Archive for the 'Lawyers' Category

Wells Fargo Bank Commits Fraud Against Its Customers

Wells Fargo Bank is facing a lawsuit from the city of Los Angeles, which alleges that the bank participated in unfair business practices by persuading its employees to engage “in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct.” According to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo workers were under a great deal of pressure to meet sales goals, and thus, were in the habit of opening accounts for their current customers without first obtaining their permission.

The city of Los Angeles refers to Wells Fargo as a “fee-generating machine” because of its efforts to compel its employees to meet unrealistic sales goals. According to the city, “Wells Fargo places unrelenting pressure on its bankers to open several accounts for each customer. “ “Wells Fargo’s bankers are thus naturally and predictably forced to use alternative means to meet quotas.”

As a result of the workers’ actions, customers were subjected to more fees and a diminished ability to obtain credit anyplace else. For example, their credit reports were affected, thereby having an adverse impact on their capacity to obtain a car loan or mortgage. Customers also felt compelled to get identity theft protection because Wells Fargo accounts were being opened in their names without the customers’ consent. wells-fargo-robbery

The city is therefore attempting to secure a court order from the Los Angeles Superior Court that would mandate that the bank act in compliance with the law. It is also seeking to have Wells Fargo penalized with a fine of $2,500 per violation in accordance with California’s unfair competition statute and restitution.

In addition, the city alleges in its lawsuit that Wells Fargo workers were dishonest with customers when they told them that they had to open more accounts in order to get a checking account. Moreover, workers incorrectly informed customers that there were no fees associated with the accounts, and pressured customers into buying extra products, such as life insurance.

Furthermore, the city claims that Wells Fargo was in violation of state and federal law when it misappropriated customers’ private information, and neglected to inform customers that their private information had been misused. In response, representatives from Wells Fargo said that they have disciplined a few employees who have misappropriated customers’ personal information in order to open accounts without their permission.

Ken Wallman, a business owner, was one customer whose private information was misused by Wells Fargo workers. Wallman told Los Angeles Times in an interview that he opened a checking account with Wells Fargo, but eventually he had a dozen additional accounts because the bank opened additional accounts without first obtaining his approval. When Wallman tried to close the accounts, Wells Fargo refused and, instead, charged him extra fees.

Unfair Competition Law

Under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), there are five definitions of unfair competition outlined in §17200. They are as follows:

  1. An illegal business act or practice;
  2. A business act or practice that is unfair;
  3. A business act or practice that is fraudulent;
  4. Advertising that is unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading; or
  5. Any act forbidden by §§17500-17577.5.

Under §17203, the court can order injunctions to prevent the unfair competition as well as order other equitable defenses. Victims of unfair competition can obtain relief through the court, which can order that money or property be returned to them. In the event that an injunction is issued in accordance with §17200, those who intentionally engage in unfair competition could be penalized up to $6,000 per day. And when a lawsuit is filed by a government agency, such as the city of Los Angeles, civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation are permitted.

Incoming search terms for the article:

California Lawyer Proposes to Kill All Homosexuals

Matt McLaughlin’s anti-gay ballot measure proposal is so extreme it almost seems like a parody of same-sex marriage proponents. At least, I hope it’s a parody. The idea that McLaughlin’s proposal might be serious is terrifying.

california lawyer proposes killing all gaysMcLaughlin‘s first decree is that homosexuals “be put to death by bullets to the head – or by any other convenient method.” Moreover, the “general public is empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially.” Murder of homosexuals, mass murder in fact, would be a public duty. The proposal would allow anyone to kill anyone else, provided that the victim was homosexual. Since the dead can’t talk, the proposal is a public license to kill.

As if legalized genocide wasn’t enough, McLaughlin’s proposal has two other outrageous provisions. The second provision is that it would be illegal to distribute information aimed at promoting acceptance of homosexual relations, a clear violation of the First Amendment’s free speech right. The third provision is that homosexuals can’t serve in public office, hold a government job, or receive public benefits.

The proposal is over the top, but there’s a subtlety in the design. The proposal also prohibits any court from hearing a case on the proposed law before the California Supreme Court hears the case.  This last provision is a response to Proposition 8, the California proposition that made same-sex marriage illegal, but was overturned by the courts. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 though, making the proposal’s choice of court logical (even if no judge would vote to uphold this). The limit on jurisdiction indicates that the proposal was written with more care than mere disdain of homosexuality.

McLaughlin Should Be Suspended from the Bar for This Stunt

Why am I taking the time to dissect a proposal that probably wouldn’t even get enough signatures to get on the ballot? Some people are calling for McLaughlin’s disbarment. I wouldn’t go that far, but I think the state bar should suspend McLaughlin for this stunt.

It’s obvious that McLaughlin applied his knowledge of the law when he drafted this excuse for a proposal. A lay person who wanted to kill homosexuals wouldn’t take the time to limit the courts’ ability to hear the case or select the court which upheld the previous proposition that prohibited same-sex marriage. McLaughlin actually did research on this and it’s research on the type of questions that most non-lawyers wouldn’t even think about. This proposal is only possible because McLaughlin is a lawyer.

Since McLaughlin’s legal knowledge and skills were used to advance this farce, McLaughlin was acting as a lawyer when he submitted his bogus proposal. Lawyers cannot file frivolous papers to the courts. A proposal that advocates for a license to murder is frivolous because the proposal has no chance of passing and has no chance of being upheld even if the public lost its collective minds.

Granted, submitting a ballot submission is not the same as filing a paper with a court. However, the ballot initiative system is still a public forum and lawyers like McLaughlin should not be wasting taxpayer money on jokes like this. McLaughlin should be suspended for abusing a state resource by filing a frivolous document.

Despite what the homosexual community and its advocates think, I don’t think McLaughlin should be disbarred. In addition to all the typical concerns about free speech, McLaughlin is a lawyer. Lawyers have the ability – the power- to advocate for a change in the law. The public and the state bar expect that the changes advocated will be positive changes, like desegregation, rather than advocating for murder. The fact is though there is no rule that the changes lawyers propose have to be positive changes in the law.

The problem is that McLaughlin’s proposed legal change would destroy the very law it would be changing. The proposal would throw people in jail for promoting acceptance of homosexual relations. It’s obvious that would be unconstitutional even to the most legally illiterate among us. The proposal advocates for murder. It’s obvious that’s immoral even to the most depraved persons. McLaughlin wouldn’t be changing course in the ship of state; he would be sinking the ship entirely.

I’ve treated McLaughlin’s proposal like he’s 100 percent serious about this scheme, when in fact this is probably just a crazy parody (I hope). I appreciate that he could be making a point by parodying the other side, or that he’s advocating for a change in the state initiative system by showing that even the craziest of propositions could make it to the ballot. However, McLaughlin could do that without abusing his profession, a profession that many already see as amoral at best.

Incoming search terms for the article:

If Justice Scalia Is Right, Then Let’s Make Law School 7 Years

Earning a law degree takes three years. The only thing worse than the absurd cost of law school is the fact that the third year is generally regarded as a waste of time. Many legal academics and even President Obama have contended that law school should be shortened to two years.

justice scalia law schoolThe Honorable Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court recently spoke on this issue. Convinced that law school should remain three years, he states that law school isn’t a trade school, but something more. To quote: “[Law school] is a school preparing men and women not for a trade but for a profession—the profession of law.”

Although Justice Scalia’s sincerity is touching, and although the high regard he holds for the law is inspiring, his words fail to address the issue at hand: can someone learn to be a successful lawyer in two years? If the answer is “yes,” then what is the actual value of the third year of law school?

I agree that education is important. However, at the end of the day, education is a means to an end. The purpose of law school isn’t something mystical. The purpose of law school is to learn to be a lawyer.

If Justice Scalia is right—that is, if law school is meant to be something more than a “trade school”—then why settle for three years? Why not stretch it out to five? People with Ph.D.’s in medieval studies often go to school for that long—or even longer. Why not elevate the J.D. to the status of the M.D. and keep law students in school for seven years?

It would be one thing if an extra year was just an extra year. A little more education never hurt anyone. However, in the case of law school, an extra year means an extra $50,000+ of debt.

 

Authored by Peter Clarke, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Content Manager. Peter Clarke is also a freelance writer and curates Screenplay Lists.

Incoming search terms for the article:

“Paperless in One Hour for Lawyers”

Going paperless is not only a trendy movement, it’s also a highly practical step to achieving an efficient law office. Many large law firms are already there. However, if you are a sole practitioner and you don’t have your own IT department to carry out the technicalities, then going paperless probably sounds more like a hassle than a revolution.

paperless in one hour for lawyersPaperless in One Hour for Lawyers” by Sheila M. Blackford and Donna S. M. Neff provides a quick and easy guide that is specifically intended for solo practitioners and small firms. Ms. Blackford, a paperless attorney in Oregon as well as the Editor-in-Chief of Law Practice magazine, clearly explains the benefits of going paperless. For example: “It shouldn’t come as a surprise that there is an enormous loss of productivity when you spend even fifteen minutes a day searching for a specific document. If your billable rate is $200 an hour, the cost of fifteen minutes of unproductive time is $50 a day…or $13,000 a year.”

Important information found in “Paperless in One Hour for Lawyers” includes a guide to the essential hardware and software you will need, a review of the apps that are available, and an overview of the business practices that should be implemented. The sections are easy to follow and graciously concise. Read the book in one sitting—in one hour—and you’ll be good to go.

Authored by Peter ClarkeLegalMatch Content Manager 

Incoming search terms for the article:

Berkeley Law Students Allegedly Decapitate Exotic Bird At Las Vegas Casino

Despite what you’ve been told, whatever happens in Las Vegas does not simply stay within the confines of the city’s limits.  In fact, the exact opposite usually happens.  Whether it’s cheating on your spouse or losing your life savings at a craps table, the repercussions often spread to the rest of your life.  Nothing stays in Las Vegas.  Actually, that’s too strong of a statement.  If you commit a crime in the city, jurisdiction will usually remain within Sin City.  Just ask these guys.

By now you’ve probably seen this story in the news rounds, but in case you’ve yet to hear this fascinating tale of law students and animal cruelty intrigue, here’s a quick review.  Eric Cuellar, 24, and Justin Teixeira, 24, are law students at the University of California, Berkeley.  The two were on a trip in Las Vegas when a witness allegedly saw them emerge from bushes inside the Flamingo hotel and casino’s Wildlife Habitat.  Not too strange by Las Vegas standards.  After all, as The Hangover has taught us, people can end up in weird places while staying in Vegas.

But apparently the duo took their hijinks too far.  Teixeira was allegedly holding the decapitated body of a 14-year-old helmeted guinea fowl, an exotic bird in the hotel’s Wildlife Habitat.  Teixeria allegedly threw the dead fowl at Cuellar while stating, “I f—ing killed wildlife.”

Doesn’t sound like very lawyerly behavior, huh?  Nor for that matter, very humane either.  A witness certainly didn’t think so.  She called the cops and the two were arrested.  And like any good aspiring attorney, both men refused to talk to police and instead asked for a lawyer.  Guess they were paying attention in criminal procedure class.

The bird, whose name is Turk, was valued between $150 to $175.  Both men were jailed for suspicion of conspiracy and willful malicious torture/killing of wildlife.  Surveillance video on the scene apparently shows a third male suspect, but police have yet to locate him.

In case you’re wondering, no, this is definitely not the way one should endeavor to start their legal career.  While this story may sound a little silly, the charges these men face are no joke.  Conspiracy and animal cruelty are serious felony offenses.  If convicted, the pair could face potential five-figure fines and more than a year in prison.  And so far, the evidence seems pretty damning.

Malicious torture or killing of wildlife is the intentional harm or destruction of an animal without any purpose.  In Teixeria and Cuellar’s case, the dead bird speaks for itself.  But this isn’t quite an open-and-shut case.  The pair may have a possible reprieve regarding whether they actually possessed the necessary mental intent to kill the bird.

For Teixeria, it’s definitely not a good thing that a witness claims to have heard him admit to beheading the bird.  However, as we all know, witness testimony doesn’t always necessarily lead to a person’s conviction.  Credibility plays a big role in determining whether to believe a witness’ statement.  This case is no different.

But assuming the statement is believed, the duo could always fall back on an intoxication defense.  Remember, the animal cruelty law they’re accused of breaking requires an intentional action.  And courts have long held that being drunk can prohibit a person from developing the necessary mindset for an intentional crime.  This, it would seem, would be Teixeria and Cuellar’s best bet to dismiss or reduce their charge to a lesser offense.

For now though, there haven’t been enough facts released about the story to make a proper guess as to the case’s outcome.  The two are due to return to court soon.  Both men have clean criminal records.  However, that might not be the situation for long.

A felony conviction is an ugly blemish to have on one’s record, but for law students, the negative effects are far worse.  Don’t forget, to become a lawyer one has to also pass a moral character examination.  And there’s no better way to fail these background checks than by having a felony conviction on your record.  For Teixeria and Cuellar, the outcome of their criminal investigation could be what decides whether they become lawyers or be forced to find new careers.

Incoming search terms for the article: