Stepping a bit away from the already mentioned McWitchhunt (it’s when McDonalds sues anyone in the food business who has a name starting with Mc), lets take a closer look at such things as slogans and short phrases, and the legal stuff concerning this things.

Slogan is one of the most important instruments in marketing. It is wrong to think that the main battlefield of marketing companies is the advertising, commercials or big boards, actually these people fight for our brains. When you come into a shop and see 20 types of toothpaste you will definitely choose the one you know. You won’t spent time on reading the packages and comparing the products. So the one that you buy will be the one with the most memorable advertising or slogan, the one that is in your brain.

If we take some standard rules on slogan generation used in marketing. The slogan must be short and memorable. It must be easy to read and understand. The phrase must have a generally positive meaning, so lot’s of existing phrases are just not suitable for creating a positive advertising. What has positive meaning for you can have negative meaning for someone else.

The legal side of the slogan and short phrase is not so complicated; it is the intellectual property that has some significance. First of all they are considered “de minimis,” or too small to qualify for copyright. However, if the phrase is used in connection with a product or service, you may be able to protect it and most important federally register it under trademark law. Trademark lawyer and lawyers can assist in the details of a trademark.  After this, the rights you acquire under trademark law would allow you only to stop others from using it on competing services or products. Just like the Mc in food business, that was mentioned above. Nevertheless there were few cases when the movie companies have stopped the use of phrases like “Me Tarzan, You Jane,” or “E.T. Phone Home” on merchandise. So basically you can’t register a slogan or a short phrase unless it is used in conjunction with a product or service

Probably the best slogan in the world is Nikes’ famous Just Do It. It was invented in 1988 by Dan Wieden the co-founder of the Wieden+Kennedy advertising agency. Apart from the fact that it is genius, it is still used as the slogan for Nike. Lots of artists played on the slogan and a Dutch pop singer Kim-Lian even released an album with such name, still no one was sued. Maybe it is because the slogan is so associated with Nike, that it will be impossible to use it with any other product. In case of intellectual property it is better to spent more money on creating a strong memorable and unique brand, than spend money on protecting a decent slogan from being copied by competitor companies.

Deciding to file a negligence claim and hiring a personal injury lawyer is a difficult decision and to make it easier it is important to understand how the law looks at personal injury claims. The three parts of any negligence claim are: negligence, damage done by the negligence, and a casual connection between the negligence and the damage.

Negligence is not meeting the standard of care. For example, Susan was walking from her car to the grocery store. The sidewalk had iced over and she slipped and fell. The grocery store did not salt the sidewalk after it had iced over. This is not meeting the standard of care to its shoppers and negligence.
Damages are more loosely defined than negligence. Mental distress over the loss of pet has been used as an example of damages done. Physical injury, mental distress, or wide varieties of other factors that impede you from continuing with your life tend to be considered damages. In Susan’s case, after falling it was difficult for her to stand so she called in to her bartending job and they fired her.
The casual connection between the injury and the negligence is the last factor. This means that the negligence lead to the injury. In the slip and fall example, Susan called in to work because of her injured ankle. If her employer fired her because of this one-time call-in, the damages from losing her job have a casual connection to the negligence. Likewise, if Susan has performed poorly at her job for quite some time, making up excuses to miss work and leaving early, there is no casual connection between her slip and fall and the loss of her job, because it was going to happen anyway.

Once you understand the basic elements of a personal injury case, consult with a lawyer right away. Lawyers can explain the merits of your case and if your damages are “real” or frivolous and what you stand to gain from the lawsuit. If you feel you were injured due to negligence it is very important to proceed immediately. This will eliminate any potential for your case to be thrown out due to any time constrictions and ensure the events are fresh in your mind and the minds of any witnesses.

Famous American chef and Food Network star, Bobby Flay is facing legal trouble. His company, Bold Foods LLC is accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by cheating workers employed at a couple of Flay’s restaurants in New York.

Justin M. Swartz, Linda A. Neilan, and Rachel Bien, of Outten & Golden LLP’s New York office lawyers who are representing three employees from the Bar Americain and Mesa Grill filed suit last Thursday claiming the restaurants shortchanged workers on minimum wage, overtime, and tips. It is classified as a class action lawsuit, allowing any wronged employees to seek restitution if they were employed at these restaurants between January of 2003 until the date the final judgment is given.

One of the charges claims the restaurants took part in improper tip-pooling practices. New York City-based Restaurant Insider Magazine states that “To be acceptable under law, a tip pool ‘must be completely voluntary, initiated by the employees themselves with or without the knowledge of management, and not made part of the terms of hire or conditions of continuing employment.’” One of the plaintiffs was suspended after questioning the restaurants’ tip-pooling practices.

In regards to the case, Justin Swartz, one of the lawyer for the plaintiffs said, “”Our clients have worked for Mr. Flay’s company for years, helping him achieve tremendous fame and success. Their claims in this case suggest that, along the way, his restaurants have disregarded the most basic of their workplace rights.”

Bobby Flay’s tremendous successes include multiple awards for his culinary prowess, a handful of television shows on the Food Network, a line of sauces, and quite a few cookbooks. With over twenty years in the cooking world, Flay was made a household name with his acclaimed show, Boy Meets Grill that continues to run on the Food Network.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 was introduced as Bill C-150 by then Minister of Justice Pierre Trudeau in the second session of the 27th Canadian Parliament on December 21, 1967. It passed third reading in the House of Commons after heated debates by a vote of 149 (119 Liberals, 18 New Democrats, 12 Progressive Conservatives) to 55 (43 Progressive Conservatives, 11 Créditistes, 1 Liberal) on May 14, 1969. It introduced major changes to the Criminal Code of Canada and it was literally a cornerstone of modern Canadian law. The bill decriminalized homosexuality, allowed abortion and contraception, and regulated lotteries, gun possession, drinking and driving offenses, harassing phone calls, misleading advertising and cruelty to animals. This year it will be the 40^th anniversary of the bill’s passage.

Homosexuality was one of the biggest problems of the Bill-150. This change was influenced in the late 1960s by the British Parliament’s adoption of the Sexual Offenses Act 1967, which decriminalized homosexual acts in England and Wales. Naturally Canada wanted to follow this democratic decision. The biggest opposition was from the religious people, the Catholic Créditistes of Quebec held up debate for three weeks supported by the far-right Edmund Burke Society and the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada. Still at the end homosexuality was legalized with age of consent at 21; although it was later lowered to 18.

Contraception and therapeutic abortion under certain conditions were legalized by the bill. This was a step away form the influence of the Catholic Church’s moral positions on these issues, basically one more separation of the Church and State. Bill C-150 made it legal for women to get an abortion if a committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother. These changes were very important and became a stepping stone for many other freedoms and options that have altered women’s place in Canadian society. In 1988 the R. v. Morgentaler ruling, left Canada without any laws regulating abortion.

A number of minor but important changes were made to gambling, gun control and driving under the influence. Before the bill small scale gambling on behalf of charities was permitted, but only Bill C-150 gave the provincial and federal governments the opportunity to use lotteries to fund worthwhile activities, the best example were the 1976 Montreal Olympics. For the first time the bill made it illegal to provide firearms to persons of “unsound mind” or criminals under prohibition orders. The term “firearm” was also expanded; non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearm categories were also introduced. Bill C-150 made it a “per se” offence to drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of 80 mg/100 ml of blood. The refusal of a police officer’s demand to provide a breath sample was made an offense too. These are the basic rules against drunk driving now.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 basically changed almost all the complicated and important spheres (except for maybe immigration) and solved many ethical problems, creating laws suitable for modern society.

For your criminal law legal issues, post your case at lawyerahead.ca and have a lawyer, specifically a criminal lawyer, contact you with their take on the situation.

In the old days, advertising venues for lawyers were limited and expensive. Building clientele meant creating 30-second spots on television or renting billboard space. Thankfully, times have changed. Many lawyers find that publishing articles online is an effective means to grow their business.

null

The old saying “The proof is in the pudding” applies and online venues are a great way for attorneys to show off their stuff. By publishing articles online, a lawyer can “show off” by allowing prospective clients and fellow lawyers to sample their work. This is a valuable way to get your name out there and build upon your existing network. One’s expertise is another’s weakness and some find that this can lead to lucrative referrals. Eventually, through enough exposure, clients searching the web for representation may run across your work.

Article archivers are springing up more and more. With a large network of lawyers, JDSupra may be the place to start. Their comprehensive site allows anyone to search documents for free. Registering takes no time at all and then you are ready to start uploading documents. For this, JDSupra has an intricate form, which makes the brief more searchable. Creating a detailed profile is a good idea as well. By sitting down for a couple hours and creating a strong profile.  Likewise Lawyerahead.com and Lawyerahead.ca provides lawyers with some of the best online Marketing tools available today for free.  A couple of other article archiving websites, Scribd and Docstoc are not directed at lawyers and clients, but are definitely worth considering to increase your firm’s exposure and searchability online.

Tagging is an important part of uploading your documents. These tags allow search engines to “see” what your article is about. Use as many tags as possible! The main idea of the document is not the only tag that is important. Remember, the more applicable tags you create, the more terms someone can type in to reach your work.

Starting a blog is another important step. Once you have uploaded articles and documents to an archiver, pasting them into a blog is made easy with the code auto-generated by the archiving site. Once you have a compilation of your work, you have a network that connects to a larger network and makes it easier for clients to find you with search engines.

The big issue is exposure. A thousand people may see a billboard and ten thousand people may view a firm’s television commercial, but millions are online. Opening up to the internet is a guaranteed way to get a firm’s name out there. With proper marketing through articles, blogs and tags, one can increase the traffic volume to their site and grow their business- for free.

A report in the New York law journal states that small law firms have seen a rise in business although they cannot isolate its cause. This is good news for lawyers considering private practice and an affirmation to those worried about the recession.

Some of this is due to “rainy day” thinking by Wall Street brokers. During the current bleak market conditions, many have decided it is time to start their own businesses and since there is a need for counsel and contracts, lawyers have benefited.

Small businesses tend to be much nimbler than large corporations, allowing them to anticipate and adapt better to harsh market conditions. As good as this sounds, this does not necessarily shield them from recession. Vast majorities of small businesses falter like their bigger counterparts during economic downturns and with less capital, it makes it harder to recover. Law firms are one of a handful of exceptions that maintain or benefit from hard times. The New York Law journal mentions a small firm based in New York City whose “commercial and civil rights litigation as well as white-collar criminal defense — grew by 50 percent more billable hours in the past year.” Not too bad eh?

With the housing sector as it is and foreclosure rates continuing to rise, it’s a lucrative time to be practicing bankruptcy law. There was a 29% increase in the amount of bankruptcies filed between 2007 and 2008, a 41% increase in business filings and a 5% decrease in terminations, perhaps indicating that courts are backed up. Only time will tell how many more bankruptcies will be filed due to a mortgage foreclosure or for other reasons.

Another factor playing into the current trend is smaller clients bailing from their large law firms. Large firms charge a higher premium, sometimes 40 to 50 percent more than smaller firms, and when money is tight, clients logically go with the cheaper of the two. This makes the most sense when cases are not labor-intensive, requiring copious amounts of man-hours and unlike their bigger siblings, small firms offer service that is more personal and have the ability to gear themselves directly to a client’s needs.

Not everything lasts forever but many experts believe the current recession is not going away anytime soon. Utilizing these times to increase business may be just the catalyst for a small firm to grow drastically. Law students might reconsider working for small law firms or going into business for themselves(solo lawyer practitioners) instead of joining large firms upon graduation. As the saying goes, “Strike while the iron’s hot!”

In 2001, Douglas and Agnes got some photos developed. While processing the photos, the technician noticed something strange. Besides some naked shots, it appeared some marijuana plants had made their way into a few of the pictures. Shocked by this, the tech immediately turned the photos over to police. Police noticed the plants as well. They proceeded to secure a search warrant and pay Doug and Agnes a visit. After a good look around, the police managed to find some of those photo-worthy pot plants and arrested Doug and Agnes, charging them with possession of marijuana, intent to traffic and marijuana cultivation.

2003 rolls around and it’s time for trial. Agnes and Douglas lawyers argue that the search and seizure violated their rights. The judge agreed. Having no other evidence than the plants found in the search, the judge dismissed the crown’s case and ordered all those candid pictures Agnes and Douglas took back in 2001 be returned to the couple. So everyone can get on with their lives right?

What about the damages! Poor Agnes and Doug had their photographs passed around different police stations. One can only imagine all the gawking and guffawing that took place at their expense by the technicians as well. How embarrassing.

In 2006, Doug and Agnes are back in court, but this time it’s civil. They assert the police and the photo developers infringed upon their right to copyright and their rights under section 8 of the Charter, claiming damages of nearly a million and a half dollars. After all, weed may be able to quell the pain of cancer patients, but the pain of having your rights breached; now that’s a different story.

One catch though, the judge and defendants wanted to see the photos to determine if copyright existed and if it was breached. This rubbed Agnes the wrong way. Haven’t enough people seen her naked for one lifetime? Hasn’t enough damage been done? So, in a bout of modesty, Agnes refused this request. Without viewing the photographs, the judge could not determine what copyright damages, if any, were done and was forced to dismiss the case as meritless.

Maybe two catches. In December of 2008, Judge Hambly decided Agnes and Douglas weren’t the only ones incurring costs. After reviewing the legal bills submitted by the police and photo developing company, he decided that Agnes and Douglas owed them $12,000. I’m guessing Agnes won’t try her hand as a stripper to pay off the courts.

So that is where it stands now. After years of litigation, embarrassment and killer bud, the modest couple from Ontario is $12,000 in the red. Of course, the case could continue if Agnes has a change of heart, but in the meantime, this case confirms that the next time you decide to take nude photos next to your pot plants it’d be a good idea to BUY A DIGITAL CAMERA!

Stepping away from controversial and complicated cases, here is a recent case that is based on tragic experience, but actually the charges were made a little too late. The case is about sexual abuse in childhood, unfortunately there are hundreds of such cases every year, but this one is a bit different. In this case the charges are made by two women in their 60s, they charge their father who is very sick and 93 years old.

Two sisters Marcelle and Michèle Hamelin, who are now in their 60s, were very young, basically entering their teenage years when their father Phillipe Hamelin sexually abused them. It began in 1956, but the sisters had the courage to speak out only 50 years after the assaults occurred. As the sisters stated in 2004 after their father told one of the sisters that he felt no remorse for his actions, they decided to charge him.

On their father’s trial, both of the sisters testified that for seven years, their father would come to their beds at night and sexually assault them. They were warned that they would be sent to an orphanage if they told anyone what he had done. Marcelle and Michèle also stated that that their mother knew what was going on but did nothing to stop the horrible abuse.

The court convicted Hamelin of five charges, including incest, sexual molestation and assault causing bodily harm against Marcelle Hamelin and Michèle Hamelin when they were young girls.When her father was charged guilty, one of the daughters - Marcelle Hamelin, told reporters that she didn’t expect that her father will have to serve any jail time. She asked only that the court forbid him to be close to children.

The prosecutors argued for a jail sentence between seven and nine years, but Hélène Poussard, the lawyer of Phillipe Hamelin told the Montreal judge that sending a 93-year-old man to jail for sexually assaulting his daughters amounts to a death sentence. Her client attended the hearings in a wheelchair; he also is nearly deaf and blind and has Alzheimer’s disease. Due to all the diseases caused by age, the lawyers recommended the court to sentence him to two years less a day to be served in the community.

After he was convicted in September 2008, Philippe Hamelin claimed that he is innocent, saying he never did any harm to his daughters. However, he made a strange statement that he was guilty of the crime of bringing the girls into the world.

Of course sexual assault in childhood is a huge psychological trauma and some people need years to overcome the childish fears. Such cruel crime should not be left without punishment. Btu in this case big question is the age of the charged men, or better to say old man. He is very old and sick and a jail sentence is not an option for him. The court still has to make a decision in this simple situation complicated with age.

As already mentioned in the article about death penalty the last possible death penalty in Canada existed in the Canadian military for the exceptional cases till 1998. So in the case in this article the problem is not about punishment it’s about rights.

23 year old Cpl. Matthew Wilcox is facing charges of manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death and negligent performance of duty, in a court martial. He is responsible for a “friendly fire” incident at the Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan in March 2007 and the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney.

Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet who is the lawyer of Matthew Wilcox stated that the rights of his client could be violated by Canadian system of military incarceration and the limited range of sentencing options available to military judges. Particularly the conviction would violate not only the soldier’s constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person, but also the right to a fair trial and the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Due to the fact that some alternative sentencing options such as conditional sentences, house arrest, probation and restorative justice are not available to military judges, this makes fewer options for a soldier if compared to a civilian. Basing on this complicated situation Lt.-Col. Troy Sweet claimed that the military justice system needs to be modernized.

Sweet is basing his arguments on the fact that Wilcox was serving his country in war and has done much more than a normal citizen, but when it comes to sentencing, he is afforded fewer rights than a normal citizen. Military prosecutor Maj. Alexander Bolt stated that Wilcox should be denied from bringing a constitutional challenge on a sentencing issue before being tried on the charges. He also claimed that the existing range of punishments open to military judges would not violate Wilcox’s constitutional rights.

It’s not very positive thinking, but the military justice needs to be different from the civilian justice system. Of course the lawyers tend to protect people’s rights and provide slower and more detailed trials. But the great difference and power of the military justice is speed and solutions based on basic principles of justice. At times of war there will be no time for large trials and complicated decisions. The army needs to bring justice quick sometimes miles away from courtrooms and very close to enemy lines.

Maybe one of the solutions is to provide some basic law education and right to judge to commanding officers. In this case if law violation occurs the suspect will be judged by a man with knowledge of the law and personal responsibility. That will keep the military justice functioning. Another solution is to provide two types of military justice systems, a standard one for a peaceful time and one for the war. This will on one side allow the soldiers to have additional rights when the justice system can function normally and on the other side ease the situation when the security and safety of the country are on the line.