All posts by Chris Buckley

IN COA: Government vehicle exclusion is void

Indiana Lawyer Full Article

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today in a matter of first impression that the government vehicle exclusion in underinsured motorist policies is void as against public policy.

The issue arose in Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. James and Jan Trosky, et al., No. 29A02-0902-CV-148, in which Cincinnati argued Indiana substantive law should apply in determining whether government vehicles could be excluded from the definition of underinsured motor vehicle in the policies of the parties involved in the litigation. Courtland Brown, Kyle Trosky, and Kaitlin Culpepper were driving home from Florida in a car owned by Brown’s parents. Culpepper was a permissive driver at the time of the accident, in which their car collided with one owned by the Florida Highway Patrol. Trosky was killed and Culpepper was injured.

Today’s Judicial Opinions (Published ONLY)

U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
Dennis Ford v. Minteq Shapes and Services Inc., et al.
09-2140

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Minteq on Ford’s claims the company racially harassed him, paid him a discriminatory wage, and retaliated against him. While comments made toward Ford were rude and offensive, they don’t rise to the level of hostile work environment. Ford also failed to provide evidence he received less pay than similarly situated employees.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clark E. Welch, et al. v. Connie M. Heavelin, et al.
64A03-0812-CV-594

Civil. Affirms order of foreclosure in favor of Connie and Daniel Heavelin, assignees of a mortgage from their deceased mother. Indiana Code Section 34-55-9-2 applies only to the recovery of money and doesn’t apply to a decree of foreclosure establishing a specific mortgage lien upon real estate. Therefore, the lien on Welch’s property didn’t expire 10 years from the time it was entered. A mortgage lien expires in 20 years, so Connie and David had until 2013 to foreclose the mortgage.

Justices consider ‘youth program center’ issue

Indiana Lawyer Full Article

Walter Whatley isn’t disputing the fact that he was in possession of cocaine and that he should be held accountable for that.

Instead, the Indianapolis defendant argues that he shouldn’t have been convicted of Class A felony cocaine possession, which is what he was charged with given that he had the cocaine within 1,000 feet of a “youth program center” or a church near his home, where police arrested him after finding more than three grams of the illegal substance on him.

Attorney General Zoeller files suit against former Chesterfield officials

State seeks to recover more than $259,000 defrauded from town government by employees

INDIANAPOLIS – Today Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed a lawsuit demanding that five former officials of the town of Chesterfield – including the former clerk-treasurer and former town marshal — repay more than $259,000 in public funds they allegedly defrauded from the town government. The Attorney General also is seeking temporary restraining orders against the defendants to protect assets from being disposed of or sold.

The lawsuit, filed in Madison County Circuit Court, is part of a stepped-up effort by Zoeller to combat public corruption and misuse of tax dollars by elected officials and government employees.

“The claim that the town’s former top fiscal officer and the town’s former police chief hatched a scheme to defraud the taxpayers who employed them appears to be the ultimate betrayal of the public’s trust,” Zoeller said.

The case stems from an Oct. 26, 2009, certified audit by State Board of Account examiners who found that five individuals, individually or together, allegedly defrauded the town government out of a total $259,626.07 by getting paid for false mileage reimbursement claims, phony automotive-repair and building-repair claims, and for hours never worked during 2007 and 2008.

Named as defendants in the Attorney General’s civil suit seeking recovery of public funds are:

* Former town clerk-treasurer and town manager Christopher Parrish. The lawsuit alleges Parrish paid himself $31,535.91 in fictitious travel expenses and approved phony claims and improperly issued reimbursement checks for four other defendants. Parrish resigned from his town positions in January 2009.

* Former town marshal James Kimm. The complaint alleges Kimm submitted falsified mileage reimbursement claims to Parrish for destinations to which he didn’t travel and was paid $52,553.06. He also allegedly received $1,700 in petty cash reimbursements from Parrish. The State Board of Accounts audit noted that Kimm’s description for most of the out-of-state travel was to pick up military surplus from the U.S. Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office. When examiners checked with the DRMO, they reportedly found no record of anyone from Chesterfield, including Kimm, obtaining equipment from a DRMO location, the audit said. Kimm resigned as town marshal in January 2009.

* Joseph Brown, a former part-time police officer for Chesterfield who is half-brother of Kimm. The lawsuit alleges Brown participated in a scheme with Parrish and Kimm where Brown submitted phony claims for automotive repairs to town-owned vehicles that never were performed. The State Board of Accounts examiners reported that the street address of “Brown’s Automotive” listed on the invoices is a home in a residential neighborhood where there was no indication of commercial automotive work taking place. Brown received 24 checks totaling $115,391.44 between January 2007 and March 2008, the audit found.

* Christopher Walters, a former town maintenance superintendent, and his brother James Walters, a former town maintenance employee. The suit alleges the two former employees were part of a scheme with Parrish where they were paid $37,600 for repair work to town government buildings that never occurred, according to the audit. The suit alleges James Walters owes $13,002.88 for hours he was paid but didn’t work and owes $2,850 for tools improperly purchased with town funds. Christopher Walters allegedly was overpaid by $4,992.76 for hours he didn’t work.

‘The audit claims this fraud was brazen in its audacity and proportionately large in its scope. The quarter-million-dollar fraud represents a very sizeable portion of the town’s entire operating budget. That’s why we will be moving quickly in pursuing the defendants’ assets in order to protect the taxpayers and restore to the Chesterfield town treasury what was wrongfully taken,” Zoeller said.

The State Board of Accounts audit found that Parrish and the others executed the scheme without the knowledge of the Chesterfield Town Council. Parrish issued “manual” checks the council did not see, the audit found.

The complaint asking the court to order Parrish and the other defendants to return the public funds is a civil suit, not a criminal case. The Attorney General’s office has jurisdiction to file civil cases.

Beyond demanding repayment from the defendants, the lawsuit also seeks payment of the employee-theft insurance the town took out on the employees in 2007 and 2008 and to redeem surety bonds obtained on Parrish and Kimm. The suit seeks $60,000 from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and another $8,500 from Ohio Casualty Insurance Company.

If State Board of Accounts examiners audit a government office and discover theft, fraud or malfeasance, they refer the certified audit to the Attorney General’s office, which acts as collection agent to recover the missing funds.

Earlier this year, the Indiana General Assembly passed a new state law on public accountability that Zoeller had advocated, House Enrolled Act 1514. It requires public employees who handle money to carry larger bond amounts — $30,000 – and brings the Attorney General’s office into the investigation process earlier when the State Board of Accounts discovers money is missing.

‘The new law will allow us to freeze assets at the first indication public funds are at risk of being stolen, so they can’t be transferred while the audit is being completed,” Zoeller said. The Chesterfield case occurred before the new law took effect July 1.

Lake County Jail inmates cry foul

Sheriff disputes complaints, which resemble those in pending federal lawsuit
NWI Times Article

CROWN POINT | Five recent detainees at the Lake County Jail are reporting ongoing conditions that are the subject of a potential class action lawsuit filed last year.

The recent complaints allege overcrowded holding cells in which dozens of inmates sleep on bare concrete floors for days at time and are denied showers, a change of clothes, toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap and even an adequate supply of menstrual pads.

Similar conditions are the topic of a lawsuit filed in May 2008 by the Chicago law firm of Loevy & Loevy on behalf of seven plaintiffs who contend the holding cells get so crowded inmates sleep nearly on top of one another. The suit claims the holding cells are so unsanitary they become “life threatening” breeding grounds for dangerous infections.

Medical care is nearly nonexistent, with medication withheld for weeks, and the food is so lacking in nutrition that detainees’ weight and health are jeopardized, the suit alleges. The lawsuit contends 39 additional detainees have provided affidavits describing similar conditions.

In recent weeks, five detainees, one of whom remains in custody, have contacted The Times complaining of sleeping on the concrete floor in unheated cells with a single overflowing toilet and without blankets, showers or other basics of daily care.

“You can’t get enough food to survive,” one man said. “People are fighting over food.”

Detainees describe breakfast as a 6-ounce box of cereal and a small carton of milk, followed by a sandwich with one slice of bologna and two pieces of bread with a dab of jelly for lunch and dinner. Breakfast used to include a Twinkie, they say, but no longer.

“You have to keep beating on the door to keep reminding them you need toilet paper or (menstrual) pads,” a woman said, claiming the pads are limited to three a day.

“I know it’s a jail and not a hotel, but they could treat people decently,” the woman said.

“I had to lay on the concrete for so long I have bruises on my hips,” another man said, describing conditions as “inhumane.”

Lake County Sheriff Rogelio “Roy” Dominguez defended his jail staff, saying the jail is monitored to insure compliance with the rules. He provided copies of a recent state inspection that cited no special problems in the holding cells.

“Are there issues in the jail? There are for sure,” Dominguez said. “With the number of people coming into the jail and no additional staff, there’s only so much they can do.”

Dominguez cited the closing of local jails, including the one in Gary, and reduced funding as contributing to any problems.

“(Staff) assured me they are getting meals, and sanitary needs are addressed,” he said. “We address as much as we can.”

John Kopack, attorney for the Sheriff’s Department, said the jail has a grievance procedure that inmates must follow if they have a complaint.

“If you don’t file a grievance, you don’t have a complaint,” Kopack said.

Detainees are informed of the grievance procedure when they are booked into the jail, he said. The grievance process begins with notifying the nearest correctional officer and can wind its way up to the sheriff if unresolved, he said.

Indiana CLE Opportunity

“Practical Tips from the Bench and the Bar” – 3 CLE Hours
Monday, December 21, 2009

Barnes & Thornburg
5th Floor Auditorium
11 S. Meridian St.
Indianapolis

Chair & Moderator: John Maley, Barnes & Thornburg

Featured Speakers include:
Hon. Richard L. Young,
District Judge, S.D. of Indiana
Hon. Tim A. Baker,
Magistrate Judge, S.D. of Indiana
Donald Wall,
Counsel to the Circuit Executive, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Laura A. Briggs,
Clerk, S.D. of Indiana

Registration 1 p.m.
Program 1:30-4:45 p.m.
Reception Following Program
$89 Federal Bar Association Members
$99 Non-Members

Questions? Call Karen Aruta @(317) 472-5201 or email @ karuta@ibj.com.

Divide grows between lawyers with and without digital influence

Full Article @ Real Lawyers Have Blogs

Minneapolis based Web marketing and PR strategist, Adam Singer, has an excellent blog post this morning about the growing divide between those with digital influence and those without.

While the business digital divide – at least in the marketing and media industries – feels to be closing, there’s another rift less discussed: a divide between those with digital influence/share of voice and those without. And it’s a rift that grows wider daily.

Many businesses and individuals who embraced content marketing years ago are seeing strong returns and are far ahead of those starting today.

Singer noted 10 points why this is. All of them apply to law firms. Here’s my 8 with a law firm slant (heavily leveraging Singer’s copy).

1. The web rewards a long term commitment. We’re weary of law firms and legal professionals not only new to us, but new to a network. Law firms starting to create an effective digital channel (not a website) are starting from scratch in creating a digital reputation and interacting through social technologies. Try to force the issue and it will only set you back in the eyes of the influential, a law firm’s most needed ally in creating influence.

2. More content = more potential entry points, more links. Law firms who comprehend the value of building out their content over time continue to accumulate more digital influence and steadily gain greater share of voice. More content = more hooks in the water for search, more potential pages for users to share and helps establish a brand as referential. It’s not about quantity or quality alone – you need both.

3. Those who have been at it awhile have refined their digital processes. This takes time. Law firms, generally, do not have legal marketers who are social media savvy. Newcomers unknowingly make mistakes which embarrass the law firm in the eyes of savvy clients and others with digital influence.

4. Sophisticated people and companies have already built a tribe. Those with comprehension of what a digital society enables have been building organic, opt-in subscribers base for years. Many are reaching tipping points where those subscribers are producing strong ROI for that company or person. We’re not talking law firm email newsletter and alert subscribers, but people who cite you and your content – who in effect are doing your marketing for you.

5. Understanding of how pull PR works. While some law firms continue to engage in the cat-and-mouse game of media pitching, a few smart marketers and even media organizations are embracing a pull strategy. Law firms are failing on both push and pull strategies. Very few law firms have a clue how to pitch a blogger. And rather than blog as a way to enter an ongoing conversation as a thought leader in a niche, law firms wrongly strive to make their blogs the center of attention.

6. Attraction of web-literate team members. Law firms who cling to the past are not going to attract the same talent as those pushing boundaries. Web-savvy communication professionals don’t want to work with handcuffs on and with people who don’t understand social media. The 45% of law firms blocking the use of social media and social networking mediums like Twitter and Facebook are going to attract no one who knows anything here.

7. Legal marketers who take a ‘head in the sand’ approach to digital hold law firms back. Social media is not new, and if you think it is you’re already devastatingly far behind in digital influence. Ignore the social web at your own peril – law firms who take a wait and see approach yield a lot of ground to agile competitors. Marketers who treat the web as an experiment thrive.

8. Others have already grabbed search engine results pages/domains/social sites. Law firms behind here may have missed the chance at having a community in a niche area of law or industry. Users may have already decided how certain law firms should be perceived digitally before a law firm is able to carve out a reputation for themselves. Singer is spot on as to how this applies to professionals like lawyers: how many of you don’t own your name on key channels or appear on page one of searches for more than just your website bio?

Lawyers and law firms are traditionally laggards when it comes to things innovative. But in my travels and talking with hundreds of lawyer and firms, how to use social media to network through the Internet is one hot topic. Waiting is only going to increase the digital divide between you and your competitors.

Indy law NFL discussion now Dec. 2

The roundtable discussion about the U.S. Supreme Court case, American Needle v. National Football League, et al., at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis has been rescheduled for Dec. 2. The issue in the case is whether professional sports leagues should be regarded as single firms or a collection of competitors.

The CLE was originally scheduled for Nov. 4, but was postponed following the death of Indy law professor Mary Harter Mitchell. For more information on the event, visit the IU Indy School of Law Website.