|
|
|
Josef Cowan | Civil Litigation Construction Law Firm Los Angeles
Legal Interview |
2013/10/25 22:46
|
Josef Cowan founded our firm over 20 years ago. The following are some questions and answers that discuss his unique qualities and why so many individuals and businesses trust our firm with their legal and business needs.
Q. Why did you become a lawyer?A. I’m the youngest of 6 kids raised by a single mother. We didn’t have much money, so I started working in the construction industry at a very young age. In fact, I started a construction business when I was 17 years old, and that company is still in existence and has over 400 employees. The construction industry involves a huge number of legal issues in a wide variety of different areas. I always found the legal issues fascinating and believed that a solid understanding of the law and ability to resolve complex issues is a huge advantage in business.
Q. What inspired you to found the Cowan Law Group?A. When I originally went to law school, I intended to use my legal training to help me with the construction business I started. However, I found I have a real passion for helping individuals and small to medium-sized companies resolve their legal and business problems in ways that make good business sense.
Q. How is the Cowan Law group different from other law firms?A. There are far too many firms that provide little to no value to their clients, and many that create more problems than they resolve. In many instances, the attorneys are good, smart people, but they don’t have the background or business savvy necessary to provide truly strategic, cost-effective legal solutions to their clients. This is a real problem because a good attorney who understands not just the legal issues, but also his client’s business challenges and objectives, is a tremendous resource and strategic advantage. With that in mind, I created the Cowan Law Group, whose main mission is to provide legal services that are smart, creative, and practical.
Q. So what makes you a good lawyer and advisor?A. I have benefitted greatly from a first class college and legal education. What I believe is even more important, however, is my life experience. Starting at a very young age, I have had to overcome many challenges both personally and in business. As a lawyer and advisor, these experiences have been invaluable because, through them, I have developed an ability to look at problems and challenges and know how to navigate through them in ways that are smart and effective.
But what is most telling is what my clients say. Over the course of my legal career, I have successfully resolved over $700 million of legal disputes in many different areas, including general business, real estate, construction, employment, and trade secret litigation, and I have handled a large number of business transactions. My clients often tell me that I provide counseling that is practical and mindful of business priorities, and that I handle it all well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to look at death row inmate with low IQ
Top Legal News |
2013/10/23 18:52
|
The Supreme Court will take up a Florida case over how judges should determine if a death row inmate is mentally disabled, and thus ineligible for execution.
The justices said Monday they will review a Florida Supreme Court ruling that upheld the death sentence for a man who scored just above the state's cutoff for mental disability as measured by IQ tests.
Freddie Lee Hall was sentenced to death for killing Karol Hurst, a 21-year-old, pregnant woman who was abducted leaving a grocery store in 1978.
Florida law prohibits anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher from being classified as mentally disabled, regardless of other evidence to the contrary. Hall's scores on three IQ tests ranged from 71 to 80.
In 2002, the Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally disabled inmates. But the 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia essentially left it to the states to determine how to measure mental disability.
Florida is one of nine death penalty states with a strict IQ limit, said Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente. The others are: Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
Pariente voted with the majority to uphold Hall's sentence, but noted there is no national consensus on how to determine mental disability.
Hall's case is legally complicated. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court threw out Hall's original death penalty and ordered a new sentencing hearing. A judge then resentenced Hall to death, but declared he was mentally disabled. That took place before the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling and before Florida passed a law setting the IQ limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice's wheels slowed as shutdown hits courts
Headline News |
2013/10/14 20:50
|
The government shutdown is slowing the wheels of justice in federal courts by delaying civil cases, forcing prosecutors to operate with skeleton staffs and raising uncertainty about the system's immediate future if the stalemate continues past Thursday.
That's when federal courts officials expect the reserve funds they have been using since the Oct. 1 start of the shutdown will run out.
Criminal cases, which are required by law to go to a speedy trial, are still moving ahead, as are most bankruptcy cases and appeals. Civil cases and those in immigration court, however, are feeling the greatest impact from the shutdown.
"The Constitution tells us what we have to do and we can't control our workload. It walks in the door, whether we're funded or not funded," said U.S. District Court Chief Judge Loretta Preska in New York, who has put all civil cases except those already in trial on hold at the request of the U.S. Attorney there.
She said the nearly 450 district court employees that serve the New York metro area will report to work to keep criminal cases on track even if funds run out. Officials at courts based in San Francisco, Philadelphia and St. Louis, Mo., also say their employees will work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court term begins amid government shutdown
Politics & Law |
2013/10/11 17:53
|
The Supreme Court began its new term Monday by turning away hundreds of appeals, including Virginia's bid to revive its anti-sodomy law.
The justices took the bench just past 10 o'clock on the first Monday in October, even as much of the rest of the government was coping with a partial shutdown.
Chief Justice John Roberts formally opened the new term without any reference to the partisan impasse over the budget and the new health care law that his vote helped uphold in 2012.
The court has announced it will operate normally at least through the end of this week. The justices are hearing six arguments, including a challenge to limits on campaign contributions.
Among the appeals denied Monday was Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's request to review a federal appeals court ruling that threw out the state's ban on oral and anal sex. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law in a case involving two adults. Virginia argued that the Texas ruling did not apply to sex acts between adults and minors.
The justices did not comment in rejecting that argument Monday.
The court also declined to hear, at least for now, Argentina's appeal of a ruling that orders it to pay hedge funds that bought up some of the country's unpaid debt from its default in 2001. The country is continuing to pursue its case in federal court in New York and could file another appeal with the Supreme Court.
The new term may be short on the sort of high-profile battles over health care and gay marriage that marked the past two years, but the court already has agreed to hear important cases about campaign contributions, housing discrimination, government-sanctioned prayer and the president's recess appointments. Abortion, contraceptive coverage under the new health care law and cellphone privacy also may find their way onto the court's calendar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG&E starts pipeline shutdown under court order
Press Releases |
2013/10/07 17:37
|
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. says it will comply with a judge's order and shut down a natural gas pipeline after safety issues were raised.
The utility said Sunday it believes the pipeline is safe despite an engineer's email questioning the safety of the 83-year-old line's welds. PG&E said it could take until Tuesday to safely shut down the line and seamlessly switch its customers to another line.
A judge ordered the line shut down after San Carlos city officials discovered the email and declared a "state of emergency."
The email said PG&E's records incorrectly show the line containing a newer, more reliable weld than it actually has.
PG&E said state-of-the-art tests show the line is safe and that it was shutting the line only because of the court order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court moves BP forward in settlement disput
Headline News |
2013/10/04 20:43
|
The April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well off the Louisiana coast triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and led to millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf. Shortly after the disaster, BP agreed to create a $20 billion compensation fund that was administered at first by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, led by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.
BP argued that Barbier and court-appointed claims administrator Patrick Juneau misinterpreted terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs' lawyers countered that BP undervalued the settlement and underestimated how many claimants would qualify for payments.
In the panel's majority opinion, Judge Edith Brown Clement said BP has consistently argued that the settlement's complex formula for compensating businesses was intended to cover "real economic losses, not artificial losses that appear only from the timing of cash flows."
"The interests of individuals who may be reaping windfall recoveries because of an inappropriate interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and those who could never have recovered in individual suits for failure to show causation are not outweighed by the potential loss to a company and its public shareholders of hundreds of millions of dollars of unrecoverable awards," Clement wrote.
Judge Leslie Southwick wrote a concurring opinion. Judge James Dennis wrote a partial dissent, largely disagreeing with the other two.
"Because BP has not satisfied its heavy burden of showing that a change in circumstances or law warranted the modifications it sought, the district court correctly affirmed the Administrator's decision rejecting BP's argument and actions to modify the agreement," Dennis wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Military high court to hear Kan. HIV exposure case
Top Legal News |
2013/09/30 22:21
|
The highest court for the U.S. armed forces has agreed to hear the appeal of a Kansas airman convicted of assault for exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita, his attorney said Friday.
David Gutierrez was a sergeant serving at McConnell Air Force base in Kansas when he was sentenced in 2011 to eight years in prison and stripped of his rank in an aggravated assault case. Prosecutors told the trial judge that a stiff sentence would send a message that the military values the integrity of its service members, saying Gutierrez played Russian roulette with his sexual partners' lives.
The defense on appeal has won a rare opportunity to present before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces an argument that his attorney says could set a far-reaching precedent across the military.
"It will set the table for the entire military services as to what kind of evidence is necessary to find that someone can cause grievous bodily injury after testing positive for HIV," said Kevin McDermott, one of his defense attorneys.
In addition to the HIV issue, the military appeals court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to find Gutierrez committed adultery. The defense contends Gutierrez can't be guilty of adultery because his wife participated with her husband in the "swinger's lifestyle."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
