Kang Haggerty NewsIn his April 2016 civil litigation column in The Legal Intelligencer and the Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Edward T. Kang discusses and compares the relative merits of jury and bench trials based on analysis of data and comparative studies on the outcome of cases categorized by choice of fact-finder. While jury trials may seem the norm according to the media, bench trial is the less publicized alternative that lawyers and their clients must also consider. Learn more about the consequences of this pivotal decision: jury or no jury? READ MORE
Legal Intelligencer: Unspoken Consequences of Working in a Family-Friendly Firm
by The YL Editorial Board
Jason Guss and David Scott Join Kang Haggerty
Philadelphia, PA (December 6, 2016): Kang Haggerty LLC, a business litigation boutique with offices in Philadelphia, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ is pleased to announce the addition of associates Jason Guss and David Scott.
Jason Guss concentrates his practice on a wide range of business transactional matters including entity formation, drafting internal documents, drafting business agreements, real estate transactions and tax issues. He earned his J.D. from the Rutgers University School of Law – Camden in 2014 after graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree from Pennsylvania State University. Jason gained valuable experience working as a judicial extern at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and as a legal intern at Rutgers’ Civil Practice Clinic. Prior to joining Kang Haggerty, Jason worked for a national public accounting firm where he focused on tax consulting, tax compliance, and due diligence for mergers and acquisitions. He is admitted to the practice of law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
David Scott focuses on business litigation matters that include partnership disputes, contact disputes, civil RICO, and breach of fiduciary duty. He also devotes significant aspects of his practice to securities litigation, class action cases, and creditor’s rights. He earned his J.D. from the Wake Forest University School of Law, where he was a member of the Wake Forest Journal of Law and Policy. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Pennsylvania State University. While in law school, David gained experience in the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office and as a law clerk for Senior Judge Michael F. X. Coll on the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. He is admitted to the practice of law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The Legal Intelligencer’s Women in the Profession Roundtable
Kang Haggerty founding member Jacklyn Fetbroyt was invited to participate in The Legal Intelligencer’s Women in the Profession Roundtable, featured in the publication’s November 2016 “Top Women in Law” special supplement.
The roundtable, moderated by Morgan Lewis chair Jami McKeon, addressed issues that included recruitment and retention of female lawyers, gender equality issues, work-life balance and challenges facing women at law firms today.
The editorial staff of The Legal has always been aware that the hiring and retention of female attorneys is an ongoing issue in the legal community. In an effort to discuss some of the specific problems facing female attorneys and present potential solutions to those problems, we invited 11 practitioners to talk about how to bolster the role of women in the law. This year the panelists tackled issues such as work-life balance, equal pay and the lack of positive change and opportunities for women in the legal profession.
Class Action Rule Changes Are (Likely) Coming to Federal Courts
In August of this year, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure released a preliminary draft of proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Perhaps the most notable of the proposed amendments are those relating to Rule 23, which governs class actions. Rule 23 has been substantively amended four times since its adoption in 1937, and most recently in 2003. The proposed amendments affect the following aspects of Rule 23: method of notice to class members, settlement approval, objections of class members to settlement and appeals.
Notice
The proposal includes an amendment to Rule 23(c)(2)(b) to clarify the proper methods of notice to class members of a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) (common questions of law or fact predominate over those pertinent to only individual class members and the class action is superior to other forms of action). Currently, Rule 23(c)(2)(b) requires notice by “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,” which could plausibly be read to permit notice through electronic or other means. But many courts have stated that this subsection of the rule requires notice by first class mail. The proposed amendment would clear up this confusion by allowing notice to be perfected “by United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” This proposed amendment is meant to clarify that modern methods of communication, such as email and social media, are permissible means of providing notice to class members. The proposed amendment reflects the reality that many people do not check their U.S. mail as regularly as they used to before the advent of electronic mail.
Legal Intelligencer: Women In the Profession Roundtable
by the YL Editorial Board
Litigating the Legal Malpractice Case
Pennsylvania Bar Institute
Accountants Have No Duty of Care Toward Third-Party Investors, or Do They?
In 2001, Anderson was one of the “Big Five” public accounting firms. Founded by Arthur Anderson, whose motto was “think straight, talk straight.” The Anderson firm was one of the most respected accounting firms in the world. A year later, Anderson was found guilty of obstructing justice for destroying Enron’s financial documents. Anderson shut its doors in the United States that same year and surrendered its licenses to practice certified public accounting. A few years later, Anderson settled with various Enron investors who brought claims against Anderson for its role in the Enron fraud. Since the Enron/Anderson scandal, the law relating to an accountant’s duty to nonclients has changed.
Traditionally, an accountant owes no duty to a nonclient. For instance, an accountant who prepares a financial statement containing material misrepresentation would not be liable to a nonclient, such as a bank, who relied on the financial statement to its detriment. As seen in the Enron/Anderson case, however, the landscape of accountant liability is changing. If the accountant aided in the commission of the fraud, or where the accountant knew the third-party nonclient (e.g., a bank) would be relying on the statements, the accountant may be liable to the nonclient.
Aiding and Abetting a Fraud
Class action lawsuit filed against City of Philadelphia for improperly-issued speeding citations
On October 4, 2016, plaintiffs Dominick Owens, Rachael Bell, and Mark Zych (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint against the City of Philadelphia in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in Owens, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 161000388. The complaint alleges that the Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) has been issuing speeding tickets on highways such as I-95, I-76, and I-676, knowing that it lacked the authority to do so, since at least July of 2012. Specifically, under the Vehicle Code, local police such as the PPD are prohibited from issuing speeding citations on highways such as I-95 without a speed enforcement agreement (“SEA”) with the Pennsylvania State Police (“State Police”). The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2012, then-police commissioner Charles Ramsey issued a memorandum notifying all PPD personnel that the State Police had decided not to enter into a new SEA with the PPD covering I-95, I-76, and I-676; and as such, the PPD was prohibited from issuing speeding citations on those highways within the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiffs allege that, despite the July 17, 2012 memo (that is, despite knowing it lacked authority), the PPD has continued to issue speeding citations on I-95, I-76, and I-676 to this date, without ever having entered into a new SEA with the State Police – i.e., the PPD has been operating under a de facto policy of illegally stopping and citing motorists on I-95, I-76, and I-676. Plaintiffs allege that, based on the PPD’s knowingly false representation that it had authority to issue speeding citations on I-95, I-76, and I-676, Plaintiffs paid fines, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and increased car insurance rates associated with speeding citations they received from the PPD, and have therefore been damaged. Plaintiffs also allege that they were improperly detained in violation of their constitutional rights. The complaint contains counts against the City of Philadelphia for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Kang Haggerty LLC.
For more information, call (215) 525-5850, or e-mail info@LawKHF.com.
Edward Kang Writes on Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession for the ABA’s Law Practice Today
In the September 2016 edition of the American Bar Association’s Law Practice Today (LPT), Kang Haggerty’s Edward T. Kang authors the Diversity & Inclusion column, Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession.
LPT, a monthly online publication of the ABA’s Law Practice Division, is distributed to nearly 500,000 lawyers and law students across the globe each month. Current and past issues can be accessed at www.lawpracticetoday.com.