|
Creativity Motivation – What is motivation – Corey K Katir
Advertising From http://www.creativitymotivation.com Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir New Guidelines For Innocent Spouse Relief
From rss.justia
Right after the New Year, the Internal Revenue Service released new proposed guidelines designed to provide relief to more innocent spouses requesting equitable relief from income tax liability. In an earlier blog post, other rule changes were discussed.
A Notice proposing a new revenue procedure revises the threshold requirements for requesting equitable relief and revises the factors used by the IRS in evaluating these requests. The factors have been revised to ensure that requests for innocent spouse relief are granted under section 6015(f) when the facts and circumstances warrant and that, when appropriate, requests are granted in the initial stage of the administrative process. The new guidelines are available immediately and will remain available until the finalized revenue procedure is published. The IRS will immediately begin using these new guidelines when evaluating equitable relief requests.
“The IRS is significantly changing the way we determine innocent spouse relief,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “These improvements should dramatically enhance our process to make it fairer for victimized taxpayers facing difficult situations.a
This is the second major change made to the innocent spouse program. In July, the IRS extended help to more innocent spouses by eliminating the two-year time limit that previously applied to requests seeking equitable relief.
Need help? Call a qualified tax litigation attorney at (310) 559-5259.
Justice Finally Prevails for Joseph Salvati
From legaltalknetwork.com Joe Salvati of Boston spent nearly 30 years in prison as an innocent man, along with three other men, convicted for a murder they did not commit. After years of legal twists and some unbelievable turns, the Justice Department declined an appeal of a $101.7 million settlement for all four men. Attorney and co-host Bob Ambrogi welcomes Attorney Victor J. Garo, Joe Salvatias lawyer for more than 30 years and Attorney and Journalist Dan Rea, to discuss one of the worst cases of injustice and wrongful imprisonment. They talk about Federal Judge Nancy Gertneras ruling and her criticism of the FBI, the power of the press, reaction to this bittersweet victory and fighting to the end for your client.
Victory in the case of Joe Salvati
From legaltalknetwork.com A huge victory in the case of Joe Salvati, of Boston, an innocent man who spent nearly 30 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Legal researchers say this case is the longest intentional wrongful imprisonment in U.S. history. Now a Federal Judge’s ruling in Boston confirms the government’s wrongdoing, awarding Joe Salvati and three others over $101 million dollars! Listen to this LegalTalkNetwork Special Report with Joe Salvati, his attorney, Victor Garo, who has led the long legal journey for justice, and Dan Rea, the Boston reporter whose investigative reports brought this story to light. You’ll hear about legal twists and turns that include FBI coverups, mob informants and hidden evidence as well as details of Federal Judge Nancy Gertner’s recent ruling lambasting the government for intentional misconduct and the framing of innocent men! Don’t miss this extraordinary story!
Special Report: Miscarriage of Justice
From legaltalknetwork.com Joe Salvati, of Boston, was an innocent man who spent 30 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Legal researchers say this case is the longest, intentional wrongful imprisonment in the nationas history. Listen to this LegalTalkNetwork Special Report with Salvatias attorney, Victor Garo, who has led the long legal journey for justice, uncovering hidden evidence, and exposing false testimony from an FBI mob informant, Joe aThe Animala Barboza. Youall hear about legal twists and turns that sound like a movie plot. But it is real. Garo proved Salvatias innocence to free him from prison, and now continues the battle in Federal Court in a civil suit for more than $100 million dollars against the government. Listen to this unbelievable story and hear how Attorney Garo and Boston reporter, Dan Rea, have kept the light shining on a miscarriage of justice.
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: Insurance Implications of Lawyer Transfers and Practice Structures
From slaw.ca
The following is based on an article that appeared in the January 2012 edition of LAWPRO Magazine. While the details of the insurance coverage discussed in the article are specific to LAWPRO insureds, the issues highlighted in the article apply to all lawyers. Lawyers outside Ontario should check with their own insurance providers about what is covered under their policies.
Lawyer mobility is now taken for granted: The days of spending one’s whole career in a single practice setting are long gone. Consider these scenarios:
Scenario one: A lawyer previously in practice elsewhere joins a new firm. A claim … [more]
The following is based on an article that appeared in the January 2012 edition of LAWPRO Magazine. While the details of the insurance coverage discussed in the article are specific to LAWPRO insureds, the issues highlighted in the article apply to all lawyers. Lawyers outside Ontario should check with their own insurance providers about what is covered under their policies.
Lawyer mobility is now taken for granted: The days of spending one’s whole career in a single practice setting are long gone. Consider these scenarios:
Scenario one: A lawyer previously in practice elsewhere joins a new firm. A claim is made based on work completed at the previous firm, but received only after the lawyer has joined the new firm. Does the new firm have any responsibility for the claim?
Scenario two: A firm is notified of a claim related to the work of a lawyer who once worked at the firm but whose whereabouts are unknown. What is the liability of the firm and its individual partners if the lawyer was a partner? What if the lawyer was an associate?
These scenarios raise several questions:
In scenario one, a relevant issue is the nature of the LawPRO policy:claims-made-and-reported (see the full article for a sidebar on a claims-reported policy). This means that coverage will be sought under the insured’s current year policy, unless the lawyer had knowledge of the circumstances potentially giving rise to the claim prior to his/her joining the new firm. In this latter case, the claim will engage a previous policy. It’s also important to remember that LawPRO’s policy (issued under the Law Society of Upper Canada’s insurance program) provides coverage to lawyers on an individual, not a firm, basis.
Either way, if the claim is covered and the amount falls within the amount of coverage available to the subject lawyer under his/her policy, neither the new nor old firm should be directly affected (subject to any arrangements of either firm with the lawyer related But if the claim amount exceeds the policy limits, it is a different story for at least one of the two firms. In this case, liability based on supervision, vicarious liability or agency law will be determined by reference to the working relationships of the lawyer at the time the legal services were performed, which means that the lawyer’s current employer – or partners – should not be exposed. (For example, the outcome would be different if the new firm assumed in some way the liabilities of the prior firm).
As for excess insurance – if any – in this scenario (acknowledging there is no standard form of excess insurance policy and assuming the lawyer’s former and new firms are unrelated), it would generally be expected that the current excess insurance policy of the prior firm, if one exists, would be triggered. The second firm’s current excess Scenario two
In scenario two (the lawyer who has moved on and cannot be located), the responding coverage at first instance would be the current policy coverage in place for the departed lawyer. Depending on the circumstances, that may be the full practice policy coverage (that is, if the lawyer has kept his or her standard policy in force) or run-off coverage only. The latter is $250,000 of coverage for all future claims in total, unless the lawyer arranges to buy a higher level of coverage. In the case where a lawyer’s policy is “in run-off ”, the supervising partner’s policy would generally become engaged if the damages exceeded the limits of the run-off policy coverage.
The liability of the firm or partners does not depend on whether the departed lawyer was a partner or an associate. It depends on the firm’s structure. If the firm is a traditional general partnership, the firm and its partners are responsible for all activities of other partners, employees or agents. In other words, there is joint and several liability for claims, regardless of whether the claim flows from negligence or from an excluded act (see below regarding lawyer conduct). This is so regardless of whether the “innocent” partners supervised the lawyer whose work gave rise to a claim, and regardless of whether they had knowledge of the facts.
For that reason, lawyers working in traditional partnerships are strongly encouraged to apply to buy-up their innocent party coverage to the maximum level, and to purchase If the firm is an LLP, the firm itself will be liable for the acts or omissions of all its members. Individual partners’ status is different. (See the full article for the sidebar ‘Does an LLP avoid liability concerns?’)
Partners in an LLP are fully liable for their own acts or omissions and for those of others under their direct supervision, regardless of the latter being partners or employees. Partners in an LLP are not liable for errors and omissions of other partners or employees, unless those errors or omissions were criminal or constituted fraud, or they knew or ought to have known of the errors and omissions and did not take reasonable steps to prevent them. However, as the partnership itself remains fully liable, the limited liability partners’ assets in the firm will be at risk.
What type of lawyer conduct often leads to law firm exposure?
As a lawyer vetting a prospective partner or employee, what should your main concern be in terms of exposure for the activities of the newcomer? Is it the quality of their legal knowledge, the excellence of their practice systems, or is it something else?
The “something else” alluded to is the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct.
A key determinant both of coverage provided by the LawPRO policy under the Law Society’s insurance program, and of whether liability could spread beyond the individual lawyer-policyholder, is the nature of the error or omission giving rise to a claim.
An LLP business structure may shelter partners from each others’ negligent errors or omissions, but not from each others’ criminal or fraudulent acts.
What’s more, LawPRO’s policy excludes from coverage “… any CLAIM in any way relating to or arising out of any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act or omission of an INSURED”(Part III (a) of the LawPRO policy).
So, dishonesty and/or criminal conduct clearly pose a higher risk for the firm as a whole than do negligent errors or omissions. All lawyers who practise in association or partnership with other lawyers (in other words, all lawyers other than true sole practitioners) are required to purchase innocent party coverage as described in LawPRO’s Endorsement No.5. to the policy, which has the effect of limiting the impact of the Part III (a) exclusion.
The innocent party endorsement serves to extend coverage to certain otherwise excluded acts. The coverage does this by treating a “dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious” act of either the insured or of others for whose actions the insured might be liable (for example, under the doctrine of vicarious liability) as an “error, omission or negligent act” as described in the policy.
However, the extent of coverage provided under Endorsement No. 5 is subject to a sublimit (a special limit within, and counting towards, the general limit of liability) of $250,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Considering the quantum of modern fraud schemes, it is easy to imagine a situation in which a claim would exceed this sublimit.
As a result, in addition to the firm vetting carefully any prospective practitioners, LawPRO invariably recommends that lawyers working in association or partnership with others apply to buy-up their innocent party coverage to the maximum permitted, and purchase excess insurance coverage on top of that.
Structuring relationships with lawyer-colleagues: What are the claims exposure implications?
Understanding that there may be times when a firm will be exposed for claims beyond the limits of the individual lawyer’s policy, what are the differences arising from different relationships? Should a firm consider this when planning an addition to its professional resources?
1. Lawyer employee of a law firm: The simplest scenario from the perspective of assessing excess liability is that of employer/employee. Regardless of the nature of the firm structure (whether traditional partnership or LLP), both the firm itself and any partner who directly supervises or controls the work of the employee likely will be liable in the event a claim against the employee exceeds the limits of the employee’s coverage. For this reason, law firms that employ associates must purchase innocent party coverage (to ensure coverage for Part III(a) excluded acts), and are encouraged to buy-up that coverage to the maximum limit and to purchase excess insurance coverage as well.
2. Referrals: Some lawyers regularly refer work to professionals outside the firm (that is, sending work out instead of bringing that lawyer into the firm). For example, a family lawyer may refer an existing client to a criminal lawyer, who is given complete carriage of a criminal matter outside the family lawyer’s area of practice. Other lawyers may refer matters to paralegals.
While pure referrals involve no supervision or control of one professional by another, certain working relationships can muddy the waters. Consider, for example, arrangements through which sole practitioners share office space and other resources; or where lawyers not in partnership with others identify with those others (whether they be lawyers or paralegals) on their letterhead, on websites, or signage, or elsewhere.
In Tiago v. Meisels, 2011 ONSC 5914, a client of one lawyer named three other lawyers as defendants in a negligence-based suit on the basis that, by having the four lawyers’ names appear together on business cards, letterhead and a sign, the lawyers, who were sole practitioners sharing space, were holding themselves out as The bottom line: Not having a certain lawyer join your firm may seem to be an effective way to limit risk. But when making referrals, lawyers should transfer carriage of the entire matter, and ensure that this is done with the client’s knowledge and approval and that the client understands that the referring lawyer and referee are not collaborating.
Also, be careful to avoid sharing resources or referrals in any way that might be interpreted as holding-out a partnership that doesn’t exist.
3. Partner:where the insured whose work gives rise to a claim is a partner, the potential for exposure to excess liability for his or her partners will depend on two additional analyses (as discussed above):
Another scenario: Working with paralegals
Scenario three: A lawyer hears of a claim related to the work of a paralegal with whom the lawyer has worked. Might the lawyer be exposed to liability in excess of the paralegal’s own coverage?
Not only lawyers move around: Paralegals do, too. They also can have similar insurance issues, in terms of which policy responds, the scope of coverage, the amount of coverage, and so forth.
The answer to the question in this scenario depends on the nature of the working relationship between the two parties. If the paralegal was an employee of the firm, the firm (and likely the supervising lawyer) will be directly or vicariously liable. If the paralegal provided services to the firm on a contract basis, the firm and at least the supervising lawyer will likely be liable on the basis of agency law, possibly with a right of contribution/indemnity from the paralegal.
If the work that gave rise to the claim was referred completely to an independent paralegal (not an employee or working in association with the law firm) to be performed without the lawyer’s ongoing supervision, with the client’s knowledge and approval and with no indicia that might lead the client to believe that the paralegal and the lawyer were partners or employer/employee, liability for the claim would likely be the paralegal’s alone.
The lesson in all of this?
The potential for personal liability beyond the available coverage, for the errors of present, past, or future colleagues, is highly unpredictable.
A lawyer’s best defence? a review, at least annually, of the full spectrum of risks facing the firm and the lawyers practising within it, and of the adequacy of coverage in place to address those risks.
Also consider a special review whenever an addition to the firm or new working structure is being considered.
For too long, it seemed as though the federal government was eroding Internet privacy at an alarming rate, always in the name of “safety”. Now someone is finally fighting back — surprisingly, it’s President Obama.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has been seeking to expand its role in protecting private-sector computers from cyber crimes. Last year, legislation was drafted that would have required companies in charge of providing critical services to allow their Internet traffic to be continuously scanned by computer threat data provided by NSA. If any of these companies found evidence of potential cyber attacks, they would be required to turn over the evidence to the federal government. NSA officials thought that a little more intrusion was a reasonable price to pay for preventing terrorist attacks. The companies would have likely disagreed.
So did President Obama. Both Obama and the Justice Department argued that if enacted, NSA would have unprecedented access to civilians’ Internet usage. While NSA claims that the process would have been automated — with no human involvement until an actual threat was detected — the Obama administration argued that the Internet providers charged with the scanning would have become vulnerable to cyber threats themselves. This would open them up to needing to be scanned for threats, which would put the entire Internet under government cyber monitoring. A dystopian novel could not have predicted it so well.
The legislation permitting more cyber surveillance has been pulled, for now. However, a revised version is expected to be part of the cyber legislation making its way through Congress. Given the deserved criticism of the last Internet bill, there is little reason to be optimistic. Right now there are two competing bills in Congress — a Democratic one and a Republican one. The Democratic bill requires infrastructure to meet minimum standards for guarding against a cyber attack, while the Republican bill permits businesses to share information about cyber attacks — shields them from liability for any actions taken to protect their computer network. Why let the government invade your privacy when your boss can do it so much better?
Cyber space is still an unknown in many respects, with new rules constantly being written to define its borders. On the one hand, the government and businesses have a right to be concerned about certain emerging threats. Russia and China have become more aggressive about launching cyber attacks on other countries, while groups like Anonymous threaten a mass-scale attack on our government’s computer network. Then there are the common, everyday white collar crimes committed by hackers and fraudulent dealers. Serious crime that hurts innocent people needs to be stopped. However, as always, the problem is finding the right balance between security and privacy. Constant surveillance for every little threat just opens up the potential for abuse. Relatively innocent behavior suddenly comes under the microscope, and innocent people are accused of things that they never did and never intended to do. You should not need to hire a federal criminal defense attorney after surfing the Internet. Let’s hope that NSA’s plan for surveillance gets massively scaled down, or dumped altogether.
The number of people trying to smuggle illegal drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border every day may include Texas government officials. El Paso County Commissioner Guillermo “Willie” Gandara Jr. was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms of marijuana, as well as possession with intent to distribute. Gandara had previously condemned efforts to legalize marijuana, claiming that he supported “keeping marijuana out of the hands of kids and keeping marijuana proceeds out of the hands of cartels.”
Gandara was arrested during a routine traffic stop at the Sierra Blanca border checkpoint. In addition to the conspiracy charges, he stands accused of going by the alias “Godfather” and maintaining property in El Paso for the purpose of distribution since November 2010. Gandara has appeared at the federal court in El Paso and now sits in an El Paso County jail without bond. Gandara’s family is well known in El Paso, with his father and brother both having served on the school board or city council. Worth noting is that Gandara’s father and brother are no strangers to accusations of law breaking and betraying the public trust. Willie Gandara Sr. was recalled as mayor of Socorro in May 2011 after being indicted in a public corruption investigation, while last month, Jesus Gandara became part of the “largest public corruption case in its history” as a superintendent in San Diego, California. If Gandara Jr. is found guilty, he faces up to 20 years in federal prison for each charge against him.
The Gandara family may be a unique case, but Gandara Jr.’s arrest has raised the question of how many other Texas public officials could be involved in the drug trade. Some have speculated that Mexican drug cartels like the Zetas and Sinaloa could have more public officials on their payroll.
In a situation like this, many would praise the Border Patrol’s actions and claim that justice is served. A public official was subjected to the same search and seizure tactics as everyone else. And if the Border Patrol must pull someone over and arrest him at a checkpoint, isn’t it right that it should be for the offense of smuggling large quantities of drugs rather than for having a personal stash in the glove compartment?
All of this may be true — Gandara is innocent until proven guilty, and is entitled to representation by a criminal defense attorney — and yet it still does not change the Border Patrol’s fundamental problems. For all of the large-scale smuggling operations Border Patrol agents have successfully broken up, there are cases where the Border Patrol arrests individuals with negligible amounts of drugs who are otherwise law abiding. Is each success worth the cost of forcing countless people to defend themselves in an overcrowded court system?
Los Angeles Accident Attorney
Advertising From theaccidentattorneylosangeles.com/ Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients Page took 3 seconds to load.
|
Capital Online Revenue Introduces Innovate Business Education Techniques
As an alternative to more traditional methods of learning about business and commerce, Capital Online Revenue introduces a new “earn and learn” training program.
Though business colleges remain in great supply, more and more Americans are turning to alternative sources of training and education, particularly during these days of economic upset and uncertainty. The simple truth is that with layoffs so prevalent and incomes so unsteady, investing in a full-time business education simply isn’t a viable option for many entrepreneurs. Instead, they are looking to business training modules that allow for on-the-job training, providing a way to master the tools of the trade even while making a profit. Capital Online Revenue continues to spearhead this movement with the introduction of its new “earn-and-learn” business training techniques.
Different from both traditional business education courses and even other online endeavors, Capital Online Revenue is a service that extends to customers a wealth of resources for learning about online business. What makes Capital Online Revenue services unique, however, is the fact that its training techniques are implemented in real-time. In other words, customers are both learning about online business and establishing their own online business both at the same time.
Though the notion of a make-money-online opportunity is hardly new, the methods being introduced by Capital Online Revenue are unlike anything yet devised by its competitors. What makes this service different is the emphasis it places on its training aspects. Though the long-term goal is for customers to establish their own online business, this comes hand-in-hand with an array of training resources and materials that include not only tutorial videos, but also a unique training component that includes one-on-one coaching from a team of live experts. Capital Online Revenue extends these services through a variety of media, including online chat, e-mail, and phone.
Capital Online Revenue introduction of these features has already met with enthusiasm from its current customer base. The service continues to define its niche, appealing to retirees, stay-at-home-parents, and working professionals who simply lack the time or resources necessary to attend more conventional business classes.