The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a California ballot initiative that banned in-state sales of pork born from sows kept in confined housing. The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld a California federal court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit from the National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation that challenged a 2018 voter-approved ballot initiative that, among other things, banned in-state sales of meat from pigs born to mothers confined in small spaces. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that the agricultural groups failed to prove their argument that California's Proposition 12 violates the Constitution's dormant commerce clause, which isn't spelled out in the document but has been interpreted as barring states from discriminating between out-of-state and in-state companies. "[The groups] invite us to fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of states to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation," Justice Gorsuch said in the opinion. "While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list." Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. The NPPC and AFBF acknowledged that California's law does not implicate the anti-discrimination principle that grounded the Supreme Court's past dormant commerce clause cases, but argued that those cases contain other findings that would weigh against the animal care law, including an "extraterritoriality doctrine," Justice Gorsuch said. "[Petitioners] contend that our dormant commerce clause cases suggest an additional and 'almost per se' rule forbidding enforcement of state laws that have the 'practical effect of controlling commerce outside the state,' even when those laws do not purposely discriminate against out-of-state economic interests," he said. The groups argued that Proposition 12 violates that rule because California imports 98% of its pork, and thus the law will impose substantial new costs on out-of-state pork producers who want to do business in California. "This argument falters out of the gate," Justice Gorsuch said. "A close look at those cases … reveals nothing like the rule petitioners posit. Instead, each typifies the familiar concern with preventing purposeful discrimination against out-of-state economic interests." The majority also rejected the groups' argument that Proposition 12 runs afoul of the high court's 1970 finding in Pike v. Bruce Church , which established that a state law is unconstitutional if it imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." But there was a split as to exactly why that argument failed. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas held that the groups failed Pike's test because while "the courtroom door" isn't totally shut to dormant commerce clause claims premised on non-discriminatory burdens, the bar is high for those and the agriculture groups didn't clear it. The groups suggested an analysis to determine whether Proposition 12's costs outweighed its benefits, but Justices Gorsuch and Thomas said courts are not well positioned for that, especially when the costs and benefits are hard to compare. It would be especially difficult in this case, where California's moral interest in animal welfare would have to be weighed against the pork producers' interest in avoiding compliance costs. They also said that the groups could not show that Proposition 12 imposes "substantial burdens" on interstate commerce, which is a prerequisite for the benefit-cost analysis. In a concurring opinion, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan said that the groups failed the Pike test because they couldn't prove any "substantial burdens." But they disagreed with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas as to the courts' capabilities of conducting cost-benefit analyses. Justice Barrett said the groups did prove "substantial burdens," but failed the Pike test because the benefits and costs in this case can't be fairly compared by a court. Chief Justice John Roberts authored a dissent, in which he was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They all agreed with Justice Gorsuch's opinion as to the extraterritoriality question, but said they would have vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded for further consideration on the Pike question. The dissenters said courts can weigh different types of costs and benefits, and that the Ninth Circuit needs to do exactly that. "I would find that petitioners' have plausibly alleged a substantial burden against interstate commerce, and would therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case for the court below to decide whether petitioners have stated a claim under Pike," Justice Roberts said in his opinion. Scott Hays, the NPPC's president and Missouri pork producer, said in a statement Thursday the group is "very disappointed" in the high court's decision. "Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation," Hays said. "We are still evaluating the court's full opinion to understand all the implications. NPPC will continue to fight for our nation's pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations." The California Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, which intervened in the case on California's behalf, praised the ruling. "We're delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld California Proposition 12 — the nation's strongest farm animal welfare law — and made clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of our state governments," Block said in a statement Thursday. The Ninth Circuit in July upheld the California district judge's decision to dismiss the case, saying the law correctly regulates in-state and out-of-state actions in the same way. The appeals court noted that circuit precedent dictates a state law can only be found to violate rights under the dormant commerce clause in narrow circumstances and said the law's alleged "upstream effects" on out-of-state producers' operations don't clear that bar. California's law requires that egg-laying hens, veal calves and breeding pigs be allowed freedom of movement and that they be housed in cage-free designs. The animals must not be prevented from lying down, standing up, fully extending limbs or turning around freely. The federal government is represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Edwin S. Kneedler, Michael R. Huston, Michael S. Raab, Thomas Pulham and David L. Peters of the Office of the Solicitor General. The National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation are represented by Timothy S. Bishop, Brett E. Legner, Avi M. Kupfer, Dan Himmelfarb and Colleen M. Campbell of Mayer Brown LLP. California is represented by Rob Bonta, Michael J. Mongan, Samuel T. Harbourt, Thomas S. Patterson, Nicole Welindt, R. Matthew Wise and Mark R. Beckington of the California Department of Justice. The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion in World Farming USA and Animal Outlook are represented by Bruce Wagman of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP. The Humane Society is also represented by Jeffrey A. Lamken, Michael G. Pattillo Jr., Caleb Hayes-Deats, Jordan Rice and Kenneth Notter of MoloLamken LLP. The case is National Pork Producers Council et al. v. Karen Ross et al., case number 21-468, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
0 Comments
Several former SEC government officials are defense counsel for the crypto companies. A suite of Big Law firms are defending crypto companies sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this week, as the commission steps up its enforcement against the crypto industry. Several former SEC government officials who now practice in law firms’ white-collar defense and securities departments are their defense counsel.
Coinbase, sued by the SEC on Tuesday, has turned to Sullivan & Cromwell. Meanwhile, Binance, sued on Monday, is advised by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, while its U.S.-based affiliate BAM Trading Services Inc. has turned to Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. Latham & Watkins is defending their founder, Changpeng Zhao. In the Tuesday suit filed in New York federal court, the SEC claims that Coinbase, the largest crypto exchange in the U.S., violated securities laws by acting as an exchange, a broker and a clearing agency without registering with the agency. Steven Peikin, who leads Sullivan & Cromwell’s securities and commodities investigations practice, is serving as defense counsel for Coinbase. Peikin previously served as co-director of the SEC’s division of enforcement from 2017 to 2020, overseeing the agency’s enforcement priorities, before rejoining the Wall Street firm. Tuesday’s lawsuit against Coinbase comes just one day after the SEC, in Washington, D.C., federal court, sued the world’s largest crypto exchange Binance, as well as BAM Trading Services and Zhao for violating securities laws, mishandling customer funds and misleading investors. Binance hired Richard Grime, co-chair of Gibson Dunn’s securities enforcement practice group, as defense counsel. Grime previously worked in the division of enforcement at the SEC from 1998 to 2007, serving as assistant director for four years. Bill McLucas, a partner at Wilmer, will serve as defense counsel for BAM Trading Services, and Doug Yatter, global vice chair of Latham & Watkins’ white-collar defense and investigations practice, will serve as Zhao’s defense counsel. Both lawyers had prior governmental stints. “The actions this week are the most significant enforcement actions to date and reflect the agency’s willingness to claim jurisdiction over the activities of the largest crypto trading platforms,” said Coy Garrison, a partner in Steptoe & Johnson’s blockchain and cryptocurrency and financial services practices, in a statement. “The SEC’s complaints set the stage for long, difficult legal battles and may provide the opportunity for definitive judicial determinations on the fundamental questions of when is a crypto asset sold pursuant to an investment contract and, if sold pursuant to an investment contract, does the security label attach to the crypto asset itself?” Garrison added. Under Chair Gary Gensler, the SEC has made cryptocurrency-related enforcement a top priority and the recent actions from the agency this week signals that heightened scrutiny from U.S. regulators toward the industry will not be slowing down, which has fueled demand for legal services. Big Law’s cryptocurrency and securities investigations practices have reported more litigation, enforcement, restructuring, bankruptcy work and public policy advising. “There’s going to be a lot to follow on private litigation,” said Kayvan Sadeghi, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s fintech and crypto assets practice. “I think the plaintiffs bar is likely to follow the lead of the regulators and seek to bring a lot of actions leveraging the complaints and other statements by the SEC.” Sadeghi suggested the demand for different types of legal services will shift if crypto companies exit the U.S. market and move to other overseas markets. Bittrex announced earlier this year that it was leaving the U.S. market, citing the economic and regulatory environment. The SEC has since filed a lawsuit and the cryptocurrency exchange has filed for bankruptcy protection. “There are a number of other markets around the world that are actively building for this industry from a regulatory perspective and other necessary infrastructure for supporting the industry at the same time that the U.S. regulators seem to be doing what they can to stifle the industry,” Sadeghi said. “I think the United States will still be the world leader in enforcement actions, but outside of enforcement and litigation, I think the other work will be trending to other places.” Recent hires have suggested law firms are investing in their fintech and other digital assets practices in response to the current enforcement environment. Jenner & Block expanded its fintech and crypto assets practice with the addition of former federal prosecutor Laurel Loomis Rimon as co-chair. Gibson Dunn brought on Sara Weed and Jason Cabral as partners in its fintech and financial institutions practices, as the firm scales up its regulatory groups. Last year, Akerman also rebranded its consumer finance practice to include data and technology services in light of demand for regulatory counsel from clients in the fintech and cryptocurrency industries. Charges of domestic terrorism against activists connected to protests of Atlanta’s proposed public safety training facility have repeatedly been justified by a U.S. Department of Homeland Security designation that does not exist. Arrest warrants for dozens of people affiliated with the Defend the Atlanta Forest group, and three individuals who operate a charity that provided bail money for protestors, all has similar language tying the movement to extremist behavior. The three individuals arrested last week had their home raided by a SWAT team and are charged with financial crimes.
Each of their arrest warrants had a sentence tying their charity to extremism, saying it raised money to “fund in part the actions of Defend the Atlanta Forest, a group classified by the United States Department of Homeland Security as Domestic Violent Extremists.” But Homeland Security officials have said that is not the case. The agency has released national terrorism alert bulletins that described some of the protests of the Atlanta facility as exhibiting the characteristics of domestic violent extremists, but no individuals or organizations are named. “The Department of Homeland Security does not classify or designate any groups as domestic violent extremists,” a spokesman said in a statement shared with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The FBI, which tracks domestic terrorism threats nationwide, also said it “does not and cannot designate domestic terrorist organizations.” In a statement to the AJC, the FBI cautions against using group affiliations to condemn individuals’ behavior. “It’s also important to note that membership in groups that espouse domestic extremist ideology is not illegal in and of itself,” the FBI statement said. “Membership in a group alone is not sufficient basis for a domestic terrorism investigation.” The Georgia Bureau of Investigations said it is standing by the “domestic violent extremists” justifications used in the arrest warrants. “Although DHS reports that they do not classify or designate any groups as domestic violent extremists, the description provided by DHS for a domestic violent extremist does in fact describe the behavior of the individuals of the group in question which is being investigated by the GBI multi-agency task force,” GBI spokeswoman Nelly Miles said. DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston, who has assisted the GBI in its investigation, deferred questions to the GBI. Gov. Brian Kemp and Attorney General Chris Carr, who have both condemned violence at the protests and pledged to crack down it, both released statements that did not directly respond to questions about why arrest warrants by Georgia officials misinterprets or exaggerates what Homeland Security said. “Our office will continue to defend the First Amendment right to peacefully protest,” Carr said. “However, we will not tolerate acts of violence to person or property.” Kemp in his statement referenced acts of violence that have been tied to the protests. “Members of this militant group have committed acts of violence and significant damage to property with Molotov cocktails and other weapons designed to injure law enforcement,” Kemp said. “That will not be allowed to stand in Georgia.” U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock on Wednesday asked Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to weigh in on whether Defend the Atlanta Forest should be described as a known “domestic violent extremist” group. “I am seeking clarification about whether DHS has designated any group in Georgia as a DVE, and if not, I request that DHS share this policy clarification with any relevant state and local law enforcement partners,” Warnock said in a letter to Mayorkas. The Atlanta Democrat also asks Mayorkas to provide guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies on how to address threats of violent extremism without infringing on rights to assemble and protest. “The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the freedom of peaceful association,” Warnock wrote. “Consistent with these principles, I am concerned by any misunderstandings regarding a federal DVE designation and seek clarification for the public and our valued law enforcement partners.” A South Carolina federal judge on Monday halted a Florida city's imminent bellwether trial against 3M over water contamination from so-called forever chemicals after the parties predicted a major settlement in the "near future." U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel paused a trial set to kick off Monday over the Florida city of Stuart's claims that firefighting foam purchased from the conglomerate leached per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, into local drinking and bathing water. The city's case was chosen as the first firefighting foam bellwether in a multidistrict litigation over PFAS, a family of long-lasting surfactants that were long used in a broad array of products but that some researchers have linked to serious effects like cancers and thyroid damage. Judge Gergel wrote Monday that 3M and the plaintiffs "informed the court last evening that they have reached a stage ... where they believe a final binding agreement is achievable in the near future and that they believe their time could be more effectively spent finalizing the agreement." The parties have three weeks to reach a binding deal or must be ready for a more or less immediate rescheduled trial, the judge ordered. Attorneys for Stuart had said Friday that the trial was still set to start as planned after a blockbuster settlement with other plaintiffs. DuPont, Chemours and Corteva reported they had struck a deal worth more than $1.1 billion with water companies around the U.S. over polluted water. Stuart, like the other water provider plaintiffs, alleges the company contaminated its wells with the chemicals. The plaintiffs say 3M, DuPont and others knew the "aqueous film-forming foam" contained PFAS, which can damage the environment and cause health issues. 3M spokesman Sean Lynch said in a statement Monday that the parties "are making material and significant progress toward a resolution of this matter." He added, "3M will continue to address other litigation by defending ourselves in court or through negotiated resolutions, all as appropriate." Plaintiffs counsel Paul Napoli said in a statement Monday, "While we understand the need for additional time, we remain committed to seeking justice for the affected communities. We are hopeful that this delay will lead to a meaningful settlement in the near term, providing relief and closure to those impacted by this issue." DuPont and spinoff Chemours agreed in 2017 to pay $670 million to settle personal injury MDL cases over a type of PFAS known as PFOA, or C8, after several bellwether trials. The plaintiffs are represented by Napoli Shkolnik LLP, Baron and Budd LLP, Douglas & London PC and Levin Papantonio. 3M is represented by Wilkinson Stekloff LLP. The cases are City of Stuart, Florida v. The 3M Co. et al., case number 2:18-cv-3487, and In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, case number 2:18-mn-02873, both in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Another challenge to the widespread practice of data-sharing by social media companies was lodged last week, as TikTok was slapped with a digital privacy class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California last week.
In the wake of surging consumer privacy lawsuits alleging the illegal use of tracking pixels by third-party websites to collect personal information, TikTok and its parent company ByteDance are facing accusations that non-TikTok users’ “highly personal information” was intercepted and used by the platform. Plaintiff Bernadine Griffith filed the putative class complaint under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Statutory Larceny, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, filed by attorneys at Susman Godfrey, Glancy Prognay & Murray, and Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, TikTok monitored users’ online activity, even when those users employed privacy settings to block third-party tracking of their web activity. Then, they reportedly used this personal information without consent and made it available in China, where companies are legally obligated to assist the Chinese Communist Party with intelligence gathering. “While defendants TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc. (as well as nonparty Beijing ByteDance) may have risen to prominence based on the viral videos of adorable puppies and trendy dance moves shared on the TikTok app, they have also become infamous for something far more sinister: invasive and non-consensual harvesting of private user information,” the complaint alleged. Currently, the U.S. Congress is discussing bills introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would ban TikTok nationwide for what Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher described as “digital fentanyl” spread by the Chinese-owned app. Griffith’s complaint claimed that TikTok has installed “TikTok SDK” on third-party websites, which is marketed as an “enterprise solution” for websites to identify users and deliver targeted ads. Therefore, the complaint stated, those who have never even used the TikTok application can be subject to having their private information gathered and sold, “while U.S. residents browse completely unrelated websites to watch their favorite television show, search for medical information, or purchase a birthday gift for their children.” According to the complaint, however, a ban would not solve the problem of interception and sale of consumers’ private data from third-party websites, an issue that has come under increasing scrutiny in the form of class actions in recent months. In March, a federal judge in Georgia denied PBS and Facebook’s attempts to dismiss a VPPA lawsuit filed by a plaintiff, alleging that the two companies coordinated an effort to collect her online activity, using it to aide in Facebook’s targeted advertising. Social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok use “tracking pixels” to collect viewing history and personal identifiable information. Baker Donelson attorneys Aldo M. Leiva and Alexander F. Koskey recently explained in a March 17 Daily Business Review article that the spike in data sharing lawsuits presents “a significant risk to a wide variety of companies,” who face potential liability for using now common methods of digital data collection. Counsel for the defendants at ByteDance and TikTok have not appeared. Principal Ekwan E. Rhow at Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, could not immediately be reached for comment. New York cannabis regulators on Tuesday voted to settle a lawsuit that was hindering them from issuing the first retail marijuana licenses in one upstate region. The Cannabis Control Board unanimously approved a settlement between the state's marijuana regulator, the Office of Cannabis Management, and an applicant who brought a federal lawsuit alleging the state's retail marijuana licensure program discriminated against out-of-state participants. The OCM's general counsel revealed some key details of the settlement agreement on Tuesday. As part of the agreement, regulators have agreed to issue one adult-use license to the plaintiff company, Variscite NY One Inc., when those licenses become available. The agreement to settle follows the Second Circuit's decision in March to reduce the scope of a district court order that blocked regulators from issuing licenses in some regions of the state. The circuit court narrowed the order's effect to just one area, the Finger Lakes, out of an original five. New York state regulators had pushed for the injunction to be limited to the Finger Lakes since it was the geographic region named as the first choice by Variscite when it applied for a retail license. Variscite is majority-owned by a Michigan resident named Kenneth Gay who has said in court filings that he would have qualified for one of New York's first conditional adult-use retail dispensary licenses except for the fact that he has never lived in the state where he wants to sell pot. Variscite initiated its lawsuit in September. Linda Baldwin, the OCM's general counsel, told the board Tuesday, "With the prospect of the litigation ongoing, the office has recommended that the litigation be settled, and the plaintiff has agreed to settle it so that we can move forward with the CAURD program and issue licenses also in the Finger Lakes region." Board member Reuben McDaniel said at the meeting, "Typically when you settle a lawsuit, it's because of a monetary decision. I think we felt that we had strong ground on this. However, it is impeding the CAURD licensees in that region." He added, "I'm just very pleased that the board is considering this today. I'm fully supportive of it, not because I think that the lawsuit has any merit, but our CAURD licensees need to be in the Finger Lakes as well, getting to work, and on the ground." The agreement, which was filed with the court on Wednesday, is still pending approval of a federal district judge. An OCM spokesperson told Law360 on Tuesday, "We will have more to share when [the] settlement is finalized." Counsel for Variscite did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. Companies owned by Gay have pursued litigation challenging cannabis licensure in Los Angeles and Sacramento, California, asserting similar claims that regulators' criteria for cannabis retail applicants are tied to residency and therefore constitutional violations. The Sacramento case is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. Variscite is represented by Christian Kernkamp of Kernkamp Law APC and Thomas Higgs of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy LLP. The state is represented by Letitia James, Barbara D. Underwood, Jeffrey W. Lang and Alexandria Twinem of the New York Attorney General's Office. The case is Variscite NY One Inc. v. New York et al., case number 1:22-cv-01013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. After being asked to use her skills as a paralegal to help a fellow congregant from her church obtain a civil restraining order against her husband, Alicia Mitchell-Mercer realized just how little help she could offer the woman as a nonlawyer.
While a magistrate had granted the woman a 10-day protective order after her husband allegedly held her at gunpoint overnight, Mitchell-Mercer said that the woman needed to appear in court to get the order extended to a year. Given her background as a paralegal and court-appointed guardian, Mitchell-Mercer said her church recently contacted her to see what help she could provide. Mitchell-Mercer, however, was unable to offer anything more than moral support as the woman, "visibly shaking," was forced to sit six feet from her alleged abuser and to advocate on her own behalf."It really struck me. She was shaking so violently she dropped her paperwork while walking to the stand. I stood up to help her pick it up and was told to sit down by the bailiff. I couldn't even do that," Mitchell-Mercer said. Mitchell-Mercer serves as co-founder of the North Carolina Justice for All Project, through which she's spearheading an effort in her home state to establish a legal paraprofessional licensing program. Such programs, which allow nonlawyer paraprofessionals to represent clients in discrete areas of law, have begun to spread across the U.S. in recent years.The number of states implementing programs to license paraprofessionals to practice law has swiftly multiplied over the last three years, growing from two states to six and counting as courts seek ways to meet the legal needs of low- and moderate-income residents. In 2019, Washington and Utah were the only two states that allowed paraprofessionals to seek licensing to practice in discrete areas of law, but now that list has ballooned. Even as Washington sunset its program, states including Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon have all joined Utah in embracing the licensing programs. Licensed legal paraprofessionals, as they are typically called, usually take on legal work for clients in the areas of family law, landlord-tenant disputes and debt collection, but some states have allowed them to handle limited jurisdiction civil matters, criminal law, juvenile court and state administrative law. The idea behind the programs is to create a new tier of legal service provider who can offer more help than a paralegal or court navigator, and is available to consumers at a lower price point than a lawyer. In many cases, the programs are an outgrowth of access to justice task forces or committees aimed at finding ways to meet currently unmet legal needs in the United States. "This issue of who can practice law and how to provide legal assistance is intimately wrapped up in the fact that there are huge numbers of people who come to court without lawyers. The current system isn't satisfying that need," said Danielle Hirsch, interim court services director of the court consulting division at the National Center for State Courts. The programs have not been without criticism, though, with some members of the bar strongly opposing the licensing programs on grounds that nonlawyers cannot provide the quality of services needed to meet client needs. "What I think is that there are undoubtedly very complicated legal needs for which there is no substitute for a lawyer," Hirsch said in response to the criticism. "However, not everything is that way and we need to be resourceful."The paraprofessional licensing programs in New Hampshire, Colorado and Oregon are brand-new, but in the other states with such programs, professionals are already licensed and, in some cases, have been practicing law for years now. In Utah, there are currently 28 licensed paralegal practitioners, also called LPPs. In Arizona, there are 38 legal paraprofessionals, or LPs. And in Minnesota, there are 25 LPs, according to the three states' judicial websites. In addition to the six states that have approved or implemented programs, at least five others are considering them, including South Carolina, North Carolina, New Mexico, Connecticut and California. Other states have implemented or are considering implementing similar programs to allow legal aid workers to provide certain legal services under the supervision of legal aid lawyers. While the licensing process for legal paraprofessionals differs from state to state, typically applicants must meet educational or experiential requirements and then take exams that cover legal ethics and the areas of law they'd like to practice. They typically must also pass a character and fitness hurdle and complete continuing education requirements. The professionals are usually regulated by the same authorities that regulate attorneys, and complaints of misconduct can similarly be filed with the state.Even as more states begin experimenting with the idea, however, Washington state opted in 2020 to sunset its limited license legal technician program — the first of its kind in the nation — after eight years. According to a memo at the time by the state's chief justice, the small number of participants in the program didn't warrant its cost, although those who had already obtained licenses were permitted to continue practicing. According to Lucy Ricca, executive director of the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Professional at Stanford Law School, the program's demise was due in part to onerous registration requirements that made it time-consuming and difficult to become licensed, blunting the impact of the program. States working to implement programs now, meanwhile, are hoping to learn from Washington's example and find the proper balance between protecting consumers and avoiding overregulation that can make the programs too burdensome to participants, Ricca said. "If you make the requirement to become a licensed legal paraprofessional so onerous it undermines the affordability and accessibility ... providers can't actually offer low-cost legal services independently on the back side," she said. Law360 spoke to four licensed paraprofessionals in Utah and Arizona, and each expressed satisfaction with the licensing process they went through, and all felt that they were able to provide services to clients at a rate substantially lower than many lawyers in their community. The most common rate cited by the paraprofessionals was around $200 per hour, and many said they forgo the large retainers often required by lawyers. The services, unless provided under the auspices of a legal aid organization, are generally aimed more toward moderate-income consumers, as opposed to those who are truly low-income."We know that middle-class Americans are a big part of this justice gap," Ricca said. "If we can have independent paraprofessionals meeting the needs of those people, that should be a high priority whether or not the fees are so low that low-income people can access them. We need solutions all across the spectrum." Astle said she considers herself middle-income and is aware that she and her peers are often priced out of being able to hire a lawyer. Astle says many of her clients are teachers and nurses. "There is this portion of the population that does not have access to justice, and gets stuck in the system and needs some help," Astle said. "When there's someone they can afford, that's a relief for them." Each of the four licensed legal paraprofessionals whom Law360 spoke to practice in the area of family law, and all of them shared stories about how important it was for their clients — who otherwise would likely be unrepresented — to have someone advocating on their behalf in matters as potentially life-altering as custody proceedings or a divorce. "These cases are truly pivotal and people are emotionally drained and frustrated because they don't know what to do and aren't familiar with the process," said Fitzpatrick, the Arizona LP. "Often they don't get needed information out when the judge asks them questions because they are flustered. At the end of the day they need that mouthpiece." Chemical companies DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva have struck a deal worth more than $1.1 billion with water companies around the U.S. over drinking water polluted by so-called forever chemicals, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys in multidistrict litigation.Under the deal announced by Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Douglas & London PC and Baron & Budd PC on Friday, several companies that manufacture per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, agreed to pay $1.18 billion to settle claims that their products have contaminated drinking water sources around the country.
The settlement, which is still being finalized and will be subject to court approval, comes days before other defendants, such as 3M, begin a trial as part of a South Carolina-based MDL consolidating cases against manufacturers and users of PFAS for applications like nonstick or stain-resistant coatings and firefighting foam. Baron & Budd said the settlement funds will pay public water systems that have already detected PFAS in their water, will provide for testing of water systems that haven't yet been tested, and will pay those water systems who subsequently do find PFAS as a result of that testing. The settlement does not release any claims against the defendants for groundwater or soil contamination, the firms' announcement said. A Florida federal jury on Thursday found a Miami city commissioner liable for $63.5 million in damages over using his office and government resources to systematically target a pair of business owners after they supported a political opponent during a runoff election in 2017.
The jury handed down its verdict in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday after beginning its deliberations Wednesday afternoon, finding Miami City Commissioner Joe Carollo liable for using his office to target businesses associated with Little Havana developers William Fuller and Martin Pinilla II after they supported Carollo's opponent while running for the District 3 position in November 2017. Carollo, who previously served as Miami's mayor and commissioner, was accused of contacting city officials to shut down a rally held on a property connected to Fuller and Pinilla in 2017 and continued to target businesses connected to them with bogus code violations and various government actions. The jury found that Carollo had used his office to violate the First Amendment rights of Fuller and Pinilla and awarded $8.6 million in compensatory damages and $25.7 million in punitive damages to Fuller and $7.3 million in compensatory damages and $21.9 million in punitive damages to Pinilla. "Not only was he a bully, but he was also a coward who used every legal remedy to take us all the way to the Supreme Court hoping that he would break us so that we wouldn't arrive today," Fuller said, referring to Carollo. "The small group of select individuals that he has worked with in the city of Miami, they're also corrupt. Each and every one of them came up here over the last few days and lied and invented these stories to be able to support this man so that they could protect their jobs. And once and for all it feels great to finally smush that cucaracha!" Pinilla called the day historic and said the jury's verdict sends a "loud and clear" message to politicians in America that they can't abuse their power. "Joe Carollo, what he has done to us, to our businesses, to our employees is wrong," Pinilla said. "He does not deserve to be an elected official." Mason A. Pertnoy of Krinzman Huss Lubetsky Feldman & Hotte and Benedict P. Kuehne of Kuehne Davis Law PA, representing Carollo, issued a statement saying they are disappointed with the result but that their client will continue to represent his district. "Unlike the plaintiffs, who seem to have now resorted to disparaging comments about the commissioner and city of Miami employees, the commissioner will continue to serve all citizens of District 3 and the city of Miami fairly and equally in protecting health, safety and quality of life," the statement said. "Commissioner Carollo will seek to exercise all legal rights available to him including appellate review." Fuller and Pinilla sued Carollo in 2018, alleging that the commissioner engaged in systematic retaliation starting in 2017, when Carollo ran against Alfonso Leon in the election for commissioner. The harassment began when Carollo used contacts in the city government to shut down rallies for Leon on the plaintiffs' properties during the 2017 runoff election, according to the plaintiffs' suit. Carollo ultimately beat Leon by just over 350 votes. After Carollo won the election, the plaintiffs said Carollo continued to target Little Havana businesses associated with them. Such businesses include nightclub Ball & Chain and Union Beer Store, which sit along the touristy section of Miami's 8th Street. Carollo attorney Pertnoy said his client was simply representing his district and addressed what he called a history permitting violations going back to 2012. While testifying on the stand, Carollo accused the plaintiffs of trying to "de-Latinize" his district. "This was about following the rules and he was going to expose them for that," Pertnoy said during closing arguments Wednesday. "This lawsuit, First Amendment retaliation, it's Fuller's fantasy. It is a concoction of Fuller's fantasy in order to create a defense against the commissioner and the city for enforcing the rules that [the plaintiffs] refuse to follow." In addition, Pertnoy argued that it wasn't Fuller and Pinilla themselves who were engaged in protected speech and weren't the ones that filed the ethics complaint against Carollo, but rather their development business, Barlington Group. Courtney Caprio of AXS Law Group, representing the plaintiffs, told the jury on Wednesday to not be fooled by that argument because the business is essentially the same as the plaintiffs. Caprio's co-counsel, Rossana Arteaga-Gomez of AXS Law Group, said the case was a hard-fought battle that included the efforts of the entire firm. The retaliation against her clients included defaming them by calling them "frauds" and "money launderers" in public, according to Caprio. "The jury sent a message today to every elected official in the U.S. that they cannot abuse their power to punish citizens who oppose them," Caprio told Law360. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey W. Gutchess, Rossana Arteaga-Gomez, Joanna Niworowski, Courtney Anne Caprio and Amanda Suarez of AXS Law Group. Carollo is represented by Mason A. Pertnoy of Krinzman Huss Lubetsky Feldman & Hotte, Marc D. Sarnoff of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Benedict P. Kuehne of Kuehne Davis Law PA and Amber C. Dawson of Cole Scott & Kissane PA. The case is Fuller et al. v. Carollo et al., case number 1:18-cv-24190, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. |
HISTORY
April 2024
Categories |