Author: JGL Law

On August 7, 2017, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, handed down a decision that will open a new avenue of defense to battered spouses in the state – in the extreme case where the spouse hires a hit man to kill the abuser.

The case centered on Karla Louise Porter, who was repeatedly verbally and physically abused by her husband Ray during their 24-year marriage. In 2010, Karla paid someone $400 to kill her husband. She was found guilty of first-degree murder and solicitation to commit murder. At her trial, she asked the court to give a jury instruction that she was entitled to claim “imperfect self-defense,” which would permit the jury to find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. The trial court declined to give the self-defense instruction that she requested.

Although the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the state’s intermediate court, rejected Karla Porter’s claim, the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor in a case that breaks new ground in Maryland law. Maryland courts had previously recognized the existence of the “battered spouse syndrome” and had permitted spouses to claim “imperfect self-defense” if they killed the other spouse when they perceived an imminent or immediate threat, whether or not that fear was an objectively reasonable one.

In this case, the appeals court accepted that principle, saying, “We decline to hold that a woman suffering from battered spouse syndrome must experience abuse within minutes or hours of her defensive action to be entitled to an instruction on imperfect self-defense. Doing so would ignore the reality of intimate partner violence.”

The court went further, though, ruling in its 4-3 opinion that this defense is available to a woman who doesn’t kill her partner with her own hands but hires a killer to do so. 

“The means by which a woman takes defensive action against her abuser does not affect whether she actually believed she was in imminent danger at the time of the killing,” the court wrote. 

The court noted that the ruling didn’t mean that a woman in Karla Porter’s situation would go free, only that she could be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

“A woman who acts in imperfect self-defense is certainly not allowed to kill her abusive husband,” the court wrote. “The doctrine of imperfect self-defense permits her to make her case to the jury that she only committed manslaughter—not that she deserves acquittal.”

The decision immediately garnered approval from advocates of battered women and women’s rights advocates in the state.

It will not apply to the vast majority of domestic-violence situations in Maryland. It is not common for an abused spouse to hire a hit man to kill the abuser. But it is an excellent and well-reasoned ruling because it takes into account the reality of what life can be like, on a day-to-day basis, for an abused spouse, and how the spouse can feel that he or she has no options available.

Parenthetically, the four judges in the majority were all of the female judges on the court, while the three in the minority were the male judges. Coincidence?

The court’s ruling can be found here. 

 

The session, titled “What is ‘qui tam’? What every attorney needs to know about the False Claims Act and whistleblower cases,” was held on Thursday, Sept. 14. 

His session taught potential relator counsel, as well as in-house counsel, the basics of the False Claims Act and federal whistleblower statutes for the average federal litigator. It included information on how to identify a potential qui tam case, how to identify the five “Basics” of FCA cases and how to develop an understanding of where the potential traps in FCA litigation are. 

With over 17,000 members and over 90 chapters nationwide, the Federal Bar Association is dedicated to promoting the welfare, interests, education and professional development of attorneys involved in federal law. Its members range from small to large firms, corporations and federal agencies. The FBA serves as the communication point between the bar and the bench, as well as the private and public sectors. 

Jay Holland is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group, and the chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results. Jay has been lead counsel in several cases that have received national media attention, and has achieved extraordinary success in several high-profile qui tam cases under the False Claims Act that have resulted in settlements of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

 

The story surrounds a False Claims Act decision that came down in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The decision shot down Medicare and Medicaid fraud charges brought against Pediatric Services of America. The judge ruled the whistleblower’s evidence did not pass the materiality requirement of the FCA. Brian commented on how the decision could be troubling for whistleblowers in the future. 

Brian is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group who represents employees who have been wrongfully terminated, suffered discrimination at work, or who have been retaliated against for reporting fraud or misconduct. He has distinguished himself as one of the nation’s leading practitioners representing whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. 
Click below for the full article. 

The article is titled “3 Questions Facing Employers As DACA Dissolves.” Markovitz expressed doubt that congress will do anything to save DACA. 

DACA impacts approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants, shielding them from deportation and giving them the ability to legally work and attend school. The program was created in 2012, during the Obama administration, for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States while they were still children. 

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that they will move to rescind the program, and gave Congress six months to find a legislative solution to protect those affected by the decision. Until then, the administration will continue to renew DACA permits that are nearing their expiry date. 

Brian is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group who represents employees who have been wrongfully terminated, suffered discrimination at work, or who have been retaliated against for reporting fraud or misconduct. He has distinguished himself as one of the nation’s leading practitioners representing whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. Click below for the full article. 

 

Early this summer, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill (H.R. 1215 the deceptively titled “Protecting Access to Care Act”) that would limit the “non-economic” money damages available to patients in medical malpractice cases nationwide to $250,000. This bill is a “solution” to something that is not a problem and would be harmful to tens of thousands of people who suffer serious injuries every year from mistakes by doctors, hospitals, pharmacists and other health-care providers.

Among other things, the bill would limit noneconomic awards (such as damages for pain and suffering) for medical malpractice to $250,000. That means that people who suffer embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress for the rest of their lives because of a medical error will never be able to receive appropriate compensation for their suffering. As an example, a patient who is horribly disfigured by a medical mistake would be limited to an award of $250,000 because the injury did not “cost” anything.

Interestingly, support and opposition to the bill did not fall along the usual ideological lines. Democrats typically oppose caps on malpractice awards precisely because they are harmful to consumers, and Republicans usually support these caps. Here, however, 19 conservative Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill in the House because they felt it was an improper intrusion of the federal government into tort law, which is a state matter. 

The bill, which is supported by the Trump administration, passed the House by the slim margin of 218 to 210.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, who is certainly considered a conservative, sent a letter earlier this year to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), saying that the bill was a “sweeping effort to federalize tort law with our system of federalism, which reserves that province solely to the states.”

My concerns are somewhat different, but it is good that the bill has found opposition of more than one type. 

As I wrote earlier this year on this topic, 

The nation is not in the midst of a medical malpractice crisis. Far from it, the system is working quite well. Doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance now than they did in 2001, even after adjusting for inflation. Even without any of these draconian reforms the rate of claims has dropped by half since 2003. . . . 

In fact, unlike most malpractice damage cap provisions that have been passed by state legislatures, this bill puts a ceiling on awards to people who have suffered injury from unsafe drugs. As Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice & Democracy at the New York University Law School, wrote in Huffington Post, the bill is “one huge, deceptive gift to the pharmaceutical industry.”

The bill’s prospects in the U.S. Senate are not clear. This month, the Senate will be tackling the national debt ceiling, Hurricane Harvey relief, possibly a comprehensive tax reform package, and other major issues. Regardless of the legislative schedule, this is a pernicious bill that needs to be defeated.

Managing director Burt Kahn was recently interviewed by Herb Cohen from Executive Leaders Radio. The Federal News Radio broadcasts the weekly show featuring professionals from a variety of fields, as they discuss their personal and professional growth.

Kahn delves into his past, and reveals how his experiences have shaped him to be a trial lawyer and managing director of Joseph Greenwald & Laake.

For a full audio recording of Burt’s interview, click below. 

 

 

Principal Veronica Nannis recently sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss freedom of speech in the private sector. Following the recent dismissal of Google employee, James Damore, who released a statement criticizing Google’s diversity initiatives, Nannis attempted to clear up some of the confusion surrounding free speech in the workplace.

The statement in question cited biological differences such as, “neuroticism” as one of the reasons why there are so few women in the technology sector. Google terminated Damore a few short days later, after the media had shed its critical light on the company.

As a member of JGL’s civil litigation department, Nannis has over 10 years of experience in qui tam, or whistleblower, law and litigation. In the article she discusses topics such as employee rights in at-will states, the limits of censorship and anti-retaliation law.

To read the article in full, click the image below.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake senior counsel Matthew Focht presentd a webinar on Expert Witness Discovery in Personal Injury Litigation on Aug. 23. The seminar, hosted by Strafford Publications, covered various topics that center on establishing or challenging admissibility of expert evidence, including: tactics for expert designation, cross-examination, deposition and Daubert/Frye challenges of liability and damages experts. 

Matthew co-presented the webinar with David H. Fleisher, P.E., from Fleisher Forensics in Ambler, Pennsylvania, and Glenn M. Cambell, Esq., from William J. Ferren & Associates in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. 

Matthew is a trial lawyer in JGL’s Personal Injury practice group who helps individuals who have been seriously injured in avoidable accidents recover compensation throughout Maryland and the DC area. He has gained a strong reputation among clients and other lawyers alike for his surgeon-like approach to resolving personal injury disputes, and for his tireless work ethic and commitment to his clients during times of extreme crisis. 

Strafford is a leading continuing education provider that offers nearly 500 live webinars and teleconference per year. They offer high quality and efficient Continuing Education programs for lawyers throughout the United States. For more information on Matt’s webinar click below. 

 

 

His article, published online Aug. 21, advises family lawyers on factors to take into consideration when clients are considering divorce later in life. 

Steering away from simply the business of the matter, Greenblatt uses his article to delve into the emotional side effects of gray divorce, too. In the article, he recognizes that while divorce at any age is difficult, divorce over 50 comes with many more issues, especially when a couple has spent years growing a nest egg as a married couple. Greenblatt provides descriptions of issues including tax liability, retirement savings, alimony and social security, in order to give family lawyers a good idea of what to expect in these types of cases. 

Jeffrey Greenblatt has over 43 years of experience representing individuals in complex, emotionally-charged family law matters in Maryland. He has a strong emphasis in areas such as divorce, alimony, child custody and protective orders, and is a compassionate advocate for each one of his clients. 

Family Lawyer Magazine is an online portal that helps United States and Canada family lawyers excel in their practices. Contributing lawyers to the magazine’s publication share their best practices, allowing others to learn and grow their own personal and professional lives.

You can find the article here: 

The article details his work on a case involving a former Prince George’s County school aide who pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation and child pornography charges stemming from sexual misconduct at Judge Sylvania W. Woods Elementary School in Glenarden, Maryland. 

23-year-old Deonte Carraway has been sentenced to 75 years in prison by a federal judge, and faces 270 counts of sex abuse and other related charged in Prince George’s County Circuit Court. At least nine civil suits and one class-action lawsuit are pending, led by families of the affected children against Carraway, Prince George’s County Public School system and the city of Glenarden.

Maloney, who represents several of the families suing, said that the issued sentence was appropriately strong. 

“Deonte Carraway will spend the rest of his life in federal prison,” Maloney said in the article. “But of course no sentence can ever make up for the harm to these children and their families.” 

Maloney is offering free and confidential case evaluations for affected children and their families, using an online form: https://www.jgllaw.com/judge-sylvania-woods-elementary-school-victims-rights1

Click below for the full article

A federal district court in Cincinnati granted what is believed to be the first certification of a class action in a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act case ever in the Sixth Circuit. In that court,  a team of JGL litigation attorneys and their co-counsel are advocating on behalf of borrowers whose mortgage loans are alleged to have  been negatively affected by a series of improper kickbacks. The kickbacks in question are claimed to have violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and were allegedly conducted by lenders and title companies including Genuine Title and Emery Federal Credit Union.  While this appears to be the first time a court in the Sixth Circuit has granted certification of a RESPA class action, the team did previously secure class certification of a related case in the Fourth Circuit last November. 

In the 30-page opinion, the court deemed Emery’s arguments as “not persuasive” and sided with the plaintiffs at this stage of the litigation, allowing the case to move forward towards trial. The team representing the plaintiffs in this class action includes  Timothy Maloney, Veronica Nannis and Megan Benevento of JGL as well as Michael Paul Smith and Sarah Zadrozny of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, assisted by local counsel from Cincinnati Gregory Utter.

To read the full opinion click here

 

In today’s social media age, the line between one’s professional and personal life is easily blurred. Stories of public employees getting fired for posting their radical opinions online are not unheard of. In an article for the Maryland Bar Journal (MBJ), Joseph M. Creed tackles this complex issue.

Creed covers topics such as, public employees’ rights regarding free speech, versus the State’s power as an employer. As one of our Labor & Employment attorneys, Creed is able to apply his unique knowledge to the topic, offering both advice and information.