Friday, June 29, 2018

Top 10 from Texas Bar Today: Coverage, Consent, and Covenants

Originally published by Joanna Herzik.

To highlight some of the posts that stand out from the crowd, the editors of Texas Bar Today have created a list from the week’s blog posts of the top ten based on subject matter, writing style, headline, and imagery. We hope you enjoy this installment.

10. Criminal act’s a criminal act – so, no coverageDavid Coale @600camp of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP in Dallas

9. To err is human. To disagree on an appraisal award is not grounds to set it aside.Anne-Marie Abarado of Hanna & Plaut, L.L.P. in Austin

8. Are Employment Class Actions A Thing of the Past?Keith Clouse of Clouse Brown PLLC @ClouseBrownLaw in Dallas

7. What Would Your Law Firm Be Like If You Gave Associates “Fed Ex” Days?Cordell Parvin @cordellparvin of Cordell Parvin LLC in Dallas

6. Can Adults Consent To A Fistfight in Texas? Not Exactly.Brandon Barnett of Barnett Howard & Williams PLLC @BHWLAWFIRM in Fort Worth

5. Privacy Alert – Alexa (and Friends) is Listening!Cleve Clinton of Gray Reed & McGraw @GrayReedLaw in Dallas

4. Texas Supreme Court Finds no Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with InheritanceSim Israeloff of Cowles & Thompson @CowlesThompson in Dallas

3. Three’s a crowd: The latest Texas Supreme Court ruling and its effect on non-parent standingRyan Segall of O’Neil Wysocki, P.C. in Dallas

2. Fifth Circuit Reminder: Words Matter in Employment Contracts, Restrictive CovenantsJoe Ahmad of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. in Houston

1. Grow Your Small Law Firm’s Business with Content Marketing – Amy Boardman Hunt of Muse Communications, LLC @MuseCommLLC

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Kjk3ti
via Abogado Aly Website

TCDLA hosts Declaration of Independence readings

Originally published by Adam Faderewski.

The Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, or TCDLA, will host readings of the Declaration of Independence across the state in recognition of the Fourth of July.

The readings, which will take place in over 100 Texas counties on July 3, have been sponsored by TCDLA for several years. Some of the gatherings will also include a reading of the Bill of the Rights.

“This is an opportunity for every Texas community—large and small—to stand and support the documents that make us what we are: free and brave Americans. I hope people will show up at their local courthouses to witness this very patriotic annual events,” said TCDLA President Mark Snodgrass in a press release.

Most of the readings are scheduled for 9 a.m. July 3. For a full list of readings and more information, go to the TCDLA website.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Mxt9iE
via Abogado Aly Website

Direct v. Indirect Wind Damage—Do You Know the Difference?

Originally published by Michael Buonocore.

Most insurance policies are voluminous, trying to encompass everything from what is covered to what is not. They included with some profound confusion between covered and uncovered situations. So, what happens when you suffer what you believe to be is a covered loss and the insurance company denies the claim? Adjusters cite to your policy…… Continue Reading

.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2tDbuz6
via Abogado Aly Website

June 29, 2018 Weekly Round Up

Originally published by tiffany.dowell.

 

Happy Friday!  My husband and I just returned from a little vacation in the California wine country.

 

Although we had a great time in Napa, I made sure to keep up with the ag law news this week so I could share some of the biggest stories with you all.

*Justice Kennedy announces retirement.  Perhaps the biggest news this week was that US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he will retire during the Court’s summer break.  Immediately, talk turned to speculation over who President Trump might nominate as his replacement, and whether that nomination would be confirmed before the mid-term elections this fall.  Particularly interesting for agriculture is that it was Justice Kennedy who wrote the plurality opinion in the Clean Water Act case of Rapanos, which gave us the “significant nexus” test that the 2015 WOTUS rule was based upon.  How this plays out will be interesting to see.  [Read article here.]

*US Supreme Court remands Florida v. Georgia back to Special Master for additional consideration.  Just before Justice Kennedy’s big announcement became public, the US Supreme Court issued its final opinions of the term, including a 5-4 decision in Florida v. Georgia, a water law case pitting two states against each other in a battle over water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.  The Special Master had recommended that the case be dismissed, as Florida failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its injury could be adequately redressed by an order from the Court in this case.  The Supreme Court did not accept this recommendation, deciding instead that the Special Master applied too strict of a standard in reaching this determination, and remanding the case back to him for additional consideration.  [Read opinion here.]

*IA Supreme Court upholds Right to Farm Act.  Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion in Honomichl v. Valley View Swine, LLC, affirmed the constitutionality of the state’s Right to Farm Act.  In this case, plaintiffs were homeowners who owned their property prior to a hog farm being built nearby.  They sued for nuisance, and the farm contended the Right to Farm Act prohibited the claims.  The court reaffirmed a three-part test under the statute to analyze the applicability of the defense.  [Read summary of decision here.]

* North Carolina governor vetoes Right to Farm Amendment, Legislature overrides veto.  You may recall last week that the North Carolina legislature passed an amendment to the state’s Right to Farm Law.  This week, Governor Roy Cooper vetoed that bill.  Cooper noted that while agriculture is vital to North Carolina’s economy, so are property rights vital to people’s homes and businesses.  [Read article here.]  But then, in a twist, the North Carolina House and Senate vote to override the veto, passing the bill into law.  [Read article here.]

*Curbing suicide rates in rural America.  Ag Web published an article earlier this month looking at suicide rates across the country.  The rates are highest across the West and in rural parts of the nation.  The article offers tips and resources to help.  [Read article here.]

 

The post June 29, 2018 Weekly Round Up appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2lFTAHu
via Abogado Aly Website

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Are Employers Required to Sign Employees’ Arbitration Agreements?

Originally published by Drew York.

 

Before Duncey’s Caps, Inc. hired Bud Dunop as its new human resources manager in 2018, all of Duncey’s human resources issues were handled by Dot Uris. One of Dot’s responsibilities was to have all new employees complete their new hire paperwork, which included an agreement for the employee and Duncey’s to arbitrate any employment-related disputes.  The arbitration agreement included a signature block for Dot to sign on behalf of Duncey’s.  Instead of signing each employee’s agreement, Dot just placed it in the employee’s file.   

One day Don “Crash” Gordon broke his foot when he walked around the corner of the warehouse and stepped into a bucket that another Duncey’s employee placed on the floor.  Crash filed a lawsuit against Duncey’s when it failed to cover his medical bills.  Duncey’s attorney filed a motion to compel arbitration, attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement that Crash signed but Dot did not.  Will Duncey’s be able to get this lawsuit sent to arbitration?

Are Employers Required to Sign Employees’ Arbitration Agreements?

Yes.  Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s order compelling arbitration where the arbitration agreement that was only signed by the employee.  The court was persuaded by three issues present in the arbitration agreement itself:

  1. a statement in the agreement that read “by signing this agreement the parties are giving up any right they may have to sue each other,”
  2. a clause prohibiting modifications unless they are “in writing and signed by all parties,” and
  3. a signature block for the employer.

Because the arbitration agreement contained language that the parties (not just the employee) needed to sign it to give it effect and the employer failed to sign, the Fifth Circuit invalidated the agreement and found that the agreement had not been executed according to its terms.

The employer argued that it wasn’t required to sign the agreement because the arbitration agreement included a clause informing the employee that continued employment constituted acceptance of the arbitration agreement.  That argument was based on similar language the Texas Supreme Court relied on in forcing an employee to arbitrate where the agreement was not signed by either party.  The federal court of appeals rejected that argument, finding the arbitration agreement before it was flawed because the execution element necessary to create an enforceable agreement was missing.  The court also disagreed that the language about continued employment bound the employee to arbitrate.  Unlike the language in the case before the Texas Supreme Court, here the language said continuation of employment served as “consideration” for the agreement, not that commencing work constituted acceptance and bound the parties to arbitrate.

Based on this case law, the court should deny Duncey’s motion to compel arbitration.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor

Employers who read the federal court of appeals decision, or this blog, are probably reviewing their form employment agreement right now, and for good reason.  Words in agreements matter.  If the language indicates that both parties must sign the arbitration agreement to be enforceable, then employers need to ensure that someone signed for the company.

Shout out to Fred Gaona, a member of Gray Reed’s employment law section, who recently wrote a client alert on this issue.

 

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2tCW6Tf
via Abogado Aly Website

Privacy Alert – Alexa (and Friends) is Listening!

Originally published by Cleve Clinton.

Having just fired up her Amazing Alexis and connected it with her other “smart” devices handling her heat, lights and security, Honor was sharing with her husband some troubling, sensitive health information about her trip that day to the doctor’s office. Honor’s tale was interrupted by a call from her brother who demanded “unplug your Alexis devices right now, You’re being hacked!” Sadly, Honor’s recorded tale also made its way to the editor of the neighborhood news-blog Gladys Gravits, who shared it in the community email, along with her effusive professions of sympathy. Does Honor have any recourse?

Probably. Texas law recognizes a claim for public disclosure of private facts which requires showing: (a) a form of publicity – print, photo, audio or video recording – given to matters concerning your private life, (b) the published facts are highly sensitive to a person of reasonable, ordinary sensibilities, and (c) the published information was not a legitimate public concern, or “newsworthy.”

Privacy-minded people have long feared that voice assistants like Amazon Alexa were little more than spies in disguise. In the latest “smart devices,” microphones are always listening and waiting to be activated upon your command. In a recent Oregon situation, an unintended Alexa communications was explained as “waking up to a word in a background conversation sounding like ‘Alexa’ and the subsequent conversation was heard as a ‘send message’ request to a name in the customer’s contact list, Alexa allegedly would have asked out loud, ‘[contact name], right?’ and then interpreted background conversation as ‘right,’” reported Amazon.

For What Damages and Against Whom?

If published and determined not to be newsworthy, Honor has a claim against Gladys Gravits for general and special damages – usually relating to emotional distress – and sometimes even for recovery of costs and attorney’s fees. Honor might even have a claim against the manufacturer of Amazing Alexis. Was the device properly protected against such an event? Did it know that there were problems with Amazing Alexis recording and disseminating private conversations? Perhaps. And, if so, any one or more of the manufacturer, distributor or seller of Amazing Alexis might be held responsible.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor

Without knowing how often these happen, the “open mic” of so many voice-assisted devices coupled with the nigh-ubiquitous network of “smart devices,” other gadgets and gizmos increasingly listening to everything said around them certainly presents opportunity for mistake – and, perhaps, hacking. So, what can you do?

  1. Opt not to share your contact list with the “smart” device to avoid an errant communication;
  2. Check the device’s app history, browse all the commands you’ve ever given and consider deleting some of them;
  3. Remove any duplicate devices from sensitive rooms, like your bedrooms. You DO KNOW that some devices can take video and still pictures, right?
  4. Turn off or mute the device’s mic by pressing the microphone button, but just remember you won’t be able to give it commands like play music or ask for the weather or news of the day.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2tNUxkI
via Abogado Aly Website

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Grow Your Small Law Firm’s Business with Content Marketing

Originally published by Amy Boardman Hunt.

If you’re a small law firm looking to grow your business, you may have encountered the phrase “content marketing” while exploring potential marketing options. This blog post will explain some of the main concepts of content marketing and how it can be a potent tool for solos and small law firms with limited marketing budgets. […]

The post Grow Your Small Law Firm’s Business with Content Marketing appeared first on Muse Communications.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2lEtzIC
via Abogado Aly Website

Criminal act’s a criminal act – so, no coverage

Originally published by David Coale.

The judgment creditor in Century Surety Co. v. Seidel, a case involving sexual assault on an underage restaurant employee, tried valiantly to collect from the restaurant’s insurance carrier. The Fifth Circuit found that the policy’s “criminal acts” exclusion precluded coverage, despite the plaintiff not specifically pleading that the underlying acts were criminal: “Appellants have cited no case law stating that, to trigger a criminal act exclusion, the plaintiff in the underlying suit must, in addition to describing actions that necessarily imply a crime, also specifically label those actions as criminal. Such a rule is incongruous with the plain language of the Policy and would create an artifice in criminal-act exclusions.” No. 17-10026 (June 25, 2018).

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2yTWORs
via Abogado Aly Website

Former Texas Lawyer Gets Prison for Suing on Behalf of Clients He’d Never Met

Originally published by John Council.

 

A former South Texas attorney has been sentenced to five years behind bars after pleading guilty to insurance fraud and barratry for filing numerous
      

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2txOrFM
via Abogado Aly Website

Lucia v. SEC and the status of FERC ALJs

Originally published by Energy Legal Blog ®.

On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court  held that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are “officers of the United States” whose appointments are therefore subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution for their actions to be valid.

Energy
David Perlman, Paul Maco, Boris Shkuta
view

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Ke7QWL
via Abogado Aly Website

Assignment of Claim Post Loss is Valid Despite Disputed Value

Originally published by Chip Merlin.

Claim assignments post loss are generally valid despite policy language preventing the same. This is true even if the amount of the claim owed is disputed.1 In a very recent opinion, the facts indicated that the insureds signed a “Work Order Agreement to Perform Emergency Services, Direct Pay Authorization & Assignment of Benefits” agreement with…… Continue Reading

.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Mq3wjU
via Abogado Aly Website

State Bar of Texas launches new podcast

Originally published by Patricia McConnico.

State Bar of Texas Podcast

The State Bar of Texas recently relaunched the State Bar of Texas Podcast—conversations and curated content to improve your law practice. The monthly show features news and discussions relevant to the legal profession, from the latest industry trends and caselaw to practice tips and State Bar programs.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KguqhH
via Abogado Aly Website

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Three’s a crowd: The latest Texas Supreme Court ruling and its effect on non-parent standing

Originally published by Ryan Segall.

Joe and Sue are down on their luck. Joe just lost his job and Sue has health issues. Along with their four-year-old child, Betsy, they move in with Joe’s parents, who are retired. For months, Joe interviews all over town while working odd-jobs to try to supplement his family income and pay for Sue’s medical bills. Due to Sue’s ailments, Grandma cooks for Betsy and Sue every day, while Grandpa takes Betsy to doctor’s appointments and day care. Six months go by and Joe finally lands the dream job he was hoping for. Joe and Sue start packing up their stuff to move with Betsy into their new home and all of the sudden, a stranger walks up and hands them some papers. Joe takes a look and his face turns ghostly white. His parents, sweet old Grandma and Grandpa, just filed suit to try to gain custody of Betsy. Guess what? The Texas Supreme Court just told the grandparents, “You may not win, but you can sure try.”

The Texas Supreme Court recently resolved a highly debated issue regarding non-parent standing when it determined that Texas Family Code Section 102.003(a)(9) does not require that a non-parent have exclusive control of the child. See In re H.S. ___ S.W.3d ____ (Tex. 2018).  Rather, the Court held that if the non-parent (1) shares a principal residence with the child, (2) provides for the child’s daily physical and psychological needs, and (3) exercises guidance, governance, and direction similar to that typically exercised on a day-to-day basis by parents with their children, that individual has standing to bring a lawsuit.

The Court specified that a non-parent may have standing regardless of whether the nonparent to has ultimate legal authority to control the child, nor does it require the parents to have wholly ceded or relinquished their own parental rights and responsibilities.

I do not agree. Two’s company, three is a crowd.

For starters, the majority focuses on defining “actual care, control, and possession,” claiming that the Legislature did not intend for the nonparent’s care and control to be exclusive. The majority reasons that this would add a requirement that was not there. However, that’s the entire point of having “control”- one person has the “power or authority to manage, direct, and oversee.” If multiple people are exercising control, that goes against the very essence of the definition.

Another issue is the parental presumption that parents are afforded, stating that the presumption that appointing the parents as managing conservators is in the child’s best interest unless the appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development. The majority accurately points out that this ruling does not affect that presumption, however there are two caveats to this.

First, the parent presumption does not apply in modification cases. See In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338, 343 (Tex. 2000). Secondly, as the dissent accurately points out, “although this presumption affords important protection to parents, it does not change the fact that once standing is established, the final decision about the child’s future will be made by a judge or jury, not the child’s parents.” Thus, this decision indirectly waters down the parental presumption by forcing parents to fight these outsiders.

In conclusion, this ruling will have immense consequences. It forces parents to defend cases against third parties they should not have to defend. In many situations, it is likely the third party- especially a grandparent- will have more financial resources, which unfortunately makes a difference in custody battles. If the courtroom wasn’t crowded before, it is now about to be.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KmQN0R
via Abogado Aly Website

What Would Your Law Firm Be Like If You Gave Associates “Fed Ex” Days?

Originally published by Cordell Parvin.

I recently heard a discussion I would describe as “what some big law firms doing to be thought of as cool by young lawyers.”

I listened intently and learned that a high percentage of associates working in big law firms are seeking to leave their law firm and go in-house at a company.

I gathered that some of the big law firms are seeking to retain those lawyers. I heard that one firm allows young parents to bring their children to work. (I assumed but wasn’t sure that they weren’t supposed to bring their children every day).

I learned that several well-known firms are providing alcohol as a way of being thought of as a cool place to work. I’m not sure I understood, but apparently, some firms believe they can demand many hours of work from young lawyers if they make working at the firm more fun.

At my old firm, beer was brought in on Friday afternoons to what was called the attorneys’ lounge. Over 10 years I went once and drank one beer as I didn’t want to be pulled over or cause an accident while driving home on the North Dallas Tollway.

Ok, I confess. I am old fashioned. I was the guy who didn’t think our firm should go to everyday business casual. Keep in mind that when I went to law school, male students were required to wear coats and ties. Also, keep in mind that when our firm went to business casual, I didn’t own any clothing that would meet what I defined as business casual.

So, I could be old fashioned when I say I don’t believe providing alcohol in the office is a great way to attract and retain talented young lawyers. Is there another way?

If you haven’t read or heard about Daniel Pink’s book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, you likely have not heard of “Fed Ex” Days.

In the book, Pink talks about Atlassian, an Australian company that once a quarter allows their developers to work on anything they want, any way they want and with whomever they want. Atlassian calls them “Fed Ex” days because the developers have to deliver something overnight.

I urge you to read the book. If you want an introduction, read this CNN article Big bonuses don’t mean big results. You will see in the article that if you want to implement “Fed Ex” days in your office, there is only one rule: “The group must deliver something.”

How can you implement the program in your firm?

Give your associates the chance to do a project for a client or for an organization in your community. Let them select the project and who will be on their team. I believe your associates will come up with many creative ideas that will be a public relations coup for your firm, and just maybe your firm will be considered a cool place to work.

The post What Would Your Law Firm Be Like If You Gave Associates “Fed Ex” Days? appeared first on Cordell Parvin Blog.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2MZ0a8w
via Abogado Aly Website

Seismic and Technical Data Licensing Agreements in Texas

Originally published by Environmental and Energy Law Blog.

 

Seismic surveys are used to produce detailed images of different rock types and their locations beneath the surface. These types of surveys are typically used by oil and gas companies to determine the location and size of oil and gas reservoirs. The process involves bouncing and recording sound waves off of underground rock formations. By analyzing the time that the waves take to return to the surface, surveyors are able to glean valuable information about rock types and the availability of gases or fluids underground. Below is an overview of the agreements used to facilitate this process in Texas.

Seismic Data Acquisition

Oil and gas companies typically acquire seismic data in the following ways:

  • Through their own geophysical survey or seismic shoot;
  • In participation with a group of other oil or gas exploration companies; or
  • From its owner via purchase, license, or another arrangement.

And regardless of how this data is acquired, an important consideration is the maintenance of confidentiality. Seismic data’s value often lies in its confidentiality, and the advantage of owning it or licensing such information is diminished otherwise.

Master and Supplemental Agreements

Oil and gas exploration companies often contract with other companies to conduct work on their behalf, and this ordinarily involves the signing of:

  1. A master geophysical services agreement – This type of agreement contains general terms, conditions, and a general statement of the nature of the work to be performed by the contracting company.
  2. A supplemental agreement – This type of agreement addresses each survey to be conducted, including the specifics of each survey.

An important consideration that must be addressed early is whether the survey will be performed for a flat fee (“a turnkey contract”), on a day work basis, or by some other basis. Turnkey contracts in which the exploration company agrees to pay the contractor a certain rate per square mile of data tend to be the most common in situations involving the collection of seismic data.

Texas Oil and Gas Attorney

Oil and gas laws are always changing. Therefore, it’s imperative that those involved in the energy industry have reliable, experienced, and knowledgeable legal representation to help guide them through the ever-changing energy landscape. In the areas of oil and gas, it’s particularly important to ensure that all contracts are properly drafted. Oil and gas contracts are sophisticated documents, and it’s important that they be drafted in a manner that ensures the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved. At the Law Office of C. William Smalling, P.C., we are highly experienced in the drafting and review of such contracts, including joint operating agreements, farm-out agreements, master service agreements, drilling contracts, licensing agreements for use of seismic or technical data, and nondisclosure agreements. If you are in need of expert oil and gas legal representation, contact us today for a consultation.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KpZebP
via Abogado Aly Website

Appraisal Payments: Don’t be late for this very important date.

Originally published by Todd Key.

A recent opinion out of the Western District of Texas, Kezar v. State Farm Lloyds, 1:17-CV-389-RP, 2018 WL 2271380, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2018), adds further support for post-appraisal summary judgments on extra-contractual claims, but also suggests a strict analysis of whether or not appraisal payments are timely.

The Kezar plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against State Farm asserting causes of action for breach of the insurance policy, statutory and common law bad faith, unfair settlement practices, negligence and fraud arising from the investigation and adjustment of their fire loss claim. State Farm invoked the appraisal provision of the policy, and the appraisal concluded with an award entered by the umpire on June 23, 2017. State Farm delivered its payment of the appraisal award to the plaintiffs on July 14,2017, and thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims based upon its payment of the appraisal award.

The Western District first addressed whether State Farm’s payment of the appraisal award was timely by analyzing the loss payment provision of the policy which read in relevant part:

If we notify you that we will pay your claim, or part of your claims, we must pay within 5 business days after we notify you.

The Court held that the loss payment provision was unambiguous as a matter of law, but did not apply to defeat State Farm’s summary judgment motion. Although the time between the appraisal award and State Farm’s payment was approximately 20 days, the Court agreed that State Farm had given first notice of its intent to pay the award simultaneously with delivery of its payment. As a result, State Farm’s payment was timely as a matter of law, and the Kezar plaintiffs were estopped by the appraisal award from maintaining their breach of contract claim. With the exception of the fraud claims (which the Court required the plaintiffs to replead under the federal pleading standards for fraud claims), the Court granted State Farm summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ remaining extra-contractual claims.

The Kezar opinion provides good support for insurance carriers defending suits post-appraisal. Reaffirming the Texas Supreme Court’s April 2018 opinion in Menchaca, the Western District required the Kezars to establish independent injury for their extra-contractual claims in the absence of a viable breach of contract claim. The Kezars had alleged three potential sources of independent injury: (1) State Farm’s original adjustment of the claim was less than the appraisal award it ultimately paid; (2) State Farm appointed its appraiser late; and (3) State Farm’s appraiser took seven months to submit his estimate. The Western District found none of these to be sufficiently independent of the insurance claim and extreme to constitute independent injury.

However, carriers should also be wary of the Western District’s consideration of the timeliness of State Farm’s appraisal payment. The court did not discuss the 60-day payment deadline provided by Section 542.058 of the Texas Insurance Code and cited in other opinions such as Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hurst, 523 S.W.3d 840, 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. filed), reh’g denied (July 25, 2017). The Houston Court of Appeals in Zhu v. First Cmty. Ins. Co., 543 S.W.3d 428, 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. filed) recently applied the same provision, but noted that no provision of the policy required payment sooner than the 60-day window. Therefore, insurance carriers wishing to bolster their post-appraisal summary judgment motions should review their loss payment provisions and ensure that any contractual requirement on appraisal award payments is followed

The post Appraisal Payments: Don’t be late for this very important date. appeared first on Hanna Plaut.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2twMpWp
via Abogado Aly Website

Texas Supreme Court Finds no Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Inheritance

Originally published by Sim Israeloff.

The Texas Supreme Court resolved a longstanding debate and an unusual split in lower courts by declaring that there is no cause of action for intentional interference with inheritance.

One issue for those victimized by persons taking undue advantage of the elderly is what remedies are available when an inheritance is interfered with.  Last year the Texas Supreme Court held that neither the Legislature nor the Supreme Court had recognized a tort for interference with an inheritance but left open whether the court might do so in the future.  Kinsel v. Lindsay, 526 S.W.3d 411, 423 (Tex. 2017).

Subsequent to Kinsel the two Houston Courts of Appeal entered opposite holdings.  The First District held that a cause of action for intentional interference with an inheritance exists.  Yost v. Fails, 534 S.W.3d 517, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.).  Within weeks, the Fourteenth District rejected Yost and declined to recognize such a cause of action.  Rice v. Rice, 533 S.W.3d 58, 62-63 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).  Both Houston courts have appellate jurisdiction over the same ten-county districts.  Cases are randomly assigned between them, meaning that parties and judges in those counties were subject to simultaneous and opposing rules.

Jack Archer executed a will in 1991 that left the bulk of his estate to his brother Richard and his children (the Archers) and the rest to charities.  In 1998, Jack suffered a stroke and became delusional and sometimes disoriented.  Jack’s friend, Ted Anderson, hired a lawyer and had Jack sign new wills and trust documents leaving his entire estate to the charities.  While Jack was still alive, the Archers sued seeking a declaration that Jack lacked mental capacity to execute the new wills and trusts.  The charities agreed not to probate the new wills in exchange for the Archers’ agreement to give them Jack’s coin collection worth $588,000 and pay their attorney fees.

After Jack died, his 1991 will was probated and the Archers received their bequests.  They sued Anderson’s estate for intentional interference with their inheritance.  Unlike many elder abuse cases, Anderson never personally profited from his actions and the Archers received their inheritance under Jack’s prior will.  But they alleged damages consisting of the $588,000 they had to give the charities in settlement plus $2.8 million in attorney fees incurred in avoiding Jack’s post-1991 wills and trusts.

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court rejected the claim.  “Because existing law affords adequate remedies for the wrongs the tort would redress, and because the tort would conflict with Texas probate law, we hold that there is no cause of action in Texas for intentional interference with inheritance.”  The court reasoned that probate law protects a donor’s right to freely dispose of his property as he chooses, while a prospective beneficiary has no right to a future inheritance only an expectation that is dependent on the donor.  Recognizing a tort of intentional interference with inheritance would give a beneficiary a right he or she does not otherwise have and one that might conflict with the interests and private motives of the donor.  The court agreed with commentators that tort law “is ill-suited to posthumous reconstruction of the true intent of a decedent.”  John C.P. Goldberg & Robert H. Sitkoff, Torts and Estates: Remedying Wrongful Interference with Inheritance, 65 Stan. L. Rev. 335 (2013).  Probate doctrines like undue influence and duress distinguish between legitimate persuasion and overbearing influence on a testator.  If these remedies are inadequate, establishing new remedies is better suited to the legislature than through “judicial adventurism.”

The dissenters agreed with the majority that the Archers had adequate remedies without a claim for intentional interference with inheritance.  But they argued forcefully that it was too soon to reject such a tort for all time, citing statistics on elder abuse including abuse within guardianships.  The dissenters argued that the Court could not state that current law affords adequate remedies for all situations where elderly persons are wrongfully relieved of assets intended for others.  They would have withheld a decision about whether to recognize or reject the tort until the full effects of Kinsel could be seen and evaluated.

Archer v. Anderson, No. 16-0256 (Tex. June 22, 2018)

The post Texas Supreme Court Finds no Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Inheritance appeared first on Reverse & Render.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KmQCTf
via Abogado Aly Website

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Redistricting Plan Previously Reversed for Racial Gerrymandering

Originally published by John Council.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a ruling that Texas lawmakers discriminated against minority voters by engaging in racial gerrymandering when
      

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KkqwmP
via Abogado Aly Website

Monday, June 25, 2018

Supreme Court Rules Police Must Get a Warrant to Use Cellphone Location Data

Originally published by [email protected].

In a further victory for privacy, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled police must obtain a warrant to use cellphone locational data in the tracking of criminal suspects.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2KjUyUE
via Abogado Aly Website

Federal question, stated.

Originally published by David Coale.

A pro se complaint in a mortgage servicing dispute stated a federal claim, and thus allowed removal, when “[I]n the ‘Facts’ section . . . [Plaintiffs’] wrote: ’17. In April, 2009 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION claimed to be the new mortgage servicer and payments were to be made to them. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION was not an “original party” to the “original negotiable instrument” which the “borrowers” negotiated. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION was a 3rd party debt collector, pretending to be the Lender. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION failed to adhere to the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, as all 3rd party debt collectors are required to do.’”  The Fifth Circuit observed: “[P]laintiffs may state a claim for relief by pleading facts that support the claim. The Smiths did just that—and cited the legal theory underlying their claim. The Smiths’ explicit reference to the ‘Fair Debt Collection Practice[s] Act’ (and its position in the U.S. Code), coupled with a description of conduct that could subject the Defendants to liability under the Act, solidifies our conclusion” about federal question jurisdiction. Smith v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel LLP, No. 16-51010  (June 12, 2018, unpublished).

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2trMlY6
via Abogado Aly Website

Follow Our Own Advice by Taking a Break

Originally published by lawschool academicsupport.

Bar prep is turning the corner into the last few weeks. Most of us are telling our students to work hard, but also, make sure to take breaks. When finals roll around, we encourage sleep, eating healthy, and resting enough…

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2Mn2vZT
via Abogado Aly Website

Monday, June 18, 2018

Is CBD Oil Legal in Texas? No, Unless You Fit These Qualifications

Originally published by Luke Williams.

What is CBD Oil? CBD Oil, which is short for cannabidiol oil, is a cannabinoid extract that is alleged to have the health benefits of cannabis (e.g. pain relief, easing…

The post Is CBD Oil Legal in Texas? No, Unless You Fit These Qualifications appeared first on Fort Worth Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorneys.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2K0Iyug
via Abogado Aly Website

Is it a Crime to Take Employers’ Trade Secrets?

Originally published by Leiza Dolghih.

corporateFew employees realize that when they take their employers’ trade secrets with them when leaving their jobs they may be exposing themselves to criminal liability under the Economic Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to steal trade secrets when: (1) the information relates to a product in interstate or foreign commerce (which is virtually any product now days) or (2) the intended beneficiary is a foreign power. 

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2yiA2SE
via Abogado Aly Website

Friday, June 15, 2018

State Bar of Texas’ Jury Service Committee seeks juror feedback

Originally published by Amy Starnes.

The State Bar of Texas’ Jury Service Committee is seeking feedback from people summoned to jury duty about their experiences.

The committee has created an online survey designed to elicit a more thorough understanding of the juror experience regardless of court or county or whether or not the individual ended up serving on a jury. The committee hopes the information collected will result in recommendations to improve the jury service system where possible.

The survey can be found at texasbar.com/jurysurvey.

The State Bar of Texas Jury Service Committee concerns itself with improving the manner in which jurors are treated within the judicial process and developing and implementing programs to ensure broad citizen participation and support for the jury service system.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2JFTcHw
via Abogado Aly Website

Texas Oil and Gas Drilling Surface Use Agreements

Originally published by Environmental and Energy Law Blog.

 

In Texas, mineral estates are dominant over surface estates. Therefore, the owner of a mineral estate can freely use the surface estate for the exploration, development, and production of the gas and oil beneath the property. This right to use the surface estate may be exercised by a lessee who has taken a mineral lease from the mineral estate’s actual owner. And because a lessee may use the surface without restoring it or paying for non-negligent damage, surface owners often acquire what is known as a surface use agreement that restricts the use of the surface or establishes damages. Below is an overview of surface use agreements in Texas.

Texas Surface Use Agreements

Surface use agreements allow landowners and lessees to reach an agreement regarding the use of a piece of property’s surface during the drilling process. Such agreements are often necessary because of the damage that drilling for minerals can cause to a piece of property’s surface area. Such agreements serve to prevent irreparable damage to a piece of property and obligate the lessee to a particular standard of reclamation that may include:

  • Filling drill pits;
  • Reseeding to ensure the viability of future development;
  • Restoring access to wells that have been damaged;
  • Replenishment of livestock; and
  • Any other issues that may harm future royalties.

Common Provisions

There are a number of common provisions that are typically included in surface use agreements, including:

  • Rights of the lessee;
  • Responsibilities of the lessee;
  • Benefits allowed to the surface owner;
  • Plan of development;
  • Issues affecting water;
  • Issues affecting land use;
  • Reclamation;
  • Health issues;
  • Safety issues;
  • Quality of life issues;
  • Issues affecting the enforceability of the agreement;
  • How separate agreements are to be handled;
  • Whether installed pipelines on the property shall be buried or left above ground; and
  • Detailed procedures for noise abatement.

Texas Oil and Gas Attorney

Oil and gas laws are always changing. Therefore, it’s imperative that those involved in the energy industry have reliable, experienced, and knowledgeable legal representation to help guide them through the ever-changing Texas energy landscape. In the areas of oil and gas, it’s particularly important to ensure that all contracts, including surface use agreements, are properly drafted. Oil and gas contracts are sophisticated documents, and it’s important that they be drafted in a manner that ensures the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved. At the Law Office of C. William Smalling, P.C., we are highly experienced in the drafting and review of oil and gas contracts, including surface use agreements, joint operating agreements, farm-out agreements, master service agreements, drilling contracts, licensing agreements for use of seismic or technical data, and nondisclosure agreements. If you are in need of expert oil and gas legal representation, contact us today for a consultation.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2lc4aWr
via Abogado Aly Website

Complex Hawaii Case Raises Questions about Federal Criminal Procedure

Originally published by John Floyd.

Complex Hawaii Case Raises Questions about Federal Criminal Procedure

A former Honolulu police chief has been charged with a litany of offenses, including bank fraud, identity theft, obstruction of justice, and a conspiracy involving several other police officers.

 

He faces federal charges following a federal grand jury indictment which was recently amended by federal prosecutors which made no mention a mailbox heist that was part of the original indictment. Defense attorneys in the case first thought that this charge had been dismissed, but later discovered that the mailbox case was still active – prosecutors had simply divided his charges into two separate trials.

 

Is this legal? Will defense lawyers be able to use this strange maneuver to help their clients?

 

Only time will tell in this specific case, but this peculiar legal move underscores the complexity of the federal court system. Federal courts have their own way of doing things, and federal rules of criminal procedure are complex, as is federal criminal defense.

 

Below, we’re going to break down the process of federal criminal prosecution, and what defendants can expect at each stage.

 

Investigation

 

The Federal Government has a number of agencies that investigate potential crimes, collecting and providing relevant information and evidence to U.S. attorneys. You have likely heard of many of these agencies. For example, the FBI.

 

The investigation may include both a search warrant and arrest of the suspects. In order to search a suspect’s home, clothing, computer, or other property, investigators must have a search warrant. Once there is probable cause to do so, the suspect will be arrested.

 

Charging

 

Once federal prosecutors have reviewed the evidence for the alleged offense and spoken to witnesses or other persons of interest, they will determine whether to bring the case to trial. If they decide to try the case, the suspect will be charged, or indicted, with the crime.

 

The defendant is given formal notice that he is being charged with committing a crime, known as the indictment. This contains basic information about the alleged offense and the charges being brought.

 

Arraignment

 

Shortly after the arrest and indictment, the defendant goes before a judge for an initial hearing, known as an arraignment. The arraignment provides more information about the charges, and the judge makes a ruling on whether the defendant will be held in jail or released until the trial.

 

Discovery

 

Federal Criminal Defense Electronic Discovery

Federal prosecutors conduct an enormous amount of research prior to trial. This can include reviewing evidence, interviewing witnesses or other relevant persons of interest, assessing potential problems that could arise over the course of the trial, and developing a trial strategy.

 

Prosecutors must also provide the defense with a copy of the materials and evidence that will be used in the trial. This is known as discovery.

 

Plea Bargaining

 

Prior to the trial (and even throughout), the prosecution may offer the defense a plea deal to avoid the trial and perhaps lessen the charges and potential sentence faced by the defendant. This is known as plea bargaining. If the defendant enters a guilty plea, the trial does not take place, and the next step is the sentencing hearing.

 

Pre-Trial Motions

 

Before the trial begins, the prosecution and defense may file pre-trial motions to ask that the court make certain decisions prior to beginning the trial. Motions can affect how the trial proceeds, procedures in the courtroom, defendants charged, evidence presented, allowed testimony, and more.

 

Prior to beginning the trial, the judge will issue a ruling for any pre-trial motions filed by the defense or prosecution.

 

Trial

 

Weeks, months, or even years after the investigation was initiated, the trial will begin. This is when the facts of the alleged offense are presented to the jury, which then issues a guilty or not guilty verdict.

 

Federal trials include the following elements:

 

  • Jury selection: A panel of jurors is selected by the prosecution and defense.
  • Opening statements: The prosecution and then the defense give a brief opening argument to briefly state their respective accounts of the case.
  • Presentment of case: The prosecution and subsequently the defense present their cases. This can include presentation of evidence, witness testimony, and cross-examinations.
  • Objections: As the case is presented, both the prosecution or defense can make objections to a piece of evidence or question asked of a witness. The judge then makes a ruling on the objection.
  • Closing arguments: After the case has been presented, the prosecution and subsequently the defense make a final statement to the jurors, which is the final chance to speak to the jury.
  • Jury deliberations: After meeting with the judge, the jury moves to deliberation to decide the outcome of the case. For federal cases, the jury must decide unanimously to convict the defendant. Once a verdict has been reached, the jury informs the judge, defendant, and lawyers of the verdict in court.
  • Post-Trial Motions
  • If convicted, the defendant has the option to file post-trial motions to ask for a new trial, acquittal, or a motion to correct a sentence.
  • Sentencing
  • Several months after a guilty verdict, a sentencing hearing is typically held, in which the judge issues the sentence for the offense. The sentence is determined using federal guidelines, and after taking factors such as victim statements and the crime’s nature into consideration.
  • Appeal
  • If the defendant believes that they were wrongly convicted or that the sentence was unduly severe, they can appeal this decision to a circuit court. A circuit court judge then issues a ruling.

 

Houston Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer

Your Best Chance at a Positive Outcome Is to Work with a Knowledgeable Federal Crimes Lawyer

 

Despite some similarities, federal cases possess distinct differences that set them apart from those tried at the state level. To have the best chance at getting your charges reduced, dropped, or dismissed, you need someone on your side who understands exactly how they work.

 

Our firm not only knows the process, we have a track record of success in dealing with some of the toughest federal cases around. Learn how we can help you by giving our office a call today.

The post Complex Hawaii Case Raises Questions about Federal Criminal Procedure appeared first on .

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2t5DXMW
via Abogado Aly Website

The NLRB Issues Useful Guidance Providing Additional Clarity On Work Rules

Originally published by Douglas A. Darch and Jenna Neumann.

Recent guidance issued by the NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, the NLRB’s chief prosecutor, is a continuing testament to the NLRB’s impact on the changing legal landscape regarding workplace rules. On June 6, 2018, Peter Robb issued a 20-page Memorandum to the NLRB Regional Offices titled “Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.”

 

This guidance comes in the wake of the NLRB’s December 2017 decision in Boeing to overrule Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, which articulated the Board’s previous standard governing whether facially neutral workplace rules, policies, and employee handbook provisions unlawfully interfered with an employee’s exercise of their NLRA Section 7 rights. Boeing provided a new standard for evaluating the legality of workplace rules.

Under Boeing, workplace rules are grouped into three categories:

  1. Rules that are generally lawful to maintain.

  2. Rules warranting individualized scrutiny.

  3. Rules that are presumed unlawful to maintain.

The General Counsel’s Memorandum offers additional clarity to NLRB Regional Offices evaluating claims of improper employment policies brought against employer workplace rules post-Lutheran Heritage. The Memo leads by example, articulating the types of work rules that would be expected to fall under each category.

Category 1 rules — generally presumed lawful because, when interpreted, they do not prohibit or interfere with an employee’s NLRA rights, or the potential adverse impact is outweighed by business justifications. Examples include:

  • Civility rules; no-photography and no-recording rules; rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations; disruptive behavior rules; rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents; rules prohibiting defamation or misrepresentation; rules prohibiting use of employer logos or intellectual property; rules requiring authorization to speak for the company; rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment.

Category 2 rules warrant individualized scrutiny because of their potential adverse impact on NLRA rights. The legality of such rules is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Examples include:

  • Broad conflict of interest rules that do not specifically target fraud and self-enrichment and do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union; confidentiality rules broadly encompassing ’employer business’ or ’employee information’, as opposed to rules regarding customer or proprietary information; rules concerning disparagement or criticism of the employer, as opposed to civility rules regulating the disparagement of employees; rules regulating the use of the employer’s name, as opposed to the logo or trademark; rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties as opposed to speaking on the employer’s behalf; rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer, as opposed to rules banning insubordinate or disruptive conduct at work, or rules specifically banning participation in outside organizations; rules against making false statements, as opposed to rules against making defamatory statements.

Category 3 rules — generally presumed unlawful because their potential to interfere with the exercise of protected rights outweighs possible justifications. Examples include:

  • Confidentiality rules regarding wages, benefits, or other working conditions; rules that prohibit joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning the employer.

Impact on Employers

Following Boeing, the NLRB’s Memo provides further guidance regarding a way forward for employers adopting generalized work rules and provisions in handbooks. This guidance provides useful clarity and specific examples, offering employers additional transparency regarding how the NLRB may approach an employer’s interpretation of a work rule. Practically, under this guidance, it will generally be less difficult for an employer to discipline or terminate an employee for having compromised an employer’s legitimate business interests. However, this guidance does not allow employers take such actions carte blanche. Employers are encouraged to consult legal counsel before terminating employees based on social media posts or workplace behavior. Employer should also review their handbooks and work rules in light of the specific examples mentioned in the memo.

Please reach out to your Baker McKenzie labor and employment lawyer for more information.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2MvWUkD
via Abogado Aly Website

Lateral Recruits: Here’s How to Start to Prepare a Business Plan

Originally published by Cordell Parvin.

If you have several million dollars in originations each year, you likely won’t need a business plan when you are seeking to change firms. (I suspect not many of those lawyers are regular readers of this blog, but…)

If you are like most other potential lateral partners, you want to able to demonstrate your potential. The first step in that effort is your business plan. You should prepare a business plan even if you are happy and content with your present firm. It will help you be more successful.

Why and how? In 2018, your time is really important, and for your own professional success and personal fulfillment, you should use your time wisely.

Preparing a business plan will help you prioritize how you spend your time, focus your attention on the important things and execute. With no plan, you will find it easy not to do anything other than the billable work that is on your desk.

If we worked together, you may recall I said that many lawyers spend more time planning a vacation than they spend planning their careers. Interestingly, the approach to planning can be similar.

What can we learn from our 30th Anniversary Trip to Ireland in 2000? (Can’t believe we are honing in on the big number 50 in two years.)

Start with Answering What and Why

Nancy, spent at least 20 hours planning this trip for us. She decided she wanted us to go to Ireland and she knew why.

Her family came to the United States from Ireland and she also knew she would enjoy the people, the scenery, the golf courses, the Irish beef cooked by French Chefs and the Irish Pubs serving Irish beer. So, she knew what and why. Then she planned where we would stay, where we would play golf and the itinerary for each day.

I like to say she did a top-down and bottom-up plan. Her top-down plan was looking at what she wanted us to do and where she wanted us to go. Her bottom-up plan looked at how many days we would spend and what we could do in that number of days. Then she had a plan for each day we were there.

When I practiced law, I prepared my business plan the same way and you should also.

I started with one major goal. My goal long ago was to become the “go to” lawyer for transportation construction contractors.

Why was that important to me?

First, I was far more comfortable knowing a lot about a little than I would have been knowing a little about a lot. I wanted to be a specialist and have a niche industry based practice.

I also wanted the recognition of being the “go to” lawyer for contractors. While I always had financial goals and wanted to earn a good living, the money really didn’t drive me. It was simply a way of keeping score.

My plan for each year had many, many action items. If did not reach my yearly financial goal, I knew I had come closer than I would have with no goal or if I had set a lower goal.

My bottom-up planning began with an estimate of how many non-billable hours I felt I could spend on client development. I usually planned to spend between 240-300 (20-25 a month). Then I outlined what would be the best use of those hours.

I have a short attention span. Knowing that caused me to break my action items down into smaller pieces. Each month I outlined the actions I wanted to accomplish that month and at the end of the month, I could track how I had done.

So, what do you want to achieve? Why is achieving it important to you? What is your plan to achieve it?

The post Lateral Recruits: Here’s How to Start to Prepare a Business Plan appeared first on Cordell Parvin Blog.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2LQVjVy
via Abogado Aly Website

Studying vs. Learning: A Matter of Perspective

Originally published by lawschool academicsupport.

It’s the time of the year when one group of graduates are taking their oaths of office while another group of graduates are preparing for the bar exam this summer. That brings me to an interesting conversation with a recent…

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2tbNulJ
via Abogado Aly Website

Vick: Supreme Court approves changes to State Bar election process

Originally published by Lowell Brown.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Texas amended Article IV of the State Bar Rules to implement changes to the bar’s election process designed to ensure fairness and a level playing field among all candidates.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2l9nSSR
via Abogado Aly Website

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Successfully Navigating Media in Law Firm Mergers

Originally published by Bruce Vincent.

Recent breaking news about the potential union of Dallas’ Winstead and Atlanta-based Troutman Sanders is another example of how the media can quickly become a factor in private law firm mergers. Leaders from Winstead and Troutman declined to confirm last week’s story from The Texas Lawbook about their reported plans for a national megafirm. If […]

The post Successfully Navigating Media in Law Firm Mergers appeared first on Muse Communications.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2t5LWcJ
via Abogado Aly Website

Shareholder Cannot Make S Corp. Separately Stated Item Election

Originally published by Houston Tax Attorney.

S corporation’s account for separately stated items that flow through to the shareholder’s tax returns. They are computed on page 3 of the Form 1120S and then listed separately on the Schedule K-1. The idea for breaking these items out separately is that they can impact the shareholder’s individual returns differently. That makes sense, but […]

The post Shareholder Cannot Make S Corp. Separately Stated Item Election appeared first on Houston Tax Attorneys: Mitchell & Patel.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2HKnB1m
via Abogado Aly Website

The Carrot or the Stick?

Originally published by Walter James.

When I first started practicing environmental law in 1987, I read the book “America’s Future in Toxic Waste Management: Lessons from Europe” by Bruce W. Piasecki and Gary A. Davis. In the book, they discussed the difference in philosophies between European environmental enforcement theories (the carrot) and the United States’ philosophy (the stick).

My good friend, Brent Fewell, with the Earth and Water Group, recently posted on Facebook, regarding the current administration’s attempts to use the “carrot” approach to enforcement – that is, (and I am paraphrasing somewhat here) give non-compliers notice that they are noncompliant, give them sufficient time and the tools to come into compliance, warn them of the consequences of continued noncompliance and then if the regulated entity fails to heed the advice and take advantage of the leniency, then drop the hammer.

Generally speaking, I am in favor of that approach. The question then becomes, how are the noncompliant entities going to come to the attention of the agency?  Inspections are down, there are fewer agency employees, federal grants to state agencies are drying up, cooperative federalism only works so far, state agencies do not have the budgetary luxury of picking up the enforcement slack.  So how will the noncompliant company come to the attention of the agency?  In some sense, this approach provides an incentive to be in noncompliance, especially if it gives the regulated entity a competitive advantage.

On June 11, 2018, E&E News published an article entitled “Trump’s EPA Turns to Less Punitive Responses to Pollution” by Mike Soraghan, E&E News reporter. In essence, the article was setting out that the “enforcement initiatives” were going to become “compliance initiatives.”  “The plan is to give state governments more authority in setting priorities for enforcement programs, according to a memo obtained by E&E News. Officials also want to remove from the priority-setting process considerations about consistency and using penalties to maintain a ‘level playing field’ for companies.”

Observing this from my vantage point, that approach will further weaken a substantially reduced enforcement agenda. The states are simply not equipped, or qualified, to deal with issues that cross state borders or affect entire regions of the country, if not the entirety of the country.  While the oil and gas industry complained about the enforcement efforts launched after the Obama administration made “energy extraction” an enforcement priority, imagine the cacophony of the vagaries of enforcement by North Dakota, by Louisiana, by Texas, by Alaska and by Pennsylvania.  According to the article, “Inspections of ‘energy extraction’ sites dropped by one-third in EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s first fiscal year, according to EPA’s website.”

There are a plethora of issues that scream for national enforcement (clean water, drinking water, clean air). And while these areas need a national approach and an incentive approach to compliance may work, there are way too many issues to leave to state enforcement or state-only input.  Some states are unwilling to undertake enforcement against industry that supplies a significant tax employment base.  State agencies also will not consider a broader picture.  Clean water, clean air, safe drinking water and its enforcement may very well take divergent paths in different states as the different states will have different budgetary constraints as well as interests.

The agency that watches over an industry may lose its way in its efforts to present a friendlier face. Then again, that is just my opinion.

More later.

As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com

WDJiii

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2JQnxT2
via Abogado Aly Website

Western District Denies Motion to Dismiss in FMLA Case

Originally published by Thomas J. Crane.

In Myles v. UT Health Science Center at San Antonio, No. 17-00871-XR, 2018 US Dist. LEXIS 5080 (W.D. Tex.), we see an instance in which the state employee successfully sued the state employer for a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. Normally, a state employer is immune to a suit based on the FMLA, if the allegation is the employee had to stay home to care for herself. The state employer can simply cite its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the lawsuit would end. But, in this case, the employee also sued the individual managers who were responsible for her termination.

Loretta Myles worked for UTHSC for many years, eventually rising to the manager level in the Human Resources department in 2009. In 2015, she requested FMLA leave to care for her ill husband. He suffered from prostrate cancer. But, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Ann Gaeke told her not to use FMLA leave. At one point, Ms. Gaeke warned Ms. Myles she should start looking for another job. The Plaintiff then took several weeks leave, saying she needed a break from harassment by her supervisor. On her first day back at work, Ms. Gaeke presented the employee with written discipline. Three days later, she was fired.

At the outset, the employer submitted a motion to dismisses citing Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Agency also argued that the two named defendants, Ann Gaeke and Heather Kobbe, are not “employers” as defined in the FMLA. But, the district court pointed to caselaw which did find that “employer” could include a public employee. Looking at Ms. Myles’ leave request as “self-care,” the court rightly noted that the Supreme Court has held that state employees cannot sue the state under the FMLA for taking care of oneself. But, the district court noted that Ms. Gaeke took sufficient actions against the plaintiff that her actions were in controversy. This was more than a supervisor simply carrying out state mandated requirements.

In its reply brief, the state raised the issue of qualified immunity regarding Ms. Gaeke. But, accepting the Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the court must, the plaintiff has shown sufficient facts to indicate Ms. Gaeke violated clear statutory rights. Therefore, qualified immunity does not apply.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2HJ33GB
via Abogado Aly Website

Beneficiary designation after divorce invalid — law upheld by US Supreme Court

Originally published by Michelle O'Neil.

The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion parsing out the practical concerns at play in a post-divorce life insurance case.  Specifically, in Sveen v. Melin, a woman named as primary beneficiary in her ex-husband’s life-insurance policy challenged a Minnesota statute that automatically revoked that designation upon divorce.  All in all, the Supreme Court was asked whether such revocation-upon-divorce statutes are constitutional when applied retroactively—that is, when applied to beneficiary designations made before the statute was enacted.  In short, the answer is ‘yes!’

To better understand the case at hand, consider the following facts: Mark Sveen married Kaye Melin in 1997 and named her as the primary beneficiary of his life-insurance policy.  In 2002, Minnesota amended its probate code to provide that the designation of a spouse as a beneficiary would be automatically revoked upon divorce.  Sveen and Melin divorced in 2007, and much to the surprise of his children, he never updated the beneficiary designation.  So, when Sveen died in 2011, the insurance company was uncertain how to proceed: should it pay the proceeds to Sveen’s ex-wife (Kaye), or alternatively, to Sveen’s children?  Phrased differently, should the insurance company follow Sveen’s original instruction, or alternatively, Minnesota’s new statute?  Given this predicament, the insurance company asked the Court for help.

In an 8-1 opinion, the Court held that the retroactive application of Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute does not violate the contracts clause of the Constitution.  According to the Court, the law in this case was meant to reflect the policyholder’s intent, thus supporting, rather than frustrating, the contractual scheme.  Indeed, Sveen, amongst many others, would probably not want his life insurance proceeds to pass to his ex-wife.  Furthermore, the law in this case was unlikely to defeat the policyholder’s expectations, as the policyholder could not reasonably expect a beneficiary designation to stay in place post-divorce.  Moreover, the law in this case merely served as a default rule, which the policyholder could undo at any point in time by submitting a new beneficiary designation form.  According to the Court, the burden of such negligible paperwork does not violate the contracts clause under its well-established precedent.

Like Minnesota, Texas has a similar statute under the Texas Family Code §9.301, which is why the Supreme Court’s decision is particularly relevant to us.  In Texas, a divorce invalidates any pre-divorce designation of the former spouse as a beneficiary of life insurance unless (1) the decree designates the insured’s former spouse as the beneficiary, (2) the insured re-designates the former spouse as the beneficiary after rendition of the decree, or (3) the former spouse is designated to receive the proceeds in trust for, on behalf of, or for the benefit of a child or a dependent of either former spouse.  It is important to keep in mind, however, that this state statute is preempted by ERISA!

 

This post comes from Saira Ukani, summer law clerk for O’Neil Wysocki. Saira is a law student at the University of Texas School of Law. She is interested in family law as a career after law school. We are happy to have her helping with our blog as well!

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2JPboxH
via Abogado Aly Website