RW TEX-LAW Feeds

Great collection of legal web feeds and RSS articles. All links go directly to the articles and publisher information is posted. RW TEX-LAW Attorneys at law - Your Cypress, Houston, Texas Lawyers

Charles A. Beckham Jr. elected president of the American College of Bankruptcy

Charles A. Beckham Jr., a partner in Haynes and Boone in Houston, has been elected president of the American College of Bankruptcy.

Beckham, who will serve a two-year term as president, will assume the role of principal operating officer of the college and will also lead and participate in numerous college programs and activities around the country. During more than 20 years of affiliation with the college, Beckham has held positions as a fellow, 5th Circuit regent, and chair of the college’s board of regents.

“We are excited for Charlie as he begins his tenure as the president of the American College of Bankruptcy,” said Frasher Murphy, a partner in Haynes and Boone, and chair of the firm’s restructuring practice group, in a press release. “Charlie’s career has been defined by excellent service and dedication to his clients, colleagues, and the bankruptcy bar at large.”

The American College of Bankruptcy is dedicated to the enhancement of professionalism, scholarship, and service in bankruptcy and insolvency law practice. The college conducts professional educational programs, sponsors the publication of scholarly reports, promotes pro bono efforts through the American College of Bankruptcy Foundation, and maintains the National Bankruptcy Archives, among other programs.

Beckham is a former chair of the State Bar of Texas Bankruptcy Law Section and a former president of the Texas Young Lawyers Association. He is a former member of the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors and its Executive Committee. Beckham serves on the Chancellor’s Council Executive Committee for the University of Texas System. In 2010, he was named the Distinguished Law Graduate of St. Mary’s University School of Law.

Original author: Will Korn
Continue reading
  39 Hits

Sponsored Content: 10 Legal Tech Trends For 2022 And Beyond…With Thought Leader Insights!

A recent survey by Wolters Kluwer revealed that law firms classified as technology leaders continue to outperform others. When used strategically, technology can expedite workflows, accelerate growth, increase the value of services delivered to clients, and free teams from mundane tasks and enable them to apply their expertise to more interesting, higher-value work. As a result, law firms and legal departments become more efficient, innovative, competitive, and profitable.

We know that change is inevitable, so what’s on the horizon in legal tech for 2022 and beyond? Our new whitepaper covers 10 legal tech trends and reveals how your own team can mobilize to benefit from them. Here’s a brief summary of the trends covered in the whitepaper.

Hyperautomation Will Drive Workflows

Law firms and in-house legal teams are increasingly concerned about how managing administrative tasks is impacting their ability to practice law and deliver on the demand to do more with less. A powerful tool for eliminating many routine tasks is hyperautomation.

Hyperautomation takes basic automation further, involving the use of multiple technologies to accelerate automation across the organization. Increasingly, teams are identifying repetitive, manual processes and applying automation to improve their workflows so they can spend more time on high-value work.

Interest in Platformization Will Grow

Platformization creates a secure single system of record with governed access that acts as an authoritative repository of information — a hub for all content, documents, emails, and other information that is managed by the firm, both internally and externally. Platformization isn’t new, but more organizations are realizing the efficiency gains they can achieve with it, so it is attracting increased attention. Platformization, as it applies to content management, refers to a single core technology platform serving as the backbone of the management system, with built-in tools for your end users’ major day-to-day workflows.

Organizations Will Require Cloud-Native Solutions

While many organizations will continue to use a hybrid-cloud system, those who want to position themselves ideally for the future are seeking cloud-native solutions. Cloud-native solutions take optimal advantage of the cloud’s elasticity and scalability and reduce dependency on infrastructure while providing work from anywhere capabilities. The cloud efficiently supports platformization and hyperautomation at scale and supplies the computing resources necessary for workflow automation and machine learning. In fact, many of the trends explored in this report rely heavily on the cloud.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Capabilities Will Improve

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have promised more than they have been able to deliver to date. But this is changing as use cases and technical capabilities evolve. Mature AI and ML are driving data analytics via predictive modeling, entity extraction, and natural language processing to spot anomalies, predict future outcomes, and identify potential solutions. AI is now routinely used to identify privileged documents in massive document volumes and provide analyses to inform litigation strategies. Organizations are also using AI and ML to automate and accelerate the workflows that are at the heart of their business processes — project management, communication, knowledge management, and collaboration.

Privacy Regulations Will Expand

Gartner predicts that by the end of 2023, modern privacy laws will cover the personal information of 75% of the world’s population. We expect that more state legislatures will enact privacy laws akin to The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Eventually, we’re likely to see a federal privacy law similar to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). But even without regulations around privacy, consumers will require their data privacy from the businesses with which they engage.

Secure Data Sharing Will Become Table Stakes

Thanks to privacy-preserving technologies, organizations can now effectively share encrypted data while maintaining compliance. This capability allows firms to securely share data both within their organization and with stakeholders, such as clients, expert witnesses, courts, etc. Secure data sharing will continue to gain importance as privacy regulations expand.

Cybersecurity Mesh and Other Approaches Will Help Address Remote Work Vulnerabilities

Today’s organizations are using a variety of technologies in both public and private clouds, and remote workers are expanding the traditional security perimeter. As a result, organizations need an ever-evolving security framework to account for the new world of remote work. Cybersecurity mesh is one approach. Other approaches include extending multifactor authentication to include internal accounts, document level encryption, and setting IP address restrictions.

Cybersecurity Teams Will Evolve into Cyber Resilience Teams

Beyond malicious attacks such as ransomware and malware, employees may inadvertently expose data to parties who shouldn’t have access to it. As data increasingly becomes central to an organization’s operations and competitive advantage, cybersecurity and the ability to recover from attacks becomes even more important. Law firms must be prepared to recover mission-critical operations after an attack. Today’s leaders must be able to anticipate future threats, withstand attacks, and recover from them, as well as adapt to whatever challenges lie ahead.

Accessibility Will Gain More Attention

People with disabilities make up 15% of the global population, yet a 2021 report by the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State revealed that 98.1% of website homepages had detectable Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) failures. This discrepancy represents an opportunity for leaders who are willing to be first movers in making their organizations more inclusive.

Technology Will Be Used to Improve Employee Satisfaction

Workers are leaving their jobs in record numbers. While there are complex reasons for this dramatic migration, what’s obvious is that many people aren’t happy with their existing employment. As a result, organizations are prioritizing employee satisfaction, with a primary factor being the option of flexible work. Technology will be harnessed to enable better user experiences and drive employee satisfaction.

Use Technology to Empower Your Team

Today’s technology has the potential to make law firms more competitive, profitable, and secure while also improving the satisfaction of their teams who are driven to apply their expertise in meaningful ways. As we watch these trends become more prevalent in 2022 and beyond, we look forward to the emergence of more effective organizations and happier, more efficient teams.

This overview just scratches the surface of what thought leaders are predicting. Get even more great information in our 10 Legal Tech Trends for 2022 and Beyond for Law Firms

Original author: Guest Blogger
Continue reading
  46 Hits

Statement on U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in State Bar of Texas case

State Bar of Texas President Sylvia Borunda Firth released the following statement April 4 on the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in the McDonald v. Firth case regarding the mandatory bar in Texas.

“We are pleased the Court continues to recognize the longstanding precedent that supports the mandatory bar structure. Thirty other states and the District of Columbia use a mandatory bar structure because it is a proven, effective way to regulate the legal profession and improve the quality of legal services provided to the public. The State Bar of Texas will continue to serve Texas lawyers and the public in fulfillment of its statutory and constitutional obligations.”

Original author: Lowell Brown
Continue reading
  32 Hits

Texas Supreme Court Orders on the “Save Chick-fil-A Law” in Dohlen v. City of San Antonio (April 1, 2022)

Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, No. 20-0725, __S.W.3D__ (Tex. April 1, 2022)

Overview. In this case, the Texas Supreme Court addresses, for the first time, Chapter 2400 of the Texas Government Code, being the “Save Chick-fil-A Law” (or more formally: Prohibited Adverse Actions by Government – Protection of Membership In and Support to Religious Organizations). As discussed below, Chapter 2400 provides an express waiver of governmental immunity for government action that is in violation of Chapter 2400, including action to deny any government benefit based on a person’s affiliation with a religious organization.

Dohlen v. City of San Antonio. In March 2019, and after certain San Antonio City Council persons made reference to Chick-fil-A’s support of anti-LGBTQ religious organizations, the City Council voted to ban Chick-fil-A from the San Antonio airport. In June 2019, Chapter 2400 of the Texas Government Code was signed into law, with an effective date of September 1, 2019. A few days after Chapter 2400 became effective, several individuals who complained that they would be unable to enjoy Chick-fil-A at the San Antonio airport, filed suit against the City of San Antonio (“City”) pursuant to Chapter 2400. The City sought a dismissal based on governmental immunity and lack of standing. The trial court denied the City’s request. The City appealed that decision to the court of appeals which found that the City was immune from the suit. The claimants petitioned that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, which essentially found that claimants allegations at the trial court level were insufficient to invoke a waiver of immunity contained in Chapter 2400; however, claimants should be afforded an opportunity to replead at the trial court level to allege sufficient facts.

Chapter 2400 of the Texas Government Code. Chapter 2400 consists of 6 individual statutes: Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2400.001, .0015, .002, .003, .004 and .005.

Adverse Action Prohibited. Chapter 2400 prohibits a governmental entity from taking “any adverse action against any person based wholly or partly on the person’s membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation, or other support provided to a religious organization.” Id. at § 2400.002 (emphasis added). The term “adverse action” is defined as any action taken by a governmental entity to:

withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, scholarship, license, registration, accreditation, employment, or other similar status from or to a person; withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit provided under a benefit program from or to a person; alter in any way the tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment assessment against, or deny, delay, or revoke a tax exemption of a person; disallow a tax deduction for any charitable contribution made to or by a person; deny admission to, equal treatment in, or eligibility for a degree from an educational program or institution to a person; or withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny access to a property, educational institution, speech forum, or charitable fund-raising campaign from or to a person.

Id. at § 2400.001(1)-(1)(F).

Governmental Entity. The term “governmental entity” is defined to include (A) the State of Texas; (B) a board, commission, council, department, or other agency in the executive branch of state government, including an institution of higher education; (C) the legislature or a legislative agency; (D)  a state judicial agency or the State Bar of Texas; (E) a political subdivision of Texas, including a county, municipality, or special district or authority; or (F) “an officer, employee, or agent of an entity described by Paragraphs (A)-(E).” Id. at § 2400.001(3)-(3)(F).

Religious Organization. Section 2400.001(4) defines “religious organization” by reference to “religious organization” as defined in Section 110.011(b) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. That statute defines “religious organization” as (1) an organization whose “primary purpose and function are religious, it is a religious school organized primarily for religious and educational purposes, or it is a religious charity organized primarily for religious and charitable purposes; and (2) it does not engage in activities that would disqualify it from tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it existed on August 30, 1999.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 110.011(b)-(b)(2).

Relief Available. Pursuant to Section 2400.003, “[a] person may assert an actual or threatened violation of Section 2400.002 as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2400.003.

Immunity Waived. Governmental immunity protects the State’s political subdivisions, including its cities, against suits and legal liability. Hillman v. Nueces County, 579 S.W.3d 354, 357 (Tex. 2019). Governmental immunity bars suit against a city, for example, unless the state legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the city’s immunity. See Chambers–Liberty Cntys. Navigation Dist. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex. 2019); Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. 2006).  Pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of Chapter 2400—and as asserted by the claimants in the case of Dohlen v. City of San Antonio—“[a] person who alleges a violation of Section 2400.002 may sue the governmental entity for the relief provided under Section 2400.003. Sovereign or governmental immunity, as applicable, is waived and abolished to the extent of liability for that relief.” § Id. at § 2400.004 (emphasis added).

Insights. The Texas Supreme Court gave the hungry claimants in Dohlen an opportunity to replead at the trial court level, their allegations of waiver of immunity by the City of San Antonio pursuant to Chapter 2400. Those claimants may end up going hungry because there was no governmental action taken after Chapter 2400 became effective (i.e., the decision to ban Chick-fil-A occurred months before Chapter 2400 became effective), and the claimants failed to point to any specific “adverse action” that the City took on or after the effective date of Chapter 2400. Absent a “credible threat” to violate Chapter 2400, the courts and the law will assume that the City will comply with its prescriptions. Time, additional–and likely creative–pleading, and additional due process of Texas law will tell.

 

The post Texas Supreme Court Orders on the “Save Chick-fil-A Law” in Dohlen v. City of San Antonio (April 1, 2022) appeared first on Freeman Law.

Original author: Cory Halliburton
Continue reading
  103 Hits

Texas Supreme Court Orders on the “Save Chick-fil-A Law” in Dohlen v. City of San Antonio (April 1, 2022)

Dohlen v. City of San Antonio, No. 20-0725, __S.W.3D__ (Tex. April 1, 2022)

Overview. In this case, the Texas Supreme Court addresses, for the first time, Chapter 2400 of the Texas Government Code, being the “Save Chick-fil-A Law” (or more formally: Prohibited Adverse Actions by Government – Protection of Membership In and Support to Religious Organizations). As discussed below, Chapter 2400 provides an express waiver of governmental immunity for government action that is in violation of Chapter 2400, including action to deny any government benefit based on a person’s affiliation with a religious organization.

Dohlen v. City of San Antonio. In March 2019, and after certain San Antonio City Council persons made reference to Chick-fil-A’s support of anti-LGBTQ religious organizations, the City Council voted to ban Chick-fil-A from the San Antonio airport. In June 2019, Chapter 2400 of the Texas Government Code was signed into law, with an effective date of September 1, 2019. A few days after Chapter 2400 became effective, several individuals who complained that they would be unable to enjoy Chick-fil-A at the San Antonio airport, filed suit against the City of San Antonio (“City”) pursuant to Chapter 2400. The City sought a dismissal based on governmental immunity and lack of standing. The trial court denied the City’s request. The City appealed that decision to the court of appeals which found that the City was immune from the suit. The claimants petitioned that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, which essentially found that claimants allegations at the trial court level were insufficient to invoke a waiver of immunity contained in Chapter 2400; however, claimants should be afforded an opportunity to replead at the trial court level to allege sufficient facts.

Chapter 2400 of the Texas Government Code. Chapter 2400 consists of 6 individual statutes: Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2400.001, .0015, .002, .003, .004 and .005.

Adverse Action Prohibited. Chapter 2400 prohibits a governmental entity from taking “any adverse action against any person based wholly or partly on the person’s membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation, or other support provided to a religious organization.” Id. at § 2400.002 (emphasis added). The term “adverse action” is defined as any action taken by a governmental entity to:

withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, scholarship, license, registration, accreditation, employment, or other similar status from or to a person; withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit provided under a benefit program from or to a person; alter in any way the tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment assessment against, or deny, delay, or revoke a tax exemption of a person; disallow a tax deduction for any charitable contribution made to or by a person; deny admission to, equal treatment in, or eligibility for a degree from an educational program or institution to a person; or withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny access to a property, educational institution, speech forum, or charitable fund-raising campaign from or to a person.

Id. at § 2400.001(1)-(1)(F).

Governmental Entity. The term “governmental entity” is defined to include (A) the State of Texas; (B) a board, commission, council, department, or other agency in the executive branch of state government, including an institution of higher education; (C) the legislature or a legislative agency; (D)  a state judicial agency or the State Bar of Texas; (E) a political subdivision of Texas, including a county, municipality, or special district or authority; or (F) “an officer, employee, or agent of an entity described by Paragraphs (A)-(E).” Id. at § 2400.001(3)-(3)(F).

Religious Organization. Section 2400.001(4) defines “religious organization” by reference to “religious organization” as defined in Section 110.011(b) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. That statute defines “religious organization” as (1) an organization whose “primary purpose and function are religious, it is a religious school organized primarily for religious and educational purposes, or it is a religious charity organized primarily for religious and charitable purposes; and (2) it does not engage in activities that would disqualify it from tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it existed on August 30, 1999.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 110.011(b)-(b)(2).

Relief Available. Pursuant to Section 2400.003, “[a] person may assert an actual or threatened violation of Section 2400.002 as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2400.003.

Immunity Waived. Governmental immunity protects the State’s political subdivisions, including its cities, against suits and legal liability. Hillman v. Nueces County, 579 S.W.3d 354, 357 (Tex. 2019). Governmental immunity bars suit against a city, for example, unless the state legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived the city’s immunity. See Chambers–Liberty Cntys. Navigation Dist. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex. 2019); Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. 2006).  Pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of Chapter 2400—and as asserted by the claimants in the case of Dohlen v. City of San Antonio—“[a] person who alleges a violation of Section 2400.002 may sue the governmental entity for the relief provided under Section 2400.003. Sovereign or governmental immunity, as applicable, is waived and abolished to the extent of liability for that relief.” § Id. at § 2400.004 (emphasis added).

Insights. The Texas Supreme Court gave the hungry claimants in Dohlen an opportunity to replead at the trial court level, their allegations of waiver of immunity by the City of San Antonio pursuant to Chapter 2400. Those claimants may end up going hungry because there was no governmental action taken after Chapter 2400 became effective (i.e., the decision to ban Chick-fil-A occurred months before Chapter 2400 became effective), and the claimants failed to point to any specific “adverse action” that the City took on or after the effective date of Chapter 2400. Absent a “credible threat” to violate Chapter 2400, the courts and the law will assume that the City will comply with its prescriptions. Time, additional–and likely creative–pleading, and additional due process of Texas law will tell.

 

The post Texas Supreme Court Orders on the “Save Chick-fil-A Law” in Dohlen v. City of San Antonio (April 1, 2022) appeared first on Freeman Law.

(Originally posted by Cory Halliburton)
Continue reading
  57 Hits

Drones in Texas: Privacy? or Free Speech?

Privacy Plus+

Privacy, Technology and Perspective

Drones in Texas: Privacy? or Free Speech? This week, press photographers are celebrating their newly-recognized right to use drones for news gathering.

Texas – a Dim View of Drones:  In 2013 and 2015, the Texas Legislature generally forbade the use of Unmanned Aireal Vehicles (“UAVs”) for surveillance on private property.  In what has become known as “Chapter 423” of the Texas Government Code, flying a UAV over correctional or detention facilities, critical infrastructure, or sports venues came in for specific mention – understandably, in our view, as those sites are such attractive targets for malicious actors.  Also understandably, however, the statute allowed for dozens of exceptions, such as photographs of public property below a certain height or for purposes of higher education, utility and telecom services, certain police or fire purposes, high-risk operations or rescue, oil spill surveys, surveying, real estate sales, engineering, or insurance (among others), or of course with the consent of the surveilled. 

You can read the text of Chapter 423 by clicking on the following link:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.423.htm

Interestingly, Chapter 423 focuses on circumscribing the use of a particular technology, UAVs, rather than on prohibiting specific conduct.  Texas already provides a common law action against intrusion (conduct which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and which is unjustified, unnecessary and unwarranted), as well as criminal penalties for stalking (under Texas Penal Code Section 42.072, engaging in a pattern of behavior which the person knows or reasonably should know would likely cause a person to feel threatened or fearful).  But like most privacy laws, the focus of these protections is on protecting personal rights generally no matter what tools a miscreant selects. Chapter 423, however, – like Texas statutes which prohibit anti-spyware or -eavesdropping devices – is focused on a technology.

 Missing One Key Exception:  But for all of its enumerated exceptions – and whether intentionally or not – Chapter 423 left out an exception for the press. Read literally, Chapter 423 appears to cover the press corps’ use of UAVs to photograph newsworthy events or circumstances within the statute’s wide prohibitions. So, in 2019, the National Press Photographers’ Association and others filed suit in U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas, seeking to have Chapter 423 declared unconstitutionally restrictive under the first amendment.

This Week’s Decision: On Monday of this week, the Court in Austin ruled in the press corps’ favor and declared the statute unconstitutionally vague (in its definitions of “surveillance” and “commercial enterprise”) and restrictive.  The statute’s restrictions would lead to odd results, it held – “As Plaintiffs note, the same drone image taken legally by a professor would constitute a misdemeanor if captured by a journalist.” Applying the strict scrutiny standard, the Court held that specific sections of the statute are not narrowly-tailored enough and may not be enforced. 

You can read the opinion in National Press Photographers’ Ass’n v. McCraw et al. at the following link:

https://www.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/tx_drone_case_sj_order.pdf

Hosch & Morris, PLLC is a boutique law firm dedicated to data privacy and protection, cybersecurity, the Internet and technology. Open the Future℠.

Original author: Hosch And Morris
Continue reading
  58 Hits

Drones in Texas: Privacy? or Free Speech?

Privacy Plus+

Privacy, Technology and Perspective

Drones in Texas: Privacy? or Free Speech? This week, press photographers are celebrating their newly-recognized right to use drones for news gathering.

Texas – a Dim View of Drones:  In 2013 and 2015, the Texas Legislature generally forbade the use of Unmanned Aireal Vehicles (“UAVs”) for surveillance on private property.  In what has become known as “Chapter 423” of the Texas Government Code, flying a UAV over correctional or detention facilities, critical infrastructure, or sports venues came in for specific mention – understandably, in our view, as those sites are such attractive targets for malicious actors.  Also understandably, however, the statute allowed for dozens of exceptions, such as photographs of public property below a certain height or for purposes of higher education, utility and telecom services, certain police or fire purposes, high-risk operations or rescue, oil spill surveys, surveying, real estate sales, engineering, or insurance (among others), or of course with the consent of the surveilled. 

You can read the text of Chapter 423 by clicking on the following link:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.423.htm

Interestingly, Chapter 423 focuses on circumscribing the use of a particular technology, UAVs, rather than on prohibiting specific conduct.  Texas already provides a common law action against intrusion (conduct which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and which is unjustified, unnecessary and unwarranted), as well as criminal penalties for stalking (under Texas Penal Code Section 42.072, engaging in a pattern of behavior which the person knows or reasonably should know would likely cause a person to feel threatened or fearful).  But like most privacy laws, the focus of these protections is on protecting personal rights generally no matter what tools a miscreant selects. Chapter 423, however, – like Texas statutes which prohibit anti-spyware or -eavesdropping devices – is focused on a technology.

 Missing One Key Exception:  But for all of its enumerated exceptions – and whether intentionally or not – Chapter 423 left out an exception for the press. Read literally, Chapter 423 appears to cover the press corps’ use of UAVs to photograph newsworthy events or circumstances within the statute’s wide prohibitions. So, in 2019, the National Press Photographers’ Association and others filed suit in U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas, seeking to have Chapter 423 declared unconstitutionally restrictive under the first amendment.

This Week’s Decision: On Monday of this week, the Court in Austin ruled in the press corps’ favor and declared the statute unconstitutionally vague (in its definitions of “surveillance” and “commercial enterprise”) and restrictive.  The statute’s restrictions would lead to odd results, it held – “As Plaintiffs note, the same drone image taken legally by a professor would constitute a misdemeanor if captured by a journalist.” Applying the strict scrutiny standard, the Court held that specific sections of the statute are not narrowly-tailored enough and may not be enforced. 

You can read the opinion in National Press Photographers’ Ass’n v. McCraw et al. at the following link:

https://www.dallasobserver.com/media/pdf/tx_drone_case_sj_order.pdf

Hosch & Morris, PLLC is a boutique law firm dedicated to data privacy and protection, cybersecurity, the Internet and technology. Open the Future℠.

(Originally posted by Hosch And Morris)
Continue reading
  60 Hits

The Idiot’s Guide To Family Lawyer Explained

Paralegals play an important half in the legal system, doing a lot of the background work that is required earlier than a case will be introduced in courtroom. Paralegals help lawyers get ready for courtroom hearings and trials. Additionally they deal with many client interviews, draft legal documents, research legal instances, and summarize and organize […]

The post The Idiot’s Guide To Family Lawyer Explained first appeared on Family in Law.

(Originally posted by Teel Marcus)
Continue reading
  40 Hits

Is Collaborative Divorce in Texas Right for Me?

Collaborative divorces in Texas can be more complicated than you might think. The general idea behind collaborative divorce is that instead of spending most of your time arguing and debating the points of your case you would instead devote most of your time and attention towards resolving matters through settlement and negotiation. The objective is that you would avoid the negative aspects and costly financial implications of a divorce. By doing this you can save yourself a lot of time and money. On top of that, you and your spouse can devote more of your attention to areas of your life that will require greater attention Once your case is done and over with.

The expectation that many people have when they begin a divorce is that it is going to be not only complicated but it also expensive and long. From having worked with many people who have gone through the divorce process I don’t think there is anyone that began the case also with the expectation that the whole thing would be simple or even straightforward. The expectation is that divorce laws are more complicated than need be and that the family courts of Texas are Byzantine as far as they’re being needlessly complicated and unwieldy in terms of their application for everyday people. I cannot say that this expectation regarding divorce law and the courts is altogether off base. Many aspects of a divorce case can be complicated.

A collaborative divorce, on the other hand, seeks to avoid many of these negative aspects of a divorce. Without a doubt, collaborative divorces can be complicated and do carry with them challenges of their own. However, most collaborative divorces seek to allow you and your spouse to have direct control over the proceedings. This is a huge benefit for you and your spouse if your mission is to avoid bringing the Texas family code as well as a family court judge into the picture. The fewer adjudges involved the less the Texas family code becomes a relevant consideration in your divorce. This usually shortens the length of your case and allows for a better outcome to be the result.

The main points associated with collaborative divorces

Most everyone reading this blog post, I assume, is more familiar with the traditional method of divorce than with a collaborative method. The traditional method of divorce involves you and your spouse filing divorce papers and then attempting to settle your case in mediation before a temporary order hearing or a trial date. In the middle of all that you will exchange discovery information and attempt in whatever way you can to settle the main issues in your case. Some parties are better than others at this. You probably have a good idea right now of how well you and your spouse may fare when it comes to negotiating through the tough issues of a divorce.

All the while, your attorneys should be attempting to work with both of you to resolve your case amicably. However, the reality is that there are some attorneys out there who are better at creating conflict than they are at resolving conflict. Well, it can be advantageous for you to have an attorney who will not back down from a fight that the same attitude can lead to unnecessary stress and acrimony within the case if not harnessed correctly.

A collaborative law attorney, on the other hand, is equipped to advocate zealously for you but to do so in a way that will not create unnecessary conflict between you and your spouse. The reality of your situation is that there already is going to be a certain amount of conflict and acrimony between you and your spouse. Going through a divorce necessarily means that there is some degree of disagreement between you and your spouse. The last thing in the world that you want is to have the divorce process itself or even your attorney add to that level of disagreement. 

Rather, a collaborative law attorney will pledge that he or she will do whatever it takes to help you and your spouse avoid going to court. Both of you will hire A collaborative attorney to represent your interest period from there, the attorney can help the two of you facilitate settlement agreements. This can be through negotiation, the exchange of documentation or even engaging with both of you in creative problem-solving. The bottom line is that the more you and your spouse are put into positions where you are talking to one another the greater chance you have of settling your case. 

Finding solutions that work for both parties

it is sometimes lost in even amicable divorce negotiations that a settlement structure is supposed to benefit both parties. Even when people say that they intend to work towards amicable solutions in their divorce what they mean is that they are willing to discuss the contents of a case but only to the point where they come out on top and then negotiate. While it is better to be willing to negotiate a case than not the reality is that in any settlement both sides must give to get something. If you are bent on negotiating only so far as it will benefit you and your family, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Collaborative law attorneys strike a balance between advocating zealously for their clients while keeping and finding solutions that work well for all parties involved. In this way being an attorney in a collaborative environment is oftentimes more challenging than being Elsa turning in an adversarial environment. However, if you select an experienced collaborative divorce attorney did that lawyer could walk you through creative solutions that you may otherwise have been unaware of. 

the collaborative divorce process begins with both you and your Co-parent agreeing in writing to participate collaboratively. As I mentioned a moment ago both you and your spouse will be represented by an attorney in the collaborative law process. The exact language contained in your collaborative law agreement may differ from another person who has gone through the collaborative divorce process. However, the overall aim of your collaborative divorce will be the same as any other person. Namely, the goal will be to resolve your disputes between you and your spouse while avoiding the courtroom if possible.

I think that the setting involved in a collaborative divorce also makes a difference. In a collaborative divorce, a great deal of the negotiations and events of the case will occur in an attorney’s office. Neutral parties like parenting coordinators, financial experts, and others may participate in the ongoing discussions between you and your spouse. The simpler your case may be the less you need to employ experts for this type. However, the more complicated your case is the more you may stand to benefit from the advice and perspective of experts in their fields like these.

You can compare the events of a collaborative divorce to that of a traditional divorce. In a traditional divorce, you and your spouse will take disagreements to the courtroom and submit evidence to a judge. The judge will then have ultimate decision-making authority when it comes to determining outcomes in your case on subjects like temporary orders, discovery, final orders, and everything in between. This is a much different setting for a divorce than what you see in a collaborative environment. I think the opportunities are greater for civil in amicable conversations in a collaborative divorce than in litigation-based, traditional divorce.

If you and your spouse are unable to agree within a collaborative divorce setting, then you can opt-out of your agreement on a mutual basis. From there, the two of you would be able to re-engage in a more traditional divorce. You will hire new attorneys depending upon the circumstances of your case and the preference that you and your attorneys have. Even then, it is not as if you and your attorney we’ll have to start from scratch. Much of the work in your case will have already been done and accomplished simply by engaging in productive conversations on settlement and exchanging documentation.

One of the best advantages that I can mention to you in this setting when it comes to a collaborative divorce is that a collaborative divorce requires a fair bit of time to become engaged. As a result, it does encourage you and your spouse to be become truly engaged in the process and to stay faithful to it despite any hardships that you might encounter during negotiation. The alternative is to delay your case. It is almost like having to start from scratch when you transition from a Collaborative divorce to a traditional divorce. Depending on the exact circumstances relevant to your case it may be best for you all to stay the course in an attempt to resolve your issues through negotiation and the collaborative process. 

How do I know if the collaborative divorce process is right for me and my family?

You will not be able to figure out whether a collaborative divorce is right for you and your family just by reading today’s blog post. While it is a good place to start, I am not able to provide you with any type of recommendations given that I do not know your circumstances. Family law in general and divorces specifically tend to hinge on the specific circumstances that you find yourself in along with that of your family. If you, cannot understand and be truthful with yourself about your specific circumstances then you will have trouble determining goals for your case as well as what type of divorce is right for you.

To be sure, most people that are going through a divorce as we speak become involved with a traditional divorce that proceeds through the family courts. It is not as if your collaborative divorce will not involve the courts at all. You would still file your divorce through the family court then be assigned a judge. Your case would have the same timeline like any other divorce assuming that you are not able to reach a successful settlement in your case. However, what I can tell you is that the people who succeed in a collaborative environment are those that are willing to put aside their ego, differences and expectations to an extent and instead focus on the reality of your case and what is best for your family, especially your children. 

I think families stand to benefit the most from collaborative divorces when they have children. If your divorce just involves financial issues, then you can achieve similar results in a collaborative and traditional divorce environment. Nobody is forcing you to engage in either. However, if you and your spouse are willing to negotiate with one another then a collaborative divorce may be something that you can consider. 

Remember that your children stand to benefit from a situation where you and your spouse are willing to work with each other and set aside your major differences in hopes of reaching outcomes that are beneficial for everyone involved. I see this occur with some regularity for parents who may have some issues regarding conservatorships. Namely, new and your Co-parent just agree on who should be named as the primary conservator of your children. Many times, you may hold the opinion that you should be the primary conservator even if that is not a responsibility you have ever dealt with.

As a result, your pride may tell you to push for primary conservatorships even if you are ill-suited for the job. This does not mean that you are not a good parent or are not devoted to your child. However, what it may mean is that your spouse is better acclimated to the job, and you may have a job that takes you away from family regularly. As a result, if you cannot devote the time necessary to raise your children on a primary basis, they probably would be better off with you as are Co-parent as their primary conservator.

Another way that collaborative divorces can ease the transition for children in terms of going from one household to two is that you can provide your children with regular updates on the case based on their age and maturity. Older children may be better equipped to handle the updates Whereas younger children may not need or even understand the updates if you wanted to give them. Either way, you can choose what updates to give to your children based on your individual preferences and circumstances. However, a collaborative divorce Will allow you to provide updates to your children and two encourage them that the divorce will not be something that goes on forever.

Maintaining a greater degree of control over what information about your divorce is made public 

In a traditional divorce, you and your spouse would proceed to the family law courts in any event of a dispute that cannot be resolved between the two of you. This is best seen through having hearings and even trials in open court where essentially any person off the street can wander in and view the proceedings of your case. You can make your pleadings and other documentation for the case nonpublic, but the courtroom appearances tend to be very public.

On the other hand, collaborative divorce allows you and your spouse to keep your personal and financial lives out of the public record in private between the two of you. Settlement negotiations, in general, are not made public as part of a record in any divorce. The same is true in a collaborative divorce. Rather, you and your spouse can obtain a divorce without resorting to messy, public disagreements and hearings. Even if your collaborative divorce does not end up as a successful means of settling your Case No party can testify to what occurred in those settlement negotiations once the case is complete. 

Additionally, if you and your spouse own little in terms of property and have no children then a collaborative divorce may work for you as well. While collaborative divorces work well for families with big issues to sort through, they can also work well for families that have only smaller matters to engage in. For example, if all it takes is one afternoon’s worth of negotiation for you all to divide your bank account and other small amounts of the property then collaborative divorce can encourage communication and quickly and your case on a positive note. 

Questions about the material presented in today’s blog post? Contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan

If you have any questions about the material contained in today’s blog post, please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan. Our licensed family law attorneys offer free of charge consultations six days a week in person, over the phone, and via video. These consultations are a great way for you to learn more about the world of Texas family law as well as about how your family circumstances may be impacted by the filing of a divorce or child custody case.

Original author: Bryan Fagan
Continue reading
  48 Hits

Is Collaborative Divorce in Texas Right for Me?

Collaborative divorces in Texas can be more complicated than you might think. The general idea behind collaborative divorce is that instead of spending most of your time arguing and debating the points of your case you would instead devote most of your time and attention towards resolving matters through settlement and negotiation. The objective is that you would avoid the negative aspects and costly financial implications of a divorce. By doing this you can save yourself a lot of time and money. On top of that, you and your spouse can devote more of your attention to areas of your life that will require greater attention Once your case is done and over with.

The expectation that many people have when they begin a divorce is that it is going to be not only complicated but it also expensive and long. From having worked with many people who have gone through the divorce process I don’t think there is anyone that began the case also with the expectation that the whole thing would be simple or even straightforward. The expectation is that divorce laws are more complicated than need be and that the family courts of Texas are Byzantine as far as they’re being needlessly complicated and unwieldy in terms of their application for everyday people. I cannot say that this expectation regarding divorce law and the courts is altogether off base. Many aspects of a divorce case can be complicated.

A collaborative divorce, on the other hand, seeks to avoid many of these negative aspects of a divorce. Without a doubt, collaborative divorces can be complicated and do carry with them challenges of their own. However, most collaborative divorces seek to allow you and your spouse to have direct control over the proceedings. This is a huge benefit for you and your spouse if your mission is to avoid bringing the Texas family code as well as a family court judge into the picture. The fewer adjudges involved the less the Texas family code becomes a relevant consideration in your divorce. This usually shortens the length of your case and allows for a better outcome to be the result.

The main points associated with collaborative divorces

Most everyone reading this blog post, I assume, is more familiar with the traditional method of divorce than with a collaborative method. The traditional method of divorce involves you and your spouse filing divorce papers and then attempting to settle your case in mediation before a temporary order hearing or a trial date. In the middle of all that you will exchange discovery information and attempt in whatever way you can to settle the main issues in your case. Some parties are better than others at this. You probably have a good idea right now of how well you and your spouse may fare when it comes to negotiating through the tough issues of a divorce.

All the while, your attorneys should be attempting to work with both of you to resolve your case amicably. However, the reality is that there are some attorneys out there who are better at creating conflict than they are at resolving conflict. Well, it can be advantageous for you to have an attorney who will not back down from a fight that the same attitude can lead to unnecessary stress and acrimony within the case if not harnessed correctly.

A collaborative law attorney, on the other hand, is equipped to advocate zealously for you but to do so in a way that will not create unnecessary conflict between you and your spouse. The reality of your situation is that there already is going to be a certain amount of conflict and acrimony between you and your spouse. Going through a divorce necessarily means that there is some degree of disagreement between you and your spouse. The last thing in the world that you want is to have the divorce process itself or even your attorney add to that level of disagreement. 

Rather, a collaborative law attorney will pledge that he or she will do whatever it takes to help you and your spouse avoid going to court. Both of you will hire A collaborative attorney to represent your interest period from there, the attorney can help the two of you facilitate settlement agreements. This can be through negotiation, the exchange of documentation or even engaging with both of you in creative problem-solving. The bottom line is that the more you and your spouse are put into positions where you are talking to one another the greater chance you have of settling your case. 

Finding solutions that work for both parties

it is sometimes lost in even amicable divorce negotiations that a settlement structure is supposed to benefit both parties. Even when people say that they intend to work towards amicable solutions in their divorce what they mean is that they are willing to discuss the contents of a case but only to the point where they come out on top and then negotiate. While it is better to be willing to negotiate a case than not the reality is that in any settlement both sides must give to get something. If you are bent on negotiating only so far as it will benefit you and your family, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Collaborative law attorneys strike a balance between advocating zealously for their clients while keeping and finding solutions that work well for all parties involved. In this way being an attorney in a collaborative environment is oftentimes more challenging than being Elsa turning in an adversarial environment. However, if you select an experienced collaborative divorce attorney did that lawyer could walk you through creative solutions that you may otherwise have been unaware of. 

the collaborative divorce process begins with both you and your Co-parent agreeing in writing to participate collaboratively. As I mentioned a moment ago both you and your spouse will be represented by an attorney in the collaborative law process. The exact language contained in your collaborative law agreement may differ from another person who has gone through the collaborative divorce process. However, the overall aim of your collaborative divorce will be the same as any other person. Namely, the goal will be to resolve your disputes between you and your spouse while avoiding the courtroom if possible.

I think that the setting involved in a collaborative divorce also makes a difference. In a collaborative divorce, a great deal of the negotiations and events of the case will occur in an attorney’s office. Neutral parties like parenting coordinators, financial experts, and others may participate in the ongoing discussions between you and your spouse. The simpler your case may be the less you need to employ experts for this type. However, the more complicated your case is the more you may stand to benefit from the advice and perspective of experts in their fields like these.

You can compare the events of a collaborative divorce to that of a traditional divorce. In a traditional divorce, you and your spouse will take disagreements to the courtroom and submit evidence to a judge. The judge will then have ultimate decision-making authority when it comes to determining outcomes in your case on subjects like temporary orders, discovery, final orders, and everything in between. This is a much different setting for a divorce than what you see in a collaborative environment. I think the opportunities are greater for civil in amicable conversations in a collaborative divorce than in litigation-based, traditional divorce.

If you and your spouse are unable to agree within a collaborative divorce setting, then you can opt-out of your agreement on a mutual basis. From there, the two of you would be able to re-engage in a more traditional divorce. You will hire new attorneys depending upon the circumstances of your case and the preference that you and your attorneys have. Even then, it is not as if you and your attorney we’ll have to start from scratch. Much of the work in your case will have already been done and accomplished simply by engaging in productive conversations on settlement and exchanging documentation.

One of the best advantages that I can mention to you in this setting when it comes to a collaborative divorce is that a collaborative divorce requires a fair bit of time to become engaged. As a result, it does encourage you and your spouse to be become truly engaged in the process and to stay faithful to it despite any hardships that you might encounter during negotiation. The alternative is to delay your case. It is almost like having to start from scratch when you transition from a Collaborative divorce to a traditional divorce. Depending on the exact circumstances relevant to your case it may be best for you all to stay the course in an attempt to resolve your issues through negotiation and the collaborative process. 

How do I know if the collaborative divorce process is right for me and my family?

You will not be able to figure out whether a collaborative divorce is right for you and your family just by reading today’s blog post. While it is a good place to start, I am not able to provide you with any type of recommendations given that I do not know your circumstances. Family law in general and divorces specifically tend to hinge on the specific circumstances that you find yourself in along with that of your family. If you, cannot understand and be truthful with yourself about your specific circumstances then you will have trouble determining goals for your case as well as what type of divorce is right for you.

To be sure, most people that are going through a divorce as we speak become involved with a traditional divorce that proceeds through the family courts. It is not as if your collaborative divorce will not involve the courts at all. You would still file your divorce through the family court then be assigned a judge. Your case would have the same timeline like any other divorce assuming that you are not able to reach a successful settlement in your case. However, what I can tell you is that the people who succeed in a collaborative environment are those that are willing to put aside their ego, differences and expectations to an extent and instead focus on the reality of your case and what is best for your family, especially your children. 

I think families stand to benefit the most from collaborative divorces when they have children. If your divorce just involves financial issues, then you can achieve similar results in a collaborative and traditional divorce environment. Nobody is forcing you to engage in either. However, if you and your spouse are willing to negotiate with one another then a collaborative divorce may be something that you can consider. 

Remember that your children stand to benefit from a situation where you and your spouse are willing to work with each other and set aside your major differences in hopes of reaching outcomes that are beneficial for everyone involved. I see this occur with some regularity for parents who may have some issues regarding conservatorships. Namely, new and your Co-parent just agree on who should be named as the primary conservator of your children. Many times, you may hold the opinion that you should be the primary conservator even if that is not a responsibility you have ever dealt with.

As a result, your pride may tell you to push for primary conservatorships even if you are ill-suited for the job. This does not mean that you are not a good parent or are not devoted to your child. However, what it may mean is that your spouse is better acclimated to the job, and you may have a job that takes you away from family regularly. As a result, if you cannot devote the time necessary to raise your children on a primary basis, they probably would be better off with you as are Co-parent as their primary conservator.

Another way that collaborative divorces can ease the transition for children in terms of going from one household to two is that you can provide your children with regular updates on the case based on their age and maturity. Older children may be better equipped to handle the updates Whereas younger children may not need or even understand the updates if you wanted to give them. Either way, you can choose what updates to give to your children based on your individual preferences and circumstances. However, a collaborative divorce Will allow you to provide updates to your children and two encourage them that the divorce will not be something that goes on forever.

Maintaining a greater degree of control over what information about your divorce is made public 

In a traditional divorce, you and your spouse would proceed to the family law courts in any event of a dispute that cannot be resolved between the two of you. This is best seen through having hearings and even trials in open court where essentially any person off the street can wander in and view the proceedings of your case. You can make your pleadings and other documentation for the case nonpublic, but the courtroom appearances tend to be very public.

On the other hand, collaborative divorce allows you and your spouse to keep your personal and financial lives out of the public record in private between the two of you. Settlement negotiations, in general, are not made public as part of a record in any divorce. The same is true in a collaborative divorce. Rather, you and your spouse can obtain a divorce without resorting to messy, public disagreements and hearings. Even if your collaborative divorce does not end up as a successful means of settling your Case No party can testify to what occurred in those settlement negotiations once the case is complete. 

Additionally, if you and your spouse own little in terms of property and have no children then a collaborative divorce may work for you as well. While collaborative divorces work well for families with big issues to sort through, they can also work well for families that have only smaller matters to engage in. For example, if all it takes is one afternoon’s worth of negotiation for you all to divide your bank account and other small amounts of the property then collaborative divorce can encourage communication and quickly and your case on a positive note. 

Questions about the material presented in today’s blog post? Contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan

If you have any questions about the material contained in today’s blog post, please do not hesitate to contact the Law Office of Bryan Fagan. Our licensed family law attorneys offer free of charge consultations six days a week in person, over the phone, and via video. These consultations are a great way for you to learn more about the world of Texas family law as well as about how your family circumstances may be impacted by the filing of a divorce or child custody case.

(Originally posted by Bryan Fagan)
Continue reading
  46 Hits

What Would Happen If Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Recused Herself in SCOTUS Harvard Admissions Challenge?

In this week's episode, longtime Supreme Court reporter Marcia Coyle shared what she learned from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during the proceedings.

     
Continue reading
  54 Hits

Judge Flummoxed by Procedural Issues in RNC Suit Against House Jan. 6 Committee

"I hadn't thought things would proceed in this way," U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said toward the end of the three-and-half-hour hearing on the RNC's request for an injunction.

     
Continue reading
  57 Hits

Judge David Barron Becomes 1st Circuit's New Chief Judge

Barron, 54, was nominated to the bench in 2014 by former President Obama.

     
Continue reading
  56 Hits

Lawyers Seek $30M in Fees for 'Especially Risky' Privacy Case Against TikTok

On Thursday, plaintiffs' lawyers who obtained a $92 million class action settlement with TikTok said that 1.4% of the class had submitted claims.

     
Continue reading
  51 Hits

Retired Missouri Couple Say Center Street Securities Unsuitably Recommended GWG L Bonds

GWG L Bonds FINRA Arbitration Claim Requests Up to $500K in Damages

A retired couple from Republic, Missouri, has filed a six-figure claim against Center Street Securities over losses sustained in GWG Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GWGH). Both inexperienced investors with health issues, the claimants had entrusted the brokerage firm with keeping their money safe. 

Instead, their Center Street Securities broker Joe Latour, a registered investment advisor with the Latour Financial Group, unsuitably recommended and sold them GWG L Bonds. He did this while neglecting to give a full picture of the risks. Now, these investors are pursuing up to $500K in damages for their losses.

The post Retired Missouri Couple Say Center Street Securities Unsuitably Recommended GWG L Bonds appeared first on Investor Lawyers Blog.

Original author: Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas and LLP
Continue reading
  52 Hits

Another Mexican Investor Pursues JP Morgan Securities Over Omnia/Old Mutual (Bermuda) Losses

Senior Investor’s Funds Were 100% Concentrated in Risky Offshore Investment

Our Northstar Financial Services (Bermuda) investment lawyers have filed yet another FINRA arbitration claim against J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JPMS) over losses suffered by a foreign national. The claimant is a nun and elderly investor from Mexico who entrusted her inheritance to the firm. 

Instead, her J.P. Morgan Securities broker unsuitably recommended the now-defunct Omnia Ltd., previously called Old Mutual (Bermuda)/Beechwood.  

The post Another Mexican Investor Pursues JP Morgan Securities Over Omnia/Old Mutual (Bermuda) Losses appeared first on Investor Lawyers Blog.

Original author: Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas and LLP
Continue reading
  57 Hits

Retired Missouri Couple Say Center Street Securities Unsuitably Recommended GWG L Bonds

GWG L Bonds FINRA Arbitration Claim Requests Up to $500K in Damages

A retired couple from Republic, Missouri, has filed a six-figure claim against Center Street Securities over losses sustained in GWG Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GWGH). Both inexperienced investors with health issues, the claimants had entrusted the brokerage firm with keeping their money safe. 

Instead, their Center Street Securities broker Joe Latour, a registered investment advisor with the Latour Financial Group, unsuitably recommended and sold them GWG L Bonds. He did this while neglecting to give a full picture of the risks. Now, these investors are pursuing up to $500K in damages for their losses.

The post Retired Missouri Couple Say Center Street Securities Unsuitably Recommended GWG L Bonds appeared first on Investor Lawyers Blog.

(Originally posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas and LLP)
Continue reading
  45 Hits

Another Mexican Investor Pursues JP Morgan Securities Over Omnia/Old Mutual (Bermuda) Losses

Senior Investor’s Funds Were 100% Concentrated in Risky Offshore Investment

Our Northstar Financial Services (Bermuda) investment lawyers have filed yet another FINRA arbitration claim against J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JPMS) over losses suffered by a foreign national. The claimant is a nun and elderly investor from Mexico who entrusted her inheritance to the firm. 

Instead, her J.P. Morgan Securities broker unsuitably recommended the now-defunct Omnia Ltd., previously called Old Mutual (Bermuda)/Beechwood.  

The post Another Mexican Investor Pursues JP Morgan Securities Over Omnia/Old Mutual (Bermuda) Losses appeared first on Investor Lawyers Blog.

(Originally posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas and LLP)
Continue reading
  49 Hits

More Thrashing in Schwarzbaum on Effect of Eleventh Circuit's Remand to Remand to IRS on Statute of Limitations (4/1/22)

I have previously written on the case of United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. Dkt # 18-cv-81147-BLOOM/Reinhart CourtListener Dkt. Entries here).  All my posts can be seen with a blog search on Schwarzbaum here. Where the posts are presented first by relevance but a link at the top permits reshuffling.

A good place to start is 11th Cir. Remands For IRS To Re-Determine FBAR Penalties After Affirming Original Calculation Was Arbitrary And Capricious (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 1/26/22), here.  Applying oft used APA procedure the Court remanded to the District Court to then remand to the IRS for correction of the deficiencies.  As I note in that blog, there are statute of limitations issue on that type of remand, such as if a corrected assessment is required, is the corrected assessment a new assessment clearly outside the statute of limitations or is it just an adjustment of the earlier assessment for statute of limitations purposes?

On remand, the brouhaha continues.  The parties now dispute the issue of whether the District Court can retain jurisdiction while the case is remanded.  The Government has moved for the District Court to retain jurisdiction.  Schwarzbaum opposes the Government’s motion, urging that the remand to the District Court concludes the jurisdiction in the District Court, requiring that the IRS make the penalty determination afresh requiring a new FBAR assessment that would now be plainly untimely.

I won’t discuss the arguments but will just link to the Government’s Motion Dkt. 136, here, and Schwarzbaum’s Opposition Dkt. 141, here.  Those wanting further developments can periodically check the CourtListener Docket Entries here.

Original author: Jack Townsend
Continue reading
  47 Hits

More Thrashing in Schwarzbaum on Effect of Eleventh Circuit's Remand to Remand to IRS on Statute of Limitations (4/1/22)

I have previously written on the case of United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. Dkt # 18-cv-81147-BLOOM/Reinhart CourtListener Dkt. Entries here).  All my posts can be seen with a blog search on Schwarzbaum here. Where the posts are presented first by relevance but a link at the top permits reshuffling.

A good place to start is 11th Cir. Remands For IRS To Re-Determine FBAR Penalties After Affirming Original Calculation Was Arbitrary And Capricious (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 1/26/22), here.  Applying oft used APA procedure the Court remanded to the District Court to then remand to the IRS for correction of the deficiencies.  As I note in that blog, there are statute of limitations issue on that type of remand, such as if a corrected assessment is required, is the corrected assessment a new assessment clearly outside the statute of limitations or is it just an adjustment of the earlier assessment for statute of limitations purposes?

On remand, the brouhaha continues.  The parties now dispute the issue of whether the District Court can retain jurisdiction while the case is remanded.  The Government has moved for the District Court to retain jurisdiction.  Schwarzbaum opposes the Government’s motion, urging that the remand to the District Court concludes the jurisdiction in the District Court, requiring that the IRS make the penalty determination afresh requiring a new FBAR assessment that would now be plainly untimely.

I won’t discuss the arguments but will just link to the Government’s Motion Dkt. 136, here, and Schwarzbaum’s Opposition Dkt. 141, here.  Those wanting further developments can periodically check the CourtListener Docket Entries here.

(Originally posted by Jack Townsend)
Continue reading
  32 Hits

Twitter Feed

Law Links

State Bar of Texas The State Bar of Texas serves its members and the public.
Texas Bar Today Texas Bar Today is an online media network featuring curated news and commentary from Texas legal professionals.
Family Law Section The mission of the Family Law Section is to promote the highest degree of professionalism, education, fellowship, and excellence in the practice of family law.
Business Law Section The Business Law Section of the State Bar of Texas covers the complex and expanding fields of corporate, securities, commercial, banking and bankruptcy law.
REPTL Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law, Section of the State Bar of Texas

-Free consultation-