We recently offered a lunch-time seminar for lawyers interested in learning about blogging at the Palm Beach Bar Association. This was one in a series of lawyer-technology seminars, much like our prior Tweet Meet and Eat.
Thanks to Matt Kakuk of Webmanagement.us who jumped in with some technical help on issues relating to Google Analytics, Adsense, and Google Local.
If you couldn’t make it, the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin article is here and the powerpoint is here.
Today’s Daily Business Review ran the story, “Most judges fare well in bar poll” in a below-the-fold article giving the highlights of the biennial Palm Beach Bar Association survey. But the article doesn’t provide the raw data for you to peruse. For the full results on your favorite (or not so favorite) Palm Beach county and civil court judges, click here.
Bottom line: Overall, roughly 20% of the judges had excellent legal knowledge and 40% had an excellent demeanor. Evans, Lewis, McCarthy and McSorley were rated as having poor demeanors. More than half of the responding lawyers who appeared before Judge Corlew felt he lacked legal knowledge.
The DBR peppered their article with some interesting sentiments. The poll is intentionally NOT undertaken during election years and is reportedly not intended to be used as an election tool (which some suggest it has been in the past, vis a vis Lisa Small’s challenge of Judge Lewis in the last election).
The lead sentence of the article notes that, “for the second time in a row, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judges Diana Lewis and Timothy McCarthy were rated discourteous by more than of the lawyers…” but it is only deeeep in the article that we learn that less than 600 lawyers out of more than 5,300 responded at all. In fact, that lead sentence to the article is predicated on opinions of less than 200 lawyers who voted on Lewis and McCarthy. It was further suggested in the article that voters may only be those with strong feelings.
In Florida, it is lawful for children under 16 years of age to operate an ATV… as long as they wear a helmet. But that will not avoid civil liability for the parents if something goes wrong. Indeed, it appears that the manufacturer’s warnings may be a weapon of liability against the parents/end users.
In Karen, Roger and Nicolas Fina and Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Est. of Sara Rose Hennarichs (Gerber, Damoorgian and Levine), Mr. and Mrs. Fina allowed their teenage son to ride an ATV despite the warnings on the machine and manual which said that minors under 16 should “NEVER” drive the ATV. The son allowed a 13-year old friend to drive the ATV (contrary to parental instructions) and the friend had an accident and died.
The parents/owners were sued for negligently entrusting the ATV to their minor child as well as negligently training/supervising him. A jury found the parents 70% liable, the son 10%, the friend/driver 5% and another parent 15% responsible.
A 1955 case holds that a parent may incur liability where the parent entrusts the child with an instrumentality which, because of the lack of age, judgment or experience of the child, may become a source of danger to others.
The parents tried to claim that the “lack of age” did not apply because it was not unlawful for a minor under 16 years to drive an ATV. The court disagreed, holding that it need not be illegal to be an act creating civil liability.
The parents likewise argued that they had no reason to believe their son would violate the family rule that no other children could ride the ATV. The court denounced that claim, finding that the parents had “set an example of disregard” when they ignored or overlooked the manufacturer’s warnings and “it should have come to no surprise that [the son] would have disregarded their rules too.” Indeed, the court even held the jury might rely on common sense to find the parents liable.
Note: this case does not appear to be limited to ATVs. Heavy tools, BB guns, knives, and other equipment or toys could easily fall into this category.
What does $30 buy you these days? How about a 90-minute session learning to use Twitter and Facebook, a free lunch, and 1 hour of Florida Bar CLE credit!
Come join us on Friday, September 25, 2009 at the Palm Beach County Bar Association offices for the Tweet Meet & Eat seminar. Bring your laptop and log in through the Bar’s WiFi and learn how to create a Twitter and Facebook account as well as tips on posting, setting privacy settings, and marketing your practice.
Sign up here.
Can’t make it? Check out the two Powerpoint presentations on the right column of this page under “Materials” (look for “2009 Twitter for Lawyers” and “2009 Facebook for Lawyers”). Also check out Why Lawyers Should Be @ Twitter and Internet Social Networking Sites for Lawyers.
The Palm Beach Post reported earlier this month that local plaintiff lawyer, A. Clark Cone, was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by the Florida Supreme Court while there is an investigation into allegations of taking over a half million dollars from various clients. He also reportedly filed suit for a client in South Carolina, despite not being licensed in that state.
Cone’s father ran a law firm which “schooled some of the top attorneys in the state, including Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente.”
An initial search on the Florida Bar website appears to indicate Cone is “in good standing.” However, clicking on the “YES” link reveals the temporary suspension.
The 165-page Petition for Emergency Suspension was predicated upon sworn complaints from a former paralegal, several clients, and a Bar auditor who reviewed the attorney trust accounts.
