After losing libel lawsuit over parody Twitter account, lawyer sues opposing counsel and newspaper

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/after_losing_libel_lawsuit_over_parody_twitter_account_lawyer_sues_opposing/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly

Earlier this year, attorney Todd Levitt lost a Michigan libel lawsuit over a parody Twitter account by a Central Michigan University student that mocked his “badass” approach to legal marketing.

Although it used his name, photo and law firm logo, the parody Twitter account was not actionable, an Isabella County judge ruled (PDF) in February, because a reasonable reader would not have confused it with Levitt’s actual Twitter account.

Now Levitt, who has been teaching at CMU as an adjunct, is suing again, and his opposing counsel in the earlier case, who has also been teaching at CMU, is one of the defendants, reports the Morning Sun. The newspaper, too, is among the defendants in the case.

At issue in the new suit filed Thursday in Isabella County is the public portrayal of Levitt during his earlier defamation case. He contends, among other allegations, that false accusations of unethical conduct on his part concerning a Top College Lawyer website prize were fed to the Sun, whose articles inaccurately described the content of court documents in the initial defamation case. The false portrayal hurt his reputation among his client base, Levitt said.

Scribd provides a copy of the complaint, which asserts claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy, intentional interference with business expectancy and intentional infliction of emotional distress and seeks $1 million in damages.

A Central Michigan Life article provides additional details.

Attorney Gordon Bloem, who represented Zachary Felton in the original suit concerning the parody Twitter account, told the Morning Sun he had done nothing wrong.

“I am being sued because I aggressively, ethically, and successfully represented my client, Zachary Felton, in the frivolous lawsuit brought by Mr. Levitt against him,” said Bloem. “I am also being sued because I followed through on my duty to report Mr. Levitt’s unethical behavior to the attorney grievance commission.”

Suspicious lawyer finds malware on external hard drive supplied by police lawyer in discovery

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/suspicious_lawyer_finds_malware_on_external_hard_drive_supplied_by_police_l/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tech_monthly

An Arkansas lawyer is seeking sanctions after his computer expert found malware on an external hard drive supplied in response to a discovery request.

Lawyer Matthew Campbell of North Little Rock says he became suspicious when he received the hard drive by Federal Express in June 2014 from a lawyer for the Fort Smith Police Department, theNorthwest Arkansas Democrat Gazettereports. Previous evidence in the police whistleblower case had been provided by email or a cloud-based Internet storage service, or had been shipped through the U.S. Postal Service.

“I thought, ‘I’m not plugging that into my computer,’ ” Campbell told the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette. “Something didn’t add up in the way they approached it, so I sent it to my software guy first.”

The technology expert found four Trojans on the hard drive. “These Trojans were designed to steal passwords, install malicious software and give someone else command and control of the infected computer,” Campbell says in a brief supporting his motion for sanctions (PDF).

The security expert said in an affidavit that the Trojans were in a subfolder rather than the root directory, indicating they were “more likely placed in that folder intentionally with the goal of taking command of Mr. Campbell’s computer while also stealing passwords to his account.”

Campbell says he doesn’t know who placed the malware on the hard drive, according to the Democrat Gazette. He represents three current and former police officers who contended they were subjected to multiple investigations after revealing improprieties in the department.

The motion for sanctions says malware is not the only discovery problem. Campbell alleges entire email accounts were deleted, emails that could have been recovered were purged from the system, and emails that were previously provided in response to freedom of information requests had improper deletions.

The sanctions brief adds that the police department’s information technology specialist attended a convention 10 days after the court granted Campbell’s motion to compel evidence. The expert took classes on secure data deletion, whistleblower investigation and monitoring employee activity, Campbell wrote. He did not take classes offered on e-discovery and preservation of evidence, Campbell said.

Campbell is asking that a default judgment be entered in favor of his clients and that other appropriate sanctions be imposed.

Second to the last paragraph corrected at 7:20 p.m. to state that the IT specialist attended the convention 10 days after (rather than before) the court granted the motion to compel.

No Socks No Justice?

An Indiana judge ordered a lawyer to wear socks in court or face sanctions. Read the story here:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_orders_lawyer_to_put_on_his_socks/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

Alabama Legislature Is Invited in the Battle Over Whiter Teeth?

In an interesting story making news in Alabama, a lawsuit is challenging whether the Alabama Dental Practice Act is constitutional.  The law says only a licensed dentist can offer teeth-whitening services.

Read the story from al.com:  http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/09/jefferson_county_judge_hears_a.html#incart_river

Former Virginia Governor and First Lady Found Guilty

“How are the mighty fallen” might be an appropriate way to describe the bizarre story of the former Virginia governor and his wife.  Bob and Maureen McDonnell were convicted on numerous counts of public corruption involving gifts of expensive clothing, a Rolex watch, vacations, golf and cash.  A federal jury found the former governor and his wife accepted cash and gifts in exchange for favors for a vitamin executive.  In order to try to save his own hide, the former governor took the stand and testified that he and his wife could not have conspired together because they didn’t get along and were barely speaking.  Here’s an account:  http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/guilty_jury_convicts_former_vi.html#incart_river

What if you went 28 years without a raise?

By Tracy W. Cary 

Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers, LLC

http://www.mcatlaw.com

      On July 1st of each year, the Alabama Commissioner of Labor determines the State’s average weekly wage to used in relation to injuries occurring on the job on or after July 1 of that year. Subject to maximum and minimum rates, temporary total disability (TTD) benefits are paid to workers in Alabama who are injured on the job at a rate of 66 2/3 of their average weekly wage. TTD benefits are paid during the “healing period” that follows an injury and continue until the worker reaches maximum medical improvement. Effective July 1, 2013, the maximum temporary total disability (TTD) benefit increased to $788 per week, meaning that if an employee earned $1,182 per week or $61,464 annually and was injured on the job, he or she would be paid a maximum TTD benefit of $788 per week.  Not too bad.

        It’s the other end of the spectrum that is so very troubling. In fact, when the minimum passes the maximum, you know you’ve got to make a change. The minimum TTD rate as of July 1, 2013 was $217.00 per week. Given the typical rate of annual increase, on July 1, 2014, the minimum temporary total disability benefit will reach or surpass $220.00 per week. What is the significance of that? 

      There are two caps on benefits applicable to Alabama workers’ compensation cases – a cap on the temporary benefits and a cap on the permanent benefits. While the rate of temporary benefits increases on July 1 of every year, the permanent partial disability benefit has been frozen in time since 1985. As was true in 1985 and is still true in 2013, the cap on permanent benefits in all permanent partial disability cases (that is, cases where the worker is less than 100% permanently and totally disabled) is a paltry $220 per week. 

      Think of it this way – the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. At 40 hours per week, a worker earning minimum wage is paid $290 per week. And that’s the minimum wage! Alabama’s cap on permanent partial disability benefits of $220 per week applies to all workers who receive job-related permanent injuries resulting in 1% through 99% loss of earning capacity. Such workers are paid the equivalent of $5.50 per hour for no other reason than being injured while doing their jobs.

     If you agree that $5.50 per hour for job related injuries is unfairly low, I invite you to contact your  Alabama State Senator and your State Representative and demand they change this unfair law. Don’t know who your state lawmaker is? Click on http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/zipsearch.html and enter your zip code. You will be given a link with the address and telephone number of your State Senator and State Representative. Tell them to change the $220 cap to a fair amount. 

    Workers get are hurt on the job should not be forced into bankruptcy just because they are injured while doing their jobs.

      This law has needed to be change for a long time but now more than ever.

 “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt 

 “I am a slow walker, but I never walk back.” ― Abraham Lincoln

This Is How You Shame Prosecutors For Their Stupid Motion By JOE PATRICE

This Is How You Shame Prosecutors For Their Stupid Motion By JOE PATRICE from ABOVETHELAW.COM 31 Oct 2013 at 10:16 AM LAWYER OF THE DAY If you think Biglaw has a quality control problem, then you should check out the tactical decisions coming from some prosecutors’ offices. You’d think there would be someone in the chain of command who would see motions like these come across the desk and say, “Hey, maybe this will make us look incredibly stupid.” At least we hope this is a quality control problem. It’d be way worse if tactical decisions this asinine came down from on high. Anyway, the government in this case made a huge mistake. Sorry, I mean “the prosecutors,” because they don’t want to be called “the government” anymore, and filed a motion in limine to that effect. Thankfully, this clever attorney wrote an epic response trolling the prosecutors for their ludicrous motion…. This story comes to us from Williamson County, Tennessee. In the case of State v. Donald Powell, the prosecutors filed a motion in limine to ban the word “government” from the trial. Apparently, they felt that referring to the prosecution as “the government” would hurt their chances with the jury. How they managed to get a jury full of black helicopter-fearing, New World Order conspiracy theorists is a different question. But defense attorney Drew Justice wasn’t having any of it. After thoroughly dispensing with the government’s lame argument on the merits, he couldn’t help himself from some world class trolling. Should this Court disagree, and feel inclined to let the parties basically pick their own designations and ban words, then the defense has a few additional suggestions for amending the speech code. First, the Defendant no longer wants to be called “the Defendant.” This rather archaic term of art, obviously has a fairly negative connotation. It unfairly demeans, and dehumanizes Mr. Donald Powell. The word “defendant” should be banned. At trial, Mr. Powell hereby demands he be addressed only by his full name, preceded by the title “Mister.” Alternatively, he may be called simply “the Citizen Accused.” This latter title sounds more respectable than the criminal “Defendant.” The designation “That innocent man” would also be acceptable. We love posting hilarious responses to cease and desist letters — like here and here — but a snark-riddled court filing is really stepping it up a notch. Justice must be confident that the judge has a sense of humor. My only criticism of Justice is that he should have led with having his client retitled “the innocent man.” Moreover, defense counsel does not wish to be referred to as a “lawyer,” or a “defense attorney.” Those terms are substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Rather, counsel for the Citizen Accused should be referred to primarily as the “Defender of the Innocent.” This title seems particularly appropriate, because every Citizen Accused is presumed innocent. Alternatively, counsel would also accept the designation “Guardian of the Realm.” Further, the Citizen Accused humbly requests an appropriate military title for his own representative, to match that of the opposing counsel. Whenever addressed by name, the name “Captain Justice” will be appropriate. While less impressive than “General,” still, the more humble term seems suitable. After all, the Captain represents only a Citizen Accused, whereas the General represents an entire State. Let’s all raise a glass and toast Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm. You have won this week’s award for best lawyer ever! The full brief is available on the next page…