Author Archives: ligitsec

World Health Alternatives, Inc. – Delaware Court Confirms Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Officers

Miller v. McDonald (In re World Health Alternatives, Inc.)  —- B.R. —-, 2008 WL 1002035 (Bkrtcy D.Del. April 2008)

Issue:   Do corporate officers owe a fiduciary duty to a corporation?  Do they breach this duty by “failing to implement an adequate monitoring system and/or the failure to utilize such system to safeguard against corporate wrongdoing”?

Holding:      Yes – Yes

Judge Walsh

The trustee sued numerous former executives of this debtor including Brian Licastro, in house counsel and vice-president of operations, for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches, corporate waste, and numerous other causes of action.  This is the ruling on Licastro’s Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6).  The Motion was denied in part and granted in part.

When World Heath became a public corporation in early 2003, apparently through the promoting efforts of one Richard E. McDonald, it had $245,000 in assets and negative equity of some $90,000.  It had sustained a $400,000 loss in the previous quarter.  During the next year, it raised some $40 million to buy eight different businesses in the health care staffing industry.  The accounting systems were bad however and made worse by the misrepresentations of McDonald.  The SEC were reports were fraudulent (according to the trustee and accepted as true for 12(b)(6) purposes), and huge amounts of liabilities went unreported.  “The Trustee claims that these reports were false and misleading because World Health lacked adequate internal controls and was, therefore, unable to ascertain its true financial condition.”  The company filed chapter 11 in 2006 and that was converted to chapter 7 the same year.

“The basis for the Trustee’s claim is that Licastro breached his duty of care by failing to implement an adequate monitoring system and/or the failure to utilize such system to safeguard against corporate wrongdoing.”   Judge Walsh concluded, “[T]he Trustee appropriately asserts that Licastro as the in-house general counsel and the only lawyer in top management of World Health during the relevant period, had a duty to know or should have known of these corporate wrong doings and reported such breaches of fiduciary duties by the management.”  Licastro argued that these are proper obligations of directors but he was only an officer.  The court confirmed that duty of officers saying “It is correct that Delaware law does not impose fiduciary duty on ‘employees’ generally, but it is incorrect that it does not impose failure of oversight (fiduciary duty) as to officers.  Of course, Licastro was not just an ‘employee’; he was an officer in two respects, vice president of operations and general counsel.”

Sea World Theme Park Faces another Lawsuit

Animal ProtectionSea World, California has been hit with another class action lawsuit. The aquatic theme park company has been accused of misleading the public into believing that its captive, performing killer whales are happy and healthy.

This is the third lawsuit in three weeks involving Sea World and its parks in Orlando, Florida, San Antonio, Texas and San Diego. As compared to the other two lawsuits,  the plaintiffs in this recent one  are not demanding any reimbursement of tickets but instead want the company to “cease making false statements” with respect to the welfare of the whales.

Earth Island Institute, an environmental advocacy and research group based in Berkeley California is offering advice to the legal team of the plaintiffs.

“We want to force SeaWorld to tell the truth,” Mark Palmer, assistant director of the Earth Island Institute’s International Marine Mammal Project as reported in the Guardian.

Mark Anderson and Ellexa Conway from San Francisco are two of the named plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit. However, the Earth Island Institute is the driving force behind the lawsuit and is the one seeking out individual plaintiffs to represent the lawsuit on behalf of the public. The plaintiffs are demanding that Sea World refute marketing statements that claim their whales are thriving.

Sea World has not issued any new statement in response to this recent lawsuit but in an earlier statement, the company had called these accusations baseless and had indicated that it would defend itself against these claims. The company has also pointed out that its parks are regularly inspected by the US government and that these allegations are completely untrue.

The Earth Island Institute on the other hand is adamant in its stand and wants Sea World to cease running a “whale circus” and to also stop captive breeding programs. They want the company to instead allow its orcas to retire to large sea pens and live the rest of their lives being fed and taken care of by Sea World trainers and veterinarians.

According to David Phillips, an expert in marine mammals at the Earth Island Institute, the truth is that the whales at Sea World are stressed and in severe depression because of their boredom and sterile living conditions. He points out that if children and families visiting Sea World knew the cruelty behind the whale show, they would never visit the park.

One of the legal representatives of the plaintiffs’ claims that Sea World is violating consumer protection laws and is engaging in unfair business practices.

Ex-kicker Lawrence Tynes sues Bucs over MRSA infection

Former Bucs kicker Lawrence Tynes has filed a lawsuit against the Bucs, claiming he lost in excess of $20-million in "expected future earnings."

Pro Footballer Lawrence Tynes Kicks For — And Then Sues  — Tampa Bay

At one time, Lawrence Tynes was invincible in professional football. A terrific kicker with star power, Tynes had a knack for coming through in the clutch. Many fans remember the 2007 and 2011 season when he kicked over time game-winning field goals for the New York Giants.

When Tynes was 36, he gave up football for good. After nine active seasons he wasn’t in a hurry to spend more time with his wife and twin boys. Tynes hadn’t abandoned his goal of earning an All-Pro position either.

Tynes is the only player in NFL history to have two overtime game-winning field goals in the playoffs. Tynes kicked the longest postseason field goal in Lambeau Field postseason history (47 yards) in the 2007 NFC Championship Game.

The Curtain Drops

In 2013, after signing with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Tynes contracted an aggressive staph infection.

Tynes blamed the owners and operators of the Bucs’ training facility and sued for $20 million, the amount he thinks he would have earned if he were find for another half-dozen or so seasons.

Tynes went from telling David Letterman war stories about the Super Bowl seasons with the Giants to agonizing over his situation with the Good Morning America squad even as he traded on his celebrity to land a gig as a consultant for a private aviation business. Tynes didn’t foresee the curtain dropping on him at the beginning of his career’s third act.

Fed up with the cold of MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, Tynes inked a one-year deal with Tampa in 2013. Despite being in the top-20 roster of placekickers, Tynes went south to warmer weather where he believed he could have a good season and then sign a multiyear deal — with somebody, anybody.

Then his kicking foot got in the way.

Tynes’ habit of wearing cleats which were two sizes too small meant regular preseason podiatrist visits for ingrown toenails. On July 30, 2013, Tynes went to Bayshore Podiatry in Tampa, a consultant to the Bucs, Yankees and other sports teams.

The procedure to remove two-millimeters of his right toenail took ten minutes with the numbing the most time-consuming part.

The team suggested Tynes return to their facility for hot- and cold-tub baths while getting the wound’s dressing change. He did as told but noticed his toe didn’t heal as quickly as it had following other toenail treatments.

Eventually it turned red and swollen and made him feel feverish and too ill to practice. Tests of Tynes’ toe on August 9, 2013 showed the presence of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA.

While the Bucs hired an outside firm to sanitize the facilities, the team also put five figures into a massive air purifier and instructed players to shower before leaving the locker room. Deverick Anderson, the director of Duke Infection Control Outreach Network, was brought in for a review. Anderson would later say the Bucs had the “lowest risk of transmitting MRSA to any other team.”
Tynes claimed the problem was the facility. “Half the damn team was on antibiotics.”
After cornerback Johnthan Banks came down with MRSA Anderson was brought back in to look at the situation again.

Tynes claimed in his lawsuit that “appropriate precautions intended to prevent a MRSA infection” were not in place in 2013.  His suit also claimed guard Davin Joseph, punter Michael Koenen and special teams coach Dave Wannstedt also underwent rehab for bacterial infections.

After multiple meetings between Tynes’, his lawyer, his agent and team representatives, the Bucs cut him in March 2014. Tynes conceded it was the end of his career and he sued.
The Takeaway

Tynes reached a settlement with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in February 2017. The  terms have not been disclosed.

Pharrell Williams Speaks Out Against Copyright Litigation Verdict

Copyright LitigationIn a decision by a federal court in Los Angeles, singers Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke have been ordered to pay damages of $7.3 million to the Marvin Gaye estate. The jury has ruled that Williams’ single “Blurred Lines” infringed the copyright of Gaye’s song “Got to Give it up.”

The verdict may set a legal precedent for future as the two songs do have a similar sound but have different note and chord sequences. In light of this verdict, Williams has warned that the creative industries are now at a risk of copyright litigation. “The verdict handicaps any creator out there who is making something that might be inspired by something else,” says Williams.

Williams points out that if the creative industries (including fashion, music, design and many others) lose their freedom to be inspired by other work and material, then the entertainment industry may just end up frozen in litigation.On the other hand, Gaye’s lawyers defended their stand on the grounds that Williams’ song “Blurred Lines” copied elements of “Got to Give it Up.” During the trial, they called a music expert as a witness who testified that there was a constellation of similar elements in this song. The Gaye family has also fined a new injunction to prevent the further copying, distribution and performance of Williams’ song.

Williams however is still defending himself and claims he has not broken any copyright rules. According to him, it is not possible to own feelings or emotions. The notations and the progression were different and thus there was no infringement. Blurred Lines was one of the biggest hits of 2013 and generated approximately $17 million in profits. Williams has had a string of hits apart from Blurred Lines including “Get Luck” and “Happy.”

The music industry has also extended its support for Pharrell Williams. Paul McGuinness, the former manager of U2 points out that this verdict is peculiar since it does not refer to the usual infringement such as the writing of the song or the track. He finds it strange that a song has been penalized on the basis of its mood.

Producer Harvey Weinstein also highlights that if this is the verdict in this case, then there is no saying who might be next. Everyone quotes things, sometimes subconsciously. It does not make any sense to sue another filmmaker for making a movie that feels like another one.

Williams is adamant that the verdict is wrong and if you kill the ability for people to be inspired, the in essence you kill creativity.

Alamar Ranch v. Boise: District Court Rules that an Employee Waived the Attorney-client Privilege for Emails She Sent to Her Counsel from Her Work Computer

Alamar Ranch v. Boise District Court Rules that an Employee Waived the Attorney-clientOn December 17, we reported on the Convertino case in which a judge found that the attorney-client privilege was not waived for emails exchanged on an employer’s network, even though the employer had access to them. It did not take long to find a case with virtually identical circumstances in which a Court reached the exact opposite result – a ruling that the privilege had been waived. This was a really bad result for the employee, because it meant that those emails could be used against her in court. See Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, D. Idaho, No. 1:09-cv-00004, Memorandum Decision and Order (Nov. 2, 2009).

This case concerns a challenge of Boise County’s denial of a permit for Alamar to construct a home for troubled youth. As part of this action, Alamar subpoenaed the records of Jeri Kirkpatrick, an opponent of the project, as well as those of her employer, the Idaho Housing and Finance Association (IHFA), to obtain emails that Kirkpatrick had sent or received through her work email address. IHFA produced the emails, which were stored on its servers.

Kirkpatrick objected that the emails were protected under the attorney-client privilege. Alamar countered that IHFA’s employee policies stated that IHFA “reserved and intends to exercise the right to review, audit, intercept, access and disclose all messages created, received or sent over the e-mail system for any purpose.” Kirkpatrick responded that she was unaware that her emails had ever been monitored – although she was aware of another IHFA case where monitoring had occurred.

The Idaho Court concluded that the attorney-client privilege for the emails had been waived. According to the Court, the case presented “a simple scenario where the IHFA put all employees- including Kirkpatrick — on notice their emails would (1) become IHFA’s property, (2) be monitored, stored, accessed and disclosed by IHFA, and (3) should not be assumed to be confidential.” While Kirkpatrick stated she was not aware of any company monitoring, her bare assertion was insufficient to support a claim for nonwaiver. Rather, “It is unreasonable for any employee in this technological age – particularly an employee receiving the notice Kirkpatrick received – to believe her emails, sent directly from her company’s email address over its computers, would not be stored by the company and made available for retrieval.”

The Court found that the privilege also had been waived for emails her attorney sent to her company email address. The Court reasoned that “there is no question that her address – “Jeri@IHFA.org” – clearly put [her attorney] on notice that he was using her work e-mail address. Employer monitoring of work-based emails is so ubiquitous that [her attorney] should have been aware that the IHFA would be monitoring, accessing and retrieving e-mails sent to that address.”

On the other hand, the Court found that the privilege was not waived for emails sent by other clients of Kirkpatrick’s attorney to her attorney, and which copied Kirkpatrick at her work address. The Court reasoned that “laypersons are simply not on ‘high alert'” for privilege issues as attorneys “must be”, and would have reasonably assumed that they were having a confidential conversation with counsel.

The take-away from this case is the same as in Convertino. Employees should be very wary about making confidential communications to their attorneys from their employers’ email systems. Many courts will find that privileges have been waived for emails sent over a system over which an employer has retained a right of access. So if an employee is truly concerned about maintaining the privilege, he/she should send all email communications to his/her attorney from a private email account.

Microsoft and Samsung Resolve Dispute over Android Devices

AndroidMicrosoft and Samsung have finally ended their dispute after six months. Microsoft had sued Samsung for violating terms of a patent licensing agreement. It claimed that Samsung had failed to make timely royalty payments related to their patent licensing deal and had withheld interest payments stemming from the delay.

For quite some time now, Microsoft has claimed that the Android operating system violates a number of its patents. According to Microsoft, Android infringes many Microsoft patents that were obtained by Microsoft in the US and elsewhere well before Google launched it. However, instead of exercising its legal right to stop Android -based devices from using that technology, Microsoft had decided to license its patent portfolio to companies that use the operating system.

Samsung is one of the largest companies that make mobile devices based on the Android software. In response, Samsung claimed that Microsoft’s acquisition of the mobile handset business of Nokia also violated the patent licensing agreement between the two companies.

Microsoft is a leader in the technology industry and spends billions of dollars on research and development each year. These efforts have enabled it to have one of the largest and most valuable patent portfolios. Between 2010 and 2013, Microsoft has invested nearly $29 billion in R&D. It has more than 73,000 issued and pending patents worldwide and has entered into more than 1100 license agreements. It continues to develop licensing programs allowing customers, partners and competitors to access it patent portfolio.

The two companies had made a patent agreement in 2011. The terms stated that Samsung would pay Microsoft royalties for each Android phone it sold. Microsoft claimed in the lawsuit that Samsung owned $6.9 million in interest. While it is not known how much Samsung was supposed to pay for each device sold, it is believed that the royalty payments totaled $1 billion in 2013.

Microsoft has similar patent agreements with other companies such as HTC. The Android operating system belongs to Google but the underlying technology uses Microsoft patents.

The court case had been filed in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York and an arbitration case had been initiated at the International Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong.

The case in the US court and the ICC arbitration is now resolved. Details of the terms of agreement between the two companies have not been revealed.

The Legally Controversial History of American Idol

In a latest legal controversy, Phillip Phillips, the American Idol star of Season 11 has sued the show to void his 19 Entertainment contract.

Phillips is the latest in a long line of plaintiffs that have tried to take the show to court but to date, American Idol has remained undefeated.

Among the claims made by former finalists and disgruntled auditioners include racial discrimination, defamation, unfair financial terms and so on.

Back in 2013, Corey Clark, a contestant of Season 2, filed a complaint detailing his dismissal from American Idol. This narrative included an alleged affair with Paula Abdul, one of the Idol judges at that time. According to Clark, his reputation has been damaged and he is suing Fox, E! Entertainment and two law firms Gibson Dunn and Crutcher and Morrison & Forester for invasion of privacy, libel and conspiracy to commit commercial product disparagement.

In another lawsuit filed against the show, ten disqualified American Idol contestants claimed they were the victims of racial discrimination. The contestants argued that producers dig up direct on African-American contestants. The lawsuit was dismissed by a judge.

In 2014, 19 Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Sony Music. They argued that the company had cheated artists Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood and owed them money. The lawsuit claimed that Sony underpays artists and pays them low royalty rates on streaming income and on sale of individual tracks off iTunes. The lawsuit is pending and is in its early stages.

Ian Benardo, also a former contestant of American Idol launched several claims against the show on the grounds of discrimination. His claims did not go very far with the courts but Bernardo claimed he had been sexually harassed and exploited for his flamboyant behavior. The judge ruled against him.

American Idol creator Yulia Fuller sued Fox Broadcasting in June, 2011 over the show The X Factor. He alleged that he was entitled to an executive producer credit and fee. Fuller had filed lawsuits previously as well on copyright infringement citing that the two shows had several similarities. The case was resolved quietly.

slot pulsa tanpa potongan

Leave a reply

Bonus Dalam Situs Slot Online Bisa dipercaya. Sebuah situs judi memberi sejumlah keuntungan buat beberapa pemain yang tercatat didalamnya. Berwujud selingan tiada batasan lewat jenis permainan, sumber penerimaan buat juara pula jackpot biasanya berwujud bonus besar. Karena itu saat ini penggemar betting daring makin lebih serta banyak agen sama sama menimbulkan perhatian bettor.

Namun, penting dimengerti juga ada web palsu sediakan soal mirip juga lebih banyak dari sisi jumlah sampai ragamnya. Walau demikian penyuplai itu tidak memberinya hasil fakta lebih-lebih bonus yang dijanjikannya. Juga si bandar akan bawa modal bettor dan lenyap tidak tahu ke mana. Sudahlah banyak perkara mirip maka dari itu dibutuhkan kehati-hatian dalam penentuan agen.

Daftar Bonus di Situs Slot Online Terpercaya

Salah satu ciri-ciri yang menyatakan web judi paling dipercaya adalah bonus didalamnya ada beraneka rupa tapi masih rasional dan dirasakan tidak terlalu berlebih dari jumlah, dan nyaris sama dengan pasaran web lain. Semuanya hal semacam itu dapat didapat beberapa pemain sepanjang masih aktif namun juga penuhi syarat ada. Hadiah yang biasa ada di pada agen bisa dipercaya di antaranya :

Bonus Anggota Anyar Situs Slot Online Terpercaya

Penyedia situs berikan banyak sekali bonus terhadap banyak anggotanya baik pemain lama juga pendatang yang anyar mendaftarkan sekalinya. Masalah ini kerap disebut hadiah new anggota dan dapat langsung digunakan waktu penentuan permainan. Banyak juga lumayan besar serta termasuk sangatlah beri keuntungan untuk penerimanya, dikarenakan dapat meluaskan peluang menang untuk pemula.

Selain itu trik memperolehnya lantas lumayan simpel tak mesti mengikut stage spesifik yang termasuk ruwet. Lantaran waktu kerjakan register, automatic pemain itu telah terima bonus diterangkan. Meskipun dia tanpa ada code undangan sekalinya selalu dapat terima hadiah.

Hadiah Turn Over

 

Urutan ke dua ada bonus slot terbaru yang ditujukan buat pemain aktif mengerjakan permainan, deposito pula withdrawal dalam account punyanya. Maka hadiah ini tak dapat diterima oleh pemain pendatang anyar. Jumlah diperoleh lantas lumayan besar serta beri keuntungan buat bettor lama itu, rata-rata pula terdiri dalam macam type serta bisa diputuskan sendiri oleh penjudi yang memperolehnya.

Dengan terdapatnya bonus ini datangkan sejumlah keuntungan banyak pemain, serta automatis membesarkan peluang meraih kemenangan suatu spekulasi. Karena itu saat telah masuk dalam slot judi dapat dipercaya, Anda mesti rajin taruhan dan jadi salah satunya bettor teraktif. Lantaran, walau penjudi tidak lama mendaftarkan tapi termasuk kerap berlaga dapat mendapatkan hadiah itu.

Bonus Code Unik Undangan atau Referral

Ada kembali bonus besar dapat juga diterima 2 orang sekalian yakni pemain lama pula pendatang anyar. Perihal ini berwujud link berisikan blog pemasok judi dengan arah mengundang bettor yang belum tergabung buat turut taruhan. Dengan demikian sang pengundang mendapat hadiah menarik dan diterima pula oleh betting mania sebagai anggota lewat program itu.

Cara mendapatinya lantas slot gacor simpel, pemain lama membagi code antik milik dia ke jaringan medsos individu seperti Facebook, Twitter, Kaskus serta lain sebaginya. Apabila ada seseorang ketarik sampai meng-click link itu dan mendaftar dirinya sendiri, bonus juga akan diterima kedua-duanya.

Daftar bonus situs slot online terpercaya itu tentu mengundang perhatian orang yang sedang cari argumen kenapa mesti memberikan uang asli mereka dalam situs. Lantaran itu lekas daftarkan anda ke agen sah serta buktikanlah hadiah memberikan keuntungan untuk pemain itu.

McDonalds Being Sued by Employees

Ten former employees of a Virginia-based franchise have sued McDonalds on the grounds that the company has violated their civil rights.

The lawsuit has been filed in federal court. According to the plaintiffs, McDonald’s has violated Title VII o the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has subjected the employees to rampant racial and sexual harassment. This alleged abuse has taken place at three McDonald’s restaurants in Virginia. All three are owned by Soweva Corporation.

The employees have complained that their employees have used abusive and derogatory language such as “bitch”, “dirty Mexican” and “ghetto”. The lawsuit also alleges that the managers touched female employees inappropriately and also sent them sexual pictures as well as solicited sexual relations from them. In addition, black employees were treated unfairly and were disciplined for minor infractions that while employees were allowed to get away with. Black employees were also fired after the franchisee hired more white workers.

“Being a good worker didn’t matter,” said Katrina Stanfield, one of the plaintiffs, during a Thursday conference call with reporters. “I was fired for being black.”

The employees have been facing months of racial harassment, abuse and intimidation and finally approached the local chapter of NAACP for assistance. The NAACP then coordinated with Fight for $15 labor group that has been involved in a series of nationwide strikes within the fast food industry. In addition, the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs has also joined the plaintiffs and is providing pro bono legal work.

Roderic V.O. Boggs, the Executive Director of the group has committed to supporting these workers in their efforts to hold McDonald’s responsible for its mistreatment of employees.

McDonald’s has argued that it is not responsible since franchisors do not hold enough power over their franchises to be considered joint employers and thus should not be expected to share legal responsibility. However, the civil suit argues that the company is liable for legal infarctions that have occurred at the three locations and is a joint employer.

Samuel Bagenstos, a Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former member of the US Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is of the opinion that this case could prove to be quite significant in setting legal precedent as well as sending a message that franchisors are equally responsible for the actions of the people who bare their brands.

IPhone Apps That Lawyers Might Like

In the past year, I’ve been an active IPhone user and download at least one new app every few weeks. In doing so, I’ve come across some applications that lawyers might like.

Although many large law firms won’t give up their Blackberrys, the IPhone is ideal for smaller firms that don’t have the same issues faced by IT (Information Technology) departments at bigger firms. Of course, if you work at a law firm that mandates Blackberries, you might still use an IPhone for work that doesn’t involve client security/confidentiality issues.

Here are my 10 suggested IPhone apps for lawyers:

1) Dial Zero — When you want to speak with a live person at a major company instead of endless “please continue to hold, your call will be answered in the order that it was received.” It really works and I was pleasantly surprised how quickly I reached Time Warner Cable last week.

2) ABA Journal – A fine app from the American Bar Association that has breaking legal news and links to stories appearing in The ABA Journal. Very nice interface.

3) Google Earth — Yes, you can have the whole world in your hands. Great travel tool and for satellite closeups of land. Highly recommended for real estate/land use attorneys as well as attorneys who need to research precise locations of auto accidents, construction accidents, etc.

4) Open Table — When you need a lunch or dinner reservation on short notice in any major city in the U.S. and overseas. “Search by Neighborhoods” is great tool. A runner-up would be Urban Spoon, which uses GPS to determine your location then displays restaurants in your area. It’s quite accurate but not as useful for reservations as Open Table. The link here compares the two.

5) ITranslate – A great application that translates instantly. For example: “Can you please give me directions to the courthouse?” in Spanish: “Podrian darme direcciones a la corte?” (The app even gives you exact spelling of foreign words with accents, something I can’t do yet with this blogging program so please forgive the oversight).

6–LinkedIn — Build your business network, create or join a group, and email those in your network while on the go.

7) Police Radio — Police scanner that also includes fire departments and EMS for many cities and suburbs around the United States; good one especially for criminal defense and personal injury attorneys — and those of us who remember Adam-12.

8)TripIt – A user-friendly app for letting people know your itinerary (works closely with sites like LinkedIn and Flight Tracker).

9) CEO Express – Although not an independent application, the app button takes you to the the website of the same name that contains hundreds of links to newspapers, magazines, business/legal information, and productivity tools. There’s a section on “Law” with links to FindLaw, Martindale-Hubbell, state/federal codes, and other sections devoted to the SEC and Government Agencies.

10) Blogging/social media apps – Since there are so many, I bunched them under #10. If you blog, you might like the apps for WordPress, TypePad and Posterous. There are also so many apps for Twitter use and the new Facebook app has a much improved interface. Note: Facebook is increasingly being used for business and the demographics of Facebook users continues to increase every year.

Finally, If you are trying to get some work done at home and your child is bored, hand them the IPHONE and let them (gently) play with your LightSaber app (very cool) or the Grand Lite, a great-sounding piano keyboard that is also an audio delight for adults, too. You can also give them a quick introduction to the law by downloading a free copy of the U.S. Constitution application and have them read it. Then you might give them a break and let them watch some (age-appropriate) video clips on the YouTube app.

And when you want some entertainment for yourself that’s also about the law, check out Weird Laws. It contains a look at funny/strange state and local laws that are reportedly still on the books, such as in Long Beach, CA, where it is “illegal to curse on a mini-golf course. ” Or, in Sarah Palin’s State of Alaska, “illegal to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose.” In Hartford, Connecticut, it’s illegal for a man to kiss his wife on Sunday.