Wall Street Women Win - $70 Million Against Morgan Stanley Its not every lawyer who can say they’ve changed a deeply embedded pattern of discrimination on Wall Street, but the law firm of Moody Warner, P.C., won that right – and won it big – for 2,700 women against the investment giant Morgan Stanley. Everybody knows that sexism exists on Wall Street. Everybody knows that women on Wall Street have to be better and work harder than their male counterparts to get ahead. Everybody knows that very few women hold positions of real power or earn top dollars on Wall Street. And everybody knows that the Old Boys Club atmosphere persists on Wall Street.

Complaining about gender discrimination against your employer can be the kiss of death for your job and your career. The issue of women’s rights, not in the sense of special kinds of human rights reserved for women but in the sense of the equal enjoyment by women of their general human rights, remains an important one. The Universal Declaration and the Human Rights treaties forbid discrimination on the grounds of gender. Article 2 states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind.” Article 7 states that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”.

This means that the anti-discrimination rule goes beyond discrimination in the application of human rights. Every law which offers unequal protection to men and women is a violation of the Universal Declaration, whether or not this law seeks to protect human rights. More progress has been made for women, but most women continue to work in jobs stereotyped as female jobs and women in nearly all job categories receive less pay than males in those same job categories. Women face limits on promotion to high-level management positions because of conscious and subconscious sex bias and continue to experience sexual harassment on the job despite increased employer awareness of an employer’s obligation to take preventive and corrective action.

Today, The Insider Exclusive goes behind the headlines to show you how Christopher Moody and Whitney Warner, partners at the law firm of Moody Warner, P.C., helped Wall Street women win $70 million against Morgan Stanley in this landmark settlement to safeguard and promote the rights of women on Wall Street. And how this settlement sends a message to other Wall Street firms that discrimination will not be tolerated. Achieving this goal is necessary if the American workplace is to reflect American values of fairness and equal opportunity.Christopher Moody is a founder of the employment and labor law firm of Moody Warner, P.C. He has been practicing employment and labor law since 1983 and represents management in labor relations matters, including collective bargaining, unfair labor practice cases, representation proceedings and grievance arbitrations. Christopher is a frequent presenter on employment law topics. He is a graduate of Duke University School of Law and is licensed to practice law in New Mexico, Colorado, and California.

He accepts cases in those states and in other states throughout the United States, where he is able to participate in cases by associating with attorneys admitted to practice in the relevant state. Whitney Warner is a founding partner with the labor and employment law firm of Moody Warner, P.C., representing employers and employees. Her practice is devoted to employment and labor law and includes advice and litigation in the areas of class actions, discrimination, harassment, labor relations, wage and hour issues, EEOC/HRD charges, wrongful termination, and other employment-related matters. Whitney and the firm have been recognized by “Chambers USA – America’s Leading Lawyers for Business” each year since 2005 as leaders in employment law in New Mexico.

She was also named as one of the top 5% of attorneys by Southwest Super Lawyers in its 2007 and 2008 editions, based on peer nominations. Moody Warner, P.C. provides thoughtful and aggressive representation in all areas of labor and employment law. The firm has had significant success representing classes of employees, large groups of employees who work or worked for the same employer, who are victims of discrimination on the basis of race, sex or other prohibited bases, or who have been improperly denied overtime or minimum wage compensation. Moody Warner also represents individual employees and small groups of employees who are victims or discrimination, wrongful termination or improper pay practices.

Moody Warner represents clients around the nation. The firm’s attorneys are licensed in California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma and represent clients in other states by associating with attorneys in those states.You can contact Christopher Moody and Whitney Warner at 505-944-0033, or www.nmlaborlaw.com

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

To identify the source of a class-action lawsuit involving thousands of alleged victims and defendants representing virtually the entire egg industry in America, look no further than a Main Street restaurant in Falconer.

According to local attorney Arthur Bailey, the case began with a cup of coffee at T.K. Ribbing's in the spring of 2008.

"I am the beginning of it," said Bailey, who listened to owner Steve Ribbing as he voiced his frustration over the price of eggs. He told Bailey that he could purchase large quantities at the local grocery store cheaper than he was currently getting them from his wholesaler.

Bailey, whose experience lies with fraud, malpractice claims and class actions, agreed the situation was "economically backward."

He said Ribbing's complaint was quickly referred to James Pizzirusso, a partner with the Hausfeld LLP firm, and a lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in September 2008.

With media attention beginning to focus on soaring prices, the Justice Department declared its intention to investigate the egg industry. Within a month of Ribbing's orignal lawsuit it appointed a team of lawyers from Hausfeld to begin a class-action suit.

Bailey, who is not currently among the lead counsel, said he enjoys a working relationship with Hausfeld that has lasted three decades. He said he provides a service for the firm by scouting potential cases. His son, Arthur Bailey Jr. serves as an associate attorney for the firm's San Francisco office.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

In a survey released today by the American Bar Association, judges indicated that a lack of representation in civil matters is hurting those individuals’ cases, and is negatively impacting courtrooms.

Approximately 1,000 state trial judges responded to the survey, which posed questions about their dockets, self-representation and the impact on the courts.  More than half of the judges stated that their dockets increased in 2009, with the most common areas of increase involving foreclosures, domestic relations, consumer issues such as debt, and non-foreclosure housing issues such as rental disputes. 

Sixty percent of judges said that fewer parties are being represented by lawyers, with 62 percent saying that parties are negatively impacted by not being represented.  The impact is exemplified, through a failure to present necessary evidence (94 percent), procedural errors (89 percent), ineffective witness examination (85 percent), failure to properly object to evidence (81 percent) and ineffective argument (77 percent).

The ABA has a resource page on its website that can help individuals find legal assistance — www.findlegalhelp.org.  

During a time when state budgets are constrained, agencies as well as courts are being asked to become more efficient.  However, the increase in non-represented parties makes this more difficult for courts.  The lack of representation has a negative impact on the court, said 78 percent of the judges, and 90 percent of judges stated that court procedures are slowed when parties are not represented.

Nearly half of the judges responding believe that there is a middle-class gap with respect to access to justice, stating that the number of people who are not represented and who do not qualify for aid has increased.

Lamm announced the findings during a news conference earlier today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. 

The survey of judges on the impact of the economic downturn on representation in the courts was conducted for the ABA Coalition for Justice.  Respondents came from around the country.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Elena Kagan is speeding toward confirmation as the 112th Supreme Court justice, with Republicans showing little appetite for a long-shot filibuster attempt after sparring with her over abortion, gays in the military and other divisive issues.

"Solicitor General Kagan will be confirmed," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., confidently predicted as the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up its examination of President Barack Obama's high court pick.

Barring an unexpected turn, Kagan will succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens and become the fourth female justice in the Supreme Court's history. It would be the first time that three of the court's nine justices were women.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, called a filibuster of Kagan "highly unlikely." And asked outright whether Kagan was going to win confirmation, another Judiciary Committee Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, replied, "I assume she will be."

Kagan, 50, spent her last day before the committee Wednesday trying to reassure conservatives that she would be able to separate her personal and political views from a job as a justice on the ideologically split Supreme Court.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Susan Merrill, who is stepping down as the head of enforcement at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street's self-regulatory body, is set to become a partner at the law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP.

Ms. Merrill, 53 years old, will lead Bingham's enforcement practice and advise clients on regulatory and securities enforcement matters. She will join the firm's New York office this week.

"Susan is a recognized leader in the securities field," Jay Zimmerman, Bingham's chairman, said in a statement. "Her arrival to Bingham exemplifies our investment and commitment to building the strongest securities team."

Ms. Merrill was hired by the New York Stock Exchange in 2004 to help revive its regulation division. She became head of enforcement at Finra in 2007 when the National Association of Securities Dealers merged with the regulatory arm of the NYSE, forming Finra. Previously, Ms. Merrill was a litigation partner at New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

At Finra, Ms. Merrill helped to merge the enforcement departments of the NASD and NYSE, and brought a number of auction-rate-securities cases against Wall Street firms.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Gary L. West’s Story

On Sep 2, 2005, The Tennessee Supreme Court issued a landmark decision: Gary L. West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil. The ruling expanded potential liability in sales to inebriated customers. “Tennessee businesses selling products to visibly intoxicated people are subject to more liability.” The Court found that a convenience store had a duty not to sell gasoline to an inebriated customer who later was involved in a head-on collision.

This landmark Case is the basis of this True Story that lead up to that Decision On July 22, 2000, Gary West was traveling northbound on U.S. Highway 11W, in Knox County, Tennessee, in the dead of night. On the exact same night and exactly at the same time, on the very same road, Brian Lee Tarver was driving southbound in the wrong northbound lane. Tarver crashed head-on into West’s automobile causing severe personal injury and property damage. Just minutes before the accident,

Tarver had been a customer at a gas station’s convenience store located at 7606 Rutledge Pike. Pioneer Oil was the owner/operator of that store. The store clerk, Dorothy Thomas, testified that on the night of the accident, Tarver was visibly “drunk” and “staggering” while at the store immediately prior to the accident. She refused his drunken demand to buy beer, but she did choose to sell the same very drunk Tarver three dollars ($3.00) worth of gasoline. After buying the gas, Tarver was so drunk that he couldn’t even walk out the store’s door properly. And more importantly, not only did he stagger to the pumps; he couldn’t even pump the gas in his car. Another employee, Candice Drinnon, actually had to help him pump the gas, because he was too drunk to figure out how to do so himself! Ms. Drinnon then watched as Tarver drove away going southbound in the wrong lane of traffic without his headlights on. At no time did any of the gas station’s employees attempt to notify the police of Tarver’s actions and his obviously intoxicated state.

Today, The Insider Exclusive goes behind the headlines to meet Greg Coleman of Coleman Edwards, who successfully took this case all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court to fight for and get justice for Gary West.

Gregory F. Coleman is a highly distinguished attorney who focuses on products liability, litigation, medical malpractice, person injury, complex multi-district litigation, toxic torts, premises liability, class actions, ERISA, ERISA class actions, drug and medical device litigation, and workers’ compensation.

He has tried more than 100 jury trials and countless bench trials. A graduate of Jacksonville State University and the University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was a member of the National Trial Moot Court Team and the recipient of the American Jurisprudence Award for National Trial Team, Greg has been recognized by his colleagues for his outstanding work. He is a Charter Member and Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America. Coleman Edwards, P.C. aggressively pursues clients’ rights for all types of motor vehicle accidents, including those involving drunk drivers, hit and run drivers, and uninsured/under-insured drivers.

The firm also represents those victims who have been injured in tractor-trailer accidents, workers compensation, toxic tort, asbestos related diseases, and all areas of personal injury. The foundation of the firm’s philosophy in the practice of law is that protecting clients’ rights and interests is the most important thing. You can contact Greg Coleman at 800-487-8669, or www.colemanandedwards.com

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

• Drunk Driving (DUII, DUI, DWI) - including underage drinking and driving, refusing a breathalyzer test, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and other drug or alcohol related driving offenses
• Criminal Driving Offenses - including manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, assault, hit & run, attempting to elude police, reckless driving and licensure issues
• Drug Crimes - including possession, delivery, and manufacturing of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, designer drugs and prescription drugs
• Property Crimes - including theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, computer crimes and burglary
• Violent Crimes - including menacing, stalking and assault
• Stalking - including criminal offenses and civil actions

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Many Americans were glued to their television as President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address last Thursday.

Near the conclusion of his speech, I sat and watched as the President publicly criticized the highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court, for ruling in favor of “allowing corporations to spend without limit in our elections.”

While this statement alone was enough to rile support from some seated in the House chamber, six of nine justices in attendance remained seated; their unmoved faces reflecting their point of view. Except for Samuel Alito.

“Not true, not true,” the Associate Justice appeared to say as he visibly shook his head in opposition to Obama’s scolding.

The question I pose is, where does the disrespect come to an end across the board?

While media networks criticized Alito for his blatant acts of disagreement, no one has questioned the extent to which President Obama took to openly disagree with the Supreme Court.

In the years of the State of the Union address, legal experts do not recall encountering a president openly scolding the court since Roosevelt’s address to Congress in 1937.

Rather than sharing how he felt about their decision, President Obama should have exercised restraint for this particular occasion. The State of the Union address should be a time designated for the president to “report to Congress the current state of the Union” and to implement his own legislative ideas.

At the same time, Associate Justice Alito should refrain from making his gestures of disagreement so blatant.

I am sure that Obama is grateful that he did not have another “you lie” incident, however if the President wants respect from other high ranking politicians, he too should give respect where it is due.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.