Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

The move will strengthen Kelley Drye’s expertise in several practice areas, including First Amendment, antitrust, and intellectual property. The new office will open as “Kelley Drye / White O’Connor.” In turn, all Kelley Drye clients will have access to some of the most well known trial attorneys on the West Coast.  In addition, White O’Connor clients now benefit from the expanded geographic reach Kelley Drye provides.

John M. Callagy, partner and Chair of Kelley Drye was quoted as saying in a press release at the firm’s website: “From shared clients to a common culture to complementary legal expertise, this expansion promises to be seamless and will benefit all of our clients.”

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP is a multidisciplinary law firm founded in 1836. Its attorneys and professionals meet the needs of U.S. and international companies across a wide spectrum of legal specialties.

The attorneys of White O’Connor Fink & Brenner LLP have extensive experience defending and prosecuting cases involving entertainment, First Amendment, insurance, media-related torts, real estate, copyright, trademark, antitrust, class actions and other complicated commercial disputes.

• Chief of Criminal Division for U.S. Attorney’s Office Set to Join Munger, Tolles & Olson
• Nationally Recognized Advertising Attorney Joins Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
• Seyfarth Shaw Adds Two Partners to Firm
• DLA Piper Adds Team of 10 Leading Litigation Attorneys in Sacramento Office
• K&L Gates Adds Partners to Los Angeles and Palo Alto Offices

The ACLU will represent defense lawyers against U.S. Homeland Security…

According to a CT TyMetrix Inc. and The Corporate Executive  Board survey, billing rates in Washington, D.C. are the second highest in the U.S….

The Quellos Group owners pled guilty to fraud and tax evasion…

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was ruled unconstitutional in California’s 9th District…

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from 10 more cases…

Law School admissions officers survey tells prospective students how to prepare…

Burleson Cooke added nine attorneys to its Pittsburgh office…

• “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Ruled Unconstitutional in California’s 9th District
• Quellos Group Owners Plead Guilty to Fraud and Tax Evasion
• ACLU to Represent Defense Lawyers Against U.S. Homeland Security
• Billing Rates in Washington, D.C. Are Second Highest in the U.S.
• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to Recuse Herself from 11 More Cases

The president-elect of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Lisa Wayne, had her laptop ceased at the Houston airport in 2008 after returning from Mexico.  She reports that an official had her turn on and log in to her laptop and then took the device to a separate, hidden location for half an hour.  Wayne says she fears that even referring to attorney-client privileges in the future will not be enough to keep her private files private.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York on Tuesday, including Pascal Abidor in its list of plaintiffs, a dual American-French citizen doctoral student whose laptop was confiscated for 11 days.  Abidor is an Islamic studies PhD candidate at McGill University and was questioned as to why he had Hezbollah and Hamas-related material on his computer.

The complaint against Homeland Security reads, “Electronic devices like laptops, ‘smart’ phones, and external data storage devices hold vast amounts of personal and sensitive information that reveals a vivid picture of travelers’ personal and professional lives, including their intimate thoughts, private communications, expressive choices, and privileged or confidential work product.”  The ACLU is claiming this is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

• Morning Roundup
• Pennsylvania School District Accused of Spying on Students at Home
• Student Suspended For Facebook Writings May Proceed With Lawsuit
• Casey Anthony Denies Knowledge of Search for Caylee
• Federal Appeals Court Rules Telecommunications Companies Have Legal Immunity in Connection with NSA Program

Andrew J., “A.J.” Thomas joined Jenner & Block’s L.A. office as partner…

A Greenberg Traurig partner was named ABA Committee Co-Chair…

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP added two partners to its Hong Kong practice…

Kobre & Kim prepared to open an office in Hong Kong…

• Andrew J., “A.J.” Thomas Joins Jenner & Block’s L.A. Office as Partner
• Kobre & Kim LLP Set to Open Office in Hong Kong
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup
• Morning Roundup

Mr. Thomas has vast experience in copyright, trademark, misappropriation, theft-of-ideas, First Amendment, and complex business litigation matters. Mr. Thomas has represented both traditional and new media clients at the trial and appellate levels in a wide variety of intellectual property rights, First Amendment, and commercial matters. He has represented clients such as NBC/Universal, Fox, Sony Pictures, Viacom, Nielsen, and many others.

In the press release at the firm’s site, firm Managing Partner Susan C. Levy was quoted as saying: “We are very pleased to welcome A.J. Thomas to Jenner & Block. His impressive background, particularly in the fields of entertainment and complex business litigation, will be a great asset to our clients.”

Mr. Thomas was named a leading California Media and Entertainment Litigation lawyer by Chambers USA in 2009 and 2010 and selected as a Southern California “Super Lawyer” in Business and Intellectual Property Litigation in recent years as well. From 2007 to 2009, he was a Board Member of the Copyright Society of Los Angeles. He has also been a guest lecturer at a number of educational institutions on topics related to entertainment and media law.

Jenner & Block was recently honored as the “2010 U.S. Copyright Firm of the Year” and “Copyright Firm of the Year – West Coast” by Managing Intellectual Property magazine, for its “innovative and challenging IP work” and “exceptional cumulative achievements” in 2009.

Founded in 1914, Jenner & Block consistently delivers outstanding results in corporate transactions and secures major litigation victories for clients from the trial level through the United States Supreme Court. The firm’s approximately 470 attorneys located in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC offer substantial experience in a broad range of legal areas.

• Morning Roundup
• Leading Patent Litigator Joins Sheppard Mullin as Co-Chair of IP Practice Group
• Morning Roundup
• Six Partners Jump from Hogan Lovells to Jenner & Block in LA
• High Stakes IP Litigation Attorney Andrew P. Bridges Joins Fenwick & West

We all know the words, and most of us know that the words “under God” were not a part of the original pledge.  But do you know that that isn’t the only way in which the pledge has changed since its inception?  In light of this weekend’s celebration, it seems an appropriate time to brush up on the history, cultural, legislative and legal, of America’s oath.

The Pledge of Allegiance was the brainchild of a Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy, who wrote it to encourage the growth of civic pride in America’s youth.  In addition to being a minister, Bellamy was a Christian Socialist, part of the liberal branch of Christianity that believes the principles of faith are interwoven with the philosophies behind socialism.  In its original form the pledge read “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  A month after he published it, the pledge was said in public schools under a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison.  It was accompanied originally by a hand salute consisting of an outstretched arm and a flat palm, but after Germany adopted a similar salute President Franklin Roosevelt insisted on changing it to the familiar hand over the heart gesture, which Congress codified as part of the Flag Code in 1942.

The first change to the text of the Pledge came in 1923 when the words “my Flag” were replaced with “the flag of the United States”.  The change was intended to help new immigrants shift their loyalty to their adopted country.  One year later the words “of America” were tacked on.

Although not officially recognized as the national oath until Congress passed the Flag Code in 1942, the Supreme Court weighed in on it as early as 1940.  In the first challenge brought against mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Court held in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that students could be compelled to recite the oath, ruling against Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that the practice consisted of idolatry and violated their First Amendment rights.  The case was short lived however, and in 1943 the Court reversed itself in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.  In the latter case, the Court avoided the issue of religious freedom and ruled instead that the free speech clause prevented compulsory speech of this type for anyone.  Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Jackson, who was recently held up as a role model by Elana Kagan in her confirmation hearings, said “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

The final change to the Pledge came in 1954 with the addition of the words “under God”, although the Knight’s of Columbus and other groups began incorporating that language into their own recitations as early as 1951.  Officially, the phrase was added by a joint resolution of Congress amending the Flag Code.

Controversy over the inclusion of God in the Pledge persists to this day.  Last week a billboard erected by an atheist organization containing the phrase “One nation indivisible” was vandalized, with the words “under God” spray painted on to the sign.  The Supreme Court has thus far avoided weighing in on the issue, however.  The Court did consider a case brought in 2002 by Michael Nedow.  Nedow’s daughter was taught the pledge in school, and he argued that it was a violation of the establishment clause.  The 9th Circuit agreed and in 2004 the case made its way to the Supreme Court.  Rather than rule on the merits, the Court said that Nedow lacked standing to raise the issue because he was not the custodial parent.  Nedow, who continues to agitate for atheist causes like removing the phrase “In God we trust” from US currency, is also an attorney and continues to fight for his belief that the Pledge in its current form violates the establishment clause when taught in public schools.  He suffered a reversal however in March of this year when the 9th Circuit again took up the issue in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.  This time, after examining a line of establishment clauses from the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit held the pledge to be constitutional, saying “…we find the Pledge is one of allegiance to our Republic, not of allegiance to the God or to any religion. Furthermore, Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose when it enacted and amended the Pledge over time was patriotic, not religious.”

• Morning Roundup
• 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds “God” Reference in Pledge of Allegiance
• Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Merges with White O’Connor Fink & Brenner LLP
• Morning Roundup
• ACLU to Represent Defense Lawyers Against U.S. Homeland Security

The organization has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.

Among other violations, the association believes the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to “not associate” with anybody they choose not to. And that includes health insurers and their agents. In addition, the association believes their members’ privacy may be violated, when forced to divulge confidential information.

The lawyers chosen to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.

Founded in 1958, the Northeast Ohio firm of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A, has grown to over 40 attorneys practicing in over 25 different areas of the law.

The attorneys of Washington, D.C. based Emord & Associates represent clients in constitutional and administrative law cases before many governmental organizations, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. Grossack is best known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias. He is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer.

The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system.

• Morning Roundup
• Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Merges with White O’Connor Fink & Brenner LLP
• Morning Roundup
• Former Health Policy Director Mark Hayes Joins Greenberg Traurig as Shareholder
• Morning Roundup

In a separate 3-0 ruling the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto, “In God We Trust” on coins and bills. The judges cited an earlier ruling that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion”.

In 2002 the same court ruled in atheist Michael Newdow’s favor. The court said at that time that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment restriction against an established state religion. The ruling caused uproar, a Senate resolution was passed condemning the ruling and then President Bush called it “ridiculous”. The suit reached the Supreme Court in 2004 but the Court said Newdow did not have the standing to file the suit because he didn’t have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case. Newdow filed an identical case on behalf of other parents with the same objections and in 2005 a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow’s favor, sending the case back to the appeals court.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote a 123 page dissent to the 60 page majority opinion. He was one of the judges who ruled in Newdow’s favor in 2002.  In his dissent Reinhardt said, “Under no sound legal analysis adhering to the binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the ‘under God’ version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools.”

Newdow will ask the appeals court to rehear the case and if it rejects his request, he says he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The opinion can be read here.

• Morning Roundup
• Happy 4th of July!
• Morning Roundup
• Separation of Church and Cars?
• Will Porn Stars be Required by Law to ‘Wrap it Up’ On the Set?

Evans wants to have her suspension expunged from her disciplinary record and seeks a “nominal fee” for what she argues was a violation of her First Amendment rights and to pay her legal fees. Former Principal Peter Bayer asked that the case be dismissed but Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber denied Bayer’s petition and rejected his claim of qualified immunity. One of Evans lawyers, Maria Kayanan (associate legal director of the ACLU of Florida) said in response to the decision, “This is an important victory both for Ms. Evans and Internet free speech…because it upholds the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression in America does not depend on the technology used to convey opinions and ideas.”

• ACLU Files Suit Against Florida Law Requiring Mandatory Drug-testing
• Morning Roundup
• ACLU to Represent Defense Lawyers Against U.S. Homeland Security
• Morning Roundup
• Facebook Hires Tim Muris To Help Clean Up Its Act

The plan, written by Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Van Hollen (MD) has a few key components.  The two parts most likely to stir up debate are a requirement that corporate CEO’s and union leaders appear in each ad, approving its contents, as is already required of candidates, and a requirement that in any market where a corporate purchased ad is run on television, the network offer reasonable air time and the lowest advertising rate offered by the network to candidates in the race.

The Schumer/Van Hollen plan also requires public disclosure of corporate expenditures with a clear link to such advocacy on corporate web pages and quarterly disclosures to shareholders.

• Citizens United Decision Handed Down
• Senate Democrats Remove Public Option From Health Care Bill
• Senate Passes Ban on Insider Trading
• SOPA and PIPA Bills Highly Criticized
• Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Merges with White O’Connor Fink & Brenner LLP

The case centered around a purported documentary about Hillary Clinton made by Citizens United. The movie, cleverly titled Hillary the Movie, paints an unflattering picture of the former First Lady and Senator. The film had a limited run in theaters but Citizens United also wanted to air it on cable via video on demand, and the group wanted to advertise for the movie on broadcast and cable TV stations. The FEC said doing so would be a violation of the campaign finance restrictions in McCain-Feingold.

The Court today struck down the provision in McCain-Feingold that bans corporate money from being spent directly on political advertising, but in a separate decision left intact limitations on corporate donations to candidates themselves. Although the law that was struck down was enacted in 2002, it traces its roots back to Theodore Roosevelt and the Tillman Act of 1907 – the first federal law to restrict corporate money in political campaigns.

• Big Week for Supreme Court
• Morning Roundup
• Justice Stevens Opens Up
• Morning Roundup
• Kagan Keeps It Cool On Day Two

Yesterday, a federal judge in SC shot down the license plates, saying “The ‘I Believe’ Act’s primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity”. But judge Cameron Currie didn’t stop there. She went on to say “Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular”. Her objection was not limited to the promotion of a specific religion, but of religion in general, which makes me wonder whether she would have permitted a plan to include license plates that featured a spread of religious symbols. Would a law that let residents of the Palmetto State choose a plate that reflected their individual beliefs meet the same fate?

Speculation aside, Judge Currie thought this law was egregious enough to warrant additional action, ordering the state to pay the legal costs of the people that brought the lawsuit.

• 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds “God” Reference in Pledge of Allegiance
• Stephen Colbert Super PAC Releases Attack Ad
• K&L Gates Launch of South Carolina Office is 40th Worldwide
• Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Merges with White O’Connor Fink & Brenner LLP
• Revenue Director Joins Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

• NY AG Sues BofA, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase over Mortgage Fraud
• Subpoenas Issued to 11 Financial Institutions by New Federal Task Force
• Wal-Mart in Compliance with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
• DLA Piper Announces Launch of New International Securities Group, Along With New Partner
• Former Nixon Peabody Partner Sues Firm, Alleging He Was Made Scapegoat in SEC Investigation