Docstoc

LANE, ALTON & HORST LANE, ALTON & HORST

Document Sample
LANE, ALTON & HORST LANE, ALTON & HORST Powered By Docstoc
					                                                    LANE, ALTON & HORST
LANE, ALTON & HORST
                                          Ohio’s latest tort reform legislation




                      Issue III
                                          New Changes to Law on Punitive Damages
                                          Raise Insurance Coverage Issues
                                                     enate Bill 80, Ohio’s latest tort reform legislation,   the client and his insurer appear to clearly have different

                                          S          will take effect April 6.Among the many changes
                                                     to Ohio law set forth in the reform legislation are
                                           caps on punitive damages, and new procedures to be
                                                                                                             interests in seeking bifurcation. The client will want to do
                                                                                                             everything possible to have any and all damages awarded
                                                                                                             against him covered by insurance. Yet his insurer may
                                                                                                             wish to seek bifurcation in an effort to limit its ultimate
                                           employed at trial when claims for compensatory and
                                           punitive damages are presented.                                   liability for the insured’s compensatory damages, and to
                                               The changes present unanticipated coverage consider-          keep all evidence of the insured’s alleged misconduct war-
                                           ations for insurers and the attorneys they hire to represent      ranting punitive damages away from the jury during the
                                           their insureds, who are defendants in such cases (e.g.alle-       first phase of a bifurcated trial.
                                           gations arise involving a defendant's sale or consumption              We believe insurers must institute new procedures in
                                           of alcoholic beverages).                                          all of these cases in order to determine, on a case-by-case
                      R E V I E W




                                                                                                             basis, precisely how they will proceed. Since the new
                                                                                                             statute requires bifurcation upon the request of any party,
                                                                                                             the first consideration for the insurer is to determine
                                                                                                             whether or not it wishes to move to intervene in the case,
                                                                                                             in order to fully protect its interests that are separate and
                                                                                                             distinct from its insured defendants.
                                                                                                                   An insurer who joins a case against its insured, and
                                                                                                             seeks bifurcation, would be able to advise its insured that
                                                                                                             the insurer will only be providing the insured with coun-
                                                                                                             sel during the first phase of the bifurcated trial. Before the
                                                                                                             insurer moves to intervene, and before ever retaining
                      C O U N S E L ’ S




                                                                                                             counsel to represent the insured defendant, the insurer
                                                                                                             should advise the insured in a detailed reservation of
                                                                                                             rights letter precisely what is going to transpire, and what
                                                                                                             the insured must do to protect his own interests regarding
                                                                                                             the claim for punitive damages.In appropriate cases,such
                                               In such a case,upon motion of any party,the court shall       a reservation of rights letter should probably be sent
                                           bifurcate the proceedings.All matters relating to compen-         before suit is filed, as soon as the insurer becomes aware
                                           satory damages shall be tried first. The new statute pre-         that claims for punitive damages are going to be present-
                                           cludes any evidence being offered regarding the plaintiff 's      ed against the insured.
                                           entitlement to punitive damages during this first stage.               Any insurer seeking to employ bifurcation to limit its
                                           If compensatory damages are awarded,then during a sec-            potential exposure must do so through separate counsel
                                           ond phase of the trial, evidence is presented regarding           hired by the insurer to represent its interests. Under no
                                           punitive damages.                                                 circumstances could the attorney retained by the insurer
                                                Ohio has long recognized that liability insurance cov-                           to represent the insured defendant seek
                                           erage does not apply to claims for punitive damages, for                              bifurcation on the insurer’s behalf.
                                           which a defendant would be personally liable.Yet insurers                             Therefore, it is imperative that insurers
                                           for defendants facing both covered claims and non-cov-                                decide, at the earliest available opportu-
                                           ered punitive damages claims routinely retain counsel to                              nity, how they are going to handle cases
                                           represent the insured in the underlying action, while                                 such as these.
                                           reserving all rights to deny any liability coverage for puni-                            William Scott Lavelle contributed this article.
                                           tive damages that may be awarded against the defendant.
                                           The attorney retained by the insurer is obliged to fully
                                           protect the interests of his client, even as it relates to        In This Issue
                                           claims for punitive damages for which the client would
                                           not possess any liability insurance coverage.                     Lawyer/client confidentiality ..............................page 2
                                                 Since the new statute permits the issues of compen-         Asbestos claims new ruling ..................................page 3
                                           satory damages and punitive damages to be bifurcated,
                      Volume VII




                                                                                                             New partners, additional lawyers ......................page 4



                                                           See the Lane, Alton & Horst web site, www.lah4law.com, for helpful information.
 THE WELMSLEY’S ABUSIVE TAX SCHEME


There Are Limits on Client Confidentiality
                                                                                             Alvin E. Mathews prepared the following artcle.
        oe and Mary Welmsley of Columbus were owners and administrators      the company’s records were no longer in Columbus, Ohio,

J       of the Organization of Global Wealth (OGW), an organization that
        hosted seminars for promoters of abusive trusts and anti-tax
schemes. Members of OGW marketed various seminars and written materi-
                                                                             and during the subpoena enforcement proceedings, indi-
                                                                             cated to the court that OGW no longer did business in
                                                                             Columbus. Subsequently, the FBI seized 13 boxes of OGW's
als involving the sale and operation of foreign                                                          business records from the
trusts designed in part to conceal income from the          Attorney Bailey felt she was                 Welmsleys’ Columbus home.
IRS.After purchasing OGW and a related off-shore                                                               After the records were seized, the Welmsleys
                                                          deceived. She did not want to
bank account located in the Bahamas, the                                                                 advised attorney Bailey there are additional
Welmsleys used the bank account to conceal the             disclose what her clients had                 records at an undisclosed place in Columbus.
income paid to them by OGW and the income                                                                Attorney Bailey tried to convince the Welmsleys to
                                                           told her, yet she believed she
earned from the sale of the seminars.                                                                    tell the government the whole truth about the loca-
     The Welmsleys failed to file a 2000 tax return      had no choice but to cooperate                  tion of the records and to turn over the remainder
despite earning approximately $200,000 in taxable              with the government...                    of them. The Welmsleys refused to turn over the
income from the organization's activities. The                                                           documents and vowed to fight to the end. Thus,
materials of OGW that promoted its seminars list-                                                        attorney Bailey and the Welmsleys parted ways.
ed the Welmsleys as principals, providing investigators written information.      Attorney Bailey felt she was deceived. She did not want to disclose what
    The IRS served a subpoena on OGW requiring the production of all books   her clients had told her, yet she believed she had no choice but to cooperate
and records for 1998 and 1999 relating to the investment schemes.The lawyer  with the government, which heatedly questioned her about her incorrect
for the Welmsleys, Frances Linda Bailey, informed IRS representatives that   statements during the subpoena enforcement proceedings held in regard to
                                                                             the OGW’s records.
                                                                                 At the government’s insistence, attorney Bailey planned to testify before
                                                                             the grand jury and at trial that during the subpoena enforcement proceed-
                                                                             ings the Welmsleys told her that OGW’s records were no longer property of
                                                                             the organization and were located out of the country.Attorney Bailey testified
                                                                             that the Welmsleys were concealing additional records somewhere in
                                                                             Columbus.
                                                                                 A new lawyer hired by the Welmsleys, Darrow Clarence, objected to the
                                                                             proposed testimony of attorney Bailey,stating the lawyer/client conversations
                                                                             between the Welmsleys and Bailey are protected by the attorney-client privi-
                                                                             lege and that DR 4-101 precludes disclosure of the discussions.
                                                                                 The trial judge, Loretta Hand, pondered attorney Bailey’s dilemma in
                                                                             arriving at her decision.Judge Hand recalled that,under DR 7-101(A)(3),Ms.
                                                                             Bailey did not “prejudice or damage” her client during the course of the pro-
                                                                             fessional relationship. Judge Hand also recognized that DR 4-101 required
                                                                             attorney Bailey to preserve client confidences and secrets, and DR 4-
                                                                             101(B)(2) required her to refrain from “[using] a confidence or secret of [her]
                                                                             client to the disadvantage of the client.”
                                                                                 Judge Hand further noted that, as an attorney and officer of the court,
                                                                             attorney Bailey was obligated to represent the Welmsleys within the bounds
                                                                             of the law under DR 7-102. This included disclosing information the lawyer
                                                                             is required to reveal by law, refraining from knowingly making false state-
                                                                             ments of law or fact, and reporting a client’s fraud upon a person or a tri-
                                                                             bunal.Judge Hand’s research of lawyer discipline cases is instructive as to the
                                                                             correct balance between duties owed to clients and the lawyer’s role as an offi-
                                                                             cer of the court.
                                                                                 Ultimately, Judge Hand concluded that attorney Bailey’s duty to give testi-
                                                                             mony on her clients’ abusive tax shelter overrides other duties of client confi-
                                                                             dentiality. Judge Hand ruled that attorney Bailey was required to reveal the
                                                                             incriminating statements by the Welmsleys because to remain silent where
                                                                             there is an ongoing fraud is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Volume VII                          C O U N S E L’ S R E V I E W S P E C I A L R E P O R T                                                                       Issue III


 Senate Bill 80,Ohio’s Tort Reform Act
                                              Jeffrey J. Jurca and William Scott Lavelle co-authored this article.

              enate Bill 80, Ohio’s Tort Reform Act,               The idea appears to be that there will be no

  S           will go into effect on April 6.The legisla-
              tion will apply to any causes of action
   arising on or after that date.
                                                             non-economic damage cap in a true catastrophic
                                                             injury case. We anticipate expert testimony bat-
                                                             tles over the second exception above, specifically
                                                             whether or not the plaintiff retains the ability to
   CAPS ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES
         These caps apply in “tort actions,” including       “perform life sustaining activities.” The statute
   product liability and asbestos claims. They will          permits the defendant to move for summary                Jeffrey J. Jurca            William Scott Lavelle
   not apply in medical or other malpractice claims          judgment as to whether these exceptions to the
   or wrongful death actions. Medical and other              caps apply. However, the trial court's ruling on
   malpractice claims were not included in the legis-        that motion, if unfavorable, might require that              Finally, the trial court must determine
   lation. They were previously addressed as part of         the jury be instructed that such permanent              whether there were any extraordinary circum-
   House Bill 281,passed last year.The caps arguably         deformity or functional injury has already been         stances in the record to account for an award in
   would apply, however, to any survivorship claim           established.                                            excess of what was granted by courts for similar-
   that accompanied a wrongful death case.                       The jury will be asked to return a general ver-     ly situated plaintiffs. If the trial court upholds the
         Senate Bill 80 does not specifically state one      dict, along with interrogatory answers, that will       award that was challenged as being excessive, it
   way or another whether the caps apply to                  specify the total compensatory damages recov-           must set forth in writing its reasons for uphold-
   UM/UIM claims. But since the UM/UIM plaintiff             ered by the plaintiff, the portion of those dam-        ing the award. In considering an appeal of an
   must establish that he is “legally entitled to recov-     ages that represent damages for economic loss,          award of compensatory damages for non-eco-
   er from”the uninsured or underinsured motorist,           and the portion that represents damages for non-        nomic loss, appellate courts are to use a de novo
   we believe that these non-economic damages                economic loss. The court, counsel, and witnesses        standard of review.
   caps will probably apply to UM/UIM cases.                 are prohibited from informing the jury of               COLLATERAL SOURCES
   However, this issue will undoubtedly be litigated.        the damage caps. It will be up to the trial                 In contrast to the rather sweeping changes with
         The caps only apply to non-economic dam-            court to review the evidence and determine              regard to non-economic damages, the Bill’s revi-
   ages. There are no limits imposed with regard to          whether a cap should apply to a jury’s award of         sion of the collateral source rule is quite minimal.
   economic compensatory damages.We can antic-               non-economic loss.                                      Under the statute as revised, a defendant still can-
   ipate further use by the plaintiffs’ bar of econo-              If the jury awards an amount for non-eco-         not introduce collateral benefits evidence if the
   mists and “grief counselors,” to attempt to estab-        nomic damages in excess of the caps, the loss           benefits came through Medicare,Federal Workers’
   lish how non-economic damages translate into              may not be reallocated to any other tortfeasor          Compensation Subrogation, a health insurance
   economic damages.                                         beyond the amount that the tortfeasor would             contract, automobile insurance contracts with
          Non-economic damages are capped at the             otherwise be responsible for under the laws of          medpay coverage, Ohio Bureau of Workers’
   greater of $250,000 per plaintiff or three times          Ohio.                                                   Compensation Subrogation, Medicaid payments
   the economic loss, up to $350,000 per plaintiff.              It appears that whether or not the caps apply to    by the Ohio Department of Job and Family
   Furthermore, the per plaintiff amount is limited          a particular case, the defendant will have the right    Services for health coverage,life insurance,disabil-
   by an overall “occurrence limit” of $500,000.             to request a post-judgment review of the non-eco-       ity insurance, or social security disability.
   Occurrence means all claims resulting from or             nomic loss award and to challenge the award as               The exception relates to a life insurance pay-
   arising out of any one person’s bodily injury. For        excessive.The trial court is required to review such    ment or disability payment if the plaintiff 's
   example,all claims resulting from injury to a par-        a challenge and determine whether the evidence          employer paid for the life insurance or disability
   ent, including the parent’s own pain and suffer-          presented or the arguments of the attorneys             policy,and the employer is a defendant in the tort
   ing, the loss of consortium claim for his spouse,         inflamed the passion or prejudice of the jury,          action. In other words, when the defendant is an
   and the loss of consortium claim for a minor              resulted in the improper consideration of the           employer in an intentional tort action, the life
   child would have a total limit of $500,000.               wealth of the defendant,or resulted in the improp-      insurance or disability payment is admissible.
       The non-economic damage caps do not apply             er consideration of the misconduct of the defen-             In short, there may be some situations where
   if the plaintiff sustains either of the following:        dant so as to punish the defendant improperly.          the defendant will now be able to introduce evi-
        I       Permanent and substantial physical                  In addition, the trial court shall determine     dence of collateral benefits, i.e. in the intentional
        deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss            whether the verdict is in excess of verdicts involv-    tort situation described above, or in a situation
        of a “bodily organ system”; or                       ing comparable injuries to similarly situated           where there is no applicable subrogation language,
        I       Permanent physical functional injury         plaintiffs (note that it is not clear as to who are     or in which the carrier forfeited its right to collect
        that permanently prevents the injured                similarly situated plaintiffs). Will consideration      or waited too long. It would appear that these will
        person from being able to independently care         be given statewide, or will geographic distinc-         be rare circumstances, and in most instances, col-
        for self, and perform life sustaining activities.    tions be permitted? Senate Bill 80 does not say.        lateral benefits will still not be admissible.
Volume VII                         C O U N S E L’ S R E V I E W S P E C I A L R E P O R T                                                                        Issue III


 Senate Bill 80,Ohio’s Tort Reform Act (continued)

  PUNITIVE DAMAGES CAPS                                 bifurcate a plaintiff’s claim for compensatory          to wear all of the available elements of a properly
      Significant changes have been made to Ohio        damages from a claim for punitive damages.              adjusted occupant restraining device.” In essence,
  law regarding punitive damages.                       Compensatory damages shall be determined                nonuse of a seatbelt or child restraining device
       If the defendant is an individual or a small     first, and no party may present any evidence            now becomes a part of the proximate cause
  employer,i.e.,an employer with less than 100 full-    relating solely to the issue of whether the plaintiff   defense,and may lead to additional use of “crash-
  time permanent employees (or in the manufac-          is entitled to recover punitive damages. If the         worthiness” or “second collision” experts.
  turing sector, 500 or fewer employees), punitive      plaintiff recovers compensatory damages, evi-           FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT
  damages are capped at the lesser of two times the     dence may then be presented in the second phase                Ohio’s frivolous conduct statute has been
  compensatory damages, or 10 percent of the            of the trial,during which the jury shall determine      expanded to include pleadings and motions filed
                                                                                                                  for discovery purposes. There is a potential trap
                                                                                                                  for defense counsel in the expanded definition,
                                                                                                                  in that it includes conduct consisting of “denials
                                                                                                                  or factual contentions that are not warranted by
                                                                                                                  the evidence.” Defense counsel will need to be
                                                                                                                  cautious in phrasing and selecting affirmative
                                                                                                                  defenses in responsive pleadings, although it is
                                                                                                                  not clear whether trial courts will be any more
                                                                                                                  aggressive in granting frivolous conduct
                                                                                                                  motions than they have been in the past.
                                                                                                                  OTHER CHANGES
                                                                                                                      The statutory amendments taking effect this
                                                                                                                  April 6 address many other claims. There are
                                                                                                                  significant changes to product liability actions,
                                                                                                                  including a ten-year statute of repose.
                                                                                                                      New immunities are provided for owners of
                                                                                                                  property and leased property involving recre-
                                                                                                                  ational users and recreational trails, physician
                                                                                                                  peer review, volunteer physician/health care
  defendant’s net worth at the time the tort was        whether a plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive     providers, and “gleaners” (operators of premises
  committed, but in no event, more than $350,000.       damages. If such a determination is made by the         open to the public for direct access to growing
  For all other defendants, the punitive damages        jury, there is no language in the statute that then     agricultural products shall not be responsible for
  cap is two times compensatory damages.                directs the jury to proceed to determine the            injury or death resulting from the natural condi-
  Attorney’s fees are not included in this limit.       amount of punitive damages. This appears to be          tion of the terrain — R.C. 901.52).
  Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on            a drafting error, which we anticipate will soon be            There is also an immunity for claims based
  punitive damages.                                     challenged via corrective legislation or in a court     upon “cumulative consumption”for suppliers and
       If the defendant acted purposely and know-       case filed after Senate Bill 80 takes effect.           manufacturers of a “qualified product,” which
  ingly, and has been convicted of or pled guilty to         For a further discussion regarding insurance       includes “articles used for food or drink for a
  a felony that has a purposeful or knowing ele-        coverage issues relating to claims for punitive         human being or other animal.” The statute
  ment, there are no limits on punitive damages.        damages under Senate Bill 80, please see Scott          specifically includes “chewing gum” as such a
  Note, however, that this means that in cases          Lavelle’s article on page 1 of the main body of this    product.
  involving drunken driving convictions, which in       issue of Counsel’s Review.
  most instances are misdemeanors, the punitive         NONUSE OF SEATBELTS
  damage caps will apply.                                   Evidence of nonuse of seatbelts is still not evi-
        If a defendant has previously been hit with     dence of the plaintiff’s negligence. Instead, the        LANE, ALTON & HORST LLC
  punitive damages, and has paid the punitive           new statute allows the trier of fact to determine
                                                                                                                      175 S.Third Street • Columbus,Ohio 43215
  damages award in any state or federal court, the      that the failure of a person to wear a seatbelt or             Tel: (614) 228-6885 • Fax: (614) 228-0146
  defendant receives a credit for those prior puni-     secure minor children “contributed to the harm                         E-mail: lane@lah4law.com
                                                                                                                               Website: www.lah4law.com
  tive damages if they arise from the same actions      alleged in the tort action and to diminish a recov-
                                                                                                                      The information in this newsletter is not to be
  or course of conduct that is alleged to have caused   ery of compensatory damages that represents              construed as legal advice or opinion. Laws vary, so do not
  the injury or loss in the present case.               non-economic loss in a tort action that could               act on information from Counsel’s Review without
                                                                                                                                 first consulting a lawyer.
         Upon motion of any party, the court shall      have been recovered but for the plaintiff’s failure

 Counsel’s Review                                                                                                                                                     03/05
Ruling Says Prevailing Party May Be Entitled to Written
Transcript and Videographer Fees
                                                                                                             Vincent I. Holzhall wrote this article.
                                                                                      as court costs in addition to the videographer fee as provid-

I
    n Brodess v. Bagent (2005 Ohio 20, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 17) the Tenth
    District Court of Appeals found that a prevailing party may be entitled to        ed under Superintendence Rule 13(D)(2).
    an award of court costs that includes both a written deposition transcript            The three-part test under R.C. § 2303.21 includes:
fee as well as a videographer fee.                                                           1. the written transcript must be a proceeding
    Under Rule 13(D)(2) of Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio,                     or an exemplification of a record;
the expense of recording testimony on videotape,playing the videotape for the                2. the written transcript must be used as evidence
purpose of ruling on objections, and playing the videotape at trial “shall be                   or for some other purpose; and
allocated as costs in the proceeding in accordance with Civil Rule 54.” Civil Rule           3. the written transcript must be necessary.
54(D) provides that the trial court may award costs to the prevailing party.              In the context of the medical expert’s deposition at issue before the court,
    The need for videotaping a witness often arises when an expert’s deposi-          the court easily found that the written transcript was either a “proceeding” or
tion testimony is later used during trial and must be edited for use with the         an “exemplification” of the videotape recording. Because the videotape (and
objectionable portions deleted.The Tenth District noted that the appellant con-       not the written transcript) was used as evidence at trial, the court focused on
ceded Superintendence Rule 13(D)(2) controlled and that an award of court             the “some other purpose”provision.
costs for the videographer fee was proper.                                                The court found that the use of the written transcript to rule on and cue
    In addition,the common practice of many trial judges is to use the written        objections satisfied the “some other purpose”requirement.The appellate court
transcript of the videotaped deposition to rule on objections and to cue the          found that the written transcript was “necessary” because the trial court used
objections on the videotape more efficiently. The Tenth District cited Ohio           the written transcript in ruling on objections.
Revised Code § 2303.21 (“Expenses of transcript or exemplification shall be               In summary, Brodess v. Bagent is authority to support an award of court
taxed in costs.”) as statutory authority to allow the trial court to award as costs   costs for both the videographer fee and the written deposition transcript fee
the written deposition transcript fee where the written transcript was used at        where those materials were used by the trial judge and meet the requirements
trial to rule on objections. The court stated that under R.C. § 2303.21, a party      of Superintendence Rules 13(D)(2) and R.C. § 2303.21.
must meet a three-part test in order to be entitled to the written transcript fee


HOUSE BILL 292


New Law Restricts Asbestos Claims
                                                                                                       D. Wesley Newhouse contributed this article.

                                                             House Bill 292 requires that a competent med-             Lawyers who regularly repre-

O
            hio has adopted a new law which limits
            claims for bodily injury arising from        ical authority perform certain specific diagnostic        sent plaintiffs in personal injury
            exposure to asbestos. House Bill 292         tests to determine if there has been any impairment       lawsuits have challenged the
requires claimants to prove specific, diagnosable        of pulmonary function.Only if the competent med-          new law. They claim that the
physical harm before they can assert asbestos claims.    ical authority finds specific physical symptoms in        application of the law to existing
    The new law can be found in the Ohio Revised         accordance with accepted national diagnostic stan-        claims is an unconstitutional retroactive applica-
Code at Section 2307.91. It is commonly referred to      dards can a claimant assert an asbestos claim for         tion of a change in the law. Lawyers who represent
by its assigned number as it works its way through       bodily injury, or for fear that they may eventually       defendants in personal injury claims, and those
the legislature, House Bill 292.                         develop an asbestos-related disease.                      who originally advocated for the new law, claim the
    Before the new law was adopted, there was a              The new law applies to claims filed in court          new law merely changes the procedures by which a
great deal of confusion about when a person              before its enactment, as well as new claims. The          plaintiff may prove a personal injury claim,and that
allegedly exposed to asbestos could assert a claim       statute gives claimants 120 days from its effective       the retroactive effect of the statute,therefore,passes
for injury. For example, a person who had suffered       date, Sept. 2, 2004, to present the medical evidence      constitutional muster. It is likely that there will be a
no physical symptoms, but who experienced fear           of injury required by the act. If the claimant fails to   ruling on the constitutionality of the new act with-
that he might eventually develop cancer, would file      make such a showing, the judge presiding over the         in the next 12-18 months.
suit based on fears which might or might not be          case is to dismiss the bodily injury claims in such a         House Bill 292 may decrease the number of per-
rational. The pursuit of these types of claims cost      way that the claimants can re-file their claims later     sonal injury cases of questionable merit, providing
the defendants and their insurance companies a           if they do develop physical symptoms related to           some small relief to overcrowded court dockets and
great deal of money, even if they successfully           asbestos exposure.                                        to licensed asbestos professionals who must pay
defended the claims.                                                                                               considerable defense costs in such lawsuits.
   James C. Carpenter,William H. Prophater, Jr. Named Partners,
   Firm Also Welcomes Three Additional Lawyers




      James C. Carpenter           William H. Prophater, Jr.             David G. Cox                Melissa A. Gurile              Jeffrey B. Hartranft


                                                                                  areas as the Clean Air, Clean Water and Solid Waste Disposal Acts. He is

  L
            ane,Alton & Horst LLC Managing Partner Joseph A. Gerling
            announced in February that James C. Carpenter and William H.          experienced in cases of general,civil and administrative litigation,and has
            Prophater, Jr. have been named partners. Mr. Gerling also             handled toxic tort, mold and asbestos litigation. Prior to joining the firm,
  introduced three additional lawyers to the firm’s professional staff —          Mr. Cox was Ohio senior assistant attorney general in the Environmental
  David G. Cox, Melissa A. Gurile and Jeffrey B. Hartranft.                       Enforcement Section of the Attorney General’s office.
       Mr. Carpenter has been in practice for 30 years and focuses on bank-            Ms. Gurile is a 2004 graduate of the University of Dayton School of
  ing and business litigation. He is active with matters involving medical        Law and previously held a position as a summer associate with the firm.
  malpractice, products liability, estate planning and construction law.          Ms. Gurile completed undergraduate studies at the University of
       Mr. Prophater has practiced for 11 years on employment and labor law       Massachusetts.
  matters, as well as commercial and business litigation, and patent/trade-            Mr.Hartranft is a graduate of The Ohio State University College of Law.
  mark litigation.He was in private practice in Dayton before joining the firm.   In addition to having experience practicing with a firm in Columbus, he
  Mr.Prophater graduated from the University of Dayton School of Law.             was an assistant juvenile prosecutor for the Franklin County Prosecutor’s
       Mr. Cox, a Capital University Law School graduate, is practicing envi-     office, and worked in the Workers’ Compensation Section of the Ohio
  ronmental law at Lane, Alton & Horst, which includes litigation in such         Attorney General’s office.



   Roundtable News
   For the past four years including 2005, Lane,       Ohio Legal Ethics (Including Substance Abuse
   Alton & Horst has sponsored Capital                 and Professionalism) seminar in January at the
   University Law School’s first-year moot court       Radisson Hotel in Worthington. Both events             LANE, ALTON & HORST LLC
   competition.Preliminary rounds in the compe-        were Lorman Education Services-sponsored
   tition began in January and wrapped up late         seminars.                                                             175 S. Third Street
   last month. Assisting in this year’s judging of
   the competition were Wes Newhouse,                  Mr.Mathews is one of two featured speakers at                      Columbus, Ohio 43215
   Barbara Letcher,Vince Holzhall, Jeff Hutson         a May 16 National Business Institute confer-                         Tel: (614) 228-6885
   and Melissa Gurile.                                 ence in Columbus,Managing Conflict of Interest                       Fax: (614) 228-0146
                                                       Situations Successfully in Ohio. The seminar is
   Mr. Newhouse was appointed Vice Chair for           designed for attorneys who want proactive                        E-mail: lane@lah4law.com
   After-School All-Stars Columbus, and through        strategies for detecting, avoiding or resolving                  Website: www.lah4law.com
   this program, is working with other volunteers      conflicts of interest. Enrollment to attend is
   to provide needed after-school programs for         available online at www.nbi-sems.com.
   disadvantaged youth.                                                                                              The information in this newsletter
                                                       John Barno, whose practice focuses on                        is not to be construed as legal advice
   Jim Lewis, Tom Switzer and Alvin Mathews            Workers’ Compensation, received certification               or opinion. Laws vary, so do not act on
   were presenters at the Insurance Bad Faith          as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation law.
   Claims in Ohio seminar in early February at the     Ms. Letcher, who practices employment law, is                 information from Counsel’s Review
   Ramada Plaza Hotel in Columbus.Mr.Mathews           a certified specialist in labor and employment                 without first consulting a lawyer.
   joined two other local lawyers as speakers at the   law.


Counsel’s Review                                                                                                                                             03/05

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:12
posted:6/20/2011
language:English
pages:6