Articles Tagged with lawyer”

The Board of Commissioers on Grievances and Discipline of The Supreme Court of Ohio has released an opinion of the issue of whether, during settlement of a matter, it is ethical for a lawyer to propose, demand, and or agree to personally satisfy any and all claims by third persons as to settlement funds. 

Here is the Syllabus of the Opinion 2011-1: 

It is improper for a plaintiff’s lawyer to personally agree, as a condition of settlement, to indemnify the opposing party from any and all claims by third persons to the settlement funds. Such agreements are not authorized by Prof. Cond. Rule 1.15(d) and violate Prof. Cond. Rules 1.8(e) and 1.7(a)(2). Further, it is improper for a lawyer to propose or require, as a condition of settlement, that a plaintiff’s lawyer make a personal agreement to indemnify the opposing party from any and all claims by third persons to the settlement funds. Such conduct violates Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4(a). The Board recommends that this advisory opinion be prospective in application.

The Federal Highway Administration has ruled that the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices must be adopted by the states as their legal standard for traffic control devices within two years.   Here is an excerpt of the Federal Register discussing the rule change. 

The MUTCD contains all national design, application, and placement, standards, guidance, options, and support provisions for traffic control devices. The purpose of the MUTCD is to provide uniformity of these devices, which include signs, signals, and pavement markings, to promote highway safety and efficiency on the Nation’s streets and highways.  The MUTCD is adopted by reference in accordance with Title 23, United States Code, Section 109(d) and Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655.603, and is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel. 

The 2009 edition supersedes all previous editions and revisions of  the MUTCD.   Here is the PDF version.     There is already a change proposed to the 2009 edition.

This column from the Business Section of today’s Los Angeles Times attacks the myth that restriction of the rights of patients to hold health care providers responsible for harming patients must be a part of national healthcare reform.  

An excerpt: 

Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform."