Wednesday, March 22, 2017

SXSW panel tackles entertainment law ethics

Originally published by Amy Starnes.

Top legal experts offered guidance and perspective on ethics in the constantly evolving and fairly unconventional field of entertainment law at a South By Southwest panel titled “Ethics Matter.”

Peter Strand, a partner at the Chicago-based Leavens Strand & Glover LLC; Lawrence Waks of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP; and retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas Wallace B. Jefferson walked attendees through the 4 Cs of ethics:

  • Competence
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Confidentiality
  • Compensation

To obtain competence in entertainment law, the panelists recommended interested lawyers get involved with “volunteer lawyers for the arts” groups. The work will allow lawyers new to the field to build relationships and gain experience to help them stand on their own in the field.

Handling conflicts of interest in entertainment law can be tricky Strand noted because the industry is very small. When approaching a waivable conflict of interest, Jefferson advised lawyers to make sure clients fully understand the matter at hand and give the clients a chance to back out of representation.

On the matter of confidentiality, the panelists advised lawyers to always keep in mind their client is the artist—not the manager or parents. Sometimes maintaining confidentiality requires not disclosing certain information to some of the management personnel with whom you are most commonly communicating.

When it comes to compensation, the panelists reminded attendees that ethical guidance dictates that fees be “reasonable,” but added this too has its challenges based on nature and size of the industry. Compensation also may circle around to affect confidentiality as an entertainment lawyer representing an artist often may be paid by parents or a manager, but again, the lawyer must remember his or her client is the artist.

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2nkhfQ6
via Abogado Aly Website

Pass the App: What Consumers Want in a Restaurant

Originally published by Darin Klemchuk.

Restaurants use mobile order and pay-ahead apps to boost sales, facilitate order/payment, and increase customer loyalty. Only a few years ago, customers relied on restaurant […]

The post Pass the App: What Consumers Want in a Restaurant appeared first on Klemchuk LLP.

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2msHVPg
via Abogado Aly Website

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

AG’s office warns public about IRS scams

Originally published by Amy Starnes.

Attorney General Ken Paxton is warning Texans to beware of a tax-related scam preying on individuals as the April 18th income tax deadline approaches.

The scam involves unsolicited phone calls from individuals who claim to be Internal Revenue Service agents, according to a press release issued by the Office of the Attorney General. The scammers claim the person owes back taxes and will be arrested if he or she doesn’t provide immediate payment.

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2mRCqFR
via Abogado Aly Website

Circuit Splits

Originally published by Jason P. Steed.

There’s a split over whether plaintiffs must prove the absence of probable cause when bringing a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim. See here at p.19. (Incidentally, this case is a good example of how messed up the law is, on qualified immunity. The question in this case is whether a person has a right against retaliatory arrest even when there is probable cause for the arrest. But the court grants immunity, saying it doesn’t need to determine whether the right exists because the Supreme Court has previously recognized that the right has not been clearly established. In this way, under our current qualified-immunity jurisprudence, when a right isn’t clearly established the courts can just continue to grant immunity on that basis, without ever deciding whether the right exists. Happens all the time. I’ve written more here.)

There’s a split over whether a mandatory supervised-release term may be modified or terminated under section 3583(e). See here at p.4.

There’s a split over whether participants or beneficiaries of an ERISA plan must exhaust internal plan remedies before suing plan fiduciaries on the basis of alleged violations of statutory duties. See here at p.14.

There’s a split over whether the denial of a “Hail Mary” chance at trial constitutes prejudice (in the context of possibly rejecting a plea agreement). See here at p.9 & n.3.

There’s a split over whether burglary requires intent-at-entry or just “the development of intent at any point.” See here at p.5.

Courts are divided over whether the joint-employer or single-integrated-enterprise theory of liability under the FLSA also applies to the personal-jurisdiction inquiry. See here at pp.5-6.

There’s disagreement over the interaction between sections 2680(a) and 2680(h) in the context of determining sovereign immunity. See here at p.15 n.5.

And there’s a split over whether the failure to object to the reasonableness of a sentence upon its imposition requires plain-error review. See here at p.6 n.10.

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2na4ZAT
via Abogado Aly Website

Controversial subject: noncustodial parent possession over an infant

Originally published by Michelle O'Neil.

infant and fatherArizona State University has weighed in on a controversial subject – the quantity and quality of access of a noncustodial father to an infant child. “New research from Arizona State University shows that children, no matter what their age, benefit from having time with each parent that includes sleepovers at each home,” the article says. (See Overnights with dad benefits kids of divorce – no matter their age)

The study entitled “Should Infants and Toddlers Have Frequent Overnight Parenting Time with Fathers? The Policy Debate and New Data” was published February 2, 2017 in the American Psychological Association Journal of Psychology, Public Policy and Law.

ASU Associate Professor of Psychology William Fabricius, and lead author of the study, says that overnight parenting time with fathers during infancy and toddlerhood “causes no harm to the mother-child relationship” and actually it appears to benefit the children’s relationships with both mother and father. “Children who had overnights with their fathers when they were infants or toddlers had higher-quality relationships with their fathers as well as with their mothers when they were 18 to 20 years old than children who had no overnights,” Fabricius said.

The study was co-authored with ASU graduate student Go Woon Suh. The study revealed that the amount of parenting time small children had with their fathers when they were older did not makeup for the overnights they missed during their first few years. The increase in overnights during infancy and toddlerhood matched an increase in the strength of the bond between the father and their grown children. The findings were not changed depending on the level of conflict between the parents or whether the overnight parenting with the father was by agreement or over the objection of the mother.

“Having to care for their infants and toddlers for the whole cycle of evening, bedtime, nighttime and morning helps dads learn how to parent their children from the beginning,” said Fabricius, who studies father-child relationships and the impact they have on the child’s health and well-being. “It helps dads and babies learn about each other, and provides a foundation for their future relationship. Other studies have shown that programs that encourage married dads to take more responsibility for infant care help those dads learn better parenting skills, and we think that the same kind of thing happens when divorced dads have overnight parenting time.”

The mother-child relationships were improved when father’s had overnights, presumable because of the decrease in stress associated with sharing the responsibilities.

These findings differ from the position of many family court judges. In Texas, there is no presumption as to what the parenting time schedule should look like for infants and toddlers. Some judges have a restrictive view that a father’s parenting time should be frequent and limited with an infant based on research studies about memory development of infants. A common possession schedule under this view might look like this:

Children Under Six Months of Age:

  • Weekdays: On Wednesdays and Fridays of each week from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. that same day.
  • Sundays: On Sundays of each week from 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. that same day.
  • Alternative Times: For three periods of two hours each during any seven-day period, with no more than two days between periods of possession whenever possible.

Children Between Six Months & Eighteen Months of Age:

  • Weekdays: On Wednesdays and Fridays of each week from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. that same day.
  • Sundays: On Sundays of each week from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. that same day.
  • Christmas: From Noon until 4:00 p.m. on Christmas Day each year.
  • Thanksgiving: From Noon until 4:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day each year.
  • Birthday: From 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on the child’s birthday each year.
  • Alternative Times: For two periods of two hours each and one four hour period during any seven-day period, with no more than two days between periods of possession whenever possible.

Children Between Eighteen Months and Three Years of Age:

  • Weekdays On Wednesdays and Fridays of each week from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. that same day.
  • Sundays: On Sundays of each week from Noon until 6:00 p.m. that same day.
  • Christmas: In odd-numbered years from Noon until 6:00 p.m. on December 26th of each year. In even-numbered years from Noon until 6:00 p.m. on December 25th of each year.
  • Thanksgiving: In odd numbered years from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day each year.
  • Birthday: From 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on the child’s birthday of each year.
  • Alternative Times: For two periods of two hours each and one six hour period during any seven-day period, with no more than two days between periods of possession whenever possible.

Children Three Years of Age and Older:

  • Standard Possession Order.

Other Texas judges believe the standard possession schedule should apply to infants and toddlers. Even other judges have been known the order equal parenting time for both parents no matter the age of the child. This issue is very controversial and emotional for mothers and fathers.

Texas Family Code sec. 153254 provides the factors for a court to consider when determining an access schedule for a young child:

A) The court shall render an order appropriate under the circumstances for possession of a child less than three years of age. In rendering the order, the court shall consider evidence of all relevant factors, including:

  1. the caregiving provided to the child before and during the current suit;
  2. the effect on the child that may result from separation from either party;
  3. the availability of the parties as caregivers and the willingness of the parties to personally care for the child;
  4. the physical, medical, behavioral, and developmental needs of the child;
  5. the physical, medical, emotional, economic, and social conditions of the parties;
  6. the impact and influence of individuals, other than the parties who will be present uring periods of possession;
  7. the presence of siblings during periods of possession;
  8. the child’s need to develop healthy attachments to both parents;
  9. the need for continuity of routine;
  10. the location and proximity of the residences of the parties;
  11. the need for temporary possession schedule that incrementally shifts to the schedule provided in the prospective order under Subsection (d)[The Standard Possession Order] based on: a) the age of the child; or b) minimal or inconsistent contact with the child by a party;
  12. the ability of the parties to share in the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parenting; and
  13. any other evidence of the best interest of the child.

See my prior blog posts:

One Size Does Not Fit All: Possession for Children Under Three

One Size Does Not Fit All: Possession for Children Under Three Part 2

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2mLIm2v
via Abogado Aly Website

Man Charged with Cyberstalking After Strobe Tweet is Sent to Dallas Reporter

Originally published by [email protected].

The rapid growth of social media and apps has to a raft of new cyberstalking laws at federal and state levels. Offensive tweets, Facebook posts, and texts have been linked to teen suicides and other consequences. However, in a recent case involving a Dallas-based reporter, a tweet is linked to direct harm.

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2n3QnBy
via Abogado Aly Website

Monday, March 20, 2017

What’s in a name?

Originally published by David Coale.

Adams LLC, formed in July 2010, bought a number of assets from Adams Produce Company, Inc., and sought to prosecute a Deepwater Horizon claim for damages suffered by Adams Inc. Unfortunately, “[a]lthough substantially alll of Adams Inc.’s assets and liabilities were transferred as part of the transaction, it is undisputed that Adams Inc. retained certain assets and liabilities. Adams Inc. and Adams LLC are two distinct entities, and the asset transfer that occurred here was not just a change in form.” BP Exploration v. Claimant ID 100169608, No. 16-30482 (March 8, 2017, unpublished).

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



from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2ntllpp
via Abogado Aly Website