Protecting Yourself from Illegal Contractors

With any natural disaster comes rebuilding, unfortunately many out there seek to capitalize on that at the expense of those who already can't afford it. In an LA Times article titled "Authorities Seek to Warn Station Fire Victims about Illegal Contractors" the question of how to protect you, the home owner, from unscrupulous contractors is raised.

Here's what Legal Help Lives Stephen Jamieson had to say:

It irks me (legal phrase, given I am lawyer) that people are out there to victimize the victimized in these times of great strife and tragedy. this is especially true when it occurs during a horrible recession and people are likely at their most vulnerable position even before the fires. Contractors always need to be licensed. If they are not licensed they are not entitled to be paid. That is the law. Don't pay them in advance and don't hire them unless and until they are confirmed to be licensed and insured. No exceptions!

LAUSD and the Private Enterprise Model

In response to the LA Times article "Votes could open 250 L.A. schools to outside operators" Legal Help Lives Stephen Jamieson had this to say:

There is no reason that public school should be struggling, yet it is. There is no reason that with the resources of the government and the requirements imposed on public school teachers and administrators that they should be under-performing, yet in many cases they are under-performing. While there should never be change for change's sake alone, operating outside one's comfort zone can be beneficial to expose inefficiencies and complacency - which are never good qualities. The LAUSD should try using a private enterprise model. There are enough good, caring teachers and administrators that it will temper a for profit type system that is otherwise judged solely on competitive edge so that students will reap the benefits rather than the corporate structure itself. And, isn't that what we all want, better student performance?


For the full LA Times article click here.

Do we need another law on alcohol sales to minors?

In response to an LA Times article from 7/8 titled "Alcohol sales to minors a problem with self-service checkout" Ralph Saltsman of Legal Help Live had this to say:

As to AB 1060 which would disallow self-checking of alcoholic beverages at retail stores, according to Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control statistics, programs implemented in the mid-1990’s have diminished sales of alcohol to minors significantly. That may be why the ABC does not support the pending legislation. Existing law strictly prohibits sales to minors. The seller is faced with misdemeanor prosecution. The licensee is faced with a substantial fine and if the offense is repeated twice within 36 months of the date of the first violation, the license will be revoked. Revocation means forever.

Since the ABC began its program of funding local police departments to set up decoy programs throughout the state in 1995, sales to minors have dropped. Can a kid outwit a self-checkout system? Of course. Can that kid also outwit a trained clerk who is armed with electronic scanning devices? The answer is still yes.

As the law firm which represents ABC retail licenses statewide and which litigates disciplinary proceedings brought by the ABC against licensees, I believe we have some insight which may contribute to the analysis of the controversy between self-checking and clerical checking. Our observation is that there are no systems which cannot be circumvented, but the legislature’s, the state agency’s and retailers’ mutual obligation is to minimize sales to minors without destroying a significant part of the state’s economy at the same time. Statutes on the books now and the diligent oversight by the ABC with local police together with in-store systems and training seem to be addressing the age-old problem of the under-aged obtaining alcohol. Why interfere with a system that seems to now be making things better?

Has Harvard Law Gone Soft?

MSNBC's Carlos Watson asked Legal Help Live for our take on the matter and a response to The Stimulist article "The Pamper Chase."

Here’s what LHL’s Stephen Jamieson had to say:

There is something both endearing and beneficial to the development of young lawyers in the Socratic system of teaching.

To the extent that Harvard is moving away from that intense, on the spot, staccato method of learning by questioning, rather than lecturing, the legal system will suffer.

Harvard was and is expected to be the gold standard for training our legal scholars, litigators, trial attorneys, and counselors. The phrase was always law school will train you to “think like a lawyer”. Passive listening to lectures, with no competition to slice and dice what issue is being addressed, does not produce the best ability to analyze problems and “think like a lawyer”.

Coddling students by settling into a non competitive atmosphere is not beneficial to engineers, historians, scientists, and is certainly not beneficial for lawyers. Lawyers must think on their feet and be able to analyze issues and arguments from all sides. Testing those skills, learning the ability to analyze in the face of adversity, sharpens our ability to serve our clients.

Faculty that is responsive to students, and a physically comfortable atmosphere to enable the process of educating students to be lawyers: yes. Non competitive atmosphere with no way to compare one’s performance against others: no

Legal Help Live wants to know, what do you think? Post a comment below or find us on Twitter , Facebook , or YouTube .

LHL's Stephen Solomon quoted in Union Tribune

Last week Solomon, Saltsman, and Jamieson filed a $550,000,000 damages claim on behalf of the San Pasqual band of Mission Indians against the state of CA. The claim is seeking lost profits resulting from Governor Schwarzenegger refusing to allow the California Gambling Control Commission to issue all of the slot machine licenses to which the tribe is entitled under its 1999 gambling compact with the state. 

San Pasqual's lawyer and Legal Help Lives own Stephen Solomon commented that "the state has breached its commitments to the tribe." Adding "they've been delaying for two years and if they're not going to issue the licenses then we want them to pay us our lost income." 

Mr. Solomon also commented that "in the end, the tribe would much rather have the machines than the money."

Click here for the full San Diego Union Tribune article. 

Follow Legal Help Live on Twitter and Facebook, and if you like what you're reading don't forget to share it using the share button at the bottom of the page. 

Lawsuit Filed in Teen Car Crash Death

The family of 14 year old boy Phoenix Nguyen sued the city of Huntington Beach approximately one year after the March 2008 car crash that killed him.  Nguyen was the passenger of a 1995 Acura when the driver, traveling at 75 to 80 mph in a 45 mph zone, ran a stop sign.  The family apparently claims that the stop sign at the intersection in which he was killed was not clearly visible, thereby creating a “dangerous condition of public property,” and that this condition resulted in a “reasonably foreseeable risk of injury.”

The city has stated it believes that “the road was properly marked and signed,” and that the accident was a result of excessive speed.”  However, approximately two weeks later, another drive of a yellow Ford Mustang ran the same intersection, crashing into a Toyota Camry.  Stephen Solomon, partner with the Playa Del Rey, California law firm Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson and co-host of the weekly televised talk show Legal Help Live says when a family makes a claim for wrongful death of a minor child the law allows compensation for loss of love, comfort and society but not emotional distress.  While it is difficult to discern between these two categories of damages it is an important difference.  Moreover, the economic value to compensate for the death of a minor presents unique challenges.  Victims should always evaluate the experience of prospective counsel when deciding to retain a lawyer in this area of the law.

Car Accident Leaves Two Pedestrians Dead

A two-car accident that occurred on March 31, 2009 killed two pedestrians and left one other in critical condition.  The collision occurred on the border between Los Angeles and West Hollywood, near the intersection of Fountain and La Brea, killing a 65 year old woman at the scene.  The other two pedestrians, a man and woman in their 50’s, were hospitalized and listed in critical condition.  The second woman died just hours later.  The victims were allegedly in the pedestrian crosswalk when they were struck.

The surviving victim and the family of the two others may have legal claims both against the drivers of the two vehicles, as well as the City.  Stephen Jamieson, partner with the Playa Del Rey, California law firm Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson, and co-host of the weekly televised talk show Legal Help Live says while it is apparent that the drivers of the vehicles must be considered when evaluating who is liable for this tragedy, it is also necessary to evaluate if one or the other City may also be liable, or perhaps CALTRANS, for a dangerous condition of public roadway.  Like any claim against a governmental entity in California, such a claim must be appropriately filed in an adequate manner against the correct entity(ties) not later than 6 months from the date of the accident or the victim’s rights may be forever lost.