“The Avalon Project will mount digital documents relevant to the fields of Law, History, Economics, Politics, Diplomacy and Government. We do not intend to mount only static text but rather to add value to the text by linking to supporting documents expressly referred to in the body of the text.”

There are digitalized documents available for FREE from the pre- 18th to the 21st century including, charters, treaties, summit documents, trade agreements, executive orders, legislation – you name it and you’ll find it. The full 9/11 commission report in pdf is there too. It’s a remarkable archive with amazing linkage within the text. The oldest document I checked out (now there’s a precedent!) was from 123 B.C.!

The New York Times reports today that “…the Justice Department has begun urging the federal courts to make fundamental changes in public access to electronic court files by removing all plea agreements from them — whether involving cooperating witnesses or not.

“We are witnessing the rise of a new cottage industry engaged in republishing court filings about cooperators on Web sites such as www.whosarat.com for the clear purpose of witness intimidation, retaliation and harassment,” a Justice Department official wrote in a December letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative and policy-making body of the federal court system.”

Could we please solve this problem in a manner that does not trample the civil rights of the entire citizenry by denying access to public record? And by the way, we really wish the Justice Department was as interested in protecting the privacy of the rest of us.

from Lawyers & Other Reptiles by Jess M. Brallier

“Imagine, before sitting down with your client to advise her about her legal options, having to consult the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Web site to determine whether someone else already owns the patent to the course of action you want to suggest.

If that’s the case, you’ll have to pay the patent holder so your client can take your advice. But the patent holder also might refuse to sell you the license, limiting your client’s legal options. Then what? Welcome to Dennis Belcher’s world.

In 2004, Belcher—a trust and estate attorney in Richmond, Va., with three decades of experience—learned that patents had been issued on certain estate planning strategies for minimizing taxes. At first, he says, “I thought it was absurd that someone could patent an estate planning strategy.” But now, “I realize how dangerous this matter is, and I follow the topic for professional protection and to keep my clients out of a patent lawsuit.”

For good reason. Since issuing its first patent for a tax strategy in 2003, the Patent and Trademark Office has issued at least 52 patents covering specific tax strategies. Another 84 published applications for tax strategy patents are pending.”

To read this article in its entirety from the ABA Journal, click here….

Spending time on these issues during an initial consultation and during regular follow up thereafter, promotes a sense of partnership for the road ahead. The better your fundamental work here, the easier it will be to create movement in the case through client cooperation, and the happier your client will be even if the inevitable outcome is not in their favor.

The first thing a client needs during an initial consultation once rapport and confidence have been established, is fee sensitizing, as we like to call it. Litigation is expensive in a way that many clients cannot seem to fathom. It makes no sense to them that a 25K rip off will likely cost them the same amount of money to recover, and is simply not worth it. There is little understanding that 50K is a starting point for serious work, so that often even an exaggeration on the costs is a better approach than talking minimal numbers. If this realistic communication about fees is not adequately established, there’s really no point in taking this client on. You’ll only end up spending valuable billable time sorting it out later, or lose the client in the long term, neither of which helps to grow a practice.

The film industry helped fund a crackdown on pirated movies. Shopping malls paid for extra traffic control, security and a tracking system able to recover cars stolen from their parking lots.

And next week, the City Council will consider accepting $50,000 from Philip Morris USA to aid an investigation into the sale and counterfeiting of the company’s cigarettes.

Supporters of the practice say it helps a cash-strapped department fight crime. But some skeptics are concerned about the appearance of pay-to-play law enforcement in which the rich can afford to buy better protection than the poor.” Read the full story in the LA Times here…

The NYC Police Department has its own Police Foundation through which all such donations are channeled, totalling some 5.5 million through the fiscal year ending July 2005. And the latest available list of Major Donors makes for interesting reading, such as the Four Star (big bucks) status designation of the Permanent Mission of the State of Qatar to the UN, for example. And nearly every bank in the city is represented plus a good share of the fashion industry. The NYC Police Dept has a division devoted exclusively to fashion trademark infringement too, interestingly enough. But unlike LA, NYC does not as a matter of policy solicit donations from corporations for contemplated enforcement projects in specific industries, which is part of the LA worry.

But he’s pushing for more — twice as much — because Motorola violated a court order in defending the suit. And today a Fort Lauderdale judge will decide whether he gets his wish. “

Gary petitioned Circuit Judge Leroy Moe to approve the fees that will total some 24.3 million dollars. To read the Bloomberg story in full, click here. We’ll keep you posted on this one!  And the next time a client complains about the bill, we can say, “Just be glad you didn’t hire Willie Gary.”

“As a career prosecutor specializing in complex health care enforcement and recovery matters, Mr. Sheehan has experience rooting out fraud that dramatically drives up costs and severely threatens the efficiency and delivery of health care services,” said Governor Spitzer.

While serving in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Philadelphia office, Mr. Sheehan personally handled over 500 health care fraud matters, including the Medco Health Solutions case, which resulted in a $155 million recovery, and the SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs case, which resulted in a $332 million recovery.

Welcome to New York, Mr. Sheehan.