Month: February 2010

Oops! Missing a Party in the Notice of Appeal

/ Julie Brook, Esq. / 2 Comments

A notice of appeal is one of the simplest documents to prepare, yet human nature ensures that careless mistakes will occur.

A notice of appeal is “sufficient” if it “identifies the particular judgment or order being appealed” and is signed. Cal Rules of Ct 8.100.  But what happens when a notice of appeal neglects to name a party that intended to appeal?

One can easily imagine the harried lawyer who represents eight parties filing a notice of appeal that inadvertently names only seven of them, when the intent was for all eight to appeal. California’s rules require that a “notice of appeal must be liberally construed” (Cal Rules of Ct 8.100(a)(2)), but does that liberality extend to allowing an appeal by a party not named in the notice of appeal? Continue reading →

How Changes to the DSM Could Affect Your Practice

/ Julie Brook, Esq. / 1 Comment

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — the listing of all recognized mental disorders — is set to have a new (fifth) edition published in 2013. A draft of the document was just released and displayed for public comment. This document clearly affects those in the mental health profession, but you may wonder what it has to do with lawyers. It seems predictable that the effects on the legal community will be felt in the criminal and employment areas and possibly in other areas as well.         

Proposed changes include new designations of gambling addiction and binge eating as recognized mental disorders.         

The proposed change creating a new category for gambling addiction could lead to the disorder being used as a defense to an employee’s embezzlement to pay gambling debts, or by an employee fired for excessive absences from work due to visits to the race track. The proposed change recognizing binge eating as a disorder may lead to more overweight employees claiming a disability.         

What do you think these changes will mean for your practice or the law generally? Do you think lawyers should provide their input to the proposed changes in an organized way? Tell us what you think!     

 © The Regents of the University of California, 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

Share

Something to Chew on Before Biting into a Settlement

/ Julie Brook, Esq. / 2 Comments

Before negotiating a settlement, it is worthwhile to think about the client’s purpose in settling. Is it to right a wrong? To avoid litigation at whatever expense? To protect the client’s reputation or ensure confidentiality? Is it a combination of purposes? There are many valid reasons to settle a case, but they should be pursued only after counsel and client have considered a more fundamental purpose. Continue reading →