Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat because they have to compete with super cheap prison labor.

Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a corporation owned by the federal government, employs more than 13,000 inmates at wages from 23 cents to $1.15 an hour, making everything from military apparel to call center and help desk support to solar panels and selling the products to the Pentagon and other federal agencies.

FPI, also known as UNICOR, operates inside 83 federal prisons and made more than $900 million in revenue last year.

In March Tennier Industries, which also makes military clothing, fired more than 100 employees after losing out to FPI on a new $45 million contract from the Defense Department. 

In May American Apparel put 175 people out of work when closed an Alabama plant for the same reason. Owner Kurt Wilson expressed his frustration that he pays workers $9 an hour with full benefits and yet "we're competing against a federal program that doesn't pay any of that," according to CNN.

American Power Source will shed about 260 jobs when they close plants in Alabama and Mississippi on Nov. 1 because of competition from FPI, the AP reports.

"There's a federal program tanking our industry," Kurt Courtney, director of government relations at the American Apparel and Footwear Association, told CNN. "The only way for workers to get jobs back is to go to prison. There's got to be a better way."

Last month Kentucky apparel factory Ashland Sales and Service, Co. had to reach out to state Sen. Mitch McConnell to prevent FPI from winning an Air Force contract he needed to keep his Olive Hill factory—the town's biggest largest employer—from being forced to shut down.

Founded in 1934, FPI's operations are patterned after a “mass-production, low-skilled labor economy of the 1930s,” according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service. Dianne Cardwell of the New York Times called the company "inefficient by design" because it employs as many inmates as possible, "which diminishes the advantage of its low wages."

Despite a Small Business Administration ruling in 2005 that FPI cannot win service contracts set aside for small businesses, FPI wins federal contracts over private companies as long as its bid is comparable in price, quantity and delivery. 

That's because intricate laws, regulations and policies "requires federal agencies to buy inmate-made items even if they are more expensive than like items made by private companies," AP notes.

“This is a threat to not just established industries; it’s a threat to emerging industries,” Representative Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), who has sponsored legislation to overhaul the industry,  said. "We know that in the recovery, many new jobs are coming out of small businesses. It makes no sense to strangle them in the cradle."

Chris Reynolds, president of Campbellsville Apparel in Kentucky, told NYT that his employees "just cannot believe the fact that a prisoner who should be paying a debt to society is being promoted through the federal government to take a job from an American taxpaying citizen,” he said.

SEE ALSO: 13 Signs That America's Prison System Is Out Of Control >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A federal judge on Thursday approved a settlement in a case accusing publishers of conspiring to raise e-book prices over protests the deal could devastate bookstores, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Three publishers agreed to the settlement with the Justice Department, which accused them and two other publishers of using the release of Apple's iPad to raise e-book prices, according to CNN Money.

Under the settlement, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Hachette will be required to allow big retailers  to reduce prices for two years – an arrangement opponents fear could kill bookstores and be a boon to Amazon.

"It's devastating to bookstores," Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, told WSJ.

But Judge Denise Cote essentially said "too bad" when approving the deal, while noting the "birth of a new industry is always unsettling."

"It is not the place of the court to protect these bookstores," she said.

Apple was also a defendant in the suit but isn't part of the settlement and continues to fight the price-fixing allegations. Before Apple's iPad was released Amazon's Kindle was the main way consumers could get e-books, CNN Money reported.

Amazon forced publishers to sell the e-books for around $9.99, but after the iPad was released they allegedly began conspiring to raise prices to two three dollars per book.

DON'T MISS: Check Out The Comic A Lawyer Filed To Fight The DOJ's E-Book Crusade Against Apple >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Muse frontrunner Matt Bellamy may find himself in a "Supermassive Black Hole."

Songwriter Charles Bollfrass claims the British band stole his idea for its epic three-part symphony "Exogenesis" featured on it's latest album, "The Resistance."   

Bollfrass is suing Warner Music who released the album in 2009 for $3.5 million claiming in federal court he previously wrote a "cinematic science-fiction rock opera" by the same name.  

Muse received high praise for its beautifully intricate classical-rock ballad that closed out the record, with the album debuting at number 3 on the Billboard charts upon release

Bellamy previously told NME magazine he worked on the album's "hardest song" for years. 

Bollfrass claims he contacted Muse along with two other bands back in 2005 to compose the score for his opera; however, he says the band showed no interest. 

According to Bollfrass, his opera follows the story of the end of the world, and hope to start life anew on another planet. 

Drummer Dominic Howard described the symphony as the following to NME in July 2009:  

"It's a real journey that song as well … you can’t really hear what Matt’s singing in the first part much, but the whole song is about leaving the destructive planet we’ve created, leaving it behind to go populate somewhere else in the universe."

If that isn't enough, Bollfrass also claims the group stole the image for their 2009 album cover from a storyboard of his opera. 

Bollfrass is seeking damages for copyright infringement, unfair trade practices, and unfair competition.

The three-part classical rock symphony clocks in at just over 12 minutes. 

You can listen to it in its entirety below: 

SEE ALSO: Christopher Nolan sues agents over "Dark Knight" profits >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A "plastic surgeon" pleaded guilty Friday to performing unlicensed cosmetic surgeries on women, the New York Attorney General's office said.

Carlos Arango and William Ordonez, who are not licensed doctors, and licensed physician Marlon Castillo were charged in April 2012 with performing plastic surgeries on women without anesthesia and disfiguring them forever, the AG said.

"Mr. Arango lured unsuspecting patients with bargain prices for very complex medical procedures, putting his own greed ahead of the health and safety of his victims," said Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in a statement.

Arango admitted that, between April 2011 and December 2011, together with Ordonez, he solicited patients at the Bellisima Full Service Spa in Queens and performed the medical procedures in Stamford, Connecticut, and Manhattan.

Arango will be sentenced to six months in prison and have to pay over $8,000 in restitution to his victims, according to the release.

The trial against Ordonez, who remains at large, and Castillo is still pending.

DON'T MISS: Sunglasses Salesman Gets Prison Time For Threatening Unhappy Customers >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Alan Dershowitz – who went to bat for O.J. Simpson – and prosecutor Chris Darden traded barbs Thursday as part of an awkward attempt to deconstruct the trial of the century.

Eighteen years after Nicole Simpson's murder, Dershowitz said he couldn't imagine "anything stupider" than Darden's choice to have Simpson try on the notorious glove that had the victims' blood on it.

"He gave the case away," said Dershowitz, speaking at a packed auditorium at New York's Pace University, referring to the fact that the glove didn't fit.

Dershowitz, a celebrity lawyer and Harvard professor, also repeatedly implied he didn't think Simspon was really innocent. "I'm not asserting O.J. Simpson's innocence here. Be very clear about that," he said.

Despite a huge amount of evidence against him, the ex-football star was acquitted of the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and her friend, Ron Goldman, in a trial that gripped the nation because every second was aired on TV.

Faced with Dershowitz's repeated criticism over how he prosecuted the case, Darden said he believed Simpson's lawyers had "manipulated" the infamous glove so it wouldn't fit.

"I was not accustomed to dealing with lying, sneaky lawyers," Darden said.

Dershowitz faced animosity from others on the stage, including Ron Goldman's sister, Kim, and his father Fred, who also participated in the talk. Kim Goldman was visibly agitated whenever Dershowitz spoke, crossing her arms and even turning her back on him.

"This has been a horrible event," Dershowitz said, provoking one audience member to tell him to leave.

To be sure, O.J. didn't come off too well after the event, especially after horrifying outtakes from an exercise video were broadcast on a large screen. In the video, he's jabbing his arms like he's fighting.

"You got to get your space in if you're working out with the wife, if you know what I mean," he said. "You could always blame it on, uh, working out."

DON'T MISS: Meet The Highly Litigious Church Of Scientology's Most Trusted Lawyers >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It's Fashion Week in New York City, meaning models have taken to the streets, wearing clothing that even Cruella De Vil would call eccentric. But Thursday night, dubbed Fashion's Night Out, seemed more rowdy than stylish.

A mob surrounded a white Audi A4 on Broadway, between Bleecker Street and Houston Street around 11:15 p.m. after the driver tried to break through the crowd and nearly hit a bicyclist, Gothamist reported.

Gothamist cited several witnesses who said the crowd included people from nearby Fashion's Night Out events.

It was "not clear who was at fault. The bicyclist stopped in front of the Audi and began screaming at the driver. ... This drew the attention of at least some in the crowd, who encircled the car and began running over it," said one witness, according to The Gothamist.

Someone from the crowd, the video shows, breaks the Audi's rear windshield. Soon after the police showup, and the mob disperses.

Check out the scenes captured by one of the witnesses. Warning, there's strong language.

DON'T MISS: Check Out New York's Modern Day Bonnie and Clyde Kissing In Handcuffs >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A RadioShack manager and his apparent captor emerged from the store unharmed after a more than six-hour standoff, 9 News Denver is reporting.

The suspect was holding the manager of a Denver RadioShack hostage after a botched robbery, ABC7 News in Denver reported earlier today.

The manager, Chris Nimerfroh, is a single father, Fox 31 Denver reported.

The 19-year-old gunman updated his Facebook status during the standoff.

The suspect also posted messages to friends asking them to say their last good-byes, a friend of the gunman, Khadijah Samuels, told ABC7 News.

A SWAT team was on the scene, and police believe several people were involved in the failed robbery, in which shots were fired. It was unclear as of Friday evening whether anybody was harmed.

Four schools in the area were on lockdown because of the shooting, News Channel 4 reported.

Meanwhile, the friends of the suspect apparently prayed outside the RadioShack. KMGH-TV reporter Molly Hendrickson tweeted this picture:

DON'T MISS: Kathleen Savio's Nursing Instructor: I Knew He Did It All Along >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

You hear in movies how authorities "don't negotiate with kidnappers," but the truth is that ransoms often get paid.

We've ranked the biggest ransoms of the modern era (adjusted for inflation).

Wealthy heirs, wealthy businessmen, and oil tankers have all been targeted. An incredible number of these cases came during a few years in the early 70s, especially in Argentina.

This list is missing cases where the ransom was not made public. It also leaves off pre-modern ransoms, including literal king's ransoms, due to limits of available records.

#18 Bobby Greenlease Jr.

Ransomed for $600,000 in 1953.

Equivalent to $5.1 million today.

The 6-year-old son of one of Kansas City's richest men, Greenlease was captured from school by a man whose girlfriend pretended to be his aunt. The boy was quickly killed and buried in the girlfriend's backyard, but the duo was still able to make off with a ransom of $600,000 in tens and twenties.

Kidnappers Carl Austin Hall and Bonnie Brown Heady were caught days later after attracting attention through free spending. They confessed and were executed within months.

Most of the ransom money had been spent or gone missing.

#17 Ronald Grove

Ransomed for $1 million in 1972.

Equivalent to $5.48 million today.

Grove, one of the top employees at the Vesty meat packing company, was one of the many individuals captured by Argentine guerrillas ERP in the 1970s. He was the first person in the country to command a seven-figure ransom price.

#16 Vincenzo Russo

Ransomed for $1 million in 1972.

Equivalent to $5.48 million today.

The Argentine terrorist group Montoneros captured Russo, an ITT exec, a few days after Grove's kidnapping and demanded the same amount.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

You may remember Clint Eastwood's speech from last week's Republican National Convention. You know, the one where said he didn't think a lawyer would make a good president.

Well, perhaps Mr. Eastwood would like our list of law school dropouts who made it to the Oval Office anyway.

In some cases, future presidents dropped out of law school and practiced law anyway because they passed the bar.

Woodrow Wilson

Law school: University of Virginia

Why he dropped out: Wilson began law school in 1879, but left in his second year after a cousin he was in love with spurned him, according to the university.

He continued studying law on his own and passed the Georgia bar in 1882, where he quickly grew bored with his life as a lawyer. In 1883, he was admitted to Johns Hopkins University where he received his doctorate in political science and history.

Source: The Miller Center at the University of Virginia

William McKinley

Law school: Albany Law

Why he dropped out: McKinley thought he had prepared enough and was anxious to establish his own practice as he left Albany in the spring of 1867. In March 1867, he was admitted to the bar in Warren, Ohio.

Source: Howard Morgan, "William McKinley and his America."

Lyndon B. Johnson

Law school: Georgetown

Why he dropped out: Johnson had always wanted to pursue a career in politics, and he quit after just a semester at Georgetown Law in 1934. Soon after he joined the National Youth Administration in Texas.

Source: Congress.gov, Robert A. Caro, "The Passage of Power."

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Porn producer Joe Francis should be forced to pay Steve Wynn more than $12 million for claiming that the casino mogul threatened to kill him and bury him in the desert, Wynn's attorney told a jury Friday.

Barry Langberg suggested the multimillion verdict during closing arguments in Wynn's slander case against Francis, who claims the casino creator threatened to hit him over the head with a shovel and have him buried in the desert over a $2 million gambling debt.

Francis claims record producer Quincy Jones showed him a stack of emails purportedly containing the threats, none of which he read or were ever found as evidence.

Wynn has denied Francis' allegations and told jurors they have hurt his reputation and could lead to an expensive investigation by Nevada gambling authorities. Jurors, who will resume deliberations Monday morning, will ultimately decide whether to award Wynn any money and the amount.

Wynn's attorney, Barry Langberg, accused Francis of lying about the threats, pointing out that there was no evidence of any email Wynn had sent and multiple witnesses corroborating the casino mogul's story. He argued Francis was malicious because he repeated the threats last week in an interview on "Good Morning America."

Francis had previously said at a court hearing that Wynn threatened him over a $2 million gambling debt Francis incurred at Wynn's hotel. Celebrity news website TMZ reported on the hearing, and Francis confirmed his allegations to a reporter from the site afterward.

"He committed character assassination," Langberg said. "He did it for a simple reason — he didn't want to pay his debt."

He argued Francis should be forced to pay punitive damages as well. Wynn said he planned to donate any amount he won during the trial, minus attorney's fees, to charities.

Francis' attorney, Aaron Aftergood, contended that both men may be telling the truth and the porn producer may have been misled by Jones. Francis claims he heard about the threats from the Grammy-winner, who is his neighbor, but Jones denies hearing Wynn utter any threats.

Aftergood argued that the dispute was more about the "bruised ego of Mr. Wynn in the schoolyard, sandlot dustup" that erupted between the two men. He also contends Wynn, the CEO of Wynn Resorts Ltd. and designer of major Las Vegas resorts such Bellagio, Wynn and Encore, hasn't shown he has suffered any damages.

Langberg said Francis erred by challenging Wynn, a billionaire who had the resources to fight the case. But he also argued that Wynn had suffered significant damage to his reputation and Francis' allegations could pose trouble for Wynn's casinos.

"At least with the newspaper after a few days, it's gone. They wrap fish in it, they throw it away," Langberg said. "But not anymore. Today, the methods by which Joe Francis used to commit assassination are digital. It's never gone. It's never thrown away. They never wrap fish in it."

He urged jurors to return a verdict against Francis that was so large it would dwarf the Google hits of the porn producer's accusations and land at the top of search results.

"You have to create a headline as big as his," he said. "You have to send a message that will stay on the Internet as long as his lie will."

___

Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP .

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It's September, and while most people are going back to work after a three-day weekend, the Supreme Court justices are still enjoying their summer.

The three-month recess gave justices the time to lecture in Europe to make a few extra dollars—on top of their annual salary of $213,000, Slate has pointed out. Others either went to Maui, appeared on FOX News or promoted a book.

* It's unclear exactly how Elena Kagan spent her break, so she wasn't included in the slide show.

Sonia Sotomayor

Justice Sotomayor, long known to be a Yankees fan, in August joined the team's fervent supporters, the "Bleacher Creatures."

She sat next to a "Bald Vinny" Milano, and a few pictures ended up on Instagram.

Antonin Scalia

Scalia spent most of his summer teaching in Innsbruck, Austria at St. Mary's School of Law's Institute on World Legal Problems.

The current longest-serving member of the Supreme Court still had time to appear on FOX News to talk about his method of judging.

Source: St. Mary's University, FOX News

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Justice Ginsburg traveled to Vienna and Venice for a couple of lectures at the Wake Forest School of Law's study abroad program.

Source: Wake Forest University School of Law

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Do lawyers make better Presidents?  It is a surprisingly common debate around election time, with those in the “yes” camp pointing out that 25 of our 44 Presidents were lawyers, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, FDR and, of course, Abraham Lincoln. 

Those in the “no” camp cite the legacies of George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt (who actually dropped-out of law school), JFK and Ronald Regan.

In the upcoming election, many don’t realize that we have two former lawyers, with both 2012 candidates having attended law school and passed the bar exam in their respective states.  Barack Obama pursued a more-traditional legal path having both practiced and taught law for over a decade.  Mitt Romney only treated the law as a backup in the event his business career failed (it didn’t).

So, should it matter that Obama or Romney is a lawyer?  Does it make Obama and would it make Romney a better President?  I believe the answer to each question is a solid “yes,” but let’s first acknowledge the DC-lawyer stereotype:  A smart but risk-averse, regulation-crazy, boring, clip-on-tie wearing bureaucrat.  As a former DC lawyer and regulator, I can assure you that this stereotype has some basis in reality.  Still, while no Presidential nominee can truly fit this mold, having a little bit of the DC-lawyer in them (even the clip-on) is not a bad thing.  Allow me to explain: 

Risk Aversion

Of course lawyers are risk averse.  They get paid to avoid risk for their clients.  But to avoid risk you need to be good at identifying it.  I believe that a lawyer-President is better calibrated to assess any opportunity because they have better spidey-sense for the inherent risks.  When we’re dealing with, say, our national economy or foreign wars, it can’t all be “Shock and Awe!”

It is a fair concern that lawyers can get so wrapped around the risk-axle that they can’t take decisive action; but that certainly hasn’t been the case with Obama.  He launched a national healthcare plan out of the gates that was innovative and decisive.  And, while some will whine about Syria, Libya and even Iran, Osama Bin Laden will be the first to tell you that Obama is not risk averse when it comes to foreign policy.

Love of Regulation

Again, true:  Lawyers love regulation.  I mean, for lawyers, regulation is a hard-earned, Jedi mind-trick.  In the face of any argument, they can cite word-for-word relevant regulation and even offer tidbits of persuasive legislative history.  This subconsciously causes the argumentative part of the non-lawyers’ brain to shut down, only allowing them to offer a mumbled “oh . . .” in return.

Lawyers love regulation because they understandregulation.  I like the idea of my President understanding the laws, rules and regulations his administration imposes or deposes, as well as the crazy process for how it all takes place.  It’s the best chance we have for intelligent, well-tailored regulation in my opinion.  The legal backgrounds of both Obama and Romney give them a better chance of not simply delegating this chance away.  And it also doesn’t mean that we will have more regulation.  In its first three years, the Obama Administration passed 10,215 regulations compared to Bush’s 10,674. 

Being Boring

This is another way of saying that lawyers are not effective leaders – i.e., they can’t “sell the dream.”  I agree that you are going to find more businesspeople than lawyers who are great at selling.  But lawyers are trained in advocacy, a form of salesmanship that predates anything business.  Obama, Clinton and Nixon could precisely and effectively advocate positions in a way that Bush I and II, Regan and Carter simply couldn’t.  The latter set instead retreated to a folksy place that, in a Chinese food sort of way, sounded great at the time but left you hungry for more substance soon thereafter.

I’m a big believer (and a bit biased) that the lawyer turned businessperson is a potent mix.  The President who knows how to innovate and sell, but can also downshift into detailed advocacy when needed is a world-class freight train.  I think Romney is that freight train.  Everything he achieved in business was due to his ability to sell people (clients, companies and regulators).  Obama has a propensity to over-intellectualize to the point that people like Joe the Plumber despise him.  I’m guessing Romney would play things somewhere between the intellectual Obama and the folksy Bush II – an effective place for any President to be.

Clip-ons

Like being boring, this stereotype is again a proxy.  Yes, surely a lawyer here and there is still wearing a clip-on tie; but what people are really complaining about is the previously discussed risk aversion.  Lawyers dress conservatively to avoid any risk of being perceived as less than serious.  For a client, no part of advocacy is a joking matter.  It just comes off as feeling very “USSR” at times – all grey, all the time. 

I feel that Obama falls into this a bit.  Part of it is his lawyerly underpinnings and part of it may be race; but sometimes I wish Barack would breakout a bit.  I love the Bill Maher routine where he wishes Obama would show up to the Rose Garden in a 12-button, purple suit.  Me too. 

Ultimately, however, there is a great message in lawyer attire – and I think it is Obama’s message as well:  We’re about the substance not the style.  For the leader of the free world, I can live with that. Presidential substance must reign supreme.

And maybe this idea of “substance supremacy” drives a larger, closing theme.  I believe that legal experience gives any leader, but especially the President, a more substantial place from which to govern.  Law school, and especially the practice of law, is a crucible that opens one’s eyes to the power of process and critical thinking.  The key is to not be consumed by these concepts; but rather to use them as calibration tools in making better decisions. 

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

This year will be the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

On the day of the attacks, I lived directly across the Hudson River from the twin towers, in downtown Jersey City, N.J. As the buildings burned and then collapsed, police shut down the entire Jersey City waterfront except for one small area, Morris Canal Park. The park had an unobstructed view, and I took a set of Polaroid shots of the disaster.

Later, as a senior writer for the New Jersey Law Journal, I investigated the cases of the 762 Muslim men who were randomly rounded up by the FBI after the attack, cleared of being terrorists, but secretly deported anyway to the countries of their birth. Some of them were tortured by local authorities when they arrived.

This is the story of how, after taking these Polaroids, I discovered that the U.S. set up an invisible court system outside the control of the federal judiciary to deal with Muslim immigrants post-Sept.11.

No one except for a couple of close friends has seen these photos before.

This is a postcard of downtown Manhattan that I bought on the day of the attacks. People forget that the twin towers were more than twice as tall as the other buildings downtown.

On the day of the attack I was a freelance business journalist. The collapse of the towers brought work to a halt, so I went outside with my old-fashioned Polaroid camera to take some pictures. They're not great quality, but the Polaroid was the only camera I owned in the era before cellphones.

Thinking that there would be thousands of wounded people, I approached this police officer to ask if I could donate blood. He said there was no need: People in the buildings either died or survived. Relatively few were wounded. You can see the smoke in the background at the end of the street.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

In a jailhouse interview with Colorado's 9News, a man suspected of keeping the manager of a RadioShack hostage inside the store said "one thing led up to another and life spiraled" during the incident.

Taveuan Williams, 19, and his friend Michael Annan, 23, are being held in the Denver city detention center after they reportedly held 28-year-old Christopher Nimerfroh hostage Friday in a Denver RadioShack.

Williams spoke with 9News on Saturday.

And while he refused to discuss the case directly, Williams said he was "in a bad situation."

"I don't know if I was desperate for money or what," he said, adding that he knows he put Nimerfroh in a "bad situation."

"And I'm sorry that he even had to experience that."

Williams also spoke with FOX31 Denver, telling the TV station he "wasn't trying to be big and bad."

"I was scared, I had emotions going through my stomach that I had never felt before,” Williams said in the interview.

The suspects have been charged with kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and attempted first-degree murder of a police officer, according to 9News. That last charge carries a maximum prison sentence of 48 years — something Williams fears.

"Hopefully I’ll be able to see daylight again and I'll be able to see my little girl,” he told FOX31 Denver.

DON'T MISS: Check Out New York's Modern Day Bonnie And Clyde Kissing In Handcuffs >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Trenton, N.J.'s mayor, his top campaign contributor, and six others were arrested by the FBI early Monday as part of a longtime investigation into allegations of nepotism and reckless spending in the mayor's office.

While specific charges against Mayor Tony Mack and campaign contributor Joseph "JoJo" Giorgianni have not yet been released, the arrests come just months after FBI agents searched Trenton City Hall, the mayor's home, the home of his brother, and Giorgianni's home in July, NBC New York reported Monday.

Mack has been plagued with corruption allegations since he took office.

He went through a string of business administrators, with the first quitting after only one month and claiming Mack didn't believe in "good government."

His housing director was convicted of theft before taking a spot in the administration, Mack's chief of staff was arrested while allegedly trying to buy heroin, and Mack's half brother was arrested on suspicion of stealing, according to NBC New York.

And last year, a longtime parks department employee sued Mack, claiming she was fired after she wouldn't hire his friends and wouldn't distribute federal grant money to people who hadn't actually applied for it.

The U.S. Attorney for New Jersey is expected to announce formal charges against Mack and others later today.

Check Out The 15 Politicians Who Receive The Most Money From The NRA >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The American Lawyer surveyed 5,638 mid-level associates to find out what they really think of their firms. All the firms were ranked on a 5-point scale.

We picked out the bottom 10. 

We then headed over to Glassdoor to see what associates have to say about these law firms.

Dow Lohnes in Washington D.C. sored 3.494 out of 5.

Pro: "Interesting and challenging legal work--especially for DC."

Con: "Partners are not sensitive to associate needs. Firm is focused mainly on compensation--particularly for partners. Associate salaries are high, but I would prefer better work-life balance over more salary."

Source: The American Lawyer and Glassdoor

Kramer Levin in New York scored 3.488 out of 5.

Pro: "Kramer Levin is populated by exceptionally smart and hard-working attorneys, and as a result, they attract some of the most interesting kinds of cases and clientele."

Con: "To be blunt, there are individuals there who are very intelligent lawyers, but who have atrocious people/management skills. Some simply don't manage associates well, others are, basically, petty and mean-spirited bullies."

Source: The American Lawyer and Glassdoor

White & Case, an international law firm, scored 3.486 out of 5.

Pro: "Pay for associates is outstanding, the work may involve major, high profile matters, the firm's strong reputation."

Con: "Little or no opportunity of advancement to partner, even income partner, profitability is sub-par due to poor management, headquarters office is overstaffed and takes the best work away from other offices, vicious competitive atmosphere among partners."

Source: The American Lawyer and Glassdoor

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

According to the in-house lawyers of America’s biggest companies, the court system is making things easier for them.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), a lobbying group that represents the legal interests of businesses, asked attorneys working for major corporations to describe how fair the corporate legal systems are in each of the 50 states.

See The Best States To Sue A Company >

Nearly 50% responded that court systems were favorable and reasonable, up from 44% in 2010.

The survey asked the general counsels of companies with revenues of $100 million or more to grade each state on 10 key areas of legal fairness in the court system. This included how the state treated class-action suits, damages that were awarded to plaintiffs and judges’ fairness or competence. Respondents were only allowed to grade states with which they were at least somewhat familiar. The overall scores nationwide have improved substantially in the past 10 years, but businesses still perceive many states as being extremely unfair and unreasonable toward corporations. These are the 10 states that companies rated as the least fair.

While the survey attempts to rank the overall fairness of the legal climate in each state, some believe the survey only identifies the states’ with legal systems that benefit corporations the most. “This is purely from the perspective of big business,” says J. G. Preston, press secretary for the Consumer Attorneys for California, whose members represent plaintiffs in civil cases against companies. “We don’t think it’s any way to evaluate the civil justice system. I say it’s like asking the players what they think of the referees.”

A review of the rankings shows that states with legal climates that are perceived as unreasonable for businesses tend to do poorly in everything they are evaluated in. The three worst states scored among the worst 10 in each of the categories the group measured.

Respondents were asked to rate the five districts nationwide they viewed as the worst for overall fairness. The places most commonly referenced were located in states that also scored poorly overall. Chicago/Cook County, Ill. was mentioned a survey-high 17% of the time, followed by Los Angeles, Calif. at 16%.

Michael Lepage, spokesman for the Institute for Legal Reform — the group that conducted the study — said while all of the areas evaluated for fairness are important, some are bigger issues for American corporations than others. In particular, the practice of “venue shopping,” or “forum shopping” by plaintiffs looking for the best jurisdiction to file suits was a problem in these 10 states.

In many cases, the group states, people will choose locations where they believe they are most likely to win trials and be awarded the most damages. In Philadelphia, Pa., for example, 47% of all the asbestos cases tried in the area were from out-of-state, and more than 80% of all pharmaceutical cases were from out of state. Other states with similarly high proportions of out-of-state suits include Texas and Illinois.

In addition to making class-action lawsuits easier to bring, Lepage indicated that jurisdictions in some states, like California and Florida, award much larger jury awards than others. In West Virginia, the state rated by respondents as the least fair for awarding damages to plaintiffs, the debate was reignited last year after a judge awarded more than $90 million to a resident whose mother died of dehydration in a nursing home.

Not surprisingly, the states that are often viewed as exceptionally favorable to business were rated very well in some of these key areas. Delaware, for example, which has ranked number one every year the study was conducted, received the best scores of any state for venue requirements, strict requirements on the admissibility of scientific evidence and impartial judges.

10. Florida

2012 score: 55.3
Treatment of class-action suits: 9th worst
Damages: 10th worst
Admissibility of evidence: 9th worst
Judges’ impartiality: 17th worst

In each of the past three surveys, Florida was rated as one of the 10 worst states by the lawyers surveyed by the Institute for Legal Reform. In this year’s survey, Florida has been rated the eighth-worst state for companies looking for the prompt dismissal of a case. Respondents were also dissatisfied with how the state’s legal system assessed damages, with 61% of respondents giving Florida a C grade or worse. In a statement, Lisa A. Rickard, president of the ILR, said, “Florida’s litigation climate can be attributed in large part to its notorious reputation for exorbitant jury awards.” Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, similarly described the state’s jury awards as “ridiculously high.”

9. Oklahoma

2012 score: 55.0
Treatment of class-action suits: 11th worst
Damages: 8th worst
Admissibility of evidence: 10th worst
Judges’ impartiality: 10th worst

The corporate attorneys who responded to the survey are not big fans of Oklahoma’s court rules regarding damages. Only 7% of respondents gave the state an A in this area, while 34% gave it a D or F. This comes despite Oklahoma enacting tort reform in 2011 that included a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in civil liability cases. In fact, the Tulsa Worldreported in July that malpractice judgments against defendants are at a 10-year low due to these policies. Lawyers gave the highest marks to the state for “having and enforcing meaningful venue requirement,” which measures factors such as how easy it is to bring in a case in a pro-plaintiff jurisdiction. Of the respondents, 46% gave the state an A or a B in that regard.

Also Read: American Companies with the Most Cash

8. Alabama

2012 score: 52.8
Treatment of class-action suits: 8th worst
Damages: 5th worst
Admissibility of evidence: 8th worst
Judges’ impartiality: 4th worst

Alabama’s corporate attorneys had numerous concerns about how litigation was handled in the state. In particular, respondents to the ILR survey were dissatisfied with how the state determined and enforced rules for filing and trying lawsuits within the state, with 55% of respondents giving Alabama a grade of C or worse. Respondents also disliked how the state assessed damages, with almost two-thirds providing a grade of C or lower, and 15% or respondents giving Alabama an F. Of all the measures, lawyers gave judicial impartiality the lowest score.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

NEW YORK (AP) — Regulators are investigating whether several major U.S. banks failed to monitor transactions properly, allowing criminals to launder money, according to a New York Times story. The newspaper cited officials who it said spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal agency that oversees the biggest banks, is leading the money-laundering investigation, according to the Times. The report said the OCC could soon take action against JPMorgan Chase & Co., and that it is also investigating Bank of America Corp. Money laundering allows people to make money — often obtained illegally — appear like it came from another source.

The OCC, JPMorgan and Bank of America declined to comment.

The financial industry is struggling to mend its public image. Four years after the financial crisis, banks are getting closer scrutiny. And regulators are under pressure to show that they're not missing any questionable activity.

This summer, British bank Barclays PLC settled charges that it had manipulated a key global interest rate. Standard Chartered PLC, also based in the U.K., agreed to settle charges that it had improperly processed money for Iran, brought by the New York Department of Financial Services after the bank voluntarily informed regulators that it was reviewing relevant practices. In the spring, JPMorgan surprised shareholders with an unexpected trading loss.

If the OCC takes action, it could be similar to a cease-and-desist order that it filed against Citigroup in April. At the time, the OCC said that Citi had deficient internal controls and anti-money laundering procedures. In bank regulation, a cease-and-desist order doesn't mean that a bank has to shut down, but it is a serious sanction that requires a bank to change its practices. Citi had already told the regulator that from 2006 to 2010, it had "failed to adequately monitor" some of its transactions connected to "foreign correspondent banking."

The order in April didn't make any new, specific accusations. But it did instruct Citigroup to tighten its rules so it could improve compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations. The act requires financial institutions to report suspicious activity and to put rules in place to try to make money laundering impossible for customers.

Last year, JPMorgan paid $88 million to settle charges from the Treasury that it had unlawfully processed money for Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Liberia.

At the time, JPMorgan said it had had no intent to violate regulations. It pointed out that it oversaw "hundreds of millions of transactions and customer records per day, and annual error rates are a tiny fraction of a percent."

It's not expected that banks would be accused of trying to show support for countries like Cuba and Iran. It's more likely that they would be accused of faulty oversight that made any unlawful transactions possible. The industry has maintained that such violations are almost always unintentional.

According to the Times, the Justice Department and the Manhattan district attorney's office are also involved. The Manhattan U.S. attorney's office and the Manhattan district attorney's office declined to comment.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

John Yoo – the ex-Justice Department official who wrote the infamous "torture memos" after 9/11 – is back in the news.

Yoo and James Cleith Phillips, both professors at the University of California, Berkeley, recently ranked the nation's law professors based on how frequently their peers cite their work.

While Yoo and Phillips ranked the top 50 "most relevant" professors, we're just giving you the top 10.

You'll definitely recognize some names.

10. NYU's Katherine Jo Strandburg

Strandburg is an expert on patent law.

She has also studied how technology affects our lives, including our Constitutional rights.

9. NYU's Ronald Dworkin

A professor of both law and philosophy, Dworkin is an authority on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

He has also written controversial works, including the book "Religion without God" and an article on physician-assisted suicide.

8. Duke's Wesley Cohen

Cohen is a professor of law and business at Duke, and he's an expert on intellectual property rights.

He's on the board of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

The mantra is repeated over and over: You can’t discharge student loans through bankruptcy. However, while it’s reality for most indebted people, the conventional wisdom isn’t quite true.

In a seldom-invoked provision, people in extreme circumstances can jettison their student loans if they can prove to a judge they face “undue financial hardship.”

In order to qualify, a debtor must pass what is known as the Brunner test, stemming from a 1987 federal appeals court decision, which carries three conditions:

• The debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a “minimal” standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans
• Additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans
• The debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.

Historically, consumers have found it extremely difficult to meet the requirements. “Unless it looks like you are a functional quadriplegic for example, or maybe have bipolar disorder and can never work and are completely disabled for the rest of your life, you are not deemed to have this condition of hopelessness,” says David Leibowitz, a bankruptcy attorney in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Debtors used to be able to discharge student loans through the normal bankruptcy process just like most other debts. However, in 1976 Congress passed a law restricting loans from discharge, if undue hardship couldn’t be proven. Curiously, legislators never bothered to specify what undue hardship meant, leaving it up to the court to define.

“The second circuit adopted this Brunner test, and it was adopted by most of the other appellate courts and therefore binding on the bankruptcy courts in the rest of the country,” Leibowitz explains.

Staggering Statistics

David Leibowitz

The question of unpaid student loans becomes more and more pressing as the costs of education soar, while the job market lags far behind. Total student debt in the United States has surpassed $1 trillion, more than credit card debt, with an average of $17,000 per person in 2011. Some 5.9 million people are at least a year behind in their payments, and almost one in six borrowers is in default.

For those who can’t make their payments, the debt will follow them for the rest of their life, and can even cause their social security payments to be docked.

With so much money in play, the stakes are high. On one hand, lenders—to say nothing of the federal government—are depending on the money being paid back. On the other hand, consumers are drowning under the debt with few viable ways to escape it.

“The entire financial community and entire consumer community is looking to see what will happen,” Leibowitz says. “It’s a very harsh environment.”

Undue hardship, while offering potential relief from perpetual debt, has such a forbidding reputation that many people don’t even bother to try. According to The New York Times, fewer than 1,000 people a year try to bring undue hardship cases, with no hard statistics as to how many are successful.

A survey by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys from last winter found that 94 percent of attorneys questioned found that few to none of their clients would be likely to meet undue hardship requirements.

Two academic studies, however, found that for undue hardship cases that are actually brought to court, the chances of success aren’t as dismal as they appear. The studies found that between 39 percent and 57 percent of people who applied for undue hardship were granted full or partial discharge of their student debt.

The process is expensive, time-consuming and has no guarantee of success (though a good bankruptcy attorney can help) — but for former students facing the direst of circumstances, there is at least some hope to jettison their crippling loans.

Visit Lawyers.com to learn more about student loan debt and bankruptcy, and to locate a bankruptcy attorney in your area who can answer your questions.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »