The Ohio House this week passed House Bill 276, legislation that implements changes to Ohio’s medical liability laws. The bill updates Ohio’s “I’m Sorry” law to allow healthcare professionals to have a broader conversation with a patient following an adverse event and protects that conversation from later being introduced into evidence as an admission or statement against interest. Current law provides that, in any civil action regarding an unanticipated outcome of medical care, any expressions of apology or sympathy made by a healthcare provider are inadmissible as evidence of liability.
Finally making good on threatened executive action on immigration, last night, President Obama delivered the largest protection for undocumented immigrants in nearly 30 years.
When Obama took office, he pledged to break America’s broken immigration system. He managed to get a bipartisan immigration bill passed in the Senate. Still, the legislation stalled in the House.
Obama made the case on Thursday night that if House leaders had simply agreed to put the Senate bill to a vote then it would have passed and his executive action wouldn’t be necessary.
Anbefalingerne er udarbejdet i forlængelse af den nye lov om erhvervsdrivende fonde, der blev vedtaget den 3. juni 2014.
Loven indeholder en bestemmelse om, at bestyrelsen skal redegøre for, hvorledes de forholder sig til de af Komitéen for god Fondsledelse udarbejdede anbefalinger for god fondsledelse.
Illinois has become the 5th U.S. state to prohibit inquiries about criminal history on initial applications from most private sector jobs. Commonly known as “ban the box” legislation, the “Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act” requires private employers or employment agencies in Illinois who employ at least 15 employees to evaluate an applicant’s skills and qualifications before inquiring into the applicant’s criminal history. While asking about criminal history is not prohibited, employers are prohibited from making inquiries into criminal backgrounds and convictions until later in the interviewing process. Specifically, an employer or employment agency cannot “inquire about or into, consider, require disclosure of the criminal record or criminal history of an applicant until the applicant has been determined qualified for the position and notified that the applicant has been selected for an interview….or, if there is not an interview, until after a conditional offer of employment is made to the applicant….”
Citycar OÜ sold its 38.5% share in Jazz Pesulad. Jazz Pesulad is a car wash chain that is based on Estonian capital and offers various vehicle cleaning services. Jazz Pesulad was founded in 2003 with an innovative and modern concept of car washing services.
After a bench trial, a Connecticut state court rejected a violation of trade secret complaint by an employer against a former employee in BTS USA v. Executive Perspectives, Superior Court, Waterbury, Docket No. X10-CV-116010685 (Oct. 16, 2014). The plaintiff, BTU USA, provides training and consulting services to corporate clients using learning maps, computer simulations and board games. The defendant, Executive Perspectives (“EP”), offers essentially the same services and products.
Marshall Bergmann, a former BTS Senior Director who had access to much of BTS’ proprietary information, had signed a non-compete clause stating, among other things, that when he left, he would not solicit current BTS customers, or any client BTS had, during the last two years of his employment. BTS claimed that after Bergmann left his employment, he violated the non-compete provision by contacting and soliciting BTS clients through LinkedIn, and he stole some of the technology and products, such as packaging, the name of the packaging vendor and client lists, in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Other claims included Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Violation, tortious interference with business relationships and breach of contract.
Courts are intimidating environments, and if you find yourself having to go to court to settle a dispute – either as the Pursuer or the Defender – you would be well advised to instruct a solicitor. Of course, on some occasions this will not be possible. You may simply not have the funds or inclination to pay a solicitor, or view the sum being sued for as so small that it is not worth going to the expense of hiring a professional. You may be eligible for legal aid funding for a solicitor.
This brief guide is designed to highlight the current differences in procedures in Scottish Sheriff Courts with respect to “pleadings” and “fair notice”, and what these might mean for you when bringing (or defending) a claim on your own.
Heritable property law in Scotland has undergone a turbulent period of reform within the last 35 years. From introduction of the Land Register in 1979 to the abolition of feudal tenure in the imaginatively named Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, there has been a clear intention to simplify conveyancing. The Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 aims to modernise the law further and will have a major impact on Scottish conveyancing practice on 8 December 2014 when the Act comes into full force. Given that for many Scots, the purchase of heritable property represents the most costly and significant investment they will ever make, any change to heritable property law, whether substantive or administrative, will naturally have a significant impact across society-at-large. So what does the Act do?
You are in for a treat today, while I’m away at the ILN’s Regional Meeting of the Americas – we have a very special guest post! We’re welcoming Joanne Thorud, the Director of Marketing for the ILN’s Boston member, Davis, Malm & D’Agostine. She’s talking about one of my favorite subjects – client service – and shares with us an excellent post on why communication is so important in keeping clients happy.
Last week, I attended the Legal Marketing Association New England’s annual regional conference in Boston. The theme of this year’s conference was Simplify to Maximize. There were a dozen programs and over 30 speakers who presented topics focused on cutting through clutter and static and delivering clear and concise messages. One message that resounded in almost every program I attended was communication is key to maximizing client relationships. It is not a new or revolutionary concept, but it is extremely relevant, especially in today’s legal climate.