The law firm of Brodsky & Odeh, the legal practice behind several of Chicago's biggest cases, is splitting up, partners Reem Odeh and Joel A. Brodsky jointly announced today.

"We have grown in different directions and our expertise is now in very different areas of law," says Brodsky. "After some soul searching and discussion it became obvious to both of us that it simply makes more sense to be in separate law firms."

Odeh, who teamed with Brodsky six years ago, says she is looking forward to forging ahead with developing her own practice.

"I learned a lot from practicing criminal law with Joel over the last six years, and now it is time for me to develop my own identity as an attorney," says Odeh.

Brodsky and Odeh are probably best known for their representation of former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson.

Reem says that despite the breakup of the firm, she will remain a part of Peterson's defense team.

Robbins Umeda LLP has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by members of the Board of Directors ("Board") of McAfee, Inc. ("McAfee" or the "Company") (NYSE: MFE) in connection with their efforts to sell McAfee to Intel Corporation ("Intel") (NASDAQ: INTC). If the transaction is completed, McAfee shareholders will receive $48.00 in cash for each share of McAfee common stock they hold.

Robbins Umeda LLP's investigation concerns whether the McAfee Board undertook a fair process to obtain fair consideration for all shareholders of McAfee. Specifically, our investigation concerns whether the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties to McAfee shareholders by failing to adequately shop the Company before entering into the transaction with Intel. At least one analyst had a price target for the Company at $50 per share. Additionally, under the terms of the agreement, McAfee must pay Intel a $230 million termination fee if McAfee accepts a superior offer to the Intel offer.

If you are a shareholder of McAfee, plan to continue to hold your shares, and would like more information about your rights as a shareholder, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003 or by e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com.

Robbins Umeda LLP is a California-based law firm with significant experience representing investors in merger-related shareholder class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and securities fraud class actions. For more information about the firm, please go to http://www.robbinsumeda.com.

For more than 20 years, William S. Lerach was the most feared lawyer in America. He and his former firm, Milberg Weiss, were Jedi masters of security law, targeting Fortune 500 companies for corporate fraud and recovering a staggering $45 billion in judgments.

Tough and relentless, plaintiffs saw him as a savior, successfully suing WorldCom, Tyco, Disney,Merrill Lynch and Enron, among others. Lerach brought down high-flying CEOs and companies that routinely cooked the books to keep executives rich and shareholders broke. Famous for his class-action suits and novel legal tactics, he was the scourge of big business, forcing many companies, terrified of being “Lerached,” to settle out of court rather than fight.

In January 2008, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice, admitting he paid a few regular plaintiffs millions in kickbacks to instigate cases that netted the firm some $200 million over two decades. (No plaintiff can benefit more than others in class-action suits.) He was fined nearly $8 million and sentenced to two years in prison.  He was just released in March 2010.
Lerach was famous for tracking stock prices — charting fluctuations against optimistic statements and insider selling — before a stock crashed. If company chiefs cashed in while investors lost their savings, Lerach smelled blood. If public investments were fueled by false claims, the charge was “fraud on the market.” Plus, any investment bank and Big 8 accounting firm that aided and abetted the principles were charged as secondary participants, unleashing a legal juggernaut.

Bill talks about himself,   the legal profession, and  his contributions on behalf of investors everywhere.
If there was ever a modern Greek tragedy about a man and his times, about corporate arrogance and illusions and the scorched-earth tactics to not only counteract corporate America but to beat it at its own game, Bill Lerach's story is it. 

attorney web site design

http://www.legalnewsbrief.blogspot.com

http://www.lawfirmmarketingnews.blogspot.com

http://metrolinkcomesclean.blogspot.com/

http://metrolinkclassaction.blogspot.com/

Nobody disputes that driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous. In fact, it's one of the most deadly crimes. You won't get any serious arguments from anybody that people should be allowed to drive while impaired. Nobody would dispute that you are far more likely to die at the hands of a DUI driver than at the hands of a serial killer or by gang violence.

The dispute is not about the problem of impaired driving, but rather about what to do about it. Every year, many states increase the jail time, fines and other penalties for DUI offenders. There is little evidence that increased punishment deters impaired driving. In fact, there's no conclusive evidence that suggests that the average would-be drunk driver even considers the penalties before turning on the ignition and hitting the road.

Most state lawmakers increase the penalties because it is politically popular to do so, and it’s the only thing they can think of doing. In most states, the average DUI convict spends no more than a day or two in jail for a first offense, and no longer than a year for a third offense. After that, the states have a tremendous range.

It seems for most offenders, a first, second or third DUI arrest is the wake-up call they need, and very few people get caught more than three times in their lifetime. In states such as Washington that have systems that treat and educate for alcohol and drug issues, there is a ray of hope that recidivism may be reduced. In states such as Arizona, where the focus is on punishment rather than treatment, DWI convictions often do little for a would-be repeat offender than take them off the road temprarily while they are incarcerated.

- attorney webdesign
- law firm website design
- lawyer web designers
- attorney web design

A $10 billion toxic tort class action lawsuit has been filed against BP over alleged emissions from its troubled Texas City oil refinery, alleging that workers and residents in the area were exposed to benzene and other chemicals.  

More than 2,200 workers at the refinery and residents from the surrounding area filed the BP class action lawsuit on August 3 in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that for 40 days earlier this year, the company illegally released the chemical benzene into the atmosphere.

The benzene lawsuit comes just as BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, was finally able to stop the flow of oil from a well a mile under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, which has caused a massive oil spill that is expected to cost the company tens of billions of dollars in oil spill lawsuits and clean up costs.

Plaintiffs in the BP Texas City refinery class action lawsuit say the company has been releasing benzene into the atmosphere at the plant due to a hydrogen compressor that broke down on April 6. The 2,212 plaintiffs allege that they suffered serious injuries and illnesses from benzene exposure.

Benzene is an industrial chemical that has been linked to the development of cancer, leukemia and other life-threatening health problems. It is a known carcinogen used as an industrial solvent in the production of plastic and synthetic rubber, as well as drugs and dyes.

BP’s Texas City Refinery is the third-largest oil refinery in the United States, and has been the subject of several major safety incidents. As recently as September, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration hit BP with an $87.4 million fine for not complying with a safety agreement made after a March 23, 2005 explosion and fire that killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others.

Lawyers who represent children in dependency proceedings say it’s time for these children – regardless of which state they live – to have a right to legal counsel.

Meeting yesterday at the 2010 American Bar Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco, a panel of children’s rights advocates discussed eliminating the barriers that prevent lawyers from representing these children in life-impacting legal proceedings.  

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services there are more than half a million children in foster care and under the jurisdiction of family courts.  These are children who have been, for example, removed from their homes, placed in temporary shelters and possibly separated from siblings.

When it comes down to who is looking out for the rights and interests of the children in the courtroom – a lawyer, a guardian ad litem or an attorney ad litem -- there is no clear-cut, uniform answer.

“Every state has a different model,” says Hilarie Bass, a Miami commercial litigator who does pro bono work representing foster kids.

She points out the obvious — that there are too many children who need help, without enough money in the system to serve them.  Despite those hurdles, Bass, who is also incoming chair of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation, says she expects the section to make a recommendation on the right to counsel for children that should come up for debate before the ABA’s policymaking body in 2011.

“It would be a recommendation to provide for counsel and representation of children in delinquency and dependency proceedings,” says Bass. 

ABA President Carolyn Lamm says the ABA is an association interested in promoting the best interest of children and finding solutions “before we have a crisis situation.”

Lamm adds, “These citizens are the most vulnerable of course, in terms of no one to defend their legal rights.  The ABA does so much work in the public interest.  This is a segment of the public that needs us and we are strong and forceful advocates for children and the rights of children to be represented."  

So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue of whether children have a constitutional right to counsel in dependency proceedings.

Georgia attorney Trenny Stovall directs the DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center and represents children in dependency proceedings every day.  She says children who don’t have their own lawyer do not have a voice.

“When children don’t have a lawyer, their ability to be considered a living being with rights is vastly diminished.  Without representation, they become a widget in the eyes of the court,” says Stovall.

Children like 16-year-old Trevor Wade — who has been through the dependency court system — will tell you that having a lawyer makes a difference.  He says his lawyer fought against a system that would have placed him back with an abusive father.  These days he’s an intern in a public defender’s office, helping kids who are going through the court system.

Wade hopes to go to law school and is zealous in his advocacy on this issue.

He says that when states and courts make decisions not to provide lawyers for children, the question that needs to be asked is, “What is the price of a child’s success?”