Innocence Project New Orleans的动态

...The court in which I have to wait more than three months for a hearing? They must be ranked lower, right? Nope--it was ranked five times higher on setting hearings. In case you're wondering, it's a former plaintiff's personal injury lawyer who happens to be a white male. Down the line the rankings, some of which I believe are far too low for good judges, and too high for some biased ones, there is one thing that you can count on--the black women who were not personal injury lawyers prior to taking the bench were the lowest rated judges, even on things that, like Judge Davis, are purely and patently false. You can disagree with judges on all kinds of things, without dinging them on things that they do well. Some of my favorite judges rule against me every chance they get, and I have to brief every little thing to preserve error. They argue with me during trial. I am often trying my case against the judge, not my opposing counsel. Some enjoy the back and forth--I do too. Some try and bolster the record against me. But I can call balls and strikes on what I do and don't like about them. The plaintiff's bar clearly cannot. Do better, Houston lawyers. If you can.

Today, January 5th, I set a hearing for a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Harris County court and was told that the next available date was April 12th. Three months and one week from now. For a hearing. So that reminded me of my promise to share some judicial hot takes based on the recent Houston Bar Association poll. I'm going to start with Judge Davis in the 270th District Court, which is not the court in which I have to wait more than three months for a hearing. In fact, Judge Davis has procedures where you can get online and pick your hearing date and time, often within a week or two. If you have an emergency, she allows you to log into her Zoom portal and no matter what else is going on she will talk to you in person and work with you to get something set. She also has one of the youngest dockets in the county because she has been trying cases left and right--even through the pandemic. You may not have wanted a remote jury trial (I didn't, but tried two anyway), but you cannot say that she wasn't trying cases. For some time, she was the only judge in the county who was. So, the court with the fastest docket in town, in which you can set a hearing faster than in any other court in town surely has a good rating for the HBA poll topic of "Has Procedures for Scheduling and Holding Hearings and Trials in a Timely Manner," right? Nope. 7.2% Excellent, 5.8% Very Good, and 11.9% Satisfactory. It is pure retaliation for her rulings in cases. She has not always ruled in my favor, but she always gives me a fair shake and she always listens. She has even dismissed cases on due diligence and 165A grounds. And she has ruled against me on other issues, large and small. I did not always agree, and I feel that she uses her discretion to benefit plaintiffs at times, but I believe that she "Follows the Law" far more often than not. (HBA results: 7.6%, 5.1%, and 15.2%) Now, plaintiff's lawyers don't want judges who follow the law. They want judges who will not admit photos of minor impacts, but allow them in major ones. They want judges who will strike counter-affidavits for no reason--until case law developed to show that defendants were right all along. Who will strike certain types of experts on the spot the morning of trial. Judge Davis is not that judge. I even had sitting judges from her own party tell me I should vote for her opponent in the general election. These rankings reflect the plaintiff/judicial politics of our county, not the real issues we see in the courts. She also rules on the spot and often rules on agreed motions the day they are filed without a hearing ("Rules Decisively and Timely:" 10.1%, 7.2%, and 12.6%), which she can do because she reads filings, keeps up with them in almost real time, and by the time of any hearing has read the pleadings on which she is about to rule ("Works Hard and is Prepared:" 9.4%, 5.4%, and 13%). These rankings are patently false...

Remember when your math teacher told you to show your work even if you had the correct answer? The same principle applies to attorney fee awards in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's recent decision in Fleig v. Landmark Constr. Grp., 2024 OK 25, __ P.3d __, emphasizes that arriving at an amount is not always enough. Attorney fee awards demand more than just numbers. Compliance with the Supreme Court's mandatory requirements in Fleig is pivotal to avoiding an almost certain reversal of your hard-earned attorney fee award.? #Appealed

A long post on my personal views on #candour. As a barrister on the Attorney General’s panel, I have both the privilege and immense responsibility of representing the government in civil proceedings. Although the report by the Right Reverend James Jones KBE in 2017, and then the govt’s response of December 2023, reignited debate on a statutory duty of candour, the issue of candour is not a new one in public law proceedings. When any person brings judicial review proceedings against the govt or a public authority, the duty of candour requires that body to be transparent re the reasons for its decision making, which may include the disclosure of documents and, in certain circumstances, assisting a claimant in making its case properly. This can even include highlighting that a decision may have been made unlawfully for reasons that were not identified or pursued by a claimant. Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, the duty of candour falls not only on the relevant dept or authority, but personally on the lawyers involved in a case. In public law proceedings, there are significant consequences for a lawyer who does not ensure that the duty of candour is discharged. Yet in other non-JR proceedings against public authorities, I have seen a number of instances where advocates have treated the dispute as identical to one between private citizens, where the aim seems to be to win at all costs. This has included: running arguments with suspect foundations, not highlighting cases or arguments to the contrary, not intervening where a judge may be erring in law because the result is favourable, & failing to disclose pivotal info unless under duress of a court order. Candour decisions are hard. They are open to a range of reasonable interpretations. Many people have differing views on how the duty ought to be discharged. There can be, and often is, an extremely fine line between properly defending litigation (as is a public authority’s right and responsibility) and discharging the duty of candour. My personal view is that an advocate’s role is not one of mouthpiece or a ‘hired gun’. Judges, particularly those in the lower courts with chaotic lists and minimal resources, cannot scrutinise every single aspect of a case. They rely on us to assist them and to be candid when arguing in favour of our client. There is a reason that our primary duty is to the court and ahead of that to our client. We form part of the last line of defence in favour of a justice system with integrity. Based on what I have seen in non-JR cases over the past year, I worry that perhaps the balance in favour of candour is, at present, not right. I worry about litigants who cannot afford legal representation and who, owing to the above, might face a serious injustice. I also worry that perhaps advocates don’t have the guidance or training on how to apply these difficult concepts in non JR proceedings, despite candour being at the heart of our ethical responsibilities.

Who cares about the Solicitor General? The SG’s Office plays a predominant role in Supreme Court litigation. During this February’s oral argument sitting a member of the SG’s office will argue in the majority of cases argued and SG Prelogar is will present arguments in the Moody/NetChoice cases. In a recent Bloomberg article (linked below) I presented statistics that showed the SG filed a brief in 48 of 55 cases last term where there was a signed decision of the court and through the January sitting had filed a merits or amicus brief in all but two orally argued cases. This is quite an oversized role. In past this role has been described as bifurcated between that of an advocate and that of a metaphorical 10th Justice. Why the 10th Justice? Some reasons include: 1)?????The SG has a relationship of trust with the justices. This helps the Court decide which cases to take when the SG files a cert stage amicus brief. Most SG cert stage amicus briefs are requested by the Court for just this purpose of weeding out unnecessary cases. 2)?????The SG presents the government’s policy arguments. The Court generally want to know if the executive branch would have a problem implementing a decision and what the potential fallout from a decision might be based on this executing function. 3)?????The SG is a repeat player and so the Court comes to rely on the SG simply based on this continuing relationship where the SG feeds the Court helpful information about the government’s views in a case. But the SG is an advocate. Why? 1)?????The SG’s office argues positions. Even though these positions are based on the government’s desired outcome in a case, they reflect an argument against another party with an interest in the case before the justices. 2)?????The SG may enter cases, especially as an amici, where the government has a limited role and possibly an ulterior motive for participation.?The SG does not need to participate as an amicus and so there is quite a bit of discretion in such decisions. 3)?????The SG’s presence in a case does not necessarily reflect that this position is correct. The SG has ideological positions based on the incumbent president. These two roles create a potentially hazardous and complex position for the justices. Should they implicitly trust the SG’s office? Should this deference be limited? What happens in situations as we have now with a Court made up predominantly of conservatives appointed by republican president where there is an incumbent democrat? There are no easy answers to these questions but there is a compelling discussion to be had on the proper role of the SG from a normative perspective and on what we should expect of this constantly evolving role moving forward.

With Governor Abbott's appointment today of three excellent judges to Texas's Fifteenth Court of Appeals, the gears of the new Texas business court system are getting ready to spin. The new courts will govern disputes with more than $5 Million in controversy, or those involving publicly-traded companies, involving: (A) internal governance, (B) derivative, and/or (C) securities claims. They will also govern disputes with more than $10 Million in controversy involving: (A) transactions worth more than $10 Million, (B) cases where the parties agreed in advance to business court jurisdiction, or (C) claims under the Texas Business and Commerce Code or Texas Finance Code (with some exceptions).?Cases that qualify can be filed originally in the business courts, or defendants in such cases can remove such cases to the business courts (similar to the process of removing to federal court).??? The new business courts will completely re-align the considerations for litigating certain types of cases in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Randomly-assigned and overworked elected judges in these jurisdictions will be replaced for these disputes by one or two well-known judges who are appointed directly by the Governor and have deep familiarity with complex business disputes.?This may be a great advantage for corporate litigants with meritorious legal claims, as it will provide substantially improved regularity and predictability for larger business cases in Texas. The challenge will be getting *into* the business courts, as their jurisdiction is limited.?Savvy businesses may already be looking at whether it is in their interests to execute agreements for large transactions that stipulate venue in the business courts starting September 1.? The Fifteenth Court of Appeals nominees are extremely well-qualified - I've had the privilege of mediating with one of them in a major case some years ago. They are likely to provide a reliable and reputable backstop for the new trial courts.

Categories Categories Archives Family Law Videos WI Court Opinions Legal Publications By Attorney Gregg HermanSeptember 16, 2024 The 2024-2025 term for the Wisconsin Supreme Court just began, and I thought it prudent to offer them some advice as to how to improve their performance this term. No, they didn’t ask my opinion, and they’ve ignored... Continue Reading #wisconsinlawyer #wisconsinlaw #wislawnow

Uncover the essentials of the appellate process in Arizona with our newest article, offering clear insights into challenging court decisions effectively. Learn how Gottlieb Law leverages its experience in real estate, business litigation, and beyond to support your appeal. Understand the intricacies of the appellate system and how to achieve a successful outcome in court. #appeals #appellatelaw #groundsforappeal https://lnkd.in/gAd-W9Zc

Curious if you should have a different lawyer for your criminal appeal? ???? It's crucial to know you don’t have to stick with your trial lawyer for the appeal. In fact, switching to an appellate attorney could be your best move. From arguing ineffective assistance of counsel to offering fresh perspectives and specialized skills, a new lawyer can make all the difference. Check out Lizett Martinez Schreiber's latest blog post to learn why changing lawyers for your appeal might be the smartest choice you make. https://lnkd.in/gcXsfiz3 ???? #ALHLawGroup #LegalAdvice #CriminalAppeal

Another recent Illinois Appellate decision illustrating the minefield of appellate practice. The “trap” plaintiff’s attorney stepped in here was not having the transcript of the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss prepared and filed—probably trying to save some expenses. When I was practicing, I saw this many times from opponents who thought since no evidence was being heard, they didn’t need a transcript. But it’s a fatal appellate error not to have all proceedings transcribed and filed as part of the record on appeal—as this decision shows. There are two learning points here: ?appeals can’t be done “on the cheap”…and always have your appeals done by experienced appellate lawyers.