Home Blog

Delaware Attorney Avoids Suspension By New Jersey Supreme Court For Adderall Possession Without A Prescription

By
Charles Yuen
-
0
Delaware Attorney Avoids Suspension By New Jersey Supreme Court For Adderall Possession Without A Prescription

According to court documents police found a small quantity of Adderall, a prescription drug commonly used to treat attention deficit disorder, in the possession of an attorney stopped for a traffic violation. The attorney did not have a prescription for the drug and he was therefore cited, along with other traffic-related offenses.

As he was admitted to New Jersey courts, the New Jersey Supreme Court exercised disciplinary authority over the attorney for the possession even though he had moved to Delaware.

A split New Jersey disciplinary review board investigated and recommended to the Court that the attorney’s New Jersey license be suspended for three months.

Collins-DRB-Decision-7.16.21-1Download

In July, 2021 the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the recommended suspension in favor of an order publicly censuring the attorney. This was a lesser form of discipline than the recommended suspension.

Michael-Smith-Disciplinary-Order-NJ-7.06.2021-Supreme-Court-1-1Download

Censure had had been recommended by dissenting members of the disciplinary review board. As discussed in the disciplinary review board’s recommendation and dissent, the censure discipline was considerably harsher than a private reprimand given by the Delaware supervising court.

Collins-DRB-DissentDownload

The censure and the deliberations are a reminder that the law does not necessarily follow changing cultural norms. The attorney had argued that illegal nonprescription drug use was common, but that argument did not carry sufficient weight to prevent discipline. As is perhaps typical with such matters, the debate was only about how much discipline the attorney deserved, not whether to discipline the attorney at all.

U.S. Department of Justice Sues To Block Aon-Willis Merger

By
Charles Yuen
-
0
U.S. Department of Justice Sues To Block Aon-Willis Merger

The DOJ filed suit on June 16, 2021 against the second and third largest insurance brokers, Aon plc and Willis Towers Watson plc (“WTW”). The DOJ seeks to block their proposed merger combination.

The DOJ complaint alleges that “Aon and WTW compete with each other across virtually all of their respective offerings.” The complaint identifies “five relevant product markets in the United States” where “the effects of the proposed Merger would be particularly acute and the proposed Merger would be likely to substantially lessen competition.” These product markets, according to the DOJ are: “(1) property, casualty, and financial risk broking for large customers; (2) health benefits broking for large customers; (3) actuarial services for large single-employer defined benefit pension plans; (4) the operation of private multicarrier retiree exchanges; and (5) reinsurance broking.”

Willis Tower, Chicago (Derived From Unsplash Image)

Each of these markets and the roles of the companies are described in detail.

The complaint alleges that divestment steps the companies have specifically proposed to meet the DOJ’s concerns are in sufficient.

The complaint is available to download and review here:

US-v.-Aon-and-Willis-Filed-6.16.2021Download

Aon Center, Chicago (Derived From Unsplash Image)

Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic, New York Senate Finally Passes Legislation Eliminating New York Physical Office Requirement For Attorneys

By
Charles Yuen
-
0
Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic, New York Senate Finally Passes Legislation Eliminating New York Physical Office Requirement For Attorneys
As symbolized by the statute of liberty, the U.S. welcomed immigrants. New York is in the process of loosening discrimination against its' admitted but out-of-state resident attorneys.

Reuters and other news outlets have reported that a bill to eliminate section 470 of the New York Judiciary Law passed the Senate. (https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/ny-senate-oks-bill-let-lawyers-practice-without-in-state-office-2021-05-12/) The New York Court of Appeals has interpreted section 470 to require that nonresident attorneys practicing in New York maintain a bona fide physical office in New York.

The law being repealed was passed in 1909 and has come under scrutiny for various reasons, including that businesses including law firms have been practicing remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill advances to the Assembly. If the bill becomes law, law firms may be able to use in-state physical mail processing businesses for an in-state address without the need for a law office.

New Jersey Federal District Court Holds That Claims For Unpaid Commissions of Terminated Solar Energy Sales Employees Are Cognizable Under New Jersey Wage Payment Law, But Also Rejects Retroactive Application of Wage Theft Act

By
Charles Yuen
-
0
New Jersey Federal District Court Holds That Claims For Unpaid Commissions of Terminated Solar Energy Sales Employees Are Cognizable Under New Jersey Wage Payment Law, But Also Rejects Retroactive Application of Wage Theft Act

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler has denied a motion to dismiss terminated employees’ claims that a solar energy company had violated New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law (Jones v. HESP Solar, No. 20-13056 (SRC) (D.N.J. slip op. May 12, 2021). The district court rejected the employers’ argument that commission-based payments were not “wages” which were entitled to the WPL’s protection.

However, the plaintiff’s were terminated before enactment of New Jersey’s Wage Theft Act in 2019. The district court held that they were not entitled to the added protections of the WTA because there was no evidence before it that the New Jersey Legislature had intended for the law to be applied retroactively.

Judge Chesler’s thoroughly reasoned decision is meaningful for employers and employees whose pay is commission-based, whether in the solar industry or in other industries.

Kim V. Marrkand of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C Provides Scholarly Criticism Of Section 12 of the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance

By
Charles Yuen
-
0
Kim V. Marrkand of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C Provides Scholarly Criticism Of Section 12 of the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance

The lead article in the most recent issue of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section’s Law Journal Is “A Tort Without a Cause: Section 12 of the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance,” by Kim V. Marrkand, Esq. This Restatement and its Section 12 have been the subject of considerable controversy during its development over a number of years.

The American Law Institute (ALI) voted to approve the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance in 2018 after about eight years of drafting. Historically, the ALI’s Restatements of law were restatements of existing law. Some representatives of insurers have felt that some of the provisions, including section 12, go beyond restating. Attorney Marrkand’s article is a scholarly piece that cogently sets forth such a criticism.

On receipt, Law Journal articles are edited by an assigned member of its Editorial Board. Ms. Marrkand’s article was ably edited by Ryan M. Buschell, Esq., Special Counsel in the San Francisco office of Covington & Burling LLP.

The issue in which Ms. Marrkand’s article appears is a benefit of TIPS section membership and was distributed electronically to all TIPS section members by an April 28, 2021 email from Charles Allen Yuen, Editor-In-Chief. Attorneys and researchers may find the issue in typical research service databases such as Westlaw and Lexis as well as in electronic library collections.

Article “A Tort Without a Cause: Section 12 of the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance” takes the position that a tort remedy described in Section 12 does not belong in the Restatement. Figuratively — no camping here.

American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section’s Law Journal Kicks Off 56th Volume With In-Depth Coverage of Timely Subjects

By
Charles Yuen
-
0
American Bar Association Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section’s Law Journal Kicks Off 56th Volume With In-Depth Coverage of Timely Subjects

The familiar blue law review publication includes the following articles: “A Tort Without a Cause: Section 12 of the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance,” by Kim V. Marrkand, Esq.; Police Liability Insurance After Repeal of Qualified Immunity, and Before,” by Professor Kenneth S. Abraham of the University of Virginia; “The ADA and Website Accessibility Post-Domino’s: Detangling Employers’ and Business Owners’ Web and Mobile Accessibility Obligations,” by Ahmed J. Kassim, Esq., and Laura Lawless, Esq.; “A New Perspective on Communicable Disease Exclusions in Liability Insurance Policies,” by Douglas R. Richmond, Esq.; and Mental Stress Causing Mental Disability Under Worker’s Compensation Laws: A Short History, the Competing Arguments, and a 2021 Inventory,” by Judge David B. Torrey and Donald T. DeCarlo, Esq.

It will be apparent to practicing attorneys that these are current topics of considerable current interest. The articles are well-written and informative.

The issue is a benefit of TIPS section membership and was distributed electronically to all TIPS section members by an April 28, 2021 email from Charles Allen Yuen, Editor-In-Chief. Attorneys and researchers may find the issue in typical research service databases such as Westlaw and Lexis as well as in electronic library collections.

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv