All posts by Chris Buckley

New Credit Card Law Failed Economics 101

As promised, the Obama Administration was able to get Congress to finally pass a law regulating the unscrupulous practices of credit card companies. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2010 that went into effect today seeks to restrict the ability of credit card companies to engage in certain predatory tactics in the marketplace. What lawmakers failed to realize are basic principles of economics.

According to the Business Insider article, “Here’s 10 Ways Credit Card Companies Are Still Screwing You”, “whacking the bad guys” is simply a game of whack-a-mole. When government thinks it has got the credit card companies pinned down, fees and costs just pop up somewhere else. These are basic laws of economics: you don’t “hurt” the so called corporate “bad guys”; you can only pass yet more burdensome costs on to the consumer. Here is the Business Insider list of ten (10) ways the law is only causing credit card companies to be even more predatory toward even the most loyal and creditworthy consumer:

1. They’re jacking up rates.

2. They’re increasing penalty rates.

3. They’re closing unprofitable accounts and reducing credit limits.

4. They’re increasing cash advance and balance transfer fees.

5. They’re increasing annual fees.

6. They’re manipulating rates–to their advantage.

7. They’re redefining terms…to collect even more fees.

8. They’re cutting rewards.

9. They’re adding NEW fees!

10. They’re closing accounts without notice.

All of these new tactics, by law, must be included in writing in all credit card contracts. However, does the average consumer even read the fine print of the credit card contract when he signs it anyway? Will the credit card companies being forced to send yet more paper and fine print to each cardholder have any practical effect at all?

I sincerely hope that this result is not a surprise to our lawmakers in Washington who wrote this law. If it is, I seriously consider throwing them out of office and sending them back to college. I think they slept through the lecture of “marginal cost drives minimum price”. Why don’t we further STICK IT to them by dramatically increasing taxes while we’re at it? That’ll show him; and by him, I mean the American consumer…

NWI Feed: A Must for Northwest Indiana Bloggers

Chris Hedges, a local Merrillville lawyer/blogging enthusiast, wrote a recent article on NWI Feed, outlining the benefits to promoting your blog and your business entitled, “NWI Feed connects Northwest Indiana bloggers.” Don’t miss this informative take on a new concept that is at the ground level. If you have a blog relevant to Northwest Indiana, you should strongly consider adding entries, and adding an RSS feed on your personal website.

Happy blogging!

Chris Buckley
Host, NWI Lawyer

Major Breakthrough in Indiana Surrogacy Law

In an Indiana Court of Appeals case issued yesterday, it appears that Indiana law may be changing. While Indiana’s conservative public policy forbids same sex marriage and obstinately refuses to honor surrogacy agreements, the Court seems to be loosening its belt when it comes to surrogacy law. (see ILB article, “Surrogate not necessarily legal mother”; NWI Times article, “Court: Surrogate Not Necessarily Legal Mother, Appeals Judges Order Evidentiary Hearing to Prove Maternity”)

In Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.B.; M.L. v. IDCS, an intended mother and father had an embryo created and implanted in a surrogate, the intended mother’s sister. After the birth, the couple initiated paternity, flying in the face of Indiana precedent. According to Indiana law prior to the case, a father, through a suit for paternity, could establish parental rights to a child. The birth mother, on the other hand, was forever bound as the child’s mother, regardless of biological maternity. In a sweeping move yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded to the Porter Circuit Court that it must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the remedy most equitable under the circumstances. This could mean that a woman, other than the woman who gave birth to the child, can be established as the child’s mother. This is a move away from completely disfavoring surrogacy according to Indiana law.

What do you think, NWI?

Indiana Law Blog: Indiana Sex Offender Registry in a Post-Wallace World

The Indiana Law Blog published an article today attempting to make sense of the enforcement of the sex offender registry in Indiana.

Making sense out of an Indiana Supreme Court decision last April, Wallace v. State, striking down the application of the mandatory registration for sex offenders, can be tough business these days. Subsequent decisions seem unsure whether individuals required to register before a the registry was implemented in 1994 are automatically void, or whether individual court orders are necessary to exempt them from the law.

I believe the sex offender registry is absolutely necessary to protect our children. However, I am strongly opposed to ex post facto laws. The United States Constitution as well as the Indiana Constitution forbid the retroactive application and enforcement of such laws. But is forcing sexual offenders to register in a statewide database “punitive” in nature!? What do you think!?

Problems Exposed with Sexting Legislation

In response to the infamous incident (as reported here by the Indianapolis Star, Chicago Tribune, and The Vancouver Sun) that took place at Thomas Jefferson Middle School in Valparaiso, Indiana last month, according to the South Bend Tribune article posted today entitled, “Sexting Legislation Kicked to Indiana Study Panel” the Indiana Legislature is more than a little confused. Responses, which appear to be nothing more than hasty reactions to the incident, defy principles of sound public policy. The Indiana Senate responded with a knee jerk reaction, coined Senate Bill 224, which proposed to make it a felony offense for a minor to send explicit photos via text message to other minors. While this issue may pose a major problem for our Hoosier teenagers, it makes sending photos a felony offense, while engaging in the act of physical sexual intercourse is no crime at all. Hasty decision making? I would think so. (For full discussion, see Indiana Law Blog Entry, “Student sexting in Indiana, are felonies the answer?”)

Even if we were able to develop a consistent set of laws punishing teens (pre-teens in this case), I’m not sure that punishing children is appropriate here. First, criminally prosecuting these kids will expose otherwise law abiding teens and pre-teens to the criminal justice system, potentially turning them into real criminals as young adults for something that should be corrected elsewhere. Second, it displaces the moral culpability that parents should pick up for their children sending inappropriate messages. Should children have cell phones in the classroom in the first place? If so, should they have carte blanche to call and send messages? It seems like this could potentially create greater problems than just inappropriate images. Where is the parental supervision here? Are we sleeping at the wheel, parents…!?

Experiment in Social Media: Do You Want To Put Your Law Firm’s Name in the Buzz!?

You Should.

According to Nathan Findling of Golden Technologies (or “Finn” as his friends know him), sparking a controversy in social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and recently Google Buzz, can have a profound positive effect on your business in Northwest Indiana. In this recent article, Finn describes a phenomenon that took place within a few hours this morning that became so big that it caused local media to intervene. The dispute was whether to continue using the #nwindiana hashtag versus a newer, shorter version, #nwi, on Twitter. Proponents of #nwi argued that it conserves characters (as Twitter only allows a total of 140 characters per “tweet”) while opponents cited the established hashtag as productive among existing networks. Regardless of whose argument has the greater merit, if your law firm was in the midst of this controversy–believe me–you would feel it in February’s bottom line.

Indiana Court of Appeals: Golfers Owe No Duty to Other Golf "Participants"

In an appeal yesterday, Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph E. Lineman, Whitey’s 31 Club, Inc., Marion Elks Country Club Lodge #195, and The Estate of Jerry A. Jones, No. 27A02-0905-CV-444, the Indiana Court of Appeals applied the well-settled rule that there is no duty from one participant in a sports activity to another to prevent injury resulting from an inherent risk of the sport.”

Cassie Pfenning was a sixteen-year-old girl at the time of the incident in July 2007. She was invited by Jerry Jones to assist in running the beverage cart, as many golf outings require. After many substitutions of drivers, Pfenning was asked to operate the cart with the assistance of staff. She was struck in the mouth with a golf ball from a drive on the #16 Tee on the Elks County Club Lodge in Marion, Indiana, and sustained substantial medical and dental injuries.

The court reiterated that “participant” includes “any person who is part of the sporting event or practice involved,” which includes, “players, coaches, and players who are sitting on the bench during play.” Geiersbach v. Frieje, 807 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Here, the court extended “participant” to include volunteers for golf outings. The court affirmed the Grant Superior Court’s granting of Summary Judgment for all Defendants by Judge Jeffrey L. Todd in Cause No. 27D01-0702-CT-127.

So, be wary those of you who seek to volunteer in golf outings. Your recovery for any injuries may be limited. Golfers: Make sure to yell, “FORE!”

Indiana Court of Appeals Reverses DUI Conviction

Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals announced a surprising reversal of a DUI conviction in Richard Gatewood v. State of Indiana, No. 03A04-0908-CR-449. Gatewood was convicted of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated in Bartholomew Superior Court by Judge Kathleen T. Coriden, Cause No. 03D02-0706-FD-0787.

Gatewood was suspected of being intoxicated while driving his moped to visit his mother at Columbus Regional Hospital in Columbus, Indiana on May 23, 2007. Police arrived at 9:00pm to find Gatewood sleeping next to his moped, and learned from hospital security guards that he had operated his moped approximately one (1) hour earlier. Police observed several physical symptoms of alcohol at that time, but had not observed Gatewood before 9:00pm. Security guards claim that Gatewood showed signs of difficulty walking, but Gatewood had suffered many physical injuries in both of his legs and often showed these signs.

The arresting officer, Officer Kapcynski, testified that probable cause for the arrest resulted from an inevitability of intoxication at the time Gatewood operated his moped based on Gatewood’s state at 9:00pm, despite the fact that the officer could not estimate the amount of vodka a man Gatewood’s size would have to consume in an hour in order to reach the blood-alcohol content found in Gatewood’s blood. The jury in the Bartholomew Superior Court agreed, and convicted Gatewood of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, a Class D Felony for a second offense.

Judge Nancy Vaidik, a judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals and a former Porter Superior Court Judge, reasoned that evidence of Gatewood’s intoxication at 9:00pm was insufficient to show that he operated his moped in an intoxicated state at 8:00pm, simply based on evidence that he was intoxicated at 9:00pm.

Has this happened to someone you know?

Did You Go to Law School to Make $15 an Hour!?

Oh my.

This latest legal “super-article” from AboveTheLaw.com has been getting so much traffic that it moves extremely slowly, and has shut down the website several times. If you are lucky enough to get through, the article is here: “Did You Go Law School to Make $15/Hour?”

This article is depressing for recent law school graduates like myself. You struggle to get in, pound out three years of legal education, and then graduate to find yourself in a market that can’t meet even your most basic expenses. I think if our clients knew that each of us is not independently wealthy, perhaps they would be more diligent in paying their legal bills when they come due. But, clients have a perception that other clients can pick up the tab and that the attorney can afford to take the loss.

I know the above article is an extreme example, but being an attorney is quite often less than lucrative. We must have gone into this field for some other reason…

Thoughts!?