Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Counsel Concerns:</b> Fund Misappropriation and Suspension from Practice
The Court of Appeals of Maryland decided that an 18-month suspension of an attorney from practice for taking fees out of royalty distributions before submitting the royalties to a client should run consecutively with a suspension of the attorney for the same reason by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Midlen, Misc. Docket AG No. 4 Sept. Term, 2006. Attorney John H. Midlen, Jr. had been hired to represent the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries (JSM) for royalty distributions by the Librarian of Congress for cable TV broadcasts of JSM religious programs. Over time, JSM instructed Midlen to pay the royalties to JSM, which would then pay attorney fees to Midlen.
The DC court concluded in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding that Midlen's taking of attorney fees before remitting the remainder of royalty distributions to JSM amounted to negligent misappropriation of client funds. When Midlen asked that an 18-month suspension from the D.C. Bar run concurrently with one from the Maryland Bar, the Maryland appellate court noted that though it may have considered an even more severe sanction, its decision to suspend Midlen 'shall commence upon the issuance of this opinion and run for its full term of eighteen months.'
The Court of Appeals of Maryland decided that an 18-month suspension of an attorney from practice for taking fees out of royalty distributions before submitting the royalties to a client should run consecutively with a suspension of the attorney for the same reason by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Midlen, Misc. Docket AG No. 4 Sept. Term, 2006. Attorney John H. Midlen, Jr. had been hired to represent the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries (JSM) for royalty distributions by the Librarian of Congress for cable TV broadcasts of JSM religious programs. Over time, JSM instructed Midlen to pay the royalties to JSM, which would then pay attorney fees to Midlen.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?