METHUEN — School officials defended the separation of school and city legal services Monday night in opposition to efforts by some to consolidate resources.
The City Council has been discussing a tabled measure that would affirm City Solicitor Paul O’Neill is in charge of all legal services for Methuen, including its schools.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security has walked back what lawyers called an illegal attempt to fast-track the deportation of a woman who has lived in the U.S. for nearly 30 years and to expel her without an immigration court hearing, her attorneys said.
Lawyers for Mirta Amarilis Co Tupul, 38, filed a lawsuit earlier this month to stop her imminent deportation to Guatemala. A U.S. district court judge in Arizona dismissed the case Wednesday after the federal government moved the woman to regular deportation proceedings and agreed in writing not to attempt expedited removal again, her lawyers said.
The judge had granted an emergency request to temporarily pause the deportation while the case played out in court.
The case highlighted broader concerns that the Trump administration is stretching immigration law to speed up deportations in its effort to remove as many immigrants as possible.
Federal law since 1996 holds that immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for fewer than two years can be placed in expedited removal proceedings, which bypass the immigration court process. Longtime immigrants, however, cannot be removed until they’ve had a chance to plead their case before a judge.
In a sworn declaration, one of Co Tupul’s attorneys wrote that a deportation officer told her the agency had a “new policy” of placing immigrants in expedited removal proceedings after their first contact with immigration authorities.
“This appears to have been a test case in which the administration attempted to enforce a ‘new policy’ against Ms. Co Tupul,” Eric Lee, one of Co Tupul’s attorneys, said Thursday. “The district court quickly shut down this effort in no uncertain terms. Maybe this has slowed the government’s efforts to expand expedited removal, or maybe the government is waiting for another test case where the non-citizen lacks legal representation.”
Emails reviewed by The Times showed that Co Tupul’s lawyer provided extensive evidence of her longtime residence. Immigration officials told the lawyer that her client would remain in expedited removal proceedings anyway.
Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that after Co Tupul’s lawyers provided documentation verifying she had lived in the U.S. for more than two years, “ICE followed the law and placed her in normal removal proceedings.”
“Any allegation that DHS is ‘testing out’ a new policy regarding illegal aliens who have been in the country for longer than two years into expedited removal is false,” McLaughlin added.
Co Tupul, a Phoenix resident, was pulled over as she drove to her job at a laundromat on July 22. She remains detained at Eloy Detention Center, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix.
The Trump administration on Thursday petitioned the Supreme Court to free up its mass deportation efforts across Southern California, seeking to lift a ban on “roving patrols” implemented after a lower court found such tactics likely violate the 4th Amendment.
The restrictions, initially handed down in a July 11 order, bar masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Los Angeles and cities in seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.
Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles found in her original decision.
The Trump administration said in its appeal to the high court that Frimpong’s ruling, upheld last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.”
Lawyers behind the lawsuits challenging the immigration tactics immediately questioned the Trump administration’s arguments.
“This is unprecedented,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. “The brief is asking the Supreme Court to bless open season on anybody on Los Angeles who happens to be Latino.”
The move comes barely 24 hours after heavily armed Border Patrol agents snared workers outside a Westlake Home Depot after popping out of the back of a Penske moving truck — actions some experts said appeared to violate the court’s order.
If the Supreme Court takes up the case, many now think similar aggressive and seemingly indiscriminate enforcement actions could once again become the norm.
“Anything having to do with law enforcement and immigration, the Supreme Court seems to be giving the president free rein,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a prominent scholar of the country’s highest court. “I think the court is going to side with the Trump administration.”
The Department of Justice has repeatedly argued that the temporary restraining order causes “manifest irreparable harm” to the government. Officials are especially eager to see it overturned because California’s Central District is the single most populous in the country, and home to a plurality of undocumented immigrants.
In its Supreme Court petition, the Justice Department alleged that roughly 10% of the region’s residents are in the U.S. illegally.
“According to estimates from Department of Homeland Security data, nearly 4 million illegal aliens are in California, and nearly 2 million are in the Central District of California. Los Angeles County alone had an estimated 951,000 illegal aliens as of 2019 — by far the most of any county in the United States,” the petition said.
President Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, and has poured billions in federal funding and untold political capital into the arrest, incarceration and removal of immigrants. Though Justice Department lawyers told the appellate court there was no policy or quota, administration officials and those involved in planning its deportation operations have repeatedly cited 3,000 arrests a day and a million deportations a year as objectives.
District and appellate courts have stalled, blocked and sometimes reversed many of those efforts in recent weeks, forcing the return of a Maryland father mistakenly deported to Salvadoran prison, compelling the release of student protesters from ICE detention, preserving birthright citizenship for children of immigrant parents and stopping construction of “Alligator Alcatraz.”
But little of the president’s immigration agenda has so far been tested in the Supreme Court.
If the outcome is unfavorable for Trump, some observers wonder whether he will let the justices limit his agenda.
“Even if they were to lose in the Supreme Court, I have serious doubts they will stop,” Segall said.
A decade ago, Jesus Adan Rico breathed a big sigh of relief. That was when the Chino High School student, a Dreamer, learned an immigration judge had effectively shelved his deportation proceedings. Maria Torres, who came to the U.S. at 2 years old, also had her deportation proceedings paused by an immigration judge because she recently married a U.S. citizen.
Yet just eight weeks ago, Adan Rico — now 29, married with a new child — discovered that the Trump administration had revived his deportation case, even though he has renewed his DACA status at least four times. Torres learned the government wants to bring back her case just as she was preparing for her green card interview.
“No matter what we do, no matter how far we go in school, in our jobs and with our families, it doesn’t matter. It is all hanging by a thread,” he said.
Adan Rico and Torres are among thousands of immigrants who have built lives around the assumption they are safe from being detained and deported. Now they face that threat at the hands of the Department of Homeland Security, which is giving new life to administratively closed cases in a bid to step up immigration enforcement.
Some lawyers have received dozens of motions to recalendar — the first step to reopen old cases. If lawyers don’t succeed in opposing those motions, the immigrants could wind up back in courthouses that in recent months have become a hub for arrests.
“It has been 10 years,” Adan Rico said. “And all of a sudden our lives are on hold again, at the mercy of these people that think I have no right to be here.”
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by Madison Sheahan, left, and Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE headquarters in May.
(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)
When asked about the government’s push to restart old proceedings, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin declined to address questions about the administration’s change in policy or respond to attorneys’ complaints about the process. She released a statement similar to others she has offered to the media on immigration inquiries.
“Biden chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including criminals, into the country and used prosecutorial discretion to indefinitely delay their cases and allow them to illegally remain in the United States,” she said. “Now, President Trump and Secretary Noem are following the law and resuming these illegal aliens’ removal proceedings and ensuring their cases are heard by a judge.”
Attorneys handling these proceedings say the government is overwhelming the courts and immigration lawyers by dredging up cases, many of which are a decade or more old. In several of these, clients or their original lawyers have died. In other cases, immigrants have received legal status and were surprised to learn the government was attempting to revive deportation proceedings against them.
Since the 1970s, immigration judges have administratively closed deportation proceedings in order to ease the massive backlog on their dockets and prioritize more urgent cases. The maneuver essentially deferred a case, but didn’t completely dismiss it, giving both the court and the immigrant wiggle room. The idea was that immigrants could pursue other forms of relief such as a hardship waiver or deferred status. The government could reopen the case if needed.
Across the country, immigration attorneys have received a flurry of requests by Homeland Security’s Office of Principal Legal Advisor to revive cases. The motions, attorneys say, appear similar in language, and lack analysis or reference to a change that prompted the decision. In their motions, Trump administration lawyers argue that the targeted immigrants have not been granted green cards and therefore do not have legal status to be here.
The motions urge immigration judges to use their discretion to revive cases and consider whether a person has been detained or the pending application’s “ultimate outcome or likelihood of success.”
What distinguishes immigration proceedings from cases in federal or state courts is that both the lawyers and the judges are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary branch. They answer to Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, respectively.
Attorneys and clients are racing against the clock to submit opposition to these motions. Many have become in essence private investigators, tracking down clients they haven’t seen in years. Other attorneys, who have retired, are looking to other immigration attorneys to pick up their client’s case.
“The court is drowning in these motions because we’re trying to resist these,” said David L. Wilson, an immigration attorney at Wilson Law Group in Minneapolis. He first received a batch of 25 government motions at the end of May — and then they kept coming every few weeks. One case involved a client from El Salvador who had been granted Temporary Protected Status, and whose case was administratively closed in 2006.
Adan Rico, a new father who is studying to be an HVAC technician in the Inland Empire, was stunned that the government was seeking to revive deportation proceedings.
The attorney who originally represented him has since died. “If it wasn’t for his daughter calling, I would have never found out my case was reopened,” he said. “The Department of Homeland Security never sent me anything.”
Attorney Patricia M. Corrales speaks at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles office in April.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
His new attorney, Patricia Corrales, said Adan Rico’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status doesn’t come up for renewal until 2027 and it defers deportation proceedings. But Corrales, who has received about a dozen motions, said it appears the government isn’t even checking whether the individuals are alive, much less their immigration status.
One of her cases is that of construction worker Helario Romero Arciniega. Seven years ago, a judge administratively closed deportation proceedings for Romero Arciniega, after he was severely beaten with a metal sprinkler head and had qualified for a visa for crime victims.
This year, government officials filed a motion to bring back the deportation proceedings against the construction worker, even though he had died six months ago.
“They don’t do their homework,” Corrales said of the government lawyers. “They’re very negligent in the manner in which they’re handling these motions to re-calendar.”
Some attorneys have reported delays in their ability to file their opposition motions because the court is so overwhelmed.
When asked about the backlog, Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for the federal immigration court known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review, confirmed that the court “must receive the underlying initial motion before it can accept a response to that motion.”
Some immigrants now in legal limbo were just steps away from finalizing their green card applications.
Maria Torres, an L.A. County resident and mother of two, said she was only 2 years old when she was brought to the U.S. by her family. She grew up undocumented, and when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program became available, applied to gain work authorization.
But in 2019, at 21, she was arrested on suspicion of a misdemeanor DUI, which put her into deportation proceedings. She took the classes and paid her ticket. With deportation proceedings open against her, she was able to get her case closed in 2022 while she sought a visa through her husband, a U.S. citizen.
Her visa was approved, and with just one interview appointment left, Torres felt blindsided when she received a call from her attorney’s office, saying the government wanted to restart deportation proceedings against her.
“I just felt my heart sink and I started crying,” she said. Her attorney submitted a motion opposing the recalendaring of the case, and they are waiting to hear how a judge will rule. In the meantime, she said, she’s hopeful she’ll have her final interview for her approved visa before then.
“People aren’t getting due process,” said attorney Mariela Caravetta. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”
(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)
Mariela Caravetta, an immigration attorney in Van Nuys, said that, since early June, about 30 of her clients have been targeted with government motions to reopen their cases.
By law, she has to reply in 10 days. That means she has to track down the client, who may have moved out of state.
“It’s bad faith doing it like that,” said Caravetta, who accused the federal government of flooding the immigration courts in an effort to meet its deportation quotas.
“People aren’t getting due process,” she said. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”
Caravetta has convinced some judges to deny the government motions because the clients are seeking ways to legally stay in the country. In a handful of cases, she hasn’t been able to reach her clients.
The government isn’t making an effort to reach out to attorneys to discuss the cases, as is required, she added. “That would save a lot of time for everybody,” she said. Her clients may have U-visas, which give relief to migrants who have been victims of crime and who help investigators or prosecutors. But the government’s motions say, “These people have not done anything to legalize their status, we need a final resolution.”
Matt O’Brien, a former federal immigration judge and deputy executive director of FAIR, which advocates for stricter immigration laws, said the Trump administration is “enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act the way that Congress wrote it.”
He questioned why attorneys are complaining about cases being recalendared, saying “it’s akin to a motion of reopening a case in any other court.”
Yet for many immigrants whose cases are being revived, the risks are high. Judges have discretion to deny motions to reopen cases, and have done so in some situations, attorneys say. But judges have also approved the government’s request if there is no opposition from the immigrant or their attorney.
At that point, cases are put on the calendar. If it gets scheduled, and the immigrants do not show up to court, they could eventually be ruled “in absentia,” which would make them vulnerable to immediate deportation and bar them from entering the country legally for years.
It all fits with the Trump administration’s goal of increasing deportation numbers, say many immigration lawyers and former officials.
“They are getting the largest pool possible of people that they can remove, and removing them from the country,” said Jason Hauser, the former chief of staff of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “And what stands in the way from that is a working due process of an immigration system.”
In April, Sirce E. Owen, acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a memo criticizing the use of administrative closure, referring to it as “a de facto amnesty program with benefits” because it offers work authorization and deportation protections. Owen, a former immigration judge, rescinded previous Biden administration guidance that offered a more proactive approach to administrative closures.
Owen stated that, as of April, about 379,000 cases were still administratively closed in immigration court and cited them as a contributing factor to the court system’s backlog of 4 million cases.
In immigration courts in Los Angeles and San Diego, attorneys are already seeing these cases come before immigration judges. Many clients have expressed shock and despair at being dragged back into court.
Sherman Oaks attorney Edgardo Quintanilla has seen about 40 cases recently, including some dating back to the 2010s. Clients, he said, are alarmed not only by the government’s legal maneuvers but by the prospect of entering a federal building these days.
“There is always the fear that they may be arrested when they go to the court,” he said. “With everything going on, it is a reasonable fear.”
This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative,funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to addressCalifornia’s economic divide.
In her entire law career, Sarah McCracken has never seen anything like the email she received on June 25.
McCracken, a tenants’ rights lawyer at Tobener Ravenscroft, is currently representing a Latino family suing a landlord and real estate agent for illegal eviction after being kicked out of their Baldwin Park home last year.
A few weeks after being served, amid a series of ICE raids primarily targeting Latino communities in L.A. County, Rod Fehlman, the lawyer who appeared to be representing the agent at the time, sent McCracken’s team a series of emails disputing the lawsuit and urging them to drop the case.
He ended the correspondence with this: “It is also interesting to note that your clients are likely to be picked up by ICE and deported prior to trial thanks to all the good work the Trump administration has done in regards to immigration in California.”
“It’s racist,” McCracken said. “Not only is it unethical and probably illegal, but it’s just a really wild thing to say — especially since my clients are U.S. citizens.”
The comment arrived as ICE raises tensions between landlords and Latino tenants. According to California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, ICE has been pressuring some landlords to report their tenants’ immigration status.
Bonta’s office issued a consumer alert on Tuesday reminding landlords that “it is illegal in California to discriminate against tenants or to harass or retaliate against a tenant by disclosing their immigration status to law enforcement.”
Fehlman didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did the clients he seemed to be representing: real estate agent David Benavides and brokerage Majesty One Properties, Inc. Fehlman’s role in the case is unclear; following requests for comment from The Times, Benavides and the brokerage responded to McCracken’s complaint using a different law firm.
But according to McCracken, Fehlman serves as the defendants’ personal attorney and will likely still take part in the lawsuit in an advisory role.
Evicted
From 2018 to 2024, Yicenia Morales rented a two-bedroom condo in Baldwin Park, which she shared with her husband, three children and grandson. According to her wrongful eviction lawsuit filed in May, the house had a slew of problems: faulty electricity, leaks in the bathroom, bad ventilation, and a broken heater, air-conditioning unit and garage door.
“There was a lot that needed to be fixed, but we accepted it because we were just happy to find a place to live,” Morales said.
The real problems started in 2024, when her landlord, Celia Ruiz, started asking the family to leave because she wanted to sell the property, which isn’t a valid reason for eviction under California law or Baldwin Park’s Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, the suit said.
According to the lawsuit, Ruiz then changed her story, alleging that she wanted to move into the house herself, which would be a valid reason for eviction. According to the suit, Ruiz and her real estate agent, David Benavides of Majesty One Properties, constantly urged Morales and her family to leave.
In September, the pressure mounted. Ruiz penned a handwritten note saying she needed the house back, and Benavides began calling them almost every day, the suit said.
In November, assuming Ruiz needed to move back in, Morales left. But instead of moving in herself, Ruiz put the property on the market in January and sold it by March.
“I really believed she needed the house for herself,” Morales said. “I’m just tired of people taking advantage of others.”
Lawyer tactics
Depending on your interpretation of California’s Business and Professions Code, Fehlman’s comment could be illegal, McCracken said. Section 6103.7 says lawyers can be suspended, disbarred or disciplined if they “report suspected immigration status or threaten to report suspected immigration status of a witness or party to a civil or administrative action.”
In addition, the State Bar of California bans lawyers from threatening to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.
You could argue that Fehlman’s email isn’t a threat. He never said he’d call ICE himself, only claiming that Morales and her family “are likely to be picked up by ICE and deported.”
Morales and her entire family are all U.S. citizens. But she said she feels racially profiled because of her last name.
“It’s not fair for him to take advantage of that,” she said. “I was born here. I have a birth certificate. I pay taxes.”
Just to be safe, Morales sent her birth certificates to McCracken’s team. Even though she’s a citizen, if Fehlman reports her to ICE, she still doesn’t feel safe.
Federal agents have arrested U.S. citizens during its recent raids across L.A, and a 2018 investigation by The Times found that ICE has arrested nearly 1,500 U.S. citizens since 2012, detaining some for years at a time.
“I was already depressed over the eviction. Now I’m hurt, embarrassed and nervous as well. Will he really call ICE on us?” Morales said.
McCracken said Fehlman’s message is a byproduct of the current anti-immigrant political environment. Fehlman sent the email on June 25, the end of a jarring month that saw the agency arrest 2,031 people across seven counties in Southern California, 68% of which had no criminal convictions.
“People seem to be emboldened to flout the law because they see people at the top doing it,” she said. “It’s totally unacceptable behavior.”
An ironic twist, she added, is that Fehlman’s own client at the time was also Latino.
“I don’t know if Benavides was aware that his lawyer is making racially profiling comments, but I don’t think he’d want to work with someone like that,” McCracken said.
The case is still in its early stages. Benavides and Majesty One Properties responded to the complaint on July 17, and McCracken’s team hasn’t officially served the landlord Ruiz yet because they’ve been unable to locate her.
In the wake of the ICE comment, communication between McCracken and Fehlman halted. McCracken decided Fehlman’s rant and possible threat didn’t warrant a response, and Fehlman hasn’t said anything else in the meantime. Her team is still deciding how they want to proceed in the wake of the comment, which could justify legal action.
She called it a dangerous attempt to chill her client’s speech and a failed attempt to intimidate her into dropping the case. But he took it way too far.
“We’re at a point in time where lawyers need to be upholding the rule of law,” she said. “Especially in a time like this.”
BOSTON — The state Board of Early and Secondary Education is preparing to reexamine the admissions process for vocational technical high schools, three years after they overhauled their regulations to promote more “equitable access” to the career-oriented schools.
Demand at the state’s vocational schools far outpaces the available space, as more and more students and families are seeing career-driven high school education as a pathway to steady, well-paying jobs.
The board voted in 2021 to reform the admissions process for vocational schools and districts, after advocates said policies disproportionately excluded students of color and those who were learning English, had disabilities or came from low-income families. Those changes removed requirements that grades, attendance, discipline records and counselor recommendations had to be used as admissions criteria.
The board held a special meeting on Monday night, and has another scheduled next month, to “discuss the impact of these regulatory changes” and “address a key question: What impact has the most recent regulation change had on addressing equitable access to (career technical education) admissions?” according to a meeting agenda.
The agenda adds that the information discussed at the meetings, “will contribute to any further changes to state regulations.”
The regulation changes ended the requirement that vocational technical schools use criteria such as disciplinary records; it did not, however, ban their use. The reforms did soften some of the selective criteria, for example, career technical schools now can only count non-excused absences against an applicant, and only suspensions of 10 days or more count against them.
Of the 29 career technical districts in Massachusetts, 25 kept selective criteria in their admissions process after 2021 — meaning, they still use information such as grades, attendance and discipline records from middle school to choose which applicants should come to their high school programs. Most still require a recommendation or an interview, according to a presentation given at the Monday meeting.
Many adjusted how they score, or shifted the weight assigned to criteria under the 2021 reforms.
In February 2023, Lawyers for Civil Rights and Center for Law and Education filed a civil rights complaint arguing that the process for admitting students into the limited slots was still not fair, and still disproportionately prioritized white, higher-income, English speaking students. Low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, and English language learners are more likely to be disciplined at school and be absent for long periods of time.
They urged the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to implement a lottery system, which would randomly select which of the 8th grade students who applied to a vocational school got to attend.
“The changes that BESE introduced in June 2021, fell short. While these revisions mirrored federal civil rights standards on paper, they failed to make meaningful changes in practice,” said Lawyers for Civil Rights attorney Mirian Albert at a board meeting on Tuesday. “Vocational schools are still permitted to rank applicants based on grades, attendance, disciplinary records and recommendations — criteria that research in three years of DESE’s own data shows disproportionately excludes students from protected classes.”
Two of the 29 career technical education districts in the state opted to adopt a full or partial lottery system to admit students after 2021, and two agricultural schools fully removed grades and recommendations as selective criteria.
Shaun Dougherty, an education and policy professor at Boston College, gave a presentation to the board Monday night on research comparing a random lottery system to selecting students for the schools.
He ran a simulation based on Massachusetts’s vocational school’s 2019’s admissions data, and found that random admission generates more equitable access among demographic groups.
His study also found that students with similar grades going into high school had vastly different outcomes based on their admittance into a vocational technical school. Those who were admitted into a career program had a 5 percentage point higher chance of graduating, and significantly higher earnings after graduation.
Board members had plenty of questions for Dougherty, but they held back on outwardly sharing their opinions on whether further reform of the system is needed.
On Tuesday morning, however, advocates from both sides of the debate came to the board meeting in Everett to share their opinions.
Albert reinforced Lawyers for Civil Right’s view that a lottery is the only fair way to offer opportunities when seats are limited.
Sky Kochenour from the Center for Law and Education, who filed the 2023 complaint alongside LCR, said, “I’m very heartened that DESE and the board are seriously revisiting the critical issue of equity and admission.”
A number of superintendents of vocational schools also came to speak, sharing their view that using selective criteria is important.
“Our schools only consider the most serious disciplinary offenses. In the absence of such criteria, our vocational community would have concerns. Attendance: we cannot send tutors home with large equipment. Students cannot succeed in co-op programs if they are not present and can’t earn credentials without the requisite number of hours,” said Aaron Polansky, superintendent of Old Colony Regional Vocational Technical in Rochester.
Others argued that they have taken measures to make admissions more equitable, like using data to analyze potential bias. Jonathan Evans, superintendent of Keefe Regional Technical School in Framingham, said he has concerns about a blind admissions lottery for his school, which services five different communities: Ashland, Framingham, Holliston, Hopkinton and Natick.
Currently, he said the regional school does not have a minimum designated number of seats for any one of its member communities, but may need to implement that policy if required to do a blind lottery.
“A possible outcome of a regional agreement with apportionment would be that all applicants from our smallest and least diverse communities would all receive acceptance offers. A blind lottery would only apply to our one very diverse city. In our case, implementation of a blind lottery could very well result in the opposite of what proponents of a lottery and we seek to achieve,” Evans said.
The board of education’s next special meeting on vocational school admissions is Nov. 18.
Federal authorities possess “several terabytes of electronic data from Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs” and his empire as part of the sex trafficking and racketeering prosecution of the 54-year-old hip-hop mogul who was arrested last month, officials said.
The “voluminous” amount of data taken during discovery in the sweeping sex abuse and racketeering case against Combs was revealed in a letter filed by the U.S Atty. for the Southern District of New York and comes as Combs’ lawyers are making a third bid to get him released from a Brooklyn jail on $50 million in bonds.
The data came from more than 40 electronic devices and five cloud storage services associated with Combs. Prosecutors say they continue to seek even more data as part of the investigation. Combs’ lawyers are pushing back, demanding copies of the seized data.
In a filing with the court, Combs’ legal team also questioned how information from the grand jury indictment of Combs for sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution was leaked.
“At some point today, Mr. Combs intends to file a motion for a hearing and other remedies related to unauthorized and prejudicial leaks of grand jury information,” his lawyers noted in the filing.
Combs is accused of using his entertainment empire since as far back as 2009 to lure female victims and use violence, coercion and drugs to get women to take part in what were known as “freak off” parties — elaborate sex performances that often were recorded and sometimes lasted days. Prosecutors allege the music icon’s business network was ultimately about furthering his criminal conduct. Combs has denied any wrongdoing.
Prosecutors informed U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian that during search warrants, Homeland Security Investigations seized “several terabytes of electronic material” from cellphones, laptops, tablets, hard drives, and cloud service accounts as well as business records and physical evidence as part of its investigation into the alleged decades-long sex trafficking and forced sexual acts in the sex parties.
Federal prosecutors say they are still “copying over forty devices and the other five iCloud reports belonging to the defendant, which is expected to take several days due to the volume of the materials.”
Prosecutors told the court that their forensic team is working “expediently as possible since their seizure,” and expects to turn over the data in discovery to Combs’ attorneys “on a rolling basis by the end of the year.”
Combs lawyers, however, say they intend “to ask the Court to require the government to immediately produce certain categories of information – namely, copies of Mr. Combs’ electronic devices that were seized over six months ago.”
“The government also seized additional devices belonging to Mr. Combs at the time of his arrest about three weeks ago,” Combs’ lawyers said in the filing. “We also understand that the government is only now beginning to review and copy these electronic devices, including those that were seized in March 2024.”
Combs’ lawyers reiterated Wednesday said they want a trial as soon as possible. “Mr. Combs continues to assert his right to a speedy trial and intends to request a trial date in April or May 2025,” they told the judge.
The investigation involves more than 50 witnesses and 300 warrants all of which unfolded since last fall, when Combs’ former girlfriend, Cassandra “Cassie” Ventura, filed a lawsuit against him alleging sex abuse and sex trafficking. Combs settled the suit with significant payout within 24 hours, according to his lawyers.
Nearly a year ago, every tenant at the massive Westside apartment complex Barrington Plaza was served with an eviction notice by their landlord, who said the residents of nearly 600 units needed to move out so the company could install fire sprinklers following two major blazes.
In the months since, most of the tenants have left. But more than 100 stayed behind, vowing to fight in court for the right to stay in their rent-controlled units, suspecting that the owner’s real intent was to upgrade the complex and re-rent the units at market rate.
On Wednesday, their day in court finally came as lawyers for the tenants and the owner, Douglas Emmett Inc., presented opening arguments in a civil case that will decide whether the evictions are legal. The tenants and their advocates see the case as an important test of renter protections in a city faced with an affordable housing crisis.
“I wanted to make sure I’m represented in this fight for tenants in Los Angeles,” said Barrington tenant Chuck Martinez, who has lived in the building since 2021. “To lose this affordable housing is a step backward for L.A.”
For the owner, the case at the Santa Monica Courthouse is about landlords having the legal right to choose not to continue renting their units. “Inside the courtroom, this is a case about upholding the law,” said John Samuel Gibson, attorney for Douglas Emmett.
The company wants to evict the residents under the Ellis Act, which allows landlords to evict rent-stabilized tenants to remove units from the rental market — for instance, to build condos.
The heart of the case revolves around whether the company truly intended to take the units off the rental market and whether the law requires them to do so permanently.
Frances M. Campbell, the tenant’s attorney, said evidence presented during the trial would show that the company for years had plans to “transform and upgrade” the complex and to re-rent the apartments “at a new market rate.”
Campbell said the law requires owners who invoke the Ellis Act to remove the units permanently from the rental market.
“Defendants can point to no case that allows a landlord to invoke the Ellis Act to temporarily go out of the rental business while it remodels or makes repairs to its buildings. And that makes sense, because that is not the purpose of the Ellis Act,” the tenants’ lawyers wrote in a trial brief.
The lawyer pointed to an email sent by Douglas Emmett CEO Jordan Kaplan to city housing official Mercedes Márquez in May 2023, just days before the eviction notices were filed, as evidence that the company intended to re-rent the units.
“This project is likely to take many years and assuming we bring the rental units back online within 10 years (which is a very good assumption) they will still be subject to the RSO,” Kaplan wrote, referring to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance.
In his arguments on behalf of Douglas Emmett, Gibson pointed to that same email as evidence that the company wasn’t trying to evade rent control.
“I personally assure you we are not doing this to remove Barrington Plaza from the RSO,” the email said.
Installing fire sprinklers and making other safety upgrades is a multiyear project, and the apartments will be removed from the market during that time, he said.
The law allows owners to use the Ellis Act to “take the property off the rental market for a longterm period,” the company’s lawyers argued in a trial brief.
The Ellis Act does not require owners to remove the properties from the rental market forever, he said. Only that they do not “conduct a sham removal” in order to evade rent control.
“This is not one of those sham situations,” Gibson said.
Staying safe on the road is not always in our hands, but what always does is calling the legal experts to ensure you get the right compensation. A car accident lawyer can help cover you with a safety net to remain safe even in adversities. ~ Ed.
During the whirlwind of daily activities, it’s pretty easy to let thoughts of our family’s safety drift into the background. But let’s face facts – accidents can happen in just a snap, shaking up what started as a regular day. Making sure our loved ones are safe, both indoors and outdoors, is very important. It’s not just about caution; it’s about making a safe space where everyone feels secure, letting life flow without hitches.
The National Safety Council (NSC) shares some pretty eye-opening numbers. In 2020, around 42,000 people lost their lives in car accidents across the U.S. On top of that, they say slips, trips, and falls are some of the top ways people get hurt at home. These numbers aren’t just shocking; they’re a clear call to action, showing us why we need to keep safety on our radar every day.
How to Keep Your Family Safe: A Two-Way Street
First things first, making sure our homes are safe zones is key. What this means is regularly checking that everything’s as safe as can be. This includes making sure heavy furniture is secure and won’t tip over, testing smoke alarms every month to make sure they’re working, and keeping an eye out for anything around the house that could be dangerous. It might seem like small stuff, but it can make a big difference in preventing accidents.
When you’re out and about, especially on the roads in New York, staying sharp is crucial. The roads here can throw curveballs, and being a safe driver is more than just following road signs. It’s about being ready for anything. But even when you’re doing everything right, unexpected stuff can still happen. That’s when it’s super helpful to know who to call.
If You’re in a Jam in Queens
Running into a car accident, especially in a bustling place like Queens, NY, can get complicated really fast. Getting in touch with a car accident lawyer in Queens is a major move to make sure your family gets through it okay. These folks know the ins and outs of what comes after an accident. They work hard so you can focus on what’s most important – helping your family recover and find peace.
Why Having a Lawyer in Queens Makes a Big Difference
Teaming up with Queens car accident lawyers who know all about car accidents can be a life saver. They’re not just any lawyer; they’re like your family’s champion. They stand up for you, making sure you’re treated right and get the compensation you deserve. If you’re dealing with insurance companies that want to pay out as little as possible or making sure all your medical bills are taken care of, having a skilled lawyer by your side can really streamline things.
Wrapping Up
In the end, keeping your family safe boils down to being prepped before anything happens, knowing how to dodge accidents, and having the right folks to call when you need a hand. It’s about weaving safety into the very fabric of our homes and daily routines.
In lively, packed places like New York and Queens, knowing a solid car accident lawyer not only gives you legal backup; it wraps a safety net around your loved ones. With the right knowledge and people in your corner, families can step forward with an added layer of security, ready to face whatever challenges life tosses their way, keeping the journey ahead smooth and safeguarded from unexpected bumps.
Over to you
Have you or your loved ones ever met with a car accident? Did you or they take any legal help? Share your experiences and tips in the comments section.
Dallas native Paul Alexander, one of two remaining users of the iron lung in the United States, died Tuesday at age 78, according to an announcement on his GoFundMe page.
Alexander had been using an iron lung since contracting polio in 1952 at the age of 6. The disease left him paralyzed from the neck down and unable to breathe on his own. Despite his dependence on the device, Alexander attended the University of Texas at Austin and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 1978 and a law degree in 1984. During his life, he worked as a lawyer and a teacher; he wrote a memoir, Three Minutes for a Dog: My Life in an Iron Lung.
Alexander’s brother, Phillip Alexander, said in the update on the GoFundMe that he was grateful for all of the support his brother received from the fundraiser
“It allowed him to live his last few years stress-free,” Phillip says. “It will also pay for his funeral during this difficult time. It is absolutely incredible to read all the comments and know that so many people were inspired by Paul. I am just so grateful.”
Under the account name “ironlungman,” Alexander started a TikTok series called “Conversations with Paul,” in which he would answer questions in the comments about his life in the iron lung. The series went on for 10 episodes, and Alexander amassed more than 300,000 followers and 4.5 million likes.
The GoFundMe page, which is no longer accepting donations, raised more than $143,000.
“It means a lot to me because I actually can pay for my expenses,” says Alexander in one of his TikTok videos. “For all the people who have given because they care, I just want to tell you that I love you.”
On Feb. 26, a man named Lincoln posted a video on Alexander’s account, saying that Alexander had been “rushed to the emergency room” the previous week after contracting COVID-19. Alexander had gone home by the time the video was posted but was still in a weak state. It is unclear whether Alexander’s death is due to COVID-19.
The iron lung was a common method of treatment for those with severe cases of polio, as several epidemics of the disease ravaged the country in the mid-20th century. Use of the device became less common as smaller-pressure ventilators were used to treat severe cases. According to an interview Alexander did with The Guardian, he decided not to use one of the new devices as he had already gotten used to life with the iron lung. A vaccine to prevent polio was licensed in 1955.
In 2022, Alexander set the world record for the longest time a person relied on an iron lung for daily use at 70 years. He was one of two people in the United States still using the iron lung on a daily basis; Oklahoma native Martha Lillard has used the iron lung since 1953.
Prominent Charlotte attorney Michael DeMayo was censured by the N.C State Bar in October after threatening a client with arrest if she didn’t return $4,900 that DeMay’s firm had overpaid her. In its ruling, the bar said the mistake was the firm’s, not the client’s.
According to court documents, Michael A. DeMayo was last year accused of sharing false drama about a former colleague — that included a divorce, a custody battle, an ex-wife’s new boyfriend — with a client who intended to follow the lawyer after he left DeMayo’s firm.
When the Bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission sanctioned DeMayo with a one-year suspension of his law license in January 2023, DeMayo appealed the complaint.
On Tuesday, A North Carolina appeals court, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, dropped the case. While the evidence showed that DeMayo’s statements were “incorrect,” it did not “establish (DeMayo) knew these statements were incorrect,” they decided.
“While I respect the process under which the North Carolina State Bar and DHC regulate attorneys, I strongly disagree with these findings,” DeMayo previously told The Charlotte Observer. “I did not violate any of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
DeMayo’s 8th discipline under State Bar
In May 2020, Ryan Valente resigned from Demayo Law Offices. Two days later, one of his clients requested the office transfer her file to Valente, according to court documents. He would remain her lawyer, she said.
DeMayo asked to talk.
“I must discuss a few items related and unrelated to your inquiries and will potentially have a negative impact on the outcome of your case,” he wrote in an email, according to court documents. “…Understand that I have no desire to sway or impact who ultimately represents you… but I do have an ethical and professional obligation to communicate a few items about your case.”
She agreed to meet, and, according to a recording, DeMayo veered into Valente’s personal life:
“I’m not really sure what happened with him. I don’t want to get into his personal life, but there was a divorce,” he said, according to a video of the WebEx meeting. “There was a custody. There was a remarriage. There was a ex-wife dating one of the defense lawyers we go against all the time. So I’m sure all of that had some impact on his productivity, but notwithstanding, I’m not insensitive to my staff.”
When the client’s case was settled — with Valente as her lawyer — DeMayo requested 85% of the attorney fees, which totaled $196,313.68. This was based on Valente’s contract with the firm, according to court documents.
Valente told DeMayo he would “invoke the doctrine of unclean hands” if he pursued the fees, according to court documents. DeMayo violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, he said.
“As to mentioning your personal circumstances to this or any client, you are sadly mistaken,” DeMayo wrote back. “I personally was not aware of the severity and complexity of your personal struggles but they would have never been fodder or a topic of discussion with anyone much less a client.”
“The doctrine of unclean hands” bars relief when the party seeking relief or help of the court is guilty of misconduct or unethical actions, according to Bloomberg Law.
The bar’s order to suspend DeMayo’s license for a year — which was later modified to place him on probation for two years — was put on hold pending the outcome of DeMayo’s appeal.
The order marked the legal-watchdog group’s eighth public discipline of DeMayo since 1999. Others addressed misleading advertisements, improper direct mail solicitations and attempted recruitment of clients “using intimidation, coercion or threats.”
The next most recent case occurred in 2019, when DeMayo was censured after threatening to have a client arrested if she did not immediately refund a $4,900 overpayment she had received from DeMayo’s firm, according to the court filing.
NC attorney complaints
Individuals can report concerns — usually by filing grievances — about any attorney through the State Bar. Once filed, a Bar attorney investigates it.
Most concerns are dismissed, The News & Observer recently reported, because they don’t identify a particular rule that was broken or because the accused attorney disproves the claims.
However, State Bar statistics show that complaints against attorneys have increased in recent years while discipline has declined.
The News & Observer reported that complaints, or grievances, in a growing North Carolina jumped to a nine-year high from 1,222 in 2014 to 1,504 in 2023.
In 2014, 33 grievances were resolved with private discipline and 28 were resolved with public discipline. The disciplinary hearing commission resolved 34 cases with discipline.
In 2023, those numbers dropped. Eighteen grievances were resolved with private disciplines, and 20 were resolved with public written disciplines. The disciplinary hearing commission resolved 14 cases with discipline.
The State Bar Review Committee, which was established through language in the Republican-crafted state budget, last month suggested lawyers needed to be protected from disciplinary complaints.’
At the most recent meeting, on Feb. 9, defense lawyers gave committee members recommendations that included the N.C. State Bar creating a system to expunge some public disciplinary actions against attorneys from the public record. They also asked that less information be shared with people who file complaints about lawyers.
This story was originally published February 22, 2024, 5:09 PM.
Related stories from Charlotte Observer
Julia Coin covers local and statewide topics — including destructive fires, illegal gambling and the pervasiveness of drugs in schools — as The Charlotte Observer’s breaking news and courts reporter. Michigan-born and Florida-raised, she studied journalism at the University of Florida, where she covered statewide legislation, sexual assault on campus and Hurricane Ian’s destruction. Support my work with a digital subscription
A former Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher and boyfriend of an L.A. socialite charged with murder in the deaths of two young brothers is responsible for the fatalities because his vehicle struck the boys first, defense attorneys told jurors Friday.
Tony Buzbee, Grossman’s lead attorney, told jurors “she did not do anything, but someone else did,” adding that authorities never examined Erickson’s vehicle after the deadly incident.
Witnesses are expected to testify they heard Erickson’s high-powered black Mercedes SUV racing down the street and saw it strike both boys, who were hurled through the air after the collision.
Buzbee said he will introduce video evidence showing that after the crash, the former Dodger was still traveling 70 mph, a speed the defense says was more than 20 mph faster than Grossman.
“We will prove that the black car was driven by Scott Erickson, who stopped down the road and hid in the bushes and watched,” Buzbee said. “Scott Erickson’s car hit those children. That’s what … the science in this case will show.”
Prosecutors, however, argued that Grossman, who was trailing Erickson’s SUV, sped through the marked crosswalk on Triunfo Canyon Road at Saddle Mountain Drive at more than 70 mph.
Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Ryan Gould said the 60-year-old Hidden Hills socialite had alcohol and drugs in her system, which impaired her driving. He said Grossman only stopped after her Mercedes was disabled by safety systems following the collision.
Grossman is charged with two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and one count of hit-and-run driving resulting in death. If convicted of all charges, she faces 34 years to life in prison.
Graphic testimony is expected from Nancy Iskander, who was crossing the street on Sept. 29, 2020, with three of her children when she heard the roar of approaching engines on the quiet 45-mph street. She testified during a preliminary hearing in 2022 that she threw up her right hand in a desperate effort to stop the oncoming vehicles and grabbed her 5-year-old son, Zachary, pulling him to safety. She could not reach Mark and Jacob, who were farther into the street. She said she and Jacob were on inline skates, Zachary was on his scooter and Mark was on his skateboard as the family crossed the residential boulevard. Her husband and daughter were jogging nearby.
Gould told jurors on Friday that Grossman, who prosecutors say was speeding home behind Erickson after the two had been drinking at a nearby restaurant, “knew what she was doing was incredibly dangerous.”
Two tests of her blood-alcohol level returned readings of 0.08%, California’s legal limit, and 0.074%/0.075%, court records show. Valium was also found in her blood sample. She is not charged with driving under the influence.
“She acted with implied malice,” the necessary element prosecutors need to prove second-degree murder, Gould said. “If she was doing the speed limit, she wouldn’t have hit Mark and Jacob; they would have had time to cross.”
Prosecution witnesses are expected to testify they saw the speeding SUVs, with one describing the sound of the powerful vehicles “like an 18-wheeler.”
“They make the right-hand turn, and then they punch it,” Gould told the jurors.
The black box on Grossman’s SUV showed she was going 73 mph at impact, and the distance the boys were thrown — Jacob about 50 feet and Mark 254 feet — supported a speed of more than 70 mph at impact, Gould said. Mark died of traumatic blunt force injury, and Jacob was internally decapitated, he told jurors.
Gould said Grossman did not stop for over a third of a mile from the intersection and only did so because her Mercedes’ airbag deployed, triggering a fuel shutoff and a call to a safety operator.
He played a tape of Grossman telling an operator: “I was driving down the road, all of a sudden, my bag exploded.” When a 911 operator on the line with the Mercedes representative asked, “Did they hit a person? They said the two kids were hit on Rollerblades?” Grossman replied, “No.”
But Buzbee argued his client was not the one to fatally strike the children, suggesting the Iskander brothers “weren’t in the crosswalk,” and instead were cutting a corner. He said the front-end damage to her vehicle was caused when one of the boys — first hit by Erickson — bounced onto her SUV. He also promised an expert would testify why Grossman’s airbag deployed while Erickson’s did not.
“We will show that the investigation was absolutely terrible,” the lawyer told a jury panel of nine men and three women. “We will show a black AMG Mercedes … is the car that hit the children first,” adding that “multiple eyewitnesses heard two impacts.”
He said Grossman’s driving was not impaired — she had “a drink and a half in two hours” — and the amount of Valium in her system was barely detectable. He previously argued the pedestrian crossing was a known danger and said video from a nearby home security system the night of the crash will let jurors “see how dark it was.”
Buzbee said Erickson, 55, lied to sheriff’s investigators about the vehicle he was driving that night, noting that he “stopped down the road and hid in the bushes and watched” as police investigated the crash before going to Grossman’s house, speaking with her daughter and then going home.
Erickson has denied any wrongdoing in the fatal crash and had a misdemeanor charge against him dismissed after making a public service announcement about the importance of safe driving.
“We will emphasize science over emotion,” Buzbee said.
Clad in a navy blue cardigan, white blouse and glasses, Grossman kept her gaze firmly on the jury during opening statements. She hugged her son, daughter and husband — Dr. Peter Grossman, director of the Grossman Burn Center — during a break. Peter Grossman has said he and his wife were separated at the time of the fatal crash.
“This case is about two families,” Buzbee said. “But no one from our side will try to minimize the tragedy.”
“Use your courage and find Mrs. Grossman not guilty.”
Despite massive front-end damage to a Hidden Hills socialite’s Mercedes SUV and witness testimony that she hit two young brothers in Westlake Village, her lawyer is expected to tell jurors that the SUV was one of many vehicles passing through the crosswalk at the time of the deadly incident and that authorities have wrongly focused on her.
Jurors could begin to hear the competing stories as early as Friday in Rebecca Grossman’s trial on two second-degree murder counts, as well as vehicular manslaughter and hit-and-run charges.
Los Angeles County prosecutors say Grossman, 60, was behind the wheel of a white Mercedes SUV that fatally struck brothers Mark and Jacob Iskander in September 2020. Authorities say she was driving as fast as 81 mph as she followed former Dodgers pitcher Scott Erickson, whom she had been drinking cocktails with at a nearby restaurant. Prosecutors allege that she traveled a quarter-mile after slamming into the children before her car shut down.
The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department investigated the crash involving the vehicle shown here.
(Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department)
But Tony Buzbee, Grossman’s lead attorney and former Houston mayoral contender, says he will produce witnesses who’ll testify that multiple cars hit the boys. “The defense’s reconstruction experts will show that Grossman’s vehicle was not the first vehicle to hit the children, and another eyewitness indicated that she was also not the last vehicle that made contact with the children,” Buzbee said in a statement.
“These witness reports and video existed from the first night of the accident, and instead of trying to identify the other vehicles, the Sheriff took the easy route and focused on the driver of the only vehicle that stayed after the accident occurred, Rebecca Grossman.”
Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, center, and attorney Tony Buzbee, left, at the Texas Capitol.
(Sam Owens / San Antonio Express-News via AP, Pool Photo)
That video from a house overlooking Triunfo Canyon Road a short distance from the crash site shows several cars passing in the moments after impact.
Louis Shapiro, a well-known L.A. defense attorney, said Buzbee’s approach is a high-stakes gamble, considering that Grossman faces up to 34 years in prison if convicted of all charges.
“Unless there is forensic evidence to support a theory that another car was involved, the jury is going to see this as a desperate attempt to absolve her of liability, and it could very much haunt her at sentencing,” he said.
“Clearly, the prosecution is not willing to offer manslaughter, so it is either go hard or go home for the defense,” he said. “When you throw a Hail Mary [pass], there is a big risk of someone not catching the ball.”
Buzbee argued in court last week that sheriff’s investigators never checked Erickson’s black Mercedes SUV for damage, even though he drove through the marked crosswalk a few seconds before Grossman. Buzbee said outside court that they also never found the other vehicles that passed through the crosswalk.
“She is not guilty of any of the accusations that have been made against her. She was not impaired, she was not racing, she was not going the speed that they claim, and she never fled the scene. The fact [is] that so much evidence was concealed, destroyed or simply went missing,” Buzbee said.
Prosecutors say Grossman and Erickson were romantically involved and driving in separate SUVs from Julio’s Agave Grill to a Westlake Village home the evening of Sept. 29, 2020, when they “raced” through the crosswalk on Triunfo Canyon Road at Saddle Mountain Drive, with Erickson in the lead.
Two witnesses traveling in another vehicle testified during a preliminary hearing that they saw Erickson’s SUV speeding ahead of Grossman’s.
Jake Sands testified that the black SUV — Erickson’s — approached the crosswalk first. There, Nancy Iskander and her three sons — Mark, 11; Jacob, 8; and Zachary, 5 — were making their way across the residential street.
The driver tapped his brakes, Sands testified. “It swerved and avoided the family right before,” he told the court in 2022.
A sign outside the Van Nuys Courthouse in 2022 shows an image of Mark Iskander, 11, and his brother Jacob, 8.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
Yasamin Eftekhari said the white Mercedes — driven by Grossman — was unable to avoid the older boys, who were farther into the street. Iskander was able to grab her youngest son and dive out of the way.
“There was a family walking in the road. The white car struck the two kids in the road,” Eftekhari said. “The first child to get hit, he was up against the side [of the road]. I didn’t see the second child get hit.”
Buzbee, however, alleged that a sheriff’s investigator never checked Erickson’s vehicle after the crash and took his word in a phone interview that he was driving his 2007 Mercedes SUV at the time.
Buzbee told L.A. County Superior Court Judge Joseph Brandolino that Erickson produced the 2007 Mercedes for examination in civil litigation after the deadly crash. The lawyer then showed a photo of a 2016 Mercedes-AMG that the retired World Series winner acquired in May 2019, alleging that it was the SUV Erickson was driving that day.
Buzbee said he would produce witnesses at trial to lay the foundation for the photo exhibit, adding that it was particularly relevant because one witness told an investigator she saw two vehicles strike the children seconds apart.
Scott Erickson at a Dodgers game in 2005. He denies any wrongdoing in the deaths of two boys in Westlake Village in 2020.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
Deputy Dist. Atty. Ryan Gould said prosecutors had no evidence to support the exhibit. In fact, they didn’t even know who took the photograph that Grossman’s lawyer wanted to use.
Grossman and her defense team have a website with their version of events. After prosecutors alleged the socialite and the former Dodger were having a relationship at the time of the crash, her husband on the website acknowledged they were separated at the time but were friends.
Buzbee, a high-powered litigator who successfully defended Texas’ attorney general against impeachment last year, has revealed in pretrial motions a strategy that seeks to highlight shortcomings in the Los Angeles County sheriff’s investigation to sow reasonable doubt once the trial begins. A jury is expected to be seated this week in Van Nuys.
Erickson, 55, was charged with misdemeanor reckless driving. His case was resolved in February 2022, with a judge ordering him to make a public service announcement geared toward high school students about the importance of safe driving. Erickson has denied any wrongdoing.
The named defendant in the federal lawsuit was California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, but there was never a doubt that the target was Donald J. Trump.
For a time, as the legal maneuvering proceeded through the fall, it appeared that Los Angeles could be treated to another of its celebrated courtroom dramas, this one a constitutional showdown pitting a colorful civil rights attorney against a volcanic former president in the courtroom of a judge known for his fiery judicial flair.
The case sought an order prohibiting Weber from placing the Republican presidential front-runner on the California ballot, based on the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.
It was also intended to be a trap. If Trump’s legal team took the bait and joined the case, then the former president could be forced to face a grilling under oath on his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
At least that was the theory of Stephen Yagman, an attorney both admired and reviled in local lore for his history of toppling sacred cows.
Over a span of two decades, Yagman broke legal ground in cases against the LAPD and the U.S. government, establishing that Los Angeles Police Department officers and their leaders can be held personally liable for civil rights violations and that prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center had a right to due process. Then he suffered an ignominious fall with a 2007 federal conviction for tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud. In his 70s, more than a decade after serving 29 months in prison, Yagman regained his law license and resumed fighting for indigent victims of government abuse.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a no less colorful figure than Yagman, has built a reputation for judicial unorothodoxy bordering on heavy-handedness. He’s held court on Skid Row and summoned mayors and supervisors to answer for their ineffective responses to homelessness. In two cases that were active at the time, Carter was holding L.A. County officials’ feet to the fire to extract a commitment for thousands of mental health beds and rebuffing efforts of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to wiggle out of a lawsuit over veterans housing.
More to the point of Yagman’s case, Carter had found in a 2022 ruling that stripped Trump legal adviser John Eastman’s attorney-client privilege that the two had “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress, calling it “a coup in search of a legal theory.”
Would Carter, who drew Yagman’s case because it was related to the earlier one, follow through with that reasoning? Yagman hoped so.
When Trump’s lawyers took the bait and petitioned Carter to intervene, Yagman virtually frothed with anticipation.
“This court, right here and now, has a unique opportunity to prevent a truly deranged and dangerous fool, Donald Trump, who perpetrated an assault on American Democracy, from again being president of the United States,” he wrote in a motion, noting that Trump “improvidently (for him) has intervened to make himself a party-defendant to the instant action.”
He buttressed his ever eccentric legalese with a flight of literary allusion invoking both Socrates and The Rolling Stones.
“Trump is a vile man. He has no virtue whatsoever,” Yagman wrote, appending a long footnote on the Greek philosopher’s concept of civic virtue.
“And contrary to what the Rolling Stones’ Mick Jagger sings … Trump, as today’s embodiment of the devil … deserves no sympathy….”
But it was to no avail. Not once, but twice in the months that followed, Trump’s lawyers raised legal technicalities to knock down Yagman’s flaming rhetoric.
The first was based on standing, a slippery legal concept meaning something akin to skin in the game.
Yagman’s case made the tortuous argument that his client, a Republican voter who planned to vote for Trump, would be disenfranchised if, after the March California primary, Trump was ruled ineligible to be president.
Carter dismissed the case in November, finding his client did not have standing because “the harm he alleges is too generalized.”
Yagman had a backup strategy, an amended complaint changing his case to a class action representing all Republican voters and naming Trump himself as a defendant on a novel theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
His clients, he argued, were “direct victims of Trump’s acts in creating and participating in insurrection,” both on Jan. 6 and in the “innumerable viewings of those acts on television, on the radio and in numerous publications….”
Reconsidering, Carter set a hearing for Jan. 8. But, over the holidays, Trump’s lawyers convinced the judge that a hearing was not necessary. In a Dec. 22 filing, Shawn E. Cowles of the Dhillon Law Group gave eight reasons why the case had no merit, ranging from presidential immunity and 1st Amendment protection to “reasons to doubt the veracity of Plaintiff’s claim that he is a registered Republican voter in Los Angeles County.”
The argument that carried the day for the former president was based on the statute of limitations. Ignoring Yagman’s contention that the injury was repeated every time Jan. 6 imagery appeared on TV, radio or in print, Carter ruled the case “time-barred” based on California’s two-year statute for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Yagman, whose past victories included establishing that lawyers cannot be sanctioned for making disparaging comments about their judges, showed uncharacteristic magnanimity in defeat.
Carter, he said, is a good judge and decent human being.
“I’m happy enough with it because it’s him,” he told The Times. “Part of me is really sorry to see it go, I really wanted to depose Trump. But I’m ashamed of that because it would just be me playing games. I wouldn’t get anything out of that except chuckles.”
Times researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this story.
The judge who found Tom Girardi competent to stand trial saw evidence he was faking memory problems in his relationship with his reality star wife and in the shabby cardigan the normally dapper man wore for mental exams.
In a 52-page decision unsealed Friday, U.S. Dist. Judge Josephine Staton wrote that the disgraced former attorney met the legal standard to face wire fraud charges stemming from what prosecutors describe as a decades-long, $100-million scheme that robbed law firm clients.
“Defendant clearly understands the nature of the charges against him,” the judge wrote. She said Girardi’s “purported denial of knowledge of the charges made against him [and/or the purported failure to remember such charges once reminded of them] is wholly lacking in credibility.”
Staton’s competency finding was disclosed last week, but the decision explaining her reasons was held back to allow for redactions of personal information. Much of her ruling is based in the conclusions of experts who testified at series of hearings last fall.
The judge also pointed to Girardi’s claim that he did not remember his wife, the “Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” star Erika Jayne. The pair have been married for more than 20 years, though she filed for divorce in 2020 as his financial problems emerged.
“Defendant’s denial of any memory of a third wife is undercut by the fact that, during a clinical interview, he answered a phone call from her, accurately remembering she was leaving to fly to Spain that day,” the judge wrote, referring to testimony from a neuropsychologist who examined Girardi for the government.
Staton also noted the ill-fitting and hole-ridden burgundy sweater that Girardi, known during his career for immaculately tailored suits, chose to wear to court, interviews with lawyers and medical experts. Prosecutors have suggested it was part of a calculated plan to portray himself as mentally addled. Staton noted how Girardi would dig through a hamper looking for the sweater before key meetings with psychological experts.
“This tended to show that Defendant’s short-term memory was intact because he recalled having that sweater, sought it out to wear on that day, and found it in the laundry,” she wrote.
Girardi’s lawyers have argued that the 84-year-old, who resides in the dementia ward of a nursing home, has no short-term memory and does not recognize them or remember the criminal case against him when they meet.
A magistrate judge entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf last year because of the competency issue. With that decided, normal proceedings in the case are to resume with a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
Staton allowed that his advanced age might make him less of a help to his lawyers than at the pinnacle of his career, when his “superior cognition and his abilities as a civil trial attorney would have been likely to result in an exceptional ability to participate in his own defense.”
But, she concluded, “any actual diminishment of these abilities or of his cognition is not as severe as Defendant presents it and, stripped of the feigning and/or exaggeration described by the experts and found by the Court herein, Defendant retains the ability ‘to assist properly in his defense.’”
After years of resisting subpoenas to testify under oath about deputy gangs, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has reversed course and agreed to appear in front of the Civilian Oversight Commission.
His lawyer notified the commission of the decision in a December letter stating that Villanueva “is very willing to testify” in January and that he will “answer any question you have under oath.”
The change of heart comes days after a county judge scheduled a hearing to decide whether to order the former sheriff, who is running for county supervisor against incumbent Janice Hahn, to comply with the commission’s subpoenas.
Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But his attorney, Linda Savitt, confirmed in an email to The Times last week that her client plans to follow through and appear in front of the commission next month.
“He is going to testify under oath,” she wrote. “He’s a private citizen now.”
Despite Savitt’s assurances, Sean Kennedy — who chairs the oversight commission — expressed some skepticism, pointing out that the former sheriff “said he was going to appear once before and then announced on Twitter that he wasn’t going to.”
Earlier this year, the commission’s special counsel issued a 70-page report condemning the “cancer” of violent deputy gangs and urging Sheriff Robert Luna to create a stronger policy banning the secretive groups.
The report’s findings and recommendations relied heavily on testimony from a series of seven public hearings, many of which involved witnesses testifying under oath. Despite being subpoenaed, Villanueva and former Undersheriff Tim Murakami both refused to testify at the hearings.
The legal wrangling began in 2020, after the Board of Supervisors granted the commission subpoena power, which voters then affirmed by approving Measure R. A few months later, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law granting subpoena power to oversight bodies statewide.
That same year, the commission issued a subpoena directing the sheriff to testify about his response to COVID-19 inside the jails. Villanueva questioned the legality of the subpoena, which he called a “public shaming endeavor.” The dispute ended up in court, but Villanueva avoided a contempt hearing by agreeing to answer the commission’s questions voluntarily.
Afterward, oversight officials issued more subpoenas, and Villanueva resisted them, resulting in multiple court cases.
In one of those cases, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu scheduled a contempt hearing for late last year, but called it off after Villanueva’s lawyers asked a higher court to step in.
The former sheriff’s legal counsel argued that the 2020 legislation Newsom signed described a two-step process and that the judge first needed to issue an order directing Villanueva to comply with the subpoena. Only if he ignored that could he be found in contempt, his lawyer said.
In September, an appeals court agreed. This month, lawyers for the county embarked on the two-step process by asking for a hearing so a judge could decide whether to order Villanueva and Murakami to comply with the subpoenas.
Less than two weeks later, Villanueva’s lawyer sent the oversight commission’s Kennedy a letter about the former sheriff’s willingness to testify in January. Unlike Villanueva, Murakami has not given any indication of a newfound willingness to speak to the commission, Kennedy told The Times.
Previously, the former undersheriff has cited a medical condition as his reason for refusing to testify. His attorney did not respond to The Times’ request for comment.
An admitted L.A. con artist who rubbed elbows with powerful politicians and presented himself as the right hand of a powerful Armenian crime figure was sentenced to six months in prison Monday, after spending years testifying against his former mentor and several corrupt law enforcement officials.
Edgar Sargsyan, 42, will serve the short prison sentence and then spend an additional six months confined to his home after his 2020 plea to four counts of bank fraud, bribery and lying to federal agents, according to his attorney, Robert Dugdale.
The public was barred from Sargsyan’s sentencing hearing in federal court on Monday, after Dugdale was heard expressing concerns about his client’s safety.
Sargsyan rose from humble beginnings to become a regular at the members-only Grand Havana cigar club in Beverly Hills, where he regularly socialized with celebrities. Penniless when he immigrated to the United States from Armenia in 2004, Sargsyan settled in Glendale, home to a large Armenian diaspora.
There, he scratched out a living collecting finder’s fees for bringing clients to attorneys — and also committing bank fraud. Court records show Sargsyan admitted he was part of an identity theft ring that racked up phony charges in the names of foreign exchange students who were no longer living in the United States.
Sargsyan went from small-time fraud artist to prolific criminal after meeting Levon Termendzhyan in 2010 at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel’s BLVD restaurant, court records show. Termendzhyan put forward a public facade of a wildly successful entrepreneur in the oil and gas industry, but within the Armenian community, Sargsyan testified, he had “the reputation of a mafia figure.”
Sargsyan became something of an advisor, confidant and younger brother to Termendzhyan, who is now serving a 40-year sentence for fraud and money laundering. Through Termendzhyan, Sargsyan met two corrupt law enforcement officers: John Saro Balian, a narcotics detective for the Glendale Police Department, and Felix Cisneros Jr., an agent of Homeland Security Investigations.
Sargsyan also cultivated relationships with public officials by donating lavishly to their campaigns. At his office in Beverly Hills, where he held himself out as a lawyer, Sargsyan posed for a photograph with Gov. Gavin Newsom before heading to a fundraiser for the governor at a members-only cigar lounge. Newsom and his political aides previously declined to discuss his relationship with Sargsyan, though a campaign official said all of his donations were rerouted to a charity.
Like much of Sargsyan’s life, the lawyer facade was a lie. After failing the California bar exam several times, Sargsyan paid an attorney $140,000 to take the test for him. Sargsyan didn’t admit to the scheme for years, failing to tell federal prosecutors about it until the eve of a trial in which he was set to testify.
Sargsyan said he’d held back about the bar exam scheme because he was “ashamed and embarrassed” to confess he wasn’t a lawyer.
Sargsyan testified against Babak Broumand, telling the jury he gave $10,000 a month to the decorated FBI agent in exchange for secret information about investigations into Sargsyan and his associates. Broumand, who worked for two decades on a national security squad in San Francisco, was convicted of accepting bribes and is serving six years in federal prison.
During a brief conversation outside the courtroom on Monday, Sargsyan lamented that a 2022 Times retelling of his wild life story had “destroyed his character” and used an expletive in reference to the reporter who wrote it.
“Report facts … that’s the beauty of journalism,” said Sargsyan, shortly before walking into court and accepting a plea deal based on an admission that he was a prolific liar.
In one video, a jailer kneels on an inmate’s neck. In another, two deputies slam a man’s head into a wall. In yet another, two jailers punch a handcuffed inmate repeatedly — even after he’s fallen to the ground.
A new trove of surveillance videos from inside the Los Angeles County jails offers a rare view of the culture of violence that has persisted behind bars despite a decades-long federal lawsuit and years of jail oversight.
The release of the six videos comes months after The Times and independent news site Witness LA asked a federal judge to make them public. Lawyers for the county fought to keep the footage confidential, but after a hearing this fall, U.S. District Court Judge Dean Pregerson ordered the material to be released.
Such visual documentation of use-of-force against inmates typically remains unseen by the public, as most jail videos are protected from disclosure.
Before turning over the videos, the county blurred the footage to conceal the identities of staff and inmates. All but one of the clips are silent. Most are short, and it is impossible to know what came before or after the incidents shown. The shortest is 14 seconds. The longest is just over 15 minutes.
What is visible are several incidents in which deputies overpower men who are restrained. In only one instance does an inmate — in handcuffs — appear to kick at two deputies who are behind him. They punch him in the head, wrestle him to the ground and continue punching.
Though federal court filings show that county jailers kick and punch inmates less frequently than they used to, the videos indicate the department has not fully reined in the use of force that spurred a lawsuit more than a decade ago.
In a lengthy statement, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it was aware of Pregerson’s decision to unseal the videos and called their disclosure “an opportunity to build further trust within the community it serves.”
The incidents in the videos “are not representative of interactions between deputies and inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail system,” the largest in the U.S., the statement said. “The videos that have been unsealed represent six of the millions of interactions that occurred over a more than two and one-half year period between October 24, 2019 (the date of the earliest use of force incident depicted) and July 4, 2022 (the date of the most recent use of force incident depicted).”
Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the videos show “unnecessary force in a variety of different guises.” The “most brutal,” he said, was a 14-second clip in which “two deputies take an incarcerated person out of his cell and then proceed to throw him headlong into either a concrete wall or a plexiglass wall.”
He said that video — previously obtained by The Times — depicts an “absolutely unnecessary” use of force for which “there’s clearly no justification.” The inmate “does not do anything to them. And frankly, even if he had, it’s almost impossible to justify that kind of force.”
Dated July, 2022, it is the most recent video released. According to the Sheriff’s Department statement, in that video, “the actions of the deputies are currently being scrutinized by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office at the request of the Department for possible criminal prosecution.”
Another video that raised red flags for ACLU attorneys shows a deputy kneeling on an inmate’s neck. The deputy later wrote in a report that he acted “inadvertently” — a description Eliasberg disputed, asserting that an inadvertent action does not last nearly a minute.
Videos showing staff using force against inmates in Los Angeles County were released as part of a court case. A correctional officer kneels on a jailed man’s neck.
“This gentleman did get disciplined for putting knee to neck,” Eliasberg said. “He did not get disciplined for dishonest reporting. … Dishonest reporting is cancer to the operation of a law enforcement agency.”
A Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman said “appropriate administrative action was taken” after the incident but would offer no further detail.
In four of the six videos, Eliasberg said, he did not believe the deputies involved were disciplined. Sheriff’s Department officials did not offer clarification, and the department statement did not address that.
The statement did point out that deputies in the county’s jails work under difficult circumstances and often deal with people who have been accused of violent crimes.
“There has been a complete cultural shift away from the days when such abuses were tolerated,” the statement said. “Sheriff Luna is intent on building on that progress comprehensively, and at a more rapid pace than his predecessors.”
The videos came to light as part of a long-standing lawsuit over use of force against inmates in the Los Angeles County jails. The suit, now known as Rosas vs. Luna, began in 2012 when inmates accused deputies of “degrading, cruel and sadistic” attacks. Many of the incidents, the suit alleged, were “far more severe than the infamous 1991 beating of Rodney King.”
After three years of legal wrangling, the inmates, represented by the ACLU, and the county came to an agreement about specific changes the department would make to cut down on the number of beatings behind bars. Though records show there has been some progress toward that goal — including a 20% reduction in use-of-force from 2021 to 2022 — outside experts and ACLU lawyers say the department has yet to fulfill the requirements of the 2015 settlement.
Deputies still punch inmates in the face at a rate of just under once a week, according to court records. And jailers have been making use of a controversial full-body restraint known as the WRAP, which encases inmates in a blanket-like device from their ankles to their shoulders. Last year, an investigation by the news outlet Capital & Main found that the device had led to several lawsuits, and that safety claims about its use were based on anecdotes.
Given those and other ongoing concerns, earlier this year the inmates’ lawyers asked the county to make some changes to its plan to reduce use-of-force behind bars. These included the creation of a revised WRAP policy, mandatory-minimum punishments for deputies who violate certain use-of-force policies and a ban on deputies punching inmates in the head except in situations that could require deadly force.
To show why they believed those changes were needed, ACLU lawyers submitted several videos of jail violence, along with internal department reports.
Aside from footage of the punching and kneeling incidents, one of the videos shows a person bleeding on the ground and moaning and deputies employing the WRAP device to subdue him. ACLU attorneys raised concerns about the fact that deputies covered the man’s face in a spit mask — used to prevent people from spitting — while he was bleeding heavily. Medical exams later found that he had sustained an orbital bone fracture.
When the organization’s lawyers decided to attach them to their filing as evidence, they did so under seal.
The Times and Witness LA filed a motion to have the videos made public, arguing in a September federal court hearing that they merited different consideration than other material the Sheriff’s Department gives the ACLU because they’d been filed as evidence of troubling allegations about ongoing violence behind bars.
The county said releasing the videos could create security problems, such as revealing where cameras are located inside the jails. But when the judge questioned whether the cameras were concealed, attorneys for the county admitted they were plainly visible.
The attorneys went on to say that releasing the videos could endanger the privacy of deputies who work in the jails. They also raised concerns about whether the videos would be taken out of context. Ultimately the judge decided to order the videos blurred and to allow the parties to provide written context for the released footage.
Since the ACLU submitted the videos to the court several months ago, the inmates’ lawyers have continued to negotiate with the county over changing some Sheriff’s Department policies inside its jails. During a hearing in October, the two sides said they had agreed on a new WRAP policy to curb use of the device.
But Eliasberg told the court he was still worried about the department’s “continued pattern” of finding uses of force — including punches to the head — to be justified and within policy even when court-appointed monitors who reviewed the incidents did not.
The county and the ACLU have still not come to agreement on an updated policy restricting how often deputies can punch inmates in the face. The ACLU has pushed for banning such “head strikes” except when deadly force is necessary. Lawyers for the county have advocated for keeping in place a policy allowing head strikes whenever a deputy faces the threat of serious injury.
At a hearing in September, the county’s lawyers stressed that such blows only make up about 2% of all use-of- force incidents in the jails.
“The videos and the monitors’ continued reporting make clear that there is need for a more restrictive head strike policy to make sure that head strikes are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and to make sure that staff are disciplined appropriately,” Eliasberg said. “There is still a major problem.”
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
In today’s highly competitive legal landscape, law firms are constantly seeking ways to optimize their operations. Efficiency has become more than just a buzzword; it is a requisite for staying ahead and delivering top-notch service to clients.
As the complexities of legal practice increase, embracing new strategies for improving efficiency can set a firm apart. Let’s delve into some of the strategies law firms can deploy to enhance their workflow and maximize productivity.
In the legal realm, every second counts. Not only do lawyers bill by the hour, but the nature of their work demands acute attention to detail within tight deadlines. For a law firm, wasted time translates directly into lost revenue and potential missed opportunities.
Efficient practices can drastically reduce operational costs. Furthermore, by minimizing wasted time and maximizing billable hours, firms can enhance their profitability. The ripple effect of increased efficiency not only boosts the firm’s bottom line but also leads to more satisfied clients. In a competitive legal market, the firms that prioritize efficiency are the ones that will stand out and excel.
The legal industry is characterized by its dynamic nature. With ever-changing regulations, case laws and client demands, attorneys are always on their toes. Efficiency is the secret weapon that can help them stay ahead. It ensures that they can adapt quickly, offer competitive rates and deliver optimal results. After all, a more efficient lawyer can provide faster, more accurate services, which is what every client hopes for when hiring legal representation.
1. Timeboxing is a must
The concept of timeboxing revolves around allocating specific blocks of time for particular tasks. By setting clear boundaries for how long a task should take, lawyers can prevent themselves from going down rabbit holes. It’s a method that works wonders in keeping distractions at bay. Ensuring each task receives undivided attention maximizes efficiency.
By adhering to the time allocated for a task, legal professionals maintain focus and productivity. This method ensures that they are working effectively and efficiently. Timeboxing also ensures that there’s ample time left for other essential obligations. In essence, it’s about working smarter, not just harder.
2. Provide top-tier technology
The digital age has revolutionized the way law firms operate. To remain competitive and provide the best service, firms must invest in the latest technological advancements. Among the selection of tech tools available, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as particularly transformative for legal research. AI can analyze vast amounts of data in minimal time, streamlining the research process.
Furthermore, certain AI-driven platforms come equipped with quick summary features. These tools allow lawyers to swiftly grasp the essence of extensive documents. Leveraging such technology aids in faster and more informed decision-making. In a profession where time is of the essence, these tech solutions are indispensable.
Administrative tasks, though necessary, can be time-consuming. Such tasks can eat into the hours that could otherwise be dedicated to legal work. Outsourcing or automating these tasks can significantly free up a lawyer’s time. Leveraging technology for appointment management or routine paperwork can simplify these operations.
By reducing manual administrative duties, legal professionals can focus more on their core competencies. This means more time for client consultations, court appearances and case research. Moreover, it allows for more strategic planning and case preparation. Ultimately, streamlining administrative tasks enhances overall efficiency and client service.
In the world of law, time is a precious commodity. For firms, the goal is to ensure that every minute spent is valuable and contributes positively to the bottom line. Efficiency isn’t just about speed; it’s about making the best use of available resources and time. Firms that successfully harness the strategies mentioned above can expect not only enhanced productivity but also improved client satisfaction. Maximizing the value of time means working smarter, not necessarily harder. When legal professionals make the most of every moment, it results in higher quality work, better client relationships and a more fulfilling professional experience. That makes the legal industry better for all parties involved.
Enhanced efficiency has a cascading effect on a law firm’s overall operations. By streamlining processes, firms can serve their clients better, faster and with higher accuracy. This not only bolsters the firm’s reputation but also fortifies client trust. Moreover, this relentless pursuit of efficiency stimulates a proactive environment where attorneys and support staff are encouraged to consistently perform at their peak, leading to a workplace that nurtures success and job satisfaction.
In the end, an efficient law firm isn’t just about saving time or reducing costs — it’s about creating a culture that values innovation, continuous improvement and, above all, client satisfaction. So, as you move forward, remember that boosting efficiency is an ongoing journey, one that reaps significant rewards for both the firm and its clientele.
Details of Donald Trump‘s attorney Alina Habba’s heated cross-examination of Michael Cohen in a New York court have emerged online, showing how the attorney put pressure on the key witness in the former president’s civil fraud trial.
The testimony of Trump’s onetime lawyer and fixer, who agreed to testify against his ex-employer as part of a plea deal, was likely the most anticipated of the entire trial. Trump, who is not obliged to appear in court during the trial and has been absent before, attended on Tuesday.
During his testimony, Cohen said that the former president had asked him to “increase the total assets based upon a number that he arbitrarily elected,” giving weight to New York Attorney General Letitia James’ accusation that Trump misrepresented the value of his assets by hundreds of millions. James is seeking a fine of $250 million and a ban on Trump doing business in New York.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and heading to the New York County Supreme Court on Tuesday, called Cohen “a liar trying to get a better deal for himself.”
Alina Habba in New York on October 17, 2023. Donald Trump’s lawyer engaged in a heated cross-examination of Michael Cohen in the New York County Supreme Court on Tuesday. TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images
At the start of her cross-examination, Habba acknowledged that she and Cohen had met a few times before. She asked if she should call him Mr. Cohen or Michael, to which he responded, “Mr. Cohen.”
According to ex-litigator Lisa Rubin, who was in the New York court on Tuesday, Habba asked Cohen about his health and whether he was taking any medication that would interfere with his ability to answer questions truthfully, to which he said he wasn’t.
From the very start of the cross-examination, Habba dwelled on the fact that Cohen lied under oath multiple times, something that the onetime lawyer was forced to admit, undermining his credibility as a witness.
Commenting on the cross-examination on X, formerly known as Twitter, Rubin wrote that Cohen was “not making it easy” for Habba. “For example, he says he doesn’t recognize his plea allocution transcript by its cover sheet. But what she is doing is smart,” she wrote.
“She is confronting him with his guilty pleas to the counts that he, to this day, denies constituted crimes,” Rubin continued.
“The tactic is to force Cohen to admit to a lie: Either he was lying when he said he was guilty, or he is lying now when he denied he evaded taxes and/or lied on a home equity line of credit application,” she added.
Habba, according to Rubin, then reminded him that on August 21, 2018, he pleaded guilty, under oath, while he had a legal obligation to testify truthfully. Cohen admitted to lying to Judge William H. Pauley III at his plea allocution—a part of the court proceedings—in 2018.
Rubin also praised Habba’s cross-examination, saying that though she gets “a lot of abuse on this app and in other places about her skills,” she actually did very well in court on Tuesday.
“Her questions are clear and well-formed, designed to elicit yes or no answers, and I am the most awake I have been all day, because she is compelling in the courtroom,” she wrote.
Cohen’s cross-examination is expected to continue on Wednesday. Trump and his children, including co-defendants Donald Jr. and Eric, are still expected to testify.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
