David Boies challenged America’s lawyers to “bring the rule of law to its full fruition here in this country … to fulfill the goals and lofty rhetoric of our founding fathers,” as the keynote speaker at the Opening Assembly of the 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco.

The rule of law was the assembly theme, as ABA members gathered in the Herbst Theater of the War Memorial Veterans Building, site of the signing of the charter of the United Nations in 1945.  

President Carolyn B. Lamm pointed to ABA efforts from activities of the Section of International Law to such projects as the Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative, the Rule of Law Initiative and the World Justice Project as advancing United Nations goals to spread democracy based on law around the world.

Boies, co-counsel with Ted Olson in winning a federal district court ruling Wednesday that overturned California’s Proposition 8, cited “numerous challenges to the rule of law in our own country,” in applying that theme at home.

When our nation was born, it consisted of “wes” and “theys,” Boies said, with the “wes” being white male property owners and the “theys” comprising everyone else.  As the national history unfolded, the circle of “wes” expanded to encompass more and more segments of society.  

“We have an opportunity to expand the circle of ‘wes’ until there are no more ‘theys,’” said Boies, urging lawyers to work toward ensuring that “liberty and equality and protection of individual rights is something that every citizen equally enjoys.”

To achieve that goal, Boies identified four challenges confronting his audience.

First, he suggested the rule of law works best when adversaries have equivalent resources, whether those resources are plentiful or sparse.   But the “time when our system tends to break down is when one party has tremendous resources and the other party does not.”  Those are the times that “threatened to undermine the protections of the rule of law… [and lawyers] need to find ways to reduce the imbalance,” he said.  He urged reducing procedural advantages that favor the “better resourced party,” and urged lawyers to not “use discovery as a war of attrition,” for example. 
   
Second, he called for “better tools to help juries” decide important but complex cases, such as allowing jurors to ask questions and take notes on testimony.

His third challenge was to “improve judges and the judicial machinery,” citing a “crisis in terms of financing the justice system in the United States.”  First year associates in his law firm are paid higher salaries than federal district court judges, and state court judges earn even less, he said.  “If we can’t afford to spend a fraction of what we are spending to expand that system to Iraq, something is wrong with our sense of priorities,” he maintained.  

All lawyers must stand up for the independence of judges, resisting threats to their safety when they make unpopular decisions, said Boies, noting that there already have been threats to harm the judge who  ruled in the Proposition 8 litigation.

Boies’ cited predictably equal application of the law without regard to the identity of the parties as the final challenge to the rule of law, saying that when rights depend on who is asserting them, “the rule of law is undermined.”

An appeals court panel has reversed the murder conviction of a mother accused of driving her teenage son and his friends to a Southern California park where a 13-year-old rival gang member was stabbed to death.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal panel ruled 2-1 on Monday that jurors in the case of 33-year-old Eva Daley were given an "impermissibly ambiguous" jury instruction during the 2008 trial.

Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon wrote that case records don't show the jury based its verdict on a legally valid theory, so the conviction should be reversed.

Daley had been convicted of second-degree murder for the 2007 death of Jose Cano.

Prosecutors argued that Daley wanted revenge because Cano allegedly stabbed her son six months earlier.

Answers to this question and more will be provided during an upcoming program sponsored by the American Bar Association.  The program will be held as part of the association’s Annual Meeting, which begins Thursday.

Who:        Stewart A. Baker

                Former assistant secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security

What:       “Cyber Security, Law and Liability — Thieves, Spies and Hostile Armies”

                Sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on Law & National Security

When:       Friday, 3:45 p.m. — 5:15 p.m.

Where:       Moscone West Convention Center

     Room 2022, Second Floor

     747 Howard St.

     San Francisco

Joining Baker in the discussion will be Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, dean and professor of law, University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and former general counsel, CIA; Robert Knake, International Affairs Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, and co-author of Cyber War; and

Harvey Rishikof, professor of law and national security studies at the National War College, and former legal counsel to the deputy director of the FBI.

What will happen if the government makes it easier for federal agencies to demand that companies release personal electronic communications of persons who are part of a terrorism investigation?  Baker answered that question in The Washington Post (7/29). 

With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world.  As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.

A partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner & Block, Smith is one of the country’s leading lawyers in the areas of First Amendment litigation and appellate advocacy.  He has presented oral argument in more than a dozen Supreme Court cases, including his groundbreaking advocacy in Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark gay rights case that is often compared in significance to the Brown v. Board of Education case, which was argued and won by Thurgood Marshall. 

Smith has not only led the way in advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights, but has also been a leading advocate in addressing voting rights issues, including arguing three times before the U.S. Supreme Court in voting rights matters since 2004. His most recent argument was in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a 2008 case challenging an Indiana voter ID law.  The case has been called the most significant election law case to reach the court since Bush v. Gore in 2000. Smith has also been a leader in advancing freedom of speech issues, especially with regard to the application of the First Amendment to the Internet and video games. 

The Thurgood Marshall Award recognizes substantial, long-term contributions to the advancement of civil rights, civil liberties and human rights in the United States.  The section established the award in 1992, conferring the inaugural award upon U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.  Since that time, recipients have included:

1993     Judge Frank M. Johnson                                    1994     Oliver W. Hill

1995     Ralph S. Abascal                                              1996     Jack Greenberg

1997     Judge Damon J. Keith                                        1998     Stephen B. Bright

1999     Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg                2000     Judge Revius Q. Ortique, Jr.

2001     Judge William Wayne Justice                            2002     Judge Don Edwards

2003     Dale Minami                                                    2004     Fred D. Gray

2005     Judge Abner J. Mikva                                        2006     Julius Chambers

2007     Judge Matthew J. Perry, Jr.                                2008     Judge Nancy Gertner

2009     Former Attorney General Janet Reno

The keynote speaker for this year’s event will be Pamela S. Karlan, the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford Law School, and the founding director of the school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.  One of the nation’s leading experts on voting and the political process, Karlan has served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission and an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  She is a former law clerk of Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Abraham D. Sofaer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world.  As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is investigating potential claims against the board of directors of Health Grades, Inc.concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the Company's entry into an agreement to be acquired by Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. in a transaction valued at approximately $294 million.

Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to approval of the transaction by Company's board of directors; in particular, whether the Company undertook a fair process to obtain fair consideration for all shareholders of Health Grades. For more information regarding our investigation, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/hgrd.

Under the proposed agreement, Health Grades shareholders will receive $8.20 in cash for each Health Grades share of common stock they own.

If you own shares of Health Grades and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/hgrd. You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. For more information about class action cases in general, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.

Robbins Umeda LLP has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of the law by certain officers and directors at XenoPort, Inc. XenoPort is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing internally discovered product candidates that utilize the body's natural nutrient transport mechanisms to enhance the therapeutic benefits of drugs. The Company was founded in 1999 and is based in Santa Clara, California.

Robbins Umeda LLP's investigation concerns whether the Company's directors and officers caused the Company to make materially false and misleading representations regarding XenoPort's Phase 3 clinical program for an extended-release tablet and development stage drug called Horizant, also known as XP13512 ("512"). Specifically, Robbins Umeda LLP is investigating whether the Company's fiduciaries caused XenoPort to mislead investors about 512, a potential treatment for moderate-to-severe primary Restless Legs Syndrome, including misleading the public about 512's safety.

On February 17, 2010, the Company publicly disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had declined to approve 512, with concerns about laboratory results showing pancreatic cell tumors in rats as a result of the use of the drug. Upon this news, XenoPort's stock fell $12.93 per share to close at $6.67 per share on February 18, 2010 -- a one-day decline of 66%.

If you are a shareholder of XenoPort, 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.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati overturned Donald Ayers' conviction of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and Roger Faulkenberry's conviction of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, saying the government didn't provide enough proof.

Remaining in place are Ayers' convictions of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and securities fraud, and Faulkenberry's convictions of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., securities fraud and wire fraud.

Ayers, 74, is serving 15 years in Coleman federal prison in Florida after his 2008 conviction with Faulkenberry and four other top executives from National Century Financial Enterprises, a Columbus health care financing company. Federal prosecutors compared the case to Enron.

Faulkenberry, 49, is serving 10 years in Gilmer federal prison in West Virginia after his 2008 conviction.

The court said the government didn't prove that advances Faulkenberry and Ayers made to medical companies were designed to conceal the money's source.