The National Law Journal - July 2, 2012 - American Business Media

july 2, 2012
this week
NLJ.COM
Check out exclusive
daily news coverage,
blogs, videos and more
at our Web site.
John Roberts: The
chief justice’s decision
may have kept the
Court from becoming a
major political issue in
this year’s election.
Tough Medicine
The health care decision may have been controversial, but it could push the Supreme Court out of the political spotlight.
By Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro
the label, a conservative chief justice
the health care decision
With its landmark decisions on health
care and immigration, the Roberts Court
extricated itself from one of the most
politically charged terms in decades.
Some commentators called the health
care ruling, in particular, “a defining
moment,” a “moment of truth” and a
“step back from the brink.” Whatever
and his more liberal colleagues moved
toward each other in surprising ways
that kept the Court from becoming a
major political issue from now until the
November election.
“It was a moment in which the Court
was potentially in jeopardy, and that was
See ANALYSIS, Page 4
Justice Scalia is taking increasing heat for his
biting remarks from the bench. PAGE 5
The big winners after the decision may be
health care lawyers. PAGE 8
The health care case was just one of a series
of blockbuster decisions this term. PAGE 9
For even more coverage of the Supreme Court
and the health care opinion, visit NLJ.com.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Worked 12 Hours,and Only Billed for 5?
Track down your billable time fast! Introducing the new version of PCLaw ® .
Now you can solve the billable hours mystery and see exactly where
your time is spent with the new Time Entry Advisor only available in
PCLaw ® billing and accounting software from LexisNexis ® .
PCLaw ®
888.432.9876
Visit www.CaptureMoreTime.com
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under
license. PCLaw is a registered trademark of LexisNexis Practice Management Systems Inc. © 2012 LexisNexis. All rights
reserved. LFPM061912-0

2 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
contents
Volume 34, Number 44
the health care decision
1 The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the health care case may have
been controversial, but it could remove the Court from the political spotlight.
In that case, a stunning victory for the Obama administration, the
Court upheld the centerpiece of the nation’s new health care law—the individual
mandate to buy insurance—as a constitutional exercise of Congress’
taxing authority. Plus, a spotlight on Chief Justice John Roberts’ role; Solicitor
General Donald Verrilli’s vindication; memorable quotes from the decision
and the term; and what the decision will mean for health care practitioners
who must counsel companies on implementing the law.
In-House counsel
12 Vincent Maffeo serves as general counsel for Scientific Applications
International Corp.
the practice
14 Gregory Joseph discusses recent federal court rulings concerning
experts, privilege and civil procedure.
opinion
30 A sampling of instant reactions by practitioners to the health care
ruling.
FROM WASHINGTON: Proposal to give D.C. Bar board
more control over budget for disciplinary arm draws fire.
Legal Services Corp. may face more budget cuts. page 15
also in this issue
in brief 3 Verdicts & Settlements 11 Movers 13
inadmissible 16 Classified 28
How to reach the national law journal
120 Broadway, 5th Floor • New York, NY 10271 • (212) 457-9400
The National Law Journal (ISSN 2163-8756) is published weekly, except the last week
of the year, by ALM Media Properties, LLC, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271.
Annual subscription rate is $485: outside U.S. $600. For subscription inquiries call
1-877-256-2472 or write to The National Law Journal, Customer Service, PO Box 70162
Philadelphia, PA 19176-9628. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY and additional
mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The National Law Journal, ALM
Customer Service, 4 Metrotech, 21st floor, Brooklyn NY 11201.
Brett Robson/Global Photographics
voir dire
One Direction, U.K.
Omnidirectional
One Direction, USA
There is more than one One Direction. There’s the English
boy band that won The X Factor in 2010, but there also is
an American punk quintet who claim they’ve been calling
themselves One Direction since 2009. And they’re suing.
The U.S. band filed suit against One Direction U.K.
this spring, claiming trademark violation. They cited the
iTunes release of their debut album in February 2011,
several months before the U.K. group released their own
debut in the United States. The U.S. band is claiming
their rivals’ profits because of the “substantial confusion”
caused by the name. They pointed to NBC News footage
in which images of the U.K. band were accompanied by
the U.S. band’s music. Now, according to the Daily Mail,
they also have filed suit against Sony Music Holdings Inc.
and Simon Cowell’s record label for $1 million.
Cowell has countersued, claiming the U.S. band “is
guilty of fraud, oppression or malice” and seeking actual
and punitive damages. —Ri c h a r d Bi n d e r
Blotted out The depiction of Jerry Sandusky on
a well-known mural across the street from the
Pennsylvania State University campus has been replaced
by an image of Dora McQuaid, a graduate who is a poet
and an advocate for domestic and sexual violence victims.
Sandusky was removed from the mural days following
his arrest in November. —Associated Pr e s s
Plunder An Ohio federal judge must reconsider
whether the government must share $250,000 in buried
treasure with the victims of convicted fraudster A.
William Erpenbeck Jr. As the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted,
the case has “a fact pattern befitting a
John Grisham novel.” After Erpenbeck’s
arrest, a friend of his buried the money
in a cooler near the third hole green of
a Cincinnati-area golf course. FBI agents
found the loot, and the government and
Erpenbeck’s bankruptcy trustee have been arguing over
the money. The trial judge sided with the government, but
the appeal court ruled that the trustee received inadequate
notice of the forfeiture claim. Erpenbeck defrauded home
buyers and banks of $34 million. —Sh e r i Qu a l t e r s
I would walk on my hands or do
somersaults.
Jeffrey Lindy, lawyer for Monsignor William
Lynn, explaining what he would do should
Lynn flee his proposed house arrest. Lynn is
the first Roman Catholic Church official who
did not personally molest a child to be convicted
of a related crime (child endangerment).
Juror Combat Pay After a fight between jurors that
had to be broken up by sheriff’s deputies, a Georgia jury
awarded $800,000 to a teacher whose SUV was hit by a
dump truck running a stop sign. The panel was so close
to a verdict that members had canceled lunch. Suddenly,
two sheriff’s deputies ran to the jury room, according to
plaintiffs attorneys Jonathan Hayes and Curtis Anderson.
The latter heard “significant yelling and screaming.” The
dispute concerned the amount of the award; all but one
juror wanted to give more money. —Da i l y Re p o r t
istockphoto/Blue_Cutler
Find Out How Peers In Your
Region Responded in the
2012 Annual Compensation
Survey for Paralegals/Legal
Assistants & Managers
This annual survey is an essential tool for paralegal management—providing
the information you need to attract, motivate and retain the most talented staff.
Purchase the Survey now to find out how compensation packages compare for
10 distinct paralegal positions.
[ ]
“ The Survey is an invaluable resource. I rely on the data provided to
analyze and assess our internal salary bands, and prepare compensation
grids based on staff levels and years of experience, among several other
applications. I make sure to purchase this survey every year because it
offers the most detailed source of data.”
– Carolyn Hilgers, Director of Paralegal Services, King & Spalding
Purchase Today!
http://bit.ly/ParalegalCompSurveyInfo

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 3
istockphoto/acilo
in brief
Big win for EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia on
June 26 upheld regulations
limiting the emission of greenhouse
gases, concluding that
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s interpretation
of the Clean Air Act is “unambiguously
correct.” Industry
groups and states had sued to
block EPA rules limiting emissions
of six greenhouse gases.
Jump in securities actions
Securities class action filings
involving accounting fraud
allegations jumped during
2011, following one of the
steepest declines in recent
years, according to a report
by Cornerstone Research. The
increase in number—to 70
cases, from 46 during 2010—
was accompanied by a jump in
the percentage of such cases to
37 percent, from 26 percent in
2010. Cornerstone attributed
the boost to a rise in Chinese
reverse-merger filings, many of
which have resulted in financial
restatements.
Dewey partners dunned
Former Dewey & LeBoeuf
partners report that Citibank
N.A. and Barclays Bank PLC
have demanded repayment of
loans they took out to fulfill
their capital-contribution
obligations. Citibank has gone
as far as to initiate legal action
against at least one former partner,
Steven Otillar of Houston,
seeking nearly $210,000.
The National Law Journal is accepting nominations for our 2012 Hill
Hot List. We will highlight lawyers who make their living on Capitol Hill.
This includes counsel and other staffers with law degrees who work for
members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff
David R. Tribble
HILL hot list
Law school transfer
By this time next year, Texas
Wesleyan University School of
Law could have a new name:
Texas A&M University School
of Law at Texas Wesleyan
University. The schools have
signed a letter of intent to
transfer the law school to the
public institution for $25 million.
A&M System Chancellor
John Sharp said the acquisition
“rounds out” the A&M
system’s professional schools.
City heads for Chapter 9
The City Council of
Stockton, Calif., filed for
–from staff and alm reports
Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection
on June 28 after large
budget cuts failed to ease a $26
million deficit. It would be the
largest city in the country to
file for bankruptcy, but not the
first in California to take that
path—Vallejo filed in 2008 and
only recently emerged from
restructuring.
Law prof fights firing
A former tenured professor
at Nova Southeastern
University Shepard Broad Law
Center is fighting to get his job
back after university administrators
fired him amid concerns
that he might bring a gun to
campus. Anthony Chase has
been battling with the school
in federal court since June 7,
2011, when he filed suit alleging
breach of contract and violations
of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. He denied that
he owned a gun.
agencies—though we are not looking for lobbyists. We want to hear
about important legal matters these lawyers worked on during the past
year. The deadline is July 13. For more details, please go to NLJ.com.
NLJ.COM
Print subscribers get full access to
all of our online coverage and can
sign up for our twice-daily e-mail
news alerts. Online right now at
nlj.com:
Richard Hark of Hark & Hark
writes that the U.S. Supreme
Court’s ruling on GPS tracking
devices may have limited impact
because most Americans already
carry tracking devices—their
cellphones—and amendments to
the Stored Communications Act
gave the government unfettered
access to cellphone records.
CORRECTIONS: In “DOJ’s clash over
conduct” in the June 25 edition,
the last name of a lawyer
in the D.C. Office of the
Public Defender was misspelled.
The correct name is Anna
Rodriques. In “D.C. Moves” in
that edition, Michael Maricco,
who has joined Groom Law
Group as of counsel, was incorrectly
described as a member
of the corporate and securities
group. The firm does not
include such a group.
THE How To GuidE
for
legal Market
intelligence
The ALM Legal Intelligence Database connects you to the most trusted source of market data and
business intelligence in the legal industry—harness our network of competitive, career and customer
information to achieve your business goals.
S TEp
1
Clarify your market
position with more
than 50 Surveys, Lists
& Rankings annually
S TEp
2
Cut into the largest
300+ global law
firms with Law Firm
Reports
S TEp
3
Compare and
contrast data points
with the robust
search tool
get started today: request a deMo
almlegalintel.com | almlegalintel@alm.com | 888-770-5647

4 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
the health care decision
To an unusual degree this term,
Supreme Court justices made comments
in decisions and oral arguments
that were politically charged
or at least related to outside political
events. Some examples:
This aggressive use of power
by the SEIU to collect fees from
nonmembers is indefensible.
—Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
in Knox v. Service Employees
International Union, June 21.
The President said at a news conference
that the new program is ‘the
right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s
failure to pass the Administration’s
proposed revision of the Immigration
Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona
may not think so. But to say, as the
Court does, that Arizona contradicts
federal law by enforcing applications
of the Immigration Act that the
President declines to enforce boggles
the mind.
—Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent in
Arizona v. U.S., June 25.
It seems to me that the Federal
government just doesn’t want to
know who is here illegally or not.
—Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. during
oral arguments
in Arizona v. U.S., April 25.
Montana’s experience, and experience
elsewhere since this Court’s
decision in Citizens United, make
it exceedingly difficult to maintain
that independent expenditures by
corporations ‘do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption.’
A petition for certiorari will
give the Court an opportunity to consider
whether, in light of the huge
sums currently deployed to buy candidates’
allegiance, Citizens United
should continue to hold sway.
—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined
by Justice Stephen Breyer, in Feb. 17
statement regarding then-pending
Montana case American Tradition
Partnership v. Bullock.
The consequence of your proposition,
‘would Congress have enacted
it without this provision,’…That
would mean that if we struck
down nothing in this legislation but
the—what you call the Cornhusker
kickback, okay, we find that to violate
the constitutional proscription
of venality, okay?
—Justice Scalia during oral argument
March 28 on the issue of severability in
the Affordable Care Act cases
Could you define the market—
everybody has to buy food sooner
or later, so you define the market as
food, therefore, everybody is in the
market; therefore, you can make
people buy broccoli?
—Justice Scalia during oral argument
March 27 on the individual-mandate
issue in the Affordable Care Act cases.
A move out of the political spotlight
ANALYSIS, from page 1
completely sidestepped,”
said Barry Friedman of New
York University School of
Law. “It turned the spotlight
away from the Court.
It could have been an enormous
issue in the presidential
campaign. One has to
believe [Chief Justice John
Roberts Jr.] did not want
that.”
A 5-4 majority, led by
Roberts, held that the individual
mandate to purchase
insurance was a valid exercise
of Congress’ taxing
power, but Roberts, in a different
5-4 majority, rejected
the argument that the individual
mandate was constitutional
on commerce clause
grounds.
David Strauss of the
University of Chicago Law
School called the health care
decision a “defining point
avoided” because of the
ramifications for the Court if the health
care decision had gone against President
Obama.
“If you look back a lot further than
the Obama administration, the last time
you saw the Supreme Court strike down
a federal law of this scale and importance
was in the 1930s, which led to the
confrontation with FDR,” he said. “The
chief justice knows all about that, and I
think he didn’t want to repeat that.
“He really went as far as he could in
saying bad stuff about the Affordable
Care Act but then, at the last minute so
to speak, voted to uphold it and avoided
that confrontation.”
A potential tsunami for the Supreme
Court was stirred by the potent combination
of a close presidential election
campaign, public cynicism about the
Court after Bush v. Gore and the Citizens
United campaign-finance decisions, and
public anxiety over a limping economy.
Whether this is a “defining moment”
that will be good for this time only, no
one knows. Next term is likely to be a
major test again of the justices’ ability to
find common ground as they face questions
involving race and gay rights.
Another ‘Marbury’?
For now, however, the health care
decision is one of those opinions that
ranks with Marbury v. Madison, said
Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University
School of Law. “Marshall seemingly
gave credit to all of the federalist ideas
and yet the bottom line was he found
common ground: Justice
Elena Kagan seems to have a
“happiness factor and comfort
level” with her conservative
colleagues, historian David
Garrow said.
the Court lacked the ability to hear the
case. Roberts took a page right out of
that handbook—he lionized, praised the
limits of federal power that conservatives
would applaud, and at the same
time, he said, ‘That’s not what Congress
relied upon and Congress wasn’t limited
to that.’ ”
Besides a John Roberts-John Marshall
parallel, historian David Garrow of the
University of Pittsburgh said he sees a
John Roberts-Owen Roberts connection
(Owen Roberts being the justice who
switched in 1936 to uphold New Deal
legislation in the “switch in time that
saved nine”).
“I think it’s hard to avoid concluding
that there was a political attraction for
“[T]he last time you saw the Supreme Court strike down a
federal law of this scale was in the 1930s.…The chief justice
knows all about that, and I think he didn’t want to repeat it.”
—David Strauss, University of Chicago Law school
John Roberts to avoid the appearance, if
not the reality, of a big interbranch confrontation,”
Garrow said.
Kmiec agreed, adding that the Court
came close to another Bush v. Gore. “In
essence, I think the Court prudently
recognized that by putting themselves at
the center of the debate, the president
would have been left with making an
argument against the Court and that
would have been unseemly,” Kmiec
said. “[Presidential candidate Mitt]
Romney is now left with the argument
he doesn’t like the policy.”
Although Roberts was the key to the
outcome in both the health care and
immigration decisions, Court scholars
and others noted that it was important
to recognize that justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan played
instrumental roles as well.
Breyer and Kagan joined Roberts’
holding that the Medicaid expansion in
the health care law unconstitutionally
coerced the states into participating in
the program.
This was particularly surprising
given Breyer and Kagan’s comments to
the states’ advocate, Paul Clement of
Bancroft, during arguments. Kagan said
at that time:
“So that really reduces to the question
of why is a big gift from the federal government
a matter of coercion? In other
words, the federal government is here
saying, we are giving you a boatload of
money. There are no—there’s no matching
funds requirement,
there are no extraneous
conditions attached to
it, it’s just a boatload of
federal money for you to
take and spend on poor
people’s health care. It
doesn’t sound coercive to
me, I have to tell you.”
There already were
five votes without
Breyer and Kagan to
find the expansion coercive.
Breyer and Kagan joined an opinion
that for the first time since 1936
found a problem with Congress’ exercise
of its spending power, said Neil Siegel of
Duke Law School.
“It seems like there is a desire on both
sides to forge a working coalition,” he
said.
“They are concerned not just about
their own view of the law but the
Court’s institutional position.”
Although many former clerks insist
there is no “horse-trading” among the
justices, there is a desire among some,
notably Breyer and perhaps Kagan, to
find play in the joints if others can find
it, too. “[Kagan] seems to have a happiness
factor and comfort level” with her
conservative colleagues, Garrow said.
See ANALYSIS, Page 5

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 5
the health care decision
ANALYSIS, from page 4
“Kagan is an important presence for
the long term—much more than a oneninth
presence.”
And although Ginsburg and Sotomayor
would have upheld the Medicaid
expansion in its entirety, they
joined Roberts, Breyer and Kagan in
Roberts’ remedy for the constitutional
violation—striking down the threat to
withhold existing Medicaid funds from
noncomplying states.
An Aggressive Kennedy
Besides Roberts’ decision upholding
the health care insurance mandate on
the grounds of Congress’ taxing authority,
the other major surprise to many
following the case was Justice Anthony
Kennedy, who joined a dissent that
would have struck down the entire law.
“I wasn’t shocked Kennedy decided
the mandate was unconstitutional,”
Chicago’s Strauss said. “It seems kind of
rash and imprudent to want the whole
law struck down.”
Kmiec, too, was surprised by Kennedy’s
aggressive position. “He was in
fact the voice of this type of institutional
protection in the past. He’s the
one Justice [John Paul] Stevens always
used to rely upon for cooler heads to
prevail. I think he was convinced the
commerce power here was so extraordinary
that he didn’t focus on the full
extent of the tax issue.”
Kennedy, however, did write the
5-3 decision in the Arizona immigration
challenge—the second politically
charged case of the term.
The decision pre-empted three core
provisions of Arizona’s anti-immigration
law but upheld the so-called “show
me your papers” requirement. Clearly
concerned about the latter provision,
Breyer and Sotomayor intensely questioned
Arizona’s lawyer—Clement—
about it during arguments. Breyer’s
questions led to answers by Clement
that Kennedy subsequently used to
uphold, but cautiously, that requirement.
Both Breyer and Sotomayor, along
with Roberts and Ginsburg, joined
Kennedy’s opinion—another sign of
movement from both sides, noted some
Court scholars.
a new era?
In the end, those scholars and others
seem to agree that it is difficult to
predict whether those two rulings and
Roberts’ role in them signals a new era
in the Roberts Court.
“It was a signal moment for the
Court and an incredibly important
decision, but I don’t think the ground
is shifting,” Friedman said. In fact, he
suggested, “What this decision does is
allow the Court to return to business as
usual next term” with 5-4 splits in big
cases.
Duke’s Siegel added, “Roberts and
several of the liberals have forged a
working coalition here. It’s not likely
you can say that’s going to happen
when they get to affirmative action or
the Defense of Marriage Act. Roberts is
a real conservative.”
Marcia Coyle can be contacted at
mcoyle@alm.com. Tony Mauro can be contacted
at tmauro@alm.com.
Scalia takes flak over sharp dissent
BY Tony Mauro
During a little-noticed oral argument
over Indian lands in April,
Justice Antonin Scalia did what
he often does with lawyers whose
positions he supports: He threw the
advocate a lifeline.
Scalia stated his helpful view and
told the lawyer, novice U.S. Supreme
Court advocate Matthew Nelson, “You
don’t disagree with that, do you?”
Nelson, a partner at Warner Norcross
& Judd in Grand Rapids, Mich., dutifully
replied, “We don’t disagree.”
Scalia’s quick retort: “You’re supposed
to say ‘Yes, sir, good.’ ”
It was a line meant to be humorous,
no doubt, and it earned Scalia
laughter from the audience—the kind
of response that routinely puts him at
the top of the list of funniest justices.
But to some in the Court chamber, it
came across as unusually flip.
Advocates and commentators
usually shrug off Scalia’s sometimes
barbed comments from the bench,
as well as his stinging dissents, in the
same way that retired Justice Sandra
Day O’Connor did when she would
say, “That’s just Nino.”
During this term, partly because of
the politically fraught cases the justices
faced, Scalia’s behavior has come in for
less forgiving scrutiny. His dissent on
June 25 in Arizona v. U.S. has brought
a wave of sharp public criticism.
In the dissent, Scalia criticized
President Obama’s new policy of lax
immigration enforcement against the
children of illegal aliens—a policy
not at issue in the case. “To say, as
the Court does, that Arizona contradicts
federal law by enforcing applications
of the Immigration Act that the
President declines to enforce boggles
the mind,” Scalia said. No other justice
joined him in the opinion, which
he ended with the words “I dissent,”
omitting the customary adjective
“respectfully.”
Liberal pundit E.J. Dionne called
for Scalia to resign in a Washington Post
column that went online on June 27.
“He’s turned ‘judicial restraint’ into an
oxymoronic phrase,” Dionne wrote.
Nan Aron, president of the liberal
Alliance for Justice, said in a Huffington
Post column that Scalia this term has
spouted “recitations of Rovian talking
points that more properly belong on
Fox & Friends than in the Supreme
Court of the United States.”
Even Judge Richard Posner of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, usually simpatico with Scalia’s
views, seemed unnerved by his outspokenness.
“It wouldn’t surprise me
if Justice Scalia’s opinion were quoted
in campaign ads,” Posner wrote in
Slate on June 27.
Scalia’s in-your-face tone in the
Antonin Scalia
Arizona dissent has been mirrored
at oral argument, prompting several
veteran high court advocates to criticize
his demeanor this term—though
none would speak on the record, for
fear of incurring his wrath.
Pointed comments
Much of that criticism was triggered
by Scalia’s pointed comments
during the six hours-plus of oral
argument in the health care cases in
late March. His comments about the
government forcing individuals to
buy broccoli and his reference to the
“Cornhusker kickback” that preceded
passage of the law have been criticized
as unusually political.
And then there was his odd reference,
during the debate over the
expansion of Medicaid, to an old Jack
Benny joke. Even after it fell flat, Scalia
persisted until he finally gave up and
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. cut off
the discussion with a school-marmish,
“That’s enough frivolity for a while.”
A recently published detailed study
of the oral arguments in the health
care cases found that Scalia spoke
more often than any other justice—
88 times—and directed 87 percent of
his “challenging” questions toward
the lawyers defending the health care
law. (Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s percentage
was higher, at 95 percent.)
“We find it ironic that Justice
Scalia’s biased questioning dominates
oral arguments, but yet he is one of
the strongest proponents of textual
objectivism,“ wrote authors Ryan
Malphurs and L. Hailey Drescher.
“Apparently his objectivism may not
apply to oral arguments.”
Since he joined the Court in 1986,
Scalia has relished his role as the
“happy warrior” of the conservative
wing, enjoying combat as much as
victory. His energetic approach to
arguments has transformed a oncequiet
bench into a free-for-all in
which justices interrupt advocates
and each other without apology.
For her 2009 biography of Scalia
entitled American Original, author
Joan Biskupic asked him about his
high-octane questioning. He said,
“Why does the argument have to
be dull, for God’s sake?” From that
answer, Biskupic observed that ”he
often could not hear himself as others
heard him.” Or, she suggested, “he
simply does not care.”
As the 76-year-old justice ages, that
latter explanation may be gaining
more traction. Aware that he won’t
be chief justice and won’t be viewed
by history as a coalition-builder, Scalia
may be content to toss firecrackers
and watch the sparks fly, hoping that
his dissents will someday prompt the
Court to change course.
“He’s just letting it hang out,” said
Lawrence Wrightsman, a University
of Kansas psychologist who wrote
The Psychology of the Supreme Court in
2006. “Everything is so adversarial
now, and he is letting the belligerent
aspect of his nature come out.”
Others see no significant change
in Scalia’s demeanor. “He’s always
been a tough questioner and a forceful
opinion writer,” said Kevin Walsh,
a University of Richmond School of
Law professor and 2003-04 law clerk
to Scalia. “The diet of cases this term
just presented a lot more opportunities
to clash.”
Conservative commentator Edward
Whelan, president of the Ethics and
Public Policy Center, said Scalia was
“making a legal argument” in his
Arizona dissent, responding to the
Obama administration’s assertion that
its immigration policy—even a policy
of nonenforcement—should trump
Arizona’s law.
As for Scalia’s temperament, Whelan,
who clerked for Scalia in 1985-86,
said, “He has a classic Latin temper.
He can get very upset and then blow
past it and be exuberant.”
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@alm.com.
diego m. radzinschi

6 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
the health care decision
The decision: a 5-4 vote for health care law
Court says individual mandate is constitutional exercise of taxing authority, tweaks Medicare requirement for states.
BY Marcia Coyle
In a stunning victory for the Obama
administration, the U.S. Supreme
Court on June 28 upheld the centerpiece
of the nation’s new health care
law—the so-called individual mandate to
buy insurance—as a constitutional exercise
of Congress’ taxing authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who
wrote the Court’s opinion, secured the
majority on the tax issue by joining with
his more liberal colleagues—justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Court also ruled that the Affordable
Care Act’s major expansion of the federalstate
Medicaid program unconstitutionally
coerced the states. The coercion was in
the federal government’s threat to withhold
all of its existing Medicaid funds to
states that failed to participate. But instead
of striking down the program expansion,
the court held only that the federal government
could not withhold those funds.
States now can decide whether to participate
in the expansion.
Four justices—Antonin Scalia, Anthony
Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Alito Jr.—would have struck
down the entire law.
Roberts opened the morning and final
session of the term before a packed courtroom.
Outside the building, a line of visitors
stretched from the front
plaza across the street to the
Library of Congress. A large
group of supporters and opponents
rallied on the sidewalk.
As the solicitor general of
the United States and the other
lawyers in that office sat at the
lawyers’ table directly below
the bench, Roberts began his
summary of the health care
decision by tackling what had
been the government’s primary
argument in defense of the
law: Congress’ authority under
the commerce clause.
“As expansive as our cases
construing the scope of the
commerce power have been,
they all have one thing in common:
They uniformly describe
the power as reaching ‘activity,’
” he wrote in his opinion.
“The individual mandate, however,
does not regulate existing
commercial activity. It instead
compels individuals to become active in
commerce by purchasing a product on
the ground that their failure to do so
affects interstate commerce.”
Roberts and his four conservative colleagues
rejected the government’s commerce
clause argument, saying it would
open a new and potentially vast domain
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: In her separate opinion, she called Chief
Justice Roberts’ commerce clause analysis “a stunning setback.”
to congressional authority. Roberts also
said the mandate could not be upheld
under the necessary-and-proper clause,
explaining that, even if the mandate
were necessary to achieve the insurance
reforms in the act, this expansion of federal
power was not a proper means for
making the reforms effective.
rick kopstein
Roberts then turned to the taxing-power
argument, writing that if a law has two
possible meanings, one of which violates
the Constitution, courts should adopt the
one that does not. He said the penalty
for not purchasing minimum insurance
functioned as a tax: It is collected by the
Internal Revenue Service; there is no
punitive sanction, such as criminal punishment;
and it will raise revenue.
“The…requirement that certain individuals
pay a financial penalty for not
obtaining health insurance may reasonably
be characterized as a tax,” Roberts
wrote. “Because the Constitution permits
such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or
to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
The majority’s reliance on the taxing
power was somewhat surprising, because
the government as well as numerous
legal scholars and commentators across
the political spectrum had focused most
of their arguments on whether the individual
mandate was a valid exercise of
Congress’ commerce clause power. The
government, however, did argue forcefully
in the Supreme Court that the taxing
power was another valid basis for the law.
On the Medicaid issue, Roberts wrote
that the financial inducement that
Congress chose to get states to participate
is “a gun to the head.” He said the threatened
loss of more than 10 percent of a
See HEALTH CARE DECISION, Page 7
Key passages from the opinions
Notable quotations from the justices’ opinions in the
Supreme Court case upholding the Affordable Care Act.
Majority opinion by John Roberts Jr.
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty
for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the
Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or
fairness.
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither
the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted
to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with
them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not
to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what
Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but
choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
Concurring and dissenting opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg
In the Social Security Act, Congress installed a federal system to provide monthly benefits
to retired wage earners and, eventually, to their survivors. Beyond question, Congress could
have adopted a similar scheme for health care. Congress chose, instead, to preserve a central
role for private insurers and state governments. According to the Chief Justice the Commerce
Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense
and is stunningly retrogressive.
Whatever one thinks of the policy decision Congress made, it was Congress’ prerogative to
make it. Reviewed with appropriate deference, the minimum coverage provision, allied to the
guaranteed-issue and community-rating prescrip tions, should survive measurement under the
Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.
[T]he Chief Justice’s limitation of the commerce power to the regulation of those actively
en gaged in commerce finds no home in the text of the Constitution or our decisions.
Dissenting opinion by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr.
The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health
insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act
are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been
enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.
Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to
tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private
conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs. That clear
principle carries the day here.
We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an
earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty.…
Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the
power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 7
the health care decision
HEALTH CARE DECISION, from page 6
state’s overall budget is “economic dragooning
that leaves the states with no real
option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid
expansion.”
When Roberts finished his summary,
Kennedy read a summary of the joint
dissent. The act, he said, exceeds federal
power both in mandating the purchase
of insurance and in denying nonconsenting
states all Medicaid funding. Because
those parts are central to the act, he said,
it followed that all of the act must fall.
Kennedy said the Court had abandoned
judicial modesty and engaged in “judicial
overreaching.”
Ginsburg wrote separately and also
summarized her opinion, saying she would
have upheld the mandate on commerce
clause grounds and the Medicaid expansion
exactly as Congress enacted it. She
called Roberts’ commerce clause analysis
“a stunning setback” that should not have
staying power. And the Medicaid expansion,
she said, is funded almost entirely
by the federal government, “hardly something
that states can complain about.”
“In the end, the Affordable Care Act
survives largely unscathed, but the court’s
commerce clause and spending clause
jurisprudence has been set awry,” said
Ginsburg, adding that she expects the setbacks
to be “temporary blips, not permanent
obstruction.”
Reaction to the decision flew from
across the political and ideological spectrum.
“Today’s decision validates our claim
that a congressional power to compel
that all Americans engage in commerce
was a constitutional bridge too far,” said
Professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown
University Law Center, one of the legal
architects of the activity/inactivity argument
accepted by Roberts. “By rewriting
the law to make it a ‘tax,’ the court has
now thrown ObamaCare into the political
process where the People will decide
whether this so-called ‘tax’ will stand.”
His frequent health care sparring partner,
Walter Dellinger of O’Melveny &
Myers, said the decision was a “modest
incursion” on congressional power. “What
is breathtaking is how sweeping the
restrictions would be if the four justices
in the dissent had prevailed. The Court is
just one vote away from severe limits on
the authority of Congress.”
The justices’ ruling ended—at least for
now—a remarkable and riveting period of
public focus and debate on not only the
health care law, but also on the role of the
Supreme Court, the power of Congress
vis-à-vis the states, the scope of the
Constitution, and the decision’s potential
political fallout on the presidential election.
The lead-up to the arguments drew an
outpouring of more than 100 amicus briefs
from a broad range of ideological, historical,
medical, business and civil rights organizations.
A battle also ignited over the
participation in the case by Thomas and
Kagan. Groups on the left sought Thomas’
recusal because his wife had lobbied against
passage of the health care law for an organization
that she had headed. Conservative
groups called for Kagan to step aside
because, they charged, she had worked on
the government’s case when she served as
solicitor general. In the end, nothing came
of the recusal movement as both justices
took their seats on argument day.
Contact Marcia Coyle at mcoyle@alm.com.
By Tony Mauro
Roberts shuffles the deck
He managed to stay true to his conservative roots while upholding the health care law.
John Roberts
Before John Roberts Jr. became
chief justice, he was known as
one of the most nimble oral
advocates to argue before the U.S.
Supreme Court. To prepare for his cases,
he would write hundreds of potential
questions on index cards, and then
shuffle them so he could be ready to
answer them in any order.
On June 28, the final day of his sixth
term as chief justice, Roberts showed
he has carried that skill of shuffling the
deck with him. In leading the majority
ruling on the landmark Affordable Care
Act cases, Roberts managed to stay true
to his conservative roots while still, at
the end of the day, crafting a majority
that upheld the law that conservatives
so roundly hate.
In so doing, he may have pulled off
what once seemed impossible: a 5-4 ruling
against the individual mandate on
commerce clause grounds, while keeping
the Court—and his legacy—unsullied by
charges of elbowing Congress aside or
deciding the case on the basis of political
or policy preference. In Arizona v. U.S.
on June 25, Roberts was also the crucial
vote in a key immigration case that
struck down all but one provision of an
Arizona law embraced by conservatives.
In the health care cases, Roberts
was able to attack the health insurance
requirement as something that would
“vastly expand power,” and he described
the Medicaid deal offered to states as a
coercive “gun to the head.” Six other
justices joined him striking down the
Medicaid expansion. But Roberts could
also profess judicial modesty, leaving in
place a law that Congress passed, but
one he clearly dislikes.
These conflicting themes may not
have been easy to mesh together for a
divided Court. Justices Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito Jr.
and Clarence Thomas, usually Roberts’
allies, joined in a dissent that bears some
marks of having once been a majority.
For one thing, it was called a “joint
dissent” with four authors—whereas a
dissent usually takes the form of being
authored by one justice and joined by
the others.
“I wonder if it once was 5-4 the other
way, but somewhere along the way,
the conservatives lost Roberts,” said
Fordham University School of Law professor
Abner Greene. If Roberts made
that switch, he may have had the
Court’s legacy in mind. “He was clearly
aware of his place in history,” Greene
said. “Striking down the entire law could
have been a black mark on this Court.”
stephane de sakutin/afp/getty images
“One can only speculate about
Roberts’ motives for proceeding as he
did,” said Brookings Institution scholar
William Galston. “It is certainly possible
that, like Chief Justice Charles
Evans Hughes in the mid-1930s, he had
one eye focused on jurisprudence and
another on the standing of the institution
he heads. This may be another
‘switch in time’ that saved the Court
from becoming embroiled in a fullfledged
confrontation with the executive
and legislative branches.”
Roberts’ opinion reflects that sense
of history. “Members of this Court are
vested with the authority to interpret
the law; we possess neither the expertise
nor the prerogative to make policy
judgments,” Roberts wrote. “Those decisions
are entrusted to our Nation’s elected
leaders, who can be thrown out of
office if the people disagree with them.
It is not our job to protect the people
from the consequences of their political
choices.”
Roberts also wrote, “Resolving this
controversy requires us to examine both
the limits of the government’s power,
and our own limited role in policing
those boundaries.”
Critics of the Affordable Care Act
were disappointed with Roberts. The
Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro said he was
“shocked and appalled that he would
illegitimately rewrite the law—twice,
making the mandate a tax and changing
the terms of the Medicaid expansion—in
order to save it. He judicially
enacted a law much different than the
one Congress passed.” Shapiro added,
“I wonder if Michael Luttig would’ve
done differently had he been George W.
Bush’s choice instead of John Roberts.”
But liberal commentators who are
unaccustomed to applauding Roberts
were positive on June 28, some of them
framing it wishfully as a new chapter
in his chief justiceship. “Today, it really
became the Roberts Court,” said Erwin
Chemerinsky, dean of the University of
California, Irvine School of Law. “Chief
Justice Roberts joined with the liberal
justices to uphold the individual mandate.
In his seven years on the Court,
rarely has he done so when the Court
has been ideologically divided.”
“It was an act not only of judicial
statesmanship but judicial creativity and
in keeping with his hero, John Marshall,
who engaged in legal twistification,”
said George Washington University Law
School professor Jeffrey Rosen. “He is
clearly differentiating himself from his
conservative colleagues.”
But Rosen cautioned not to expect a
total transformation from Roberts. “This
is by no means an end to 5-4 decisions;
in some ways it will increase his ability
to preside over polarized decisions such
as next term in affirmative action, and
voting rights.”
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@alm.com.

8 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
the health care decision
Who wins? Health care lawyers, that’s who
Lawyers say they expect an uptick in demand for their services as clients assess the impact of the health care law.
By Jenna Greene
Count health care lawyers among
the winners in the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision upholding the
Affordable Care Act.
Lawyers say they expect an uptick in
demand for their services as clients that
took a wait-and-see approach to compliance
must now forge ahead to meet key
deadlines in 2014.
“What health care lawyers across the
country are now confronting is getting it
done, and implementing those portions
of the law that implicate [client] businesses,”
said SNR Denton health care
partner Bruce Fried. “The potential for
chaos had the Court ruled otherwise has
obviously been resolved.”
Of course, if the Court had struck down
the law, lawyers would also have seen
demand for their services soar. Stephen
Bernstein, who heads McDermott Will &
Emery’s health industry advisory practice
group, said that either outcome “would
have equally created work”—albeit of a
different variety.
One major area where businesses
are now likely to seek assistance is in
implementing the employer mandate.
By 2014, businesses with 50 or more
employees must offer “affordable” minimum
health insurance coverage or pay
a penalty. Deciding which is the better
course of action is not an easy call,
said Jennifer Kraft, a partner at Seyfarth
Shaw who penned an amicus brief in the
case on behalf of the National Restaurant
Association complaining of the burdens
that the law places on employers.
“There are a number of employers who
were waiting to see if they really needed
to get into the weeds on this,” she said.
“It’s in their best interest now to move
ahead with the analysis.” Because the
requirement is entirely new, companies
“are looking to us for how to interpret
the guidance” and help them make goodfaith
decisions, she said.
Insurance carriers face new considerations
as well, said Cindy Gillespie,
who leads the health care policy team
at McKenna Long & Aldridge—namely
whether to move into the health insurance
exchange market. States, too, face choices
about their involvement in exchanges—
new entities which will offer a choice of
plans and are intended to create a more
competitive market for insurance.
“On a practical level, industry has to
make some decisions,” Gillespie said, noting
that while many have done analysis
and background research, they “now
have to move to the decision point.…
Businesses need to ramp up.”
Another area where health care providers
may now be more inclined to act
is in forming accountable care organizations—collaborative
networks of doctors,
hospitals and other providers, said Arent
Jennifer kraft: Many employers have been taking
a wait-and-see approach to the law, she said.
Fox partner Jill Steinberg. “There’s more
certainty now, so they may consider it”
more seriously.
To Stephen Weiner, who chairs the
health law practice at Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, the greater
sense of certainty that the ruling provides
is crucial for all industry participants.
The high court’s decision “alleviates an
incredible amount of anxiety…that had
left the system in a total state of uncertainty,”
he said. “Fundamentally, for
people in the field who are not political
ideologues, it’s a relief to be able to move
forward understanding what the ground
rules will be.”
Perhaps the biggest sighs of relief
came from the biotechnology industry.
Tucked in the 2,600-page health care
law is a provision that created a regulatory
pathway to make generic versions of
high-tech biologic drugs—products that
account for $40 billion in sales a year.
Had the Court thrown out the health
care law in its entirety, it would have also
voided “a very carefully negotiated, painstaking
compromise,” said Zuckerman
Spaeder partner Carlos Angulo, and renegotiating
it would have been no simple
matter. “There are a lot of relieved people
out there,” he said.
Still, lawyers caution that the Supreme
Court may not have the final word on
health care.
“This is not the end of it,” said Venable
partner Ted Ramirez, chairman of the
firm’s health care public policy group. “It’s
almost a repoliticization of the process.”
The presidential election in November
and the 113th Congress next year “may
trigger a whole new scenario,” he said.
In the meantime, “the Court has spoken,”
he said. “We simply have to help our
clients cope and identify opportunities.”
Jenna Greene can be contacted at
jgreene@alm.com.
How they fared
For many on both sides of the intense debate over health care reform, the
stakes were high when the Supreme Court ruled June 28 on the constitutionality
of the Affordable Care Act. Here is how it worked out for six key players.
diego m. radzinschi
diego m. radzinschi
Randy Barnett: Georgetown professor
Randy Barnett moved the commerce clause
argument against the individual mandate from
the fringe to the mainstream, and it convinced
a high court majority, even though the mandate
survived on other grounds.
Paul Clement: The former solicitor general
set a modern-day private-practice record of
arguing nine times in the term just ended. But
in the case that will make the history books, he
mostly lost—though not by much. And his success
in defeating Medicaid expansion may spell
trouble for other federal spending laws.
diego m. radzinschi mark makela/zumapress.com
Mitt Romney: Political pundits say that by
upholding the individual mandate, the Court
gave the GOP presidential candidate the gift
of a winning issue against Obama. But the gift
may be a mixed blessing, because he embraced
the concept as governor of Massachusetts.
Donald Verrilli: Pundits called his oral
argument in defense of the law a “train
wreck,” but the train made it to the finish line
victorious. The win, plus his victory on June 25
in the Arizona immigration case, gave Verrilli
extra cause to celebrate on his 55th birthday
June 29.
marice cohn/miami herald/
mct/zumapress.com
President Barack Obama: Early (and
incorrect) reports of defeat were a nasty shock,
but then Obama reveled in the victory. For the
first time since the law passed in 2010, he was
able to explain the law to the public without
the cloud of reversal hanging over him.
diego m. radzinschi
Walter Dellinger: Like Barnett on the
other side, O’Melveny & Myers’ Dellinger generated
ideas and optimism that kept his side
going; unlike Barnett, Dellinger’s side won. The
former acting SG correctly predicted early on
that the tax argument might be a winner.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 9
The term’s top cases
Health care stole the spotlight, but the Court’s latest term was bursting with big cases.
What follows is a rundown of how the justices decided 10 top cases of the term.
the health care decision
Case: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Result: 5-4
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan John Roberts Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito
The Court largely upheld the Obama administration’s signature health care reform
law, a big win for the White House and Democrats in Congress. Chief Justice John
Roberts Jr. delivered the key vote upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act’s key provision, the so-called individual mandate, which requires Americans
to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. “Upholding the individual mandate
under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines
that Congress has used an existing one,” Roberts wrote for the majority.
Case: Arizona v. U.S. Result: 5-3*
*Kagan recused. Result refers to the five justices who voted for pre-emption of three provisions of the Arizona law.
*Alito joined the majority on the pre-emption of one provision.
In a decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court found that federal
law pre-empts most provisions of Arizona’s anti-immigration law—with one key
exception. The Court unanimously upheld a controversial provision requiring police
checks of immigration status. Kennedy said the provisions that were struck down
either conflicted with federal law or Congress had “occupied the field” with federal
regulation. The immigration-checks provision, Kennedy said, raises concerns about
prolonged detention, but does not immediately conflict with federal law.
Case: Miller v. Alabama Result: 5-4
A 5-4 majority, led by Justice Elena Kagan, said the Eighth Amendment prohibits
a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for juvenile murderers.
Kagan asserted that juveniles’ “lesser culpability” makes it unconstitutional for
them to be sentenced under a scheme that does not give the judge the ability to
consider factors such as the defendant’s age, maturity and upbringing in determining
the sentence. “Youth matters,” Kagan said from the bench.
Case: Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper Result: 5-4
The Court extended Sixth Amendment protections to the plea bargain process
and said defendants can sue their lawyers for ineffective assistance if they mishandle
plea offers. “Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas,
not trials,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. Because of the modernday
importance of plea bargains, Kennedy said, defense lawyers have significant
responsibilities “that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that
the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages.”
Case: U.S. v. Alvarez Result: 6-3
On First Amendment grounds, the justices overturned a federal law—the Stolen
Valor Act—that made it a crime to lie about having earned a military honor. Justice
Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said “when content-based speech regulation
is in question…exacting scrutiny is required. Statutes suppressing or restricting
speech must be judged by the sometimes inconvenient principles of the First
Amendment. By this measure, the statutory provisions under which respondent was
convicted must be held invalid, and his conviction must be set aside.”
Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC Result: 9-0
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion in this unanimous decision, which
found that the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” bars employment discrimination
lawsuits when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the
group’s ministers. “When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that
her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for
us,” Roberts wrote. “The church must be free to choose who will guide it on its way.”
Case: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders Result: 5-4
The Court ruled that strip searches do not violate the privacy rights of individuals
arrested for minor offenses. “In addressing this type of constitutional
claim, courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record
contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified
response to problems of jail security,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the
majority. Kennedy maintained a majority only through the concurring votes of two
justices who wrote separately to emphasize the limits of the holding.
Case: Maples v. Thomas Result: 7-2
Case: U.S. v. Jones Result: 9-0
The Court ruled that an Alabama death row inmate should not be penalized for
missing a crucial appeal deadline when the error was caused by his pro bono lawyers
from Sullivan & Cromwell. “Abandoned by counsel, Maples was left unrepresented at
a critical time for his state post-conviction petition, and he lacked a clue of any need to
protect himself pro se,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. “In these
circumstances, no just system would lay the default at Maples’ death-cell door.”
Moving cautiously in an era of rapidly changing technology, the Court ruled that
law enforcement’s warrantless installation and use of a GPS device to track a suspect’s
vehicle violated privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. Justice
Antonin Scalia wrote for the unanimous Court: “We have no doubt that such a
physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
Case: Sackett v. EPA Result: 9-0
Justices in the majority are in color; dissenting justices are in black and white.
Property owners, the Court said, have the right to judicial review of orders by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to stop development of land that may
be protected by the Clean Water Act. “[T]here is no reason to think that the Clean
Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties
into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review,” Justice
Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
NLJ file photos

10 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
the health care decision
Vindication for Verrilli in two key cases
Solicitor general’s argument in health care case was far from a ‘train wreck’; he also scored victory in immigration case.
By Tony Mauro
Toward the end of his much criticized
oral argument over the
health care individual mandate
on March 27, Solicitor General Donald
Verrilli Jr. made a spirited pitch for a little-noticed
argument in favor of the law.
He said the insurance requirement could
be justified under the enumerated power
of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.”
Even though Congress and the Obama
administration shied away from using the
“tax” label to describe the penalty for not
buying health insurance, Verrilli insisted
that “it was clear they [Congress] were
exercising the tax power.”
Several justices were clearly not buying
that rationale any more than they
were embracing the more controversial
commerce clause argument. It became a
minor part of what some commentators
quickly called Verrilli’s “train wreck” of
an argument.
On June 28, that argument looked a
lot better, because the “taxing power”
rationale carried the day before a divided
U.S. Supreme Court. And it gave Chief
Justice John Roberts Jr., the key fifth
vote, a way to uphold the mandate without
expanding federal commerce power.
The ruling, paired with June 25’s victory
for the Obama administration in
the Arizona v. U.S. immigration case, has
vindicated Verrilli’s role as oral advocate.
And it reaffirms the truth that oral
arguments should not be critiqued like
Donald Verrilli
Broadway plays. Verrilli’s low-key style
did not hurt him nearly as much as many
commentators thought it would.
“Don elevated the taxing-power argument
in the oral argument and in the
briefing,” said Mayer Brown partner
diego m. radzinschi
Andrew Pincus, a veteran of the solicitor
general’s office. “It just shows that
when you look at the oral argument as a
debate, that doesn’t capture what really
goes on.” Oral argument gives an advocate
a chance to plant unnoticed seeds in
justices’ minds that can come in handy
later during internal deliberations.
The final week of the Court’s term was
a triumphant cap to an otherwise mixed
term for the solicitor general’s office. The
Court has been hostile to a number of
positions taken by the Obama administration
on issues ranging from the “ministerial
exception” to workplace regulation
by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC),
Clean Water Act regulation (in Sackett
v. EPA) and GPS surveillance (in U.S. v.
Jones). The administration scored wins
in the copyright case Golan v. Holder and
on qualified immunity for Secret Service
agents in Reichle v. Howards.
But for now, Pincus said, Verrilli is entitled
to feel that he has served his client
well. “When you are a lawyer and bring
victory on the issues most important to
your client, it is a very good feeling.”
Tony Mauro can be contacted at tmauro@-
alm.com.
presents
VIRTUAL
FORUM
ONLINE | JULY 19, 2012
• Free registration for corporate counsel
• CLE eligible online educational sessions
• Network with peers
• Visit the virtual exhibit hall
• Save travel costs and time out of the office
REGISTER TODAY!
www.virtualcorporatecounselforum.com
Sponsors:
Association Partner:

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 11
Verdicts & settlements
–from staff and alm reports
Banking
PNC settles out of MDL
over debit card fees
MIAMI—PNC Bank has agreed to pay
$90 million to settle a class action accusing
the bank of manipulating
its customers’ debit
card transactions to generate
more overdraft fees.
The case was part of
multidistrict litigation
involving more than
30 banks. U.S. District
James Lawrence King
Senior Judge James Lawrence King must
approve the settlement.
The lawsuit against the Pittsburghbased
bank claimed its internal computer
system rearranged the order of debit card
and ATM transactions by posting them in
highest-to-lowest dollar amounts rather
than in chronological order as initiated by
customers and authorized by the bank.
The practice allegedly resulted in customers
being charged substantially more in
overdraft fees.
Bankruptcy
Houghton Mifflin case
pulled out of New York
NEW YORK—A bankruptcy judge has
ruled that the pre-packaged bankruptcy
of textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Co. must be transferred
out of New York, even though the
debtor and all the creditors had agreed on
the city as the venue.
Houghton Mifflin, based in Boston,
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May
with $2.68 billion in assets and $3.54 billion
in liabilities. All of its creditors had
already agreed on a reorganization plan
that would convert much of its secured
debt into equity and leave its unsecured
creditors unimpaired.
However, U.S. Trustee Tracy Davis
moved to have the case transferred out of
New York on the ground that Houghton
Mifflin did not have its “domicile, residence,
principal place of business or
principal assets” there. U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Robert Gerber ruled that he lacked
discretion to block the transfer.
Civil procedure
Challenge to D.C.’s ban on
rolling papers is dismissed
WASHINGTON—A federal judge granted
the District of Columbia summary judgment
in a lawsuit challenging a 2010 law
that banned the sale of cigar wrappers.
U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins
found that the National Tobacco Co. L.P.
lacked standing to challenge the law. He
granted the city’s motion and denied the
cigar manufacturer’s cross-motion for
summary judgment.
National Tobacco makes the Zig Zag
brand of tobacco rolling papers and,
according to court filings, is the fourthlargest
producer of these “roll your own”
products. The company claimed that as a
result of the 2010 law, it had lost business
with local sellers in the district.
Constitutional law
Judge orders trial in test
of Montana campaign law
HELENA, Mont. (AP)—A federal judge
has ordered a trial in the latest case seeking
to undo Montana’s election laws following
the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen
United ruling.
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell on
June 26 rejected the Sanders County,
Mont., Republican Party’s request for an
immediate ruling in its favor. He ordered
a Sept. 25 trial. The case involves a ban
on party endorsements and spending for
nonpartisan judicial candidates.
The ruling favorable to the state attorney
general came just one day after state
lawyers were handed a defeat by the
U.S. Supreme Court, which tossed out
Montana’s ban on some corporate political
spending.
Criminal law
D.C. defender convicted
of fabricating evidence
WASHINGTON—A federal judge on June
22 found a criminal defense lawyer guilty
for his lead role in a
scheme to fabricate evidence—a
win for prosecutors
in a closely watched
case that raised concern in
the defense bar.
The attorney, Charles
Daum, was charged in a
Charles Daum
conspiracy to dupe jurors in a drug case
in 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. Prosecutors alleged
that Daum, working with two private
investigators, presented staged photos to
jurors to trick them into thinking that the
drugs belonged to his client’s brother.
U.S. District Senior Judge Gladys
Kessler found Daum and the private
investigators, Iman and Daaiyah Pasha,
guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice.
She rendered additional obstructionof-justice
guilty verdicts against Daum
alone. Prosecutors indicted Daum and
the Pashas in April 2011.
Intellectual property
Judge sides with Apple,
blocks Samsung tablet sales
SAN FRANCISCO—Apple Inc. has
secured a major pretrial victory in a suit
against Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd., with a
federal judge halting sales
of a Samsung tablet computer.
U.S. District Judge Lucy
Koh on June 26 granted
a preliminary injunction
Lucy Koh
stopping the importation and sales in
the United States of the Galaxy 10.1 Tab,
saying Apple has shown that it was likely
to succeed on its claims that the tablet
infringes an iPad design patent.
Koh ruled in advance of a hearing
scheduled for June 29, noting the matter
had been argued and briefed before it
went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, which remanded the case
on the sole issue of the tablet.
LEGAL PROFESSION
NFL players settle with firm
that handled earlier case
SAN FRANCISCO—Former National
Football League players have reached a
settlement in a malpractice
action against class
counsel at McKool Smith,
according to court papers.
The details were not made
public.
In 2008, lawyers from
McKool Smith helped
William Alsup
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips represent the
players in a $28 million settlement with
the NFL Players Association over licensing
and marketing revenue. The players
later sued both firms, claiming that they
blew the chance to win greater damages.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed
the suit and the players appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. A ruling was pending, but on
June 25 the players asked the appeals
court to send the case back to district
court “for the limited purpose of effectuating
a classwide settlement, the terms of
which have been agreed to by counsel for
plaintiffs and McKool.”
Firms settle claims that they
failed to block fraud scheme
NEW YORK—Greenberg Traurig and
Quarles & Brady have agreed to pay a
combined $87.5 million to resolve claims
that they failed to put the brakes on a
$900 million Ponzi scheme carried out by
two mortgage-industry clients.
Greenberg agreed to pay $61 million
to settle a class action brought in federal
court in Phoenix by investors in mortgage
lender Mortgages Ltd. and securities
dealer Radical Bunny LLC. The plaintiffs
filed settlement papers on June 20 with
U.S. District Judge Frederick Martone—
the same day the judge preliminarily
approved a $26.5 million class settlement
with Quarles & Brady.
The plaintiffs sued the firms in May
2010, claiming they violated Arizona
state securities laws by aiding and abetting
a Ponzi scheme run by Greenberg
client Mortgages Ltd. and Quarles client
Radical Bunny.
Media law
Investment company settles
libel case with juice maker
LOS ANGELES—A Chinese fruit juice
company that had sued an investment
management firm for allegedly spreading
rumors in order to short its stock has
settled its libel claims.
SkyPeople Fruit Juice Inc. sued
Absaroka Capital Management LLC on
July 7 in federal court in Wyoming, alleging
that the investment firm circulated
a false report in June 2011 that caused
SkyPeople’s stock value to decline.
The details of the settlement, reached
on June 21 with Absaroka and principal
Kevin Barnes, who authored the report,
were undisclosed. However, Absaroka
has agreed to remove the report from its
Web site and any third-party locations,
according to the plaintiff’s attorney.
Torts
Asbestos verdict called the
nation’s highest this year
LOS ANGELES—A state court jury has
awarded $48 million to a California man
and his wife after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma attributed to his exposure
to asbestos while working on construction
sites in Southern California during
the 1960s and 1970s.
The Los Angeles County Superior
Court verdict was the largest in the nation
so far this year, according to an attorney
at Baron & Budd who represented the
plaintiffs, Bobbie and Helen Izell. The jury
found Union Carbide Corp. responsible
for $37.5 million of the verdict.
Izell, 86, was an independent general
contractor who built houses and other
buildings from 1950 through 1994,
according to plaintiffs attorney John
Langdoc.
Aixa Montero; diego m. radzinschi; jason doiy

12 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
in-house counsel
York’s Davis Polk & Wardwell (corporate,
securities and regulatory matters) and
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
(government contracts, litigation); Los
Angeles-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
(general representation, corporate, litigation);
and McKenna Long & Aldridge
(government contracts, litigation). He
mostly pays hourly fees.
Maffeo reports to chairman and chief
executive officer John Jumper.
Daily duties
The job is unpredictable—and stimulating,
Maffeo said. He oversees all legal
activities and procurement, plus risk
management and internal audits, and
manages contracts. During the past year
or so, he worked on a number of acquisitions,
including the purchase of Vitalize
Consulting Solutions Inc., which provides
the risks, costs and distractions of continued
litigation,” Maffeo said. In March, it
reached a $500 million settlement with
federal prosecutors involving fraud allegations
concerning work done on New
York City’s computerized payroll system.
“The settlement was an important step
in our efforts to move forward as a stronger
company,” Maffeo said. “We have
implemented process improvements and
control enhancements and remain dedicated
to the highest level of business
ethics.”
Route to the top
Maffeo launched his legal career as an
associate with New York-based Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett. In 1977, he joined ITT
Corp., serving as senior vice president and
general counsel from 1995 until 2009.
While at ITT, he worked in Brussels for
Be a facilitator when possible, but know
where to draw the line.”
Vincent Maffeo, executive vice president, general counsel and audit,
Company profile
If you wanted to build an impenetrable
space shield capable of destroying flocks
of incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles,
who would you call? You might try
Scientific Applications International Corp.
(SAIC)—Ronald Reagan did. The company
participated in the technical aspects
of the Strategic Defense Initiative, better
known as “Star Wars.”
SAIC provides scientific, engineering,
technical and cybersecurity services for
a range of government and commercial
clients, prominently including the U.S.
defense establishment. It also works on
research into cancer, robotics, tsunami
warning systems and forensic science. It
has conducted support services for the
U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.
SAIC was founded in La Jolla, Calif.,
by Robert Beyster, a physicist who
had worked at Los Alamos National
Laboratory during the 1950s. SAIC established
a presence in Washington in 1970
to pursue defense contacts, adding former
defense secretaries Melvin Laird and
Scientific Applications International Corp. AGE: 61
Techies
William Perry and former CIA director
John Deutch to its board of directors.
During Reagan’s defense buildup, the
company worked on submarine weapons
technology and other defense systems.
Later, SAIC added commercial and state
government customers.
During the fiscal year that ended on
Jan. 31, 2012, SAIC amassed $10.6 billion
in annual revenues, ranking No. 219 on
the Fortune 500. Now based in McLean,
Va., SAIC and its subsidiaries have an
estimated 41,000 employees worldwide.
Legal team and outside counsel
General counsel Vincent Maffeo has
approximately 30 attorneys working for
him, plus support staff. “My philosophy
is to do as much inside as I can, given the
nature of the issues and level of expertise
available,” he said.
When he needs outside counsel,
Maffeo hires individual attorneys for
their expertise, not firms. He has turned
to counsel from Palo Alto, Calif.-based
Cooley (litigation, investigations); New
clinical, business and information-technology
services for the health care field.
The legal team is heavily involved
in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley,
Dodd-Frank and additional regulations.
Elements of SAIC’s business relating to
national security are classified as secret.
The company’s security department is in
charge of employee clearances, including
those for some of the lawyers. The government-affairs
group conducts lobbying,
and the legal department makes sure the
company makes any disclosures required
by law.
Maffeo’s pro bono program tends to be
community-focused in locations where
SAIC does business. He encourages his
lawyers’ volunteerism and considers it
to be “appropriate and necessary” for inhouse
attorneys, he said.
SAIC maintains a diverse staff, and
Maffeo is an ardent supporter of diversity
throughout the organization. He considers
attention to diversity a fundamental
principle in guiding and developing talent
for the legal staff, he said.
Government as client
Having the government as a client,
Maffeo said, means that SAIC operates
“within a very well-understood rule structure.”
As a defense contractor, the company
must follow the U.S. Department of
Defense’s contracting requirements and
those of related agencies, including the
Defense Contract Audit Agency. Maffeo
feels he has a “special obligation” to help
guarantee that SAIC’s various businesses
abide by government rules and regulations.
Recent litigation
In 2011, the company settled for $2
million a civil suit alleging bid rigging
involving a services contract with the
National Center for Critical Information
Processing and Storage in Mississippi.
“The company decided to avoid incurring
several years. Earlier, he served as a lieutenant
in the Judge Advocate General’s
Corps as a member of the U.S. Naval
Reserve. He moved to SAIC in 2010.
Maffeo is a former chairman of the corporate
counsel group of the American Bar
Association’s Section of Public Contract
Law.
His professional advice: “Recognize
and understand the importance of your
role: who you truly represent and who
your client is. Be a facilitator when possible,
but know where to draw the line.
Remember that the success of your position
depends on the talent and capabilities
of a lot of other people. Having a
quality team around you can’t be minimized.”
Personal
Maffeo was born in Bayonne, N.J., and
grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y. He is a sports
fan and golfer “who doesn’t participate
as much as I used to.” He is also an avid
reader.
Maffeo and his wife Debra, a retired
human resources executive, have two
daughters: Michelle, 23, and Stephanie,
20. In 1971, he graduated summa cum
laude from Brooklyn College of the City
University of New York. He earned his
J.D. three years later from Harvard Law
School.
Maffeo has been admitted to practice
in California, Michigan, New York,
Virginia and the District of Columbia, and
before the U.S. Supreme Court.
His personal career highlight, he said,
was “coming to SAIC, with its extraordinary
people, and stepping into the GC
role with outstanding lawyers and professionals
doing important work in the
national security of the country.”
Last book and movie
Colonel Roosevelt, by Edmund Morris,
and Act of Valor.
—Ro g e r Ad l e r

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 13
movers
laterals
Baker & McKenzie: Karyn Koiffman
joins the firm as partner
in the New York
office and will focus on
mergers and acquisitions,
leveraged buyouts,
recapitalizations,
reorganizations, commercial
contracts and
karyn koiffman
related corporate matters. Previously,
Koiffman was a partner at Kirkland &
Ellis.
Dorsey & Whitney: Bryon Benevento,
Dan Larsen and Kimberly Neville join
the firm’s trial group as partners in the
Salt Lake City office. Benevento will
focus on commercial litigation, intellectual
property litigation and products
liability defense. Larsen will focus
on products liability defense, medical
malpractice, commercial litigation and
government law. Neville will focus
on products liability, health care and
commercial litigation. Previously,
Benevento, Larsen and Neville were
partners at Snell & Wilmer.
More online: For associate
movers, visit nlj.com and click on
Associate News.
Duane Morris (Philadelphia): Rich
Kim joins the firm’s intellectual property
practice group as partner in the
San Diego office and will focus on patent
prosecution in the areas of patent
drafting, analysis and portfolio counseling.
Previously, Kim was a partner
at Morrison & Foerster.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
(Columbia, S.C.): Juan Marcelino and
James O’Hare join the firm as partners
in the Boston office. Marcelino
will focus on securities enforcement
matters involving insider trading,
financial reporting, offering fraud and
other securities law violations. O’Hare
will focus on representing technology
companies in the areas of general
corporate matters, mergers and
acquisitions, dispute resolution and
public and private financings. He will
also represent private-equity funds.
Previously, Marcelino was a partner at
Greenberg Traurig and O’Hare was a
partner at K&L Gates.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr: Drew Chapman
joins the firm’s securities
department and
investment management
group as partner
in the New York office.
Drew Chapman
He will also lead the
alternative investment
practice firmwide. Chapman will focus
on complex transactions for alternative
investment, asset management
and financial services firms. Previously,
he was head of the alternative investment
group at Cadwalader, Wickersham
& Taft.
new arrivals
Allen & Overy (London): Karen Garry
joins the firm’s derivatives and structured-finance
practice as senior counsel
to the New York office. Previously,
Garry was executive director and
assistant general counsel at JPMorgan
Chase & Co.
DLA Piper: David Luce joins the firm’s
corporate and finance practice and its
insurance and reinsurance sector practice
as partner in the New York office
and will focus on insurance-related
capital markets and reinsurance transactions.
Previously, Luce was a director
in the fixed income division of
Credit Suisse Group A.G.
Faegre Baker Daniels: John Hirschman
rejoins the firm’s
real estate and construction
team as counsel
to the Indianapolis
office and will focus on
representing clients in
john hirschman
debt and equity financing
transactions, leasing
transactions and acquisition and disposition
transactions. Previously, Hirschman
was director of real estate development
at Browning Investments Inc.
Harris, O’Brien, St. Laurent &
Houghteling (New York): Kevin
O’Brien joins the firm as name partner
and will focus on commercial and
securities litigation, regulatory enforcement
cases and white-collar criminal
defense matters. Previously, O’Brien
was a litigation partner at Dechert.
Additionally, Andrew St. Laurent has
been promoted to name partner at the
firm. St. Laurent has been with the
firm since 2009. The firm has changed
its name from Harris & Houghteling.
Holland & Knight: Marc Sukkar joins
the firm as partner in
the Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates, office
and will focus on construction
law, energy
and dispute resolution.
Previously, Sukkar was
senior counsel for
marc sukkar
Msheireb Properties, a subsidiary of
Qatar Foundation.
Jones Day: Beong-Soo Kim joins the
firm’s issues and appeals practice as
partner in the Los Angeles office and
will focus on commercial litigation.
Previously, Kim was chief of the major
frauds section in the criminal division
of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Central District of California.
Movers is compiled and written by Tasha
Norman. Please send material to her at The
National Law Journal, 120 Broadway,
Fifth Floor, New York, N.Y. 10271, or
tnorman@alm.com.
Morgan Stanley,
Simpson Thacher and
I are helping victims
of sex trafficking
recover what has been
so cruelly taken from
them: a life without
violence.”

14 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
Experts, privilege and civil procedure: recent rulings
Among other issues, federal courts have recently addressed questions arising when employees serve as experts.
By Gregory P. Joseph
Employees can be experts, but can they be designated nontestifying
experts to shield their work from discovery? Is there a settlement privilege?
Must litigation be threatened for joint-defense/common-interest protection
to apply? Can a federal judge transfer part of an action to another
district? This article explores these questions and other recent developments
concerning experts, privilege and civil
procedure.
• Employees as nontestifying experts. One of
the parties in Tellabs Operations Inc. v. Fujitsu
Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60749 (N.D.
Ill. May 1, 2012), a patent infringement
action, assigned employees to inspect the
other party’s product and later designated
the employees nontestifying experts
under Rule 26(b)(4)(D) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to immunize
their work from discovery. The Tellabs
court analyzed whether an employee can
The Practice
Commentary and advice on developments in the law
be “retained or specially employed…in
anticipation of litigation” within the rule,
a question that it noted has divided the
lower courts. The court found it unnecessary
to answer the question, holding as a
matter of fact that the inspection was conducted
in the ordinary course of business,
not in anticipation of litigation. The court
suggested, however, that if it had found
the employees’ work undiscoverable, that
finding might have permitted an adverse
inference because it would have resulted
in the employer’s failing to produce relevant
evidence by rendering its employees’
testimony uniquely available to itself and
unavailable to its opponent.
• Employee expert reports. If a salaried
employee is designated a testifying expert
and must file a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report,
Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(vi) contemplates that
the report will include “a statement of
the compensation to be paid for the study
and testimony.” Does that require disclosure
of the employee’s annual compensation
and benefits? An allocation? In
SEC v. Nadel, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53173
(E.D.N.Y. April 16, 2012), the court followed
several decisions holding that no
compensation disclosure or discovery is
required at all because “the expert’s status
as a full-time, salaried employee…is
sufficient to demonstrate bias,” although
remarking that the result could change
if the adversary can point to a “specific
circumstance raising suspicion that the
particular compensation paid to [the
employee] affected his opinions.”
• De-designated expert witnesses. Not
every case goes smoothly. Sometimes
experts originally designated to testify
later come to conclusions that make the
prospect of proffering them horrifying.
The moment a testifying expert is converted
to nontestifying status, however,
the adversary is highly motivated to find
out why. Does the adversary still have the
istockphoto/DNY59
document dispute: Third Circuit held a company couldn’t appeal adverse
privilege ruling when documents’ custodian was co-defendant’s law firm.
right under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) to depose
an expert initially designated to testify,
or is the expert protected by Rule 26(b)
(4)(D)(ii)? That provision bars discovery
from a nontestifying expert except in
“exceptional circumstances under which
it is impracticable for the party to obtain
facts or opinions on the same subject
by other means” (e.g., if the nontestifier
has conducted destructive testing).
The court in Decena v. Am. Int’l Cos., 2012
U.S. Dist. Lexis 61303 (E.D. La. May 1,
2012), reviewed the case law and found
“no consensus of authority” on this question.
It followed the majority rule, which
bars discovery from the de-designated
expert, finding it repugnant to the rule to
“allow…a party to utilize his opponent’s
expert’s opinions to prepare his own case,
and at his opponent’s expense.”
• Settlement privilege. Settlement discussions
are largely, but not entirely, inadmissible
under Fed. R. Evid. 408, but are
they privileged? The answer to that question
mattered in In re MSTG Inc., 675 F.3d
1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012), in which the defendant
sought communications and settlement
agreements between the plaintiff
and six other companies (including former
defendants) against which the plaintiff
had alleged the same patent infringement.
The defendant maintained that the
evidence was relevant and admissible on
the question of what would constitute a
reasonable royalty if the defendant were
found liable for infringement, particularly
to test the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert
on that issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit had recognized a
settlement privilege in Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply Inc., 332
F.3d 976, 979-83 (6th Cir. 2003), which
would foreclose discovery, but the Federal
Circuit sided with the majority of circuits
that have refused to recognize a privilege,
among other reasons because Rule
408 did not exclude the evidence and, in
enacting Rule 408, Congress had “directly
addressed the admissibility of settlements
and settlement negotiations but in doing
so did not adopt a settlement privilege.”
• Joint-defense/common-interest trigger.
Common-interest or joint-defense protection
exists as an exception to the general
rule of waiver when attorney-client privileged
material is shared with a nonparty.
It applies to communications among parties
that share a common legal interest,
but must there be actual or pending
litigation for the common-interest rule
to apply? As discussed in U.S. v. Duke
Energy Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 59565
(M.D.N.C. April 30, 2012), the circuits
are split on that question. The Duke court
approved a magistrate judge’s determination
that, at a minimum, there must be a
“ ‘palpable threat of litigation…at least as
stringent as the anticipation of litigation
standard used for work product.’ ” (Note
that this latter standard, too, is the subject
of a circuit split.)
• Appealing adverse privilege ruling over
documents held by third party. Generally, discovery
orders are unappealable because
they are interlocutory, and in Mohawk
Indus. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009),
the U.S. Supreme Court barred interlocutory
review under the collateral order
doctrine of orders overruling assertions
of attorney-client privilege. In light of
Mohawk, the Fourth Circuit ruled in U.S.
v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010),
that even a citation for civil contempt is
insufficient to permit a party to file an
appeal of an adverse privilege ruling—
only a nonparty may immediately appeal
a civil contempt order; a party must suffer
criminal contempt to appeal a decision
allowing discovery of privileged material.
In Perlman v. U.S., 247 U.S. 7 (1918),
the Supreme Court carved out an exception
to the contempt requirement. It held
that when a court orders a third party to
produce privileged documents, the privilege
holder may immediately appeal the
order because the privilege holder itself
cannot disobey the order, be held in contempt
and appeal the contempt citation.
But there is less to this exception than
meets the eye.
Thus, in In re Grand Jury ABC Corp.,
2012 U.S. App. Lexis 10558 (3d Cir. May
24, 2012), the corporate privilege holder
asked a law firm representing a co-defendant
(an officer of the corporation) to
hold the privileged materials. The court
ordered the corporation to produce the
documents. The corporation argued that
it could appeal this adverse ruling under
Perlman because the custodian of the
documents was a third party
(the co-defendant’s law firm).
The Third Circuit rejected this
analysis because the corporation
could suffer criminal
contempt by refusing to
obey the court’s order, as
the documents were still
within its control, albeit
held by another. The Third
Circuit identified, but did
not resolve, the question
whether, after Mohawk,
any party (or subject of a
grand jury investigation)
may ever invoke Perlman
because that party is in a
position to suffer criminal
contempt and appeal the
contempt citation.
• Partial transfer of a case.
28 U.S.C. 1631 authorizes
a federal district judge
to transfer a case to cure
a lack of jurisdiction “to
any other [district] court
in which the action…could have been
brought.” In Johnson v. Mitchell, 2012 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 65934 (E.D. Calif. May 10,
2012), the court concluded that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over one defendant.
Jurisdiction over that defendant existed
in the district in which he resided, but
that district lacked jurisdiction over the
other defendants. Recognizing that “[t]he
Circuits are split regarding whether the
language of 28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits federal
courts to partially transfer an action,”
the court adopted the line of authority
permitting transfer of claims as well
as entire actions. It reasoned: “It would
indeed be a curious result that a district
court could transfer an action under
§ 1631 containing a single claim over
which it lacked jurisdiction but could not
transfer that claim if the claimant made an
additional claim in his action over which
the court did have jurisdiction.”
• District courts and circuit precedent. It is
axiomatic that district courts are bound
by the rulings of their courts of appeals
“no matter how egregiously in error they
may feel their own circuit to be.” Nakal v.
Personal Probation Officer, 2012 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 14856 (C.D. Calif. Feb. 6, 2012). In
the absence of governing authority in its
own circuit, a district court should “look
to the opinions of other circuits for persuasive
guidance, always chary to create a circuit
split.” U.S. v. Bryan Co., 2012 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 78407 (S.D. Miss. June 6, 2012).
What if intracircuit law is in conflict?
Some courts invoke the earliest-case rule,
which provides that the district court
should follow the line of authority within
the circuit that contains the earliest decision
“because a decision of a prior panel
cannot be overturned by a later panel.”
Centeno v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2012 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 39741 (S.D. Fla. March 21,
2012).
Gregory P. Joseph is a past president of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a past chair of the
Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association. He can be reached at Gregory P. Joseph Law
Offices in New York and gjoseph@josephnyc.com.

news from
Washington
july 2, 2012 15
Bar fight erupts in D.C.
Disciplinary arm: Proposal poses ‘substantial threat’ to independence.
By Zoe Tillman
A proposal to give the District of Columbia Bar’s
Board of Governors more control over the budget
of the bar’s disciplinary arm has sparked a backlash,
with officials on the disciplinary side warning that
the changes could threaten the bar’s ability to police
its members.
The changes to the bar’s rules, spelled out in
a June 18 letter from the bar to the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, would give the bar
new authority to approve the disciplinary arm’s
contracts. The bar already funds the disciplinary
system and approves its overall budget; the proposed
changes would expand the bar’s oversight of
how that money is spent.
Bar leaders say the proposal is about making sure
there’s accountability for what amounts to about 30
percent of the bar’s more than $20 million budget
funded by dues. But officials with the disciplinary
arm, which includes the Board on Professional
Responsibility and the Office of Bar Counsel, say
they fear the changes would chip away at their
See bar counsel, Page 18
Wallace “gene” shipp jr.: He’s the longtime bar counsel for the District of Columbia.
photos by diego m. radzinschi
Once more, LSC budget at risk
Congressional funding proposals for Legal Services Corp. vary widely.
James sandman: President of the LSC says he’s “hopeful” for budget increase.
By Todd Ruger
The nation’s providers of civil legal assistance for
the poor are closely watching Congress again this
year, where another move to slash funding for the
Legal Services Corp. could mean more layoffs for lawyers
and may further limit the scope of their work.
Agencies depending on grants from the LSC, the
largest source of funding nationwide for civil legal
aid, are already reeling this year after a cut from
2011 to 2012 equal to 17 percent of their annual
funding from Washington. At the same time, high
unemployment rates have increased the number of
people needing help.
This year, the Republican-led House has passed
a bill that would cut another 6 percent from the
agency’s current budget. The House proposal of
$328 million, when adjusted for inflation, would
be an all-time low for the 38-year-old organization,
according to a recent report from the Conference of
Chief Justices.
See lsc, Page 20
inadmissible
After all that, GPS data unneeded
At the heart of a landmark Fourth Amendment case this year in the U.S.
Supreme Court were GPS data the authorities used to link a Washington nightclub
owner, Antoine Jones, to an alleged drug house in Maryland. Turns out that
the Justice Department doesn’t think it needs the global positioning system data
in the case after all. Prosecutors said in court papers filed this month that agents
would have found the house anyway, without the use of that information. Jones’
lawyer, Washington solo practitioner A. Eduardo Balarezo, said DOJ “will stop
at nothing” to convict Jones, whose life sentence was overturned. “The government
seeks to convince the judge with a fanciful story about how it would have
located the so-called stash house even without the GPS,” Balarezo said last week.
“If this were so, why did it illegally install the GPS on Mr. Jones’ vehicle in the
first place and monitor his movements 24/7 for a month?” —Mi k e Sc a r c e l l a
FOR MORE Inadmissible SEE PAGE 16
a. Eduardo balarezo
champions
&
visionaries
The Legal Times
Awards, originally
scheduled to run
in this week’s
paper, will run in
the July 9 issue.
Supreme Court Insider e-Newsletter
Exclusive insight and independent analysis from veteran Supreme
Court reporters Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle delivered straight to
your desk or smartphone.
Subscribe today and become an insider!
www.nlj.com/scinsider/reg An Product
NLJ-10-01082 SupCrt Newsletter_Ad(NLJ-10.125x1.5).indd 1
An
Product
12/8/10 5:12:50 PM

16 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
inadmissible
The wait continues
for judicial nominee
Donna Murphy was one of three lawyers
nominated to the bench in the District
of Columbia Superior Court in February
2011. The other two were confirmed in
August, but Murphy keeps waiting, and
waiting.
Last week, Senator Jim DeMint
(R-S.C.) objected to allowing a confirmation
vote for Murphy. DeMint
gave no reason to block the nomination
of the long-time lawyer
in the Justice Department’s Civil
Rights Division (and he wasn’t
obligated to). It has been almost a
year since Murphy was voted out
of committee.
Senator Joseph Lieberman
(I-Conn.) said in a Senate floor
speech that there is “no rational
reason” to stall her nomination,
mentioning that there were only
Jim DeMint
unsubstantiated concerns about a portion
of Murphy’s work investigating allegations of police misconduct. Tanya Clay
House, public policy director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
said she thought the hold was part of “an effort to quell or to stop the upward mobility
of a long-time civil rights attorney in the Department of Justice.”
Noting the letters of support from law enforcement officials, House said, “There’s no
reason she shouldn’t move, particularly because support is coming from all over the
place.” —To d d Ru g e r a n d Zo e Tillman
Bill Clark/Roll Call via Getty Images
[It’s] little more than a semantic trick.
—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 26, upholding
regulations limiting greenhouse gases, scoffed at the argument of industry
petitioners who attacked the Environmental Protection
Agency for delegating judgments on climate change to expert
groups instead of weighing the research themselves.
D.C. solicitor general honored
This was a banner year at the U.S. Supreme Court, but District of Columbia
Solicitor General Todd Kim recently received kudos for his work on a case
that didn’t generate the same public firestorm as some of the other matters on
the high court’s docket. Kim—the city’s chief appellate lawyer since the job was
created in 2006—was one of this year’s recipients of the National Association
of Attorneys General Supreme Court Best Brief Award. In the award-winning
brief, Kim successfully argued against the Court granting a writ of certiorari
to hear a wrongful-termination case against the city. The petitioner, David
Bowie, the former head of the D.C. Office of the Inspector General’s investigations
division, claimed he was fired for expressions protected under the First
Amendment. Kim cited case law holding that the First Amendment doesn’t
protect government employees from discipline for speech related to their official
duties. Attorneys from seven jurisdictions received this year’s award. D.C.
Attorney General Irvin Nathan, in a statement, praised Kim’s “exemplary
work,” saying that his “writing and analytical skills are invaluable to the successful
record this office has achieved in the appellate courts.” —Zo e Tillman
inadmissible
What can you expect from
The McCammon Group?
Quality, Results, Value.
From personal injury to intellectual property and everything in between, our
highly trained Neutrals stand ready to assist you with all of your mediation and arbitration needs.
Donald T. Bucklin, Esq.
Fellow, American College
of Trial Lawyers
Robert J. Grey, Jr., Esq.
Past President,
American Bar Association
Hon. Henry L. Jones, Jr. (Ret.)
Retired Magistrate Judge,
United States District Court
Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.
Former Judge,
United States District Court
Hon. Rufus G. King, III (Ret.)
Retired Chief Judge,
Superior Court of DC
Hon. Warren R. King (Ret.)
Retired Judge,
DC Court of Appeals
Stanton T. Lawrence, III, Esq.
Life Sciences
Intellectual Property Neutral
V. Frederic Lyon, Esq.
Neutral in Construction
and Power Plant Matters
Frank H. Menaker, Esq.
Former Senior VP and GC,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Alexia Morrison, Esq.
Past Chief Litigation
Counsel, SEC
Hon. William C. Pryor (Ret.)
Former Chief Judge,
DC Court of Appeals
Daniel E. Toomey, Esq.
Construction, Surety, and
General Commercial Neutral
Robert P. Watkins, Esq.
Fellow, American College
of Trial Lawyers
Hon. Joan Zeldon (Ret.)
Former Presiding Judge, Civil
Division of the Superior Court of DC
Dispute Resolution and Prevention
For a complete list of our services and Neutrals throughout DC, MD, and VA,
call 1-888-343-0922 or visit www.McCammonGroup.com

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 17
Win McNamee/Getty Images Ben Zweig Photography
inadmissible from page 16
Thomas Williamson jr. (r)
Bundle of joy
Lobbyists will lose a powerful tool at their disposal
during District of Columbia elections if the administration
of Washington Mayor Vincent Gray gets its
way. The administration in the coming weeks plans
to put forward campaign reform legislation that will
include a prohibition on contributions bundled by
lobbyists for candidates for elected office in the city,
D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan told a D.C.
Council committee last week. “As individuals, lobbyists
have a right to make contributions and expenditures
in favor of a candidate or a committee that
they support,” Nathan said in remarks prepared for a
council hearing on June 25. “However, when lobbyists
can gather political contributions from multiple
sources and present those contributions in one ‘lump
sum’ to a candidate, a candidate’s political committee,
or a political party, they effectively sidestep contribution limits by combining their
contributions with those of others. Moreover, when lobbyists can present significant
quantities of bundled contributions to a candidate or committee, they create at least the
appearance that access is being exchanged for contributions.” —An d r e w Ra m o n a s
Mr. President
After a year of waiting in the wings as president-elect of the District of Columbia
Bar, Thomas Williamson Jr. has officially assumed the top job. Williamson, a
senior counsel to Covington & Burling, was sworn in as president on June 19. In
his remarks, he called on the bar to renew and expand its commitment to accessto-justice
programs. “We are a profession that believes we have an ethical responsibility
to ensure that all persons,
regardless of wealth, are treated
fairly by the legal system,” he
said. “And we know that ideal is a
mere rhetorical illusion if the poor
are not represented by lawyers.”
Williamson has spent the bulk
of his career in private practice.
He’s long been involved in local
pro bono efforts and city affairs,
most recently serving as a member
of the D.C. Access to Justice
Commission. Williamson was
joined by local legal heavy hitters at his swearing-in, including U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder Jr. —Zo e Tillman
Prime location
Legal services for law firms is big business, but is it worth $31.5 million? One company
seems to think so. Washington-based legal services corporation AdamsGrayson
was acquired last week by Chicago-based Huron Consulting Group for that amount.
Huron will pay $21.5 million in cash plus $10 million in deferred payment. Shahzad
Bashir, executive vice president of Huron, said the acquisition would give Huron a
larger presence in the Washington legal market, which he called “one of the most
important legal markets in the country.” He also pointed to AdamsGrayson’s deep
relationships with law firms and Huron’s ability to handle everything from document
review to electronic discovery to law firm management. “You add all of these and it
becomes a good thing for our clients,” Bashir said. —Ma t t h e w Hu i s m a n
Not a happy day
Republicans and Democrats agreed on one thing Thursday, when the House of
Representatives voted to find Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. in contempt of
Congress: It was a “sad day.” In floor speeches, Republicans said it was sad that it
had to come to the controversial and historic move, but they had to respond when
the Department of Justice refused
to turn over documents as part of
a Congressional probe. “No Justice
Department is above the law, and
no Justice Department is above
the Constitution,” Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) said on the floor.
The Democrats said it was a sad day
because Holder, the first black attorney
general, also became the first sitting
cabinet member in the nation’s
john Boehner
Irvin Nathan
history to be held in contempt of
Congress. —To d d Ru g e r
diego m. radzinschi
In Memoriam
In Loving MeMory
RichaRd GeoRGe
october 7, 1944 - May 31, 2012
Richard George passed away suddenly on Thursday, May 31, 2012, at his home in Summit,
New Jersey. He is survived by his wife, Linda; sons Richard, Christopher and Alexander
George; Richard’s wife Halina; Christopher’s wife Susan; four grandchildren: Ariadna, Philip,
Harrison and Isabella George; and his brother George Kolombatovich.
Richard’s co-workers, clients and friends in the industry will remember him as a tireless
advocate, a formidable adversary, a magnanimous personality and a truly renaissance figure
in a sometimes mundane world. Richard’s co-workers, clients and friends in the industry will
remember him as a tireless advocate, a formidable adversary, a magnanimous personality and
a truly renaissance figure in a sometimes mundane world.
Memorial services will be held on July 10, 2012, at 5:30 p.m. at
The Harvard Club, 27 West 44th Street, New York, NY
Donations in his honor may be made to Human Rights First (humanrightsfirst.org);
Autism Speaks (autismspeaks.org) or Seven Tepees Youth Program (7tepees.org)
Robert D. Reif
All of us at Epstein Becker Green
mourn the loss of our
treasured friend,
beloved husband and father,
valued colleague and mentor.
Bob’s contributions and memory will live in our actions
and our hearts for many years to come.
EpsteinBeckerGreen

18 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
washington
Bar’s disciplinary arm: independence at risk
bar counsel, from page 15
independence and hurt public confidence
in the bar’s ability to go after lawyers
accused of misconduct.
Leaders of the professional responsibility
board—the body responsible for
administering attorney discipline—sent a
June 1 letter to then-bar President Darrell
Mottley saying that they planned to “vigorously”
oppose the changes. “These
proposals would work a fundamental
change in the relationship between the
Board on Professional Responsibility…
and the [D.C. Bar Board of Governors],”
wrote board chair Ray Bolze and vice
chair Deborah Jeffrey. “[T]hey pose a
substantial threat to the independence of
the disciplinary system.”
At the heart of the letter is a fear that
elected bar leaders would suddenly have
leeway to interfere with the disciplinary
arm’s operations and with the bar counsel
and its longtime chief, Wallace “Gene”
Shipp Jr. Shipp, who declined to comment,
oversees misconduct investigations
and prosecutions involving members of
the bar.
Bar leaders say they have no interest
in meddling in the disciplinary arm’s
day-to-day affairs. Mottley, an attorney at
Banner & Witcoff whose one-year term
as president ended in June, said that as
the bar membership grows, bar leaders
have a responsibility “to ensure accountability”
for the budget.
Newly sworn-in bar President Thomas
Williamson Jr., a senior counsel to
Coving ton & Burling, said the changes
are mostly aimed at large-dollar capital
expenditures and multiyear contracts.
For instance, he said that as the disciplinary
arm plans for office renovations that
he estimated could cost anywhere from
several hundred thousand dollars to $1
million, “our view is it’s appropriate for
the bar to review such a project.
“We would continue to be deferential
to their autonomy and independence
in making decisions about discipline,”
Williamson said. “But we think we have
a responsibility when it comes to expenditures,
particularly when it comes to
large amounts of money.”
The D.C. Court of Appeals has the
final say. The board, through Executive
Attorney Elizabeth Branda, declined to
comment, but both sides will have an
opportunity to weigh in as the court considers
the bar’s proposal.
conflict of interest
roberto westbrook zoe tillman
The majority of states and the District
of Columbia have a mandatory bar,
according to information provided by
the American Bar Association Center
for Professional Responsibility. The data
show that of the 32 states and D.C. with
a mandatory bar, about two-thirds exercised
direct oversight of the attorney discipline
system. In the remaining states
and states with a voluntary bar, attorney
discipline was administered and funded
by the state’s highest court.
In Washington, the D.C. Court of
Appeals oversees the rules governing
attorney discipline, but the bar funds the
disciplinary system.
The ABA’s model rules for lawyer disciplinary
enforcement recommend that
attorney discipline operate separately
from the bar. “You don’t want elected
bar officers, who have had to campaign
for office…to have to regulate the people
they solicited for votes,” said Myles Lynk,
a former D.C. Bar president and chair of
the ABA’s standing committee on professional
discipline.
Lynk said that for bars that do oversee
the attorney disciplinary system, the
question is then how much day-to-day
oversight the bar exercises. “If you control
the purse strings of the disciplinary
office, you can effectively influence how
that office operates,” he said.
The Board on Professional Responsibility’s
budget, which includes funding
for the Office of Bar Counsel, makes up
about 30 percent of the bar’s dues-funded
budget. In the budget for the 2012-
debating: New D.C. Bar president
Thomas Williamson Jr., left, says bar
would be deferential to disciplinary
arm’s autonomy. Myles Lynk, below, is
a past president of the bar, and is the
chair of the ABA’s standing committee
on professional discipline.
Michael frisch: He wrote a column calling the proposal the “most dangerous idea” in D.C. bar’s history.
2013 fiscal year, the disciplinary system’s
budget is $7.8 million.
The bar’s proposal didn’t offer specific
reasons for the changes, except to say
that the Board of Governors wanted to
“ensure accountability for expenditures
of Bar funds by the disciplinary system.”
Williamson and Mottley declined to discuss
individual past expenditures.
Williamson said bar leaders are
still considering what the changes, if
approved, would mean in practice. He
said he expected the bar would still delegate
much of the disciplinary system’s
day-to-day financial operations to the
Board on Professional Responsibility, but
perhaps formalize the guidelines for seeking
requests for proposals and pay closer
attention to expenditures over time.
Under the proposed changes, he said,
the bar couldn’t “unreasonably” diminish
Suzanne Starr
the Board on Professional Responsibility
and bar counsel’s authority to carry out
their core disciplinary functions. He
added that in the event of a dispute, the
proposed rules also state that either side
can ask the appeals court to step in, as
is already the case for disputes over the
budget as a whole.
taxing patience
The board, in its June 1 letter, maintained
that it had historically stuck to its
budget, “absent extraordinary circumstances
that are unlikely to recur.” They
argued that the proposal “infuses the
entire decisional process with a concern
about satisfying those with control of the
purse.” The board is made up of seven
attorneys and two nonattorney members
of the public nominated by bar leaders
and appointed by the appeals court.
The board said the bar had already
departed from the ABA’s recommendations
by recently assuming responsibility
for its information-technology support.
The June 1 letter implied that this change
created “friction” that would worsen with
the new changes. “No crystal ball is needed
to foresee that these disagreements
would inevitably require more time and
attention from the Court of Appeals, taxing
the patience of the Chief Judge and
any Associate Judges whom he chooses
to involve,” they wrote.
Michael Frisch, a former senior assistant
bar counsel who wrote an online
column on June 22 calling the proposal
“the most dangerous idea” in the
bar’s history, said the proposed changes
heightened the risk of future abuses.
Frisch, a professor and ethics counsel
at Georgetown University Law Center,
said he could envision scenarios where
bar leaders used the budget to hamstring
attorney discipline cases “they may well
not want prosecuted.”
Frisch also said he thought the bar
should have sought comment from members
before submitting the proposal to the
court. “What got my attention is there’s
no commentary here, and that, to me, is
a marked departure from the way the bar
has done business,” he said.
The bar announced the proposal on
its Web site on June 25. Williamson said
the bar asked for comment from the disciplinary
arm, but didn’t give broader
public notice because “from our vantage
point, this is an internal governance issue
that doesn’t directly impact or regulate
the conduct of individual members.”
Lynk said that if the rules are approved,
it could be possible for the bar to exercise
its new authority in a responsible way.
But he said he would like to see more
details about why these changes are
needed and which expenditures would
need bar approval.
“When you’re dealing with financial
issues, policy decisions often get made in
the way in which you resolve your disputes
over budgets and fiscal policy,” he
said. “This does raise questions that need
to be addressed. I do hope that there’s a
request by the court of appeals for public
comment.”
Contact Zoe Tillman at ztillman@alm.com.

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 19
Register By July16th and Save!
Enter Priority Code: CBMANLJ
when Registering!
CLE CREDITS AVAILABLE!
THE CROSS-
BORDER
M&A FORUM
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
THE HARVARD CLUB • NEW YORK, NY
Top Reasons to Attend:
• EXAMINE M&A strategies and measure risk
across international borders
• DETERMINE the best approach to using
in-house and legal firm teams
• IDENTIFY all aspects of integrating an
international work force
• EXPLORE all financial options when
structuring your deal
• EARN beneficial insight from your international
peers in-person while earning valuable
CLE credits
CLE CREDITS AVAILABLE!
THE CROSS-BORDER
LITIGATION FORUM
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
THE HARVARD CLUB • NEW YORK, NY
Litigation is a multi-billion-dollar per year
business. Attend the first annual Cross-Border
Litigation Summit and:
Register today and experience quality networking with
Corporate Counsel subscribers based in the US and
international locations such as:
• BRAZIL
Register By July16th and Save!
Enter Priority Code: CBLNLJ
when Registering!
• EXAMINE litigation strategies across international
borders
• DETERMINE the best approach to using in-house
and legal firm teams
• IDENTIFY new strategies to limit risk
• DEBATE alternate litigation options and
adopt new approaches
• GAIN beneficial insight from your international
peers in-person while earning valuable CLE credits
• CANADA
• INDIA
• IRELAND
• ISRAEL
• JAPAN
• SINGAPORE
• SOUTH KOREA
• U.S.A.
...AND MORE!
sponsor:
association partner:
SponSorS:
ASSociAtion pArtner:
from the publisher of:
212-457-7905
www.corpcounsel.com/crossborderma
Please use priority code NLJ-CBL when registering
212-457-7905
www.corpcounsel.com/crossborderlit

20 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
washington
House GOP looks to cut legal services funds
lsc, from page 15
For 135 state and local legal assistance
groups like the Georgia Legal Services
Program, the situation is precarious.
The executive director there says more
cuts could mean closing a regional office
and laying off four lawyers from her staff
of 60—on top of the eight attorneys she
had to let go this year. She would also
continue to have to routinely turn away
people seeking help on child custody
matters, divorces, and housing and eviction
cases.
“We have to focus on things that are
critical, urgent and damaging,” executive
director Phyllis Holmen said, such as filing
domestic violence injunctions, and
helping with unemployment compensation
and food stamp applications.
Nationwide, 1,226 lawyers and support
staff have lost their jobs at agencies supported
by the LSC since January 2011,
and 81,000 fewer low-income Americans
got help they needed, according to the
Conference of Chief Justices survey.
The House appropriation bill for 2013
would represent a 22 percent reduction
in funding for the long-embattled LSC
since a high of $420 million in 2010.
That’s not the only potential bad news
the LSC and state and local providers
are facing. Their funding troubles have
deepened because many of the organizations
are also facing reduced funding
from Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts,
known as IOLTA funding.
Interest rates are near zero
right now, and these trusts
have less money when the real
estate market is not growing.
HOPING FOR COMPROMISE
Still, LSC leaders say they
are guardedly optimistic about
the possibility of a compromise
that could result in a funding
increase from Congress for
2013, even though the appetite
for spending is low on
Capitol Hill.
The Democratic-led Senate
Approp riations Committee
approved the full amount of
President Barack Obama’s
2013 budget request for the
LSC at $402 million. That
would be a 16 percent increase
from the 2012 budget of $348
million, and would return
funding to 2011 levels.
The two chambers are
expected to hash out a deal
sometime before the end of
the year. Nobody knows quite when that
will happen.
Last year, Congress resolved the difference
between the two appropriations
levels for Legal Services Corp. by essentially
meeting in the middle. If that happens
again this year, it would result in a
Phyllis holmen: The Georgia Legal Services Program official says
additional funding cuts could cause her to lay off four lawyers.
meredith hobbs/daily report
$19 million increase for the agency, LSC
President James Sandman said.
“I am hopeful and optimistic for an
increase,” said Sandman, whose organization
requested a $470 million budget
next year.
The vote in the House for a $328 million
budget is actually $28 million more
than last year’s House bill, Sandman said,
and the Senate’s $402 million proposal is
$6 million more than last year.
What’s more, when the House voted
on the appropriations bill this year, it
rejected efforts to reduce the funding to
$200 million or eliminate it altogether,
Sandman said.
Legal services agencies across the
country are nervously watching the battle
in Congress—as they’ve been doing
for decades, a phenomenon detailed last
year in The National Law Journal [NLJ,
3-14-11]. They are worrying about how
it could affect the growing number of
Americans who used to be financially
secure but are one rung closer to trouble—and
more in need of free legal aid,
said Tom Garrett, the executive director of
the Legal Services Law Line of Vermont.
Garrett says he was able to make up
for last year’s funding cuts with a grant
related to the Hurricane Irene disaster.
That pushed the problem forward for a
year. Now, he will have to lay off one
of his five lawyers or one paralegal if
Congress doesn’t act.
That means about 400 fewer people
would be helped. “We’re really going to
be facing a loss, and I don’t know how
we’re going to do it,” Garrett said.
Todd Ruger can be contacted at truger@-
alm.com.
THE WILLARD
INTERCONTINENTAL,
WHERE GREAT
MEETINGS HAPPEN.
From small meetings to large conferences, breakfasts to banquets,
the Willard InterContinental ® always makes a good impression.
With a location in the heart of D.C., this magnificent Washington
landmark provides an inspiring setting for any gathering. Whatever
your needs, our professional staff will ensure that every detail goes
smoothly. At the Willard InterContinental, every event is a special one.
Do you live an InterContinental life?
Call 202.628.9100 or visit
www.washington.intercontinental.com
©2007 InterContinental Hotels Group.
All rights reserved. Most hotels are
independently owned and/or operated.
M7IHR027_m2_Wil_LglTimes.indd 1
9/12/07 1:29:24 PM

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 21
calendar
CIVIl actions
Tuesday, July 3
Supreme Court: The Courts, Lawyers and
the Administration of Justice Section of
the District of Columbia Bar presents “The
Supreme Court: The View from the Press
Gallery.” The luncheon program begins
at noon. Speakers: Robert Barnes,
The Washington Post; Joan Biskupic,
ThomsonReuters; Jesse Holland, The
Associated Press; Adam Liptak, The
New York Times; Tony Mauro, The
National Law Journal/Legal Times; David
Savage, The Los Angeles Times; Arthur
Spitzer, legal director, American Civil
Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital
(moderator). Location: Arnold & Porter,
555 12th St. N.W. Cost: $15, staff and
interns at legal service providers; $25,
members of sponsoring sections; $30,
nonsection members. Registration and
information: (202) 626-3463 or www.-
dcbar.org.
Tuesday, July 10
Brief Writing: The D.C. Bar presents
“Secrets of the Great Brief Writers 2012.”
The program begins at 9 a.m. Speaker:
Ross Guberman, Legal Writing Pro.
Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center,
1101 K St. N.W. Cost: $199, members
of sponsoring sections; $209, D.C. Bar
members; $219, government attorneys;
$279, others. Registration and information:
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.
d.c. moves
McKenna Long & Aldridge
Robert Nissen, 54, has joined the
intellectual property and technology
practice of McKenna Long &
Aldridge in Washington as a partner.
He focuses his practice on patent litigation.
Previously, he was managing
partner at Nissen & Associates. He
earned his J.D. from the University
of Texas School of Law.
Polsinelli Shughart
Jonathan Rosen, 47, has joined
Polsinelli Shughart’s white collardefense
and government investigations
practice in Washington as a
Tax Law: A committee of the D.C. Bar’s
Taxation Section presents “[Generic
Legal Advice Memorandum] 2012-001
and other Cherry-Picking Transactions
in the Partnership Context.” The luncheon
begins at noon. Speakers:
Beverly Katz, special counsel to the
associate chief counsel, Passthroughs
and Special Industries, Internal Revenue
Service; Nadine Holovach, manager,
PricewaterhouseCoopers. Location:
D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St.
N.W. Cost: free, government employees
who bring their own lunch; $10,
other government employees, nonprofit
employees and law students; $25, members
of sponsoring sections; $35, nonsection
members. Registration and information:
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.-
org.
Money Market Funds: A committee of
the D.C. Bar’s Corporation, Finance and
Securities Law Section presents “The
Future of Money Market Funds.” The
program begins at 5:30 p.m. Speakers:
Robert Plaze, deputy division director,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Com mission;
Scott Goebel, Fidelity Investments;
Kenneth Berman, Debevoise & Plimpton
(moderator); Ben Haskin, Willkie Farr
& Gallagher (moderator); Eric Purple,
K&L Gates (moderator). Location: D.C.
Bar Conference Center, 1101 K St. N.W.
Cost: free, law students and government
and nonprofit employees; $10, members
of sponsoring sections; $15, nonsection
members. Registration and information:
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.
Wednesday, July 11
Dodd-Frank: A committee of the D.C.
Bar’s Corporation, Finance and Securities
Section presents “Issues under the Dodd-
Frank Act of 2010: The Final Product
Definitions.” The off-the-record program
begins at noon. Speaker: Michael
Loesch, Fulbright & Jaworski (moderator).
Others to be announced. Location:
Fulbright & Jaworski, 801 Pennsylvania
Ave. N.W. Cost: free, law students, government
and nonprofit employees; $10,
members of sponsoring sections; $15, nonsection
members. Registration & information:
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.
Copyright: The copyright committee
of the D.C. Bar’s Intellectual Property
Law Section presents “The Politics of
Copyright.” The luncheon program begins
at 12:15 p.m. Speakers: Ernesto Falcon,
Public Knowledge; Susan Ferrechio,
The Washington Examiner; James Losey,
New America Foundation; Paige Gold,
vice chair, D.C. Bar copyright committee
(moderator). Location: D.C. Bar
Conference Center, 1101 K St. N.W. Cost:
$10, law students; $20, government and
nonprofit employees; $35, members of
sponsoring sections; $45, nonsection
members. Registration and information:
(202) 626-3463 or www.dcbar.org.
shareholder. He focuses on matters
involving corruption, fraud, export
control, antitrust, money laundering,
government contracts and privacy
and information management.
Previously, he was a partner at
Shook, Hardy & Bacon. He earned
his J.D. from Boston University
School of Law.
Please send notices of new Washingtonarea
hires or promotions to Matthew
Huisman at mhuisman@alm.com.
Personnel notices should include new title
and area of specialization, previous place of
employment and title, education and age.
The following cases were recently filed
in the Washington-area district courts. This
information is provided by the district courts’
official online bulletins.
U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia
Garner v. Elite Service Inc.
(No. 12-CV-01020, June 21)
Assigned to Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle.
Petition for removal. Diversity: tort motor
vehicle. Demand: $4 million. Attorneys
for plaintiff: William Lightfoot, Kelly
Fisher and Paulette Chapman, Koonz,
McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot,
Washington. Attorneys for defendants:
Ronald DeWald and Stephen
Brown, Lipshultz & Hone, Silver Spring,
Md.
Nyambal v. International Monetary
Fund
(No. 12-CV-01037, June 22)
Assigned to Judge Emmet Sullivan. Federal
question: personal injury. Attorney
for plaintiff: John Shoreman, McFadden
& Shoreman, Washington.
Britt v. Federal Contract Guards of
America
(No. 12-CV-01045, June 25)
Assigned to Judge Rosemary Collyer.
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act. Attorney for plaintiff: Denise Clark,
Clark Law Group, Washington.
Aimia
Arent Fox
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd
Building Infrastructure
Group, Inc. (BIG)
CreditXpert
U.S. District Court in
Greenbelt, Md.
Manyara v. Bowie State University
(No. 12-CV-01838, June 21)
Assigned to Judge Roger Titus. Job discrimination.
Attorneys for plaintiff:
George Brown and Katrina Dennis,
Kramon & Graham, Baltimore.
Boost Worldwide Inc. v. Black Ops
Communication LLC
(No. 12-CV-01861, June 22)
Assigned to Judge Alexander Williams
Jr. Trademark infringement. Demand:
$250,000. Attorney for plaintiff: Joshua
Kahn, Brault Graham, Rockville, Md.
U.S. District Court in
Alexandria, va.
ED Anywhere LLC v. Plato Inc.
(No. 12-CV-00684, June 21)
Assigned to Judge Leonie Brinkema.
Diversity: contract. Attorney for plaintiff:
James Liskow, DeCaro, Doran, Siciliano,
Gallagher & DeBlasis, Fairfax, Va.
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp.
(No. 12-CV-00686, June 21)
Assigned to Judge Anthony Trenga.
Notice of removal. Federal question: antitrust.
Attorney for counterclaimant Apple
Inc.: Ahmed Davis, Fish & Richardson,
Washington.
Intersections Charity Golf Classic
2012 Sponsors Include:
Monday, October 1, 2012
Trump National Golf Club
We can’t all be heart surgeons or research specialists,
but we can all support the children’s hospitals in our
communities.
Help kids in your community and swing a club
with us to benefit Children’s Miracle Network
Hospitals. 100% of the donations go directly to
Children’s National Medical Center.
For Sponsor and Registration
information visit us at:
www.intersections.com/charitygolfclassic.html
DLA Piper
Equifax
Equinix
Experian
Meredith 360
National Law Journal
Oce
RyanSharkey, LLP
Saksoft Inc.
SiriusXM
Strook
Whitesky
Intersections Inc. and Identity Guard ® are proud sponsors of CMNH.
As trusted experts in identity theft protection, giving back to the community
is just another way we help give families the protection they need.
For more information go to www.identityguard.com.

22 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
A new push toward e-discovery standards
A committee is planned to devise defensible metrics for doing and auditing electronic discovery.
By Evan Koblentz
A
committee is being planned to create
defensible standards for processes
and audits during electronic data
discovery. Experts have complained that
the lack of such standards represents a
significant hole in electronic-discovery
methods.
The standards, proposed in Chicago
on June 14 during the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s electronic-discovery
committee’s workshop
on computer-assisted review, would
be administered under an organization
approved by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). At minimum,
it would guide attorneys in how to perform
discovery of electronic information.
Additionally, software companies and
service providers could market their work
as standards-compliant.
If courts accept the as yet unwritten
standards, they could be put to use in
cases. Instead of having to justify various
processes and products used to manage
electronically stored information in a
case, an attorney could file a compliance
document indicating that methods used
or proposed meet the standard.
Leading the development of the committee,
which has yet to be named, is
Jason Baron, director of litigation for the
National Archives and Records Administration.
Baron said the group would base
Your hiring partner
Not exactly the candidate
you had in mind?
Find the resume you’re looking for.
With a targeted pool of more than 40,000
qualified candidates, Lawjobs.com is the
industry’s leading resume database.
Start hiring and stop searching.
Vist Lawjobs.com today.
its work on ISO 9001—an internationally
accepted quality metric that entered
use in 1987. Electronic-discovery consultants
Scott Dawson and Chris Knox
documented that suggestion last summer
during a machine-learning conference in
Pittsburgh, he added.
“My vision is to have the work group
accomplish two principal things: first,
to raise consciousness on the subject of
what constitutes ISO 9001 best practices
as applied in the e-discovery space, and
second, to build out a specific e-discovery
code of practice standard that could be
subject to auditing under an ISO 9001
rubric,” Baron said.
Judicial notice
“Ideally, such a practice would be
noticed by the judiciary, so as to hopefully
narrow ancillary disputes over
what constitutes best practices, especially
with respect to the use of new softwareassisted
methods and other technologies
of utility in e-discovery,” he said.
Baron is in the early stages of working
behind the scenes to gain acceptance
from one or more ANSI-accredited
organizations for the work group before
launching it officially, he said. He did
not specify which organizations. The
group’s work to create initial standards
could last about a year, he said. But
when the group would begin, or how its
results would become official court rules,
remains undetermined.
The group would base its work
on the Sedona Conference document
Commentary on Achieving Quality in
E-Discovery, which Baron co-edited in
2009. It would probably need at least
one year to produce a new standard from
that, he said. Individuals could participate
from existing groups including the
American Bar Association’s e-discovery
committee and the Sedona Conference,
and from data-management trade groups
istockphoto/NancyEdmonds
such as the Association of Records
Managers and Administrators and the
Association for Information and Image
Management.
Baron, based in Washington, co-founded
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s Text Retrieval Conference
Legal Track, commonly known within
the legal technology field as TREC.
TREC’s function is to provide an applesto-apples
comparison for document-review
software. It’s widely considered a
success, with many top software companies
participating since its birth in 2006.
But a common criticism is that TREC
lacks standards governing how testers
achieve their results—a problem that also
exists in real-world cases including Da
Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe S.A., the controversial
ruling from earlier this year
allowing predictive coding.
“The effort would be expected to
include [representatives] from software
companies and consultants as well,”
Baron said. “My understanding is that
ISO 9001 processes involve audits, and so
there may ultimately be costs involved in
participation. My bottom line, however:
Any effort worth undertaking is never
completely free from differences in viewpoints
expressed, and I welcome a spirited
dialogue. TREC is now on hiatus, but
the existence of a new group would not
override its return.”
Working with an ANSI-approved standards
body would represent a pioneering
step for the e-discovery field. One
such body is the Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information
Standards (OASIS)—which already
works with courts on the LegalXML electronic-filing
standard. OASIS previously
expressed interest in working on a standard
for e-discovery software load files
but that situation has not developed.
“I think, generally speaking, certification
and standardization is something
critically needed for the industry,” said
Symantec Corp.’s Dean Gonsowski. As
senior electronic-discovery counsel, he’s
involved in corporate litigation, and also
provides insight for Symantec’s Clearwell
Systems e-discovery product line.
“We’re less concerned with who does
it and more [concerned] that whoever
takes charges of the windmill is someone
credible, like Jason, [who] has good academic
chops, and isn’t beholden to any
particular vendor or type of technology. If
they’re agnostic and it’s not a pay-to-play
model, then we’re certainly supportive
of it,” Gonsowski said. “As the e-discovery
industry matures and becomes more
like a traditional information-governance
landscape, I think you’re going to see
more,” he added. “If you want to show
a defensible process, anything you can
do in terms of training, certification, testing—that
is going to be helpful to buttress
why you’re doing what you’re doing.”
Evan Koblentz is a reporter for Law
Technology News, an affiliate of The
National Law Journal. He can be contacted
at ekoblentz@alm.com.
LJ-12-02580-LawJobs-Resume(5x6.5).indd 1
6/5/12 3:04 PM

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 23
Voted
BEST PROCESS SERVER
In NY, PA, CT and
Rated #1 in NJ! *
Guaranteed
Subpoena Service, Inc
“If we don’t serve it, you don’t pay!” ®
Anywhere in the U.S.A.
Why would you use anyone else?
1-800-PROCESS
800.776.2377
800.236.2092 [fax] info@served.com
www.served.com
*2010/2011 Polls, NYLJ and Legal Intelligencer; 2010/2011 Polls, Ct. Law Tribune;
Best remembered ad, Harvey Research Study, 2008-2010

24 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ July 2, 2, 2012
FIRST INSERTIONS
PROBATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
232 SEB 2012
FRED L TYREE
a/k/a
FRED TYREE
a/k/a
FRED LEON TYREE
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Allie E. Thomas, Barbara E. Armwood, & Robert W. Tyree,
whose addresses are 635 Edgewood Street,
N.E. #207, 900 G Street NE #524, & 1319 Mapleview
Pl were appointed Personal Representative of
the estate of
FRED L TYREE
a/k/a
FRED TYREE
a/k/a
FRED LEON TYREE
who died on February 08, 2012 without a Will. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding.
Objections to such appointment shall be file with
th Regsiter of Wills, DC, 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd
Floor, Washington DC 20001, on or before August
01, 2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register
of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a
copy to the undersigned, on or before August 01,
2012, or be forever barred. Person believed to be
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first
publication shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Allie E. Thomas
/s/ Barbara E. Armwood
/s/ Robert W. Tyree
Personal Representatives
Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Clerk of the Probate Division
/s/ Michael L. Barnes, Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication: July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 SEB 237
GEORGE DE MONFORT-PROKSA
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Maurice Pairel, whose address is 6032 Chesterbrook
Rd, McLean, VA 22101 was appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of
George de MonFort-Proksa
who died on April 08, 2012 with a Will. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be file with th
Regsiter of Wills, DC, 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor,
Washington DC 20001, on or before August 01,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before August 01, 2012, or
be forever barred. Person believed to be heirs or
legatees of the decedent who do not receive a copy
of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Maurice Pairel
Personal Representative
Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Clerk of the Probate Division
/s/ Janice Ball McDowell, Deputy Clerk
Date of Publication: July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
1996 ADM 2082
JAMES L. ANNIS
a/k/a
JAMES LEE ANNIS
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Sheila Z Wood, whose address is 1289 Delaware
Ave, SW, Washington DC 20024 was appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
James L. Annis
a/k/a
James Lee Annis
who died on October 20, 1996 with a Will and will
serve with Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s Will)
shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th
Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on
or before January 02, 2013. Claims against the decedent
shall be presented to the undersigned with a
copy to the Register of Wills or filed with the Register
of Wills with a copy to the undersigned, on or before
January 02, 2013, or be forever barred. Persons
believed to be heirs or legatees of the decedent
who do not receive a copy of this notice by mail
within 25 days of its first publication shall so inform
the Register of Wills, including name, address and
relationship.
/s/ Sheila Z. Wood
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 406
CLARA BELL MCCOLLOUGH
Decedent
Donald M. Temple, Esq
1229 15th Street NW
Washington DC 20005
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Charles McCollough, Jr and James McCollough, Jr,
whose addresses are 6504 7th Place NW WDC
20011 and 3617 Pogonia Court Hyattsville MD 20784
was appointed Personal Representative of the estate
of:
Clara Bell McCollough
who died on January 24, 2011 without a Will and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before January 02, 2013. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before January 02, 2013, or be forever
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Charles McCollough, Jr.
/s/ James McCollough, Jr.
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 567
ERRON M. BATES
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Marcia M. Mitchell and Dina Bates, whose address is
1427 Irving St, N.E. Washington, DC 20017/ 2640
Hatteras Circle Waldof, MD 20601 were appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Erron M. Bates
who died on June 11, 2011 without a Will and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the Register
of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before January 02, 2013.
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the
undersigned, on or before January 02, 2013, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Marcia M. Mitchell
/s/ Dina Bates
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 566
SUZANNE MARIE RENEE MUNIER
a/k/a
SUZANNE TENCONI
Decedent
Yahne Miorini
2010 Coporate Ridge, Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Yahne Miorini, whose address is 1816 Opalocka
Drive, McLean, VA 22102 were appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Suzanne Marie Renee MUNIER
a/k/a
Suzanne Tenconi
who died on August 26, 2011 without a Will and will
service without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before January 02, 2013. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before January 02, 2013, or be forever
barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Yahne Miorini
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)
Civil Action Number 2012 CA 2033 L(RP)
Calendar 18
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC
Plaintiff
v.
RODNEY G. BOLDEN, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
and All unknown owners of the property described
below, their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
and executors, administrators, grantees, assigns
or successors in right, title, interest, and any
and all persons having or claiming to have any interest
in the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 5672 Lot 2351, Also
known as: 3911 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE APT 9
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action, described as Square 5672 Lot 2351, also
being sometimes described as 3911 Pennsylvania
Ave SE Apt. 9. The Complaint states, inter alia, that
the amounts necessary for redemption have not
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration
Order Number 02-11 and D.C. Superior Court
Rule of Civil Procedure 4-I, it is this 6th day of
March, 2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion
of a copy of this Order in the National Law
Journal, hereby designated by the Court and having
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying
all persons named as Defendants or otherwise
interested in the Real Property described above to
appear in this Court by the 19th day of September,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$1,187.09 (if not already paid as of such date) together
with interest from the date the Real Property
tax certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney’s
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the plaintiff herein in accordance with the provisions
of D.C. Code § 47-1361 and all outstanding District of
Columbia lien amounts due and owing on the aforementioned
Real Property, and/or answer the complaint,
or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)
Civil Action Number 2012 CA 2235 L(RP)
Calendar 18
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN L. SLACK, and 703 MARYLAND AVENUE NE
CORPORATION, and ANDREW BAXLER, and SUSAN
BERGMAN, and 703 MARYLAND AVENUE CORPORA-
TION NE, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and All unknown
owners of the property described below,
their heirs, devisees, personal representatives, and
executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or successors
in right, title, interest, and any and all persons
having or claiming to have any interest in the
leasehold or fee simple in the property and premises
situate, lying and being in the District of Columbia
described as: Square 893 Lot 814, Also known as:
404 MARYLAND AVE
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action, described as Square 893 Lot 814, also
being sometimes described as 404 Maryland Ave.
The Complaint states, inter alia, that the amounts
necessary for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant
to the Chief Judge's Administration Order
Number 02-11 and D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil
Procedure 4-I, it is this 9th day of March, 2012, OR-
DERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
that notice be given by the insertion of a
copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, hereby
designated by the Court and having a general circulation
in the District of Columbia, once a week for
three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons
named as Defendants or otherwise interested in the
Real Property described above to appear in this
Court by the 3rd day of October, 2012, and redeem
the Real Property by payment of $1,047.62 (if not already
paid as of such date) together with interest
from the date the Real Property tax certificate was
purchased; court costs and attorney’s fees; expenses
incurred in the publication and service of process
by publication and for reasonable fees for the title
search; all other amounts paid by the plaintiff herein
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Code § 47-
1361 and all outstanding District of Columbia lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, and/or answer the complaint, or, thereafter,
a final judgment will be entered foreclosing the
right of redemption in the Real Property and vesting
in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
(Calendar #18 - Real Property Case)
Civil Action Number 2012 CA 2024 L(RP)
Calendar 18
REDEMPTOR LITIUM, LLC
Plaintiff
v.
ROBERT H. ORTA, and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and
All unknown owners of the property described below,
their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
and executors, administrators, grantees, assigns or
successors in right, title, interest, and any and all
persons having or claiming to have any interest in
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 5672 Lot 2516, Also
known as: 2036 Fort Davis Street P. 10
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action, described as Square 5672 Lot 2516, also
being sometimes described as 2036 Fort Davis
Street P. 10. The Complaint states, inter alia, that
the amounts necessary for redemption have not
been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration
Order Number 02-11 and D.C. Superior Court
Rule of Civil Procedure 4-I, it is this 6th day of
March, 2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion
of a copy of this Order in the National Law
Journal, hereby designated by the Court and having
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying
all persons named as Defendants or otherwise
interested in the Real Property described above to
appear in this Court by the 19th day of September,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$1,062.43 (if not already paid as of such date) together
with interest from the date the Real Property
tax certificate was purchased; court costs and attorney’s
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the plaintiff herein in accordance with the provisions
of D.C. Code § 47-1361 and all outstanding District of
Columbia lien amounts due and owing on the aforementioned
Real Property, and/or answer the complaint,
or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
July 02, 09, 16, 2012
INDIVIDUAL
VIRGINIA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
CL NO. 2012-08353
VICTOR CESAR ESTEBAN, COMPLAINANT
VS
MALENA BEATRIZ ESTEBAN, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An
affidavit having been made and filed showing that
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is took
her belongings and left the marital residence; and
the last known mailing address of the Defendant is
as follows: Malena Beatriz Esteban 6420 Paddington
Court, Apt #201 Centreville, Virginia 20121. Upon
consideration, this Order of Publication is granted
and it is ORDERED that the above named Defendant
shall appear here on or before the 9th day of August,
2012 after proper publication of this Order, to protect
his/her interest in this cause. Entered: June 20,
2012, TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M.
Estevez, Deputy Clerk
Dates of Publication:
July 02, 09, 16, 23, 2012
VIRGINIA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
CL NO. 2012-08898
RUBRITH MILENA RISCO, COMPLAINANT
VS
REDRO PABLO RISCO, DEFENDANT
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
The reason for this cause is to obtain a divorce. An
affidavit having been made and filed showing that
the Defendant in the above-entitled cause is Moved
away; and the last known mailing address of the Defendant
is as follows: Pedro Pablo Risco 6496 Fenestra
Court, #61C Burke, VA 22015. Upon consideration,
this Order of Publication is granted and it is
ORDERED that the above named Defendant shall appear
here on or before the 9th day of August, 2012
after proper publication of this Order, to protect his/
her interest in this cause. Entered: June 20, 2012,
TESTE: JOHN T. FREY, CLERK, BY: /s/ Deisy M. Estevez,
Deputy Clerk
Dates of Publication:
July 02, 09, 16, 23, 2012
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
FAIRFAX COUNTY
(Civil Division)
Case No.: CL-2012-00348
SHARYL ANN DJONKAM, Plaintiff,
v.
NESTOR DJONKAM, Defendant
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
THE OBJECT of the above-styled case is to obtain a
Decree of Divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the
ground that the parties have been living separate
and apart, without any cohabitation and without interruption,
for a period exceeding one year; and IT
APPEARING TO THE COURT by Affidavit filed according
to law that the above-named Defendant, NES-
TOR DJONKAM, is not a resident of this State. OR-
DERED, pursuant to VA CODE ANN. §8.01-317 (Michie
2000), as amended that this order shall be published
once a week for four successive weeks in the
National Law Journal and a copy of this order shall
be posted at the front door of the Fairfax County
Courthouse; and it is further ORDERD that a copy of
this order shall be mailed to the Defendant at the
address stated above as-required by §8.01-316; and
it is further ORDERED the the clerk shall cause copies
of the order to be so posted, mailed, and transmitted
to the designated newspaper within twenty
days after the entry of this order. Upon completion
of this publication the clerk shall file a certificate of
publication in this case; and it is further ORDERED,
pursuant to VA. CODE ANN. §8.01-316 (Michie 2000),
as amended that said NESTOR DJONKAM is to appear
on or before the 9TH day of August, 2012, in
the Clerk’s Office of this Court and to do what is necessary
to protect his interests. IN EXTRACT-TESTE:
ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2012. JOHN T. FREY,
CLERK, Fairfax County Circuit Court. By: /s/ Deisy M.
Estevez, Deputy Clerk, I ASK FOR THIS: /s/ Karen
Leiser, Esq., Counsel for the Plaintiff, LEISER, LEIS-
ER & HENNESSEY PLLC, 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite
310, Vienna, Virginia 22182, TEL: (703) 734-5000 ext.
102, FAX: (703) 734-6000, VASB # 40344
Dates of Publication;
July 02, 09, 16, 23, 2012
SECOND INSERTIONS
PROBATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 571
ELIZABETH K. MALARKEY
Decedent
Michael J. Conlon
1818 N Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
David Koehn, whose address is 7328 Ashburton Circle,
NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Elizabeth K. Malarkey
who died on May 24, 2012 with a will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 25, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 25, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ David Koehn
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills

the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ JULY 2, 2012 July 2, 2012 25
Dates of Publication
June 25, July 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 572
WILLIAM H. ROBINSON
Decedent
John C. Morrison
200 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Princella Huston, whose address is 2801 S Martin
Luther King Drive, Apt 1813, Chicago, IL 60616 was
appointed Personal Representative of the estate of:
William H. Robinson
who died on June 03, 2012 with a Will and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to probate of decedent’s Will)
shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th
Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on
or before December 25, 2012. Claims against the decedent
shall be presented to the undersigned with a
copy to the Register of Wills or filed with the Register
of Wills with a copy to the undersigned, on or before
December 25, 2012, or be forever barred. Persons
believed to be heirs or legatees of the decedent
who do not receive a copy of this notice by mail
within 25 days of its first publication shall so inform
the Register of Wills, including name, address and
relationship.
/s/ Princella Huston
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 25 July 02, 09, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 565
IRENE RENEE ROBINSON
Decedent
Molly B.F. Walls, Esq
McArthur Franklin PLLC
1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 820
Washington, DC 20036
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Christine T. Trapnell, whose address is 3416 Mansfield
Road, Falls Church, VA 22041 appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Irene Renee Robinson
who died on April 18, 2012 with a Will and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to porbates of decendent’s
Will)shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 25, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 25, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Christine T. Trapnell
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication:
June 25 July 02, 09, 2012
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Probate Division
2012 ADM 549
STANLEY R. RESOR
Decedent
Ellen K. Harrison
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1122
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors
and Notice to Unknown Heirs
James P. Resor, whose address is 6219 Winnebago
Road, Bethesda, MD 20816 were appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of
Stanley R. Resor
who died on April 17, 2012 with a will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, N.W., Third Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 25, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 25, 2012 or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ James P. Resor
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 25 July 02, 09, 2012
Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Probate Division
2012 ADM 392
BINA BEGHE
Decedent
Ellen K. Harrison
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1122
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors
and Notice to Unknown Heirs
Renato Beghe, whose address is 633 E Street, SE,
Washington, DC 20003-2716 were appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Bina Beghe
who died on March 24, 2012 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills,
D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., Third Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before December 25, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 25, 2012 or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Renato Beghe
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 25 July 02, 09, 2012
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 005710 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
ANDREW CHASSAING
4451 Macarthur Blvd., NW
Washington, DC 20007
vs.
UNKNOWN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF FRANCES ROSALEE GREENE Address Unknown,
And UNKNOWN HEIRS, LEGATEES, DEVI-
SEES, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS OF FRANCES
ROSALEE GREENE Address Unknown, And UN-
KNOWN PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ES-
TATE OF KING SOLOMON MURPHY Address Unknown,
And UNKNOWN HIERS, LEGATEES, DEVI-
SEES, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS OF KING SOLO-
MON MURPHY Address Unknown, And THE DIS-
TRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of
Columbia, Vincent Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington,
DC 20001, Serve: Attorney General of the
District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 3015, Lot 0017. May also be known as
4609 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20011
Defendants
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 3015, Lot 0017
which may also be known as 4609 Georgia Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20011. The complaint states,
among other things, that the amounts necessary for
redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to the
Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-11, it
is this 1st day of June, 2012, ORDERED by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice be
given by the insertion of a copy of this Order in the
National Law Journal, a newspaper of general circulation
in the District of Columbia, once a week for
three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons interested
in the Real Property described above to appear
in this Court by the 15th day of August, 2012,
and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$1,631.19 together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
June 25, July 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 0005778-11 (RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Divas Enterprises, LLC
8401- E Richmond Hwy
Alexandria, VA 22191
Plaintiff
vs.
Jack Massengale 7105 Steed Ct. Hyattsville, MD
20782, And THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Serve:
Mayor of the District of Columbia, Vincent Gray,
Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., #419, Washington, DC 20001, Serve: Attorney
General of the District of Columbia, Attn: Darlene
Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20001, And All Unknown Owners of the Property described
below, their Heirs, Personal Representatives,
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns
or Successors in Right, Title, Interest, and Any and
all persons having or claiming to have any interest in
the leasehold or fee simple in the property and
premises situate, lying and being in the District of
Columbia described as: Square 0190, Lot 2034. May
also be known as 1901 16th Street, NW, Unit 101,
Washington, DC 20009
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as. ALL that property situate,
lying and being in Washington, District of Columbia
which has a Square 2034, Lot No. of 0190 described
as follows: 1901 16th St, NW, Unit 101 , Washington
DC, a condominium unit. The complaint states,
among other things, that the amounts necessary for
redemption have not been paid. Pursuant to the
Chief Judge's Administrative Order Number 02-11, it
is this 19th day of July, 2011, ORDERED by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice
be given by the insertion of a copy of this Order in
the National Law Journal, a newspaper of general
circulation in the District of Columbia, once a week
for three (3) successive weeks, notifying all persons
interested in the Real Property described above to
appear in this Court by the 1st day of February,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$1,425.18 together with interest from the date the
Real Property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
June 25 July 02, 09, 2012
INDIVIDUAL
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
CASE NO. 69717
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
LOUDOUN COUNTY
18 E. MARKET STREET, LEESBURG VA 20175
Commonwealth of Virginia, IN RE
NAME CHANGE
The object of this suit is to: Change the name of a
minor child
TERRENCE THOMAS WALKER ROTTER
It is ORDERED that John James Rotter appear at
the above named court and protect his/her interests
on or before June 01, 2012 at 2:00 pm
ENTERED 20th day of March, 2012
/s/ Thomas B. Ford III
Deputy Clerk
Dates of Publication:
June 25 July 02, 09, 16, 2012
SUBSEQUENT INSERTIONS
PROBATE
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISON
2012 ADM 499
MARISE PONDER
a/k/a
C. MARISE PONDER
a/k/a
CYNTHIA MARISE PONDER
Decedent
Barbara Davis Solomon, Esq.
910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Joseph L. Ponder, whose addresses are 1065 Quail
Cove Drive, #10765 B/G Canoe, Jasper, GA 30143,
was appointed personal representative of the estate
of:
Marise Ponder
a/k/a
C. Marise Ponder
a/k/a
Cynthia Marise Ponder
who died on April 19, 2012 with a will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 18, 2012 Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 18, 2012 or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Joseph L. Ponder
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 474
BARBARA MALONE
Decedent
S. Micah Salb, Esq
7979 Old Georgetown Rd Ste 1100
Bethesda, MD 20814
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
S. Micah Salb, whose address is 1331 Locust Road,
NW, Washington DC 20012, was appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Barbara Malone
who died on October 23, 2011 without a will, and
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December
18, 2012. Claims against the decedent shall be
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before December
18, 2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who
do not receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25
days of its first publication shall so inform the Register
of Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ S. Micah Salb
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 525
ERNEST O. KERSHNER
Decedent
John C. Smuck, Esquire
Cross, Murphy, Smuck, & Houston
1233 20th St, NW #610, Washington DC 20036
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
John C. Smuck, whose address is 1233 20th St, NW,
Washington DC 20036, was appointed Personal Representative
of the estate of:
Ernest O. Kershner
who died on May 09, 2012 with a will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2012.
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ John C. Smuck
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 532
JENNIFER CREVELING BALLMAN
Decedent
Brian L. Kass
Kass Mitek & Kass
1050 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Mary Kay Michelis, whose address is 2755 W. Avenue
N, Palmdale, CA, was appointed personal representative
of the estate of:
Jennifer Creveling Ballman
who died on January 20, 2007, with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent's
will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 18, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 18, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Mary Kay Michelis
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication:
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 184
JOHN C. BATHAM
Decedent
Catherine F. Schott Murray, Esquire
9302 Lee Highway, Suite 1100
Fairfax, VA 22031
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Joseph P. Brantley, IV, whose address is 6513 Perkins
Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
John C. Batham
who died on November 03, 2011 with a will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December
18, 2012. Claims against the decedent shall be
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before December
18, 2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who
do not receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25
days of its first publication shall so inform the Register
of Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Joseph P. Brantley, IV
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2011 ADM 000381
JOHN H. JOHNSON
Decedent
Edward G. Varrone, Esq.
910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Shawn M. Graves, whose address is 16610 Eastview
Terrace, Bowie, Maryland 20716, was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
John H. Johnson
who died on February 28, 2009 without a will, and
will serve without Court supervision. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment shall be filed with the
Register of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December
18, 2012. Claims against the decedent shall be
presented to the undersigned with a copy to the
Register of Wills or filed with the Register of Wills
with a copy to the undersigned, on or before December
18, 2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed
to be heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not
receive a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days
of its first publication shall so inform the Register of
Wills, including name, address and relationship.
/s/ Shawn M. Graves
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25, July 02, 2012
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Probate Division
2012 ADM 155
THELMA B. QUINN
Decedent
Harry M. Singleton, Esq.
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Doris E. Baker, whose address is 2622 Minnesota
Ave, SE, Washington DC 20020 was appointed personal
representative of the estate of:
Thelma B. Quinn
who died on January 25, 1994 with a will. All unknown
heirs and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown
shall enter their appearance in this proceeding.
Objections to such appointment (or to the probate
of decedent’s Will) shall be filed with the Register
of Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, NW, 3rd Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20001, on or before December 18,
2012. Claims against the decedent shall be presented
to the undersigned with a copy to the Register of
Wills or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy
to the undersigned, on or before December 18,
2012, or be forever barred. Persons believed to be

26 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ July 2, 2, 2012
heirs or legatees of the decedent who do not receive
a copy of this notice by mail within 25 days of its first
publication shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Doris E. Barker
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 519
BEVERLY C. MACDONALD
a/k/a
BEVERLY CECEILLE MACDONALD
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Robert Angus MacDonald, whose address is 19375
Cypress Ridge Ter #502, Leesburg, VA 20176was
appointed Personal Representative of the estate of:
Beverly C. Macdonald
a/k/a
Beverly Ceceille Macdonald
who died on March 01, 2012 with a Will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2011.
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2011, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Robert Angus MacDonald
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 511
ANTOINETTE G. MARTIN
Decedent
Raymond L. Gooch
257 Gay Street,Suite G, Box 4
Washington, VA 22747
Notice of Appointment,
Notice to Creditors
and Notice to Unknown Heirs
Ellen Rathfon, whose address is 8206 Clifton Farms
Court, Alexandria, VA 22306 were appointed Personal
Representative of the estate of:
Antoinette G. Martin
who died on May 22, 2012 with a will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 18, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 18, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Ellen Rathfon
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 96
GORDON M. ODEGAARD
Decedent
Stephen W. Nealon
8401 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1100
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Notice of Appointment, Notice to Creditors,
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Richard A. Odegaard, whose address is 1637 4th
Street, N, Fargo, North Dakota 58102, was appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Gordon M. Odegaard
who died on January 14, 2012, with a Will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment or to the probate of decedent’s
will shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C., 515
Fifth Street, NW, Third Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 18, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 18, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Richard A. Odegaard
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 510
HERMELINDA MEGYERI
Decedent
Raymond L. Gooch
257 Gay Street, Suite G, PO Box 4
Washington, VA 22747
Notice of Appointment,
Notice to Creditors
and Notice to Unknown Heirs
Raymond L. Gooch, whose address is P.O. Box 4, 257
Gay Street, Suite G, Washington, VA 22747 were appointed
Personal Representative of the estate of:
Hermelinda Megyeri
who died on May 12, 2012 with a will, and will serve
without Court supervision. All unknown heirs and
heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall enter
their appearance in this proceeding. Objections to
such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
Will) shall be filed with the Register of Wills, D.C.,
515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
20001, on or before December 18, 2012. Claims
against the decedent shall be presented to the undersigned
with a copy to the Register of Wills or
filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the undersigned,
on or before December 18, 2012, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Raymond L. Gooch
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2009 ADM 920
EMMA JEAN WALKER
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Iris McCollum Green, Esq, whose address is 1730 M
Street, NW, Suite 609, Washington, DC 20036 was
appointed Personal Representative of the estate of:
Emma Jean Walker
who died on February 25, 2008 with a Will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2011.
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2011, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/ Iris McCollum Green
Personal Representative
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 ADM 514
SAMUEL SIMMONS
Decedent
Notice of Appointment
Notice to Creditors
Notice to Unknown Heirs
Jerome Simmons and Betty Simmons-Jones, whose
addresses are 3415 25th Ave Temple Hill, MD 20748
and 629 Birch Leaf Ave, Seat Pleasant, MD 20743
were appointed Personal Representative of the estate
of:
Samuel Simmons
who died on March 27, 2003 without a Will, and will
serve without Court supervision. All unknown heirs
and heirs whose whereabouts are unknown shall
enter their appearance in this proceeding. Objections
to such appointment (or to the probate of decedent’s
will) shall be filed with the Register of
Wills, D.C., 515 5th Street, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington,
D.C. 20001, on or before December 18, 2011.
Claims against the decedent shall be presented to
the undersigned with a copy to the Register of Wills
or filed with the Register of Wills with a copy to the
undersigned, on or before December 18, 2011, or be
forever barred. Persons believed to be heirs or legatees
of the decedent who do not receive a copy of
this notice by mail within 25 days of its first publication
shall so inform the Register of Wills, including
name, address and relationship.
/s/Jerome Simmons
/s/ Betty Simmons-Jones
Personal Representatives
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister
Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PROBATE DIVISION
2012 NRT 15
JAMES E. FAIN
Deceased Settlor
NOTICE OF EXISTENCE OF
REVOCABLE TRUST
James E. Fain, whose address was 3267 Sutherland
Bluff Drive, NE, Townsend, GA 31331 created a revocable
trust on Febraury 22, 1999, which remained in
existence on the date of his death on April 15, 2012,
and Cathy E. Newman, whose address is 3412 Rodman
Street NW, Washington, DC 20008, is the currently
acting trustee, hereinafter the Trustee. Communications
to the trust should be mailed or directed
to Cathy E. Newman, Trustee at 3412 Rodman
Street NW, Washington DC 20008. The Trust is subject
to claims of the deceased settlor's creditors,
costs of administration of the settlor's estate, the
expenses of the deceased settlor's funeral and disposal
of remains, and statutory allowances to a surviving
spouse and children to the extent the deceased
settlor's residuary probate estate is inadequate
to satisfy those claims, costs, expenses, and
allowances. Claims of the deceased settlor's creditors
are barred as against the Trustee and the trust
property unless presented to the Trustee at the address
provided herein on or before December 18,
2012 (6 months after the date of the first publication
of this notice). An action to contest the validity of
this trust must be commenced by the earliest of: (1)
April 15, 2013 (one year from date of death of deceased
settlor) or (2) December 18, 2012 (6 months
from the date of first publication of this notice) or (3)
ninety days after the Trustee sends the person a
copy of the trust instrument and a notice informing
the person of the trust's existence, of the Trustee's
name and address, and the time allowed for commencing
a proceeding. The Trustee may proceed to
distribute the trust property in accordance with the
terms of the trust before the expiration of the time
within which an action must be commenced unless
the Trustee knows of a pending judicial proceeding
contesting the validity of the trust or the Trustee has
received notice from a potential contestant who
thereafter commences a judicial proceeding within
sixty days after notification. This Notice must be
mailed postmarked within 15 days of its first publication
to each heir and qualified beneficiary of the
trust and any other person who would be an interested
person within the meaning of D.C. Code, sec.
20-101(d).
/s/ Cathy E. Newman, Trustee
True Test Copy
/s/ Anne Meister, Register of Wills
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
TAX LIEN/FORECLOSURE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 02198 L(RP)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Beshouri
ALAN C. CORNWALL
Plaintiff
v.
VIVIAN GARRETT aka VIVIAN ANN GARRETT f/k/a
VIVIAN ANN NEAL, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE OF ROSE ETTA JONES;
DONNA DANFORTH THOMPSON; CHARLES A. NEAL,
Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ROSE
ETTA JONES and as to any individual interest; RICKY
DANFORTH; MYRA DANFORTH FREEMAN; CHRYS-
TYNE M. TALLEY f/k/a CHRYSTYNE PRESSEY; IRENE
NEAL; IVY TURNER NEAL; VALERIE NEAL; ANNETTE
DEBORAH NEAL MILES; YVETTE NEAL; DAVID NEAL;
YVONNE GREEN a/k/a YVONNE NEAL; CAROLYN
HENDERSON; MATTIE CECILIA GRIFFIN; EDNA FOS-
TER FRYE; MARGARET CATHERINE FOSTER; JOANN
F. QUEEN; MARGARET F. MASSEY; SUSAN G. FOS-
TER; MARY P. OJAJUNI; GEORGE V. FOSTER, JR;
STEPHEN E. FOSTER; MATTHEW B. FOSTER; HELEN
H. RANSOME; CHARLES N. RANSOME, III, DENISE R.
RANSOM; MACK L. PRESSEY, III a/k/a JAMES PRES-
SEY; ANGELA THOMAS; THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-
BIA; ALL UNKNOWN OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED BELOW, THEIR HEIRS, DEVISEES, PER-
SONAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND EXECUTORS, AD-
MINISTRATORS, GRANTEES, ASSIGNEES OR SUC-
CESSORS IN RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST AS TO ALL
SUCH OWNERS AND AS TO ROSE E. JONES A/K/A
ROSA E. JONES A/K/A ROSE ETTA JONES A/K/A RO-
SETTA E. JONES; EDITH ROSETTA MANLEY A/K/A
ROSETTA EDITH DANFORTH A/K/A ROSETTA MAN-
LEY; MELVIN EMANUEL DANFORTH; SYLVIA NEAL;
SYLVIA DUCKETT A/K/A SYLVIA PRESSEY; HARRY J.
NEAL; HARRY RICHARD NEAL; HARRY R. NEAL;
EDITH NEAL AKA EDITH VIRGINIA NEAL; IDA GLAD-
DEN; EUNICE VIRGINIA WILLIAMS; JAMES HER-
BERT NEAL; LUCILLE GLADDEN CLARKE; ALMA
GLADDEN; ANNIE GLADDEN A/K/A ANNA FOSTER
GLADDEN SWANSON; PEARL GLADDEN RANSOME
A/K/A PEARL C. RANSOME; MARY TINKER; HARRY
A. TINKER,CLARENCE JOHN NEAL; EDDIE MAE HAR-
RISON NEAL; GEORGE FOSTER; BEVERLY A. NEAL;
STANLEY CORBERT; CHARLES N. RANSOME, JR.;
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DESCRIBED AND ANY
AND ALL PERSONS HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE
ANY INTEREST IN THE LEASEHOLD OR FEE SIMPLE
IN THE PROPERTY AND PREMISES SITUATE, LYING
AND BEING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DE-
SCRIBED AS: SQUARE 0996 LOT 0031 MAY BE ALSO
KNOWN AS STREET ADDRESS OF 917-12TH STREET,
SE, WASHINGTON, DC 20003
Defendants
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, assessed to Vivian
Garret, and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia
to the plaintiff in this action described as Lot
0031 in Square 0996, and which may have address
917-12th Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Plaintiff has fild a Motion to Leave to File an
Amended Complaint, Order of Publication, and for
Service by Publication particularly as to Stanley Corbert
for a reason that it is unknown wheather he is
living and his whereabouts are unknown, or whether
he is dead. Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion
and the record herein, and the proofs submitted
by the Plaintiff as to due diligence exercised in attempting
to locate Mr. Corbert and any information
about him, and pursuant to the Chief Judge’s Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 24th day of
April, 2012, ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s Motion is
granted, and it is further, ORDERED by the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, that notice be given
by the insertion of a copy of this order in The National
Law Journal, said newspaper having a general
circulation in the District of Columbia; (A) in the National
Law Journal, once a week for (three) 3 successive
weeks in the course of one (1) month, and,
thereafter, two (2) times per month during the succeeding
two (2) months; and (B) In the Washington
Law Reporter, two (2) times a month for three (3)
consecutive months, notifying all persons interested
in the real property described above, including, but
not limited to Stanley Corbert, interested in the real
property described above, and any person that has
any right, title, interest, claim, lien, and equity of redemption,
and any such person’s heirs, assignees,
personal representatives, executors, administrators,
grantees, or successors in interest, and all unknown
owners, their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
and executors, administrators, grantees,
assignees or successors in interest; to appear
in Court by the 15th day of August, 2012, and redeem
the property by the payment of approximately
$5,890.47 together with interest from the date the
real property tax certificate was purchased; court
costs and attorney’s fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process and reasonable
fees for the title search and such other fees and expenses
allowed by the Court; all other amounts paid
by plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of D.C.
Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned real
property; or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the real property and vesting in the
plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri
Signed in chambers
Dates of Publication:
May 14, 21, 28 June 04, 11 July 02, 09,
2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
2009 CA 001650 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Magistrate Judge Joseph Beshouri
Aeon Financial, LLC
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5210
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Plaintiff,
vs.
Estate of Harold H. Burwell; Estate of Ursula O. Burwell
a/k/a Ursula Olivia Burwell; Carol Ann Burwell,
Personal Representative of the Estate of Ursula O.
Burwell a/k/a Ursula Olivia Burwell; Mayor of the
District of Columbia; Attorney General of the District
of Columbia; and All unknown owners of the Property
described below, their heirs, devisees, personal
representatives, and executors, administrators
grantees, assigns or successors in right, title, interest,
and any and all persons having or claiming to
have any leasehold or any other interest in the Property
and premises situate, described as: Square
3554 Lot 0110; address of 315 Douglas Street, NE,
Washington, DC, 20002
Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Official Code §47-1375
(2001 ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following
real Property, located in the District of Columbia
, assessed to Harold Burwell, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff in
this action, and described as Square 3554 Lot 0110
and which property may have a street address that
may be known as 315 Douglas Street, NE, Washington,
DC, 20002. The Complaint states, among other
things, that the amounts necessary for redemption
have not been paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's
Administration Order Number 02-11, it is this 1st
day of June, 2012 ORDERED by the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia, that notice be given by the
insertion of a copy of this order in The National Law
Journal, having a general circulation in the District
of Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the real
property described above to appear in this Court by
the 15th day of August, 2012, and redeem the real
Property by payment of $1,654.36 together with interest
from the date the real property tax certificate
was purchased, as well as court costs; reasonable
attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the publication
and service of process by publication; reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of
D.C. Official Code §47-1361 through 1377 (2001 ed.),
et seq., or answer the complaint or, thereafter, a final
judgment will be entered foreclosing the right of
redemption in the real property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri
(Signed in chambers)
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2011 CA 006359 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
THE REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD
1515 Kenilworth Ave, NE
Washington, DC 20029
vs.
BARBARA J. DINKINS 727 Quebec Place NW Washington
DC 20010, And JEOFFREY GRAHAM 1625
Olive Street, NE Washington, DC 20019, And MIL-
TON W. ARMIGER, MORTGAGEE 1629 K Street NW
Ste 300 Washington DC 20006, And CAPITAL-
SOURCE BANK FBO AEON FINANCIAL, LLC c/o Malik
Tuma, Esq. Tax Lien Law Group, LLP 27 North Wacker
Drive, #503 Chicago, IL 60606, And LVNV FUND-
ING, LLC c/o Corporation Trust 1209 Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801, and GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL 900 23rd Street, NW Washington,
DC 20037, And KAYODE OLAWUMI 16404
Euro Court Bowie, MD 20716, And GEICO INSU-
RANCE COMPANY 5260 Western Avenue Chevy
Chase, MD 20815, And THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-
BIA, Serve: Mayor of the District of Columbia, Vincent
Gray, Attn: Office of the Secretary, 1350 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., #419, Washington, DC
20001, Serve: Attorney General of the District of Columbia,
Attn: Darlene Fields, 441 4th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, And All Unknown Owners of
the Property described below, their Heirs, Personal
Representatives, Executors, Administrators, Grantees,
Assigns or Successors in Right, Title, Interest,
and Any and all persons having or claiming to have
any interest in the leasehold or fee simple in the
property and premises situate, lying and being in the
District of Columbia described as: Square 5168, Lot
0019. May also be known as 1625 Olive Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20019.
Defendants
ORDER OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
The immediate object of this proceeding is to secure
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following
real property located in the District of Columbia,
and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia
to the Plaintiff in this action, which property is described
as Square 5618, Lot 0019 which may also be
known as 1625 Olive Street, NE, Washington, DC
20019. The Complaint states, among other things,
that the amounts necessary for redemption have not
been paid. Pursuant D.C. Code Section 13-341 (2001
ed.) and the Chief Judge's Administrative Order
Number 02-11, it is, this 13th day of April, 2012, OR-
DERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
that service upon Defendant Jeoffrey Graham,
and/or his Heirs, Devisees, Personal Representatives,
Executors, Administrators, Grantees, Assigns
or Successors in Right, Title and Interest, be
made by insertion of a copy of this Order in the National
Law Journal and the Daily Washington Law
Reporter, a newspapers of general circulation in the
District of Columbia, twice a month for three (3) consecutive
months, notifying any and all persons interested
in the Real Property described above to appear
in this Court on or before the 1st day of August,
2012, and redeem the Real Property by payment of
$3,879.87, together with interest from the date the
Certificate of Sale for Taxes was purchased; court
costs and attorney's fees; expenses incurred in the
publication and service of process by publication and
for reasonable fees for the title search; all other
amounts paid by the petitioner in accordance with
the provisions of D. C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding
municipal lien amounts due and owing on
the aforementioned Real Property, or answer the
complaint, or, thereafter, a final judgment will be entered
foreclosing the right of redemption in the Real
Property and vesting in the Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Signed in chambers
Dates of Publication
May 07, 14 June 04, 11 July 02, 09, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
2009 CA 001707 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Magistrate Judge Joseph Beshouri
Aeon Financial, LLC
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5210
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Plaintiff,
vs.
Gregory M. Peters; Chevy Chase Bank FSB; Citibank,
NA, successor to Universal Bank, NA; Mayor of the
District of Columbia; Attorney General of the District
of Columbia; and All unknown owners of the Property
described below, their heirs, devisees, personal
representatives, and executors, administrators
grantees, assigns or successors in right, title, interest,
and any and all persons having or claiming to
have any leasehold or any other interest in the Property
and premises situate, described as: Square
5286 Lot 0075; address of 23 52nd Street, SE, Washington,
DC, 20019
Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Official Code §47-1375
(2001 ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure

the . national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ JULY 2, 2012 July 2, 2012 27
COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOES 1 THROUGH 351
Defandants.
Notice of ActioN
Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. v. Does 1 through 351
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-0241-GBL-JFA
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,
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.
1. Plaintiffs shall cause a copy of this Order to be published in The National Law Journal/The Legal Times once within twenty-one (21) days after the entry of this Order and an affidavit
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.
2. The domain names coachoutlets-purse.org, coach-outletfactory.us, coach-pursesusa.org, coachoutletsfactory.net, outletcoachs.org, coachpurses-outlet.us, coachpurses-us.
net, coachbagsale.org, coachoutletsstore.us, coachoutleter.net, coachhandbags-outlet.org, coach-outlet-handbags.org, bestcoachhandbags.net, best-coach-handbags.net, bizcoachpurses.net,
buycoach.us, cheap-coachbags.net, cheapcoachbagsonsale.org, cheapcoachbagsoutlet.org, cheapcoachhandbag.net, cheapcoachhandbags1.net, cheapcoachhandbags4u.net,
cheapcoach-handbags.net, cheap-coachhandbags.us, cheapcoachoutlet.net, cheap-coach-outlet.org, cheapcoachpurse.net, cheap-coachpurses.org,
coachbagoutlet.net, coachbagoutlet.org, coachbag-outlet.org, coachbagoutlets.org, coachbags2011.org, coachbagsclearance.net, coachbags-clearance.net, coachbags-coach.
net, coachbags-factory.net, coachbagshop.org, coachbagshopping.net, coachbagshops.net, coachbagsonline.net, coach-bags-online.net, coachbags-online.org, coach-bagsoutlet.net,
coachbagsoutlet-outlet.net, coachbagsoutlets1941.net, coachbagssale.net, coachbags-sale.net, coachbagssale.org, coachbags-sale.org, coachbagsshop.org, coachbagsshops.net,
coachcheapbag.net, coachclearance.us, coach-diaper-bags.org, coachdiscount.net, coachdiscountstore.us, coachesbags.net, coachfactory4outlet.net, coachfactory--online.net,
coachfactory--outlet.net, coachfactoryoutlet2011.net, coach-factoryoutletstore.net, coachfactoryoutletstore.org, coachfactoryoutlet-stores.net,
coachfactorysstoresoutlets.org, coachfactory-store.us, coachfactorystoresoutlet.net, coachhandbagmalaysia.net, coachhandbagmall.net, coachhandbags2011.net, coachhandbags2u.net,
coachhandbags2u.net, coachhandbagsclearance.net, coachhandbagsforcheap.net, coachhandbags-mall.net, coachhandbags-mart.net, coachhandbagsonline.net,
coachhandbagsoutlet.org, coachhandbags-outlets.org, coachhandbagspurses.net, coachhandbagsreplica.org, coachhandbags-sale.org, coachhandbagsshop.net, coachhandbagsstore.net,
coachhandbags-usa.net, coach-handbags-usa.net, coachmall.org, coach-online.us, coach-online-outlet.net, coach-online-outlet.org, coachonlineshopping.net,
coach-onlinestore.net, coachonlinestore.org, coach--outlet.net, coachoutlet1.us, coachoutlet2011.org, coachoutlet2u.net, coachoutlet4ny.net, coachoutletcheap.org, coachoutletdiaper.org,
coach-outlet-factory.us, coach-outlet-factory.us, coachoutletfactorystore.net, coachoutletmall.net, coachoutlet-mall.org, coachoutletonline.net, coach-outletonline.
org, coachoutletonlines.org, coachoutletonlinesale.org, coachoutletonlinestores.net, coachoutlet-onsale.net, coach-outlet-purse.net, coach-outletsfactory.net, coach-outletsfactorys.net,
coachoutlets-online.net, coachoutlets-purse.net, coachoutletssale.net, coach-outlets-store.net, coach-outlets-stores.org, coach-outletstorefactory.net, coachoutletstore-online.us,
coachoutletstoreonline-us.net, coachoutletstore--us.net, coachoutletsus.net, coachoutletsus.org, coachoutlet-us.net, coach-outlet-usa.net, coachoutlet--usa.net,
coachpoppybags.net, coachpurse-outlet.net, coach-purses1.net, coachpurses-outlet.net, coachpurses-outlet.org, coachpurseus.net, coachpurse-us.net, coachreplicahandbags.
org, coachsaleoutlets.net, coachshopoutlet.org, coach-store-online.net, coach-store-outlet.net, coachstoreoutlet.us, factorycoach.org, fakecoachpurses.org, fashioncoachbags.
us, godcoachoutlet.org, hotcoachoutlet.net, mycoachbags.net, newcheap-coachpurses.net, outletcoach2011.net, outlets-coach.org, replicacoachhandbags.us, singaporecoach.
net, thecoachoutletonline.net, ukcoach.net, us-coachoutletonline.net, us-coachoutletstores.net, uscoachpurses.net, us-coachpurses.net, uscoach-stores.net, women-coach-outlet.net,
outletcoachs2011.net, coachoutlet1.org, cheapcoachbagoutlet.net, cheapcoachbagoutlet.net, coachfactoryoutletmall.org, coachbagsmall.net, coachbagsoutletsstore.net,
businesscoachoutlet1.org, coachsoutletpurse.net, cheapcoachbagsonline.net, coachbagss.net, bagscoach.org, coachbagsnew.net, coachbagsstore4u.net, coachbagstores.net,
coachbagswebsite.net, coachhandbagsclearance.org, coachonlinestores.net, outletstore-coach.net, cheapcoachhandbagsale.net, coachbagsforsale.org, coachbagsofficial.org,
coachhandbagsfactorys.net, coachstoresoutlets.net, coachoutletonlinestores.us, fake-coach-purses.org, wholesalecoachhandbags.net, coach-outlet.ws, fake-coach-purses.org,
vipcoachoutlet.net, bagscoach.org, coachsoutletonlinefactory.net, coachoutlet-coachbags.net, coachtote.org, coachoutletstoreus.org, cheap-coachpurses.net, coachoutletonlinesstores.org,
outletonline-coach.net, coachs-outlets-online.us, cheapcoachonline.net, coachoutletonlinestoresale.org, coachhandbag-outlets.org, coachbagsoutlet4u.net,
coachsoutletpurse.net, coachoutletpurse.us, coachoutletonline-usa.net, coachsaleshop.org, coachhandbags-outlet1.net, coachbag-outlet.net, coachdiaperbags.us, coachbagsok.
org, coachbagssales.net, coachbagsstores.net, coachhandbagsdiscount.org, coachoutletbagss.net, outletcoachbags.org, coachhoutlett.net, cheapcoachbagsoutlets.net, cheapcoachoutletstore.net,
coachpursefactorys.net, coachpursesclearance.net, buycoachoutlets.net, coachoutlet-sale.org, coachfactorystoreoutlete.org, newcoach.org, tcoachoutletonline.net,
coach-factory-outlets.net, coachoutletstoresonline-us.net, outletonlinecoach.net, luxecoachpurse.net, coach-shopping.org, onlineoutletscoach.net, coach8.net,
coachgooutlet.org, authenticcoachoutlet.net, storesoutletcoach.net, outletfactorycoach.net, coach-online-outlet.us, coachhandbagsoutlet4u.net, coachoutlethandbag.net, coachpursesca.net,
coach0outlet.org, coachbags-outlets.net, coach-saleoutlet.net, coachoutletsonlinefactory.net, thecoachpurses.net, coach-onlinestore.org, coachoutletonlinecool.
net, coachoutlet-store.us, coachbagsoutlett.net, coachshandbagsoutlet.net, coachhandbagsusa.net, topcheapcoachhandbags.net, coachoutletca.net, coachoutletonlinesale.net,
coachoutletstroe.net, coachoutlet2012.org, coachhandbagsfactoryoutlet.org, coachoutletonlinestore.us, coach-outlet.net, coachusoutlet.org, coachbagsclearance.org, coachpursesz.us,
coachfactoryoutlet-online.us, coach-factoryoutletsonline.net, factorycoachoutlet.net, gadcoachoutlet.net, coachfactorysoutletstoreonline.net, coachoutletonline-sale.
net, coachfactoryonlines.net, coachshandbags.org, coachdiaperbagss.org, coachdiaperbagoutlets.org, coachhandbags-usa.org, bigcoachoutlet.org, coachoutlet-storeonline.us,
coachhandbags2.org, coachhandbagsclearance.us, coachnhandbags.net, coachandbags.net, cheapcoachoutletss.net, cheapcoachoutletstore.org, coachoutletss.net, coachoutletstoreonlines.us,
coachhandbags--clearance.net, coachfactoryoutlet-sale.net, coachpurse-factory.org, coachbasoutlet.net, coachestoutlet.org, coachfactorystoreonlineoutlet.
net, coachoutletsonlinestores.org, coachoutletstoresonline4u.net, coachoutletstoreonlinesale.org, coachoutlet2012.net, coachsfactoryoutlet.net, coachsoutletfactory.net, coachoutlet-purse.org,
coachoutletonlinecool.org, coachoutlet1.net, coach--outletpurse.us, coachoutlets.net, coachoutletss.net, bestcoachoutlets.net, cheapcoachoutletss.org,
coachclearanceoutlet.net, coachfactorysoutlett.org, onlineoutletcoachs.net, salecoachdiaperbag.org, coachoutletonlineusa.net, coach-outlet-sale.net, coachoutletstoresusa.net,
coachoutletforsale.net, coachfactoryoutletss.net, coachfactoryoutlet-storeonline.org, coachfactoryoutlet-onlines.net, coachfactorysoutletonline.net, coachfactorystoreoutleta.
net, coachoutletstoresonlines.net, coachpursesoutletstoreonline.us, coachfactorysoutletonline.org, coachhandbags2011.org, coachoutletsalestore.net, vipcoachoutletonline.org,
coachbagscanada.org, coachbagsforcheap.us, coachbagsok.us, coachfactoryoutletonlinesale.net, coachoutlet7.org, coachoutlete.net, coachoutletonlinefactory.org, coachoutletonlineshopping.net,
coachoutletonlineshopping.org, coachoutletustore.net, vip-coachoutlet.net, coachpursesoutletsale.net, coachsfactoryoutlet.org, coachsoutletsu.net, coachfactorystoreoutleta.org,
coachhandbagsussale.net, coachfactoryonlineoutlet.net, allcoachoutlet.net, womancoachoutlet.net, coachoutletbay.net, cheapcoachbagsclearance.org,
coachandbags.org, coach-coach.net, coach-sale.net, discount-coachhandbags.net, outlet.coachbagsoutlets1941.com, and uscoachoutletus.net (collectively, “the domain name
defendants”), are hereby advised:
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
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
60601, telephone number 312-602-5000, or at .
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.
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
Square, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-5798, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of publication of this Order in The National Law Journal/The Legal Times. If no appearance or pleading is
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
names to Plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2012.
Date of Publication: July 25, 2011
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following
real Property, located in the District of Columbia
, assessed to D B Quander Trustees & D C
Peters Trustees, and sold by the Mayor of the District
of Columbia to the Plaintiff in this action, and
described as Square 5286 Lot 0075 and which property
may have a street address that may be known
as 23 52nd Street, SE, Washington, DC, 20019. The
Complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administration
Order Number 02-11, it is this 1st day of June, 2012
ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
that notice be given by the insertion of a
copy of this order in The National Law Journal, having
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying
all persons interested in the real property described
above to appear in this Court by the 22nd
day of August, 2012, and redeem the real Property
by payment of $2,570.73 together with interest from
the date the real property tax certificate was purchased,
as well as court costs; reasonable attorney's
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication; reasonable fees
for the title search; all other amounts paid by the Petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Official
Code §47-1361 through 1377 (2001 ed.), et
seq., or answer the complaint or, thereafter, a final
judgment will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the real property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri
(Signed in chambers)
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Civil Action No. 2012 CA 004708 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Calendar 18
Magistrate Judge Joseph E. Beshouri
Capitol Tax Services, LLC
/s/ John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
vs.
MARSHA A. CLAYTON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE ESTATE OF NAOMI S. BUCKNER, AND
HMTR1, LLC, and District of Columbia, And All Unknown
Owners of the Property described below,
their Heirs, Personal Representatives, Executors,
Administrators, Grantees, Assigns or Successors in
Right, Title, Interest, and Any and all persons having
or claiming to have any interest in the leasehold or
fee simple in the property and premises situate, lying
and being in the District of Columbia described
as: Square 5390, Lot 0041. May also be known as
4318 H ST SE
Defendants
ORDER OF PUBLICATION
"In accordance with D.C. Code §47-1375, the object
of this proceeding is to secure the foreclosure of the
right of redemption in the following real property located
in the District of Columbia, and sold by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Plaintiff(s) in
this action described as Square 5390, Lot 0041
which may also be known as 4318 H Street SE. The
complaint states, among other things, that the
amounts necessary for redemption have not been
paid. Pursuant to the Chief Judge's Administrative
Order Number 02-11, it is this 10th day of May,
2012, ORDERED by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, that notice be given by the insertion of
a copy of this Order in the National Law Journal, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District of
Columbia, once a week for three (3) successive
weeks, notifying all persons interested in the Real
Property described above to appear in this Court by
the 19th day of September, 2012, and redeem the
Real Property by payment of $3,157.05 together with
interest from the date the Real Property tax certificate
was purchased; court costs and attorney's
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and service
of process by publication and for reasonable
fees for the title search; all other amounts paid by
the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of D.
C. Code §47-1361 and all outstanding municipal lien
amounts due and owing on the aforementioned Real
Property, or answer the complaint, or, thereafter, a
final judgment will be entered foreclosing the right
of redemption in the Real Property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple."
/s/ Duane B. Delaney, Clerk of the Court
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
2010 CA 003788 L(RP)
(Action Involving Real Property)
Magistrate Judge Joseph Beshouri
CapitalSource Bank FBO Aeon Financial, LLC
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5210
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Plaintiff,
vs.
W & D, LLC NKA Washington Communities I, LLC;
Fulton Bank, as Successor by Merger to Resource
Bank; Richard L. Bernardi; Michael Paulson; Eagle
Bank; Martha Foulon-Tonat; District of Columbia
Water and Sewer Authority; Mayor of the District of
Columbia; Attorney General of the District of Columbia;
and All unknown owners of the Property described
below, their heirs, devisees, personal representatives,
and executors, administrators grantees,
assigns or successors in right, title, interest, and
any and all persons having or claiming to have any
leasehold or any other interest in the Property and
premises situate, described as: Square 5130 Lot
0067; address of 4501 Grant Street, NE, Washington,
DC, 20019
Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER OF PUBLICATION
In accordance with D.C. Official Code §47-1375
(2001 ed.), the object of this proceeding is to secure
the foreclosure of the right of redemption in the following
real Property, located in the District of Columbia
, assessed to W & D, LLC c/o Richard P.
Deeds, and sold by the Mayor of the District of Columbia
to the Plaintiff in this action, and described
as Square 5130 Lot 0067 and which property may
have a street address that may be known as 4501
Grant Street, NE, Washington, DC, 20019. The Complaint
states, among other things, that the amounts
necessary for redemption have not been paid. Pursuant
to the Chief Judge's Administration Order
Number 02-11, it is this 1st day of June, 2012 OR-
DERED by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,
that notice be given by the insertion of a
copy of this order in The National Law Journal, having
a general circulation in the District of Columbia,
once a week for three (3) successive weeks, notifying
all persons interested in the real property described
above to appear in this Court by the 15th day
of August, 2012, and redeem the real Property by
payment of $5,863.38 together with interest from
the date the real property tax certificate was purchased,
as well as court costs; reasonable attorney's
fees; expenses incurred in the publication and
service of process by publication; reasonable fees
for the title search; all other amounts paid by the Petitioner
in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Official
Code §47-1361 through 1377 (2001 ed.), et
seq., or answer the complaint or, thereafter, a final
judgment will be entered foreclosing the right of redemption
in the real property and vesting in the
Plaintiff a title in fee simple.
/s/ Magistrate Judge J.E. Beshouri
(Signed in chambers)
Dates of Publication
June 18, 25 July 02, 2012
Public
notice
For further information,
call LaToya Barbour
202 828-0362 or email
LBarbour@alm.com

28 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ July 2, 2, 2012
INTERNATIONAL TAX LAWYER
CORPORATE FINANCE ATTORNEY
Are you looking to work in a dynamic, fast-paced, entrepreneurial environment? Our 90+ attorney firm is the place
for you. Rapidly expanding commercial finance practice seeks a detail-oriented, organized, mid-level Corporate
Finance Attorney w/ 4+ yrs of loan transaction and financing exp, representing lenders and borrowers alike. Ability
to draft and negotiate loan docs a must. Knowledge of UCC secured transactions, govt. contract lending and asset
based loans is a plus. Exp handling syndicated financing and club transactions is helpful.
Submit resume to: mbowen@shulmanrogers.com.
EOE Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, P.A. website: www.shulmanrogers.com
A large southeastern law firm is seeking an international tax
lawyer. This high level member of the tax team will provide
international corporate tax expertise to clients of the firm by
assisting with acquisition planning, strategies and analysis; as well
as, post-acquisition matters including foreign tax credits, foreign
source income analysis, tax treaty consultation, etc. Successful
candidates will have a minimum of eight years of relevant
experience. Competitive compensation package includes full benefits.
Resumes may be sent to attorneyposting2012@gmail.com.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C.
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL &
STAFF ATTORNEYS
The Office of the General Counsel at the Federal Election Commission is
recruiting for an Assistant General Counsel for the Enforcement Division
and Attorneys for the General Law and Advice Division. This is an excellent
opportunity to join a dynamic legal team and work on sophisticated campaign
finance, First Amendment, and general law issues. Successful candidates
will have a J.D. degree from an accredited law school, at least two to four
years of legal experience depending on position, and superior analytical and
communication skills. Experience with election law is desirable but not
required.
Assistant General Counsel Vacancy Announcement #12-026
Staff Attorneys Vacancy Announcement #12-025
For a copy of the vacancy announcement listing specific application
requirements, please call 202-694-1080 or visit our website at www.fec.gov
and click on “About the FEC”. The FEC is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
LEGAL CONSULTANTS
LEGAL WRITING WORKSHOPS
Provide your legal team with the tools
they need to avoid jargon, sharpen
advocacy skills, master self-editing
& produce crisp, compelling prose.
Workshops offered at your offices to
fit your schedule.
The Writer’s Center
www.writer.org
301-654-8664
4508 Walsh St.
Bethesda MD 20815
Call 347-227-3145
to Advertise in NLJ Classifieds
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
FOOD AND DRUG DIVISION, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND OFFICE
ATTORNEY SENIOR MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The Food and Drug Division (FDD) of the Office of General Counsel (FDA’s
Office of the Chief Counsel) is seeking multiple experienced attorneys to fill
new vacancies on its management team. FDA regulates almost 25 percent
of the United States consumer economy to help ensure the safety and
effectiveness of medical products, the safety of the food supply, and
appropriate regulation of tobacco products. FDD provides litigation and counseling
support for FDA’s mission of promoting and protecting the public health.
These positions are in the Senior Executive Service (SES), a small elite
group of senior government leaders who possess a diverse portfolio of
experience and the strong skills required to lead across organizations. This
dedicated corps of executives is charged with providing strategic leadership
and upholding a commitment to public service.
Positions are located at FDA headquarters at the White Oak Campus
in Silver Spring, Maryland. Salaries range from $119,554.00 to $179,700.00.
The Federal Government offers a comprehensive benefits package.
Additional information on the FDD/FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel is available
at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeoftheChiefCounsel/default.htm.
For additional information about the positions or to apply, please review the
following job announcements on usajobs.com: HHS-OGC-ES-12-666899
(Principal Deputy Associate General Counsel); HHS-OGC-ES-12-647632
(Deputy Associate General Counsel for Litigation); and HHS-OGC-ES-12-
669707 (Deputy Associate General Counsel for Program Review). Application
packages must be received on-line by 11:59 pm on July 23, 2012.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:
U.S. Citizenship is required.
Background and/or Security Investigation required.
Must complete 1 year SES probationary period, if not previously completed.
Must possess a J.D. or LL.B degree.
Must be a member in good standing of the bar of a state, territory of the US, the
District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
HHS is an Equal Opportunity Employer and has a Smoke-Free workplace.
TESTIMONY
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS

. the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ JULY 2, 2012 July 2, 2012 29
. July 2, 2012 29
SmithAmundsen LLC is seeking to further expand our practice and to
develop an Indianapolis presence through the addition of partner-level
lateral SmithAmundsen attorneys with LLC portable is seeking business to further in the expand following our practice and areas: to
Labor develop & an Employment, Indianapolis Commercial presence through Litigation, the addition Banking, of partner-level
Bankruptcy,
Professional lateral attorneys Liability with portable Defense, business Healthcare in the Compliance, following practice Corporate areas:
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC
Transactions, Labor & Employment, Tax and Commercial Regulatory. Litigation, Only attorneys Banking, with Bankruptcy, portable
business Professional need Liability apply. Defense, Healthcare Compliance, Corporate
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CLINIC
Transactions, Tax and Regulatory. Only attorneys with portable
Headquartered business need apply. in Chicago, SmithAmundsen is comprised of 140
The University of Oregon School of Law (Eugene) seeks a Supervising Attorney (SA) to manage the
Domestic Violence Clinic, supervise students enrolled in the Clinic and to represent survivors of domestic
attorneys based in six offices in Illinois, Wisconsin and Missouri. Our
violence, stalking, and sexual assault. This live-client clinical program works closely with community partners,
attorneys Headquartered regularly in practice Chicago, in SmithAmundsen all venues within is the comprised states of Illinois, of 140
The University of Oregon School of Law (Eugene) seeks a Supervising Attorney (SA) to manage the
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
Wisconsin attorneys based and Missouri in six offices in both in Illinois, state and Wisconsin federal and court. Missouri. In addition, Our
ensure violence, holistic stalking, and and comprehensive sexual assault. services This live-client for its clients. clinical The 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
non-tenure Womenspace, track, Sexual instructor Assault position. Support There 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
year ensure contingent holistic and on comprehensive need, funding services and performance. its clients. At The 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.
regional and national basis by clients
position non-tenure will track, be full-time instructor part-time. position. FTE There is is negotiable, an expectation .6 to 1.0. that Requirements this position will for review continue include beyond a JD, one a
to handle both coordinating counsel responsibilities as well as direct
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
(by position passing will the be full-time July 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:
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
clients. (by passing See the July 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
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
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 July 5, 2012. The position for will a 150 Michael N. Michigan L. DeLargy Avenue
remain complete open list until of job filled. requirements, The top supplemental candidate must questions, successfully job description, complete a criminal and application background procedures. check. Suite SmithAmundsen 3300 LLC
The To ensure University consideration, of Oregon is all an required AA/EO/ADA documents institution must strongly be submitted committed by July to cultural 5, 2012. diversity. The position will Chicago, 150 N. Michigan IL 60601 Avenue
34 remain open until filled. The top candidate must successfully complete a criminal background check. Suite 3300
the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ May 28, 2012
The University of Oregon is an AA/EO/ADA institution strongly committed to cultural diversity.
Chicago, IL 60601
Paid listings
For information on how to get your firm listed in this directory, call (347) 227-3145.
Court Reporting Services
#Reserved 5 x 5.62 in.
#Reserved 5 x 5.62 in.
NatioNwiDE CouRt REpoRtiNg SERviCES
Got depositions?
(877) 808-3376
FREE CoNFERENCE RoomS
E-mail: vincent@courtreporterdepot.com
Website: www.courtreporterdepot.com
Principal Contact: Vincent Rosalia
CourtReporterDepot is a national
court reporting company with offices
throughout United States. The philosophy
behind CourtReporterDepot
is to simplify the way in which a legal
professional sources a court reporter
outside of their home office area.
We do not broker your deposition
to another court reporting agency.
All depositions are handled by our
own prescreened and certified court
reporters. We handle depositions from
start to finish!
Our services include:
• National Court Reporting Services
• Pre-Screened & Certified Court Reporters
• Free Conference Rooms
• Expedited Service
• Videoconferencing
• Transcript & Exhibit Repositories
• Exhibit Linking...and much more!
CaLL toDay to SChEDuLE a DEpoSitioN oR
LEaRN moRE about CouRt REpoRtER DEpot
(877) 808-3376
www.courtreporterdepot.com
For information on
how to get
your firm listed in
this directory,
call (347) 227-3145.
NLJ Legal Services Directory
Electronic Discovery Services
CliCKS
Document Management
(202) 842-3430
(202) 842-4641
E-mail: vansari@clicksdocs.com
Website: www.clicksdocs.com
Principal Contact: Vicki Ansari
When a law firm chooses CliCKS,
they not only get a flexible, customizable
document management
solution, they also get our years of
expertise in document management.
The project managers and support
staff at CliCKS will be with you every
step of the way in the document
production process-from assessing
your document production needs and
how we can meet them, to creating
an approach that meets or exceeds
your expectations.
* Document Imaging
* Electronic Data Discovery (EDD)
* Digital Blowbacks (B&W and Color)
* CD/DVD Duplication
* Trial Exhibits and Presentation
* Litigation Photocopying
Legal Support Services
codeMantra, LLC
(610) 940-1724
E-mail: rgrande@codemantra.com
Website: www.codemantra.net
Principal Contact: Robert Grande
codeMantra, LLC is an international
provider of comprehensive litigation
support, document management and
technology solutions. Our clients
consist of fortune 500 corporations,
Amlaw Top 250 firms, document
management and service providers.
Our solutions include legal process
outsourcing software development,
programming, data conversion and
document review management. (cP-
DocRev v2.0).
CREDIT REPORTING
CREDIT REPORTING
SERVICES FOR LAWYERS
SERVICES FOR LAWYERS

Opinion
Sound off
Send letters to the editor to rsingleton@alm.com.
30 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
the health care decision
Health Care Reaction
Practitioners’ comments ranged from ‘a sad day for America’ to ‘the
American people’s decisions matter’ to ‘back to business as usual.’
The National Law Journal asked practitioners
to provide instant commentaries
on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28
decision to uphold the Affordable Care
Act. These are collected at www.nlj.com/
healthcare. Below are selected excerpts
from the commentaries.
Individual mandate
It would have been ironic indeed if
the Supreme Court had struck down the
individual mandate to purchase health
care. Opponents of the mandate objected
to what they saw as an unjustified
effort by Congress to expand the power
of the federal government. But in fact,
the Affordable Care Act’s mandate represents
a weaker assertion of federal power
than occurred when Congress enacted
Medicare in 1965.
The Medicare program imposed a
mandate on Americans to purchase hospital
insurance for their senior years from
the federal government. We all must
contribute part of our income to fund
the cost of hospital care after age 65. The
constitutionality of the Medicare mandate
tells us that Congress could have
adopted a Canadian-style, “Medicare-for-
All” health care system in which people
would pay part of their income to fund
government-sponsored health care coverage
for themselves and their family
even before they reach age 65.
From a perspective of individual liberty,
however, it is far better to require
people to obtain their insurance from a
private health care system, in which they
can choose among a variety of options,
than from a government system in which
they would have to accept the government’s
preferred form of insurance. Not
only is the liberty of the individual purchaser
greater under the Affordable Care
Act than under a single-payer system, so
is the liberty of people who sell insurance.
A single-payer system would put them
out of business. The Affordable Care Act
allows them to continue operating.
As the Court concluded, the individual
mandate functions simply as a tax surcharge.
Under the Affordable Care Act,
we all must pay an additional income tax
unless we qualify for an exemption by
having health care insurance.…
Because the individual mandate fits
comfortably within existing boundaries
of federal power, the Court could have
struck it down only by turning back the
clock to its pre-New Deal jurisprudence.
In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts
istockphoto/VILevi
Jr. was true to his understanding of the
Supreme Court’s role at his confirmation
hearings. With his decisive vote,
the Court rejected the invitation to roll
back 70 years of constitutional precedent.
Instead, the opinion reflects the more
modest role for the Court that Roberts
described upon his nomination in 2005.
—Da v i d Or e n t l i c h e r, Sa m u e l. R. Ro s e n
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
Rob e r t H. McKin n e y Sc h o o l o f La w,
In d i a n a p o l i s
Today’s baby-splitting decision rewrites
the Affordable Care Act in order to save
it. It’s certainly gratifying that a majority
rejected the government’s dangerous
assertion of power to require people to
engage in economic activity in order to
then regulate that activity. That vindicates
everything that we who have been
leading the constitutional challenge have
been saying: The government cannot regulate
inactivity. It cannot, as Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr. put it, regulate mere
existence.
Justifying the individual mandate
under the taxing power, however, in no
way rehabilitates the government’s constitutional
excesses. As Justice Anthony
Kennedy said in summarizing his fourjustice
dissent from the bench, “Structure
means liberty.” If Congress can slip the
Constitution’s structural limits simply by
“taxing” anything it doesn’t like, its power
is no more limited than would it be had it
done so under the commerce clause.…
In short, we have reaped the fruits
of two poisonous trees of constitutional
jurisprudence: On the one (liberal activist)
hand, there are no judicially administrable
limits on federal power. On the
other (conservative pacifist) one, we must
defer to Congress and presume (or construe)
its legislation to be constitutional.
It is that tired old debate that produces
the Frankenstein’s monster of today’s ruling.
What judges should be doing instead
is applying the Constitution, no matter
whether that leads to upholding or striking
down legislation. And a correct application
of the Constitution inevitably rests
on the Madisonian principles of ordered
liberty and limited government that the
document embodies.
In any event, the ball now returns to
the people, who opposed Obamacare all
along and whence all legitimate power
originates. It is ultimately they who must
decide—or not—to rein in the out-ofcontrol
government whose unconstitutional
actions have taken us to the brink
of economic disaster.
—Il y a Sh a p i r o, s e n i o r fellow in
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
At oral argument, Justice Sotomayor
asked Paul Clement why couldn’t
Congress simply tax everyone for health
care and then give an exemption for
those who already have health insurance.
Clement, for all of his brilliance,
did not have an answer to that question.
That is exactly what the individual mandate
does: impose a tax on those who do
not have health insurance. Since 1937,
not one federal taxing or spending program
has been declared unconstitutional.
Today’s decision follows from that. It is
striking that Chief Justice Roberts joined
with the liberal justices to uphold the
individual mandate. In his seven years on
the Court, rarely has he done so when
the Court has been ideologically divided.
Today, it really became the Roberts Court.
—Er w i n Ch e m e r i n s k y, d e a n a n d disting
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
Ca l i f o r n i a, Ir v i n e Sc h o o l o f La w
This is a shocking decision, one that
should concern all Americans. Prior to
today, it was absolutely clear that there
were structural limits upon the federal
government’s power to regulate private
conduct. As the dissent points out,
today’s decision makes “mere breathing
in and out” the basis for federal regulation
and thus grants the federal government
the power to regulate virtually all
spheres of human activity. This is a sad
day for America and for our constitutional
republic.
—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
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
In 2008, the United States had an
election, and the American people overwhelmingly
elected a president and a
Congress who believe it is a moral abomination
that, in the wealthiest, most powerful
nation that ever existed, tens of
thousands of Americans die every day
because they cannot afford lifesaving
treatment. Today’s decision upholding
nearly all of the Affordable Care Act reaffirms
that the American people’s decision
matters.
—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-
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
The Supreme Court confirmed that
the power to regulate commerce does
not include the power to compel it. By
a 5-4 vote, the Court concluded that the
commerce power requires some underlying
economic “activity,” and cannot
reach individuals who sit out the market.
This should come as a relief to those
concerned about the serious individualliberty
implications of the mandate. We
cannot be forced to buy broccoli.
On the other hand, Congress can tax
us if we fail to buy broccoli. The Supreme
Court accepted a sleeper argument that
the individual mandate is constitutional
as a “tax.” This decision was also 5-4, with
Chief Justice Roberts joining the four liberal
justices. Although Congress didn’t
call the payment a “tax”—instead calling
it a “penalty”—the Court believed that
See health care, Page 31

the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012 31
the health care decision
Opinion
health care reaction
health care, from page 30
because the payment was not particularly
high, was not limited to willful violations,
and was collected by the IRS through usual
tax mechanisms, it was properly characterized
as a “tax” for constitutional purposes.…-
The bottom line is that middle-income
Americans must pay a tax or buy health
insurance.…The debate about health care
reform now moves into the political arena.
Both state legislatures and Congress have a
lot of work to do.
—Elizabeth Pr i c e Fo l e y, Institute f o r
Justice c h a i r in c o n s t i t u t i o n a l litigat
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
Un i v e r s i t y College o f La w
istockphoto/Graffizone
Publisher Stephen P. Lincoln
Editor in Chief David L. Brown
Managing Editor Ruth Singleton
deputy editor Sam Skolnik
Assistant Managing Editor Michael Moline
Art Director Tegist Legesse
new media Editor Jonathan Hayter
Supreme Court Correspondent Tony Mauro
Chief Washington Correspondent Marcia Coyle
Associate Editor Leigh Jones
Senior Reporter Jenna Greene
Boston Bureau Chief Sheri Qualters
Staff Reporters Amanda Bronstad (Los Angeles);
Matthew Huisman (Washington); andrew
ramonas (Washington); Todd Ruger
With this ruling, everything is back to
business as usual, and everyone can continue
implementing the act’s various reforms
and coverage mandates. Whether the ruling
is good or bad from a constitutional perspective
is for the academics to debate. From
a practical point of view, the ruling adds a
certain measure of stability with respect to
the rules that govern employer-sponsored
health care benefits. Of course, this measure
of stability will be somewhat short-lived as
Congress continues to modify the rules of
the road and, undoubtedly, there will be litigation
challenging the implementation and
administration of the act’s various coverage
mandates. That said, such litigation would
have resulted—in one form or another—
regardless of the Court’s ruling.
—Ja m e s Napoli, s e n i o r c o u n s e l
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,
Pr o s k a u e r Ro s e
given that one must count the votes twice
to understand what has happened.
First, seven of the justices voted that the
Medicaid expansion was unconstitutionally
“coercive” under South Dakota v. Dole. So,
the first vote as to whether Congress has the
power to require states to expand Medicaid
was answered with a no; this is impermissibly
coercive because the states have too
much to lose if all of their Medicaid funds
are at stake. This is the first time the Court
has ruled that federal spending legislation is
impermissibly coercive.
But, the second question is whether
that historic vote for impermissible coercion
means the Medicaid expansion fails
in its entirety. Here, five justices voted
to uphold the expansion but strike the
remedy (removal of all Medicaid funding),
rather than strike the expansion from
the statute. These justices agreed that the
I was surprised by the number of votes in
favor of impermissible coercion, but I also
would be surprised if many, if any, states opt
out; they will have great pressure from both
physicians and hospitals to get their poorest
residents into Medicaid. Also, states that
opt out of the Medicaid expansion would
have to figure out how to fund the cost of
the poorest uninsured, who often arrive
in emergency departments with late-stage
injuries and diseases and thus cost more to
treat. Of course, if a number of states opt
out, then states that have fully expanded
Medicaid may see greater increases of their
enrollment that ultimately could lead to
political pressure to modify Medicaid eligibility
in a different way (as we have seen at
other points in Medicaid’s history).
It is hard to say what the future implications
of the reaffirmed coercion doctrine
will be. The majority applied the coercion
concept primarily through factual application
rather than by expanding supporting
theory (other than reiterating the “political
accountability” notion from New York
v. U.S.). Undoubtedly, more challenges to
spending legislation will follow, but this
disposition does not tell us much more
about coercion than we knew before 10:15
this morning.
—Ni c o l e Hu b e r f e l d, Professor, Un i v e r s i t y
o f Ke n t u c k y College o f La w, a n d
b i o e t h i c s associate, Un i v e r s i t y o f
Ke n t u c k y College o f Me d i c i n e
(Washington); Michael Scarcella
(Washington); Karen Sloan (New York);
Zoe Tillman (Washington)
Assistant Art Director Roberto Jimenez
Photo Editor Diego M. Radzinschi
Editorial Associate Tasha Norman
Chief Copy Editor Peter Dolack
Web Editor Richard Binder
intern Rob Stigile
Contributors June D. Bell, Emily Heller
Associate Publisher kenneth gary
Vice President/National Advertising Michael Medwig
Marketing Consultants Roseann Agostino, Andrew
Chernela, lisa corrigan, Ron Cummings,
Barrie Harmelin, Marnie Maroney, Joe Pavone,
Patty Martin
Law Firm Account Managers JoAnn Cannon, Jennifer
Jones, Nicole Kramer, Jai Wallace
Classified Advertising Manager Leonie Christie
Public Notice Advertising
LaToya Barbour (Washington)
production manager Samuel Wong
production coordinators Evelyn Fernandez
editorial (212) 457-9400
advertising (212) 457-9490
circulation (877) ALM-CIRC
reprints (877) 257-3382
President & CEO Bill Carter
Senior Vice President/Chief Legal Officer
Allison C. Hoffman
istockphoto/KeithBishop
Medicaid expansion
Today, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
truly wore King Solomon’s crown. He
managed to split the issue with regard to
both the “individual mandate” requiring all
Americans to have health insurance coverage
by 2014 as well as the expansion of
Medicaid making all Americans up to 133
percent of the federal poverty level eligible
for Medicaid coverage. The Medicaid aspect
of the decision is particularly confusing,
proper response was to sever the Medicaid
expansion so that if a state does not comply
with the expansion of Medicaid eligibility,
the state cannot lose all Medicaid
funding. Instead, it will only lose the funding
attached to the expansion but will continue
to receive existing Medicaid funding.
Four justices would have invalidated the
entire Medicaid expansion. The ultimate
result is that the Medicaid expansion was
upheld, but states may opt out of it without
jeopardizing all of their Medicaid funding
under 42 U.S.C. 1396c.
Nor does the Court vindicate its constitutional
sleight of hand by rewriting the
Medicaid expansion to tie only new federal
funding to an acceptance of burdensome
and fundamentally transformative
regulations. While correct on its face—and
a good exposition of the spending power
and what strings the federal government
can attach to its funds—that analysis is relevant
to a hypothetical statute, not the one
that Congress actually passed. Moreover,
allowing states to opt out of the new
Medicaid regime while leaving the rest
of Obamacare in place throws the insurance
market into disarray, increases costs
to individuals, and gives states a different
Hobson’s choice—different but no less
tragic than the one it previously faced. As
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in dissent,
while purporting to apply judicial modesty
or restraint, the Court’s rewriting of the
law is anything but restrained or modest.
—Il y a Sh a p i r o
Senior Vice President/Marketing Lenny Izzo
Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
Eric F. Lundberg
Senior Vice President/Information & Research Solutions
Kevin H. Michielsen
Senior Vice President/Legal Media Kevin J. Vermeulen
Senior Vice President/Chief Technology Officer
Jeffrey K. Whittle
Vice President/Real Estate Media Michael Desiato
Vice President/Regional Businesses Stephen Lincoln
Vice President/Editor in Chief Aric Press
The National Law Journal is published by ALM Media,
LLC. Copyright © 2012 by ALM Media Properties,
LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion
of this issue is allowed without written permission
from the publisher.
ALM Media, LLC, 120 Broadway , 5th fl., New York,
NY 10271 (212) 457-9400 (Corporate)
4 Metrotech, 21st fl., Brooklyn, NY 11201-3815
(877) 256-2472 (Subscriptions)

32 the national law journal/www.nlj.com ❙ july 2, 2012
Worked 12 Hours,
and Only Billed for 5?
Track down your billable time fast!
Introducing the new version of PCLaw ® .
CALL
888.432.9876
to request a demo,
and be entered for
a chance to
WIN A NEW
Where your time goes shouldn’t be a mystery.
Meeting with clients, making phone calls, sending emails,
drafting documents … it’s easy to lose track of potential billable
time at the end of a long day. Now you can solve the billable
hours mystery and see exactly where your time is spent with
the new Time Entry Advisor only available in PCLaw ® billing and
accounting software from LexisNexis ® .
APPLE ® iPAD ®* PCLaw ®
888.432.9876
Visit www.CaptureMoreTime.com
* 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
have any version of PCLaw ® installed in their firm. To be eligible for the gift offer, you must register for and attend a live PCLaw ® product demonstration between
July 2, 2012, and September 7, 2012. Only one gift per person valued at $499, while supplies last. Other restrictions may apply.
Void where prohibited. For a copy of official rules, visit www.lexisnexis.com/capturemoretime/prizerules.pdf.
LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. PCLaw is a registered trademark of LexisNexis Practice Management Systems Inc.
© 2012 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. LFPM061912-0