April 18 is the proposed date that the government will file its first set of papers in court on the issues brought up by Vinson.  The government is also proposing that May 18 be the date set for those who are challenging the new health care law.  June 1 is the date set by the government when they will file additional papers.

Although a fast appeal has been sought by the Obama administration, Charles Shanor, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, believes that the court won’t be so quick to give out a ruling, and that it may take months before one is issued.  “I just don’t see the court writing an overnight opinion in a matter that’s of such concern to the public.” said Shanor.  He also added that this particular court, the 11^th Circuit, is seen as “moderate” compared to other courts of appeal in the country.

It sounds like this case will definitely not be resolved anytime soon, so we’ll keep you posted with any updates or further rulings as the appeals process moves forward.

• 26 States File Brief to Get Health Care Overhaul Struck Down
• Federal Judge in Florida tells States to Continue with Health Overhaul
• Prosecutor: No Fat Jurors
• Order Blocking Sharia Law Ban in Oklahoma Affirmed by Appeals Court
• The John Marshall Law School Launches New Law School in Savannah

In a letter sent to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 42 of California’s 58 county district attorneys said they oppose the nomination of Liu, largely because of a paper Liu coauthored in 2005 that criticized death penalty decisions made by Samuel Alito, who was then a nominee for the Supreme Court under President George W. Bush, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

According to the letter from prosecutors, Liu’s document “demonstrates beyond serious question that his view on criminal law, capital punishment and the role of the federal courts in second-guessing state decisions are fully aligned” with an appeals court that is “far out of the judicial mainstream.”

Prosecutors believe the analysis indicates Liu would reverse nearly every death penalty decision if allowed on the Ninth Circuit.

Liu was slated for a confirmation hearing last week, but objections from Republicans led the Senate Judiciary Committee to reschedule the hearing for April 16. Liu has widespread support among fellow academics and the American Bar Association has also offered its support.

• Sr. Member of DOJ’s National Security Division Joins Perkins Coie as Partner
• New Candidates Vying for Ninth Circuit Opening
• Quick Appeal Sought by Obama Administration in Health Care Ruling
• Illinois Abolishes Death Penalty
• Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole

The 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Fieger was not wrongfully punished for lambasting three judges on a 1999 radio show, when he called them “jackasses” and compared them to Nazis for overturning a $15 million verdict.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that Fieger violated state rules of professional conduct with his “rude and vulgar” comments, and reinstated a formal reprimand against him.

Fieger sued the Michigan Supreme Court over the state rules, which require lawyers to use “civility” when they criticize judges.

A federal district judge declared the rules overly broad and unconstitutional. The 6th Circuit overturned that decision, holding that Fieger can’t prove “actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm based on a single, stipulated reprimand.

The Court emphasized that Fieger violated the rules, not because he criticized judges, but because he made vulgar, personally abusive comments about participants in a pending case.

In a dissent, Judge Gilbert Merritt expressed skepticism about the rules for punishing misbehaving lawyers, holding the rules remain unclear about what is permissible or impermissible for lawyers to say about judges.

Fieger, a former lawyer for “suicide doctor” Jack Kevorkian, was the center of controversy last year over a series of television commercials he ran during his trial, in which he compared the Bush administration to Nazis, and claimed that trial lawyers were under attack from the federal government. A judge ordered Fieger to yank the ads after prosecutors complained he was trying to taint the jury pool.

Via NLJ.

• Supreme Court Rules Against Utah Teacher’s Union In Political Speech Case
• Pagan NC Mother Cries Foul When Son Comes Home From School with Bible
• Legal Throw Down Over Plain Packaging of Cigarettes Has Phillip Morris Seeing Red
• Suffolk Law School Supports Free Speech and The Troops
• Appellate Hearing Set for Tuesday for Challenges to Health Care Law

David Eng served on a task force to investigate fraud and environmental crimes associated with construction of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Belmont Learning Complex, which was halted in 1999. He was demoted and falsely charged with a misdemeanor relating to the misuse of office computers after concluding, as part of the task force, that no crimes had been committed. Cooley was elected in 2000 on a campaign to prosecute individuals tied to the Belmont project.

The 9th Circuit found that Eng was within his First Amendment rights when he blew the whistle on a task force colleague who had leaked to the IRS that the school district had committed fraud when purchasing the Belmont facility. The panel also found that a lawyer Eng hired to defend him against the misdemeanor charges, Mark Geragos, was within his First Amendment rights to speak about the retaliation against Eng in a 2003 Los Angeles Times article.

The panel held that “the full range of adverse employment action appears to have been a politically-motivated effort to silence Eng, who stood to embarrass Cooley by undermining a central plank in his campaign platform.”

• Layoffs for Sacramento DA Office
• Boulder County DA Fires 6 Prosecutors
• Union Defends Jobs of Deputy District Attorneys
• Myrl Serra Disbarred For A Felony And Misdemenor Harassment Charges
• IRS Pays Out First Award Under New Provisions of Whistleblower Program

Defendant Seth Dolphy wants his convictions vacated because the prosecutor was using obesity as a pretext to discriminate against the only black on the jury.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the case, to give a lower court the chance to reconstruct what happened at Dolphy’s 1997 trial in state court in Binghamton, New York.

Michael A. Korchak, then a Broome County assistant district attorney, challenged the black juror during selection. The defense objcted, but Korchak said he was striking the female juror for her appearance.

“I do not select overweight people on the jury panel for reasons that, based on my reading and past experience, that heavy-set people tend to be very sympathetic toward any defendant,” he said.

The judge said he was satisfied the prosecutor had offered a valid race-neutral explanation and ruled that the strike could stand.

Dolphy was later sentenced to serve 14 1/2 to 16 years in prison.

But the 2nd Circuit court is more sympathetic to Dolphy’s argument.

While the prosecution’s proffered explanation was facially race-neutral, it rested precariously on an intuited correlation between body fat and sympathy for persons accused of crimes (seemingly without regard to the weight of the defendant). Yet the trial court’s initial ruling was made without inquiry or finding, as though the ground for making the strike was self-evident.

Dolphy’s lawyer, Robert Culp (not that Robert Culp), is pleased his client has a chance to challenge his conviction. ”I hope this decision moves us forward toward the goal of judging people as individuals rather than through assumptions or stereotypes based on appearances,” said Culp.

Via NYLJ.

• Quick Appeal Sought by Obama Administration in Health Care Ruling
• Appellate Court Upholds Denial of “Incompetent” Lawyer’s 6-figure Fee
• Order Blocking Sharia Law Ban in Oklahoma Affirmed by Appeals Court
• Appellate Hearing Set for Tuesday for Challenges to Health Care Law
• Florida Default Law Group Under Investigation by Florida AG

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the discretion of Eastern District Judge Edward Korman to refuse Goldman’s application for $388,000 in fees.

In a per curiam opinion, the panel said the case was “instructive with respect to the nature of the conduct that may merit the denial [of fees].”

In 2003, Zuhua Chen retained Goldman to represent her and her infant son, David, who suffered severe brain damage and other medical problems at birth that will require ongoing supervision and treatment for the rest of his life.

Goldman obtained a settlement with the hospital and doctors involved. He then filed a stipulation of settlement and infant compromise order directing that he be paid $408,000 in fees and $20,000 in expenses, and that Chen be paid $250,000 for her loss of services claim, and $1.7 million as trustee for her son’s special needs trust.

But Judge Korman found that Goldman negligently failed to provide documentation for his fees, and for the child’s current medical condition and a projection of his expenses for future medical care.

The judge appointed a special master, attorney Steven North, who found that Goldman “provided for a sliding scale legal fee in excess of the statutory maximum and additionally contained an agreement of doubtful propriety that the client would consent to a one-third fee if the case ‘goes to trial.’”

A frustrated Korman said in February 2005 that he had “never had a case in which the presentation of an infant’s compromise has been so poorly presented by plaintiff’s counsel” and decided to retain his own medical expert. One month later, he appointed a guardian ad litem for David.

The judge said he had “seen lawyers who are small time practitioners who settle slip and fall cases put together an infant’s compromise that is 10 times or 100 times better than this.”

In April 2005, Goldman resigned from the bar during a disciplinary investigation unrelated to the matter before Korman.

Via New York Law Journal. Also, from 2006.

• Prosecutor: No Fat Jurors
• Government Lawyer Uses US Marshals as Chauffeurs to Sports Events
• Lakin Law Firm Renamed In Wake of Drug Scandal
• Anti-virus Firm Doesn’t Want to Pay WilmerHale for “Luxury Hotel Rooms, Limousines and Bar Tabs”
• Boutique to Cut Client Billing Rates in 2009