L.A. LAW - ALL THINGS LEGAL
Welcome to Los Angeles Law Blog. This blog is aimed at commentary on all things legal, with an emphasis on Los Angeles legal events, legal news, personalities in the law, trial lawyers, interesting court rulings, important verdicts, and the like. If it touches upon the law, then it is fair game for this blog. Even if it is an international or national story, then it probably has an impact upon the Southern California legal community as well, and is worth commenting upon.
I'm a lawyer, so you'll be getting a lawyer's perspective and opinions on these issues. I won't kill you with legalese, I promise.
I'm looking forward to seeing where this blog takes us. Let the journey begin.
Polanski Getting Desperate
Posted by: David Ring
May 11, 2010
Topic: Roman Polanski
Roman Polanski's attempts to have the Los Angeles courts sentence him in absentia are not succeeding. Polanski sought a ruling from the California Court of Appeal that would force the trial judge to sentence him without having to appear in Los Angeles. The Court of Appeal refused his request. Polanski's next two moves appeared a bit desperate.
First, Polanski went public. He issued a statement on a website claiming he was being unfairly singled out by L.A. prosecutors and courts. He said all they wanted was to serve him up to the media. Polanski's comments had little or no effect here. Maybe the comments were intended for the media in Europe, and particularly the Swiss authorities who continue to hold him under house arrest pending extradition. But they didn't help his cause much in California.
Next, Polanski sought to make public the recent testimony provided by the prosecutor who handled the rape case against Polanski. The prosecutor's testimony was taken because it might be needed in future proceedings and rumor has it he could be unavailable in the future to testify. Polanski asked the court to make that testimony available to the public (in other words, the media). The court refused to do so.
Polanski is running out of options.
Polanski One Step Closer to L.A.?
Posted by: David Ring
April 26, 2010
Topic: Roman Polanski
California's Court of Appeal rejected Roman Polanski's bid to force a trial judge to sentence Polanski in absentia. Polanski had filed an emergency appeal to the appellate court seeking a ruling that would allow Polanski to stay in Switzerland and, at the same time, order the trial judge in California to proceed with a decision on sentencing.
Polanski now remains in limbo. He is under house arrest in Switzerland and cannot leave that country. He now has to wait and see if Swiss authorities will, in fact, extradite him to the U.S. That could involve months more of legal wrangling. Or, Polanski could voluntarily return on his own and face the music. But, he has resisted taking that approach for fear he could be tossed in a California prison to serve more time after he fled California in the midst of his criminal case in the late 1970s.
Polanski now will probably work the Swiss legal system with the hope of getting the Swiss to decide against extradition. Polanski would then be free to return to France, but could not return to the U.S. Of course, he has not stepped foot on U.S. soil since his flight over 30 years ago.
L.A.'s "dopest" lawyer - Allison Margolin
Posted by: David Ring
April 19, 2010
Topic: California Lawyers In The News
There is a great article in the April 2010 issue of California Lawyer magazine about lawyer Allison Margolin, who is known (perhaps self-proclaimed) as "L.A.'s dopest lawyer" because of her criminal defense of pot smokers and her expertise in California's medical marijuana laws. (See the link below.) Allison is the real-deal: she's a graduate of Harvard Law and the daughter of a well-known criminal defense lawyer, Bruce Margolin, who also had great success representing those who enjoyed getting high.
Let's face it: in L.A., marijuana has essentially become legal. Just go to a medical marijuana office and you'll likely be able to obtain a doctor's prescription and some pot within minutes. But, the laws are still fuzzy and inconsistently enforced. Allison represents those who the police believe to be suppliers (which may or may not be illegal - that's why they hire Allison!) or those just unlucky enough to get arrested for having a small amount of pot on them.
The article demonstrates Allison's advocacy for her clients and also discusses the confusing laws that L.A. County and all of California face in deciding whether or not to aggressively pursue criminal cases against medical marijuana facilities and those who run them.
California Lawyer link:
Tough Times for Sex Harassment Lawyer Philip Kay
Posted by: David Ring
March 31, 2010
Topic: California Lawyers In The News
Philip Kay became a well-known lawyer throughout California in the mid-1990s when he represented a legal secretary at the mammoth law firm Baker & McKenzie who claimed she was sexually harassed by partners at the firm. Kay won the trial and a multi-million dollar judgment against the law firm. If memory serves me right, I believe one allegation included a partner dropping M&M's down the secretary's blouse.
Kay then became a powerhouse in the field of sexual harassment and discrimination. He continued his success over the years, but apparently overstepped some boundaries in recent years with allegations of outrageous conduct in the courtroom that irked some trial judges and got him in serious trouble with the State Bar. The State Bar brought charges against Kay and Kay ended up losing the case because he refused to answer certain questions on the witness stand which allowed the State Bar to enter a default against him.
Kay is facing a 3-year suspension from practicing law. That would be the death knell of most small plaintiff firms. It's not easy to disappear for 3 years, then come back and attract clients and new cases. And Kay is not going down without a fight. He just filed a massive lawsuit against the State Bar alleging all sorts of irregularities and constitutional violations in the proceedings.
But Kay's lawsuit against the State Bar is a legal longshot. He might stir the pot in the short term, but ultimately the discipline charges are not going away, and his lawsuit probably won't change that fact.
Polanski Files Another Emergency Appeal
Posted by: David Ring
March 31, 2010
Topic: Roman Polanski
Roman Polanski's lawyers filed another emergency appeal in Los Angeles recently, again seeking to somehow bring the case to an end without having the film director come to Los Angeles and appear in court.
The latest wrinkle in the case is that the secret testimony of Roger Gunson, the district attorney who handled the Polanski case back in the 1970s, was recently taken and apparently revealed new details which could further support Polanski's claim of prosecutorial misconduct by other district attorneys back when Polanski's case was pending in the late 1970s.
Ultimately, it appears Polanski's real strategy is to somehow get the case back in front of the Los Angeles Court of Appeal because months ago that same court issued a favorable ruling for Polanski and also urged the trial court to resolve the case quickly. Since then, the trial court said it would only resolve the case quickly if Polanski returned to L.A. and appeared in court for a final sentencing. The stakes are too high for Polanski to do that -- he might get sentenced to prison in California. So, the proceedings have dragged on.
Polanski continues to be under house arrest in Switzerland. He would rather be there in his Swiss chalet wearing an ankle bracelet than risk coming to L.A. only to be sent to prison here.
Polanski's latest plea to the Court of Appeal here in L.A. appears to be an attempt to simply get in front of what Polanski thinks are appellate judges sympathetic to his cause and give those judges a chance to issue a ruling that basically says, "Enough already!" along with a mandate that ends the case once and for all.
Rodney Alcala Gets Death Sentence
Posted by: David Ring
March 10, 2010
Topic: L.A. Criminal Cases
Serial killer Rodney Alcala will get the death sentence for killing several women and girls in the 1970s. A jury took only one hour to hand down the sentence of death rather than life in prison for the 66 year old Alcala.
Alcala's crimes were notorious. Originally, many years ago, he was only charged with the murder of a young girl in Orange County. Alcala was convicted, appealed and obtained a new trial, and then was convicted a second time, appealed, and again obtained a new trial. This was the third trial, but this time Alcala was charged with the murders of several other women after DNA testing linked him to those unsolved murders as well.
Alcala represented himself in this final trial, which made for bizarre proceedings in court.
Deputy District Attorney Matt Murphy prosecuted Alcala this time around. I know Matt personally. He is an outstanding lawyer and was the perfect D.A. to take on Alcala in this case. Matt had to interact with Alcala for months on the case since Alcala was acting as his own lawyer. Not an easy task for any prosecutor in any case, much less in a case involving a rapist and serial killer of women and girls. Yet Matt handled it perfectly, professionally, and obtained the conviction and the death penalty.
In the past couple of years, Matt Murphy obtained convictions of all those involved in the horrific murders of Thomas and Jackie Hawks, who were literally thrown overboard from their yacht while out to sea by men who were posing as buyers of the yacht but who simply wanted to steal the yacht.
Big Time Lawyer Enters Dodgers Divorce Battle
Posted by: David Ring
March 10, 2010
Topic: High Profile Cases
David Boies is a big-time lawyer who represented Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential Election litigation and he also beat Microsoft in an anti-trust lawsuit. Boies is now entering the Dodgers divorce fray on behalf of Jamie McCourt. Boies isn't a divorce lawyer. He's more of a business litigator. His retention by Jamie McCourt signals that she's going all-out to extract either an ownership interest in the Dodgers from estranged husband Frank or at least a huge financial payday to back off the ownership demand.
Boies recently handled the trial on behalf of proponents of gay marriage in California in the Proposition 8 case that is near conclusion in San Francisco federal court. By all accounts, Boies did a masterful job at that trial.
Can this Dodger divorce get any nastier? You bet. The fun has only begun.
Closing Arguments Approach in Prop 8 Trial
Posted by: David Ring
March 02, 2010
Topic: Prop 8 Landmark Trial
Both sides in the battle over gay marriage recently filed their closing legal briefs with the federal court. The next step: closing arguments.
The federal judge presiding over the case will review the lengthy briefs and then schedule closing arguments. It will be a shame if those arguments are not televised or at least put up on YouTube after the fact.
To put the entire matter in context, this is how it all came about: The City of San Francisco made gay marriage legal. Many gays took advantage of the law and got married. Opponents sued, saying the SF law was illegal and unconstitutional. The case went to the California Supreme Court, who ruled the law was legal and upheld the rights of gays to marry. Opponents of gay marriage then put Prop 8 on the ballot and voters approved it. Prop 8 basically eliminated the Supreme Court's ruling and instead allowed "marriage" to exist only between a man and a woman, which became part of the California constitution. Those in favor of gay marriage filed this federal lawsuit, arguing that Prop 8 is discriminatory and was the result of animus against gays. At trial, the proponents of gay marriage showed that churches and the conservative right were major backers of Prop 8 because they morally disapproved of gays marrying. The proponents argued that Prop 8 is simply unconstitutional and the Supreme Court ruling allowing gays to marry should stand.
The opponents of gay marriage argued during the federal trial that the voters' will should be upheld and that there are legitimate reasons for banning gay marriage.
Those viewing the trial seemed to agree the lawyers in favor of gay marriage steam-rolled the lawyers against gay marriage at the trial. The federal judge deciding the case seems receptive to rule that gays can and should be allowed to marry.
Closing arguments could take place in April or May.
Remember Enron?
Posted by: David Ring
March 02, 2010
Topic: High Profile Cases
It seems like ages ago that Enron, one of the largest, most respected, and most profitable corporations in America, collapsed in 2001 amid a massive accounting scandal. It turned out that Enron had actually lost a fortune trading in complex derivative securities but hid those losses in even more complex, off-the-balance-sheet companies.
After a high-profile trial in Houston (where Enron's headquarters were located, and where many folks who worked at Enron lost their jobs and their life savings since all of their 401k and pension investments were in Enron stock), top executive Jeffrey Skilling was convicted of a variety of securities crimes and sentenced to 24 years in prison. Another top exectutive, Kenneth Lay, died from a massive heart attack after the trial and before he went to prison.
This week, Skilling's lawyers argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in their attempt to obtain a new trial or at least a reduced sentence for Skilling. The Supremes appeared receptive to some of the arguments, particularly those involving a very vague fraud statute that Skilling was found guilty of violating and also the fact the trial was held in Houston, rather than a more impartial venue.
On its face, Skilling's 24-year prison sentence seems excessive, especially with the passage of time and the subsequent meltdown of so many other major companies, financial institutions, banks, and real estate firms in the past few years for similar misdeeds. The Supremes are likely to cut him a break.
Nancy Kissel Murder Conviction Overturned
Posted by: David Ring
February 19, 2010
Topic: High Profile Cases
In what had to be the equivalent of a "hail mary" pass that was caught in the end zone for the winning score, convicted murderer Nancy Kissel convinced a Hong Kong appellate court to give her a new trial in the high profile case in which she was accused of killing her husband while they lived in Hong Kong with other wealthy American expatriates.
The case was the subject of a great book by Joe McGinniss a few years back. Nancy was portrayed as a materialistic, selfish wife who moved to Hong Kong with her husband, Robert Kissel, a successful investment banker. They lived the high-life in Hong Kong, along with other Americans who worked for U.S.-based financial institutions there. But Nancy soon started an affair with an average Joe when she went back to the U.S. to visit. She then plotted her husband's death in Hong Kong, eventually using a drug-laced milkshake to render him unconscious so she could then beat him over the head with a heavy object. She then rolled him up in a carpet and left him in her apartment, where he was soon discovered.
She was convicted in Hong Kong's trial court and sentenced to life in prison. She appealed - and recently won. The Hong Kong appellate court found errors with the introduction of certain evidence that was used against her at trial. What's this mean? It means another high-profile re-play of the murder trial again. And maybe Joe McGinniss will have to re-write the ending of the book at some point down the road.
