Legal Research

If you are already an online subscriber to the New York Law Journal you should be able to click on any of the links provided below, sign in, and access the full text of articles listed.

http://www.nylj.com

Subscription required for online access unless otherwise noted:

Law Firm Partnership Law
Friday, July 24, 2009
By Arthur J. Ciampi

" Arthur J. Ciampi, managing member of Ciampi LLC, writes that law firm partners, so careful to advise their clients to read every word, will blindly sign a law firm partnership agreement as soon as it's waved under their noses. 'You can't change anything so why bother reading it,' is their refrain. Then, years later, when disaster strikes and some dispute erupts at the firm, they scramble to find and read it. To their horror, they find they have somehow agreed to confidentially arbitrate all disputes in some distant land, applying rules they have never heard of, before people they simply do not know. So much for being careful...."

Free With Registration: Environmental Law
Friday, July 24, 2009
By Michael B. Gerrard

" Michael B. Gerrard, professor of professional practice at Columbia Law School, director of Columbia's Center for Climate Change Law and senior counsel at Arnold & Porter, reviews the new CARS Act, which will give up to $4,500 to owners of vehicles with poor fuel economy who trade them in for more efficient new vehicles. The program was touted as meeting three objectives: increasing vehicle sales, reducing fuel use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but as passed by Congress, it will chiefly benefit the vehicle manufacturers."

OUTSIDE COUNSEL:

Broadening of the Recalcitrant Worker Defense in Labor Law Actions
Friday, July 24, 2009
By Andrea M. Alonso and Kevin G. Faley

"Andrea M. Alonso and Kevin G. Faley, partners at Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley, discuss the recalcitrant worker defense, one of the few defenses available to owners and general contractors when a worker has been injured in a gravity-related accident. In the past, this affirmative defense required a defendant to prove that the injured worker refused to use an available safety device after being specifically and immediately instructed to do so and that this refusal proximately caused the accident. In a recent line of cases, however, courts across New York State have begun to broaden the applicability of this defense, holding workers responsible, at least to a certain extent, for their own safety."