Alvin R. Christovich Endowed Professorship of Law

In 1996, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Christovich & Kearney founder Alvin R. Christovich’s graduation from law school, The Alvin R. Christovich Endowed Professorship of Law was established at Loyola University New Orleans School of Law. The creation of this professorship was made possible through gifts from Christovich & Kearney, LLP and the Christovich and Kearney families.

Alvin R. Christovich was a litigator with a reputation for proficiency as a courtroom attorney. It is equally significant to note that those who knew him, indeed many who opposed him in court, respected him as well for his integrity and strong sense of ethics. In creating this professorship, it was determined that the holder of the professorship will have experience in trial practice, community involvement, and will be representative of Alvin Christovich’s reputation for integrity, ethics, and ability.

Marcel Garsaud, a 1954 graduate of the College of Business and a 1959 graduate of the School of Law, was the first professor to be invested for the Alvin R. Christovich Endowed Professorship of Law. The current holder of the professorship is Dane S. Ciolino who, in addition to maintaining a full teaching load, served as reporter to the Louisiana State Bar Association Ethics 2000 Committee, as chair of a Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committee, a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association (“LSBA”) Professionalism Committee, a member of the LSBA Lawyer & Judicial Codes of Conduct Committee, and a member of the LSBA Ethics Advisory Service. In 2001, he received the LSBA President’s Award, in part for his work on a book on Louisiana professional responsibility law and practice.

LSBA proposed changes to Rules on Lawyer Advertising

Christovich & Kearney partner Joseph M. Guillot is a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association Ethics Advisory Service Sub-Committee which has drafted proposed amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct dealing with lawyer advertising and solicitation and has received approval by The Louisiana Supreme Court's Committee to Study Attorney Advertising.

The rules generally deal with advertising, and provide specific guidelines on what is and is not permissible. A side-by-side comparison of the current rules and the proposed new rules may be found at http://www.lsba.org/committees/ProposedRulesvsLACurrentRules.pdf.

Louisiana Supreme Court permits pro bono representation of indigent defendants by out of state attorneys to tackle post Katrina Criminal Court crisis.

On June 29, 2006, Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. announced the Court’s adoption of an Emergency Pro Bono Criminal Legal Assistance Rule for Orleans Parish. The rule will allow qualified out-of-state attorneys, working under the supervision of Louisiana-licensed attorneys, to assist in the representation of indigent defendants if the criminal charge arises out of or relates to an act which is alleged to have occurred in Orleans Parish. The services of the approved out-of-state attorney must be requested by the Orleans Parish Indigent Defender Board or its Chief Indigent Defender.

The Emergency Pro Bono Criminal Legal Assistance Rule is the third pro bono legal assistance rule adopted by the Court at the request of the Bar Association. In October, 2005, the Court enacted its original Emergency Pro Bono Civil Legal Assistance Rule. The rule allows qualified out-of-state lawyers to provide limited pro bono legal assistance concerning issues arising out of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita and their aftermath. This rule generally allows qualified attorneys to provide legal assistance over the telephone to victims of the hurricanes. Thereafter, in early 2006, the Court passed a Supplemental Emergency Pro Bono Civil Legal Assistance Rule that allows qualified, non-admitted lawyers to provide limited in-court civil representation to poor clients under the close supervision of Louisiana lawyers affiliated with six Louisiana legal service providers/pro bono organizations.

Out-of-state attorneys who wish to provide pro bono legal services pursuant to any of these rules must first apply and have their qualifications reviewed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The Rule for Orleans Parish is effective through June 15, 2007.

Scott Sonnier

Christovich & Kearney partner Scott J. Sonnier received the following certifications from the Louisiana State Bar Association: Board Certified Tax Law Specialist, LSBA, 2004; and Board Certified Estate Planning and Administration Specialist, LSBA, 2005.

John Nieset joins IADC

Partner John K. Nieset was recently invited to join the International Association of Defense Counsel. IADC membership is comprised of the world’s leading corporate and insurance attorneys. Other C&K partners who are also members of the IADC are: Dick Christovich, Bill Christovich, Robert E. Peyton, Rick Christovich, Terry Gay and Kevin Tully.

Firm founder Alvin R. Christovich and William K. Christovich both served as president of the IADC; and Dick Christovich, Rick Christovich and Terry Gay have served on the Executive Committee.

Fifth Circuit decides Class Action Fairness Act applies where parties added to pending action after enactment in Braud v. Transport Service Company

Christovich & Kearney partners J. Warren Gardner, Jr. and Gregory LaCour successfully argued one of the first cases to test the applicability of the Federal Class Action Fairness Act before the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit. In an opinion released on April 6, 2006, (445 F.3d 801), the Court ruled that by adding a new party subsequent to the date on which the CAFA was made effective, the plaintiffs had effectively “commenced a new action,” thus restarting the time period available for the new defendant to remove the case to federal court.

Changes relating to Electronic Discovery and other amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect December 1, 2006.

A number of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil procedure took effect on December 1, 2006. Of particular interest are a series of additions to Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 and 45 to address thorny discovery issues that litigants have been wrestling with for several years relating to information, documents and records generated and stored in electronic form. A PDF version of the amended rules and extensive committee commentary and explanations can be viewed and downloaded at the US Courts website: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Reports/ST09-2005. (pdf#page=153).

The changes were intended to provide for notice and preservation of such evidence at an early stage to prevent its alteration or destruction from automatic back-up systems and to provide a means of contending with identification and discovery of sources of information that may be stored in difficult to access formats, and other challenges that were not previously addressed in the rules. Briefly, the affected rules and changes relating to Electronic Discovery include:
Civil Rule 16 --Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management, establishes process for the parties and court to address early issues pertaining to the disclosure and discovery of electronic information.

Civil Rule 26 -- General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure, requires parties to discuss during the discovery-planning conference issues relating to the disclosure and discovery of electronically stored information.

Civil Rule 33 -- Interrogatories to Parties, expressly provides that an answer to an interrogatory involving review of business records should involve a search of electronically stored information.

Civil Rule 34 --Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes, distinguishes between electronically stored information and "documents."

Civil Rule 37 -- Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions, creates a "safe harbor" that protects a party from sanctions for failing to provide electronically stored information lost because of the routine operation of the party's computer system.

Civil Rule 45 –Subpoena, technical amendments that conform to other proposed amendments regarding discovery of electronically stored information.

Other rules affected by amendments that go into effect on December 1, 2006, include:

Civil Rule 5.1 --Constitutional Challenge to a Statute - Notices, Certification, and Intervention; and Rule 24 – Intervention, sets forth the process when a party draws into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute.

Civil Rule 9 --Pleading Special Matters, conforming amendment pertaining to Supplemental Rule G.

Civil Rule 14 --Third-Party Practice, conforming amendment pertaining to Supplemental Rule G.

Civil Rule 50 --Judgment as a Matter of Law in Jury Trials; Alternative Motion for New Trial; Conditional Rulings, permits renewal after trial of any Rule 50(a) motion, deleting the requirement that a motion made before the close of all the evidence be renewed at the close of all the evidence).

Civil Rule 65.1 --Security: Proceeding Against Sureties, conforming amendment pertaining to Supplemental Rule G.

Form 35 --Report of Parties' Planning Meeting, technical revision reflecting the proposed amendment to Civil Rule 26.

Supplemental Rule G --Forfeiture Actions in Rem, establishes comprehensive procedures governing in rem forfeiture actions. Amendments to Supplemental Rule A--Scope of Rules; Supplemental Rule C --In Rem Actions; Special Provisions; Supplemental Rule E --Actions in Rem and Quasi in Rem: General Provisions, also relate to amendments to Supplemental Rule G.