I feel the need to comment on the potential actors’ strike today.  Not so much that I want to discuss and dissect the actual deal points as that is not what I find odd about what is going on.  First of all, I definitely thought that after the writers’ strike that there would be NO CHANCE that there would be an actor’s strike. Considering the affects of the writers’ strike, it just seemed impossible. Absolutely impossible.

I think everyone deserves their royalties, their new media compensation but can’t we just all get along? It’s a cliche I rarely use but I just want the entertainment business to be “business as usual”. Wow, I am really going with the cliches on this one. But, it’s true. As an attorney, I like the fact that I can work with clients and negotiate on their behalf. However, if I was one of the many actors in the guild, I would find it frustrating that I wasn’t right there talking to the people that are making the decisions.

I just hope that everything can be resolved.  It has become such an ego battle between AFTRA and SAG. That is another point that I think is important. When resolving various issues, no matter what the situation, the key is to keep “ego” out of it the best you can. Here is a situation where ego could potential cut the ability for a positive resolution. That is usually how it happens but I am just hoping that the issues can be resolved and the entertainment business can get back to what it needs to be.

Ok, so I took a break from writing for a quick minute as suddenly the law didn’t seem quite that entertaining at all. However, I have found that each day I read the news, there are more stories that fascinate me. Mainly in the criminal arena. Today I read about Sandra Lawrence. Now, Sandra was having an affair with a man and when that man decided he wasn’t going to leave his wife, she shot his wife and then also stabbed her with a potato peeler.

She was in jail for 24 years and is awaiting to find out whether she has to go back to jail or not. She has taken all kinds of classes, gotten all types of degrees, has a job etc but I am confused on why it would be ok for her to get out of jail. Aren’t there consequences anymore to people’s actions? I am sure that she has changed. That is definitely a fact. Being in jail for 24 years would most likely change anyone I would think.

But, an affair, a gun and a potato peeler? Easy to forget what happened 24 years ago because of all of these “changes” but what about the message we send? I just wonder how many criminals out there commit crimes because they know even if they go to jail, someday they can behave really well in jail, go to school, not get in trouble with the other inmates or try to make weapons out of their toothbrushes and one day they will get out.

I feel for Ms. Lawrence as I am sure she is very sorry for what she did and believes that she did change. She should have never committed the crime in the first place. Or had an affair. Or used a potato peeler.

As promised, from time to time, I would like to steer clear from the law and focus on inspiration. I was sort of feeling odd that nothing lately really struck me to be so inspiring that I would want to write about it. However, in a strange twist, I find myself writing about a show called “The Singing Office” on TLC.

This show is a competition reality based show where people are in their every day work atmosphere and suddenly the guy from NSYNC and a woman from the Spice Girls show up. Suddenly these people are put into a singing group with their other colleagues and are now putting together a performance, either being trained by Joey Fatone or Mel B. Hopefully you know which one is the Spice Girl. In any event, the audience votes and at the end, one of the groups is crowned the winner.

I watched this show for the first time and really felt it filled the inspirational space I was hoping to write about at some point. These people really are putting themselves out on the line. We are not watching classically trained singers or even watching a performance that would really knock you out. It is more about the passion behind everyone that participates. You really see the teams work together and they are so into what they are doing. The audience loves it and it’s just really a fun event to watch.  You have the security guard who talks about music and is finally getting the chance to sing, the woman who is blind in her left eye yet is learning a dance performance and everyone just looks so happy.

I have always said that as long as you bring some creativity into your life, even if just for five minutes, it will help you feel a bit more fulfilled. It’s not about everyone needing to be the best performer. It is just great to watch people come together and do something new, while working together on it. I just loved this show and it was so happy seeing people try something like this. I highly recommend watching it sometime!

http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/singing-office/about.html

I felt the need to address this subject as it seems to be coming up lately. I keep meeting criminal defense attorneys. I am not sure why but it seems to keep happening. I always remember this time in law school when we were studying a case about the “felony murder rule”. Now, the felony murder rule basically steps up a crime to murder if a person dies while a felony is being committed and the defendant is now guilty (allegedly of course) of the murder as well regardless of whether they meant for the person to die or not. (ie: A person wants to rob a store and that is their only intent. Instead, they rob a store and then shoot the store owner. The felony murder rule would be applied.) There are lengthy conversations to be had about the felony murder rule. However,  back to my criminal law class. When we were studying this particular case surrounding the felony murder rule, the issue that a murder was actually committed didn’t seem to matter. Rather, the focus was whether the felony itself was being committed.

For me, I kept wanting to say but wait a minute, a murder happened. Can’t we focus on that for a second. It seemed as if everyone in my class sort of glossed over the idea and they were more interested in hashing out the facts over whether a felony was actually committed. It just seemed so strange. As if everyone was looking at this situation in such a practical way that the murder part sort of passed them by.

When I ask defense attorneys if they like what they do, they always say yes because it gives them a chance to make sure the person is getting a fair shot. I used to always say — but, what if you KNOW the person committed the crime? The general response is always how that is not their job to say but their job is to make sure the person is given their rights just like everyone else. I used to always take such offense to that. I used to think that I could never understand how someone could sit in the same room with a person that they know killed someone but yet fight so hard to make sure their rights are protected.

I know it is a job I could never do but I do have some comfort in knowing that there are people out there making sure others have their rights protected. I am going to interview a defense attorney so this issue should only get more interesting. More to come.  

If you get a notice on your apartment door saying “the eviction process has begun” but there isn’t an actual eviction notice, do you have to move out? As a tenant, you should always be aware of your rights. I will focus on California but each state should have a Department of Housing of some sort or a legal aid organization that can help you with your tenant rights.

In California, a landlord can give a 3 day, 30 day or 60 day notice to a tenant who is in breach of their obligations and rules as a tenant bound to a lease agreement. However, in order to evict a tenant, an unlawful detainer lawsuit must be filed. So, let’s say the first part of this process is receiving proper notice. One argument to make is that if your landlord tells you they are beginning the eviction process but you don’t receive any other type of notice, technically you could try to say that your landlord is giving you 30 days to move out and if you don’t move out, only then can they properly evict you. Most people would think getting evicted is an ordeal but again, I am all for making your life easier. If you hate your landlord and are getting in constant fights, you might as well move out and call it a day.

What happens when you can’t get your landlord to speak to you? FIND THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY.  I have heard many stories where the landlord lives in the building but won’t speak to the tenant and the tenant thinks the “landlord” is the only person that they need to contact. You need to go above the landlord. Sometimes speaking with anyone but your landlord is the best idea. The property management company is the best way to go. 

Two helpful sites to check out are: http://www.hud.gov/local/ca/renting/tenantrights.cfm and

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/index.shtml

Sometimes landlords like to take advantage of their tenants, don’t let it happen to you. Or better yet, if you have a landlord “situation”, I would start looking for a new place to live.

As someone who likes to buy lingerie, when I saw the headlines about Victoria’s Secret and some type of lawsuit, I figured I should check it out. In an adventure of her own, 52 year old Macrida Patterson damaged her cornea when a piece of metal holding some type of rhinestone on her thong underwear flew into her eye after she was trying to put it on.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKUA04469620080620

A products liability lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles and certainly this sounds ridiculous. 1.) What are the chances that a piece of metal would fly off of a piece of thong underwear? 2.) Does this woman know how to put on underwear? but, 3.) Is there any chance this really could be a logical lawsuit?

When someone files a products liability lawsuit, the claim is that the product is defective in some way. There are three ways a product can be defective either in its design, how it was manufactured or the way the product was marketed. So where does our defective thong fit in? Most likely it is a combination of the way it was manufactured or its design. However, most people are probably wondering about the plaintiff in this case. Doesn’t everyone know how to put on underwear? Why should Victoria’s Secret have any liability if this lady has her own underwear issues? 

Here is a key page from The Smoking Gun, which shows the actual complaint that was filed. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0617081secrets4.html

As part of a products liability claim, you will note the plaintiff has to state that the product was “defective” when it left the control of each defendant. The defendants can include the manufacturer, the supplier — anyone in the ”chain of command” the product followed. As for being “defective”, the focus is to show the product does not meet the safety standards expected by the public. Further, if you can show that the defective nature of the product is something that the defendant(s) could have foreseen, despite how the injury actually happened (ie: user error), the manufacturer could still be held liable.  The tricky part about this claim for a defendant is that products liability claims can be considered “strict liability” torts. So, if the product is found defective, the defendant could be liable, period. Regardless of how the plaintiff uses the product. Seems kind of strange doesn’t it. 

Is it defective if a piece of metal pops off your underwear and hits you in the eye?  Again, the issue is strict liability. If it ends up being that the alleged thong was defective, it won’t really matter whether the plaintiff needs some lessons in putting on underwear. Thus is the life of a products liability claim.

I’m sure when everyone hears about this lawsuit, they will roll their eyes as that is what I did. I get it — damaging your cornea probably isn’t fun. But, a lawsuit?    

Apparently I am one of the few people that feel that jury duty provides a sense of accomplishment. There is something about going to the courthouse, sitting around with your fellow jury duty servers, making sure you are doing your part in helping our system run properly. However, it seems many people often like to tell me about how they got out of a jury summons. How they just kept thinking of excuse, after excuse to delay the inevitable. In California, on the FAQ page for people that receive a jury summons, (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/faq.htm) one of the questions is: I’m busy. Why should I serve? The response is as follows:

As a juror you participate in an important public process and fulfill a civic obligation. All persons accused of a crime or involved in a civil dispute have a constitutional right to have a jury decide their cases. When you serve on a jury, you make important decisions affecting other people’s lives as well as your own community.

I suppose not getting paid, having to sit somewhere all day where something may or may not happen, missing an important meeting or lunch because you are stuck in jury duty are a few of the issues people have with jury duty. I have never been on a jury so I suppose my cheerful attitude rests on the fact that I feel as if I am participating in some larger system of good and I have not had the experience of being stuck on a trial for three weeks.

A friend of mine was saying she was selected for a drunk driving case. Despite hearing all of the facts, there was still a part of her that felt that maybe she still didn’t know all of the facts and she didn’t want to be put in a position of making a decision that would significantly affect the defendant’s life. At that moment, I realized that being a juror might be more difficult than I thought. Probably because I have never spent much time thinking about it because I have never been chosen as a juror. But, if I WAS picked, I think those same thoughts would likely go through my mind as well. Forget about the time it takes up, the endless waiting. What about when you actually have to make a decision? Can we trust the facts that are presented to us?  Let’s all hope so.

I wonder how many other people feel that way? That even if you are selected as a juror and you are presented with both sides of the facts, you still don’t feel that comfortable with putting someone in jail or making a decision that would affect someone’s life forever? Would love to hear some feedback.

Stephanie (S): What is your current occupation?

AJ: I am a web / marketing intern at Revision3 (http://www.revision3.com)

S: What is your general opinion of attorneys?

AJ: Growing up I wanted to be a lawyer, so that should tell you enough - I definitely respect the profession and see the need for the service.

S: If you wanted to be a lawyer, what made you change your mind?

AJ: To be brutally honest, I fell out of love with school. I am dying to graduate, and could never imagine doing more school.

S: Have you ever had to hire an attorney? If so, why?

AJ: Haven’t had the opportunity to do so!

S: Which areas of the law are interesting to you?

AJ: The aspect I found most interesting related to sports (a passion of mine). I wanted to be a sports agent and I know there is a lot of laws/ technicalities that come with drawing up and working on player contracts.

S: What do you think of Michael Vick (which, you know they will probably let him play again) and/or players that have some trouble with the law but then are still allowed to play their sports?

AJ: I think Vick will get blackballed. No owner would be willing to take on the PR for an out of shape former jailed QB. Athletes are treated as celebrities, so them playing even with law is normal and culturally accepted.

S: Do you ever watch Nancy Grace?

AJ: I know of the show, but I have never watched.

S: Do you have any legal shows that you do enjoy watching?

AJ: I’ve seen Law and Order but don’t watch it regularly. My mom used to watch Ally McBeal a lot, so I have caught a few episodes of that too.

S: Do you think social networking sites should have any liability for friends “gone wrong” (ie: someone starts stalking you on Facebook)?

AJ: I don’t think you can blame the social networks in any of these scenerios. The networks are merely the vehicle for communication, there is no forced interaction or friendships.

S: Are you familiar with the Megan Meier case and MySpace? Do you think MySpace should have any liability? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier)

AJ: I wasn’t familiar with the case but I took the time to read it over on the link you provided. I first want to say that my thoughts go out to Megan’s family - what a terrible and sad story. I don’t blame Myspace at all for this awful circumstance. Again Myspace was merely the vehicle, the terrible people behind the fake account should be held responsible.

S: As you know, they indicted the woman involved in this case. Do you think that is taking it too far or should there be more criminal liability where there are cases of cyber-stalking/bullying?

AJ: I think it was handled appropriately. The whole issue is scary / troubling though!

S: How did you decide to become a blogger?

AJ: I found blogging to be a great way to get my thoughts out to a mass following.

S: What did you do in the beginning to build your following? What if your blog had not built up a big following, would you have stopped doing it?

AJ: In the beginning I mainly used my social networks to gain some readership. From there my articles would receive the occasional link.

S: What is the funniest comment you ever received to your blog?

AJ: Hmmmm. I’ve never really received a funny comment on my blog My blog is rather serious, so in turn so are my comments.

S: On Twitter, you asked: “IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you were to start a blog today what would you use? WordPress, Tumblr, Droopal, SixApart?” What was the answer you received most frequently and did you expect a different answer?

AJ: The most common response was WordPress. I figured that wordpress would be the most popular answer, but I just wanted to make sure!

S: Are there any specific legal issues you foresee affecting the blogging community or legal issues that affect the community now?

AJ: I sure hope that legal issues will stay out of the blogging realm, but you never know when things can shift. I’m sure there is the opportunity for lawsuits regarding defamation of character and such.

S: Do you have any examples of when you think there has been defamation of character as it relates to someone’s blog?

AJ: Loren Feldman of 1938media did a spoof using a puppet of Shel Israel. That is about as close as I have seen it.

S: How good is Weeds??

AJ: Weeds rawks! I’m only at the beginning of season 2, but I’m loving it!

S: Is there anything you do where you wonder hmmmm, is this legal?

AJ: Hasn’t crossed my mind - I think I am too clean cut to worry about legalities.

S: What are three bands that you are listening to right now?

AJ: I’m more into the hip hop scene but I will give you what has been playing for me - Gnarls Barkley’s 1st album, Kanye West’s 1st album, and Lil Wayne’s single “Mr. Carter”

]]> http://thenotsolegalshow.com/2008/06/12/legal-and-not-so-legal-interview-aj-vaynerchuk/feed/ sdc10 http://thenotsolegalshow.com/2008/06/09/sexual-harassment-and-its-different-shapes/ http://thenotsolegalshow.com/2008/06/09/sexual-harassment-and-its-different-shapes/#comments Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:22:33 +0000 sdc10 http://thenotsolegalshow.wordpress.com/?p=41

Sexual Harassment is addressed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  According to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments and also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html.

The EEOC defines Sexual Harassment as: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

The question is how much is too much and when should you take legal action? Clearly men and women co-exist in the workplace and it is difficult to tell sometimes when a joke, advance, or comment is taken too far. We now have issues where there are same-sex advances as well. I have heard stories where a female assistant was making unwanted advances on another female assistant. (Yes, I know for some men the thought of that is exciting and certainly has nothing to do with harassment).  One of the assistants ended up leaving for other reasons but the situation was still uncomfortable. However, because it was a “same-sex” situation, it seemed as if everyone thought it was “funny” rather than paying attention to what the person might have been going through.

The other shape of harassment though is when both people are attracted to each other. In one quick snap, comments that normally would be seen as “harassment” are actually welcomed and encouraged by the two people involved. There is such a fine line between harassment and a scenario where both people willingly engage in some type of flirtatious dynamic. I am all for some good natured flirting but you are better off keeping it out of the workplace. You never know when the situation could turn against you.

Sometimes people are reluctant to report any type of harassing activity, especially when other claims might be made. A situation was presented where a homosexual male was making unwanted advances to a heterosexual male. The comment was made that the reason why the heterosexual male didn’t like the advances being made was because he was homophobic. Typically that issue does not arise if there are unwanted comments being made by a male to a female or a female to a male.  In that type of scenario, one person might be fearful to bring up the harassing behavior because they do not want to be accused of being discriminatory toward someone else.  

I am definitely interested in hearing what types of situations people encounter in the workplace as there is certainly a tipping point as to when you have an actual sexual harassment claim. Sexual tension can exist in any scenario but sexual harassment is a serious issue. It is definitely the worst feeling to work somewhere where you feel like you never know when the next comment will be made. Always know you can talk to your human resources department as a starting place before escalating the situation into a full blown lawsuit.

People sometimes ask whether or not I think they should hire an attorney. In certain cases, my answer is yes probably 90% of the time. I am not just saying that because I am an attorney and I am a fan of having someone pay sometimes an upwards of $400 an hour for legal services. However, some people look at hiring an attorney as a bad idea because they don’t want to send the “wrong impression”. As if somehow by bringing an attorney into the mix is going to sour the deal.

This is where you can consider a new thought. Bringing in an attorney can help you to see how legitimate a deal actually is sometimes. Most people want (or should want) to protect themselves in the best way possible. You may think you know every issue out there but hiring an attorney is allowing a trained (and unemotionally invested) eye to spot issues that you might not otherwise see.

For every attorney that is potentially a jerk, there are also good ones as well who won’t overcharge you and truly do have your best interest in mind. Don’t sell yourself short because you think bringing in an attorney might screw up something. If the person you are dealing with changes their mind because you bring in an attorney, it is possible the deal you were about to enter into was shady anyway.

I know a few of you are thinking that attorneys can make a deal more complicated than it needs to be. And yes, sometimes that is the case but that is why it is imperative to take your time in interviewing the attorney you choose. Find out about their fees. If the fees are too high for your budget, see if they have a sliding scale or perhaps would do some type of flat fee arrangement. Hopefully you can afford the fees but if not, it is always good to ask additional questions rather than giving up on hiring the person entirely. If you can build an ongoing business relationship with the attorney, they might be more inclined to cut you a break on the fees.

Aside from making sure your attorney has knowledge surrounding your particular legal need, find out what their philosophy is when negotiating a deal. Sometimes an attorney will get so caught up in their own ego that they lose sight of their client’s needs. Now, of course no one will admit to you that their ego is so big that they will put it in front of your needs but you need to ask enough questions to understand their negotiating tactics.

I am not a supporter of frivolous litigation so don’t confuse the two. I just feel that sometimes people get themselves into situations where they feel forced to sign an agreement rather than just simply slowing down. Slowing down enough to have someone review the agreement to make sure their best interests are protected. It takes twice as much time/effort/work to get someone out of something rather than if they had just taken the time to properly enter into the agreement in the first place.

Don’t let anyone force you into a deal!