A plaintiff’s attorney in New York recently challenged a federal court’s authority to order him to pay a $10,000 fine as a sanction for misconduct under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a copyright infringement case. Southern District of New York Judge Denise Cote imposed the monetary sanction on attorney Richard L. pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules and the court’s inherent authority to manage its own affairs (Paul Steeger v. JMS Cleaning Services, LLC).

The alleged conduct for which Richard was sanctioned included failure to serve notice to the defense of a pretrial hearing as required by court order, which the judge accused Richard of having done on three other occasions in the southern district, and also failing to respond to the defendant’s settlement offer.

Shortly after the defendant complained of Richard’s conduct to the court, the parties reached a voluntary settlement in the case. As a result of the complaint, the judge issued Richard an order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.

At issue in Richard’s motion for consideration was what the court is allowed to do under its inherent power and under Rule 11, which requires that no monetary sanction or order may be imposed against a party or its counsel after the litigants have reached a voluntary settlement.

Judge Cote noted, however, that she received the defendant’s complaints about Richard’s misconduct and issued the order prior to the case’s formal dismissal or settlement. Instead, Richard had notified the court only that the parties had reached a settlement “in principle.” The case was not dismissed pursuant to the settlement until four weeks later.

The judge accused Richard of a pattern of omissions and misrepresentations in the case and failing to adhere to standards expected of officers of the court. Continue reading ›

DiTommaso Lubin’s predecessor firm litigated a case that is now before the Illinois Supreme Court on Respondent’s appeal of 750 ILCS § 5/513 (“Section 513”) being declared unconstitutional.

When an Illinois Statute is declared by a court to be unconstitutional it can be directly appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court and it does not have to go through to the Appellate Court first. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 302(a)(1).

The Respondent in the underlying case, where Section 513 was declared by the circuit court to be unconstitutional filed a direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide if Section 513 is unconstitutional.

DiTommaso Lubin was retained by our client in the circuit court case to defend him in the appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The circuit court’s ruling that Section 513 is unconstitutional was only applicable to the facts of the case. Our client’s fundamental right of raising his child and his decision to guide his daughter to a more appropriate college through the tightening of his pocket-book strings was obstructed by Section 513.

Section 513 creates two separate classes of persons, those married with children and those unmarried, widowed, or divorced with children. This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all United States citizens regardless of their classification by the government. Continue reading ›

There are some things that doctors can also not be immune to: conflict in the workplace.  There is a growing recognition that professional behaviors and manners should not only extend to the patient.  Rather, they should encompass doctor to doctor relationships, as well as others that work with them.

Having a safe and less conflict in a workplace promotes better professional life quality overall.  This is because conflict creates opportunities to have less understanding amongst peers and undermines communication skills.  Toxic workplace environments become stressful, negative, increase anxiety and give rise to professional burnout.  This, in turn, affects the level of professional care delivered to patients and increases factors for the delivery of medical care with greater liability when it comes to malpractice suits.  Better understandings lead to fewer misunderstandings.

Rather than fearing or avoiding conflict (as is often the case), it can be seen in some cases as a positive opportunity to better understand other points of view, to grow as an individual, and to improve communication and interactions within an organization.

Sources of conflict arise from expectations that were not set clearly, lack of resources, competition for goals, values or resources. For those reasons, identification of sources of conflict early on should be a goal of achieving a workplace culture that fosters respect and effective workplace engagement for all workers collectively.

Tips for managing conflict can include the setting the standards of expectation via an effective employee handbook.  It must also be in compliance with state and federal laws and is always best if run past an attorney prior to implementation.  Having an attorney to mediate disputes is always handy as well.

Avoiding conflict means issues fester and can place issues on a lower scale of measure.  Time gets delayed and suits can follow. Continue reading ›