Famous TV Law Shows

There are plenty of TV shows that feature lawyers in one capacity or another, but not many that focus on a group of characters that all deal with the legal field. So what shows have focused around the law? What shows have featured not one, but an entire cast of lawyers and judges that daily dealt with the law? Which ones did it well and are the most memorable?

Ally McBeal
While at first glance it could be easy to forget that this show was about lawyers, that was in fact the profession of all of the main characters, and there were often parallels between the cases they were arguing and the events in their personal lives. Unlike many shows, Ally McBeal was unusual in that it used the legal setting in a comedy series as opposed to a drama.

Night Court
If Ally McBeal was unusual, then it could be argued that Night Court was groundbreaking. A comedy set in a late night court room where the judge was as much of a character as any of the criminals being brought before him took the legal setting and had fun with it. Throw in the always hilarious John Larroquette as a lecherous prosecutor and you have a dry, witty comedy that was a staple on NBC for five seasons.

JAG
This legal show was unique because it dealt with military lawyers as opposed to civilian ones. Granted, the main character being a former Navy fighter pilot added an interesting twist since he wasn't your average JAG lawyer, but the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) also added another twist as there are several differences between a military court martial and a civilian trial.

The Practice
A legal drama about a small Boston law firm, it spawned the more light-hearted Boston Legal, and occasionally crossed over with David E. Kelley's other legal show, Ally McBeal. The show was a launching point for Dylan McDermott's career and was highly regarded by the awards show, which regularly nominated it for various drama awards.

LA Law
Featuring Harry Hamlin, Susan Dey, Corbin Bernsen, Jimmy Smits, and Blair Underwood, to name a few, the show combined comedy and drama in a way that was typical of the late 80s and early 90s. The show dealt with touchy subjects like abortion, racism, domestic abuse, and even gay rights.

Matlock
Starring Andy Griffith, the character of Ben Matlock was a down to earth defense attorney in Atlanta, Georgia with a knack for getting an acquittal for his clients at trial, usually by getting the real perpetrator of the crime, usually murder, to confess on the stand. He was also known for wearing a light grey suit to nearly every trial during the show's run.

Perry Mason
To many it's the quintessential legal series. The show lasted nearly a decade and spawned thirty made for TV movies, with 26 of them starring Raymond Burr in the iconic role of Perry Mason, the role he played on television as well.

Like Matlock, Perry Mason was a defense attorney that was known for proving his clients innocent. Unlike Matlock, he tended to prove their innocence during the preliminary hearing phase of the trial, in part because the network didn't want to have to pay twelve extras to be jurors.

Will Fitzcairn is not a lawyer, but he does have a healthy appreciation for the law. While he hasn't had to make use of lawyers much, when he does need a Richmond personal injury attorney or needs to recommend a Richmond divorce lawyer, he recommends the attorneys of Meyer, Goergen, & Marrs. To learn more about them, or to get in contact with them, visit them online at: MGM-Law.com.

View the original article here

Famous US Court Cases

The United States has been home to numerous famous and influential court cases through the years. Our legal system has set precedents that not only continue to influence our laws and court cases, but those of countries around the world. What then are some our most famous court cases? Which of our cases attracted attention either because of the precedent they set or because they became media circuses? Here are some of the most famous cases and trials in United States History.

Amistad Trials (1839 - 1840)

Since Steven Spielberg made a movie about it it's fair to assume that most people are at least passingly familiar with the case. For those that aren't familiar, the Amistad Trials center around a Spanish schooner, the eponymous Amistad, that was carrying slaves from Havana to Puerto Principe in Cuba when the slaves revolted and killed nearly all of the crew.

Eventually the boat was stopped by an American ship near Long Island after the two remaining crew members took the ship up the US coast instead of returning the slaves to Africa as they had wanted. This led to not one but two trials regarding the status of the revolting Africans.

After two trials, including one in the Supreme Court, it was determined that since the ship was Spanish in origin and since the slaves were kidnapped form Africa and not plantation-born as had been claimed (it was illegal to import slaves to the US from Africa at the time), that they were to be set free and returned to Africa as the US had no jurisdiction over them or the ship itself.

Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson (1868)

Johnson became president after the assassination of Lincoln with many in Congress who opposed Lincoln hoping he would represent a change in policy, especially in regards to the South. Within three years they would come within one vote of removing him from office.

Years of contentious relations between Johnson and Congress, including vetoes, the overturning of vetoes, and the suspending of Cabinet members, led the House to impeach Johnson by a vote of 126 to 47, citing the Tenure of Office Act, and Johnson's perceived violations of it, as the main cause.

Over the coming months both the Senate and President's legal representatives would debate the case, with the vote finally coming on May 16, 1868. By one vote, cast by Senator Edmund Ross, was Johnson spared being removed from office. Less than a year later Johnson would be replaced by Ulysses S Grant in an election. The fact that he was impeached mere months before he could have been removed from office by the people without legal action was not lost on some members of Congress.

Will Fitzcairn has a long interest in the law and attorneys, including Richmond business attorneys and Richmond divorce attorneys. To learn more about these types of law and others, visit Meyer, Goergen & Marrs at: MGM-Law.com.

View the original article here

Compensation For Phone Hacking Is Not Limited To The Rich And Famous

Perhaps the single most controversial issue to hit the media this year is phone hacking, because it involved celebrities and politicians and directly led to the closure of Britain's biggest selling Sunday newspaper, The News of the World.

Somewhat less publicised is the near certainty that this practice is also used, from time to time, on the man (or woman) in the street. Typical examples might be bosses checking on employees with poor sickness records, husbands or wives suspicious that their spouses are having an affair, or people being just plain nosey about a relative, friend, or work colleague.

However, whether hacking is widespread or used only in exceptional circumstances, the law applies as much to the ordinary citizen as it does to the great and the good. It is unlawful for a person to intercept any telephone call though a landline or a call or text message through a mobile network, as indeed it is through an email or other message sent though the internet.

Anyone who has had their phone calls tapped and e-mails intercepted has potentially suffered a very severe intrusion into their privacy. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enforced by the Human Rights Act, guarantees people's right to privacy, and also expressly protects their right to respect for their correspondence, which can include telecommunications. For this reason the law strictly regulates the circumstances in which your post or telecommunications can be intercepted or monitored. Thus, an interception not done in accordance with the law and which cannot be justified as being necessary and proportionate for a legitimate aim, is likely to constitute a breach of your human rights.

The exception is tapping by appropriate authorities - for example, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service, Police, or Customs - under authorisation of the Home Secretary. Such authorisation is provided by way of an interception warrant. These warrants can only be issued if the Home Secretary believes that it is necessary for a reason relating to national security, serious crime or the economic well-being of the UK, and it is proportionate in the circumstances.

Any hacking perpetrator can be subject to a criminal prosecution, although whether or not the authorities prosecute in itself does not prevent a "victim" from seeking compensation.

While the law is complex, complaints about improper interception can in certain circumstances be heard by a special tribunal set up by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which has the power to order compensation, as well as the destruction of the recorded material.

The tribunal is open to any individual who believes their privacy has been unlawfully interfered with, although the tribunal members are likely to give short shrift to what they consider frivolous claims. For this reason anyone considering taking such a case to a tribunal would be advised to consult a solicitor initially for advice on the validity of any claim, although anyone is at liberty or represent him or herself should they so wish.

When a tribunal rules in favour of a complainant, the level of compensation will depend on how serious the breach of privacy is judged to have been. If the adverse effect is deemed to have been minor, then any compensation will probably be minimal but larger sums could be awarded if phone hacking turned out to have serious consequences (for the victim), such as the loss of a job, nervous breakdown or similar personal disaster.

However, even in more serious cases, claimants should not anticipate being awarded what used to be called a "pools win". It is wise to take with a pinch of salt many of the apparently huge payouts reported in the media, although for someone on a limited budget the level of an award may be considered substantial.

The law, of course, is not confined to digital or electronic communications: it is also an offence to intercept mail if someone, without authorisation, intentionally intercepts letters or parcels sent to you through the Royal Mail or other recognised carrier.

Phone hacking comes under the general realm of "privacy laws", and another way in which privacy can be intruded on is the abusive phone call. Under the Communications Act 2003, it is a criminal offence to leave messages which are grossly offensive, or to make obscene or menacing telephone calls or calls which cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.

The criminal courts may treat a letter, or a silent or abusive phone call as an assault if it causes the victim to fear that physical violence may be used against him or her in the immediate future. There have been cases where serious psychological damage has resulted, in which case a claim for damages can be made, although obviously there is little point in doing so unless the perpetrator is sufficiently wealthy to make that worthwhile.

Telephone companies have the power, in certain circumstances, to trace the makers of nuisance or malicious calls and tell you who they are, provided you have a legitimate interest in knowing their identity. If the perpetrator is known and is persistent in making calls the courts are increasingly willing to make orders to prevent this type of harassment.

Need specialist Edinburgh Solicitors? McKay Norwell are Edinburgh Lawyers serving individual and business clients across Scotland.

View the original article here