Bowling Green, KY – GLI (Grimes Legal, Inc.) welcomes Brenda Collins as a Recruiting Specialist. At GLI, a sampling of Brenda’s responsibilities includes sourcing, identifying, recruiting, and counseling legal professionals in order to place them in client legal organizations and contacting legal firms and organizations to identify permanent placement needs and business requirements.

“Brenda brings a wealth of business, sales and management experience to GLI. Her vast human resource experience in top US markets such as Boston, Dallas, Denver, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Portland and Seattle will be invaluable as GLI expands into other venues”, says Nancy Grimes, President and Managing Partner of GLI.

Brenda has served in all aspects of the search process, from conducting original search on candidates to meeting with large institutions and committees to determine their need for the appropriate fit, with the past 10 years primarily focused on healthcare, hotel and hospitality, food service and entertainment. Prior to that, her main placement opportunities came in higher education where Brenda received President Club accolades 4 of her 6 years with American Education Center, now known as Education Management Corporation. She has successfully placed senior level personnel in sales, marketing, human resources, general management, event management and collegiate disciplines.

Brenda has a firm commitment in building and fostering strong relationships with both clients and candidates that are grounded in integrity. She has developed a strong network throughout the country within the executive search and educational communities, knowing that the candidates she helps place also become clients.

In addition to her duties at GLI, Inc., Brenda takes great pride in being active as a community volunteer, and creating and developing a program for at-risk individuals coming out of the penal or home incarceration program discover work with application, job interview and placement skills.

Brenda graduated from Brown Mackie College in Salina, KS with a degree in Business Management.

For more information on GLI, log on to www.grimeslegal.com

Contact:
Tonya D. Johnson
Director of Marketing
GLI/Grimes Legal, Inc.
Email: tdjohnson@grimeslegal.com

About Grimes Legal, Inc.

Grimes Legal, Inc. was founded to provide businesses with a unique resource for locating, qualifying and recruiting proven performers in diverse areas of specialization. We achieve this by first working to understand the business needs of our clients. This requires thorough research into nuances of the industries in which our clients flourish, learning the philosophies of management which guide our clients’ business and professional strategies and focusing objectively on their individual cultures.

All Rights Reserved.                                www.grimeslegal.com

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

On May 20, 2010, GLI sponsored Karl Rove as the keynote speaker for Foundation Christian Academy’s first annual Benefit Dinner at Sloan Convention Center in Bowling Green, KY.

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. Karl Rove has been described by respected author and columnist Michael Barone in U.S. News & World Report as “…unique…no Presidential appointee has ever had such a strong influence on politics and policy, and none is likely to do so again anytime soon.” Washington Post columnist David Broder has called Karl a master political strategist whose “game has always been long term…and he plays it with an intensity and attention to detail that few can match.” Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Every week Standard, has called Karl “the greatest political mind of his generation and probably of any generation… He knows history, understands the moods of the public, and is a visionary on matters of public policy.”

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Published: 05/16/2010

President Obama delivering the graduation address at the University of Notre Dame in May 2009.

Congratulations. Since I couldn’t be at every high school and college commencement this year, I wanted to send a message to all of the graduates in this country who are about to embark on the next chapter of your young and promising lives.

There are generations of Americans who came of age during periods of peace and prosperity. When they graduated from high school or college, they entered a world of comfort and stability where little was required of ‘em beyond their obligations to themselves and their families.

That is not the world you’re about to inherit. You’re growing up in a time of great challenge and sweeping change. You will search for jobs in an economy that’s still emerging from one of the worst recessions in history. You will seek a profession in an era where a high school diploma and a factory job are no longer sure paths to success. And you will raise your children in a world where threats like terrorism and a changing climate cannot be contained within a country’s borders.

At times like these, when the future seems unsettled and uncertain, it can be easy to lose heart. When you turn on the television or read newspapers or blogs, the voices of cynicism and pessimism always seem to be the loudest.

Don’t believe them.

Yes, we are facing difficult times. But America has been through them before. In the 1930s, young men and women saw one-third of the nation ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, and later witnessed tyranny sweep across Europe and the Pacific. In the 1960s, millions of students participated in peaceful protests—against these who sought to keep them divided by race, against a war they believed unjust—and were met with billy clubs and fire hoses.

So many times in so many eras, Americans your age could have decided to just go about their own business, fend for themselves, and leave our country’s problems for somebody else to solve.

But they didn’t.

You’re graduating today in part because those who came before you had the courage to look past their differences, face down their common difficulties, and perfect their union. It was young soldiers who pushed forward at Lexington and at Gettysburg, at Normandy and at Kandahar. It was graduates like you who looked across a continent and built the railroads, highways, schools, and universities that have fueled the most prosperous economy in the world. It was a 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence; a 33-year-old Elizabeth Cady Stanton who organized the Seneca Falls Convention, the first national women’s rights convention; a 26-year-old Martin Luther King Jr. who began his travel to the mountaintop; and a 20-year-old Bill Gates who started one of the most transformative companies on Earth.

All of those Americans faced long odds. All of ‘em faced doubt. Many grew up in times of discord and difficulty. Yet they knew that while America’s destiny is never certain, our ability to shape it always is. Ours is a history of renewal and reinvention, where each generation finds a way to adapt, thrive, and push the nation forward with energy, ingenuity, and optimism.

That is your charge as graduates—our future is in your hands. The United States is still a land of infinite possibilities waiting to be seized, if you’re willing to seize ‘em.

While government plays a role in making a more prosperous and secure future possible for America, the final outcome ultimately depends on you and the choices you make from here on out.

Of course, each of you has the right to take your diploma and seek the quickest path to the biggest paycheck or the highest title possible. But remember: You can choose to broaden your concerns to include your fellow citizens and country instead. By tying your ambitions to America’s, you’ll hitch your wagon to a cause larger than yourself. You can choose a career in public service or the nonprofit sector, or teach in an underserved school. If you’ve medical training, you can work in an understaffed clinic. Love science? You can discover new sources of clean energy or launch a business that makes the most efficient and affordable solar panels or wind turbines.

Or you may decide to make your mark in ways that may be smaller but are just as important—volunteering at a local shelter, tutoring or mentoring school kids, staying involved in the local and national debates that shape our lives and the life of our country, or raising your own children to be generous and productive Americans.

No matter what you choose to do, know that you’ve the ability—each one of you—to write the next chapter in America’s story. Starting your careers in troubled times is a challenge, but it’s also a privilege. When I left for Chicago after college to be a community organizer, I, like many of you, had no idea what the future would hold for me. What I did know was that somehow, in some way, I wanted to make an impact on the world around me.

It’s times like the ones you’re facing today that force us to try harder and dig deeper. Times like these move us to discover the greatness we each have inside and, in doing so, rediscover the greatness that defines us as a nation. These are the tasks lying before you, and I have no doubt all of you are up to the challenge.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

In this economy, prospective employers are looking to save money wherever possible, and telephone interviews can be cost-effective. Phone interviews usually are used by prospective employers for screening candidates to determine whether to spend the time and money for a face-to-face interview. Telephone interviews can be especially useful in situations where the candidate lives in a different city from the employer, or to determine whether the candidate possesses a specific, possibly esoteric, expertise, which would create a reason for a personal interview. At minimum, an initial telephone contact will validate statements made on the resume and will be used to assess the candidate’s personality, oral communication skills and level of interest in the employer and the opportunity.

As a candidate, your objective is to assure the prospective employer that an in-person interview is warranted. Telephone interviews are often a make-or-break situation and must be taken as seriously as in-person interviews.

SCHEDULING

In most cases telephone interviews are scheduled in advance. Determine whether it’s best to have the interview at home or in your office, whether you will be making or receiving the call, the exact time (taking time zones into consideration) and the name(s) and phone number(s) of all parties who will be involved. When scheduling the interview, take advantage of any time zone differences to allow you to have the interview at home before or after work, but still within the interviewer’s regular business hours. Ask how long the interview is expected to take.

If, for some reason, the interviewer does not call or is unavailable at the appointed hour, be sure to call the interviewer and leave a message expressing your interest and a request to reschedule the interview.

Although you will usually have advance warning of a telephone interview, there are times when a prospective employer might just pick up the phone and surprise you with a call, so it’s best to be prepared. If you receive a surprise call and it’s not a nice time or place for you to talk, ask whether you may call back and make appropriate arrangements, as outlined above. If you decide to take the unplanned call when it comes, ask the interviewer to hold a few seconds, take a deep breath, center yourself and forge ahead.

TECHNOLOGY

During your job search, make sure that you have a message machine or voice mail available, that the outgoing message sounds professional (i.e., no music, sound effects, jokes, funny voices or children), and that you check your messages frequently. For all job search conversations, use a static-free phone, preferably not a cell or speakerphone, which can slash out or sound hollow or tinny. Ask your secretary to hold calls, or, if at home, ignore call waiting.

GET PREPARED BEFORE THE INTERVIEW

In preparing for the phone interview, research the companies and career opportunities for which you are applying and have that material handy. Also, have your resume by the phone, including a listing of representative transactions or cases, notes regarding points you would like to make and questions to ask, along with your references’ names and telephone numbers. Have your calendar within reach in order to schedule the follow-up personal interview at the end of your conversation.

Keep a pad and pen handy to take notes during your phone interview. Don’t use the computer, because the clatter of keys can be heard and is distracting. Your interviewers may wonder if you are answering e-mail during the conversation.

Have a glass of water by the phone and be willing five minutes early. Be in a quiet place, turn off the television or music, banish any barking dogs and ask your co-workers, family or roommates to be quiet and not to disturb you during this important phone call. Stand up in order get your energy going. Warm up your voice — and smile (it can almost be heard over the telephone).

Dress in a businesslike manner to put yourself in the proper frame of mind and sit or stand with wonderful posture. Although your interviewer cannot see you, these things affect the quality of the image you project through your voice. You want your interviewer to imagine you perfectly groomed and sitting in an office, rather than lounging in your pajamas.

TONE OF VOICE

The primary disadvantage of a telephone interview is that non-verbal communication is lacking; anything must be communicated through your voice. Therefore, speak slowly and clearly with moderate volume and plenty of enthusiasm, positive energy and inflection, keeping your mouth about an inch away from the mouthpiece. Do not eat, chew gum or smoke. (We can hear you puffing away through the phone). Always answer your phone in a professional manner, whether at home or at work, because you never know who may be calling.

A SHORT SCRIPT CAN HELP AT THE BEGINNING

After the initial introductions and pleasantries, open with a positive expression of your interest, based on what you’ve learned about the opportunity and the firm. Then say, “I am looking forward to a personal meeting with you. In the meantime, what can I tell you about my qualifications?” Be prepared with a brief “commercial” summarizing your strengths and accomplishments, tailored to the career opportunity you are seeking.

Throughout the interview, use interesting, descriptive language and proper grammar rather than slang (”yep” rather than “yep”). Don’t use profanity under ANY circumstances, even if your interviewer does so. Avoid fillers such as “ums” and “errs”. Try to avoid yep or no answers; answer in short, complete sentences. Conversely, don’t run off at the mouth. You might want to ask a trusted friend for feedback on your telephone technique and/or practice with a tape recorder beforehand.

LISTEN!

Make sure you get all parties’ names with proper spelling and pronunciation, titles, addresses and telephone numbers (sometimes there are several interviewers on speakerphone). Periodically, use their name (their surname until invited to do otherwise). Say “yes” or “I see”, and repeat their words to let them know you are listening. Ask follow-up questions. Don’t rush, interrupt or contradict the interviewer.

Make sure you understand the question before you answer. Answer directly, and ask if the interviewer needs additional information. Take notes of the major points of the conversation, and, if the interviewer is interrupted, say, “we were discussing … .” An excellent technique for establishing rapport is to match the interviewer’s rate of speech, volume and pitch (within your own personality range, of course).

USUAL RULES APPLY

During a telephone interview, most of the same rules of in-person interviewing apply. Never say anything on the telephone you wouldn’t say in person. Stick to business, and don’t let your guard down.

THE CLOSE

Summarize your qualifications and ask for a face-to-face interview. Say something like, “This seems to be an interesting and challenging opportunity. With my background and expertise, I believe I could make a nice contribution to your firm. When can we meet to discuss the career opportunity in further detail?” Offer some dates that would be convenient for you.

Before hanging up, confirm any agreements for follow-up actions, such as arrangements for an in-person interview or plans to send requested materials, such as writing samples or transcripts. Thank the interviewer at the end of the conversation.

BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Remember that the best way to get a real feel for a firm is through a face-to-face interview. Therefore, even if you’re not excited about an opportunity at the end of the telephone interview, do not jump to conclusions. It could be that the caller is not a worthwhile phone interviewer and that you do not have all the information you need in order to make a decision. Hence, if you are lukewarm, ask for that personal interview anyway.

FOLLOW UP

After your phone interview, send a thank you note or e-mail mentioning some of the points discussed, and reiterating your interest in the opportunity. Send any requested material immediately. If, after reviewing your notes, you’ve some questions, a follow-up call or e-mail is appropriate. Just make sure that your musings are legitimate, intelligent ones and not merely an obvious excuse for contact.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Editor’s note: This is the first article in a 12-part series providing interview tips and techniques for attorneys.

In this slow time in the legal job market, interviews are few and far between. Therefore, candidates must make the most of each fine opportunity. This series will cover strategies for acing the interview in its various permutations.

We will review the basics in addition to presenting tips for handling many different types of interviews including telephone interviews, panel interviews, mealtime discussions, coffee “dates,” callbacks, out-of-town interviews and videoconferences. We also will discuss how to prepare for and safely answer potentially dangerous questions, diplomatically handle illegal queries, and arm yourself with insightful and handsome queries for you to ask your interviewers. Finally, we will show you how to master the close and follow up for the best results.

THE BASICS

• Preparation

A candidate who shows up to an interview armed with specific knowledge of the prospective employer makes a favorable impression. With the Internet, there is no excuse for not being prepared, as there is a plethora of information at your fingertips. Size, structure, representative clients, recent major cases and/or transactions, and financial condition are all accessible facts that can be ascertained through law firm or company Web sites, other sites such as these for Martindale-Hubbell, the National Association of Legal Placement, Hoovers and EDGAR, plus a Google or Nexis search for press coverage. Talk to your contacts who might have insights about the prospective employer.

Prospective employers expect that you’ve thoroughly researched their organization and the opportunity before you set foot in their offices for your first interview. If you ask or answer queries in such a way as to reveal a lack of easily acquired information, they will react negatively. Going beyond the obvious information sources to demonstrate more in-depth knowledge of your prospective employer’s business can only serve to make you a stronger candidate.

To complete your interview preparation, confirm the date, time, address, contact person, the names and backgrounds of your expected interviewers if possible, directions to the interview, travel time and parking instructions.

• Etiquette

Wonderful interviewing protocol includes being on time and, if late, calling; being polite to staff; and having a firm handshake, good eye contact and a confident smile. Arriving five minutes early allows you to relax and recharge. A few minutes in the reception area can speak volumes about the tenor of the place and gives you a chance to observe interactions of employees who are passing through. Profanity, gum-chewing and smoking are inappropriate at all times, even if engaged in by these conducting the interview.

You should bring to interviews extra copies of your resume, a list of references (having obtained permission to use Them), a writing sample that demonstrates your research and analytical skills and lucid writing style (no typos, please!) and, if you’re five or fewer years out of law school, a certified copy of your law school transcript.

• Appearance

Your appearance should be as professional as possible. Even in business casual environments we recommend formal business attire — suits and ties for guys and pant or skirt suits or dresses for women. Be stylish, but conservative. Grooming is of paramount importance as it demonstrates your attention to detail. Interviewers will notice shaggy hair, scuffed shoes, split seams, falling hems or missing buttons.

• Attitude

In an interview, it’s essential to demonstrate your responsiveness, intelligence and personality. You wanna be assertive without being cocky or arrogant, friendly without being overly familiar, and articulate without being long-winded. You must indicate a willingness to work hard and demonstrate a high energy level. It is important to communicate a grasp of what the job entails and sell your abilities to meet their needs.

Listen carefully to what is being asked, and be totally honest and not evasive in answering direct queries. In turn, asking some carefully designed musings demonstrates your interest in and knowledge of the potential employer, as well as your intelligent assertiveness.

At the major of the “what not to do” list: Don’t speak negatively of a former employer at any time.

• No Money Talk!

Remember that an interview is about you demonstrating what you can contribute to the prospective employer, not what they can do for you. Therefore, especially in the initial stages of the interviewing process, you must not bring up the topic of compensation or benefits. The time to discuss these issues is when an offer is forthcoming. However, from the very first meeting, you should be working on proving your value to the prospective employer by showing how you’re the best candidate for the job. This will establish your worth when it comes time to talk about the terms of an offer.

• Culture

Each organization has its own particular style or culture, and a candidate, as well as a future employer, needs to assess the likelihood of a good fit. It’s tempting, when scrambling for a position, to play down this aspect, but it really is a nice indicator of future success.

The firm’s Website may give you a hint to how the firm sees itself and how it wants to portray itself to the public. You can get more information regarding the firm’s culture from talking to recruiters and friends or classmates who have worked or interviewed there, or who have handled matters with the firm. Nonetheless, your observation during the interviewing process will be most important. Note whether first names are used, if there is banter in the halls, and so forth. Keep your eyes and ears open and match your degree of formality and energy level to that of your interviewers, within the parameters of your own personal style.

Besides fitting in on the personality level, you must also show you would be part of the team pulling for the firm’s success. In your interviews, discuss how you’ve acted like an owner in your current or previous firms. Demonstrate, to the extent you can, that you learned the business aspects of your organization. Mention, if applicable, any committees or leadership roles you took on and what you did to facilitate the smooth functioning of your firm.

In short, be the kind of person that the powers-that-be wanna invite into their ranks.

• Follow up

At the end of the interview it’s perfectly permissible for you to ask what the next step will be and when you should expect to hear from the potential employer. Immediately after the interview, it is good form to send a thank-you note — making sure to get the names (and correct spelling) of the interviewers. If there has been no response in the time period stated, it’s acceptable to make a polite telephone inquiry, but it’s important not to be a nuisance.

We will discuss many of those subjects in more detail later in this series so that you are totally prepared to maximize the potential of each interviewing opportunity.

Valerie Fontaine and Roberta Kass are senior legal search consultants with Seltzer Fontaine Beckwith, based in Los Angeles. Valerie Fontaine is the author of “The Right Moves: Job Search and Career Development Strategies for Lawyers” (January 2006, NALP). They can be reached at (310) 839-6000, or visit www.sfbsearch.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

BOWLING GREEN, KY, JANUARY 29 – Carmen Fowler took big honors among GLI’s legal recruiters for 2009. The fact that this honor comes closely on the heels of Carmen’s one-year anniversary as a recruiter only makes the accomplishment that much sweeter. Carmen began her career in legal recruiting in November 2008, bringing with her an industrious entrepreneurial spirit and 20+ years of business experience. Full of enthusiasm and a burning desire to learn, Carmen sunk her teeth into recruiting and has discovered she very much likes the taste. Her jovial personality allows her to connect with candidates and hiring managers with ease.

When asked to what she contributes her unprecedented success, Carmen replied, “I’ve always been a firm believer in the saying…If not me, then who? If not now, when? After all, every shot you don’t take is a guaranteed miss.” Carmen’s accomplishment is all the more impressive in light of the economic pressures experienced in 2009. While other recruiters were changing careers at every turn, Carmen learned the ins and outs of the business, excelling in the process. With this Carmen will be motivated to continue to up her fame in 2010. We at GLI congratulate Carmen on her awesome achievement and exceptional work ethic.

About Grimes Legal, Inc.

Grimes Legal, Inc. was founded to provide businesses with a unique resource for locating, qualifying and recruiting proven performers in diverse areas of specialization. We achieve this by first working to understand the business needs of our clients. This requires thorough research into nuances of the industries in which our clients flourish, learning the philosophies of management which guide our clients’ business and professional strategies and focusing objectively on their individual cultures.

All Rights Reserved.                                                                    www.grimeslegal.com

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Whole body image scanning machines are designed to peer through clothing and capture three-dimensional images of individuals as if they are completely undressed. This raises a lot of questions about the impact of a citizen’s civil liberty rights and a citizen’s privacy interests.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest research organization that monitors federal actions to determine their impact on civil liberties and privacy interests, has wanted to discover out how whole body imaging machines have been used on US citizens by the federal government.

Accordingly, EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information of Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Because the DOJ did not provide the requested information, EPIC has filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In its complaint, EPIC notes that the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is responsible for the protection of the federal judiciary. EPIC specifically alleges that the USMS uses whole body image scanning technology to screen visitors at one federal court already. According to the complaint, the whole body systems operated by the USMS are the same as such systems used by other government entities, including systems the federal government intends to use to screen all air travelers in airports in the United States.

EPIC alleges that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill earlier this year that would limit the use of whole body imaging systems in airports. The bill apparently prohibits the use of this technology for primary screening purposes in airports. The bill was referred to the Senate. Nevertheless, EPIC alleges that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced plans to install in excess of 150 more whole body imagining machines in U.S. airports.

EPIC wanted to understand the government’s actual and intended use of whole body image scanning on U.S. citizens. Accordingly, EPIC submitted a request to the DOJ under the FOIA seeking agency records reflecting whole body pics taken of citizens, contracts entered with respect to this technology, documents relating to the specifications of the technology, complaints regarding use of the technology, and other information. Under FOIA, the federal government must provide requested information relating to “what the government is up to” (as held by courts) so long as a specific statutory exemption does not bar disclosure.

The DOJ did not make a determination on EPIC’s FOIA request, as alleged by EPIC, so EPIC initiated one and then another administrative appeal. Because the administrative appeals did not cause the release of any requested information, EPIC ultimately filed a federal lawsuit under FOIA. EPIC argues in its lawsuit that the DOJ did not conduct an adequate search for responsive records, violated the timelines set forth in FOIA, and still has not produced any of the information sought relating to whole body imaging.

EPIC specifically seeks a court order requiring a full search of responsive records within five working days of the order and production of records within 10 business days of the order. EPIC also requests its attorney’s fees and costs.

While the government apparently seeks transparency of U.S. citizens when it comes to the potential imaging of whole bodies, rendering them naked to the imaged view, the DOJ does not appear to have been very transparent at all in response to EPIC’s FOIA requests that seek to understand the government’s plans in this imaging realm. Perhaps EPIC’s lawsuit will cause the DOJ on its own to come forward with the requested information, and if not, a federal judge might require disclosure.

While it would not be surprising for actual whole body pics to be withheld on privacy grounds, other information relating to whole body image plans could be very relevant for an informed citizenry to understand “what the government is up to.”

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Website is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.
This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and shouldn’t be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are these of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

On September 21st, Congressman Sestak had urged Senate action in response to the previous House adoption of H.R. 448 on February 11, 2009. See: Press Release, Congressman Sestak Recognizes World Alzheimer’s Day (09/21/09).

This is Senate Bill 1821’s Summary according to GovTrack:
A bill to protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder abuse prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response practice groups to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes.

 
A Press Release (10/21/09) issued by the office of Senator Patrick Leahy listed the key Senate sponsors and noted the need for such legislation:
Today Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chairwoman of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging, and Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) introduced the Elder Abuse Victims Behave, a bill that would improve the law enforcement community’s ability to target and combat abuse and exploitation of senior citizens.

A companion to the Elder Abuse Victims Act (H.R. 448), introduced by Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), was passed earlier this year by a vote of 397 to 25 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“For years, Congress has failed to take concrete action to address the consequences of elder abuse, and that must change,” told Senator Kohl. “With this bill, we hope to help local enforcement agencies and other advocates tackle the often-hidden scourge of elder humiliate.” * * *
That Press Release summarized the key provisions of the Senate’s proposed Elder Humiliate Victims Act:
• Stipulates that elder humiliate includes mail, telemarketing, and Internet fraud aimed at elderly people;
• Seeks to develop a common definition of elder abuse as knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm, or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm;
• Seeks to develop a common definition of elder exploitation as fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper acts or processes of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets; and
• Funds creation of positions within State courts, prosecutors’ offices or State Medicaid Fraud Control Units to coordinate elder justice-related cases, training, technical assistance, and policy development for State prosecutors and courts.

Thus, Senate Bill 1821 was one response to Sestak’s call for action. But the response in the Senate may have extended far beyond it, into the pending, sweeping health care reform bill to be subject to debate in the Senate. See: Health Care Reform Bill Moves to Senate Floor for Debate (11/22/09), published by U.S. News & World Report, which noted:
Senate Democrats managed to push health care reform legislation past a key hurdle on Saturday night, with a cloture vote that will lead to a debate on the Senate floor later this month, the Associated Press reported. * * *

“Elder justice” and “elder abuse” proposals in Congress began in the early years of this decade; but none has become law, despite broad-based, non-profit organizations supporting such legislation through political coalitions. See: EE&F Law Blog postings Federal “Elder Abuse Victims Act” Reintroduced (02/20/09), and Federal “Elder Justice” Acts Appear Elusive (09/12/08). See also: Transcript of Hearing on June Eighteen, 2002 before the Senate’s Committee on Finance, “Elder Justice: Protecting Seniors from Humiliate and Neglect” (PDF, 74 pages).

Now, in the most recent version of the Senate’s proposed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Behave (H.R. 3590)” (PDF, 2074 pages!), I find a Subtitle H entitled “Elder Justice Behave” under under Title VI (”Transparency and Program Integrity”), consisting of three sections — Sections 6701 through 6703, which begin at page 1798.

H.R. 3590 in the 111th Congress, as amended from time to time, can be accessed through the Thomas Legislative Information Service, of the Library of Congress.

That subtitle “may be cited as the ‘Elder Justice Act of 2009′” per Section 6701.

It appears that prior federal “elder justice” and “elder humiliate” proposals have been enfolded into the pending health care legislation that would reorder health care delivery nationally.

The definition of “elder” under the legislation is “an individual age 60 or older” according to Section 6702.

Regarding such elders, the bill would amend the Social Security Behave to introduce into federal law the concept of “Elder Justice,” defined as:
(A) from a societal perspective, efforts to — (i) prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder humiliate, neglect, and exploitation; and (ii) protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their autonomy; and (B) from an individual perspective, the recognition of an elder’s rights, including the right to be no cost of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

“Humiliate” would be defined as: “The knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm.”

“Exploitation” would be defined as “the fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper behave or process of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets.”

A “fiduciary” would be “a person or entity with the legal responsibility — (i) to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of another person; and (ii) to behave in good faith and with fairness.” It would include “a trustee, a guardian, a conservator, an executor, an agent under a financial power of lawyer or health care power of lawyer, or a representative payee.”

To review the status of “elder justice,” the proposal would create a new Elder Justice Coordinating Council, consisting of high federal officials, including the Lawyer General. See: Pages 1808-1811.

There would also be created a new Advisory Board on Elder Humiliate, Neglect, and Exploitation to “create short- and long-term multidisciplinary strategic plans for the development of the field of elder justice and to make recommendations to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council established under section 2021.” See: Pages 1811-1818.

These activities would be funded with $6.5 Million in 2011, and $7 Million annually in 2012 through 2014. See: Pages 1818 & 1819.

The proposal provides for grants to be made to Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Forensic Centers, and funds Them to the extent of $20 Million in 2011, $17.5 Million in 2012, and $15 Million annually in 2013 and 2014. See: Pages 1821-1830.

In addition, funding would be provided for “State and local adult protective services offices that investigate reports of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders” at the levels of $3 Million in 2011 and $4 Million annually in 2012 through 2014. See: Pages 1830 & 1831.

There would be created an “adult protective services grant program under which the Secretary shall annually award grants to States * * * for the purposes of enhancing adult protective services provided by States and local units of government.”

The current version of H.R. 3590 to be debated in the Senate would also create a Long-term Care Ombudsman Program and a National Training Institute for Federal and State surveyors. These initiatives, too, would be funded significantly through 2014.

Whether these provisions in the controversial H.R. 3590 will survive, I don’t know. But the fact of their inclusion for debate and consideration is a monumental step forward in federal involvement to curb elder humiliate and enhance elder justice.

Update: 11/23/09:

An article was posted November 23, 2009, by the Kaiser Health News, entitled Congress Targets Senior Humiliate, by Rick Schmitt (also published in The Los Angeles Times and The Baltimore Sun on the same date).

The author highlighted the Elder Justice Behave aspects of the pending health care reform bill presently in the Senate for consideration:
The Senate is considering an even more expansive Elder Justice Behave. It would boost federal aid for identifying and investigating elder abuse at the state and local levels, require long-term care providers to report possible crimes to federal authorities and create new oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services for coordinating state and federal anti-abuse efforts.

These provisions, already approved by the Senate Finance Committee, are included in the health legislation that’s being prepared for floor debate after Thanksgiving. With broad support in and out of Congress, at least some of the measures appear to have precious prospects for being enacted into law.

More than 500 advocacy groups have lined up behind the legislation. It still faces opposition on budget grounds, although proponents say the cost of the Elder Justice Act — about $757 million over four years — is pocket change in the context of a near $1-trillion healthcare bill. * * *
The article is lengthy, offers personal examples of elder humiliate, and engages in a political analysis about inclusion of Elder Justice Act provisions into the health care reform legislation.

Economics now appears to drive inclusion of such federal protections for senior citizens:
Supporters say elder humiliate should be addressed in healthcare overhaul legislation because it pushes up healthcare costs and because financial exploitation of the elderly leaves many destitute and reliant on public assistance.

“This is prevention, which is a healthcare issue,” says Robert Blancato, who heads the Elder Justice Coalition, an umbrella group for more than 500 groups that support the legislation. They include AARP, the American Bar Assn., and industry groups representing nursing homes and long-term providers, among others.

State and local governments have long been on the front lines of such problems. But many studies have shown a shortage of resources among licensing agencies, long-term-care ombudsmen and adult protective service workers.

“The universal lack of resources, the heavy variation across jurisdictions and the low priority given to elder abuse and neglect make it difficult to see how significant progress can be made without federal standards and financial support,” concluded researchers at Texas A&M University in a report prepared for the Justice Department last month. * * * [Links added.]

I am heartened by this article’s analysis as to the prospects for adoption of key provisions of past Elder Justice Act proposals into federal law with appropriate funding.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works every day in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

By Eric Sinrod

Whether a particular patent is valid has potentially far-reaching implications. Novelty or newness is the basic underpinning of every invention that leads to a patent.
After a patent has been granted, parties may seek to defeat its validity in litigation by arguing that the patented subject matter was not novel at the time of invention. There may be a showing that the invention at issue was anticipated by what is referred to as prior art.
Given the vast access to information now provided by the Internet, parties have a much greater ability to search for and potentially discover prior art with respect to particular patented inventions. It’s in this context that along comes Article One Partners, LLC (Article One). Article One has just launched a “new global community to legitimize the validity of patents.”

Article One seeks to have its member “Advisors” submit previously difficult to find prior art evidence relating to the validity of “high profile patents.” Article One in turn intends to analyze this information to determine whether it can show patents to be legitimate or invalid.
If Article One concludes that patents are invalid (the real focus), Advisors can earn up to $50,000, with a total of $1 million being offered potentially at launch. Furthermore, Advisors who actively build the Article One community can earn compensation in Article One’s profit sharing plan.

A patent is a powerful government-granted right that enables a patent-holder to prevent competition with respect to an invention for a certain period of years. Article One claims that its efforts are intended to “restore the patent system to its original intent of granting exclusive rights for true innovation.”

Accordingly, Article One apparently believes that prior art that establishes that a patent has been granted for an “invention” that in fact was not novel should be used to invalidate the patent.

Article One’s name comes from that portion of the United States Constitution that provides that “the Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times . . . inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.”

Lest we not be mistaken, for some time already the Internet has been used by others to harvest information of prior art that may have anticipated particular patented inventions. But here, Article One seeks to provide financial incentives to potential global Advisors in one community to come forward with possible prior art information.

Article One states that its mission is to “evaluate and provide information to the patent industry.” One would think that that means that Article One could become a support player in patent litigation against patent holders. Time will tell whether Article One’s approach will gain traction.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.
This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual senior partners.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved