#abajournal

[amielfilipe]

O abajour deixa o quarto muito mais interessante, e com isso leva a um mundo de fabtasia! * * -------------------------------------------------- Qualquer dúvida que tiver basta clicar no link do perfil ou chamar no whatsapp (61)992331473. * * by: @a_fdecor * * Lembrando que este é o momento de se cuidar, então se for sair de casa, coloque a máscara e respeitem o #isolamentosocial para que nossas peças continuem chegando em sua casa para alegrar ainda mais você e o seu lar. #personalizadosdeluxomenina #abajour #amielfilipe #amielperes #phillipeoliveira #a&fdecor #abajourdearte #abajournal #quartodemenina #quartodemeninadecorado #lojadoartesaoluziania #artesanatodeluxo #diadosnamorados2020 #queronamorar #abajour #abajourinfantil #abajo #personalizado #borboletas #anjos #anjinhos #flores #abajour_rest #criar #criatividadeemfesta #modificar #mundorosa🎀 #menina #meumundorosa #💞💞💞 (em Luziânia Shopping) https://www.instagram.com/p/CA-rJyRHJrG/?igshid=du8r1e3eudcn

[vulcanette]

Do you know how many law students I’ve spoken to who wait to get mental health treatment and services because they are afraid of an adverse reaction from the character and fitness committee????? Removing this question from the Bar Application is HUGE. Lawyers are an extremely at-risk population for mental health and substance abuse issues and are the in the top professions most likely to commit suicide. This is a wonderful step forward from New York State. I hope that more lawyers and law students will go seek mental health services when they need them.

relevant snippet from ABAjournal:

[esqmelaw]

Read the ABA Law Technology Today article on EsqMe (link in bio)! Great points raised but thankfully we have them covered! 😚Happy Friday! . . #esqme #aba #abajournal #ltt #lawtech #lawtechnology #lawtechnologytoday #law #lawyer #attorney #solo #smallfirm #gc #counsel #legal #service #attorneys #attorneynetwork #forlawyersbylawyers #friday #friyay #happyfriday (at New York, New York)

[suitedgladiators]

ABAJournal

A 5-year-old Honduran asylum seeker was separated from her grandmother after the Trump administration officially ended its policy of separating families—and asked to sign away her right to a bond hearing. https://t.co/6RGYCwCPwJ

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) October 13, 2018

via Blogger https://ift.tt/2OTR40E https://ift.tt/20qd6Z0

[mubal4]

This article is focused on lawyers mostly, well because I spend most of my professional time working with law firms 😊. However, this article is relatable to everyday life and very graciously articulates how we can all feel sometimes.  I think I can speak for some out there, I am my harshest critic.  This has played a role in making it challenging to break through on some of my visions at times during my personal and professional endeavors. Too much time “listening to my inner critic and ego.”  I’ve learned through practice, and I believe there is a quote out there around this, that it is almost impossible to be negative of sad when you are feeling grateful. I’ll say this again, it is a practice. When those messages of misery start entering out minds, we can become overwhelmed and stressed.  However, when we inject a thought of gratitude, and it can be as simple as being grateful for breath……try having both of those feelings at the same time! 😊

 Great work @JamesGrayRobinson & @ABAJournal

 “Your focus determines your reality.” Mark Batterson – In the Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day

[kyprelaw]

Can Local Law Act Independently of the State?

By Lakin Greene, Murray State University Class of 2021

August 18, 2021

Federal, state, and local laws usually work together, but there are times when different kinds of mandates often contradict one another. This might be due to whether the state is classified as home rule or not, but sometimes it is an issue of court disagreements.

Recently, with the banning of masks in the state of Texas, some county courts have gone against the grain by requiring the wearing of masks anyway, according to ABAJournal. [1] As of August 10, 2021, judges in Dallas and Bexar counties issued rulings temporarily blocking the state governor’s ban of mask wearing, an issue to be revisited August 24. [2] Although the Texas supreme court upheld the governor’s ruling, nevertheless it is a unique issue in the age of the pandemic, one in which a lower court has openly defied a higher court, much akin to a federal judge blocking some presidential decisions.

While some experts, including the Texas Office of Court Administration, have alleged that this is within their rights, others would wonder whether this move acts contrary to state law and is therefore illegal. Are judges allowed to mandate masks despite state orders? Can local laws override state? State override federal? Many would think not, but it does happen.

The idea of one law holding sway over others goes back to 1868, when judge John F. Dillon of Iowa held that local laws could not take precedence over state. [3] As many as forty states follow “Dillon’s Rule” to help determine the legal authority of some local courts, while other states are home rule – that is, able to produce law as they see fit within the bounds of the state and federal constitution. Texas is one such state that follows Dillon’s Rule, which begs the question of whether county governments have the legal authority to enact mask mandates.

In this case, it is important to note that the ruling by county courts is upheld only within the courtroom as to take reasonable measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is not applicable outside of the courtroom and may perhaps therefore not fall under a county law.

Further, each state has its own rules for what counties, towns, and villages may adopt home rule. Texas is very specific; according to its state Constitution, if a community exceeds a population of more than five thousand they may draw up their own charter as long as it is not inconsistent with the state Constitution. [4] Under these guidelines, county courts may have the legal right to go against the banning of mask mandates, as it is not a constitutional law.

Would a mask mandate in home rule counties be applicable contrary to a state executive order? The law would say yes, as the executive order is outside of the constitution. But as with all legal issues, it could very well face setbacks from the state, as we have seen with the Dallas and Bexar counties. It is nevertheless worth considering as an idea that may not be inherently illegal. if the proper conditions are met.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Weiss, Debra Cassens (August 11, 2021) “Some Texas courts agree to courthouse mask mandates despite governor's contrary order.” ABAJournal. From https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/some-texas-courts-agree-to-courthouse-mask-mandates-despite-governors-contrary-order.

[2] Calkins, Laura Brubaker (August 10, 2021) “Texas Counties Win Court Orders Blocking Governor’s Mask Ban.” Bloomerg. From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-10/texas-county-wins-court-order-overriding-governor-s-mask-ban.

[3] “Cities 101 — Delegation of Power.” National League of Cities. Retrieved August 15, 2021 from https://www.nlc.org/resource/cities-101-delegation-of-power/.

[4] “ARTICLE 11. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.” From the Texas Constitution. Retrieved August 15, 2021 from  https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.11.htm#11.4.

[amnglobalmedia]

[STORY 📍🌍🏙] North America (AMNG) The U.S. Department of Education on Friday announced that it will create a negotiated rule-making committee to rewrite student loan regulations and is seeking nominations for negotiators, advisers and subcommittee members. http://ow.ly/eEc930rQa8i Cc : ABAJournal #collegeeducationusa #studentdebttoincomeratio #repaymentplans #financialliteracy #loanmarkets #banks #interest #credit #accounting #academic #planner #newideas #md #studentloans #loanforgiveness (at United States of America) https://www.instagram.com/p/CSQjPs6Nrgu/?utm_medium=tumblr

[tyronearmstrong]

Law is too important to be left to the lawyers

Law is too important to be left to the lawyers.

This from Richard Granat, a true champion when it comes to harnessing innovation and technology to improve American’s access to legal services.

Granat shared this in a Facebook comment in reference to society’s leaving it to lawyers and lawyer controlled bar associations to decide how legal services are delivered in this country.

By and large, it’s bar associations that decide what innovation and legal technology gets used in the delivery of legal services. Not a great situation for the public when bar associations exist to represent the interests of lawyers who earn by time, not efficiency.

Granat is not alone.

Gillian Hadfield, a leading proponent of the reform and redesign of legal systems and a Professor at USC Law School, commented this week on bar associations limiting access to legal services in, of all places, the American Bar Association’s Law Technology Today magazine.

The economic problem was pretty obvious: our legal markets are regulated by bar associations in a very restrictive way & as a result have failed to produce the kinds of innovation we need to make law more accessible & responsive. – @ghadfield in ABA @ltrc https://t.co/RwNabOGt78 pic.twitter.com/nXRoGtOoKp

— Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe) May 18, 2018

A week ago, Mary Juetten, co-founder of Evolve Law and founder and CEO of Traklight, a self-guided IP strategy platform, wrote about bar associations driving small legal tech companies out of business on the pretense that legal tech business models violate the unauthorized practice of law rules.

Juetten questioned what the bar associations were actually protecting.

What exactly is being protected by bar associations limiting the delivery of all legal services to licensed lawyers when 80 percent of citizens cannot access legal services for a variety of reasons already? – @maryjuetten in @abajournal https://t.co/W7pYXpgXmk pic.twitter.com/E8IYTmgWEg

— Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe) May 12, 2018

I have some great friends working with and for bar associations. LexBlog has the honor of working with any number of bar associations.

But should bar associations be deciding what is and what is not legal services that require a lawyer? Are bar associations, by restricting what they describe as legal services to being administered by lawyers, just making lawyers more and more irrelevant to individuals and small businesses?

Is it possible that bar associations by looking to protect lawyers are actually hurting lawyers? With less people looking for legal services administered the way they are, there is less and less work for lawyers. We’re already seeing less lawyers.

While the American Bar Association and state bar associations look to be the hub of discussion on access to legal services, and even innovation and legal technology, there is a growing sentiment that bars may be the reason for the increasing chasm we have in access to legal services.

Robert Ambrogi, LexBlog’s editor-chief and publisher and former editor of the National Law Journal, explained a couple months ago to a Chicago gathering of legal professionals discussing an effort to bring access to legal services, that the American Bar Association and many bar associations could not lead the effort because of their role as a trade organization.

I don’t have all the answers, but I’m with Granat. “Law is too important to be left to the lawyers.”

Law is too important to be left to the lawyers published first on https://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelphiablog.wordpress.com/

[antonioriley]

Law is too important to be left to the lawyers

Law is too important to be left to the lawyers.

This from Richard Granat, a true champion when it comes to harnessing innovation and technology to improve American’s access to legal services.

Granat shared this in a Facebook comment in reference to society’s leaving it to lawyers and lawyer controlled bar associations to decide how legal services are delivered in this country.

By and large, it’s bar associations that decide what innovation and legal technology gets used in the delivery of legal services. Not a great situation for the public when bar associations exist to represent the interests of lawyers who earn by time, not efficiency.

Granat is not alone.

Gillian Hadfield, a leading proponent of the reform and redesign of legal systems and a Professor at USC Law School, commented this week on bar associations limiting access to legal services in, of all places, the American Bar Association’s Law Technology Today magazine.

The economic problem was pretty obvious: our legal markets are regulated by bar associations in a very restrictive way & as a result have failed to produce the kinds of innovation we need to make law more accessible & responsive. – @ghadfield in ABA @ltrc https://t.co/RwNabOGt78 pic.twitter.com/nXRoGtOoKp

— Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe) May 18, 2018

A week ago, Mary Juetten, co-founder of Evolve Law and founder and CEO of Traklight, a self-guided IP strategy platform, wrote about bar associations driving small legal tech companies out of business on the pretense that legal tech business models violate the unauthorized practice of law rules.

Juetten questioned what the bar associations were actually protecting.

What exactly is being protected by bar associations limiting the delivery of all legal services to licensed lawyers when 80 percent of citizens cannot access legal services for a variety of reasons already? – @maryjuetten in @abajournal https://t.co/W7pYXpgXmk pic.twitter.com/E8IYTmgWEg

— Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe) May 12, 2018

I have some great friends working with and for bar associations. LexBlog has the honor of working with any number of bar associations.

But should bar associations be deciding what is and what is not legal services that require a lawyer? Are bar associations, by restricting what they describe as legal services to being administered by lawyers, just making lawyers more and more irrelevant to individuals and small businesses?

Is it possible that bar associations by looking to protect lawyers are actually hurting lawyers? With less people looking for legal services administered the way they are, there is less and less work for lawyers. We’re already seeing less lawyers.

While the American Bar Association and state bar associations look to be the hub of discussion on access to legal services, and even innovation and legal technology, there is a growing sentiment that bars may be the reason for the increasing chasm we have in access to legal services.

Robert Ambrogi, LexBlog’s editor-chief and publisher and former editor of the National Law Journal, explained a couple months ago to a Chicago gathering of legal professionals discussing an effort to bring access to legal services, that the American Bar Association and many bar associations could not lead the effort because of their role as a trade organization.

I don’t have all the answers, but I’m with Granat. “Law is too important to be left to the lawyers.”

Law is too important to be left to the lawyers published first on http://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelph.tumblr.com/

[alabamaprelawland-blog]

Wellbeing And The Fourth Amendment

By Christopher Alhorn, The University of Alabama in Huntsville Class of 2021

February 2, 2021

Edward and Kim Caniglia’s argument was getting heated. In August of 2015, the couple were arguing inside their home in Rhode Island. Finally, Edward couldn’t take it anymore. He marched into the couple’s bedroom, retrieved his gun, and asked his wife to shoot him. Kim was horrified. Edward was trying to be dramatic, but Kim didn’t see it that way. As soon as Edward left the house, Kim grabbed both the family’s guns with all the ammunition and hid them under the mattress. Kim stayed at a nearby hotel that night. The next morning, she phoned the police, telling them she was afraid Edward might have committed suicide. Escorting Kim back to her home, the police walked up to the front door to talk with Edward. Edward insisted that he wasn’t suicidal, but the police were not convinced. They insisted Edward needed to see a psychiatrist immediately. Edward reluctantly agreed. After Edward had left for the hospital, the police marched inside the house and removed the two guns [1]. The officers thought they were keeping Edward from committing suicide. The incident would lead to a court fight.

The month after the incident, Edward and Kim sent a request to the police department for their guns to be returned. The request was denied. The Caniglias then asked their lawyer to file a request for them. That request was also denied. Giving up on requests, the couple filed a lawsuit demanding the police department return their guns and alleging their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated [1]. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The courts have long interpreted this phrase to mean that the police need a warrant from a judge before they enter someone’s home. Understandably, this general rule is not ironclad. Under some unusual circumstances, current Fourth Amendment rules allow the police to enter a home without a warrant. For example, if there is an emergency that requires the police to take action immediately, such as someone inside a house screaming for help, then the police can force their way into a house without a warrant [3].

The Caniglias argued that no exception permitted the police to enter their house and take their guns. They argued that because the police entered their house without a warrant, their rights had been violated. Before the court could rule on the case, the police department returned the Caniglia’s guns. However, the Caniglias kept pursuing the case by asking the court to declare the actions of the police unconstitutional. The police made the opposite request. The argument was over one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment known as the “community caretaker” exception. The community caretaker exception allows the police to force their way into cars to perform acts of community service as long as the police are not enforcing the law or investigating a case. The Supreme Court created the exception so the police could search a wrecked car to remove a gun to make sure that the gun wasn’t picked up by a potentially dangerous person [3]. Since the Supreme Court created the rule in 1973, it has been routinely applied to car searches, but in all the years since the ruling, the Supreme Court has never made clear whether this rule applies to houses. The argument between Caniglias and the police centered on this point. The police argued the removal of the Caniglias guns was permissible because they were acting as “community caretakers” when they removed the Caniglias’ guns to prevent Edward Caniglia from committing suicide. The Caniglias argued that the community caretaker principle does not apply to houses.

After reviewing the case, the district court ruled in favor of the police suggesting that the community does apply to houses. The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed upon appeal. In August of 2020, the Caniglias appealed their case to the Supreme Court. In November 2020, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case. In the following two months, the Supreme Court received a huge number of amicus briefs. The reason for the huge number of amicus briefs in a relatively short time span is because so many groups across the political spectrum hate the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has not made a major decision on community caretaking in more than thirty years. Caniglia v. Strom gives groups such as the ACLU and the Constitutional Accountability Center a rare opportunity to lobby the court to do away with the exception [4].

Opponents of the community caretaker exception justify their hatred of the principle by arguing that it allows police opportunities for inappropriate searches. Law enforcement often justifies warrantless searches where police officers stumble on evidence on the basis of the community caretaker exception. In contrast, defenders of the community caretaker exception argue that it allows police to perform sensible actions, such as taking a gun out of a wrecked car, without having to go to the time-consuming trouble of obtaining a warrant [3]. If the Supreme Court sides with the police officers, law enforcement will have greater ability to search across the country.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Caniglias and does away with the community caretaker exception, the case would result in the most significant change in Fourth Amendment Law in a decade. The Supreme Court has yet to set a date for the oral arguments. When the Supreme Court decides the case, the justices will perform a difficult balancing act as they try to preserve the Fourth Amendment while giving police officers reasonable latitude for searching. Wellbeing and the Fourth Amendment will have to come together in this delicate balancing act.

______________________________________________________________

1. Caniglia v. Strom. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-157

2. Cady v. Dombrowski. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/72-586

3. Hudson, D. L. (2013, August 1).Courts in a muddle over 4th Amendment’s community caretaking exception. ABAJournal. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/courts_in_a_muddle_over_4th_amendments_community_caretaking_exception

4. SCOTUSblog. (n.d.). Caniglia v. Strom. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/caniglia-v-strom/

[districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog]

Oregon Supreme Court Denies Climate Change Lawsuit

By Trevor Haefner, The George Washington University, Class of 2020

November 11, 2020

Two teenagers, Kelsey Juliana and Ollie Chernaik, made a stand against climate change in their home state of Oregon with a lawsuit that started in 2011. The two climate activists formally sued their former state governor, John Kitzhaber, believing that there was not enough action to prevent the harms of an altering environment [1]. This lawsuit was not first presented to the Oregon Supreme Court and had a long history of moving from court to court and eventually appealing to the highest court in the state. The bold stance of these women is commendable and displays that activism does not have an age requirement.

The first court to hear this case was the Lane County Circuit Court that was rejected by Judge Karsten Rasmussen in 2015. The plaintiffs' counsel was Courtney Johnson of the Crag Law Center. The petitioners argued that the lack of measures taken by the state on halting the climate crisis violated a legal obligation to protect resources such as land, water, and the atmosphere for future generations [2]. Also, they referenced the public trust doctrine that is meant to provide measures to protect the environment of Oregon. This is not only a legal argument but one that draws on morality and asks the question of what is important to the government. The plaintiffs were hoping to have an injunction that would require officials to create yearly reports outlining Oregon's greenhouse gas emissions. On top of this, they would have to draft and implement a plan to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million by 2100 [3]. The decision from Judge Rasmussen denied these claims and stated that officials have no "…no fiduciary obligation to protect such land from climate change," [4]. This demonstrates that the judiciary of the state does not see any legal or moral need to address this issue. Judge Rasmussen also ruled that the public trust doctrine does not extend to navigable waters, beaches, islands, wildlife, or the atmosphere [5]. The plaintiffs appealed to the state Court of Appeals in 2019, but the court did not decide what type of resources are protected under the doctrine [6]. Despite the setbacks from these two trials, Juliana and Chernaik continued to press on.

The title of the Oregon Supreme Court case, Chernaik v. Brown, was ultimately dismissed by the because of the interpretation of the public trust doctrine that was finally defined by the court. The court ruled 6-1, which displays that the majority did not find their case compelling [7]. Their decision was more nuanced than simply rejecting the extent of the public trust doctrine. The court did say that the doctrine could be changed over time but refused to take action at this time [8]. One could argue that this was because it would over-extend the power of the court compared to the legislature, but there is also support for the court to take an expansive position. The dissenting judge, Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Martha Walters said "the time is now" for the court to act [9]. The opinion of the court found that the previous outline given for the public trust doctrine was incorrect. They stated, "We hold that the public trust doctrine currently encompasses navigable waters and the submerged and submersible lands underlying those waters," [10]. However, they did agree that the state does not have fiduciary responsibilities in the way that private entities do to protect resources [11].

As one can imagine, this decision was disappointing for the plaintiffs and lawyers who represented them. In a statement released by Johnson, "It's disappointing that the court acknowledged the 'recognized duty that the state has to protect public trust resources for the benefit of the public's use of navigable waterways' but declined to give that duty any meaning with respect to climate change's devastating impacts," [12]. She was upset about the court's limited interpretation of the doctrine. The court had an opportunity to make a meaningful change, and Johnson believes the court made a devastating mistake.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Macias Jr, Martin. “Oregon Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Climate Change Lawsuit.”        Courthouse News Service, October 22, 2020. https://www.courthousenews.com/oregon-   supreme-court-affirms-dismissal-of-climate-change-lawsuit/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Weiss, Debra Cassens. “Oregon Supreme Court rejects climate change lawsuit that cites                        public trust doctrine.” ABAJournal, October 23, 2020.                                                                    https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/oregon-supreme-court-turns-back-climate-    change-lawsuit.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Macias Jr, Martin. “Oregon Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Climate Change Lawsuit.”        Courthouse News Service, October 22, 2020. https://www.courthousenews.com/oregon-   supreme-court-affirms-dismissal-of-climate-change-lawsuit/.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

Photo Credit: Cacophony

[dswdsw00]

@lawyerscom

@abajournal

@abalitigation

@abaesq

@lawyerscom

[instapicsil3]

If you don’t know John Rosenberg, Google him. Or read my story about him in the Nov/Dec issue of the @abajournal. I’ll be sharing it nonstop. I’ve never met a more inspiring person who’s also just a downright delight 🤩 https://ift.tt/2YSsjD7