Could lawyers pave the way to peace?

When I was a student, I loved comparative law.
I was lucky enough to study it in England, Scotland, Germany, and The Netherlands.

Although I don’t work in that legal field, I try to keep up.
Every four years, there is a congress, organized by the International Academy of Comparative Law.
The 17th Congress took place in the third week of July.
It featured a variety of topics: international cooperation and the status of international law (the participants in the congress visited the International Court in The Hague), the rights of "job immigrants," the rights of minorities and of same-sex couples, methods of analysis in law, government corruption and judicial responsibility and much, much more.

But far more important were the conversations between the Israelis at the congress and the six Iranian professors from the universities of Tehran and Qom.

The Iranians attended the discussions focusing on the international fight against terrorism and did’t evade questions about tough subjects, such as freedom of expression and criticism of the government.
"It is possible to publish academic articles and criticize the regime, but not on key political subjects," they said unanimously.
They were curious about Israel and wondered if they would be able to participate in international conferences in Israel.
They also pointed out that they supported president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his promises to improve the economic situation, and not for his foreign policy, in which they don’t take an interest.

During the congress, a special plenary session on the fight against terrorism was devoted to a lecture by Lord Johan Steyn, a former law lord in the United Kingdom.
He spoke about comparative law, about the importance of law in different countries in providing a broader and more fitting interpretation of local law.
He sharply criticized the United States for holding detainees in Guantanamo without trial - doing so, he said, was a deviation from accepted democratic principles.
Fighting terrorism without harming individual rights is a tough call.
I agree with Steyn that actions against terrorism must also be subordinate to real judicial review, and that the courts have a central role in preserving the fundamentals of democracy.

As Israel's Supreme Court president, Justice Aharon Barak, puts it:
“democracy should fight with one hand tied behind its back, in order to ensure the preservation of the principles of the rule of law that are the foundation of democracy”.

But what about countries without democracy?
As the attendance of our fellow legal eagles from theocratic countries, prove:
lawyers could pave the way to international peaceful coexistence.

Israeli civil lawsuit for war damages compensation against Lebanon in the US

The current conflict (or war) raging in the Middle East, has taken a legal dimension.
Israel blames Lebanon for not complying with the UN resolutions and dismantling Hezbollah, the initiator of all the present violence.
And what is an effective way to make a government pay?
A lawsuit.

Israeli attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger, and Nitzah Libai are presenting a symbolic lawsuit to against Lebanese government in a US civil court.
They are suing for compensation to be paid to Israeli businesses and citizens for war damages.
More specifically, the claim states that the Lebanese government is responsible for damages caused to residents of Israel since it didn't prevent Hezbollah from acting from its territory to harm Israeli citizens, thus violating the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism.

The legal team of lawyers and accountants include the former Chief Administrator of the Courts and judge, Dan Arbel, Attorneys Yoram Dantziger, Nitzah Libay and the office of Ziv Haft Public Accountants.

The team has been swamped with petitions from tens of citizens, most of them business owners, who want to participate in the lawsuit.
There is no fear that they will forfeit other legal options.
Although by law, a civilian who is suing the state for compensation claims is not allowed to sue other bodies, the current claim is a complementary one, intended to recover money to people that the Israeli government will not recover.
The demand for compensation will be for loss of clientele, damage to sales, and damage to manufacturing capability – things the government does not compensate for.

What are the chances of winning the lawsuit?
Better then it might look at prima facie, since there is a precedent.

A few years ago, a similar claim was submitted in the United States against the Iranian government for damaging property belonging to American citizens. The prosecutors won.
Thus, Lebanon, as a sovereign state, was violating international law by permitting Hezbollah to hurt Israelis from its land.

The lawyers are confident that once they win, the Lebanese government will recognize the claim and pay the money.
They base this on the fact that the Lebanese government conducts business with the US and maintains property in the United States.
Therefore, it is possible to collect money from Lebanon without its consent.
For sure, this is a lawsuit to watch – who knows, the pen might be mightier than the sword……

A creative firebomb defense

We all know about lame excuses and creative defenses – some of them by culprits, some of them by (nitwit) lawyers.
But we have to give a lot of credit to Rougemont, North Carolina.

The bomb exploded in “a large fireball” as eye witnesses described it.
He was promptly charged with attempted first-degree murder.
What defense can you come up with as a Public Defender?
Well, PD Lawrence Campbell cooked up the following.
The intended target was not the ex-girlfriend (or her car) but a beaver dam that blocked a waterway.
You might ask yourself how the beaver demolition unit went haywire.
Well, you see, the bomb was (unintentionally, I am sure) ignited by ash from Wilkins’ cigarette that fell onto the fuse that set off the bottle bomb.
(Do you want more proof that that smoking is a health hazard?)

In the end, Wilkins pleaded guilty to three assault counts (one for the ex-girlfriend and two for other people nearby, including her 3-year-old granddaughter) and was convicted to 300 days in jail.
If you think that Wilkins came off lightly, you are partially wrong.
You see, when he threw the bomb, it rolled back at him, igniting his shorts.
As a result, he spent more than a week at a hospital burn center.

What did Mr. Wilkins have to say in his defense?

“I ain't no terrorist, it was just a little bit of black powder. It was just a little boom thing.”

And an atom bomb is just a mushroom thing?

Apple vs Apple

In May 2006, the music company owned by Apple Corps lost its legal battle against Apple Computer over the US firm's use of an apple logo for iTunes.
To get the parties straight: Apple Corps is owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison and is known as the “Beatles label”.
Apple started as Apple Records in 1968 by the Beatles as a tax shelter.
The label still releases compilations by the Beatles, such as The Beatles Anthology. The holding company, Apple Corps is the participant in the Apple Feud.
Apple Computers on the other hand, is Steve Jobs’ brainchild that produces the tremendously popular iPods.

The two Apples struck a deal in 1991 deal (at that time, Steve Jobs was not part of the company) that forbade Apple Computer to use the apple logo “in connection with musical content.”
Each company agreed to a strict "field of use", setting out areas in which each party would have exclusive use of their respective fruit-shaped logos.

Apple Corps got ticked off when iPod took the world by storm, including the UK.
The first iPods were sold in October 2001.
The iTunes Music Store first opened for business in the US in April 2003 and went on to conquer Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
Apple has sold more than 50m iPods worldwide since 2001, and more than 1bn tracks online.

Apple Corps filed suite, claiming that Apple Computers violated their pledge not to sell music.
Apple Computer argued that the earlier deal did not foresee the rise of digital music or the difference between being a service supplier and a content creator.
Since iTunes was primarily a data transmission service, it is permitted under the terms of the agreement.
Since Apple Corps didn’t own the rights to the music, there is no objection for Apple Computer to use its logo in its stores and on its devices.

The high court in London ruled that Apple Computer hadn’t infringed upon Apple Corp's trademarks by selling music through its iTunes Music Store.
"I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated. The action therefore fails," said Mr Justice Mann.
In his ruling, he went on to say that Apple Computers was not guilty of breaking the agreement, since the apple logo was only used in association with the company's online shop, and not with the music itself.
The case brought by the Beatles' label was therefore dismissed.

Will this be the end of the feud that started in 1978 when Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for trademark violations?
Doubtful, but it makes for some interesting courtroom antics.

You see, Justice Mann is an iPod owner and Geoffrey Vos, QC, representing Apple Corps, demonstrated what he claimed was the computer firm's conversion to the music business by using an Apple computer to download Chic's 1978 disco hit "Le Freak".
Mr Justice Mann was also treated to Coldplay's "Speed of Sound".

Mmmm, sometimes being a judge must be music to one’s ears…..

Crime on Cruise Ships – who has jurisdiction?

Taking a cruise is for many a fun way to travel.
Like in any tourist destination, cruise ships have their fair amount of crimes and misdemeanors, including burglaries, thefts and assaults.
Major cruise lines don't release comprehensive crime statistics – the crime rate is therefore not known.

A few cases have made headlines lately, especially the disappearance of honeymooner George Smith from Royal Caribbean's Brilliance of the Seas in 2005.
But many victims of an onboard crime don’t get this kind of media attention – even worse, most cases go unreported to law enforcement officials.

There is a good reason for this: jurisdiction.
The victim’s legal rights depend on whether the vessel is in port or within a country's territorial waters, where local law may apply, or on the high seas, where maritime law is in force.
Take the case of Connie Eagerton.
She noticed that $32,000 worth of jewelry was missing from her suite on a recent Mediterranean cruise.
She last saw it when she was disembarking from the Grand Princess in Venice (Italy), and noticed it missing on her return home in Ocala, Florida the next day.
By that time, the Princess had already left port.
The key questions are: where did the theft take place? On board or in Venice?
Luckily, her insurance company paid her $26,000 since the cruise line was unsuccessful in reclaiming her belongings.

In case of serious crimes against US citizens, the cruise ship must notify the F.B.I.
However, crimes against non-US citizens are excluded and it’s up to the discretion of the ship’s security officers as to what constitutes a "serious" crime.
Assaults and rapes are often not reported by the victims – apart from the humiliation, victims are also not sure of their legal status.
Time is also an issue – port stops are short (1 day or less) and reporting a crime to local authorities takes time, especially if the victim is not a native speaker.
Victims are unwilling to (literally) miss the boat.

Crimes at sea are controlled by admiralty law and reported to the ship's security officer.
He interviews the victim or the person reporting the crime, and takes statements.
If the victim is a US citizen, he should report the crime to the F.B.I. and hand the passenger over to the F.B.I. in the next port.
The captain can decide to incarcerate a suspect until the ship reaches homeport or to remove that person at the next port of call — even if it is in another country.

If the crime is committed in the territorial waters of a country or at port, then that country's laws and criminal justice system are in control and reported to the local law enforcement.

Victims should find out if the crime is reported to local or federal authorities and ask for a copy of the paperwork.
If the crime is not reported, they have the option of reporting it themselves.

Legislation is a powerful tool - especially if you are the ruler of a small and rich country.
Take the case of the Sultan of Brunei.

The Sultan has a younger brother, Prince Jefri Bolkiah, who supposedly embezzled around $ 12 billion during his 13 years as finance minister.

In 2000, the two brothers reached an out-of-court settlement that compelled Jefri to pay back $ 4.5 billion in assets, including properties in Paris, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Britain and the US.
It seems that the London-based Jefri never honored the agreement, while continuing his $ 400,000 a month lifestyle.

In the latest court ruling by Chief Justice Mohammad Saied, Prince Jefri has been ordered to sell his London mansion (St John's Lodge in Regent's Park), the five-star New York Palace Hotel in Manhattan, the Bel-Air Hotel in Los Angeles, a property at Place Vendome in Paris, a mansion in Singapore and an undisclosed quantity of cash and jewels.
To ensure this, the monarch changed the Brunei constitution and gave himself the same status as the Pope – he is infallible.

“His Majesty the Sultan ... can do no wrong in either his personal or any official capacity.”
As a result, Prince Jefri has no legal options to appeal the latest ruling – unless he becomes Sultan.

To prevent Prince Jefri blabbing to the press, the following was degreed:
“No person shall publish or reproduce in Brunei or elsewhere any part of proceedings ... that may have the effect of lowering or adversely affecting directly or indirectly the position, dignity, standing, honor, eminence or sovereignty of His Majesty the Sultan.”

A creative legal remedy for sibling rivalry......

Few legal firms believe in marketing and PR.
This might cost them dearly in the long run for several reasons.

1. The market has changed.
   As long as there are people, there will be conflicts and lawyers will be able to make a living. However, clients are becoming more and more savvy – Internet and blogs make juridical information available to everyone.A lawyer has to realize that his/her potential clients will be critical and want to keep posted each step of the way.
   
2. Having a sterling reputation is not enough.
   Many lawyers still think that clients will come to them.
   Being well known and having a wonderful record of accomplishment will not have a pull effect.
   Law firms must actively seek out and search for clients. Just waiting for the knock on the door will not do it.
   
3. Websites are a necessity.
   Many law firms still have no website at all or minimal one that isn’t being updated.
   They still assume that having a contact page will suffice. Law firms must invest in professional websites that reflect the capabilities and track record of the law firm.
   
4. Lawyers still think that they provide first and foremost professional services and ignore the client’s demand for full and upfront disclosure of pricing, procedures and risks.
   
5. Law firms must realize that they are selling a product: namely themselves.
   Lawyers must therefore market themselves to the public.
   
6. Competition.
   Many well-established law firms ignore market research on competitors.
   This might cost them dearly in the long run.
   
7. Branding.
   Law firms are notorious for ignoring branding.
   They are reputation-focused, building on publications and won cases.
   All professionals are only as good at their last success and maintaining a flawless rack record in law is almost impossible due to the many outside factors that can influence a case or procedure.
   Lawyers should therefore be brand-conscious and build and nurture their brand.

What are the lessons that lawyers can learn from marketing?

1. Market research: identify potential clients, to keep abreast of changes in culture and trends that could influence legislation, to analyze the competition.
   
2. SWOT analysis: identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
   
3. Positioning: position the law firm in the market, communicating its expertise, track record and price structure.
   
4. Branding: trade name, logo, website, corporate colors etc.
   
5. Promotion: newsletters, updates, sponsoring, adopting a cause.
   
6. Public relations: communicate with the public, with clients, with industry players.
   
7. Media: trade magazines, local newspapers/radio/TV, national media and (depending on the expertise) international media.

Law can be cheesy - literally.

Take the case of the Belgian “Kaasmakerij Passendale” a producer of cheese.
This company has been producing cheeses for decades.
The cheeses have distinctive forms, colors and structures. Due to the uniqueness of each of the cheeses, Passendale obtained trademark and brandname protection.

A Belgian competitor started production of the cheese “Boerengoud” (farmer’s gold).
This cheese uncanny resembles the “Passendale” one in form, color, shape and even logo.
Passendale started legal procedures claiming that Boerengoud is too similar in form, structure and color and therefore misleading for consumers.
The court decided that that the cheeses are visually so similar that there is a high chance of consumer confusion.
Boerengoud cannot be sold and all existing Boerengoud have to be withdrawn from the market.

Why is this kind of brand protection so important?

1) it makes the product identifiable for the consumer
2) it reflects a quality standard or specific product properties
3) it builds consumer confidence
4) it makes a statement (product image)
5) it builds consumer loyalty

The Holloway case goes civil

The case of the missing American teenager Natalee Holloway has entered a new phase.
After being unsuccessful in finding their daughter and bringing the people they hold responsible to criminal justice, her parents have filed a civil lawsuit.
The wrongful-death lawsuit (filed in Manhattan's state Supreme Court) seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The court papers present a partly speculative version of what happened after the young people left the casino and went to a bar called Carlos 'n' Charlies in the early hours of May 30, 2005.
The court papers claim that an intoxicated Holloway left at 1:30 am with Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers.
Several of Holloway's friends saw her in the car with the youths and asked her to get out, which she didn’t.

The papers further claim that Joran:
a) willfully caused personal injury to Natalee as a result of his sexual assault upon he;
b) wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally detained and directly restrained Natalee Holloway;
c) deprived her of her personal liberty through force and/or threat of force;
d) abducted Natalee Holloway and prevented her from returning to the custody of her parents.

As a result of this imagined sexual assault, the last hours of her life were marked “by torment, terror and debasement.”
The lawsuit includes Joran’s father since he supposedly breached his duty to Natalee by failing to take steps to prevent Joran from sexually assaulting Natalee Holloway.
According to the court papers, Paulus van der Sloot enabled his son’s violent and anti-social lifestyle since he supposedly went on the night of the disappearance with his underage son to a casino to play poker.
It was at that casino that the younger Van der Sloot met Holloway, again according to the filed lawsuit.

I find this lawsuit rather bizarre.
Suing Dutch citizens (who have never been indicted for a supposed crime that could have taken place in Aruba) in a New York court doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am convinced that the overworked courts of New York will throw the case out.
Moving the proceedings to Aruba would be logical, but unproductive as well.
Aruba is not an American territory and is ruled by the Dutch legal system.
In criminal cases, there is no plea bargaining, jury, etc.
There are also no huge settlements awarded in civil lawsuits.
Using a civil procedure to get a "conviction" (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case) is impossible under Dutch law.

What still puzzles me, is that Natalee's parents never sued her high school, although she went missing during her supervised senior class graduation trip of the Mountain Brook High School.

And as the Strategic Task Force (consisting of Aruban government and tourism authorities) correctly pointed out: "A civil case cannot compel the van der Sloots to return to New York to appear, nor is it clear that if the case is accepted, and a judgment imposed, that ... it will hold force in Aruba."