotics, tsunami<br />
warning systems and forensic science. It<br />
has conducted support services for the<br />
U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br />
SAIC was founded in La Jolla, Calif.,<br />
by Robert Beyster, a physicist who<br />
had worked at Los Alamos <strong>National</strong><br />
Laboratory during the 1950s. SAIC established<br />
a presence in Washington in 1970<br />
to pursue defense contacts, adding former<br />
defense secretaries Melvin Laird and<br />
Scientific Applications International Corp. AGE: 61<br />
Techies<br />
William Perry and former CIA director<br />
John Deutch to its board of directors.<br />
During Reagan’s defense buildup, the<br />
company worked on submarine weapons<br />
technology and other defense systems.<br />
Later, SAIC added commercial and state<br />
government customers.<br />
During the fiscal year that ended on<br />
Jan. 31, <strong>2012</strong>, SAIC amassed $10.6 billion<br />
in annual revenues, ranking No. 219 on<br />
the Fortune 500. Now based in McLean,<br />
Va., SAIC and its subsidiaries have an<br />
estimated 41,000 employees worldwide.<br />
Legal team and outside counsel<br />
General counsel Vincent Maffeo has<br />
approximately 30 attorneys working for<br />
him, plus support staff. “My philosophy<br />
is to do as much inside as I can, given the<br />
nature of the issues and level of expertise<br />
available,” he said.<br />
When he needs outside counsel,<br />
Maffeo hires individual attorneys for<br />
their expertise, not firms. He has turned<br />
to counsel from Palo Alto, Calif.-based<br />
Cooley (litigation, investigations); New<br />
clinical, business and information-technology<br />
services for the health care field.<br />
<strong>The</strong> legal team is heavily involved<br />
in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley,<br />
Dodd-Frank and additional regulations.<br />
Elements of SAIC’s business relating to<br />
national security are classified as secret.<br />
<strong>The</strong> company’s security department is in<br />
charge of employee clearances, including<br />
those for some of the lawyers. <strong>The</strong> government-affairs<br />
group conducts lobbying,<br />
and the legal department makes sure the<br />
company makes any disclosures required<br />
by law.<br />
Maffeo’s pro bono program tends to be<br />
community-focused in locations where<br />
SAIC does business. He encourages his<br />
lawyers’ volunteerism and considers it<br />
to be “appropriate and necessary” for inhouse<br />
attorneys, he said.<br />
SAIC maintains a diverse staff, and<br />
Maffeo is an ardent supporter of diversity<br />
throughout the organization. He considers<br />
attention to diversity a fundamental<br />
principle in guiding and developing talent<br />
for the legal staff, he said.<br />
Government as client<br />
Having the government as a client,<br />
Maffeo said, means that SAIC operates<br />
“within a very well-understood rule structure.”<br />
As a defense contractor, the company<br />
must follow the U.S. Department of<br />
Defense’s contracting requirements and<br />
those of related agencies, including the<br />
Defense Contract Audit Agency. Maffeo<br />
feels he has a “special obligation” to help<br />
guarantee that SAIC’s various businesses<br />
abide by government rules and regulations.<br />
Recent litigation<br />
In 2011, the company settled for $2<br />
million a civil suit alleging bid rigging<br />
involving a services contract with the<br />
<strong>National</strong> Center for Critical Information<br />
Processing and Storage in Mississippi.<br />
“<strong>The</strong> company decided to avoid incurring<br />
several years. Earlier, he served as a lieutenant<br />
in the Judge Advocate General’s<br />
Corps as a member of the U.S. Naval<br />
Reserve. He moved to SAIC in 2010.<br />
Maffeo is a former chairman of the corporate<br />
counsel group of the <strong>American</strong> Bar<br />
Association’s Section of Public Contract<br />
<strong>Law</strong>.<br />
His professional advice: “Recognize<br />
and understand the importance of your<br />
role: who you truly represent and who<br />
your client is. Be a facilitator when possible,<br />
but know where to draw the line.<br />
Remember that the success of your position<br />
depends on the talent and capabilities<br />
of a lot of other people. Having a<br />
quality team around you can’t be minimized.”<br />
Personal<br />
Maffeo was born in Bayonne, N.J., and<br />
grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y. He is a sports<br />
fan and golfer “who doesn’t participate<br />
as much as I used to.” He is also an avid<br />
reader.<br />
Maffeo and his wife Debra, a retired<br />
human resources executive, have two<br />
daughters: Michelle, 23, and Stephanie,<br />
20. In 1971, he graduated summa cum<br />
laude from Brooklyn College of the City<br />
University of New York. He earned his<br />
J.D. three years later from Harvard <strong>Law</strong><br />
School.<br />
Maffeo has been admitted to practice<br />
in California, Michigan, New York,<br />
Virginia and the District of Columbia, and<br />
before the U.S. Supreme Court.<br />
His personal career highlight, he said,<br />
was “coming to SAIC, with its extraordinary<br />
people, and stepping into the GC<br />
role with outstanding lawyers and professionals<br />
doing important work in the<br />
national security of the country.”<br />
Last book and movie<br />
Colonel Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris,<br />
and Act of Valor.<br />
—Ro g e r Ad l e r
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 13<br />
movers<br />
laterals<br />
Baker & McKenzie: Karyn Koiffman<br />
joins the firm as partner<br />
in the New York<br />
office and will focus on<br />
mergers and acquisitions,<br />
leveraged buyouts,<br />
recapitalizations,<br />
reorganizations, commercial<br />
contracts and<br />
karyn koiffman<br />
related corporate matters. Previously,<br />
Koiffman was a partner at Kirkland &<br />
Ellis.<br />
Dorsey & Whitney: Bryon Benevento,<br />
Dan Larsen and Kimberly Neville join<br />
the firm’s trial group as partners in the<br />
Salt Lake City office. Benevento will<br />
focus on commercial litigation, intellectual<br />
property litigation and products<br />
liability defense. Larsen will focus<br />
on products liability defense, medical<br />
malpractice, commercial litigation and<br />
government law. Neville will focus<br />
on products liability, health care and<br />
commercial litigation. Previously,<br />
Benevento, Larsen and Neville were<br />
partners at Snell & Wilmer.<br />
More online: For associate<br />
movers, visit nlj.com and click on<br />
Associate News.<br />
Duane Morris (Philadelphia): Rich<br />
Kim joins the firm’s intellectual property<br />
practice group as partner in the<br />
San Diego office and will focus on patent<br />
prosecution in the areas of patent<br />
drafting, analysis and portfolio counseling.<br />
Previously, Kim was a partner<br />
at Morrison & Foerster.<br />
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough<br />
(Columbia, S.C.): Juan Marcelino and<br />
James O’Hare join the firm as partners<br />
in the Boston office. Marcelino<br />
will focus on securities enforcement<br />
matters involving insider trading,<br />
financial reporting, offering fraud and<br />
other securities law violations. O’Hare<br />
will focus on representing technology<br />
companies in the areas of general<br />
corporate matters, mergers and<br />
acquisitions, dispute resolution and<br />
public and private financings. He will<br />
also represent private-equity funds.<br />
Previously, Marcelino was a partner at<br />
Greenberg Traurig and O’Hare was a<br />
partner at K&L Gates.<br />
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and<br />
Dorr: Drew Chapman<br />
joins the firm’s securities<br />
department and<br />
investment management<br />
group as partner<br />
in the New York office.<br />
Drew Chapman<br />
He will also lead the<br />
alternative investment<br />
practice firmwide. Chapman will focus<br />
on complex transactions for alternative<br />
investment, asset management<br />
and financial services firms. Previously,<br />
he was head of the alternative investment<br />
group at Cadwalader, Wickersham<br />
& Taft.<br />
new arrivals<br />
Allen & Overy (London): Karen Garry<br />
joins the firm’s derivatives and structured-finance<br />
practice as senior counsel<br />
to the New York office. Previously,<br />
Garry was executive director and<br />
assistant general counsel at JPMorgan<br />
Chase & Co.<br />
DLA Piper: David Luce joins the firm’s<br />
corporate and finance practice and its<br />
insurance and reinsurance sector practice<br />
as partner in the New York office<br />
and will focus on insurance-related<br />
capital markets and reinsurance transactions.<br />
Previously, Luce was a director<br />
in the fixed income division of<br />
Credit Suisse Group A.G.<br />
Faegre Baker Daniels: John Hirschman<br />
rejoins the firm’s<br />
real estate and construction<br />
team as counsel<br />
to the Indianapolis<br />
office and will focus on<br />
representing clients in<br />
john hirschman<br />
debt and equity financing<br />
transactions, leasing<br />
transactions and acquisition and disposition<br />
transactions. Previously, Hirschman<br />
was director of real estate development<br />
at Browning Investments Inc.<br />
Harris, O’Brien, St. Laurent &<br />
Houghteling (New York): Kevin<br />
O’Brien joins the firm as name partner<br />
and will focus on commercial and<br />
securities litigation, regulatory enforcement<br />
cases and white-collar criminal<br />
defense matters. Previously, O’Brien<br />
was a litigation partner at Dechert.<br />
Additionally, Andrew St. Laurent has<br />
been promoted to name partner at the<br />
firm. St. Laurent has been with the<br />
firm since 2009. <strong>The</strong> firm has changed<br />
its name from Harris & Houghteling.<br />
Holland & Knight: Marc Sukkar joins<br />
the firm as partner in<br />
the Abu Dhabi, United<br />
Arab Emirates, office<br />
and will focus on construction<br />
law, energy<br />
and dispute resolution.<br />
Previously, Sukkar was<br />
senior counsel for<br />
marc sukkar<br />
Msheireb Properties, a subsidiary of<br />
Qatar Foundation.<br />
Jones Day: Beong-Soo Kim joins the<br />
firm’s issues and appeals practice as<br />
partner in the Los Angeles office and<br />
will focus on commercial litigation.<br />
Previously, Kim was chief of the major<br />
frauds section in the criminal division<br />
of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the<br />
Central District of California.<br />
Movers is compiled and written by Tasha<br />
Norman. Please send material to her at <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, 120 Broadway,<br />
Fifth Floor, New York, N.Y. 10271, or<br />
tnorman@alm.com.<br />
Morgan Stanley,<br />
Simpson Thacher and<br />
I are helping victims<br />
of sex trafficking<br />
recover what has been<br />
so cruelly taken from<br />
them: a life without<br />
violence.”
14 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Experts, privilege and civil procedure: recent rulings<br />
Among other issues, federal courts have recently addressed questions arising when employees serve as experts.<br />
By Gregory P. Joseph<br />
Employees can be experts, but can they be designated nontestifying<br />
experts to shield their work from discovery? Is there a settlement privilege?<br />
Must litigation be threatened for joint-defense/common-interest protection<br />
to apply? Can a federal judge transfer part of an action to another<br />
district? This article explores these questions and other recent developments<br />
concerning experts, privilege and civil<br />
procedure.<br />
• Employees as nontestifying experts. One of<br />
the parties in Tellabs Operations Inc. v. Fujitsu<br />
Ltd., <strong>2012</strong> U.S. Dist. Lexis 60749 (N.D.<br />
Ill. May 1, <strong>2012</strong>), a patent infringement<br />
action, assigned employees to inspect the<br />
other party’s product and later designated<br />
the employees nontestifying experts<br />
under Rule 26(b)(4)(D) of the Federal<br />
Rules of Civil Procedure to immunize<br />
their work from discovery. <strong>The</strong> Tellabs<br />
court analyzed whether an employee can<br />
<strong>The</strong> Practice<br />
Commentary and advice on developments in the law<br />
be “retained or specially employed…in<br />
anticipation of litigation” within the rule,<br />
a question that it noted has divided the<br />
lower courts. <strong>The</strong> court found it unnecessary<br />
to answer the question, holding as a<br />
matter of fact that the inspection was conducted<br />
in the ordinary course of business,<br />
not in anticipation of litigation. <strong>The</strong> court<br />
suggested, however, that if it had found<br />
the employees’ work undiscoverable, that<br />
finding might have permitted an adverse<br />
inference because it would have resulted<br />
in the employer’s failing to produce relevant<br />
evidence by rendering its employees’<br />
testimony uniquely available to itself and<br />
unavailable to its opponent.<br />
• Employee expert reports. If a salaried<br />
employee is designated a testifying expert<br />
and must file a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report,<br />
Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(vi) contemplates that<br />
the report will include “a statement of<br />
the compensation to be paid for the study<br />
and testimony.” Does that require disclosure<br />
of the employee’s annual compensation<br />
and benefits? An allocation? In<br />
SEC v. Nadel, <strong>2012</strong> U.S. Dist. Lexis 53173<br />
(E.D.N.Y. April 16, <strong>2012</strong>), the court followed<br />
several decisions holding that no<br />
compensation disclosure or discovery is<br />
required at all because “the expert’s status<br />
as a full-time, salaried employee…is<br />
sufficient to demonstrate bias,” although<br />
remarking that the result could change<br />
if the adversary can point to a “specific<br />
circumstance raising suspicion that the<br />
particular compensation paid to [the<br />
employee] affected his opinions.”<br />
• De-designated expert witnesses. Not<br />
every case goes smoothly. Sometimes<br />
experts originally designated to testify<br />
later come to conclusions that make the<br />
prospect of proffering them horrifying.<br />
<strong>The</strong> moment a testifying expert is converted<br />
to nontestifying status, however,<br />
the adversary is highly motivated to find<br />
out why. Does the adversary still have the<br />
istockphoto/DNY59<br />
document dispute: Third Circuit held a company couldn’t appeal adverse<br />
privilege ruling when documents’ custodian was co-defendant’s law firm.<br />
right under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) to depose<br />
an expert initially designated to testify,<br />
or is the expert protected by Rule 26(b)<br />
(4)(D)(ii)? That provision bars discovery<br />
from a nontestifying expert except in<br />
“exceptional circumstances under which<br />
it is impracticable for the party to obtain<br />
facts or opinions on the same subject<br />
by other means” (e.g., if the nontestifier<br />
has conducted destructive testing).<br />
<strong>The</strong> court in Decena v. Am. Int’l Cos., <strong>2012</strong><br />
U.S. Dist. Lexis 61303 (E.D. La. May 1,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>), reviewed the case law and found<br />
“no consensus of authority” on this question.<br />
It followed the majority rule, which<br />
bars discovery from the de-designated<br />
expert, finding it repugnant to the rule to<br />
“allow…a party to utilize his opponent’s<br />
expert’s opinions to prepare his own case,<br />
and at his opponent’s expense.”<br />
• Settlement privilege. Settlement discussions<br />
are largely, but not entirely, inadmissible<br />
under Fed. R. Evid. 408, but are<br />
they privileged? <strong>The</strong> answer to that question<br />
mattered in In re MSTG Inc., 675 F.3d<br />
1337 (Fed. Cir. <strong>2012</strong>), in which the defendant<br />
sought communications and settlement<br />
agreements between the plaintiff<br />
and six other companies (including former<br />
defendants) against which the plaintiff<br />
had alleged the same patent infringement.<br />
<strong>The</strong> defendant maintained that the<br />
evidence was relevant and admissible on<br />
the question of what would constitute a<br />
reasonable royalty if the defendant were<br />
found liable for infringement, particularly<br />
to test the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert<br />
on that issue. <strong>The</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals<br />
for the Sixth Circuit had recognized a<br />
settlement privilege in Goodyear Tire &<br />
Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply Inc., 332<br />
F.3d 976, 979-83 (6th Cir. 2003), which<br />
would foreclose discovery, but the Federal<br />
Circuit sided with the majority of circuits<br />
that have refused to recognize a privilege,<br />
among other reasons because Rule<br />
408 did not exclude the evidence and, in<br />
enacting Rule 408, Congress had “directly<br />
addressed the admissibility of settlements<br />
and settlement negotiations but in doing<br />
so did not adopt a settlement privilege.”<br />
• Joint-defense/common-interest trigger.<br />
Common-interest or joint-defense protection<br />
exists as an exception to the general<br />
rule of waiver when attorney-client privileged<br />
material is shared with a nonparty.<br />
It applies to communications among parties<br />
that share a common legal interest,<br />
but must there be actual or pending<br />
litigation for the common-interest rule<br />
to apply? As discussed in U.S. v. Duke<br />
Energy Corp., <strong>2012</strong> U.S. Dist. Lexis 59565<br />
(M.D.N.C. April 30, <strong>2012</strong>), the circuits<br />
are split on that question. <strong>The</strong> Duke court<br />
approved a magistrate judge’s determination<br />
that, at a minimum, there must be a<br />
“ ‘palpable threat of litigation…at least as<br />
stringent as the anticipation of litigation<br />
standard used for work product.’ ” (Note<br />
that this latter standard, too, is the subject<br />
of a circuit split.)<br />
• Appealing adverse privilege ruling over<br />
documents held by third party. Generally, discovery<br />
orders are unappealable because<br />
they are interlocutory, and in Mohawk<br />
Indus. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009),<br />
the U.S. Supreme Court barred interlocutory<br />
review under the collateral order<br />
doctrine of orders overruling assertions<br />
of attorney-client privilege. In light of<br />
Mohawk, the Fourth Circuit ruled in U.S.<br />
v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010),<br />
that even a citation for civil contempt is<br />
insufficient to permit a party to file an<br />
appeal of an adverse privilege ruling—<br />
only a nonparty may immediately appeal<br />
a civil contempt order; a party must suffer<br />
criminal contempt to appeal a decision<br />
allowing discovery of privileged material.<br />
In Perlman v. U.S., 247 U.S. 7 (1918),<br />
the Supreme Court carved out an exception<br />
to the contempt requirement. It held<br />
that when a court orders a third party to<br />
produce privileged documents, the privilege<br />
holder may immediately appeal the<br />
order because the privilege holder itself<br />
cannot disobey the order, be held in contempt<br />
and appeal the contempt citation.<br />
But there is less to this exception than<br />
meets the eye.<br />
Thus, in In re Grand Jury ABC Corp.,<br />
<strong>2012</strong> U.S. App. Lexis 10558 (3d Cir. May<br />
24, <strong>2012</strong>), the corporate privilege holder<br />
asked a law firm representing a co-defendant<br />
(an officer of the corporation) to<br />
hold the privileged materials. <strong>The</strong> court<br />
ordered the corporation to produce the<br />
documents. <strong>The</strong> corporation argued that<br />
it could appeal this adverse ruling under<br />
Perlman because the custodian of the<br />
documents was a third party<br />
(the co-defendant’s law firm).<br />
<strong>The</strong> Third Circuit rejected this<br />
analysis because the corporation<br />
could suffer criminal<br />
contempt by refusing to<br />
obey the court’s order, as<br />
the documents were still<br />
within its control, albeit<br />
held by another. <strong>The</strong> Third<br />
Circuit identified, but did<br />
not resolve, the question<br />
whether, after Mohawk,<br />
any party (or subject of a<br />
grand jury investigation)<br />
may ever invoke Perlman<br />
because that party is in a<br />
position to suffer criminal<br />
contempt and appeal the<br />
contempt citation.<br />
• Partial transfer of a case.<br />
28 U.S.C. 1631 authorizes<br />
a federal district judge<br />
to transfer a case to cure<br />
a lack of jurisdiction “to<br />
any other [district] court<br />
in which the action…could have been<br />
brought.” In Johnson v. Mitchell, <strong>2012</strong> U.S.<br />
Dist. Lexis 65934 (E.D. Calif. May 10,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>), the court concluded that it lacked<br />
personal jurisdiction over one defendant.<br />
Jurisdiction over that defendant existed<br />
in the district in which he resided, but<br />
that district lacked jurisdiction over the<br />
other defendants. Recognizing that “[t]he<br />
Circuits are split regarding whether the<br />
language of 28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits federal<br />
courts to partially transfer an action,”<br />
the court adopted the line of authority<br />
permitting transfer of claims as well<br />
as entire actions. It reasoned: “It would<br />
indeed be a curious result that a district<br />
court could transfer an action under<br />
§ 1631 containing a single claim over<br />
which it lacked jurisdiction but could not<br />
transfer that claim if the claimant made an<br />
additional claim in his action over which<br />
the court did have jurisdiction.”<br />
• District courts and circuit precedent. It is<br />
axiomatic that district courts are bound<br />
by the rulings of their courts of appeals<br />
“no matter how egregiously in error they<br />
may feel their own circuit to be.” Nakal v.<br />
Personal Probation Officer, <strong>2012</strong> U.S. Dist.<br />
Lexis 14856 (C.D. Calif. Feb. 6, <strong>2012</strong>). In<br />
the absence of governing authority in its<br />
own circuit, a district court should “look<br />
to the opinions of other circuits for persuasive<br />
guidance, always chary to create a circuit<br />
split.” U.S. v. Bryan Co., <strong>2012</strong> U.S. Dist.<br />
Lexis 78407 (S.D. Miss. June 6, <strong>2012</strong>).<br />
What if intracircuit law is in conflict?<br />
Some courts invoke the earliest-case rule,<br />
which provides that the district court<br />
should follow the line of authority within<br />
the circuit that contains the earliest decision<br />
“because a decision of a prior panel<br />
cannot be overturned by a later panel.”<br />
Centeno v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., <strong>2012</strong> U.S.<br />
Dist. Lexis 39741 (S.D. Fla. March 21,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>).<br />
Gregory P. Joseph is a past president of the <strong>American</strong> College of Trial <strong>Law</strong>yers and a past chair of the<br />
Section of Litigation of the <strong>American</strong> Bar Association. He can be reached at Gregory P. Joseph <strong>Law</strong><br />
Offices in New York and gjoseph@josephnyc.com.
news from<br />
Washington<br />
july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 15<br />
Bar fight erupts in D.C.<br />
Disciplinary arm: Proposal poses ‘substantial threat’ to independence.<br />
By Zoe Tillman<br />
A proposal to give the District of Columbia Bar’s<br />
Board of Governors more control over the budget<br />
of the bar’s disciplinary arm has sparked a backlash,<br />
with officials on the disciplinary side warning that<br />
the changes could threaten the bar’s ability to police<br />
its members.<br />
<strong>The</strong> changes to the bar’s rules, spelled out in<br />
a June 18 letter from the bar to the District of<br />
Columbia Court of Appeals, would give the bar<br />
new authority to approve the disciplinary arm’s<br />
contracts. <strong>The</strong> bar already funds the disciplinary<br />
system and approves its overall budget; the proposed<br />
changes would expand the bar’s oversight of<br />
how that money is spent.<br />
Bar leaders say the proposal is about making sure<br />
there’s accountability for what amounts to about 30<br />
percent of the bar’s more than $20 million budget<br />
funded by dues. But officials with the disciplinary<br />
arm, which includes the Board on Professional<br />
Responsibility and the Office of Bar Counsel, say<br />
they fear the changes would chip away at their<br />
See bar counsel, Page 18<br />
Wallace “gene” shipp jr.: He’s the longtime bar counsel for the District of Columbia.<br />
photos by diego m. radzinschi<br />
Once more, LSC budget at risk<br />
Congressional funding proposals for Legal Services Corp. vary widely.<br />
James sandman: President of the LSC says he’s “hopeful” for budget increase.<br />
By Todd Ruger<br />
<strong>The</strong> nation’s providers of civil legal assistance for<br />
the poor are closely watching Congress again this<br />
year, where another move to slash funding for the<br />
Legal Services Corp. could mean more layoffs for lawyers<br />
and may further limit the scope of their work.<br />
Agencies depending on grants from the LSC, the<br />
largest source of funding nationwide for civil legal<br />
aid, are already reeling this year after a cut from<br />
2011 to <strong>2012</strong> equal to 17 percent of their annual<br />
funding from Washington. At the same time, high<br />
unemployment rates have increased the number of<br />
people needing help.<br />
This year, the Republican-led House has passed<br />
a bill that would cut another 6 percent from the<br />
agency’s current budget. <strong>The</strong> House proposal of<br />
$328 million, when adjusted for inflation, would<br />
be an all-time low for the 38-year-old organization,<br />
according to a recent report from the Conference of<br />
Chief Justices.<br />
See lsc, Page 20<br />
inadmissible<br />
After all that, GPS data unneeded<br />
At the heart of a landmark Fourth Amendment case this year in the U.S.<br />
Supreme Court were GPS data the authorities used to link a Washington nightclub<br />
owner, Antoine Jones, to an alleged drug house in Maryland. Turns out that<br />
the Justice Department doesn’t think it needs the global positioning system data<br />
in the case after all. Prosecutors said in court papers filed this month that agents<br />
would have found the house anyway, without the use of that information. Jones’<br />
lawyer, Washington solo practitioner A. Eduardo Balarezo, said DOJ “will stop<br />
at nothing” to convict Jones, whose life sentence was overturned. “<strong>The</strong> government<br />
seeks to convince the judge with a fanciful story about how it would have<br />
located the so-called stash house even without the GPS,” Balarezo said last week.<br />
“If this were so, why did it illegally install the GPS on Mr. Jones’ vehicle in the<br />
first place and monitor his movements 24/7 for a month?” —Mi k e Sc a r c e l l a<br />
FOR MORE Inadmissible SEE PAGE 16<br />
a. Eduardo balarezo<br />
champions<br />
&<br />
visionaries<br />
<strong>The</strong> Legal Times<br />
Awards, originally<br />
scheduled to run<br />
in this week’s<br />
paper, will run in<br />
the <strong>July</strong> 9 issue.<br />
Supreme Court Insider e-Newsletter<br />
Exclusive insight and independent analysis from veteran Supreme<br />
Court reporters Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle delivered straight to<br />
your desk or smartphone.<br />
Subscribe today and become an insider!<br />
www.nlj.com/scinsider/reg An Product<br />
NLJ-10-01082 SupCrt Newsletter_Ad(NLJ-10.125x1.5).indd 1<br />
An<br />
Product<br />
12/8/10 5:12:50 PM
16 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
inadmissible<br />
<strong>The</strong> wait continues<br />
for judicial nominee<br />
Donna Murphy was one of three lawyers<br />
nominated to the bench in the District<br />
of Columbia Superior Court in February<br />
2011. <strong>The</strong> other two were confirmed in<br />
August, but Murphy keeps waiting, and<br />
waiting.<br />
Last week, Senator Jim DeMint<br />
(R-S.C.) objected to allowing a confirmation<br />
vote for Murphy. DeMint<br />
gave no reason to block the nomination<br />
of the long-time lawyer<br />
in the Justice Department’s Civil<br />
Rights Division (and he wasn’t<br />
obligated to). It has been almost a<br />
year since Murphy was voted out<br />
of committee.<br />
Senator Joseph Lieberman<br />
(I-Conn.) said in a Senate floor<br />
speech that there is “no rational<br />
reason” to stall her nomination,<br />
mentioning that there were only<br />
Jim DeMint<br />
unsubstantiated concerns about a portion<br />
of Murphy’s work investigating allegations of police misconduct. Tanya Clay<br />
House, public policy director for the <strong>Law</strong>yers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under <strong>Law</strong>,<br />
said she thought the hold was part of “an effort to quell or to stop the upward mobility<br />
of a long-time civil rights attorney in the Department of Justice.”<br />
Noting the letters of support from law enforcement officials, House said, “<strong>The</strong>re’s no<br />
reason she shouldn’t move, particularly because support is coming from all over the<br />
place.” —To d d Ru g e r a n d Zo e Tillman<br />
Bill Clark/Roll Call via Getty Images<br />
[It’s] little more than a semantic trick.<br />
—<strong>The</strong> U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 26, upholding<br />
regulations limiting greenhouse gases, scoffed at the argument of industry<br />
petitioners who attacked the Environmental Protection<br />
Agency for delegating judgments on climate change to expert<br />
groups instead of weighing the research themselves.<br />
D.C. solicitor general honored<br />
This was a banner year at the U.S. Supreme Court, but District of Columbia<br />
Solicitor General Todd Kim recently received kudos for his work on a case<br />
that didn’t generate the same public firestorm as some of the other matters on<br />
the high court’s docket. Kim—the city’s chief appellate lawyer since the job was<br />
created in 2006—was one of this year’s recipients of the <strong>National</strong> Association<br />
of Attorneys General Supreme Court Best Brief Award. In the award-winning<br />
brief, Kim successfully argued against the Court granting a writ of certiorari<br />
to hear a wrongful-termination case against the city. <strong>The</strong> petitioner, David<br />
Bowie, the former head of the D.C. Office of the Inspector General’s investigations<br />
division, claimed he was fired for expressions protected under the First<br />
Amendment. Kim cited case law holding that the First Amendment doesn’t<br />
protect government employees from discipline for speech related to their official<br />
duties. Attorneys from seven jurisdictions received this year’s award. D.C.<br />
Attorney General Irvin Nathan, in a statement, praised Kim’s “exemplary<br />
work,” saying that his “writing and analytical skills are invaluable to the successful<br />
record this office has achieved in the appellate courts.” —Zo e Tillman<br />
inadmissible<br />
What can you expect from<br />
<strong>The</strong> McCammon Group?<br />
Quality, Results, Value.<br />
From personal injury to intellectual property and everything in between, our<br />
highly trained Neutrals stand ready to assist you with all of your mediation and arbitration needs.<br />
Donald T. Bucklin, Esq.<br />
Fellow, <strong>American</strong> College<br />
of Trial <strong>Law</strong>yers<br />
Robert J. Grey, Jr., Esq.<br />
Past President,<br />
<strong>American</strong> Bar Association<br />
Hon. Henry L. Jones, Jr. (Ret.)<br />
Retired Magistrate Judge,<br />
United States District Court<br />
Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.<br />
Former Judge,<br />
United States District Court<br />
Hon. Rufus G. King, III (Ret.)<br />
Retired Chief Judge,<br />
Superior Court of DC<br />
Hon. Warren R. King (Ret.)<br />
Retired Judge,<br />
DC Court of Appeals<br />
Stanton T. <strong>Law</strong>rence, III, Esq.<br />
Life Sciences<br />
Intellectual Property Neutral<br />
V. Frederic Lyon, Esq.<br />
Neutral in Construction<br />
and Power Plant Matters<br />
Frank H. Menaker, Esq.<br />
Former Senior VP and GC,<br />
Lockheed Martin Corporation<br />
Alexia Morrison, Esq.<br />
Past Chief Litigation<br />
Counsel, SEC<br />
Hon. William C. Pryor (Ret.)<br />
Former Chief Judge,<br />
DC Court of Appeals<br />
Daniel E. Toomey, Esq.<br />
Construction, Surety, and<br />
General Commercial Neutral<br />
Robert P. Watkins, Esq.<br />
Fellow, <strong>American</strong> College<br />
of Trial <strong>Law</strong>yers<br />
Hon. Joan Zeldon (Ret.)<br />
Former Presiding Judge, Civil<br />
Division of the Superior Court of DC<br />
Dispute Resolution and Prevention<br />
For a complete list of our services and Neutrals throughout DC, MD, and VA,<br />
call 1-888-343-0922 or visit www.McCammonGroup.com
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 17<br />
Win McNamee/Getty Images Ben Zweig Photography<br />
inadmissible from page 16<br />
Thomas Williamson jr. (r)<br />
Bundle of joy<br />
Lobbyists will lose a powerful tool at their disposal<br />
during District of Columbia elections if the administration<br />
of Washington Mayor Vincent Gray gets its<br />
way. <strong>The</strong> administration in the coming weeks plans<br />
to put forward campaign reform legislation that will<br />
include a prohibition on contributions bundled by<br />
lobbyists for candidates for elected office in the city,<br />
D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan told a D.C.<br />
Council committee last week. “As individuals, lobbyists<br />
have a right to make contributions and expenditures<br />
in favor of a candidate or a committee that<br />
they support,” Nathan said in remarks prepared for a<br />
council hearing on June 25. “However, when lobbyists<br />
can gather political contributions from multiple<br />
sources and present those contributions in one ‘lump<br />
sum’ to a candidate, a candidate’s political committee,<br />
or a political party, they effectively sidestep contribution limits by combining their<br />
contributions with those of others. Moreover, when lobbyists can present significant<br />
quantities of bundled contributions to a candidate or committee, they create at least the<br />
appearance that access is being exchanged for contributions.” —An d r e w Ra m o n a s<br />
Mr. President<br />
After a year of waiting in the wings as president-elect of the District of Columbia<br />
Bar, Thomas Williamson Jr. has officially assumed the top job. Williamson, a<br />
senior counsel to Covington & Burling, was sworn in as president on June 19. In<br />
his remarks, he called on the bar to renew and expand its commitment to accessto-justice<br />
programs. “We are a profession that believes we have an ethical responsibility<br />
to ensure that all persons,<br />
regardless of wealth, are treated<br />
fairly by the legal system,” he<br />
said. “And we know that ideal is a<br />
mere rhetorical illusion if the poor<br />
are not represented by lawyers.”<br />
Williamson has spent the bulk<br />
of his career in private practice.<br />
He’s long been involved in local<br />
pro bono efforts and city affairs,<br />
most recently serving as a member<br />
of the D.C. Access to Justice<br />
Commission. Williamson was<br />
joined by local legal heavy hitters at his swearing-in, including U.S. Attorney General<br />
Eric Holder Jr. —Zo e Tillman<br />
Prime location<br />
Legal services for law firms is big business, but is it worth $31.5 million? One company<br />
seems to think so. Washington-based legal services corporation AdamsGrayson<br />
was acquired last week by Chicago-based Huron Consulting Group for that amount.<br />
Huron will pay $21.5 million in cash plus $10 million in deferred payment. Shahzad<br />
Bashir, executive vice president of Huron, said the acquisition would give Huron a<br />
larger presence in the Washington legal market, which he called “one of the most<br />
important legal markets in the country.” He also pointed to AdamsGrayson’s deep<br />
relationships with law firms and Huron’s ability to handle everything from document<br />
review to electronic discovery to law firm management. “You add all of these and it<br />
becomes a good thing for our clients,” Bashir said. —Ma t t h e w Hu i s m a n<br />
Not a happy day<br />
Republicans and Democrats agreed on one thing Thursday, when the House of<br />
Representatives voted to find Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. in contempt of<br />
Congress: It was a “sad day.” In floor speeches, Republicans said it was sad that it<br />
had to come to the controversial and historic move, but they had to respond when<br />
the Department of Justice refused<br />
to turn over documents as part of<br />
a Congressional probe. “No Justice<br />
Department is above the law, and<br />
no Justice Department is above<br />
the Constitution,” Speaker John<br />
Boehner (R-Ohio) said on the floor.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Democrats said it was a sad day<br />
because Holder, the first black attorney<br />
general, also became the first sitting<br />
cabinet member in the nation’s<br />
john Boehner<br />
Irvin Nathan<br />
history to be held in contempt of<br />
Congress. —To d d Ru g e r<br />
diego m. radzinschi<br />
In Memoriam<br />
In Loving MeMory<br />
RichaRd GeoRGe<br />
october 7, 1944 - May 31, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Richard George passed away suddenly on Thursday, May 31, <strong>2012</strong>, at his home in Summit,<br />
New Jersey. He is survived by his wife, Linda; sons Richard, Christopher and Alexander<br />
George; Richard’s wife Halina; Christopher’s wife Susan; four grandchildren: Ariadna, Philip,<br />
Harrison and Isabella George; and his brother George Kolombatovich.<br />
Richard’s co-workers, clients and friends in the industry will remember him as a tireless<br />
advocate, a formidable adversary, a magnanimous personality and a truly renaissance figure<br />
in a sometimes mundane world. Richard’s co-workers, clients and friends in the industry will<br />
remember him as a tireless advocate, a formidable adversary, a magnanimous personality and<br />
a truly renaissance figure in a sometimes mundane world.<br />
Memorial services will be held on <strong>July</strong> 10, <strong>2012</strong>, at 5:30 p.m. at<br />
<strong>The</strong> Harvard Club, 27 West 44th Street, New York, NY<br />
Donations in his honor may be made to Human Rights First (humanrightsfirst.org);<br />
Autism Speaks (autismspeaks.org) or Seven Tepees Youth Program (7tepees.org)<br />
Robert D. Reif<br />
All of us at Epstein Becker Green<br />
mourn the loss of our<br />
treasured friend,<br />
beloved husband and father,<br />
valued colleague and mentor.<br />
Bob’s contributions and memory will live in our actions<br />
and our hearts for many years to come.<br />
EpsteinBeckerGreen
18 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
washington<br />
Bar’s disciplinary arm: independence at risk<br />
bar counsel, from page 15<br />
independence and hurt public confidence<br />
in the bar’s ability to go after lawyers<br />
accused of misconduct.<br />
Leaders of the professional responsibility<br />
board—the body responsible for<br />
administering attorney discipline—sent a<br />
June 1 letter to then-bar President Darrell<br />
Mottley saying that they planned to “vigorously”<br />
oppose the changes. “<strong>The</strong>se<br />
proposals would work a fundamental<br />
change in the relationship between the<br />
Board on Professional Responsibility…<br />
and the [D.C. Bar Board of Governors],”<br />
wrote board chair Ray Bolze and vice<br />
chair Deborah Jeffrey. “[T]hey pose a<br />
substantial threat to the independence of<br />
the disciplinary system.”<br />
At the heart of the letter is a fear that<br />
elected bar leaders would suddenly have<br />
leeway to interfere with the disciplinary<br />
arm’s operations and with the bar counsel<br />
and its longtime chief, Wallace “Gene”<br />
Shipp Jr. Shipp, who declined to comment,<br />
oversees misconduct investigations<br />
and prosecutions involving members of<br />
the bar.<br />
Bar leaders say they have no interest<br />
in meddling in the disciplinary arm’s<br />
day-to-day affairs. Mottley, an attorney at<br />
Banner & Witcoff whose one-year term<br />
as president ended in June, said that as<br />
the bar membership grows, bar leaders<br />
have a responsibility “to ensure accountability”<br />
for the budget.<br />
Newly sworn-in bar President Thomas<br />
Williamson Jr., a senior counsel to<br />
Coving ton & Burling, said the changes<br />
are mostly aimed at large-dollar capital<br />
expenditures and multiyear contracts.<br />
For instance, he said that as the disciplinary<br />
arm plans for office renovations that<br />
he estimated could cost anywhere from<br />
several hundred thousand dollars to $1<br />
million, “our view is it’s appropriate for<br />
the bar to review such a project.<br />
“We would continue to be deferential<br />
to their autonomy and independence<br />
in making decisions about discipline,”<br />
Williamson said. “But we think we have<br />
a responsibility when it comes to expenditures,<br />
particularly when it comes to<br />
large amounts of money.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> D.C. Court of Appeals has the<br />
final say. <strong>The</strong> board, through Executive<br />
Attorney Elizabeth Branda, declined to<br />
comment, but both sides will have an<br />
opportunity to weigh in as the court considers<br />
the bar’s proposal.<br />
conflict of interest<br />
roberto westbrook zoe tillman<br />
<strong>The</strong> majority of states and the District<br />
of Columbia have a mandatory bar,<br />
according to information provided by<br />
the <strong>American</strong> Bar Association Center<br />
for Professional Responsibility. <strong>The</strong> data<br />
show that of the 32 states and D.C. with<br />
a mandatory bar, about two-thirds exercised<br />
direct oversight of the attorney discipline<br />
system. In the remaining states<br />
and states with a voluntary bar, attorney<br />
discipline was administered and funded<br />
by the state’s highest court.<br />
In Washington, the D.C. Court of<br />
Appeals oversees the rules governing<br />
attorney discipline, but the bar funds the<br />
disciplinary system.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ABA’s model rules for lawyer disciplinary<br />
enforcement recommend that<br />
attorney discipline operate separately<br />
from the bar. “You don’t want elected<br />
bar officers, who have had to campaign<br />
for office…to have to regulate the people<br />
they solicited for votes,” said Myles Lynk,<br />
a former D.C. Bar president and chair of<br />
the ABA’s standing committee on professional<br />
discipline.<br />
Lynk said that for bars that do oversee<br />
the attorney disciplinary system, the<br />
question is then how much day-to-day<br />
oversight the bar exercises. “If you control<br />
the purse strings of the disciplinary<br />
office, you can effectively influence how<br />
that office operates,” he said.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Board on Professional Responsibility’s<br />
budget, which includes funding<br />
for the Office of Bar Counsel, makes up<br />
about 30 percent of the bar’s dues-funded<br />
budget. In the budget for the <strong>2012</strong>-<br />
debating: New D.C. Bar president<br />
Thomas Williamson Jr., left, says bar<br />
would be deferential to disciplinary<br />
arm’s autonomy. Myles Lynk, below, is<br />
a past president of the bar, and is the<br />
chair of the ABA’s standing committee<br />
on professional discipline.<br />
Michael frisch: He wrote a column calling the proposal the “most dangerous idea” in D.C. bar’s history.<br />
2013 fiscal year, the disciplinary system’s<br />
budget is $7.8 million.<br />
<strong>The</strong> bar’s proposal didn’t offer specific<br />
reasons for the changes, except to say<br />
that the Board of Governors wanted to<br />
“ensure accountability for expenditures<br />
of Bar funds by the disciplinary system.”<br />
Williamson and Mottley declined to discuss<br />
individual past expenditures.<br />
Williamson said bar leaders are<br />
still considering what the changes, if<br />
approved, would mean in practice. He<br />
said he expected the bar would still delegate<br />
much of the disciplinary system’s<br />
day-to-day financial operations to the<br />
Board on Professional Responsibility, but<br />
perhaps formalize the guidelines for seeking<br />
requests for proposals and pay closer<br />
attention to expenditures over time.<br />
Under the proposed changes, he said,<br />
the bar couldn’t “unreasonably” diminish<br />
Suzanne Starr<br />
the Board on Professional Responsibility<br />
and bar counsel’s authority to carry out<br />
their core disciplinary functions. He<br />
added that in the event of a dispute, the<br />
proposed rules also state that either side<br />
can ask the appeals court to step in, as<br />
is already the case for disputes over the<br />
budget as a whole.<br />
taxing patience<br />
<strong>The</strong> board, in its June 1 letter, maintained<br />
that it had historically stuck to its<br />
budget, “absent extraordinary circumstances<br />
that are unlikely to recur.” <strong>The</strong>y<br />
argued that the proposal “infuses the<br />
entire decisional process with a concern<br />
about satisfying those with control of the<br />
purse.” <strong>The</strong> board is made up of seven<br />
attorneys and two nonattorney members<br />
of the public nominated by bar leaders<br />
and appointed by the appeals court.<br />
<strong>The</strong> board said the bar had already<br />
departed from the ABA’s recommendations<br />
by recently assuming responsibility<br />
for its information-technology support.<br />
<strong>The</strong> June 1 letter implied that this change<br />
created “friction” that would worsen with<br />
the new changes. “No crystal ball is needed<br />
to foresee that these disagreements<br />
would inevitably require more time and<br />
attention from the Court of Appeals, taxing<br />
the patience of the Chief Judge and<br />
any Associate Judges whom he chooses<br />
to involve,” they wrote.<br />
Michael Frisch, a former senior assistant<br />
bar counsel who wrote an online<br />
column on June 22 calling the proposal<br />
“the most dangerous idea” in the<br />
bar’s history, said the proposed changes<br />
heightened the risk of future abuses.<br />
Frisch, a professor and ethics counsel<br />
at Georgetown University <strong>Law</strong> Center,<br />
said he could envision scenarios where<br />
bar leaders used the budget to hamstring<br />
attorney discipline cases “they may well<br />
not want prosecuted.”<br />
Frisch also said he thought the bar<br />
should have sought comment from members<br />
before submitting the proposal to the<br />
court. “What got my attention is there’s<br />
no commentary here, and that, to me, is<br />
a marked departure from the way the bar<br />
has done business,” he said.<br />
<strong>The</strong> bar announced the proposal on<br />
its Web site on June 25. Williamson said<br />
the bar asked for comment from the disciplinary<br />
arm, but didn’t give broader<br />
public notice because “from our vantage<br />
point, this is an internal governance issue<br />
that doesn’t directly impact or regulate<br />
the conduct of individual members.”<br />
Lynk said that if the rules are approved,<br />
it could be possible for the bar to exercise<br />
its new authority in a responsible way.<br />
But he said he would like to see more<br />
details about why these changes are<br />
needed and which expenditures would<br />
need bar approval.<br />
“When you’re dealing with financial<br />
issues, policy decisions often get made in<br />
the way in which you resolve your disputes<br />
over budgets and fiscal policy,” he<br />
said. “This does raise questions that need<br />
to be addressed. I do hope that there’s a<br />
request by the court of appeals for public<br />
comment.”<br />
Contact Zoe Tillman at ztillman@alm.com.
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 19<br />
Register By <strong>July</strong>16th and Save!<br />
Enter Priority Code: CBMANLJ<br />
when Registering!<br />
CLE CREDITS AVAILABLE!<br />
THE CROSS-<br />
BORDER<br />
M&A FORUM<br />
SEPTEMBER 11, <strong>2012</strong><br />
THE HARVARD CLUB • NEW YORK, NY<br />
Top Reasons to Attend:<br />
• EXAMINE M&A strategies and measure risk<br />
across international borders<br />
• DETERMINE the best approach to using<br />
in-house and legal firm teams<br />
• IDENTIFY all aspects of integrating an<br />
international work force<br />
• EXPLORE all financial options when<br />
structuring your deal<br />
• EARN beneficial insight from your international<br />
peers in-person while earning valuable<br />
CLE credits<br />
CLE CREDITS AVAILABLE!<br />
THE CROSS-BORDER<br />
LITIGATION FORUM<br />
SEPTEMBER 12, <strong>2012</strong><br />
THE HARVARD CLUB • NEW YORK, NY<br />
Litigation is a multi-billion-dollar per year<br />
business. Attend the first annual Cross-Border<br />
Litigation Summit and:<br />
Register today and experience quality networking with<br />
Corporate Counsel subscribers based in the US and<br />
international locations such as:<br />
• BRAZIL<br />
Register By <strong>July</strong>16th and Save!<br />
Enter Priority Code: CBLNLJ<br />
when Registering!<br />
• EXAMINE litigation strategies across international<br />
borders<br />
• DETERMINE the best approach to using in-house<br />
and legal firm teams<br />
• IDENTIFY new strategies to limit risk<br />
• DEBATE alternate litigation options and<br />
adopt new approaches<br />
• GAIN beneficial insight from your international<br />
peers in-person while earning valuable CLE credits<br />
• CANADA<br />
• INDIA<br />
• IRELAND<br />
• ISRAEL<br />
• JAPAN<br />
• SINGAPORE<br />
• SOUTH KOREA<br />
• U.S.A.<br />
...AND MORE!<br />
sponsor:<br />
association partner:<br />
SponSorS:<br />
ASSociAtion pArtner:<br />
from the publisher of:<br />
212-457-7905<br />
www.corpcounsel.com/crossborderma<br />
Please use priority code NLJ-CBL when registering<br />
212-457-7905<br />
www.corpcounsel.com/crossborderlit
20 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
washington<br />
House GOP looks to cut legal services funds<br />
lsc, from page 15<br />
For 135 state and local legal assistance<br />
groups like the Georgia Legal Services<br />
Program, the situation is precarious.<br />
<strong>The</strong> executive director there says more<br />
cuts could mean closing a regional office<br />
and laying off four lawyers from her staff<br />
of 60—on top of the eight attorneys she<br />
had to let go this year. She would also<br />
continue to have to routinely turn away<br />
people seeking help on child custody<br />
matters, divorces, and housing and eviction<br />
cases.<br />
“We have to focus on things that are<br />
critical, urgent and damaging,” executive<br />
director Phyllis Holmen said, such as filing<br />
domestic violence injunctions, and<br />
helping with unemployment compensation<br />
and food stamp applications.<br />
Nationwide, 1,226 lawyers and support<br />
staff have lost their jobs at agencies supported<br />
by the LSC since January 2011,<br />
and 81,000 fewer low-income <strong>American</strong>s<br />
got help they needed, according to the<br />
Conference of Chief Justices survey.<br />
<strong>The</strong> House appropriation bill for 2013<br />
would represent a 22 percent reduction<br />
in funding for the long-embattled LSC<br />
since a high of $420 million in 2010.<br />
That’s not the only potential bad news<br />
the LSC and state and local providers<br />
are facing. <strong>The</strong>ir funding troubles have<br />
deepened because many of the organizations<br />
are also facing reduced funding<br />
from Interest on <strong>Law</strong>yers’ Trust Accounts,<br />
known as IOLTA funding.<br />
Interest rates are near zero<br />
right now, and these trusts<br />
have less money when the real<br />
estate market is not growing.<br />
HOPING FOR COMPROMISE<br />
Still, LSC leaders say they<br />
are guardedly optimistic about<br />
the possibility of a compromise<br />
that could result in a funding<br />
increase from Congress for<br />
2013, even though the appetite<br />
for spending is low on<br />
Capitol Hill.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Democratic-led Senate<br />
Approp riations Committee<br />
approved the full amount of<br />
President Barack Obama’s<br />
2013 budget request for the<br />
LSC at $402 million. That<br />
would be a 16 percent increase<br />
from the <strong>2012</strong> budget of $348<br />
million, and would return<br />
funding to 2011 levels.<br />
<strong>The</strong> two chambers are<br />
expected to hash out a deal<br />
sometime before the end of<br />
the year. Nobody knows quite when that<br />
will happen.<br />
Last year, Congress resolved the difference<br />
between the two appropriations<br />
levels for Legal Services Corp. by essentially<br />
meeting in the middle. If that happens<br />
again this year, it would result in a<br />
Phyllis holmen: <strong>The</strong> Georgia Legal Services Program official says<br />
additional funding cuts could cause her to lay off four lawyers.<br />
meredith hobbs/daily report<br />
$19 million increase for the agency, LSC<br />
President James Sandman said.<br />
“I am hopeful and optimistic for an<br />
increase,” said Sandman, whose organization<br />
requested a $470 million budget<br />
next year.<br />
<strong>The</strong> vote in the House for a $328 million<br />
budget is actually $28 million more<br />
than last year’s House bill, Sandman said,<br />
and the Senate’s $402 million proposal is<br />
$6 million more than last year.<br />
What’s more, when the House voted<br />
on the appropriations bill this year, it<br />
rejected efforts to reduce the funding to<br />
$200 million or eliminate it altogether,<br />
Sandman said.<br />
Legal services agencies across the<br />
country are nervously watching the battle<br />
in Congress—as they’ve been doing<br />
for decades, a phenomenon detailed last<br />
year in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> [NLJ,<br />
3-14-11]. <strong>The</strong>y are worrying about how<br />
it could affect the growing number of<br />
<strong>American</strong>s who used to be financially<br />
secure but are one rung closer to trouble—and<br />
more in need of free legal aid,<br />
said Tom Garrett, the executive director of<br />
the Legal Services <strong>Law</strong> Line of Vermont.<br />
Garrett says he was able to make up<br />
for last year’s funding cuts with a grant<br />
related to the Hurricane Irene disaster.<br />
That pushed the problem forward for a<br />
year. Now, he will have to lay off one<br />
of his five lawyers or one paralegal if<br />
Congress doesn’t act.<br />
That means about 400 fewer people<br />
would be helped. “We’re really going to<br />
be facing a loss, and I don’t know how<br />
we’re going to do it,” Garrett said.<br />
Todd Ruger can be contacted at truger@-<br />
alm.com.<br />
THE WILLARD<br />
INTERCONTINENTAL,<br />
WHERE GREAT<br />
MEETINGS HAPPEN.<br />
From small meetings to large conferences, breakfasts to banquets,<br />
the Willard InterContinental ® always makes a good impression.<br />
With a location in the heart of D.C., this magnificent Washington<br />
landmark provides an inspiring setting for any gathering. Whatever<br />
your needs, our professional staff will ensure that every detail goes<br />
smoothly. At the Willard InterContinental, every event is a special one.<br />
Do you live an InterContinental life?<br />
Call 202.628.9100 or visit<br />
www.washington.intercontinental.com<br />
©2007 InterContinental Hotels Group.<br />
All rights reserved. Most hotels are<br />
independently owned and/or operated.<br />
M7IHR027_m2_Wil_LglTimes.indd 1<br />
9/12/07 1:29:24 PM
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 21<br />
calendar<br />
CIVIl actions<br />
Tuesday, <strong>July</strong> 3<br />
Supreme Court: <strong>The</strong> Courts, <strong>Law</strong>yers and<br />
the Administration of Justice Section of<br />
the District of Columbia Bar presents “<strong>The</strong><br />
Supreme Court: <strong>The</strong> View from the Press<br />
Gallery.” <strong>The</strong> luncheon program begins<br />
at noon. Speakers: Robert Barnes,<br />
<strong>The</strong> Washington Post; Joan Biskupic,<br />
ThomsonReuters; Jesse Holland, <strong>The</strong><br />
Associated Press; Adam Liptak, <strong>The</strong><br />
New York Times; Tony Mauro, <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>/Legal Times; David<br />
Savage, <strong>The</strong> Los Angeles Times; Arthur<br />
Spitzer, legal director, <strong>American</strong> Civil<br />
Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital<br />
(moderator). Location: Arnold & Porter,<br />
555 12th St. N.W. Cost: $15, staff and<br />
interns at legal service providers; $25,<br />
members of sponsoring sections; $30,<br />
nonsection members. Registration and<br />
information: (202) 626-3463 or www.-<br />
dcbar.org.<br />
Tuesday, <strong>July</strong> 10<br />
Brief Writing: <strong>The</strong> D.C. Bar presents<br />
“Secrets of the Great Brief Writers <strong>2012</strong>.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> program begins at 9 a.m. Speaker:<br />
Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Pro.<br />
Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center,<br />
1101 K St. N.W. Cost: $199, members<br />
of sponsoring sections; $209, D.C. Bar<br />
members; $219, government attorneys;<br />
$279, others. Registration and information:<br />
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.<br />
d.c. moves<br />
McKenna Long & Aldridge<br />
Robert Nissen, 54, has joined the<br />
intellectual property and technology<br />
practice of McKenna Long &<br />
Aldridge in Washington as a partner.<br />
He focuses his practice on patent litigation.<br />
Previously, he was managing<br />
partner at Nissen & Associates. He<br />
earned his J.D. from the University<br />
of Texas School of <strong>Law</strong>.<br />
Polsinelli Shughart<br />
Jonathan Rosen, 47, has joined<br />
Polsinelli Shughart’s white collardefense<br />
and government investigations<br />
practice in Washington as a<br />
Tax <strong>Law</strong>: A committee of the D.C. Bar’s<br />
Taxation Section presents “[Generic<br />
Legal Advice Memorandum] <strong>2012</strong>-001<br />
and other Cherry-Picking Transactions<br />
in the Partnership Context.” <strong>The</strong> luncheon<br />
begins at noon. Speakers:<br />
Beverly Katz, special counsel to the<br />
associate chief counsel, Passthroughs<br />
and Special Industries, Internal Revenue<br />
Service; Nadine Holovach, manager,<br />
PricewaterhouseCoopers. Location:<br />
D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St.<br />
N.W. Cost: free, government employees<br />
who bring their own lunch; $10,<br />
other government employees, nonprofit<br />
employees and law students; $25, members<br />
of sponsoring sections; $35, nonsection<br />
members. Registration and information:<br />
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.-<br />
org.<br />
Money Market Funds: A committee of<br />
the D.C. Bar’s Corporation, Finance and<br />
Securities <strong>Law</strong> Section presents “<strong>The</strong><br />
Future of Money Market Funds.” <strong>The</strong><br />
program begins at 5:30 p.m. Speakers:<br />
Robert Plaze, deputy division director,<br />
U.S. Securities and Exchange Com mission;<br />
Scott Goebel, Fidelity Investments;<br />
Kenneth Berman, Debevoise & Plimpton<br />
(moderator); Ben Haskin, Willkie Farr<br />
& Gallagher (moderator); Eric Purple,<br />
K&L Gates (moderator). Location: D.C.<br />
Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St. N.W.<br />
Cost: free, law students and government<br />
and nonprofit employees; $10, members<br />
of sponsoring sections; $15, nonsection<br />
members. Registration and information:<br />
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.<br />
Wednesday, <strong>July</strong> 11<br />
Dodd-Frank: A committee of the D.C.<br />
Bar’s Corporation, Finance and Securities<br />
Section presents “Issues under the Dodd-<br />
Frank Act of 2010: <strong>The</strong> Final Product<br />
Definitions.” <strong>The</strong> off-the-record program<br />
begins at noon. Speaker: Michael<br />
Loesch, Fulbright & Jaworski (moderator).<br />
Others to be announced. Location:<br />
Fulbright & Jaworski, 801 Pennsylvania<br />
Ave. N.W. Cost: free, law students, government<br />
and nonprofit employees; $10,<br />
members of sponsoring sections; $15, nonsection<br />
members. Registration & information:<br />
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.<br />
Copyright: <strong>The</strong> copyright committee<br />
of the D.C. Bar’s Intellectual Property<br />
<strong>Law</strong> Section presents “<strong>The</strong> Politics of<br />
Copyright.” <strong>The</strong> luncheon program begins<br />
at 12:15 p.m. Speakers: Ernesto Falcon,<br />
Public Knowledge; Susan Ferrechio,<br />
<strong>The</strong> Washington Examiner; James Losey,<br />
New America Foundation; Paige Gold,<br />
vice chair, D.C. Bar copyright committee<br />
(moderator). Location: D.C. Bar<br />
Conference Center, 1101 K St. N.W. Cost:<br />
$10, law students; $20, government and<br />
nonprofit employees; $35, members of<br />
sponsoring sections; $45, nonsection<br />
members. Registration and information:<br />
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.<br />
shareholder. He focuses on matters<br />
involving corruption, fraud, export<br />
control, antitrust, money laundering,<br />
government contracts and privacy<br />
and information management.<br />
Previously, he was a partner at<br />
Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He earned<br />
his J.D. from Boston University<br />
School of <strong>Law</strong>.<br />
Please send notices of new Washingtonarea<br />
hires or promotions to Matthew<br />
Huisman at mhuisman@alm.com.<br />
Personnel notices should include new title<br />
and area of specialization, previous place of<br />
employment and title, education and age.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following cases were recently filed<br />
in the Washington-area district courts. This<br />
information is provided by the district courts’<br />
official online bulletins.<br />
U.S. District Court for<br />
the District of Columbia<br />
Garner v. Elite Service Inc.<br />
(No. 12-CV-01020, June 21)<br />
Assigned to Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle.<br />
Petition for removal. Diversity: tort motor<br />
vehicle. Demand: $4 million. Attorneys<br />
for plaintiff: William Lightfoot, Kelly<br />
Fisher and Paulette Chapman, Koonz,<br />
McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot,<br />
Washington. Attorneys for defendants:<br />
Ronald DeWald and Stephen<br />
Brown, Lipshultz & Hone, Silver Spring,<br />
Md.<br />
Nyambal v. International Monetary<br />
Fund<br />
(No. 12-CV-01037, June 22)<br />
Assigned to Judge Emmet Sullivan. Federal<br />
question: personal injury. Attorney<br />
for plaintiff: John Shoreman, McFadden<br />
& Shoreman, Washington.<br />
Britt v. Federal Contract Guards of<br />
America<br />
(No. 12-CV-01045, June 25)<br />
Assigned to Judge Rosemary Collyer.<br />
Employee Retirement Income Security<br />
Act. Attorney for plaintiff: Denise Clark,<br />
Clark <strong>Law</strong> Group, Washington.<br />
Aimia<br />
Arent Fox<br />
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd<br />
Building Infrastructure<br />
Group, Inc. (BIG)<br />
CreditXpert<br />
U.S. District Court in<br />
Greenbelt, Md.<br />
Manyara v. Bowie State University<br />
(No. 12-CV-01838, June 21)<br />
Assigned to Judge Roger Titus. Job discrimination.<br />
Attorneys for plaintiff:<br />
George Brown and Katrina Dennis,<br />
Kramon & Graham, Baltimore.<br />
Boost Worldwide Inc. v. Black Ops<br />
Communication LLC<br />
(No. 12-CV-01861, June 22)<br />
Assigned to Judge Alexander Williams<br />
Jr. Trademark infringement. Demand:<br />
$250,000. Attorney for plaintiff: Joshua<br />
Kahn, Brault Graham, Rockville, Md.<br />
U.S. District Court in<br />
Alexandria, va.<br />
ED Anywhere LLC v. Plato Inc.<br />
(No. 12-CV-00684, June 21)<br />
Assigned to Judge Leonie Brinkema.<br />
Diversity: contract. Attorney for plaintiff:<br />
James Liskow, DeCaro, Doran, Siciliano,<br />
Gallagher & DeBlasis, Fairfax, Va.<br />
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp.<br />
(No. 12-CV-00686, June 21)<br />
Assigned to Judge Anthony Trenga.<br />
Notice of removal. Federal question: antitrust.<br />
Attorney for counterclaimant Apple<br />
Inc.: Ahmed Davis, Fish & Richardson,<br />
Washington.<br />
Intersections Charity Golf Classic<br />
<strong>2012</strong> Sponsors Include:<br />
Monday, October 1, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Trump <strong>National</strong> Golf Club<br />
We can’t all be heart surgeons or research specialists,<br />
but we can all support the children’s hospitals in our<br />
communities.<br />
Help kids in your community and swing a club<br />
with us to benefit Children’s Miracle Network<br />
Hospitals. 100% of the donations go directly to<br />
Children’s <strong>National</strong> Medical Center.<br />
For Sponsor and Registration<br />
information visit us at:<br />
www.intersections.com/charitygolfclassic.html<br />
DLA Piper<br />
Equifax<br />
Equinix<br />
Experian<br />
Meredith 360<br />
<strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong><br />
Oce<br />
RyanSharkey, LLP<br />
Saksoft Inc.<br />
SiriusXM<br />
Strook<br />
Whitesky<br />
Intersections Inc. and Identity Guard ® are proud sponsors of CMNH.<br />
As trusted experts in identity theft protection, giving back to the community<br />
is just another way we help give families the protection they need.<br />
For more information go to www.identityguard.com.
22 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
A new push toward e-discovery standards<br />
A committee is planned to devise defensible metrics for doing and auditing electronic discovery.<br />
By Evan Koblentz<br />
A<br />
committee is being planned to create<br />
defensible standards for processes<br />
and audits during electronic data<br />
discovery. Experts have complained that<br />
the lack of such standards represents a<br />
significant hole in electronic-discovery<br />
methods.<br />
<strong>The</strong> standards, proposed in Chicago<br />
on June 14 during the U.S. Court of<br />
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s electronic-discovery<br />
committee’s workshop<br />
on computer-assisted review, would<br />
be administered under an organization<br />
approved by the <strong>American</strong> <strong>National</strong><br />
Standards Institute (ANSI). At minimum,<br />
it would guide attorneys in how to perform<br />
discovery of electronic information.<br />
Additionally, software companies and<br />
service providers could market their work<br />
as standards-compliant.<br />
If courts accept the as yet unwritten<br />
standards, they could be put to use in<br />
cases. Instead of having to justify various<br />
processes and products used to manage<br />
electronically stored information in a<br />
case, an attorney could file a compliance<br />
document indicating that methods used<br />
or proposed meet the standard.<br />
Leading the development of the committee,<br />
which has yet to be named, is<br />
Jason Baron, director of litigation for the<br />
<strong>National</strong> Archives and Records Administration.<br />
Baron said the group would base<br />
Your hiring partner<br />
Not exactly the candidate<br />
you had in mind?<br />
Find the resume you’re looking for.<br />
With a targeted pool of more than 40,000<br />
qualified candidates, <strong>Law</strong>jobs.com is the<br />
industry’s leading resume database.<br />
Start hiring and stop searching.<br />
Vist <strong>Law</strong>jobs.com today.<br />
its work on ISO 9001—an internationally<br />
accepted quality metric that entered<br />
use in 1987. Electronic-discovery consultants<br />
Scott Dawson and Chris Knox<br />
documented that suggestion last summer<br />
during a machine-learning conference in<br />
Pittsburgh, he added.<br />
“My vision is to have the work group<br />
accomplish two principal things: first,<br />
to raise consciousness on the subject of<br />
what constitutes ISO 9001 best practices<br />
as applied in the e-discovery space, and<br />
second, to build out a specific e-discovery<br />
code of practice standard that could be<br />
subject to auditing under an ISO 9001<br />
rubric,” Baron said.<br />
Judicial notice<br />
“Ideally, such a practice would be<br />
noticed by the judiciary, so as to hopefully<br />
narrow ancillary disputes over<br />
what constitutes best practices, especially<br />
with respect to the use of new softwareassisted<br />
methods and other technologies<br />
of utility in e-discovery,” he said.<br />
Baron is in the early stages of working<br />
behind the scenes to gain acceptance<br />
from one or more ANSI-accredited<br />
organizations for the work group before<br />
launching it officially, he said. He did<br />
not specify which organizations. <strong>The</strong><br />
group’s work to create initial standards<br />
could last about a year, he said. But<br />
when the group would begin, or how its<br />
results would become official court rules,<br />
remains undetermined.<br />
<strong>The</strong> group would base its work<br />
on the Sedona Conference document<br />
Commentary on Achieving Quality in<br />
E-Discovery, which Baron co-edited in<br />
2009. It would probably need at least<br />
one year to produce a new standard from<br />
that, he said. Individuals could participate<br />
from existing groups including the<br />
<strong>American</strong> Bar Association’s e-discovery<br />
committee and the Sedona Conference,<br />
and from data-management trade groups<br />
istockphoto/NancyEdmonds<br />
such as the Association of Records<br />
Managers and Administrators and the<br />
Association for Information and Image<br />
Management.<br />
Baron, based in Washington, co-founded<br />
the <strong>National</strong> Institute of Standards and<br />
Technology’s Text Retrieval Conference<br />
Legal Track, commonly known within<br />
the legal technology field as TREC.<br />
TREC’s function is to provide an applesto-apples<br />
comparison for document-review<br />
software. It’s widely considered a<br />
success, with many top software companies<br />
participating since its birth in 2006.<br />
But a common criticism is that TREC<br />
lacks standards governing how testers<br />
achieve their results—a problem that also<br />
exists in real-world cases including Da<br />
Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe S.A., the controversial<br />
ruling from earlier this year<br />
allowing predictive coding.<br />
“<strong>The</strong> effort would be expected to<br />
include [representatives] from software<br />
companies and consultants as well,”<br />
Baron said. “My understanding is that<br />
ISO 9001 processes involve audits, and so<br />
there may ultimately be costs involved in<br />
participation. My bottom line, however:<br />
Any effort worth undertaking is never<br />
completely free from differences in viewpoints<br />
expressed, and I welcome a spirited<br />
dialogue. TREC is now on hiatus, but<br />
the existence of a new group would not<br />
override its return.”<br />
Working with an ANSI-approved standards<br />
body would represent a pioneering<br />
step for the e-discovery field. One<br />
such body is the Organization for the<br />
Advancement of Structured Information<br />
Standards (OASIS)—which already<br />
works with courts on the LegalXML electronic-filing<br />
standard. OASIS previously<br />
expressed interest in working on a standard<br />
for e-discovery software load files<br />
but that situation has not developed.<br />
“I think, generally speaking, certification<br />
and standardization is something<br />
critically needed for the industry,” said<br />
Symantec Corp.’s Dean Gonsowski. As<br />
senior electronic-discovery counsel, he’s<br />
involved in corporate litigation, and also<br />
provides insight for Symantec’s Clearwell<br />
Systems e-discovery product line.<br />
“We’re less concerned with who does<br />
it and more [concerned] that whoever<br />
takes charges of the windmill is someone<br />
credible, like Jason, [who] has good academic<br />
chops, and isn’t beholden to any<br />
particular vendor or type of technology. If<br />
they’re agnostic and it’s not a pay-to-play<br />
model, then we’re certainly supportive<br />
of it,” Gonsowski said. “As the e-discovery<br />
industry matures and becomes more<br />
like a traditional information-governance<br />
landscape, I think you’re going to see<br />
more,” he added. “If you want to show<br />
a defensible process, anything you can<br />
do in terms of training, certification, testing—that<br />
is going to be helpful to buttress<br />
why you’re doing what you’re doing.”<br />
Evan Koblentz is a reporter for <strong>Law</strong><br />
Technology News, an affiliate of <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>. He can be contacted<br />
at ekoblentz@alm.com.<br />
LJ-12-02580-<strong>Law</strong>Jobs-Resume(5x6.5).indd 1<br />
6/5/12 3:04 PM
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 23<br />
Voted<br />
BEST PROCESS SERVER<br />
In NY, PA, CT and<br />
Rated #1 in NJ! *<br />
Guaranteed<br />
Subpoena Service, Inc<br />
“If we don’t serve it, you don’t pay!” ®<br />
Anywhere in the U.S.A.<br />
Why would you use anyone else?<br />
1-800-PROCESS<br />
800.776.2377<br />
800.236.2092 [fax] info@served.com<br />
www.served.com<br />
*2010/2011 Polls, NYLJ and Legal Intelligencer; 2010/2011 Polls, Ct. <strong>Law</strong> Tribune;<br />
Best remembered ad, Harvey Research Study, 2008-2010
24 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ <strong>July</strong> 2, 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
FIRST INSERTIONS<br />
PROBATE<br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
232 SEB <strong>2012</strong><br />
FRED L TYREE<br />
a/k/a<br />
FRED TYREE<br />
a/k/a<br />
FRED LEON TYREE<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Allie E. Thomas, Barbara E. Armwood, & Robert W. Tyree,<br />
whose addresses are 635 Edgewood Street,<br />
N.E. #207, 900 G Street NE #524, & 1319 Mapleview<br />
Pl were appointed Personal Representative of<br />
the estate of<br />
FRED L TYREE<br />
a/k/a<br />
FRED TYREE<br />
a/k/a<br />
FRED LEON TYREE<br />
who died on February 08, <strong>2012</strong> without a Will. All unknown<br />
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown<br />
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding.<br />
Objections to such appointment shall be file with<br />
th Regsiter of Wills, DC, 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd<br />
Floor, Washington DC 20001, on or before August<br />
01, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent shall be presented<br />
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register<br />
of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a<br />
copy to the undersigned, on or before August 01,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, or be forever barred. Person believed to be<br />
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive<br />
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first<br />
publication shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Allie E. Thomas<br />
/s/ Barbara E. Armwood<br />
/s/ Robert W. Tyree<br />
Personal Representatives<br />
Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Clerk of the Probate Division<br />
/s/ Michael L. Barnes, Deputy Clerk<br />
Date of Publication: <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> SEB 237<br />
GEORGE DE MONFORT-PROKSA<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Maurice Pairel, whose address is 6032 Chesterbrook<br />
Rd, McLean, VA 22101 was appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of<br />
George de MonFort-Proksa<br />
who died on April 08, <strong>2012</strong> with a Will. All unknown<br />
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown<br />
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment shall be file with th<br />
Regsiter of Wills, DC, 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor,<br />
Washington DC 20001, on or before August 01,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent shall be presented<br />
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of<br />
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy<br />
to the undersigned, on or before August 01, <strong>2012</strong>, or<br />
be forever barred. Person believed to be heirs or<br />
legatees of the decedent who do not receive a copy<br />
of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Maurice Pairel<br />
Personal Representative<br />
Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Clerk of the Probate Division<br />
/s/ Janice Ball McDowell, Deputy Clerk<br />
Date of Publication: <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
1996 ADM 2082<br />
JAMES L. ANNIS<br />
a/k/a<br />
JAMES LEE ANNIS<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Sheila Z Wood, whose address is 1289 Delaware<br />
Ave, SW, Washington DC 20024 was appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of:<br />
James L. Annis<br />
a/k/a<br />
James Lee Annis<br />
who died on October 20, 1996 with a Will and will<br />
serve with Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s Will)<br />
shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th<br />
Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on<br />
or before January 02, 2013. Claims against the decedent<br />
shall be presented to the undersigned with a<br />
copy to the Register of Wills or filed with the Register<br />
of Wills with a copy to the undersigned, on or before<br />
January 02, 2013, or be forever barred. Persons<br />
believed to be heirs or legatees of the decedent<br />
who do not receive a copy of this notice by mail<br />
within 25 days of its first publication shall so inform<br />
the Register of Wills, including name, address and<br />
relationship.<br />
/s/ Sheila Z. Wood<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 406<br />
CLARA BELL MCCOLLOUGH<br />
Decedent<br />
Donald M. Temple, Esq<br />
1229 15th Street NW<br />
Washington DC 20005<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Charles McCollough, Jr and James McCollough, Jr,<br />
whose addresses are 6504 7th Place NW WDC<br />
20011 and 3617 Pogonia Court Hyattsville MD 20784<br />
was appointed Personal Representative of the estate<br />
of:<br />
Clara Bell McCollough<br />
who died on January 24, 2011 without a Will and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before January 02, 2013. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before January 02, 2013, or be forever<br />
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Charles McCollough, Jr.<br />
/s/ James McCollough, Jr.<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 567<br />
ERRON M. BATES<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Marcia M. Mitchell and Dina Bates, whose address is<br />
1427 Irving St, N.E. Washington, DC 20017/ 2640<br />
Hatteras Circle Waldof, MD 20601 were appointed<br />
Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
Erron M. Bates<br />
who died on June 11, 2011 without a Will and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment shall be filed with the Register<br />
of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,<br />
D.C. 20001, on or before January 02, 2013.<br />
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to<br />
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills<br />
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the<br />
undersigned, on or before January 02, 2013, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Marcia M. Mitchell<br />
/s/ Dina Bates<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 566<br />
SUZANNE MARIE RENEE MUNIER<br />
a/k/a<br />
SUZANNE TENCONI<br />
Decedent<br />
Yahne Miorini<br />
2010 Coporate Ridge, Suite 700<br />
McLean, VA 22102<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Yahne Miorini, whose address is 1816 Opalocka<br />
Drive, McLean, VA 22102 were appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of:<br />
Suzanne Marie Renee MUNIER<br />
a/k/a<br />
Suzanne Tenconi<br />
who died on August 26, 2011 without a Will and will<br />
service without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before January 02, 2013. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before January 02, 2013, or be forever<br />
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Yahne Miorini<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE<br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)<br />
Civil Action Number <strong>2012</strong> CA 2033 L(RP)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC<br />
Plaintiff<br />
v.<br />
RODNEY G. BOLDEN, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,<br />
and All unknown owners of the property described<br />
below, their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,<br />
and executors, administrators, grantees, assigns<br />
or successors in right, title, interest, and any<br />
and all persons having or claiming to have any interest<br />
in the leasehold or fee simple in the property and<br />
premises situate, lying and being in the District of<br />
Columbia described as: Square 5672 Lot 2351, Also<br />
known as: 3911 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE APT 9<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in<br />
this action, described as Square 5672 Lot 2351, also<br />
being sometimes described as 3911 Pennsylvania<br />
Ave SE Apt. 9. <strong>The</strong> Complaint states, inter alia, that<br />
the amounts necessary for redemption have not<br />
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration<br />
Order Number 02-11 and D.C. Superior Court<br />
Rule of Civil Procedure 4-I, it is this 6th day of<br />
March, <strong>2012</strong>, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the<br />
District of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion<br />
of a copy of this Order in the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong><br />
<strong>Journal</strong>, hereby designated by the Court and having<br />
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,<br />
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying<br />
all persons named as Defendants or otherwise<br />
interested in the Real Property described above to<br />
appear in this Court by the 19th day of September,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the Real Property by payment of<br />
$1,187.09 (if not already paid as of such date) together<br />
with interest from the date the Real Property<br />
tax certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney’s<br />
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and<br />
service of process by publication and for reasonable<br />
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by<br />
the plaintiff herein in accordance with the provisions<br />
of D.C. Code § 47-1361 and all outstanding District of<br />
Columbia lien amounts due and owing on the aforementioned<br />
Real Property, and/or answer the complaint,<br />
or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered<br />
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real<br />
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)<br />
Civil Action Number <strong>2012</strong> CA 2235 L(RP)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC<br />
Plaintiff<br />
v.<br />
JOHN L. SLACK, and 703 MARYLAND AVENUE NE<br />
CORPORATION, and ANDREW BAXLER, and SUSAN<br />
BERGMAN, and 703 MARYLAND AVENUE CORPORA-<br />
TION NE, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and All unknown<br />
owners of the property described below,<br />
their heirs, devisees, personal representatives, and<br />
executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or successors<br />
in right, title, interest, and any and all persons<br />
having or claiming to have any interest in the<br />
leasehold or fee simple in the property and premises<br />
situate, lying and being in the District of Columbia<br />
described as: Square 893 Lot 814, Also known as:<br />
404 MARYLAND AVE<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in<br />
this action, described as Square 893 Lot 814, also<br />
being sometimes described as 404 Maryland Ave.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Complaint states, inter alia, that the amounts<br />
necessary for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant<br />
to the Chief Judge's Administration Order<br />
Number 02-11 and D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil<br />
Procedure 4-I, it is this 9th day of March, <strong>2012</strong>, OR-<br />
DERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,<br />
that notice be given by the insertion of a<br />
copy of this Order in the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, hereby<br />
designated by the Court and having a general circulation<br />
in the District of Columbia, once a week for<br />
three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons<br />
named as Defendants or otherwise interested in the<br />
Real Property described above to appear in this<br />
Court by the 3rd day of October, <strong>2012</strong>, and redeem<br />
the Real Property by payment of $1,047.62 (if not already<br />
paid as of such date) together with interest<br />
from the date the Real Property tax certificate was<br />
purchased; court costs and attorney’s fees; expenses<br />
incurred in the publication and service of process<br />
by publication and for reasonable fees for the title<br />
search; all other amounts paid by the plaintiff herein<br />
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Code § 47-<br />
1361 and all outstanding District of Columbia lien<br />
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real<br />
Property, and/or answer the complaint, or, thereafter,<br />
a final judgment will be entered foreclosing the<br />
right of redemption in the Real Property and vesting<br />
in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)<br />
Civil Action Number <strong>2012</strong> CA 2024 L(RP)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC<br />
Plaintiff<br />
v.<br />
ROBERT H. ORTA, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and<br />
All unknown owners of the property described below,<br />
their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,<br />
and executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or<br />
successors in right, title, interest, and any and all<br />
persons having or claiming to have any interest in<br />
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and<br />
premises situate, lying and being in the District of<br />
Columbia described as: Square 5672 Lot 2516, Also<br />
known as: 2036 Fort Davis Street P. 10<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in<br />
this action, described as Square 5672 Lot 2516, also<br />
being sometimes described as 2036 Fort Davis<br />
Street P. 10. <strong>The</strong> Complaint states, inter alia, that<br />
the amounts necessary for redemption have not<br />
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration<br />
Order Number 02-11 and D.C. Superior Court<br />
Rule of Civil Procedure 4-I, it is this 6th day of<br />
March, <strong>2012</strong>, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the<br />
District of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion<br />
of a copy of this Order in the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong><br />
<strong>Journal</strong>, hereby designated by the Court and having<br />
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,<br />
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying<br />
all persons named as Defendants or otherwise<br />
interested in the Real Property described above to<br />
appear in this Court by the 19th day of September,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the Real Property by payment of<br />
$1,062.43 (if not already paid as of such date) together<br />
with interest from the date the Real Property<br />
tax certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney’s<br />
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and<br />
service of process by publication and for reasonable<br />
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by<br />
the plaintiff herein in accordance with the provisions<br />
of D.C. Code § 47-1361 and all outstanding District of<br />
Columbia lien amounts due and owing on the aforementioned<br />
Real Property, and/or answer the complaint,<br />
or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered<br />
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real<br />
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
INDIVIDUAL<br />
VIRGINIA<br />
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY<br />
CL NO. <strong>2012</strong>-08353<br />
VICTOR CESAR ESTEBAN, COMPLAINANT<br />
VS<br />
MALENA BEATRIZ ESTEBAN, DEFENDANT<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
<strong>The</strong> reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An<br />
affidavit having been made and filed showing that<br />
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is took<br />
her belongings and left the marital residence; and<br />
the last known mailing address of the Defendant is<br />
as follows: Malena Beatriz Esteban 6420 Paddington<br />
Court, Apt #201 Centreville, Virginia <strong>2012</strong>1. Upon<br />
consideration, this Order of Publication is granted<br />
and it is ORDERED that the above named Defendant<br />
shall appear here on or before the 9th day of August,<br />
<strong>2012</strong> after proper publication of this Order, to protect<br />
his/her interest in this cause. Entered: June 20,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M.<br />
Estevez, Deputy Clerk<br />
Dates of Publication:<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, 23, <strong>2012</strong><br />
VIRGINIA<br />
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY<br />
CL NO. <strong>2012</strong>-08898<br />
RUBRITH MILENA RISCO, COMPLAINANT<br />
VS<br />
REDRO PABLO RISCO, DEFENDANT<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
<strong>The</strong> reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An<br />
affidavit having been made and filed showing that<br />
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is Moved<br />
away; and the last known mailing address of the Defendant<br />
is as follows: Pedro Pablo Risco 6496 Fenestra<br />
Court, #61C Burke, VA 22015. Upon consideration,<br />
this Order of Publication is granted and it is<br />
ORDERED that the above named Defendant shall appear<br />
here on or before the 9th day of August, <strong>2012</strong><br />
after proper publication of this Order, to protect his/<br />
her interest in this cause. Entered: June 20, <strong>2012</strong>,<br />
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,<br />
Deputy Clerk<br />
Dates of Publication:<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, 23, <strong>2012</strong><br />
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF<br />
FAIRFAX COUNTY<br />
(Civil Division)<br />
Case No.: CL-<strong>2012</strong>-00348<br />
SHARYL ANN DJONKAM, Plaintiff,<br />
v.<br />
NESTOR DJONKAM, Defendant<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
THE OBJECT of the above-styled case is to obtain a<br />
Decree of Divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the<br />
ground that the parties have been living separate<br />
and apart, without any cohabitation and without interruption,<br />
for a period exceeding one year; and IT<br />
APPEARING TO THE COURT by Affidavit filed according<br />
to law that the above-named Defendant, NES-<br />
TOR DJONKAM, is not a resident of this State. OR-<br />
DERED, pursuant to VA CODE ANN. §8.01-317 (Michie<br />
2000), as amended that this order shall be published<br />
once a week for four successive weeks in the<br />
<strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> and a copy of this order shall<br />
be posted at the front door of the Fairfax County<br />
Courthouse; and it is further ORDERD that a copy of<br />
this order shall be mailed to the Defendant at the<br />
address stated above as-required by §8.01-316; and<br />
it is further ORDERED the the clerk shall cause copies<br />
of the order to be so posted, mailed, and transmitted<br />
to the designated newspaper within twenty<br />
days after the entry of this order. Upon completion<br />
of this publication the clerk shall file a certificate of<br />
publication in this case; and it is further ORDERED,<br />
pursuant to VA. CODE ANN. §8.01-316 (Michie 2000),<br />
as amended that said NESTOR DJONKAM is to appear<br />
on or before the 9TH day of August, <strong>2012</strong>, in<br />
the Clerk’s Office of this Court and to do what is necessary<br />
to protect his interests. IN EXTRACT-TESTE:<br />
ENTERED this 20th day of June, <strong>2012</strong>. JOHN T. FREY,<br />
CLERK, Fairfax County Circuit Court. By: /s/ Deisy M.<br />
Estevez, Deputy Clerk, I ASK FOR THIS: /s/ Karen<br />
Leiser, Esq., Counsel for the Plaintiff, LEISER, LEIS-<br />
ER & HENNESSEY PLLC, 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite<br />
310, Vienna, Virginia 22182, TEL: (703) 734-5000 ext.<br />
102, FAX: (703) 734-6000, VASB # 40344<br />
Dates of Publication;<br />
<strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, 23, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SECOND INSERTIONS<br />
PROBATE<br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 571<br />
ELIZABETH K. MALARKEY<br />
Decedent<br />
Michael J. Conlon<br />
1818 N Street, NW, Suite 400<br />
Washington, DC 20036<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
David Koehn, whose address is 7328 Ashburton Circle,<br />
NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 was appointed<br />
Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
Elizabeth K. Malarkey<br />
who died on May 24, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ David Koehn<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills
the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ JULY 2, <strong>2012</strong> <strong>July</strong> 2, <strong>2012</strong> 25<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 25, <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 572<br />
WILLIAM H. ROBINSON<br />
Decedent<br />
John C. Morrison<br />
200 North Fairfax Street<br />
Alexandria, Virginia 22314<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Princella Huston, whose address is 2801 S Martin<br />
Luther King Drive, Apt 1813, Chicago, IL 60616 was<br />
appointed Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
William H. Robinson<br />
who died on June 03, <strong>2012</strong> with a Will and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s Will)<br />
shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th<br />
Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on<br />
or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent<br />
shall be presented to the undersigned with a<br />
copy to the Register of Wills or filed with the Register<br />
of Wills with a copy to the undersigned, on or before<br />
December 25, <strong>2012</strong>, or be forever barred. Persons<br />
believed to be heirs or legatees of the decedent<br />
who do not receive a copy of this notice by mail<br />
within 25 days of its first publication shall so inform<br />
the Register of Wills, including name, address and<br />
relationship.<br />
/s/ Princella Huston<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 565<br />
IRENE RENEE ROBINSON<br />
Decedent<br />
Molly B.F. Walls, Esq<br />
McArthur Franklin PLLC<br />
1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 820<br />
Washington, DC 20036<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Christine T. Trapnell, whose address is 3416 Mansfield<br />
Road, Falls Church, VA 22041 appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of:<br />
Irene Renee Robinson<br />
who died on April 18, <strong>2012</strong> with a Will and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to porbates of decendent’s<br />
Will)shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Christine T. Trapnell<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication:<br />
June 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Superior Court of the District of Columbia<br />
Probate Division<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 549<br />
STANLEY R. RESOR<br />
Decedent<br />
Ellen K. Harrison<br />
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP<br />
2300 N Street, N.W.<br />
Washington, DC 20037-1122<br />
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors<br />
and Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
James P. Resor, whose address is 6219 Winnebago<br />
Road, Bethesda, MD 20816 were appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of<br />
Stanley R. Resor<br />
who died on April 17, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, N.W., Third Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong> or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ James P. Resor<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Superior Court of the<br />
District of Columbia<br />
Probate Division<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 392<br />
BINA BEGHE<br />
Decedent<br />
Ellen K. Harrison<br />
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP<br />
2300 N Street, N.W.<br />
Washington, DC 20037-1122<br />
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors<br />
and Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Renato Beghe, whose address is 633 E Street, SE,<br />
Washington, DC 20003-2716 were appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of:<br />
Bina Beghe<br />
who died on March 24, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,<br />
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., Third Floor, Washington,<br />
D.C. 20001, on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 25, <strong>2012</strong> or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Renato Beghe<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE<br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 005710 L(RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri<br />
ANDREW CHASSAING<br />
4451 Macarthur Blvd., NW<br />
Washington, DC 20007<br />
vs.<br />
UNKNOWN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE<br />
ESTATE OF FRANCES ROSALEE GREENE Address Unknown,<br />
And UNKNOWN HEIRS, LEGATEES, DEVI-<br />
SEES, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS OF FRANCES<br />
ROSALEE GREENE Address Unknown, And UN-<br />
KNOWN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ES-<br />
TATE OF KING SOLOMON MURPHY Address Unknown,<br />
And UNKNOWN HIERS, LEGATEES, DEVI-<br />
SEES, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS OF KING SOLO-<br />
MON MURPHY Address Unknown, And THE DIS-<br />
TRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of<br />
Columbia, Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary,<br />
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington,<br />
DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of the<br />
District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th<br />
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown<br />
Owners of the Property described below,<br />
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,<br />
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in<br />
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having<br />
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or<br />
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying<br />
and being in the District of Columbia described<br />
as: Square 3015, Lot 0017. May also be known as<br />
4609 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20011<br />
Defendants<br />
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in<br />
this action described as Square 3015, Lot 0017<br />
which may also be known as 4609 Georgia Avenue<br />
NW, Washington, DC 20011. <strong>The</strong> complaint states,<br />
among other things, that the amounts necessary for<br />
redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to the<br />
Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-11, it<br />
is this 1st day of June, <strong>2012</strong>, ORDERED by the Superior<br />
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice be<br />
given by the insertion of a copy of this Order in the<br />
<strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, a newspaper of general circulation<br />
in the District of Columbia, once a week for<br />
three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons interested<br />
in the Real Property described above to appear<br />
in this Court by the 15th day of August, <strong>2012</strong>,<br />
and redeem the Real Property by payment of<br />
$1,631.19 together with interest from the date the<br />
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court<br />
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the<br />
publication and service of process by publication and<br />
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other<br />
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with<br />
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding<br />
municipal lien amounts due and owing on<br />
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the<br />
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered<br />
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real<br />
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."<br />
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 25, <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
Civil Action No. 0005778-11 (RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Divas Enterprises, LLC<br />
8401- E Richmond Hwy<br />
Alexandria, VA 22191<br />
Plaintiff<br />
vs.<br />
Jack Massengale 7105 Steed Ct. Hyattsville, MD<br />
20782, And THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve:<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia, Vincent Gray,<br />
Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue,<br />
N.W., #419, Washington, DC 20001, Serve: Attorney<br />
General of the District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene<br />
Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W., Washington, DC<br />
20001, And All Unknown Owners of the Property described<br />
below, their Heirs, Personal Representatives,<br />
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns<br />
or Successors in Right, Title, Interest, and Any and<br />
all persons having or claiming to have any interest in<br />
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and<br />
premises situate, lying and being in the District of<br />
Columbia described as: Square 0190, Lot 2034. May<br />
also be known as 1901 16th Street, NW, Unit 101,<br />
Washington, DC 20009<br />
Defendants<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in<br />
this action described as. ALL that property situate,<br />
lying and being in Washington, District of Columbia<br />
which has a Square 2034, Lot No. of 0190 described<br />
as follows: 1901 16th St, NW, Unit 101 , Washington<br />
DC, a condominium unit. <strong>The</strong> complaint states,<br />
among other things, that the amounts necessary for<br />
redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to the<br />
Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-11, it<br />
is this 19th day of <strong>July</strong>, 2011, ORDERED by the Superior<br />
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice<br />
be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order in<br />
the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, a newspaper of general<br />
circulation in the District of Columbia, once a week<br />
for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons<br />
interested in the Real Property described above to<br />
appear in this Court by the 1st day of February,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the Real Property by payment of<br />
$1,425.18 together with interest from the date the<br />
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court<br />
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the<br />
publication and service of process by publication and<br />
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other<br />
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with<br />
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding<br />
municipal lien amounts due and owing on<br />
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the<br />
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered<br />
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real<br />
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."<br />
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
INDIVIDUAL<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
CASE NO. 69717<br />
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:<br />
LOUDOUN COUNTY<br />
18 E. MARKET STREET, LEESBURG VA 20175<br />
Commonwealth of Virginia, IN RE<br />
NAME CHANGE<br />
<strong>The</strong> object of this suit is to: Change the name of a<br />
minor child<br />
TERRENCE THOMAS WALKER ROTTER<br />
It is ORDERED that John James Rotter appear at<br />
the above named court and protect his/her interests<br />
on or before June 01, <strong>2012</strong> at 2:00 pm<br />
ENTERED 20th day of March, <strong>2012</strong><br />
/s/ Thomas B. Ford III<br />
Deputy Clerk<br />
Dates of Publication:<br />
June 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, 16, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUBSEQUENT INSERTIONS<br />
PROBATE<br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISON<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 499<br />
MARISE PONDER<br />
a/k/a<br />
C. MARISE PONDER<br />
a/k/a<br />
CYNTHIA MARISE PONDER<br />
Decedent<br />
Barbara Davis Solomon, Esq.<br />
910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800<br />
Washington, DC 20006<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Joseph L. Ponder, whose addresses are 1065 Quail<br />
Cove Drive, #10765 B/G Canoe, Jasper, GA 30143,<br />
was appointed personal representative of the estate<br />
of:<br />
Marise Ponder<br />
a/k/a<br />
C. Marise Ponder<br />
a/k/a<br />
Cynthia Marise Ponder<br />
who died on April 19, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong> Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong> or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Joseph L. Ponder<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 474<br />
BARBARA MALONE<br />
Decedent<br />
S. Micah Salb, Esq<br />
7979 Old Georgetown Rd Ste 1100<br />
Bethesda, MD 20814<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
S. Micah Salb, whose address is 1331 Locust Road,<br />
NW, Washington DC 20012, was appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of:<br />
Barbara Malone<br />
who died on October 23, 2011 without a will, and<br />
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown<br />
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown<br />
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment shall be filed with the<br />
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd<br />
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December<br />
18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent shall be<br />
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the<br />
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills<br />
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before December<br />
18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be forever barred. Persons believed<br />
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who<br />
do not receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25<br />
days of its first publication shall so inform the Register<br />
of Wills, including name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ S. Micah Salb<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 525<br />
ERNEST O. KERSHNER<br />
Decedent<br />
John C. Smuck, Esquire<br />
Cross, Murphy, Smuck, & Houston<br />
1233 20th St, NW #610, Washington DC 20036<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
John C. Smuck, whose address is 1233 20th St, NW,<br />
Washington DC 20036, was appointed Personal Representative<br />
of the estate of:<br />
Ernest O. Kershner<br />
who died on May 09, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment shall be filed with the Register of<br />
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,<br />
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>.<br />
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to<br />
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills<br />
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the<br />
undersigned, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ John C. Smuck<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 532<br />
JENNIFER CREVELING BALLMAN<br />
Decedent<br />
Brian L. Kass<br />
Kass Mitek & Kass<br />
1050 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100<br />
Washington, DC 20036<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Mary Kay Michelis, whose address is 2755 W. Avenue<br />
N, Palmdale, CA, was appointed personal representative<br />
of the estate of:<br />
Jennifer Creveling Ballman<br />
who died on January 20, 2007, with a will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent's<br />
will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Mary Kay Michelis<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication:<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 184<br />
JOHN C. BATHAM<br />
Decedent<br />
Catherine F. Schott Murray, Esquire<br />
9302 Lee Highway, Suite 1100<br />
Fairfax, VA 22031<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Joseph P. Brantley, IV, whose address is 6513 Perkins<br />
Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, was appointed<br />
Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
John C. Batham<br />
who died on November 03, 2011 with a will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall<br />
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment shall be filed with the<br />
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd<br />
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December<br />
18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent shall be<br />
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the<br />
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills<br />
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before December<br />
18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be forever barred. Persons believed<br />
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who<br />
do not receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25<br />
days of its first publication shall so inform the Register<br />
of Wills, including name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Joseph P. Brantley, IV<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
2011 ADM 000381<br />
JOHN H. JOHNSON<br />
Decedent<br />
Edward G. Varrone, Esq.<br />
910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 800<br />
Washington, DC 20006<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Shawn M. Graves, whose address is 16610 Eastview<br />
Terrace, Bowie, Maryland 20716, was appointed<br />
Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
John H. Johnson<br />
who died on February 28, 2009 without a will, and<br />
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown<br />
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown<br />
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment shall be filed with the<br />
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd<br />
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December<br />
18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent shall be<br />
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the<br />
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills<br />
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before December<br />
18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be forever barred. Persons believed<br />
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not<br />
receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days<br />
of its first publication shall so inform the Register of<br />
Wills, including name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Shawn M. Graves<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25, <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Superior Court of the District of Columbia<br />
Probate Division<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 155<br />
THELMA B. QUINN<br />
Decedent<br />
Harry M. Singleton, Esq.<br />
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200<br />
Washington, DC 20036<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Doris E. Baker, whose address is 2622 Minnesota<br />
Ave, SE, Washington DC 20020 was appointed personal<br />
representative of the estate of:<br />
<strong>The</strong>lma B. Quinn<br />
who died on January 25, 1994 with a will. All unknown<br />
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown<br />
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding.<br />
Objections to such appointment (or to the probate<br />
of decedent’s Will) shall be filed with the Register<br />
of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor,<br />
Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December 18,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>. Claims against the decedent shall be presented<br />
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of<br />
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy<br />
to the undersigned, on or before December 18,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be
26 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ <strong>July</strong> 2, 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive<br />
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first<br />
publication shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Doris E. Barker<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE<br />
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 519<br />
BEVERLY C. MACDONALD<br />
a/k/a<br />
BEVERLY CECEILLE MACDONALD<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Robert Angus MacDonald, whose address is 19375<br />
Cypress Ridge Ter #502, Leesburg, VA 20176was<br />
appointed Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
Beverly C. Macdonald<br />
a/k/a<br />
Beverly Ceceille Macdonald<br />
who died on March 01, <strong>2012</strong> with a Will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall<br />
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
will) shall be filed with the Register of<br />
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,<br />
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2011.<br />
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to<br />
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills<br />
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the<br />
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2011, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Robert Angus MacDonald<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 511<br />
ANTOINETTE G. MARTIN<br />
Decedent<br />
Raymond L. Gooch<br />
257 Gay Street,Suite G, Box 4<br />
Washington, VA 22747<br />
Notice of Appointment,<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
and Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Ellen Rathfon, whose address is 8206 Clifton Farms<br />
Court, Alexandria, VA 22306 were appointed Personal<br />
Representative of the estate of:<br />
Antoinette G. Martin<br />
who died on May 22, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Ellen Rathfon<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 96<br />
GORDON M. ODEGAARD<br />
Decedent<br />
Stephen W. Nealon<br />
8401 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1100<br />
Chevy Chase, MD 20815<br />
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Richard A. Odegaard, whose address is 1637 4th<br />
Street, N, Fargo, North Dakota 58102, was appointed<br />
Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
Gordon M. Odegaard<br />
who died on January 14, <strong>2012</strong>, with a Will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
will shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515<br />
Fifth Street, NW, Third Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Richard A. Odegaard<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 510<br />
HERMELINDA MEGYERI<br />
Decedent<br />
Raymond L. Gooch<br />
257 Gay Street, Suite G, PO Box 4<br />
Washington, VA 22747<br />
Notice of Appointment,<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
and Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Raymond L. Gooch, whose address is P.O. Box 4, 257<br />
Gay Street, Suite G, Washington, VA 22747 were appointed<br />
Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
Hermelinda Megyeri<br />
who died on May 12, <strong>2012</strong> with a will, and will serve<br />
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and<br />
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter<br />
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to<br />
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,<br />
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.<br />
20001, on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>. Claims<br />
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned<br />
with a copy to the Register of Wills or<br />
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,<br />
on or before December 18, <strong>2012</strong>, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Raymond L. Gooch<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE<br />
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
2009 ADM 920<br />
EMMA JEAN WALKER<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Iris McCollum Green, Esq, whose address is 1730 M<br />
Street, NW, Suite 609, Washington, DC 20036 was<br />
appointed Personal Representative of the estate of:<br />
Emma Jean Walker<br />
who died on February 25, 2008 with a Will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall<br />
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
will) shall be filed with the Register of<br />
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,<br />
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2011.<br />
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to<br />
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills<br />
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the<br />
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2011, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/ Iris McCollum Green<br />
Personal Representative<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE<br />
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> ADM 514<br />
SAMUEL SIMMONS<br />
Decedent<br />
Notice of Appointment<br />
Notice to Creditors<br />
Notice to Unknown Heirs<br />
Jerome Simmons and Betty Simmons-Jones, whose<br />
addresses are 3415 25th Ave Temple Hill, MD 20748<br />
and 629 Birch Leaf Ave, Seat Pleasant, MD 20743<br />
were appointed Personal Representative of the estate<br />
of:<br />
Samuel Simmons<br />
who died on March 27, 2003 without a Will, and will<br />
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs<br />
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall<br />
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections<br />
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s<br />
will) shall be filed with the Register of<br />
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,<br />
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2011.<br />
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to<br />
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills<br />
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the<br />
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2011, or be<br />
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees<br />
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of<br />
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication<br />
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including<br />
name, address and relationship.<br />
/s/Jerome Simmons<br />
/s/ Betty Simmons-Jones<br />
Personal Representatives<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister<br />
Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
PROBATE DIVISION<br />
<strong>2012</strong> NRT 15<br />
JAMES E. FAIN<br />
Deceased Settlor<br />
NOTICE OF EXISTENCE OF<br />
REVOCABLE TRUST<br />
James E. Fain, whose address was 3267 Sutherland<br />
Bluff Drive, NE, Townsend, GA 31331 created a revocable<br />
trust on Febraury 22, 1999, which remained in<br />
existence on the date of his death on April 15, <strong>2012</strong>,<br />
and Cathy E. Newman, whose address is 3412 Rodman<br />
Street NW, Washington, DC 20008, is the currently<br />
acting trustee, hereinafter the Trustee. Communications<br />
to the trust should be mailed or directed<br />
to Cathy E. Newman, Trustee at 3412 Rodman<br />
Street NW, Washington DC 20008. <strong>The</strong> Trust is subject<br />
to claims of the deceased settlor's creditors,<br />
costs of administration of the settlor's estate, the<br />
expenses of the deceased settlor's funeral and disposal<br />
of remains, and statutory allowances to a surviving<br />
spouse and children to the extent the deceased<br />
settlor's residuary probate estate is inadequate<br />
to satisfy those claims, costs, expenses, and<br />
allowances. Claims of the deceased settlor's creditors<br />
are barred as against the Trustee and the trust<br />
property unless presented to the Trustee at the address<br />
provided herein on or before December 18,<br />
<strong>2012</strong> (6 months after the date of the first publication<br />
of this notice). An action to contest the validity of<br />
this trust must be commenced by the earliest of: (1)<br />
April 15, 2013 (one year from date of death of deceased<br />
settlor) or (2) December 18, <strong>2012</strong> (6 months<br />
from the date of first publication of this notice) or (3)<br />
ninety days after the Trustee sends the person a<br />
copy of the trust instrument and a notice informing<br />
the person of the trust's existence, of the Trustee's<br />
name and address, and the time allowed for commencing<br />
a proceeding. <strong>The</strong> Trustee may proceed to<br />
distribute the trust property in accordance with the<br />
terms of the trust before the expiration of the time<br />
within which an action must be commenced unless<br />
the Trustee knows of a pending judicial proceeding<br />
contesting the validity of the trust or the Trustee has<br />
received notice from a potential contestant who<br />
thereafter commences a judicial proceeding within<br />
sixty days after notification. This Notice must be<br />
mailed postmarked within 15 days of its first publication<br />
to each heir and qualified beneficiary of the<br />
trust and any other person who would be an interested<br />
person within the meaning of D.C. Code, sec.<br />
20-101(d).<br />
/s/ Cathy E. Newman, Trustee<br />
True Test Copy<br />
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE<br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 02198 L(RP)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
Magistrate Judge Beshouri<br />
ALAN C. CORNWALL<br />
Plaintiff<br />
v.<br />
VIVIAN GARRETT aka VIVIAN ANN GARRETT f/k/a<br />
VIVIAN ANN NEAL, Individually and as Personal<br />
Representative of the ESTATE OF ROSE ETTA JONES;<br />
DONNA DANFORTH THOMPSON; CHARLES A. NEAL,<br />
Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ROSE<br />
ETTA JONES and as to any individual interest; RICKY<br />
DANFORTH; MYRA DANFORTH FREEMAN; CHRYS-<br />
TYNE M. TALLEY f/k/a CHRYSTYNE PRESSEY; IRENE<br />
NEAL; IVY TURNER NEAL; VALERIE NEAL; ANNETTE<br />
DEBORAH NEAL MILES; YVETTE NEAL; DAVID NEAL;<br />
YVONNE GREEN a/k/a YVONNE NEAL; CAROLYN<br />
HENDERSON; MATTIE CECILIA GRIFFIN; EDNA FOS-<br />
TER FRYE; MARGARET CATHERINE FOSTER; JOANN<br />
F. QUEEN; MARGARET F. MASSEY; SUSAN G. FOS-<br />
TER; MARY P. OJAJUNI; GEORGE V. FOSTER, JR;<br />
STEPHEN E. FOSTER; MATTHEW B. FOSTER; HELEN<br />
H. RANSOME; CHARLES N. RANSOME, III, DENISE R.<br />
RANSOM; MACK L. PRESSEY, III a/k/a JAMES PRES-<br />
SEY; ANGELA THOMAS; THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-<br />
BIA; ALL UNKNOWN OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY<br />
DESCRIBED BELOW, THEIR HEIRS, DEVISEES, PER-<br />
SONAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND EXECUTORS, AD-<br />
MINISTRATORS, GRANTEES, ASSIGNEES OR SUC-<br />
CESSORS IN RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST AS TO ALL<br />
SUCH OWNERS AND AS TO ROSE E. JONES A/K/A<br />
ROSA E. JONES A/K/A ROSE ETTA JONES A/K/A RO-<br />
SETTA E. JONES; EDITH ROSETTA MANLEY A/K/A<br />
ROSETTA EDITH DANFORTH A/K/A ROSETTA MAN-<br />
LEY; MELVIN EMANUEL DANFORTH; SYLVIA NEAL;<br />
SYLVIA DUCKETT A/K/A SYLVIA PRESSEY; HARRY J.<br />
NEAL; HARRY RICHARD NEAL; HARRY R. NEAL;<br />
EDITH NEAL AKA EDITH VIRGINIA NEAL; IDA GLAD-<br />
DEN; EUNICE VIRGINIA WILLIAMS; JAMES HER-<br />
BERT NEAL; LUCILLE GLADDEN CLARKE; ALMA<br />
GLADDEN; ANNIE GLADDEN A/K/A ANNA FOSTER<br />
GLADDEN SWANSON; PEARL GLADDEN RANSOME<br />
A/K/A PEARL C. RANSOME; MARY TINKER; HARRY<br />
A. TINKER,CLARENCE JOHN NEAL; EDDIE MAE HAR-<br />
RISON NEAL; GEORGE FOSTER; BEVERLY A. NEAL;<br />
STANLEY CORBERT; CHARLES N. RANSOME, JR.;<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DESCRIBED AND ANY<br />
AND ALL PERSONS HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE<br />
ANY INTEREST IN THE LEASEHOLD OR FEE SIMPLE<br />
IN THE PROPERTY AND PREMISES SITUATE, LYING<br />
AND BEING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DE-<br />
SCRIBED AS: SQUARE 0996 LOT 0031 MAY BE ALSO<br />
KNOWN AS STREET ADDRESS OF 917-12TH STREET,<br />
SE, WASHINGTON, DC 20003<br />
Defendants<br />
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia, assessed to Vivian<br />
Garret, and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia<br />
to the plaintiff in this action described as Lot<br />
0031 in Square 0996, and which may have address<br />
917-12th Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003. <strong>The</strong><br />
complaint states, among other things, that the<br />
amounts necessary for redemption have not been<br />
paid. Plaintiff has fild a Motion to Leave to File an<br />
Amended Complaint, Order of Publication, and for<br />
Service by Publication particularly as to Stanley Corbert<br />
for a reason that it is unknown wheather he is<br />
living and his whereabouts are unknown, or whether<br />
he is dead. Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion<br />
and the record herein, and the proofs submitted<br />
by the Plaintiff as to due diligence exercised in attempting<br />
to locate Mr. Corbert and any information<br />
about him, and pursuant to the Chief Judge’s Administrative<br />
Order Number 02-11, it is this 24th day of<br />
April, <strong>2012</strong>, ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s Motion is<br />
granted, and it is further, ORDERED by the Superior<br />
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice be given<br />
by the insertion of a copy of this order in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, said newspaper having a general<br />
circulation in the District of Columbia; (A) in the <strong>National</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, once a week for (three) 3 successive<br />
weeks in the course of one (1) month, and,<br />
thereafter, two (2) times per month during the succeeding<br />
two (2) months; and (B) In the Washington<br />
<strong>Law</strong> Reporter, two (2) times a month for three (3)<br />
consecutive months, notifying all persons interested<br />
in the real property described above, including, but<br />
not limited to Stanley Corbert, interested in the real<br />
property described above, and any person that has<br />
any right, title, interest, claim, lien, and equity of redemption,<br />
and any such person’s heirs, assignees,<br />
personal representatives, executors, administrators,<br />
grantees, or successors in interest, and all unknown<br />
owners, their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,<br />
and executors, administrators, grantees,<br />
assignees or successors in interest; to appear<br />
in Court by the 15th day of August, <strong>2012</strong>, and redeem<br />
the property by the payment of approximately<br />
$5,890.47 together with interest from the date the<br />
real property tax certificate was purchased; court<br />
costs and attorney’s fees; expenses incurred in the<br />
publication and service of process and reasonable<br />
fees for the title search and such other fees and expenses<br />
allowed by the Court; all other amounts paid<br />
by plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of D.C.<br />
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien<br />
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned real<br />
property; or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a<br />
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right<br />
of redemption in the real property and vesting in the<br />
plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri<br />
Signed in chambers<br />
Dates of Publication:<br />
May 14, 21, 28 June 04, 11 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09,<br />
<strong>2012</strong><br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE<br />
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
2009 CA 001650 L(RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Magistrate Judge Joseph Beshouri<br />
Aeon Financial, LLC<br />
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5210<br />
Chicago, Illinois 60606<br />
Plaintiff,<br />
vs.<br />
Estate of Harold H. Burwell; Estate of Ursula O. Burwell<br />
a/k/a Ursula Olivia Burwell; Carol Ann Burwell,<br />
Personal Representative of the Estate of Ursula O.<br />
Burwell a/k/a Ursula Olivia Burwell; Mayor of the<br />
District of Columbia; Attorney General of the District<br />
of Columbia; and All unknown owners of the Property<br />
described below, their heirs, devisees, personal<br />
representatives, and executors, administrators<br />
grantees, assigns or successors in right, title, interest,<br />
and any and all persons having or claiming to<br />
have any leasehold or any other interest in the Property<br />
and premises situate, described as: Square<br />
3554 Lot 0110; address of 315 Douglas Street, NE,<br />
Washington, DC, 20002<br />
Defendants.<br />
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Official Code §47-1375<br />
(2001 ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure<br />
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following<br />
real Property, located in the District of Columbia<br />
, assessed to Harold Burwell, and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in<br />
this action, and described as Square 3554 Lot 0110<br />
and which property may have a street address that<br />
may be known as 315 Douglas Street, NE, Washington,<br />
DC, 20002. <strong>The</strong> Complaint states, among other<br />
things, that the amounts necessary for redemption<br />
have not been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's<br />
Administration Order Number 02-11, it is this 1st<br />
day of June, <strong>2012</strong> ORDERED by the Superior Court of<br />
the District of Columbia, that notice be given by the<br />
insertion of a copy of this order in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong><br />
<strong>Journal</strong>, having a general circulation in the District<br />
of Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive<br />
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the real<br />
property described above to appear in this Court by<br />
the 15th day of August, <strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the real<br />
Property by payment of $1,654.36 together with interest<br />
from the date the real property tax certificate<br />
was purchased, as well as court costs; reasonable<br />
attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the publication<br />
and service of process by publication; reasonable<br />
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by<br />
the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of<br />
D.C. Official Code §47-1361 through 1377 (2001 ed.),<br />
et seq., or answer the complaint or, thereafter, a final<br />
judgment will be entered foreclosing the right of<br />
redemption in the real property and vesting in the<br />
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri<br />
(Signed in chambers)<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 006359 L(RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri<br />
THE REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD<br />
1515 Kenilworth Ave, NE<br />
Washington, DC 20029<br />
vs.<br />
BARBARA J. DINKINS 727 Quebec Place NW Washington<br />
DC 20010, And JEOFFREY GRAHAM 1625<br />
Olive Street, NE Washington, DC 20019, And MIL-<br />
TON W. ARMIGER, MORTGAGEE 1629 K Street NW<br />
Ste 300 Washington DC 20006, And CAPITAL-<br />
SOURCE BANK FBO AEON FINANCIAL, LLC c/o Malik<br />
Tuma, Esq. Tax Lien <strong>Law</strong> Group, LLP 27 North Wacker<br />
Drive, #503 Chicago, IL 60606, And LVNV FUND-<br />
ING, LLC c/o Corporation Trust 1209 Orange Street<br />
Wilmington, DE 19801, and GEORGE WASHINGTON<br />
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL 900 23rd Street, NW Washington,<br />
DC 20037, And KAYODE OLAWUMI 16404<br />
Euro Court Bowie, MD 20716, And GEICO INSU-<br />
RANCE COMPANY 5260 Western Avenue Chevy<br />
Chase, MD 20815, And THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-<br />
BIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia, Vincent<br />
Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania<br />
Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington, DC<br />
20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District of Columbia,<br />
Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W.,<br />
Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown Owners of<br />
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal<br />
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,<br />
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,<br />
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have<br />
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the<br />
property and premises situate, lying and being in the<br />
District of Columbia described as: Square 5168, Lot<br />
0019. May also be known as 1625 Olive Street, NE,<br />
Washington, DC 20019.<br />
Defendants<br />
ORDER OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION<br />
<strong>The</strong> immediate object of this proceeding is to secure<br />
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following<br />
real property located in the District of Columbia,<br />
and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia<br />
to the Plaintiff in this action, which property is described<br />
as Square 5618, Lot 0019 which may also be<br />
known as 1625 Olive Street, NE, Washington, DC<br />
20019. <strong>The</strong> Complaint states, among other things,<br />
that the amounts necessary for redemption have not<br />
been paid. Pursuant D.C. Code Section 13-341 (2001<br />
ed.) and the Chief Judge's Administrative Order<br />
Number 02-11, it is, this 13th day of April, <strong>2012</strong>, OR-<br />
DERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,<br />
that service upon Defendant Jeoffrey Graham,<br />
and/or his Heirs, Devisees, Personal Representatives,<br />
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns<br />
or Successors in Right, Title and Interest, be<br />
made by insertion of a copy of this Order in the <strong>National</strong><br />
<strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> and the Daily Washington <strong>Law</strong><br />
Reporter, a newspapers of general circulation in the<br />
District of Columbia, twice a month for three (3) consecutive<br />
months, notifying any and all persons interested<br />
in the Real Property described above to appear<br />
in this Court on or before the 1st day of August,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the Real Property by payment of<br />
$3,879.87, together with interest from the date the<br />
Certificate of Sale for Taxes was purchased; court<br />
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the<br />
publication and service of process by publication and<br />
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other<br />
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with<br />
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding<br />
municipal lien amounts due and owing on<br />
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the<br />
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered<br />
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real<br />
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."<br />
/s/ Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri<br />
Signed in chambers<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
May 07, 14 June 04, 11 <strong>July</strong> 02, 09, <strong>2012</strong><br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE<br />
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
2009 CA 001707 L(RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Magistrate Judge Joseph Beshouri<br />
Aeon Financial, LLC<br />
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5210<br />
Chicago, Illinois 60606<br />
Plaintiff,<br />
vs.<br />
Gregory M. Peters; Chevy Chase Bank FSB; Citibank,<br />
NA, successor to Universal Bank, NA; Mayor of the<br />
District of Columbia; Attorney General of the District<br />
of Columbia; and All unknown owners of the Property<br />
described below, their heirs, devisees, personal<br />
representatives, and executors, administrators<br />
grantees, assigns or successors in right, title, interest,<br />
and any and all persons having or claiming to<br />
have any leasehold or any other interest in the Property<br />
and premises situate, described as: Square<br />
5286 Lot 0075; address of 23 52nd Street, SE, Washington,<br />
DC, 20019<br />
Defendants.<br />
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Official Code §47-1375<br />
(2001 ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure
the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ JULY 2, <strong>2012</strong> <strong>July</strong> 2, <strong>2012</strong> 27<br />
COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.,<br />
Plaintiffs,<br />
v.<br />
DOES 1 THROUGH 351<br />
Defandants.<br />
Notice of ActioN<br />
Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. v. Does 1 through 351<br />
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR<br />
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA<br />
Alexandria Division<br />
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-0241-GBL-JFA<br />
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall publish notice of this action, in the manner specified below. Once such publication has occurred and twenty-one (21) days have passed,<br />
Plaintiffs shall be deemed to have complied with any notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(I) and (II) that are applicable to this matter.<br />
1. Plaintiffs shall cause a copy of this Order to be published in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>/<strong>The</strong> Legal Times once within twenty-one (21) days after the entry of this Order and an affidavit<br />
shall be filed on Plaintiffs’ behalf, no later than within twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of this Order, describing the steps that have been taken to comply with this Order.<br />
2. <strong>The</strong> domain names coachoutlets-purse.org, coach-outletfactory.us, coach-pursesusa.org, coachoutletsfactory.net, outletcoachs.org, coachpurses-outlet.us, coachpurses-us.<br />
net, coachbagsale.org, coachoutletsstore.us, coachoutleter.net, coachhandbags-outlet.org, coach-outlet-handbags.org, bestcoachhandbags.net, best-coach-handbags.net, bizcoachpurses.net,<br />
buycoach.us, cheap-coachbags.net, cheapcoachbagsonsale.org, cheapcoachbagsoutlet.org, cheapcoachhandbag.net, cheapcoachhandbags1.net, cheapcoachhandbags4u.net,<br />
cheapcoach-handbags.net, cheap-coachhandbags.us, cheapcoachoutlet.net, cheap-coach-outlet.org, cheapcoachpurse.net, cheap-coachpurses.org,<br />
coachbagoutlet.net, coachbagoutlet.org, coachbag-outlet.org, coachbagoutlets.org, coachbags2011.org, coachbagsclearance.net, coachbags-clearance.net, coachbags-coach.<br />
net, coachbags-factory.net, coachbagshop.org, coachbagshopping.net, coachbagshops.net, coachbagsonline.net, coach-bags-online.net, coachbags-online.org, coach-bagsoutlet.net,<br />
coachbagsoutlet-outlet.net, coachbagsoutlets1941.net, coachbagssale.net, coachbags-sale.net, coachbagssale.org, coachbags-sale.org, coachbagsshop.org, coachbagsshops.net,<br />
coachcheapbag.net, coachclearance.us, coach-diaper-bags.org, coachdiscount.net, coachdiscountstore.us, coachesbags.net, coachfactory4outlet.net, coachfactory--online.net,<br />
coachfactory--outlet.net, coachfactoryoutlet2011.net, coach-factoryoutletstore.net, coachfactoryoutletstore.org, coachfactoryoutlet-stores.net,<br />
coachfactorysstoresoutlets.org, coachfactory-store.us, coachfactorystoresoutlet.net, coachhandbagmalaysia.net, coachhandbagmall.net, coachhandbags2011.net, coachhandbags2u.net,<br />
coachhandbags2u.net, coachhandbagsclearance.net, coachhandbagsforcheap.net, coachhandbags-mall.net, coachhandbags-mart.net, coachhandbagsonline.net,<br />
coachhandbagsoutlet.org, coachhandbags-outlets.org, coachhandbagspurses.net, coachhandbagsreplica.org, coachhandbags-sale.org, coachhandbagsshop.net, coachhandbagsstore.net,<br />
coachhandbags-usa.net, coach-handbags-usa.net, coachmall.org, coach-online.us, coach-online-outlet.net, coach-online-outlet.org, coachonlineshopping.net,<br />
coach-onlinestore.net, coachonlinestore.org, coach--outlet.net, coachoutlet1.us, coachoutlet2011.org, coachoutlet2u.net, coachoutlet4ny.net, coachoutletcheap.org, coachoutletdiaper.org,<br />
coach-outlet-factory.us, coach-outlet-factory.us, coachoutletfactorystore.net, coachoutletmall.net, coachoutlet-mall.org, coachoutletonline.net, coach-outletonline.<br />
org, coachoutletonlines.org, coachoutletonlinesale.org, coachoutletonlinestores.net, coachoutlet-onsale.net, coach-outlet-purse.net, coach-outletsfactory.net, coach-outletsfactorys.net,<br />
coachoutlets-online.net, coachoutlets-purse.net, coachoutletssale.net, coach-outlets-store.net, coach-outlets-stores.org, coach-outletstorefactory.net, coachoutletstore-online.us,<br />
coachoutletstoreonline-us.net, coachoutletstore--us.net, coachoutletsus.net, coachoutletsus.org, coachoutlet-us.net, coach-outlet-usa.net, coachoutlet--usa.net,<br />
coachpoppybags.net, coachpurse-outlet.net, coach-purses1.net, coachpurses-outlet.net, coachpurses-outlet.org, coachpurseus.net, coachpurse-us.net, coachreplicahandbags.<br />
org, coachsaleoutlets.net, coachshopoutlet.org, coach-store-online.net, coach-store-outlet.net, coachstoreoutlet.us, factorycoach.org, fakecoachpurses.org, fashioncoachbags.<br />
us, godcoachoutlet.org, hotcoachoutlet.net, mycoachbags.net, newcheap-coachpurses.net, outletcoach2011.net, outlets-coach.org, replicacoachhandbags.us, singaporecoach.<br />
net, thecoachoutletonline.net, ukcoach.net, us-coachoutletonline.net, us-coachoutletstores.net, uscoachpurses.net, us-coachpurses.net, uscoach-stores.net, women-coach-outlet.net,<br />
outletcoachs2011.net, coachoutlet1.org, cheapcoachbagoutlet.net, cheapcoachbagoutlet.net, coachfactoryoutletmall.org, coachbagsmall.net, coachbagsoutletsstore.net,<br />
businesscoachoutlet1.org, coachsoutletpurse.net, cheapcoachbagsonline.net, coachbagss.net, bagscoach.org, coachbagsnew.net, coachbagsstore4u.net, coachbagstores.net,<br />
coachbagswebsite.net, coachhandbagsclearance.org, coachonlinestores.net, outletstore-coach.net, cheapcoachhandbagsale.net, coachbagsforsale.org, coachbagsofficial.org,<br />
coachhandbagsfactorys.net, coachstoresoutlets.net, coachoutletonlinestores.us, fake-coach-purses.org, wholesalecoachhandbags.net, coach-outlet.ws, fake-coach-purses.org,<br />
vipcoachoutlet.net, bagscoach.org, coachsoutletonlinefactory.net, coachoutlet-coachbags.net, coachtote.org, coachoutletstoreus.org, cheap-coachpurses.net, coachoutletonlinesstores.org,<br />
outletonline-coach.net, coachs-outlets-online.us, cheapcoachonline.net, coachoutletonlinestoresale.org, coachhandbag-outlets.org, coachbagsoutlet4u.net,<br />
coachsoutletpurse.net, coachoutletpurse.us, coachoutletonline-usa.net, coachsaleshop.org, coachhandbags-outlet1.net, coachbag-outlet.net, coachdiaperbags.us, coachbagsok.<br />
org, coachbagssales.net, coachbagsstores.net, coachhandbagsdiscount.org, coachoutletbagss.net, outletcoachbags.org, coachhoutlett.net, cheapcoachbagsoutlets.net, cheapcoachoutletstore.net,<br />
coachpursefactorys.net, coachpursesclearance.net, buycoachoutlets.net, coachoutlet-sale.org, coachfactorystoreoutlete.org, newcoach.org, tcoachoutletonline.net,<br />
coach-factory-outlets.net, coachoutletstoresonline-us.net, outletonlinecoach.net, luxecoachpurse.net, coach-shopping.org, onlineoutletscoach.net, coach8.net,<br />
coachgooutlet.org, authenticcoachoutlet.net, storesoutletcoach.net, outletfactorycoach.net, coach-online-outlet.us, coachhandbagsoutlet4u.net, coachoutlethandbag.net, coachpursesca.net,<br />
coach0outlet.org, coachbags-outlets.net, coach-saleoutlet.net, coachoutletsonlinefactory.net, thecoachpurses.net, coach-onlinestore.org, coachoutletonlinecool.<br />
net, coachoutlet-store.us, coachbagsoutlett.net, coachshandbagsoutlet.net, coachhandbagsusa.net, topcheapcoachhandbags.net, coachoutletca.net, coachoutletonlinesale.net,<br />
coachoutletstroe.net, coachoutlet<strong>2012</strong>.org, coachhandbagsfactoryoutlet.org, coachoutletonlinestore.us, coach-outlet.net, coachusoutlet.org, coachbagsclearance.org, coachpursesz.us,<br />
coachfactoryoutlet-online.us, coach-factoryoutletsonline.net, factorycoachoutlet.net, gadcoachoutlet.net, coachfactorysoutletstoreonline.net, coachoutletonline-sale.<br />
net, coachfactoryonlines.net, coachshandbags.org, coachdiaperbagss.org, coachdiaperbagoutlets.org, coachhandbags-usa.org, bigcoachoutlet.org, coachoutlet-storeonline.us,<br />
coachhandbags2.org, coachhandbagsclearance.us, coachnhandbags.net, coachandbags.net, cheapcoachoutletss.net, cheapcoachoutletstore.org, coachoutletss.net, coachoutletstoreonlines.us,<br />
coachhandbags--clearance.net, coachfactoryoutlet-sale.net, coachpurse-factory.org, coachbasoutlet.net, coachestoutlet.org, coachfactorystoreonlineoutlet.<br />
net, coachoutletsonlinestores.org, coachoutletstoresonline4u.net, coachoutletstoreonlinesale.org, coachoutlet<strong>2012</strong>.net, coachsfactoryoutlet.net, coachsoutletfactory.net, coachoutlet-purse.org,<br />
coachoutletonlinecool.org, coachoutlet1.net, coach--outletpurse.us, coachoutlets.net, coachoutletss.net, bestcoachoutlets.net, cheapcoachoutletss.org,<br />
coachclearanceoutlet.net, coachfactorysoutlett.org, onlineoutletcoachs.net, salecoachdiaperbag.org, coachoutletonlineusa.net, coach-outlet-sale.net, coachoutletstoresusa.net,<br />
coachoutletforsale.net, coachfactoryoutletss.net, coachfactoryoutlet-storeonline.org, coachfactoryoutlet-onlines.net, coachfactorysoutletonline.net, coachfactorystoreoutleta.<br />
net, coachoutletstoresonlines.net, coachpursesoutletstoreonline.us, coachfactorysoutletonline.org, coachhandbags2011.org, coachoutletsalestore.net, vipcoachoutletonline.org,<br />
coachbagscanada.org, coachbagsforcheap.us, coachbagsok.us, coachfactoryoutletonlinesale.net, coachoutlet7.org, coachoutlete.net, coachoutletonlinefactory.org, coachoutletonlineshopping.net,<br />
coachoutletonlineshopping.org, coachoutletustore.net, vip-coachoutlet.net, coachpursesoutletsale.net, coachsfactoryoutlet.org, coachsoutletsu.net, coachfactorystoreoutleta.org,<br />
coachhandbagsussale.net, coachfactoryonlineoutlet.net, allcoachoutlet.net, womancoachoutlet.net, coachoutletbay.net, cheapcoachbagsclearance.org,<br />
coachandbags.org, coach-coach.net, coach-sale.net, discount-coachhandbags.net, outlet.coachbagsoutlets1941.com, and uscoachoutletus.net (collectively, “the domain name<br />
defendants”), are hereby advised:<br />
A. Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have charged the domain name defendants in an in rem complaint with, inter alia, violations of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection<br />
Act of 1999 (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Plaintiffs’ attorney, S. Patrick McKey, Bryan Cave LLP, 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4300, Chicago, Illinois<br />
60601, telephone number 312-602-5000, or at .<br />
B. If Plaintiffs prevail against the domain name defendants under the Act, remedies could include the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain names or the transfer of the domain names to Plaintiffs.<br />
C. Any answer or other response to the complaint should be filed with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 401 Courthouse<br />
Square, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-5798, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of publication of this Order in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>/<strong>The</strong> Legal Times. If no appearance or pleading is<br />
filed as required by this Order, this Court may render a judgment against the domain names which could include the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain names or the transfer of the domain<br />
names to Plaintiffs.<br />
SO ORDERED.<br />
ENTERED this 4th day of June, <strong>2012</strong>.<br />
Date of Publication: <strong>July</strong> 25, 2011<br />
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following<br />
real Property, located in the District of Columbia<br />
, assessed to D B Quander Trustees & D C<br />
Peters Trustees, and sold by the Mayor of the District<br />
of Columbia to the Plaintiff in this action, and<br />
described as Square 5286 Lot 0075 and which property<br />
may have a street address that may be known<br />
as 23 52nd Street, SE, Washington, DC, 20019. <strong>The</strong><br />
Complaint states, among other things, that the<br />
amounts necessary for redemption have not been<br />
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration<br />
Order Number 02-11, it is this 1st day of June, <strong>2012</strong><br />
ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,<br />
that notice be given by the insertion of a<br />
copy of this order in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, having<br />
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,<br />
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying<br />
all persons interested in the real property described<br />
above to appear in this Court by the 22nd<br />
day of August, <strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the real Property<br />
by payment of $2,570.73 together with interest from<br />
the date the real property tax certificate was purchased,<br />
as well as court costs; reasonable attorney's<br />
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and<br />
service of process by publication; reasonable fees<br />
for the title search; all other amounts paid by the Petitioner<br />
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Official<br />
Code §47-1361 through 1377 (2001 ed.), et<br />
seq., or answer the complaint or, thereafter, a final<br />
judgment will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption<br />
in the real property and vesting in the<br />
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri<br />
(Signed in chambers)<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF<br />
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
Civil Action No. <strong>2012</strong> CA 004708 L(RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Calendar 18<br />
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri<br />
Capitol Tax Services, LLC<br />
/s/ John F. Anderson<br />
United States Magistrate Judge<br />
Alexandria, Virginia<br />
vs.<br />
MARSHA A. CLAYTON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE<br />
FOR THE ESTATE OF NAOMI S. BUCKNER, AND<br />
HMTR1, LLC, and District of Columbia, And All Unknown<br />
Owners of the Property described below,<br />
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,<br />
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in<br />
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having<br />
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or<br />
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying<br />
and being in the District of Columbia described<br />
as: Square 5390, Lot 0041. May also be known as<br />
4318 H ST SE<br />
Defendants<br />
ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object<br />
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the<br />
right of redemption in the following real property located<br />
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the<br />
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in<br />
this action described as Square 5390, Lot 0041<br />
which may also be known as 4318 H Street SE. <strong>The</strong><br />
complaint states, among other things, that the<br />
amounts necessary for redemption have not been<br />
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative<br />
Order Number 02-11, it is this 10th day of May,<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District<br />
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of<br />
a copy of this Order in the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, a<br />
newspaper of general circulation in the District of<br />
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive<br />
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real<br />
Property described above to appear in this Court by<br />
the 19th day of September, <strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the<br />
Real Property by payment of $3,157.05 together with<br />
interest from the date the Real Property tax certificate<br />
was purchased; court costs and attorney's<br />
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and service<br />
of process by publication and for reasonable<br />
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by<br />
the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of D.<br />
C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien<br />
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real<br />
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a<br />
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right<br />
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the<br />
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."<br />
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE<br />
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA<br />
CIVIL DIVISION<br />
2010 CA 003788 L(RP)<br />
(Action Involving Real Property)<br />
Magistrate Judge Joseph Beshouri<br />
CapitalSource Bank FBO Aeon Financial, LLC<br />
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5210<br />
Chicago, Illinois 60606<br />
Plaintiff,<br />
vs.<br />
W & D, LLC NKA Washington Communities I, LLC;<br />
Fulton Bank, as Successor by Merger to Resource<br />
Bank; Richard L. Bernardi; Michael Paulson; Eagle<br />
Bank; Martha Foulon-Tonat; District of Columbia<br />
Water and Sewer Authority; Mayor of the District of<br />
Columbia; Attorney General of the District of Columbia;<br />
and All unknown owners of the Property described<br />
below, their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,<br />
and executors, administrators grantees,<br />
assigns or successors in right, title, interest, and<br />
any and all persons having or claiming to have any<br />
leasehold or any other interest in the Property and<br />
premises situate, described as: Square 5130 Lot<br />
0067; address of 4501 Grant Street, NE, Washington,<br />
DC, 20019<br />
Defendants.<br />
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION<br />
In accordance with D.C. Official Code §47-1375<br />
(2001 ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure<br />
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following<br />
real Property, located in the District of Columbia<br />
, assessed to W & D, LLC c/o Richard P.<br />
Deeds, and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia<br />
to the Plaintiff in this action, and described<br />
as Square 5130 Lot 0067 and which property may<br />
have a street address that may be known as 4501<br />
Grant Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20019. <strong>The</strong> Complaint<br />
states, among other things, that the amounts<br />
necessary for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant<br />
to the Chief Judge's Administration Order<br />
Number 02-11, it is this 1st day of June, <strong>2012</strong> OR-<br />
DERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,<br />
that notice be given by the insertion of a<br />
copy of this order in <strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, having<br />
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,<br />
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying<br />
all persons interested in the real property described<br />
above to appear in this Court by the 15th day<br />
of August, <strong>2012</strong>, and redeem the real Property by<br />
payment of $5,863.38 together with interest from<br />
the date the real property tax certificate was purchased,<br />
as well as court costs; reasonable attorney's<br />
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and<br />
service of process by publication; reasonable fees<br />
for the title search; all other amounts paid by the Petitioner<br />
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Official<br />
Code §47-1361 through 1377 (2001 ed.), et<br />
seq., or answer the complaint or, thereafter, a final<br />
judgment will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption<br />
in the real property and vesting in the<br />
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.<br />
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri<br />
(Signed in chambers)<br />
Dates of Publication<br />
June 18, 25 <strong>July</strong> 02, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Public<br />
notice<br />
For further information,<br />
call LaToya Barbour<br />
202 828-0362 or email<br />
LBarbour@alm.com
28 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ <strong>July</strong> 2, 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
INTERNATIONAL TAX LAWYER<br />
CORPORATE FINANCE ATTORNEY<br />
Are you looking to work in a dynamic, fast-paced, entrepreneurial environment? Our 90+ attorney firm is the place<br />
for you. Rapidly expanding commercial finance practice seeks a detail-oriented, organized, mid-level Corporate<br />
Finance Attorney w/ 4+ yrs of loan transaction and financing exp, representing lenders and borrowers alike. Ability<br />
to draft and negotiate loan docs a must. Knowledge of UCC secured transactions, govt. contract lending and asset<br />
based loans is a plus. Exp handling syndicated financing and club transactions is helpful.<br />
Submit resume to: mbowen@shulmanrogers.com.<br />
EOE Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A. website: www.shulmanrogers.com<br />
A large southeastern law firm is seeking an international tax<br />
lawyer. This high level member of the tax team will provide<br />
international corporate tax expertise to clients of the firm by<br />
assisting with acquisition planning, strategies and analysis; as well<br />
as, post-acquisition matters including foreign tax credits, foreign<br />
source income analysis, tax treaty consultation, etc. Successful<br />
candidates will have a minimum of eight years of relevant<br />
experience. Competitive compensation package includes full benefits.<br />
Resumes may be sent to attorneyposting<strong>2012</strong>@gmail.com.<br />
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION<br />
WASHINGTON, D. C.<br />
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL &<br />
STAFF ATTORNEYS<br />
<strong>The</strong> Office of the General Counsel at the Federal Election Commission is<br />
recruiting for an Assistant General Counsel for the Enforcement Division<br />
and Attorneys for the General <strong>Law</strong> and Advice Division. This is an excellent<br />
opportunity to join a dynamic legal team and work on sophisticated campaign<br />
finance, First Amendment, and general law issues. Successful candidates<br />
will have a J.D. degree from an accredited law school, at least two to four<br />
years of legal experience depending on position, and superior analytical and<br />
communication skills. Experience with election law is desirable but not<br />
required.<br />
Assistant General Counsel Vacancy Announcement #12-026<br />
Staff Attorneys Vacancy Announcement #12-025<br />
For a copy of the vacancy announcement listing specific application<br />
requirements, please call 202-694-1080 or visit our website at www.fec.gov<br />
and click on “About the FEC”. <strong>The</strong> FEC is an Equal Opportunity Employer.<br />
LEGAL CONSULTANTS<br />
LEGAL WRITING WORKSHOPS<br />
Provide your legal team with the tools<br />
they need to avoid jargon, sharpen<br />
advocacy skills, master self-editing<br />
& produce crisp, compelling prose.<br />
Workshops offered at your offices to<br />
fit your schedule.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Writer’s Center<br />
www.writer.org<br />
301-654-8664<br />
4508 Walsh St.<br />
Bethesda MD 20815<br />
Call 347-227-3145<br />
to Advertise in NLJ Classifieds<br />
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES<br />
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL<br />
FOOD AND DRUG DIVISION, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND OFFICE<br />
ATTORNEY SENIOR MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES<br />
<strong>The</strong> Food and Drug Division (FDD) of the Office of General Counsel (FDA’s<br />
Office of the Chief Counsel) is seeking multiple experienced attorneys to fill<br />
new vacancies on its management team. FDA regulates almost 25 percent<br />
of the United States consumer economy to help ensure the safety and<br />
effectiveness of medical products, the safety of the food supply, and<br />
appropriate regulation of tobacco products. FDD provides litigation and counseling<br />
support for FDA’s mission of promoting and protecting the public health.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se positions are in the Senior Executive Service (SES), a small elite<br />
group of senior government leaders who possess a diverse portfolio of<br />
experience and the strong skills required to lead across organizations. This<br />
dedicated corps of executives is charged with providing strategic leadership<br />
and upholding a commitment to public service.<br />
Positions are located at FDA headquarters at the White Oak Campus<br />
in Silver Spring, Maryland. Salaries range from $119,554.00 to $179,700.00.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Federal Government offers a comprehensive benefits package.<br />
Additional information on the FDD/FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel is available<br />
at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeoftheChiefCounsel/default.htm.<br />
For additional information about the positions or to apply, please review the<br />
following job announcements on usajobs.com: HHS-OGC-ES-12-666899<br />
(Principal Deputy Associate General Counsel); HHS-OGC-ES-12-647632<br />
(Deputy Associate General Counsel for Litigation); and HHS-OGC-ES-12-<br />
669707 (Deputy Associate General Counsel for Program Review). Application<br />
packages must be received on-line by 11:59 pm on <strong>July</strong> 23, <strong>2012</strong>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:<br />
U.S. Citizenship is required.<br />
Background and/or Security Investigation required.<br />
Must complete 1 year SES probationary period, if not previously completed.<br />
Must possess a J.D. or LL.B degree.<br />
Must be a member in good standing of the bar of a state, territory of the US, the<br />
District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.<br />
HHS is an Equal Opportunity Employer and has a Smoke-Free workplace.<br />
TESTIMONY<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
CONSULTANTS
. the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ JULY 2, <strong>2012</strong> <strong>July</strong> 2, <strong>2012</strong> 29<br />
. <strong>July</strong> 2, <strong>2012</strong> 29<br />
SmithAmundsen LLC is seeking to further expand our practice and to<br />
develop an Indianapolis presence through the addition of partner-level<br />
lateral SmithAmundsen attorneys with LLC portable is seeking business to further in the expand following our practice and areas: to<br />
Labor develop & an Employment, Indianapolis Commercial presence through Litigation, the addition Banking, of partner-level<br />
Bankruptcy,<br />
Professional lateral attorneys Liability with portable Defense, business Healthcare in the Compliance, following practice Corporate areas:<br />
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC<br />
Transactions, Labor & Employment, Tax and Commercial Regulatory. Litigation, Only attorneys Banking, with Bankruptcy, portable<br />
business Professional need Liability apply. Defense, Healthcare Compliance, Corporate<br />
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC<br />
Transactions, Tax and Regulatory. Only attorneys with portable<br />
Headquartered business need apply. in Chicago, SmithAmundsen is comprised of 140<br />
<strong>The</strong> University of Oregon School of <strong>Law</strong> (Eugene) seeks a Supervising Attorney (SA) to manage the<br />
Domestic Violence Clinic, supervise students enrolled in the Clinic and to represent survivors of domestic<br />
attorneys based in six offices in Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri. Our<br />
violence, stalking, and sexual assault. This live-client clinical program works closely with community partners,<br />
attorneys Headquartered regularly in practice Chicago, in SmithAmundsen all venues within is the comprised states of Illinois, of 140<br />
<strong>The</strong> University of Oregon School of <strong>Law</strong> (Eugene) seeks a Supervising Attorney (SA) to manage the<br />
Womenspace, Domestic Violence Sexual Clinic, Assault supervise Support students Services, enrolled and in Lane the County Clinic and Legal to represent Aid and survivors Advocacy of Center, domestic to<br />
Wisconsin attorneys based and Missouri in six offices in both in Illinois, state and Wisconsin federal and court. Missouri. In addition, Our<br />
ensure violence, holistic stalking, and and comprehensive sexual assault. services This live-client for its clients. clinical <strong>The</strong> program SA will works be a 12-month closely with renewable, community fixed-term, partners, our attorneys attorneys regularly are retained practice on in a all regional venues and within national the states basis of by Illinois, clients<br />
non-tenure Womenspace, track, Sexual instructor Assault position. Support <strong>The</strong>re Services, is an and expectation Lane County that this Legal position Aid and will continue Advocacy beyond Center, one to to Wisconsin handle both and Missouri coordinating both counsel state responsibilities and federal court. as well In as addition, direct<br />
year ensure contingent holistic and on comprehensive need, funding services and performance. its clients. At <strong>The</strong> this SA time, will there be a 12-month is flexibility renewable, as to whether fixed-term, the representation our attorneys are of clients retained other on a jurisdictions.<br />
regional and national basis by clients<br />
position non-tenure will track, be full-time instructor part-time. position. FTE <strong>The</strong>re is is negotiable, an expectation .6 to 1.0. that Requirements this position will for review continue include beyond a JD, one a<br />
to handle both coordinating counsel responsibilities as well as direct<br />
State year contingent of Oregon Bar on license need, funding or the eligibility and performance. to become At licensed this time, in Oregon there prior is flexibility to the start as to of whether position the Please representation submit your of clients resumé in other in confidence jurisdictions. to mdelargy@salawus.com or<br />
(by position passing will the be full-time <strong>July</strong> Bar or part-time. applying for FTE bar is negotiable, admission based .6 to 1.0. upon Requirements reciprocity), and for review 3 years include law practice a JD, a by mail to:<br />
experience State of Oregon working Bar with license survivors the eligibility of domestic to become violence, licensed stalking, Oregon and sexual prior assault to the start and/or of the low-income position Please submit your resumé in confidence to mdelargy@salawus.com or<br />
clients. (by passing See the <strong>July</strong> University Bar or applying of Oregon for website: bar admission http://jobs.uoregon.edu/unclassified.php?id=3904 based upon reciprocity), and 3 years law practice for a Michael by mail to: L. DeLargy<br />
complete experience list working of job with requirements, survivors of supplemental domestic violence, questions, stalking, job description, and sexual and assault application and/or procedures. low-income SmithAmundsen LLC<br />
To clients. ensure See consideration, the University all required of Oregon documents website: http://jobs.uoregon.edu/unclassified.php?id=3904 must be submitted by <strong>July</strong> 5, <strong>2012</strong>. <strong>The</strong> position for will a 150 Michael N. Michigan L. DeLargy Avenue<br />
remain complete open list until of job filled. requirements, <strong>The</strong> top supplemental candidate must questions, successfully job description, complete a criminal and application background procedures. check. Suite SmithAmundsen 3300 LLC<br />
<strong>The</strong> To ensure University consideration, of Oregon is all an required AA/EO/ADA documents institution must strongly be submitted committed by <strong>July</strong> to cultural 5, <strong>2012</strong>. diversity. <strong>The</strong> position will Chicago, 150 N. Michigan IL 60601 Avenue<br />
34 remain open until filled. <strong>The</strong> top candidate must successfully complete a criminal background check. Suite 3300<br />
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ May 28, <strong>2012</strong><br />
<strong>The</strong> University of Oregon is an AA/EO/ADA institution strongly committed to cultural diversity.<br />
Chicago, IL 60601<br />
Paid listings<br />
For information on how to get your firm listed in this directory, call (347) 227-3145.<br />
Court Reporting Services<br />
#Reserved 5 x 5.62 in.<br />
#Reserved 5 x 5.62 in.<br />
NatioNwiDE CouRt REpoRtiNg SERviCES<br />
Got depositions?<br />
(877) 808-3376<br />
FREE CoNFERENCE RoomS<br />
E-mail: vincent@courtreporterdepot.com<br />
Website: www.courtreporterdepot.com<br />
Principal Contact: Vincent Rosalia<br />
CourtReporterDepot is a national<br />
court reporting company with offices<br />
throughout United States. <strong>The</strong> philosophy<br />
behind CourtReporterDepot<br />
is to simplify the way in which a legal<br />
professional sources a court reporter<br />
outside of their home office area.<br />
We do not broker your deposition<br />
to another court reporting agency.<br />
All depositions are handled by our<br />
own prescreened and certified court<br />
reporters. We handle depositions from<br />
start to finish!<br />
Our services include:<br />
• <strong>National</strong> Court Reporting Services<br />
• Pre-Screened & Certified Court Reporters<br />
• Free Conference Rooms<br />
• Expedited Service<br />
• Videoconferencing<br />
• Transcript & Exhibit Repositories<br />
• Exhibit Linking...and much more!<br />
CaLL toDay to SChEDuLE a DEpoSitioN oR<br />
LEaRN moRE about CouRt REpoRtER DEpot<br />
(877) 808-3376<br />
www.courtreporterdepot.com<br />
For information on<br />
how to get<br />
your firm listed in<br />
this directory,<br />
call (347) 227-3145.<br />
NLJ Legal Services Directory<br />
Electronic Discovery Services<br />
CliCKS<br />
Document Management<br />
(202) 842-3430<br />
(202) 842-4641<br />
E-mail: vansari@clicksdocs.com<br />
Website: www.clicksdocs.com<br />
Principal Contact: Vicki Ansari<br />
When a law firm chooses CliCKS,<br />
they not only get a flexible, customizable<br />
document management<br />
solution, they also get our years of<br />
expertise in document management.<br />
<strong>The</strong> project managers and support<br />
staff at CliCKS will be with you every<br />
step of the way in the document<br />
production process-from assessing<br />
your document production needs and<br />
how we can meet them, to creating<br />
an approach that meets or exceeds<br />
your expectations.<br />
* Document Imaging<br />
* Electronic Data Discovery (EDD)<br />
* Digital Blowbacks (B&W and Color)<br />
* CD/DVD Duplication<br />
* Trial Exhibits and Presentation<br />
* Litigation Photocopying<br />
Legal Support Services<br />
codeMantra, LLC<br />
(610) 940-1724<br />
E-mail: rgrande@codemantra.com<br />
Website: www.codemantra.net<br />
Principal Contact: Robert Grande<br />
codeMantra, LLC is an international<br />
provider of comprehensive litigation<br />
support, document management and<br />
technology solutions. Our clients<br />
consist of fortune 500 corporations,<br />
Amlaw Top 250 firms, document<br />
management and service providers.<br />
Our solutions include legal process<br />
outsourcing software development,<br />
programming, data conversion and<br />
document review management. (cP-<br />
DocRev v2.0).<br />
CREDIT REPORTING<br />
CREDIT REPORTING<br />
SERVICES FOR LAWYERS<br />
SERVICES FOR LAWYERS
Opinion<br />
Sound off<br />
Send letters to the editor to rsingleton@alm.com.<br />
30 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
the health care decision<br />
Health Care Reaction<br />
Practitioners’ comments ranged from ‘a sad day for America’ to ‘the<br />
<strong>American</strong> people’s decisions matter’ to ‘back to business as usual.’<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> asked practitioners<br />
to provide instant commentaries<br />
on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28<br />
decision to uphold the Affordable Care<br />
Act. <strong>The</strong>se are collected at www.nlj.com/<br />
healthcare. Below are selected excerpts<br />
from the commentaries.<br />
Individual mandate<br />
It would have been ironic indeed if<br />
the Supreme Court had struck down the<br />
individual mandate to purchase health<br />
care. Opponents of the mandate objected<br />
to what they saw as an unjustified<br />
effort by Congress to expand the power<br />
of the federal government. But in fact,<br />
the Affordable Care Act’s mandate represents<br />
a weaker assertion of federal power<br />
than occurred when Congress enacted<br />
Medicare in 1965.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Medicare program imposed a<br />
mandate on <strong>American</strong>s to purchase hospital<br />
insurance for their senior years from<br />
the federal government. We all must<br />
contribute part of our income to fund<br />
the cost of hospital care after age 65. <strong>The</strong><br />
constitutionality of the Medicare mandate<br />
tells us that Congress could have<br />
adopted a Canadian-style, “Medicare-for-<br />
All” health care system in which people<br />
would pay part of their income to fund<br />
government-sponsored health care coverage<br />
for themselves and their family<br />
even before they reach age 65.<br />
From a perspective of individual liberty,<br />
however, it is far better to require<br />
people to obtain their insurance from a<br />
private health care system, in which they<br />
can choose among a variety of options,<br />
than from a government system in which<br />
they would have to accept the government’s<br />
preferred form of insurance. Not<br />
only is the liberty of the individual purchaser<br />
greater under the Affordable Care<br />
Act than under a single-payer system, so<br />
is the liberty of people who sell insurance.<br />
A single-payer system would put them<br />
out of business. <strong>The</strong> Affordable Care Act<br />
allows them to continue operating.<br />
As the Court concluded, the individual<br />
mandate functions simply as a tax surcharge.<br />
Under the Affordable Care Act,<br />
we all must pay an additional income tax<br />
unless we qualify for an exemption by<br />
having health care insurance.…<br />
Because the individual mandate fits<br />
comfortably within existing boundaries<br />
of federal power, the Court could have<br />
struck it down only by turning back the<br />
clock to its pre-New Deal jurisprudence.<br />
In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts<br />
istockphoto/VILevi<br />
Jr. was true to his understanding of the<br />
Supreme Court’s role at his confirmation<br />
hearings. With his decisive vote,<br />
the Court rejected the invitation to roll<br />
back 70 years of constitutional precedent.<br />
Instead, the opinion reflects the more<br />
modest role for the Court that Roberts<br />
described upon his nomination in 2005.<br />
—Da v i d Or e n t l i c h e r, Sa m u e l. R. Ro s e n<br />
Pro f e s s o r o f La w, In d i a n a Un i v e r s i t y<br />
Rob e r t H. McKin n e y Sc h o o l o f La w,<br />
In d i a n a p o l i s<br />
Today’s baby-splitting decision rewrites<br />
the Affordable Care Act in order to save<br />
it. It’s certainly gratifying that a majority<br />
rejected the government’s dangerous<br />
assertion of power to require people to<br />
engage in economic activity in order to<br />
then regulate that activity. That vindicates<br />
everything that we who have been<br />
leading the constitutional challenge have<br />
been saying: <strong>The</strong> government cannot regulate<br />
inactivity. It cannot, as Chief Justice<br />
John Roberts Jr. put it, regulate mere<br />
existence.<br />
Justifying the individual mandate<br />
under the taxing power, however, in no<br />
way rehabilitates the government’s constitutional<br />
excesses. As Justice Anthony<br />
Kennedy said in summarizing his fourjustice<br />
dissent from the bench, “Structure<br />
means liberty.” If Congress can slip the<br />
Constitution’s structural limits simply by<br />
“taxing” anything it doesn’t like, its power<br />
is no more limited than would it be had it<br />
done so under the commerce clause.…<br />
In short, we have reaped the fruits<br />
of two poisonous trees of constitutional<br />
jurisprudence: On the one (liberal activist)<br />
hand, there are no judicially administrable<br />
limits on federal power. On the<br />
other (conservative pacifist) one, we must<br />
defer to Congress and presume (or construe)<br />
its legislation to be constitutional.<br />
It is that tired old debate that produces<br />
the Frankenstein’s monster of today’s ruling.<br />
What judges should be doing instead<br />
is applying the Constitution, no matter<br />
whether that leads to upholding or striking<br />
down legislation. And a correct application<br />
of the Constitution inevitably rests<br />
on the Madisonian principles of ordered<br />
liberty and limited government that the<br />
document embodies.<br />
In any event, the ball now returns to<br />
the people, who opposed Obamacare all<br />
along and whence all legitimate power<br />
originates. It is ultimately they who must<br />
decide—or not—to rein in the out-ofcontrol<br />
government whose unconstitutional<br />
actions have taken us to the brink<br />
of economic disaster.<br />
—Il y a Sh a p i r o, s e n i o r fellow in<br />
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t u d i e s, Ca t o Institute<br />
At oral argument, Justice Sotomayor<br />
asked Paul Clement why couldn’t<br />
Congress simply tax everyone for health<br />
care and then give an exemption for<br />
those who already have health insurance.<br />
Clement, for all of his brilliance,<br />
did not have an answer to that question.<br />
That is exactly what the individual mandate<br />
does: impose a tax on those who do<br />
not have health insurance. Since 1937,<br />
not one federal taxing or spending program<br />
has been declared unconstitutional.<br />
Today’s decision follows from that. It is<br />
striking that Chief Justice Roberts joined<br />
with the liberal justices to uphold the<br />
individual mandate. In his seven years on<br />
the Court, rarely has he done so when<br />
the Court has been ideologically divided.<br />
Today, it really became the Roberts Court.<br />
—Er w i n Ch e m e r i n s k y, d e a n a n d disting<br />
u i s h e d p r o f e s s o r o f l a w, Un i v e r s i t y o f<br />
Ca l i f o r n i a, Ir v i n e Sc h o o l o f La w<br />
This is a shocking decision, one that<br />
should concern all <strong>American</strong>s. Prior to<br />
today, it was absolutely clear that there<br />
were structural limits upon the federal<br />
government’s power to regulate private<br />
conduct. As the dissent points out,<br />
today’s decision makes “mere breathing<br />
in and out” the basis for federal regulation<br />
and thus grants the federal government<br />
the power to regulate virtually all<br />
spheres of human activity. This is a sad<br />
day for America and for our constitutional<br />
republic.<br />
—Ro b e r t Mu i s e, c o-f o u n d e r a n d s e n i o r<br />
c o u n s e l, Am e r i c a n Fr e e d o m La w Ce n t e r<br />
In 2008, the United States had an<br />
election, and the <strong>American</strong> people overwhelmingly<br />
elected a president and a<br />
Congress who believe it is a moral abomination<br />
that, in the wealthiest, most powerful<br />
nation that ever existed, tens of<br />
thousands of <strong>American</strong>s die every day<br />
because they cannot afford lifesaving<br />
treatment. Today’s decision upholding<br />
nearly all of the Affordable Care Act reaffirms<br />
that the <strong>American</strong> people’s decision<br />
matters.<br />
—Ia n Millhiser, s e n i o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l-<br />
i c y a n a l y s t, Ce n t e r f o r Am e r i c a n Pr o g r e s s<br />
<strong>The</strong> Supreme Court confirmed that<br />
the power to regulate commerce does<br />
not include the power to compel it. By<br />
a 5-4 vote, the Court concluded that the<br />
commerce power requires some underlying<br />
economic “activity,” and cannot<br />
reach individuals who sit out the market.<br />
This should come as a relief to those<br />
concerned about the serious individualliberty<br />
implications of the mandate. We<br />
cannot be forced to buy broccoli.<br />
On the other hand, Congress can tax<br />
us if we fail to buy broccoli. <strong>The</strong> Supreme<br />
Court accepted a sleeper argument that<br />
the individual mandate is constitutional<br />
as a “tax.” This decision was also 5-4, with<br />
Chief Justice Roberts joining the four liberal<br />
justices. Although Congress didn’t<br />
call the payment a “tax”—instead calling<br />
it a “penalty”—the Court believed that<br />
See health care, Page 31
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong> 31<br />
the health care decision<br />
Opinion<br />
health care reaction<br />
health care, from page 30<br />
because the payment was not particularly<br />
high, was not limited to willful violations,<br />
and was collected by the IRS through usual<br />
tax mechanisms, it was properly characterized<br />
as a “tax” for constitutional purposes.…-<br />
<strong>The</strong> bottom line is that middle-income<br />
<strong>American</strong>s must pay a tax or buy health<br />
insurance.…<strong>The</strong> debate about health care<br />
reform now moves into the political arena.<br />
Both state legislatures and Congress have a<br />
lot of work to do.<br />
—Elizabeth Pr i c e Fo l e y, Institute f o r<br />
Justice c h a i r in c o n s t i t u t i o n a l litigat<br />
i o n, a n d professor, Fl o r i d a In t e r n a t i o n a l<br />
Un i v e r s i t y College o f La w<br />
istockphoto/Graffizone<br />
Publisher Stephen P. Lincoln<br />
Editor in Chief David L. Brown<br />
Managing Editor Ruth Singleton<br />
deputy editor Sam Skolnik<br />
Assistant Managing Editor Michael Moline<br />
Art Director Tegist Legesse<br />
new media Editor Jonathan Hayter<br />
Supreme Court Correspondent Tony Mauro<br />
Chief Washington Correspondent Marcia Coyle<br />
Associate Editor Leigh Jones<br />
Senior Reporter Jenna Greene<br />
Boston Bureau Chief Sheri Qualters<br />
Staff Reporters Amanda Bronstad (Los Angeles);<br />
Matthew Huisman (Washington); andrew<br />
ramonas (Washington); Todd Ruger<br />
With this ruling, everything is back to<br />
business as usual, and everyone can continue<br />
implementing the act’s various reforms<br />
and coverage mandates. Whether the ruling<br />
is good or bad from a constitutional perspective<br />
is for the academics to debate. From<br />
a practical point of view, the ruling adds a<br />
certain measure of stability with respect to<br />
the rules that govern employer-sponsored<br />
health care benefits. Of course, this measure<br />
of stability will be somewhat short-lived as<br />
Congress continues to modify the rules of<br />
the road and, undoubtedly, there will be litigation<br />
challenging the implementation and<br />
administration of the act’s various coverage<br />
mandates. That said, such litigation would<br />
have resulted—in one form or another—<br />
regardless of the Court’s ruling.<br />
—Ja m e s Napoli, s e n i o r c o u n s e l<br />
a n d h e a l t h c a r e r e f o r m task f o r c e l e a d e r,<br />
Pr o s k a u e r Ro s e<br />
given that one must count the votes twice<br />
to understand what has happened.<br />
First, seven of the justices voted that the<br />
Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally<br />
“coercive” under South Dakota v. Dole. So,<br />
the first vote as to whether Congress has the<br />
power to require states to expand Medicaid<br />
was answered with a no; this is impermissibly<br />
coercive because the states have too<br />
much to lose if all of their Medicaid funds<br />
are at stake. This is the first time the Court<br />
has ruled that federal spending legislation is<br />
impermissibly coercive.<br />
But, the second question is whether<br />
that historic vote for impermissible coercion<br />
means the Medicaid expansion fails<br />
in its entirety. Here, five justices voted<br />
to uphold the expansion but strike the<br />
remedy (removal of all Medicaid funding),<br />
rather than strike the expansion from<br />
the statute. <strong>The</strong>se justices agreed that the<br />
I was surprised by the number of votes in<br />
favor of impermissible coercion, but I also<br />
would be surprised if many, if any, states opt<br />
out; they will have great pressure from both<br />
physicians and hospitals to get their poorest<br />
residents into Medicaid. Also, states that<br />
opt out of the Medicaid expansion would<br />
have to figure out how to fund the cost of<br />
the poorest uninsured, who often arrive<br />
in emergency departments with late-stage<br />
injuries and diseases and thus cost more to<br />
treat. Of course, if a number of states opt<br />
out, then states that have fully expanded<br />
Medicaid may see greater increases of their<br />
enrollment that ultimately could lead to<br />
political pressure to modify Medicaid eligibility<br />
in a different way (as we have seen at<br />
other points in Medicaid’s history).<br />
It is hard to say what the future implications<br />
of the reaffirmed coercion doctrine<br />
will be. <strong>The</strong> majority applied the coercion<br />
concept primarily through factual application<br />
rather than by expanding supporting<br />
theory (other than reiterating the “political<br />
accountability” notion from New York<br />
v. U.S.). Undoubtedly, more challenges to<br />
spending legislation will follow, but this<br />
disposition does not tell us much more<br />
about coercion than we knew before 10:15<br />
this morning.<br />
—Ni c o l e Hu b e r f e l d, Professor, Un i v e r s i t y<br />
o f Ke n t u c k y College o f La w, a n d<br />
b i o e t h i c s associate, Un i v e r s i t y o f<br />
Ke n t u c k y College o f Me d i c i n e<br />
(Washington); Michael Scarcella<br />
(Washington); Karen Sloan (New York);<br />
Zoe Tillman (Washington)<br />
Assistant Art Director Roberto Jimenez<br />
Photo Editor Diego M. Radzinschi<br />
Editorial Associate Tasha Norman<br />
Chief Copy Editor Peter Dolack<br />
Web Editor Richard Binder<br />
intern Rob Stigile<br />
Contributors June D. Bell, Emily Heller<br />
Associate Publisher kenneth gary<br />
Vice President/<strong>National</strong> Advertising Michael Medwig<br />
Marketing Consultants Roseann Agostino, Andrew<br />
Chernela, lisa corrigan, Ron Cummings,<br />
Barrie Harmelin, Marnie Maroney, Joe Pavone,<br />
Patty Martin<br />
<strong>Law</strong> Firm Account Managers JoAnn Cannon, Jennifer<br />
Jones, Nicole Kramer, Jai Wallace<br />
Classified Advertising Manager Leonie Christie<br />
Public Notice Advertising<br />
LaToya Barbour (Washington)<br />
production manager Samuel Wong<br />
production coordinators Evelyn Fernandez<br />
editorial (212) 457-9400<br />
advertising (212) 457-9490<br />
circulation (877) ALM-CIRC<br />
reprints (877) 257-3382<br />
President & CEO Bill Carter<br />
Senior Vice President/Chief Legal Officer<br />
Allison C. Hoffman<br />
istockphoto/KeithBishop<br />
Medicaid expansion<br />
Today, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.<br />
truly wore King Solomon’s crown. He<br />
managed to split the issue with regard to<br />
both the “individual mandate” requiring all<br />
<strong>American</strong>s to have health insurance coverage<br />
by 2014 as well as the expansion of<br />
Medicaid making all <strong>American</strong>s up to 133<br />
percent of the federal poverty level eligible<br />
for Medicaid coverage. <strong>The</strong> Medicaid aspect<br />
of the decision is particularly confusing,<br />
proper response was to sever the Medicaid<br />
expansion so that if a state does not comply<br />
with the expansion of Medicaid eligibility,<br />
the state cannot lose all Medicaid<br />
funding. Instead, it will only lose the funding<br />
attached to the expansion but will continue<br />
to receive existing Medicaid funding.<br />
Four justices would have invalidated the<br />
entire Medicaid expansion. <strong>The</strong> ultimate<br />
result is that the Medicaid expansion was<br />
upheld, but states may opt out of it without<br />
jeopardizing all of their Medicaid funding<br />
under 42 U.S.C. 1396c.<br />
Nor does the Court vindicate its constitutional<br />
sleight of hand by rewriting the<br />
Medicaid expansion to tie only new federal<br />
funding to an acceptance of burdensome<br />
and fundamentally transformative<br />
regulations. While correct on its face—and<br />
a good exposition of the spending power<br />
and what strings the federal government<br />
can attach to its funds—that analysis is relevant<br />
to a hypothetical statute, not the one<br />
that Congress actually passed. Moreover,<br />
allowing states to opt out of the new<br />
Medicaid regime while leaving the rest<br />
of Obamacare in place throws the insurance<br />
market into disarray, increases costs<br />
to individuals, and gives states a different<br />
Hobson’s choice—different but no less<br />
tragic than the one it previously faced. As<br />
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in dissent,<br />
while purporting to apply judicial modesty<br />
or restraint, the Court’s rewriting of the<br />
law is anything but restrained or modest.<br />
—Il y a Sh a p i r o<br />
Senior Vice President/Marketing Lenny Izzo<br />
Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer<br />
Eric F. Lundberg<br />
Senior Vice President/Information & Research Solutions<br />
Kevin H. Michielsen<br />
Senior Vice President/Legal <strong>Media</strong> Kevin J. Vermeulen<br />
Senior Vice President/Chief Technology Officer<br />
Jeffrey K. Whittle<br />
Vice President/Real Estate <strong>Media</strong> Michael Desiato<br />
Vice President/Regional <strong>Business</strong>es Stephen Lincoln<br />
Vice President/Editor in Chief Aric Press<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> is published by ALM <strong>Media</strong>,<br />
LLC. Copyright © <strong>2012</strong> by ALM <strong>Media</strong> Properties,<br />
LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion<br />
of this issue is allowed without written permission<br />
from the publisher.<br />
ALM <strong>Media</strong>, LLC, 120 Broadway , 5th fl., New York,<br />
NY 10271 (212) 457-9400 (Corporate)<br />
4 Metrotech, 21st fl., Brooklyn, NY 11201-3815<br />
(877) 256-2472 (Subscriptions)
32 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, <strong>2012</strong><br />
Worked 12 Hours,<br />
and Only Billed for 5?<br />
Track down your billable time fast!<br />
Introducing the new version of PC<strong>Law</strong> ® .<br />
CALL<br />
888.432.9876<br />
to request a demo,<br />
and be entered for<br />
a chance to<br />
WIN A NEW<br />
Where your time goes shouldn’t be a mystery.<br />
Meeting with clients, making phone calls, sending emails,<br />
drafting documents … it’s easy to lose track of potential billable<br />
time at the end of a long day. Now you can solve the billable<br />
hours mystery and see exactly where your time is spent with<br />
the new Time Entry Advisor only available in PC<strong>Law</strong> ® billing and<br />
accounting software from LexisNexis ® .<br />
APPLE ® iPAD ®* PC<strong>Law</strong> ®<br />
888.432.9876<br />
Visit www.CaptureMoreTime.com<br />
* NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. Limited to legal residents of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia, 18 years of age or older, and who do not currently<br />
have any version of PC<strong>Law</strong> ® installed in their firm. To be eligible for the gift offer, you must register for and attend a live PC<strong>Law</strong> ® product demonstration between<br />
<strong>July</strong> 2, <strong>2012</strong>, and September 7, <strong>2012</strong>. Only one gift per person valued at $499, while supplies last. Other restrictions may apply.<br />
Void where prohibited. For a copy of official rules, visit www.lexisnexis.com/capturemoretime/prizerules.pdf.<br />
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. PC<strong>Law</strong> is a registered trademark of LexisNexis Practice Management Systems Inc.<br />
© <strong>2012</strong> LexisNexis. All rights reserved. LFPM061912-0