This is perhaps one of the most under served conditions in existence even more so it is becoming a serious issue because of the new health care laws and the alleged, death panels.

Mesothelioma is a problem that is likely to be with us for many years, if you have ever worked in construction, you may have been exposed and it could take years for this disease to show up.

Most people believe they are safe at work but the reality is often different than what we think.

As long as there have been environmental factors with impact on our health as well as a legislative system, people have filed lawsuits if the impact has been of a negative kind.

Mesothelioma is a cancer primarily focused on the cells surrounding the lungs. This cancer has been associated exclusively with the exposure to asbestos which was commonly used in industrial and residential uses up until the late 1970′s. Thus, the victims of this severe disease have partly been workers of the construction and building industries or any industries where asbestos have been involved, but also ordinary residents of buildings containing this harmful material. Many people who were exposed to this material have suffered the devastating consequences and have joined together to file meseothelioma related lawsuits against former employers and manufacturers of asbestos.

If you believe you are suffering from this deadly disease you should carefully review the options available to you before deciding to join a joint lawsuit or class-action case. In many cases these types of lawsuits take years to settle and the victims will actually receive very little of the money, if any, awarded. Most of the money goes towards lawyer fees and court costs.

When you decide to pursue legal action it is best to start with a local attorney or family attorney if one is available. Ask them for referrals to other attorneys that handle these types of cases. They will most often know reputable lawyers who are out to help the victims instead of make profit off of other’s suffering. Remember, lawsuits of this nature may take several years to be resolved. If you are suffering serious medical problems currently it is strongly recommended that you focus your energy on fighting this awful cancer and worrying about lawsuits after you have regained some of your strength.

How can we expect others to follow our example when we have so much corruption in our own voting system?

In a time where there are people who are living under bridges because they cannot find a job or they are homeless because they have lost everything, we have this kind of thing going on.

Why is this happening and is this the hope and change that you voted for?

What do you think will happen when people start to get hungry?

Do doctors know as much as they think they do?

Are you sure that your doing the right thing by trusting in someone that has likely and allegedly going to kill someone in the course of their jobs?

UPDATE…  More to the story..

Are doctors subjective and allegedly unfair toward female patients when reporting incidence of pain and injury involving breast implants?

This issue is just the tip of a very large legal ice burg one that has been ignored and marginalized for years by many people, allegedly because it involves money and products of a large corporation.

Attention, if you have had implants and you have had pain, capsules, hardening, swelling of the lymph nodes, unexplained coughing, sickness and other issues since a rupture of your implant or implants, then please let us know we would like to hear from you.

Folks this could be just the tip of the iceburg after an interview with an effected patient, (who will remain anonymous,) I have learned that there are many associated issues with implants leaking and causing many different issues in regard to health.

More important is that many women believe (allegedly) that this is the price they have to pay for choosing to make the decisions they made.

It is very concerning that the FDA could have missed the main issue here in favor of a misnomer.

In a report allegedly 60 different cases of a rare, (if you believe them) cancer, that could effect some women with breast implants.

There are a number of troubling aspects about this story, for one it does not address the very private nature of this issue.

Many women are very private about their medical status including anything related to the preconceived notions about female enhancements or plastic surgery. It is really understandable, they should have that level of privacy however, the problem with this report is that it does not take into account that many women may not report issues that could significantly change their privacy concerns.

So, is it accurate to say that this type of cancer is really rare or is it more accurate to say that so far this is rare.

Reading this report it seems to be allegedly clear that the FDA does not know much about this issue and should be looking into this thing very soon.

Do you have bill collectors that call you all the time, harassing you, yelling at you, using profanity, screaming, calling your mother or your father and screaming at them, abusing your friends at work.

caller ID spoofing is the practice of faking the origin header of a call to make it appear that the phone call is from someone other than the actual caller.

Who is at fault, the telemarketers, and scam artists, or the phone company.

Because I really want to know, when you get phone calls from people who are intent on committing fraud, by faking their caller ID data, (by the way its a federal crime to do this) Why are not we protected from this thread that costs billions of dollars per year paid for mostly by the elderly.

After all is it not the phone company that is allowing these calls to take place in the first place?

There are now companies that are getting hauled into court, because of the illegal practice of spoofing data transmitted across state lines, commonly known as caller ID.

Telemarketers have been spoofing Caller ID information in attempts to subvert and or commit fraud by wire line.

Yet, for the most part Telephone providers and or companies have done nothing to prevent this practice.

So, for you hungry lawyers out there, heads up because this is a big new story, if local telephone companies and larger regional companies are not doing everything they could be doing to prevent fraud by spoofed caller ID then this could be a great new revenue opening for the near future.

For The First Time EVER…The Time Proven Best Seller Legal Software – AutoWebLaw – is now available to CB Affiliates. And why not? Everyone Needs it, So … Everyone Should Be Selling It!
Affordable Legal Protection Without An Attorney!

There are no fears, this is just politics, and does not deserve the light or air of day, but since we try to do what we can here it is, you know no other nation in the world would have a problem defending its own border.

this is just plain stupid, enforce the law, it is the only hope that a nation has if you fail to do that you will not only be out of a job but you will be out of a country in which to live as well.

Pastors, community activists and immigrant rights groups are trying to mitigate fears caused by a new Arizona law that forces state employees to report undocumented immigrants asking for federal and state benefits.

Last Wednesday, the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit asking for a stay on the law’s implementation filed by the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. The suit questioned the way the law was created. In the next two weeks, the association will decide whether or not to file the challenge again in a lower court..

But another court challenge might be in the works..

“MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) and I are ready to file a lawsuit in the event there’s a denial of benefits that shouldn’t have been denied, or a prosecution of an employee who shouldn’t have been prosecuted,” said civil rights attorney Daniel Ortega..

HB 2008 took effect Nov. 24 and requires state employees to file a report with immigration authorities when they find out someone applying for a benefit is in the country illegally. Employees could face up to four months in prison for failure to report..

“We’re going to continue enforcing state and federal law like we’ve been doing,” said Department of Economic Security (DES) spokesperson Steve Meissner. “Failure to produce documents is not admission that you’re in the country illegally.”.

DES administers several of the benefits impacted including food stamps and health care insurance. While Meissner said the new law doesn’t change much, applicants will now have to sign a sworn statement that the documents they provide are true..

If applicants say that they are in the country illegally or provide evidence to that effect, state employee will have to file a report with the Office of Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE)..

Other agencies like the Arizona Department of Administration have asked for a legal opinion on the matter from the Attorney General’s office. .

The new law, however, does not affect access to emergency health care, police or firefighters. .

Carlos Galindo, host of a Spanish radio show on Radio KASA, is using his talk show to provide accurate information about the new requirements. .

“We’re going to educate people, because they need to know they have rights,” said Galindo. He is trying to send a clear message that U.S. children are entitled to benefits regardless of the status of their parents; and people can still apply for their U.S. children without having to reveal anything about their own immigration status..

Magdalena Schwartz, a pastor at the Disciples of the Kingdom Free United Methodist church, says she has been receiving non-stop calls from immigrant families who are afraid to take their children to doctor’s appointments. She worries that the policy will have the greatest impact on American children, whose parents are afraid to apply for basic things like health care insurance, food stamps or even immunizations for fear of being reported to ICE..

“We are trying to help people by giving them the right information so their children are safe,” said Schwartz. .

Among them is Jazmin, a 24-year-old undocumented woman who is afraid of taking her one-year-old to the doctor. Jazmin, a victim of domestic violence, is also trying to apply for a special visa to adjust her status but feels trapped..

“This benefits are not for me, they are for my children,” said Jazmin, who was able to get help from a local church..

Meanwhile, supporters of the new law are skeptical of claims that it is creating unnecessary fear among immigrants..

“I don’t believe that rhetoric. That’s what they always said,” says Valerie Roller, a member of Riders U.S.A., a local organization that opposes the legalization of undocumented immigrants. “But the emergency rooms empty for a while and they’re filled again,” said Roller, who does not believe the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants should be entitled to citizenship..

Supporters of the bill argue it follows the will of Arizona voters who in 2004 approved Proposition 200, aimed at denying public benefits to undocumented immigrants. The impact of that initiative was limited to five programs by an Attorney General’s decision..

“Nothing changed, this is what the voters wanted,” Republican Rep. Steve Montenegro said. “We’re going through difficult economic moments in Arizona. We’re having to cut from so many different areas. It’s only correct to make sure that people that apply and receive benefits are qualified to do so,” he said..

Montenegro says he has looked into concerns that the new law may affect the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens..

“It is not aimed to affect the parent if they are applying for the child, unless the parent is aiming to receive the benefit,” said the representative who voted in favor of the law.

Are we looking at foreclosure stoppage and what does this mean to millions of Americans?

What is happening, and how will it effect your home mortgage?

If you are afraid of what is happening in all of these legal issues regarding foreclosure

Now this is interesting, and very informative, want to have a look into some serious information, then this is it,
This is an EXACT reproduction of a book published before 1923. This IS NOT an OCR’d book with strange characters, introduced typographical errors, and jumbled words. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring … More >>

Legal opinions of the Honorable Joseph M. White ..

Sad, stuff here, but most people do not care, they go on living their lives, because it did not happen to them, but if you were in the shoes of these poor folks, you might think differently about the situation.

An example must be made of these hicks that think they can flaunt the law of the United States of America, they must be made, to pay the price for the actions they took else they should forfeit, all federal and state monies, they have received in the past year.

Regardless of how you feel about this, the truth is this, If a reasonable man or woman, would have put this fire out.

Then that fire department had the duty to do just that, It does not matter what emotional feelings come into play.

That is the one true factor here, if it is reasonable to put out a fire if one has that ability and they did, then they failed to perform that duty and in that case they are responsible for the loss and the grief and the emotional stress.
This is Archaic, it should be given the same duty as one would give a dead dog in the ditch, it needs to be buried.

Will Criminal charges be filed?

Should Civil Lawsuits be filed?

Will the Attorney General from the State of Tennessee do the right thing and investigate this incident?

A fire department allegedly refused to help put out a fire that eventually burned down an entire home.

People are disturbed today hearing about this story, and they should be it was reported that this family called 911 4 times, asking for help, with a fire that started in the back yard of their home.

It could have been stopped easily, yet, the fire department refused to attack the fire.

The refused to do anything but watch it burn down the family home of one of their neighbors.

The family owed the city a $75.00 fee for fire fighting, you know what this is evil and someone should put an end to this kind of stuff before someone really gets hurt or the state has to file a murder charge.

Is this America? or are we in some other place because, I was raised better than to just watch a fire burn down a neighbors home, you know this is one of the most disturbing stories I have heard in a long time.

Why is this alleged, city so cruel in its decision to let this families home burn down?

As some have reported, the city has allegedly received, federal funds from the government and state to help fight fires,

Yet they failed to act in the public’s best interest, is it time for the AG for the state of Tennessee to step in.

This is just amazing, I hope someone files a lawsuit because this is just not the American way of living life.

You know it is a shame on the people of Tennessee that this was allowed to happen.

This practice should be criminal, any decent fire man would have attacked this fire because it is the enemy of any man or woman who calls themselves a fire fighter, otherwise they are nothing, they are less than men if they do this thing.

Fire, in Tennessee, well perhaps you have heard the news about the family that failed to pay a $75.00 fee for fire services, of a city in OBION COUNTY, Tenn, over a two hour period of time, this family offered to pay the $75.00 fee plus any fine that they had to pay up to several hundred dollars so they could obtain fire services.

This did not have to happen, but the city choose to do it, they choose to make it happen, they could have put the fire out at any time, but they did not, that is willful, it is not the same as failing to pay a fee as some low life people have suggested that they got what they deserved for not paying.

That is just crazy and mean.

It fell on Deaf ears, Amazing, folks, I sure hope that someone would do the right thing here and what ever serves for an Attorney General could bring charges against the Mayor, the city council, the fire fighters, for failing to do what they could have done to save this families, home.

They could have done the right thing here but they failed.

So what up in Tennessee, is that why their football team is just not getting the job done, they show up but not to play football?

You know its easier to tell a joke, than to cry, but in this case, that mayor, needs to go, and anyone else that made that decision to watch a home burn down, it is sad when we as a nation have come to such a low end.

Is this what Tennessee is all about, the Volunteer state? Really…

Now I just wonder how many people would want to live in or near this town in Tennessee?

I know I wont and I can tell you what else, I wont live in an area that does not act to help and protect its neighbors, because the next time this fire department has a fund raising how much money do you think they will raise, not much, simply because they are alleged, cowards and are not worthy to be called a fire fighter.

Author: Mark Ross

UK attorney and Director of Business Development at LawScribe, Inc.
www.law-scribe.com
mross@law-scribe.com

I read with interest the recent San Diego Bar Association Opinion on outsourcing and offshoring. Although it hasn’t attracted quite the press attention, or comment within the various legal offshoring and outsourcing blogs as did the 2006 New York State Bar Opinion, it clearly reinforces the same conclusion reached in the New York Opinion: outsourcing legal services is permitted if certain safeguards are ensured.

I have no intention of simply re-hashing the full text of the Opinion here in my blog – but refer you to the following link http://www.sdcba.org/ethics/ethicsopinion07-1.htm for the Opinion in all its glory.

The Opinion considered a hypothetical case where a California attorney was instructed to defend an intellectual property dispute. The attorney had limited experience in intellectual property litigation and contracted with an offshore legal services company in India to provide legal research, correspondence, and other services in connection with the case. The fees charged by the legal offshore service company were significantly lower than American lawyers would have charged for the same work. None of the Indian attorneys were licensed to practice in any US jurisdiction. The California attorney reviewed the work he received from the offshore company, signed all court submissions, and performed all communications with opposing counsel.

The question was raised: “Does an attorney assist in the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-300, when he or she uses the services of an outsourcing firm to perform research and drafting services on behalf of a client?”

The Opinion then goes on to provide an overkill of analysis as to whether the work performed by the offshore legal service provider came within the definition of “the unauthorized practice of law”. I see no reason to delve into this any further other than to say that the unanimous conclusion was, “NO, the service provided by the offshore provider did not fall within the ‘practice of law’ as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct”. If the offshore company had been providing legal services directly to the client then it would have been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; but this was not the issue presented by this particular example. Here, the California attorney consistently exercised his own professional judgment and never allowed the work-product to reach the client without passing through his own review.

It is clear from the New York and San Diego Opinions that an attorney does not aid in the unauthorized practice of law if he retains both supervisory control and full responsibility for tasks that constitute the “practice of law”.

From a practical point of view, a much more valid issue for debate is whether an attorney is ethically obligated to inform his or her client of an arrangement with an outsourcing company. The Opinion indicates that the duty to inform the client is determined by the client’s reasonable expectation as to who will perform those services.

If the work to be performed by the outside service is within the client’s “reasonable expectation under the circumstances” that it will be performed by the attorney, the client must be informed when the service is “outsourced”. Conversely, if the work is not such that it is within the client’s reasonable expectation that it will be performed by the attorney, the attorney is not necessarily required to inform the client of the arrangement.

Unfortunately this seems to be an overly simplistic and static view of the attorney/client relationship and the ever changing world of legal support services. I concur that the drafting of motions and pleadings on a particular case comes within the current definition of what a client would have “reasonable expectations” would be performed by their instructed attorney. However, in the technologically advanced world we now live in, I doubt that most clients would be surprised to learn that their transcription, document coding, and other litigation support services were being outsourced. If this is true, then surely “reasonable expectation” that the work should be performed by the attorney becomes a moot point.

Also, the Opinion only really considers the here and the now. A client’s “reasonable expectations” are not static, immovable, and unchanging over time. The legal industry now operates in a global marketplace and clients are evermore sophisticated and accepting of the concept of globalization. A client’s reasonable expectations today will be vastly different tomorrow. Within a very short period of time I believe that this argument will become redundant. Soon, a client’s only “reasonable expectation” will be that the quality and confidentiality of the work-product is maintained by whoever completes it, wherever he or she may be. In fact, I would go as far to say that we are not far from the day when a client’s reasonable expectations will be that work-product should be outsourced to the most efficient and cost-effective provider!

The Opinion went on to consider, from a practical standpoint, the checks and balances that an attorney should bring into play before contracting with an offshore legal service provider. These points make for some informative reading, although they are of course really only basic common sense.

The general duty of competence requires attorneys to evaluate the quality and reliability of the company providing offshore/outsourced legal services. The extent of that evaluation depends on the facts of each case. This is where the Opinion provides a practical insight into what attorneys should be looking at before blindly offshoring their legal work. The following is a non-exhaustive checklist you should follow to ensure compliance with the duty of competence.

(a) Due diligence: Investigate pertinent background information about the offshore legal service provider company;

(b) Be aware of the qualifications of the individuals who will perform the work;

(c) Obtain references of the company or individuals assigned to perform the work;

(d) Always interview the company in advance;

(e) Request a sample of the work product that is comparable to your project;

(f) Communicate with the non-lawyer during the assignment to ensure that the non-lawyer understands the assignment and is executing it to your expectations;

(g) Review ethical standards with the individuals who will perform the work and incorporate the ethical standards into the terms of the contract with the company.

An additional duty of an attorney who outsources work is to “maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself, to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.” See Business & Professions Code section 6068(e). This is especially important as the legal and ethical standards applicable to foreign lawyers may differ from those applicable to domestic lawyers, particularly with respect to client confidentiality, the attorney-client privilege, and conflicts of interests.

The Opinion comments on one unfortunate example of a breach of confidentiality involving an outsourced project subcontracted to India. There, the subcontractor threatened to post confidential patient records on the Internet unless the UC San Francisco Medical Center retrieved money owed to the subcontractor from a middleman. (David Lazarus, Looking Offshore: Outsourced UCSF notes highlight privacy risk. How one offshore worker sent tremor through medical system, S.F. Chron., March 28, 2004.)

Attorneys need to carry out their own research into the confidentiality and security safeguards that the legal services offshoring company they are contemplating contracting with, has in place. See here for details on how LawScribe deals with these crucial concerns.

The Opinion concludes that although permitted outsourcing in no way dilutes the attorney’s professional responsibilities to his or her client. California attorneys may satisfy their obligations to their clients in contracting with offshore legal service providers, but only if they have sufficient knowledge to supervise the outsourced work properly. It is crucial that they also make sure outsourcing does not compromise their other duties to their clients.

The legal outsourcing phenomenon shows no signs of slowing down and I’m sure we can expect to receive more of the same from other State Bar Associations over the coming months.