Author Archives: Lawyer Team

About Lawyer Team

This blog scans breaking news to find significant and interesting legal settlements. Lawyer.com is a directory website for lawyers. Featuring the best search in its field, lawyer.com connects people who need legal advice to the most qualified professionals who can provide it.

The Lesser-Known UC Davis Settlement

Justice

The news in the past couple of days has been awash with the announcement of the California Supreme Court task force’s report on the infamous UC Davis pepper spraying incident.  The report had been delayed by lawsuits citing privacy and safety concerns for the police officers involved, but was finally release yesterday after a settlement allowed its publication sans said officers names.  The Chicago Tribune offers a good summary of the 190-page report, but I’ll do you one better:  the pepper spray attack was a joint effort between UC Davis’s moronic decision making and overzealous policemen.

While this was happening, though, a smaller settlement was announced that seems to have slipped through the cracks of mainstream news.

Read on to find out more about this quiet settlement

Age Discrimination Suit Settled for $570k

Show me the money!

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set a precedent for old geezers everywhere by forcing a law firm to remove restrictions on salary for its older partners as they amble slowly to the grave.  The law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren’s previous policy required partners to give up their salary and controlling interest in the firm when they hit 70 years old, taking only an end-of-the-year bonus as compensation while still practicing law.  Eugene D’Ablemont, a partner in the firm, complained about his forced retirement to the EEOC, who then brought suit against Kelley Drye in 2010. After two years of litigation, Kelley Drye decided that it would be cheaper to settle than continue to wage a court battle. They agreed to drop all pay reductions due to age from their policies and will pay D’Ablemont about $570,000.  Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, though it’s kind of a dubious reward for those of retiring age.  If I’m still kickin’ around at age 70, the last thing I’d want to spend my time doing is practicing law at a law firm, however lucrative the pay may be.

Police Misconduct Costs Beloit $265,000

Caution

Beloit, Wisconsin will have to pay $265,000 to a teenager who was illegally strip-searched in public by a police officer.  Conner Poff was sitting in his car with some friends when the police received an anonymous tip alleging “drug activity”.  Officer Kerry Daugherty approached the car, asked Poff to step out, and patted him down.  Up to this point, Daugherty followed standard and necessary procedure.  However, the policeman detected a bulge in the teenagers pants in the region of his crotch and, apparently not being too current with his studies of anatomy, asked the boy what that mysterious bulge could be.  Poff replied that it was in fact his genitals, at which point the incredulous officer told the teenager to “show him”.  When Poff complied, he was slammed against the car’s back windshield so hard that the windshield shattered and he suffered a mild concussion.  In the course of the scuffle, Daugherty “discovered” a small bag of marijuana in the boy’s underwear.  The police officer’s defense for his violent and unjustifiable strip search?  He wanted the 16-year-old to show him the marijuana, which was clearly too small to detect in plain sight, and “not his genitals”.  Well Mr. Daugherty, if you didn’t want to ogle the kid’s junk, you probably shouldn’t have asked to ogle the kid’s junk.

Poff filed suit shortly thereafter, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.  Instead of going in front of a jury, which I can only assume would decide in Poff’s favor, the city agreed to a $265,000 settlement.  Daugherty was not disciplined.  So, the one disadvantage of the settlement system once again comes to light: the victims of injustice get some money, but the perpetrators are not punished and can say they’ve done nothing wrong.  However, Milwaukee County is undertaking an investigation in the strip search practices of its police departments thanks to some of Daugherty’s comments, which suggested that his actions were part of the department’s standard modus operandi.

The ultimate moral to take away from this story, then, is to remember to tighten your belt when dealing with police in Wisconsin.

 

Foreclosure Settlement Finally Official

It’s gone. It’s done. I can see the Shire.

The US District Court judge for the District of Columbia signed off, finally, on the big $25 billion foreclosure settlement between five banks, the federal government, and most of the states.  On Wednesday, Judge Rosemary Collyer approved the settlement, which was announced two months ago.  The $25 billion settlement will be divvied up by the states and is suggested to be used to ease financial burden on improperly foreclosed homes and help pursue negligence in the future.  However, as I’ve mentioned before, some states are going to use it for whatever they feel like.  Georgia in particular is using the money to support local infrastructure, presumably telling the federal government “you can’t tell me what to do, you’re not my real dad”, slamming its door and hiding under the covers afterwards.

Read more after the jump.

Divorce Is Final, Says Court

Love hurts

The New York Court of Appeals ruled today that a Bernie Madoff victim can’t redefine the terms of his divorce on account of his losses to Madoff’s fraud.  Steven Simkin and Laura Blank, when married, invested $5.4 million in Madoff’s business together.  The terms of their 2006 divorce settlement totalling $13.5 million split all assets evenly.  However, while Mr. Simkin elected to retain his stake in Madoff’s business in the divorce, Blank took her half in cash.  Madoff turned himself in to police for perpetrating the largest Ponzi scheme in history just two years later.  Meaning that Simkin lost his millions, while Blank was none the worse.

Simkin sued Blank to essentially redo the divorce settlement, which eventually reached New York’s highest court.  His argument was that, since Madoff’s investment was fraudulent, he and Blank should split the losses evenly.  Today, the court decided against it, citing the finality of divorce and warning that allowing the resettlement would set a dangerous precedent for divorce settlements and other contracts.  While Simkin tried to argue that the Madoff account didn’t exist and so he shouldn’t be held accountable for his investment in it, the Court disagreed, saying that the account did exist, it was just illegal, and that Simkin could have taken out his money at any time, like his ex-wife did.  In other words, they called him a sore loser.