C.A. tosses suit alleged system to steal customer Prosecutor

server temporarily unavailable
Metropolitan News-EnterpriseWednesday, December 29, 2010Page 1C.A. Tosses Suit Alleging Scheme to Steal Attorney?s ClientBy STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff WriterThe Third District Court of Appeal yesterday published its decision tossing an attorney?s lawsuit accusing co-counsel he brought in on a personal injury case of scheming to steal the client and take his share of fees.The court ruled Dec. 10 that Westlake Village attorney Christopher J. Olsen might be able to bring an unjust enrichment action against the client who fired him, but not against Sacramento attorney Joseph F. Harbison III, who agreed to a 60/40 percent split of fees with Olsen in the contingency case, and later succeeded him.The justices said that the litigation privilege barred use of Harbison?s statements to support Olsen?s allegations that Harbison used fraud and deceit to induce Olsen to associate him into the case. They also held that the privilege barred an action for interference with contractual relations, and they concluded that Olsen could no longer sue Harbison for breaching the agreement once he had been discharged.Olsen sued Harbison when the underlying case, involving an injury client Kathleen Klawitter suffered at a golf course, settled for $775,000. Klawitter, who retained Olsen in 1998, fired him and signed a new fee agreement with Harbison in 2002, just weeks after Olsen agreed to associate Harbison into the case.The attorney said later that he would never have brought Harbison into the case had he been aware of what he said were Harbison?s true intentions.Sacramento Superior Court Judge Judy Holzer Hersher sustained Harbison?s demurrer to a quantum meruit action, and she granted summary judgment against Olsen on claims for breach of contract, fraud and deceit and intentional interference with contractual relationship.On Olsen?s appeal, the Third District affirmed in an opinion by Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, who rejected Olsen?s claim for $310,000 for the value of work he performed. Noting that one attorney may be able to proceed against another in quantum meruit if the client never approved a fee-splitting agreement, the justice said that changed when a client agreed to the association and consented to the fee division, as Olsen and Harbison?s client had done.Raye wrote that Olsen?s claim that Harbison committed fraud and deceit by inducing Olsen to hire him, when Harbison?s true intent was to persuade the client to fire Olsen and hire Harbison, was barred by the litigation privilege because the intent of the allegedly fraudulent communications was to secure the services of counsel.?[D]efendant made his comments when discussing the possibility of becoming associated in on the Klawitter case,? he said. ?This conversation was part of plaintiff?s efforts to bring in experienced counsel to assist on the case, take responsibility for the actual trial, and help Klawitter obtain a verdict or settlement. Had there been no litigation, these comments would never have been made.?Raye reasoned that the litigation privilege barred Olsen?s claim against Harbison for interference with Olsen?s contract with the client, rejecting Olsen?s assertion that a plaintiff and a defendant had to be adverse parties at the time of the communication for the privilege to apply.The justice also wrote that Olsen could not enforce the fee-sharing contract once the client terminated his services.?When the Klawitter-plaintiff contract ceased to exist, the fee-sharing agreement between plaintiff and defendant, premised on that agreement, also ceased to exist,? he said. ?There was no viable contract on which to base a breach of contract claim against defendant.?Justices Harry Hull and Tani Cantil-Sakauye?who was ceremonially sworn in as California?s 28th chief justice Dec. 3, and is scheduled to take office next Monday?joined Raye in his opinion.The case is Olsen v. Harbison, 10 S.O.S. 7162.Copyright 2010, Metropolitan News Company

View the original article here

The new system to prohibit construction site trench soil shrinks

Geotechnical engineers in Loughborough University in England have been working on a new way to prevent catastrophic soil shrinks on construction sites, and landslides, occur naturally, but without notice. Good sensor system of the measure reducing sound behaviour of soil to predict when a landslide or trench is imminent, so as to take preventive measures before people are injured.

The new system works exactly the same way as the bending Rod a cracking noise which build up until it snaps. So that the movement of soil before rocks creates increasing rates of sound, "says investigator Neil Dixon of major projects.

"This has been known from the 1960s, but what we have been able to do so is a new capture and process this information in order to quantify the relationship between noise and soil displacement rates as it happens in real time-and therefore provides early warning."

The system has the potential to prevent their untold number of incidents, construction worker injuries and deaths from naturally occurring landslides in the world.

You can use any infrastructure-building tools

Develop system dual-use items. First because the system does not require a central computer, it may be placed in a developing country or anywhere where there is some potential for subsidence. The second system can be deployed to monitor the construction sites, mines and pits with potentially unstable slopes, built to maintain the road or rail embankments, fees or other infrastructure.

Network of cheap sensors should optical and/or acoustic alarms. They could even be set up to send text messages to the safety of the workplace disaster response personnel, giving them early warning which would enable them to evacuate the area, stop the workers or residents of cross field for unstable or take steps in order to stabilize the slope or trench.

Sensors act as microphones, noise in the subsoil, and sent to the central computer for analysis. Increased soil noises are known to predict imminent soil shrinks, but such information does not have practical application.

"Developing low-cost independent acoustic slope sensors is only possible in very recent times due to the presence of microprocessors that are fast, small and cheap enough for this task," said Dixon.

Commercially available sensor system may have to start the prevention of landslides and construction accidents early in the next two years.

Source: Journal of occupational health and safety, "warned of the imminent landslides, 22 October 2010

View the original article here