http://www.njcases.com/index.php/ NJ Legal Beat en tim.howes@njcases.com Copyright 2010 2010-07-12T18:02:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/reflections_on_25_years_in_the_law_part_three/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/reflections_on_25_years_in_the_law_part_three/#When:22:18:00Z My first job after law school was in the Union County Prosecutor’s Office in Elizabeth NJ.  It was a great job.  I was on my feet in court before the end of my first week on the job.  I started prosecuting juvenile crimes in the juvenile section after six months.  Not long after that I was handling jury trials on the adult trial team.  I gained a lot of trial experience as well as experience working with the local media.  One of the cases that I remember as a little different was a robbery of a suburban grocery store by an ex-convict.  He insisted that he was shoplifting, but we proved that he was committing a robbery. (Union County Courthouse pictured below.)The W.M. case hit my desk in a pretty routine distribution of the files on the suburban trial team.  The only thing that caught my attention was that it was a second degree robbery.  Most cases that hit my desk were third- and fourth-degree cases, so a second- or a first-degree crime usually stood out.  As my trial team investigator and I did a little more investigation, we found out that this was not the average robbery. W.M. had served hard prison time for a prior robbery conviction.  While in custody, he decided that when he was free, he wouldn’t risk the rather substantial penalties for second-degree robbery (5 to 10 years) or first degree robbery (10 to 20 years).  Therefore, he decided on a shoplifting scheme.  If he were caught and convicted of a shoplifting, he would be exposed to a maximum of six months in jail, but most likely would pay only a fine. One fine day, W.M. traveled to a grocery store in suburban Union County.  While his accomplice waited outside, W.M. went into the store, emptied the contents of a thirty pound bag of dog food, and filled the bag with 22 cartons of cigarettes.  When he went to the front end, he intended to pay for the dog food, which cost a fraction of what the cigarettes cost.  The young cahsier who rang up the “dogfood” order, noticed that something was suspicious, and confronted W.M, who fled to the parking lot.  When the cashier caught up with W. M. in the parking lot, W.M. punched the young man in the face.  (He was not injured).  Police later apprehended W.M.. The State’s case went in smoothly, thanks to excellent witness preparation by my investigator.  W.M. took the stand in his own defense.  He explained to the jury that yes, he committed a shoplifting offense and a simple assault, offenses for which he was prepared to be punished.  He insisted that he did not commit a robbery.  The jury thought otherwise.  The jury accepted the State’s explanation that by committing an assault before he reached a point of safety, that W.M. had transformed the shoplifting into a robbery. The court sentenced W.M. to the maximum time in prison:  10 years in New Jersey State Prison, the first 5 years without the possibility of parole. Robbery must have been W.M.’s destiny.  It was the outcome that he carefully planned to avoid, but in the end, it was the one that he could not avoid. NJ Legal Beat 2010-05-25T22:18:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/reflections_on_25_years_in_the_law_part_two/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/reflections_on_25_years_in_the_law_part_two/#When:20:30:00Z Howes & Howes offers families and small businesses top-notch trial practice.  Our ability to try cases goes back to law school.  My earliest participation in a substantial trial was in the matter of State vs. G.G. in Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana in the mid-1980s.  I was one of several law students who assisted a law professor in defending G.G. against the charge that he murdered an on-duty Sheriff’s Officer.  State v. G.G. matter introduced me to the nitty-gritty of trial practice. Photo:  Historic Tangipahoa Parish CourthouseI was very fortunate early in my career to be able to study the trial practice in great detail under an outstanding law professor and trial advocate.  During my second year at Loyola Law School in New Orleans, I registered for the Capital Case Clinic to gain some practical experience.  I was a firm believer that book learning was good, but should be enhanced by exposure to the real-life practice of law.  The Capital Case Clinic had three clients, all of whom had been charged with murder, and all of whom were subject to Lousiana’s very real death penalty. Gerard Rault was the professor who led the Capital Case Clinic.  Professor Rault knows the Rules of Evidence inside-and-out.  Indeed, he wrote the book on Louisiana Evidence Law.  The Rules of Evidence are the very foundation of trial advocacy.  The smoothest, most persuasive attorney on the planet can not succeed unless he or she understands those rules and how to apply them.  As I was to learn, Professor Rault understood those rules not only on an academic level, but he also knew how to apply them in a courtroom. During my time in the clinic, we took on the case of Louisiana vs. G.G. .  We came into the case very early in the process.  G.G. was a young African-American resident of Tangipahoa Parish.  Tangipahoa occupies much of the ground north of Lake Ponchartrain and south of the Mississippi/Louisiana border.  In the 1980s Tangipahoa Parish was still primarily rural, and still had powerful memories of a painful racial history.  G.G. had been accused of the first degree murder of a sheriff’s deputy.  To make matters worse, the victim came from a town in Tangipahoa that was named after his family.  To make matters worse, G.G. did actually kill the deputy (in self-defense).  To say the least, G.G. was behind the eight ball. Because the stakes were so high - G.G.’s life - we researched and filed every issue imaginable - motions to suppress, motion for change in venue, motion to dismiss, motion for defense witness immunity and yes, the old motion to re-arrange the court furniture.  I did some legal research and writing.  The court didn’t grant a single one of our motions.  But I learned that when the stakes are high, the lawyer must leave no stone unturned. As the trial approached, I took the initiative to research the jury pool.  With one of my colleagues, I obtained a copy of the jury pool once it was published.  We researched the jury pool in every way we could imagine.  We used court records and the local library.  We interviewed local people to learn about the jurors who might hold G.G.’s fate in their hands.  Professor Rault used the data we gathered when he chose the jury. The G.G. case is worth a dozen war stories, too many for the space dedicated to this blog.  Suffice it to say that Professor Rault was brilliant during the trial. He combined his knowledge of the law, his conviction in what he was doing and a vast persuasive capacity, and the result showed:  The Tangiaphoa Parish jury was hung.  After declaring a mistrial, the court granted our motion to change venue to another parish.  That jury believed that G.G. shot at the deputy after the deputy had fired at him.  The re-trial resulted in a manslaughter verdict, which meant that G.G. would have to spend a long time in prison, but would be able to enjoy middle- and old-age in freedom.  The manslaughter verdict was considered a major success considering how far beyond the eight ball G.G. was when the clinic took on the case.  I would like to imagine that G.G. has now paid his debt to society, and is enjoying his freedom far away from Tangipahoa Parish. NJ Legal Beat 2010-05-14T20:30:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/howes_howes_files_major_constitutional_litigation_against_bayonne_mayor/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/howes_howes_files_major_constitutional_litigation_against_bayonne_mayor/#When:14:57:00Z Bayonne Mayor Mark Smith holds two public offices in the CIty of Bayonne.  He simultaneously holds the office of Mayor and the subordinate office of Deputy Police Chief.  New Jersey law has long prohibited this sort of dual office holding.  Despite recent public outcry for Mr. Smith to choose between these two offices, he has refused to do so.  The City of Bayonne has taken no action, so 31st District Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone (pictured below) has filed suit in Hudson County Superior Court.The case of Anthony Chiappone vs. Mark Smith has been filed and duly docketed in the Superior Court in Hudson County.  The Plaintiff is 31st District Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone, a Howes & Howes client.  The Defendant is Bayonne Mayor Mark Smith.  The suit asks the Superior Court to prohibit Smith from holding the offices of Bayonne Mayor and Deputy Police Chief of Bayonne. The Complaint is based on long-standing New Jersey law prohibiting a public official from holding two public offices where one is subordinate to the other.  This legal principle is known as the “Doctrine of Incompatibility”.  Factually, the Office of Deputy Police Chief is subordinate to the Office of Mayor.  That is, the Mayor appoints the city’s department heads.  One of those department heads supervises the Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief.  In other words, Deputy Chief Smith answers to someone who answers to Mayor Smith.  Mayor Smith is empowered to sign the police contract that determines Deputy Chief Smith’s salary and benefits. The Doctrine of Incompatibility finds its roots in the old common law, which is one source of New Jersey law.  There are two landmark cases where New Jersey courts have applied the Doctrine of Incompatibility to bar an individual from simultaneously holding an elected office and a police position in the same municipality.  Those cases are the recent case of Wildwood v. DeMarzo, and the older case of Dunn v. Froelich. Dunn v. Froelich involved two well-known and revered Union County political leaders, Elizabeth Mayor Tom Dunn and Ralph Froelich, who continues to serve Union County as its Sheriff.  In that case, Mr. Froelich was an Elizabeth police lieutenant who sought the office of Elizabeth City Councilman.  Mayor Dunn brought the suit to bar Mr. Froelich from holding both offices at the same time.  The court applied the Doctrine of Incompatibility to bar Mr. Froelich from holding both positions.  The Dunn case is significant because it involves the exact same form of city government as Bayonne - the Faulkner Act form of government. Then there is the 2010 case of City of Wildwood v. DeMarzo.  Mr. DeMarzo was both a Wildwood City Commissioner and Wildwood Police Sergeant.  The City of Wildwood filed suit to prohibit the dual office holding.  Again, the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the Doctrine of Incompatibility to bar the dual office holding.  The DMarzo case is significant because Mr. DeMarzo was on leave from his police position, just like Mr. Smith. The case will be decided by a Superior Court Judge based on these same principles of law.  Every case is unique, and the court will consider the unique aspects of each case, We have full confidence in the ability of the court to decide the case correctly based on the Doctrine of Incompatibility. NJ Legal Beat 2010-05-09T14:57:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/read_this_article_before_you_drink_and_drive/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/read_this_article_before_you_drink_and_drive/#When:20:18:00Z Most New Jersey motorists know the basics about drinking and driving.  That is, most people know that if you are convicted of drunk driving or refusal, that you will pay a fine, lose your driving privilege as well as pay surcharges and greatly increased auto insurance premiums.  In some instances, however, New Jersey law sanctions a drunk driver as a felon or a child abuser.  Please read this article before you drink and drive. The penalties for a first or second DWI in New Jersey are harsh, but most people who are convicted of a first or second offense can recover from the financial hit that they take and the drivers license suspension.  There are two smaller subsets of drunk driving cases that have implications way beyond fines, surcharges and license suspensions.  One is drunk driving with your child in the car.  The other is causing injury or death by driving drunk. The first case type occurs when a parent drives drunk with his or her child in the car.  N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.15 provides that a “parent or guardian who is convicted of a violation of R.S. 39:4-50 and who, at the time of the violation, has a minor as a passenger in the motor vehicle is guilty of a disorderly persons offense.” In other words, the incident creates a criminal history, but not one that effects most types of employment. Notably, the trend in New Jersey is toward charging this offense as an indictable (felony) offense.  There are two different statutes in use:  Endangering the Welfare of Children (N.J.S.A. 2C: 24-4), a third degree offense; and Cruelty and Neglect of Children (N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and 9:6-3).  While neither of these statutes creates a per se indictable offense for driving drunk with a minor in the car, New Jersey prosecutors routinely charge one of these indictable offenses.  Indictable (felony) offenses have long lasting consequences, regardless of your legal history.  Prosecutors do not allow offenders into Pre Trial Intervention; therefore, you will likely end up with an indictable conviction on your record.  If you find yourself in this situation, you should contact an attorney immediately.  It is a very serious situation. Further, when a motorist is arrested and charged with driving drunk with their children in the car, the police are required to contact the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).  The law then requires DYFS to investigate and make a determination as to whether child neglect or abuse is present.  DYFS will routinely substantiate child neglect when they can prove that a parent or guardian drove drunk with their child in the car.  When DYFS substantiates abuse or neglect, you are placed in the DYFS Central Registry.  Once in the Central Registry, any serious background check will determine that you are a past perpetrator of child neglect.  This will prevent you from doing anything, either volunteer or for profit, with or for children if it requires a background check. It gets even worse.  DYFS now routinely seeks care and supervision of families when even one of the parents drives drunk with their child in the car.  That status can lead to restrictions on the offending parent’s ability to parent their children.  That is, the Family Court would probably require supervised parenting time for the offending parent, as well as a battery of tests and participation in rehabilitative services. One event can land you with two or three serious legal problems even if no one is injured.  In sum, if you are caught driving drunk with your children in the car, you can lose not only your drivers license, but also your employment, your standing in the community and your ability to enjoy unsupervised time with your children. Where drunk driving leads to an injury, the second case type arises.  This case type does not depend on a relationship between the drunk driver and the injured person.  If you get behind the wheel while drunk and cause an accident resulting in a injury to another human being, you are subject to arrest for assault.  N.J.S.A. 2C: 12-1c defines one type of assault by auto as recklessly causing injury to another human being while driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  Most, if not all, prosecutors take the position that anyone who gets behind the wheel after drinking is reckless, and therefore guilty of assault by auto.  Once convicted of assault by auto, you are subject to jail time, probation and loss of your employment. If you find yourself in these legal situations, you should contact Howes & Howes immediately. NJ Legal Beat 2010-02-04T20:18:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/howes_howes_partner_set_to_serve_on_peapack_gladstone_borough_council/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/howes_howes_partner_set_to_serve_on_peapack_gladstone_borough_council/#When:15:59:00Z At Howes & Howes, we believe in giving back to the community that has supported us so well.  Last year, Howes & Howes partner Kathy Howes ran in a contested election for a seat on the Peapack-Gladstone Borough Council, an election that she won.  On Tuesday, January 5, 2010, Kathy will be sworn-in as the Twin Borough’s newest Borough Council member. The Borough of Peapack and Gladstone is a small suburban town nestled in the Somerset Hills.  It is home to the Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company and the Olympic-medal-winning U.S. Equestrian Team.  It has approximately the same land mass as Jersey City at 5.9 square miles.  The “Twin Borough”, as it is known is governed by a directly elected mayor and a six member borough council.  On January 5, 2010, Kathy Howes will take a seat on the Borough Council. The Borough Council is the governing body of the Twin Borough.  It makes the rules and oversees the budget process.  Each council member serves on at least two or three sub-committees of the borough council.  Each subcommittee oversees one department or one aspect of the borough government.  (Roads, Sewer, Property, Police, Fire, Open Space, Recreation, Land Use etc.) The borough form of government is a hands-on form of government.  It works for small towns.  It works for small towns especially when the borough residents volunteer to serve. Kathy Howes has served in the past as the Twin Borough’s public defender and most recently as a member of the Land Use Board.  And now she will serve a three year term on the Borough Council.  The meetings are night meetings.  We do not expect that Kathy’s new role will interrupt service to our clients.  Indeed, Kathy’s service will enhance her insight and experience, and therefore her ability to serve our clients. NJ Legal Beat 2010-01-03T15:59:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/reflections_on_25_years_in_the_law_part_one/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/reflections_on_25_years_in_the_law_part_one/#When:16:13:00Z I have been preparing to handle your legal matter for twenty-five years.  Knowing the law and knowing how to find the law is only one part of the lawyer’s stock in trade.  The law must be tempered by experience.  From my work in a law firm while still in college to my time as a prosecutor to my years in private practice, I have accumulated different experiences and insights that help my clients.  At decade’s end, we are taking stock of the successes - and disappointments - that have brought our firm to the new decade. (The photo depicts the Point-a-la-Hache ferry across the Mississippi River in Louisiana’s Plaquemines Parish.)In 1984, I was a senior at Tulane University in New Orleans.  For a variety of reasons, I had become interested in the law, and had been fortunate enough to land a job as a “court runner” at a very well-regarded New Orleans law firm.  As a court runner, it was my job to make sure that the firm’s legal papers were filed in the right place, and that the firm had filed copies to prove it.  Most of the time, that meant a quick run to the New Orleans Central Business District.  Sometimes, however, that meant a drive to one of Louisiana’s more remote outposts of justice. One day that sent me to Point-al-la-Hache, the seat of the parish government in Plaquemines Parish, and home to the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court.  Plaquemines Parish sits at the mouth of the Mississippi River.  It is where the roads end and where the land gradually disappears.  To get to the courthouse, I had to go to road’s end and take a ferry across the river to Point-a-la-Hache. My task that day was to get a particular court order signed.  I don’t remember the details, but I do remember that there was some sort of important deadline to make.  So there I was, a young, skinny college student from Northern New Jersey, who was quite clearly from the city.  I had never been to Point-a-la-Hache, so I had to figure out how to get a judge’s signature on the proposed order.  I had to go to every room in the courthouse - Civil Case Management, the cashier, the Sheriff, jury management - before someone explained to me that I needed to go see the judge directly. Usually, that means going to the judge’s chambers, which I did.  Once there, the judge’s secretary told me that I needed to go into the courtroom and see the judge himself.  The courtroom was one of those large courtrooms, sort of like the one in the movie “My Cousin Vinny”.  From his elevated bench, the judge was presiding over a trial.  I had no idea what to do.  The secretary had told me to approach the bench and hand the papers to the judge, but to say the least, I was not comfortable doing that.  More to the point:  I was mortified. However, I could not drive an hour each way, take a ferry, and come back empty handed and have my firm miss a deadline. I asked the Sheriff’s officer what to do.  He got the judge’s attention.  The judge took a short break, and motioned for me to approach.  I felt like I was approaching the fifty yard line in the New Orleans Superdome.  That is, I felt very small and very out of place and like everyone in the room was looking at me.  The judge looked at the papers, signed the order and sent me on my way.  Once I obtained a true copy of the order, I got back on the ferry and made my way back to New Orleans. I was not a lawyer, and I did not say a word on the record, but I guess you could say that on that day in 1984, I made my first court appearance on the banks of the river that inspired Mark Twain. As a court runner, I learned about the practical side of the law.  A lawyer has to be able to know the law and be able to find out what the law is so that he or she can advise his or her client as to their legal rights.  But it is not enough to have a legal right.  It is not enough to identify it.  A lawyer has to be able to know where to go, especially in a pinch, to protect those rights.  By learning the basements and the administrative offices that stand in the background of the courts, I learned how to do just that. NJ Legal Beat 2009-11-25T16:13:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/howes_howes_to_defend_assemblyman_chiappone/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/howes_howes_to_defend_assemblyman_chiappone/#When:19:28:00Z Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone represents New Jersey’s 31st Legislative District.  He is a first rate public servant who has fought for fiscal accountability and teen driver safety, and against costly P.S.L.s.  Tony’s political opponents have recycled some old allegations against Tony.  Has now been indicted by a state grand jury.  Assemblyman Chiappone has done nothing wrong.  He has asked Howes & Howes to defend him against these allegations.  On this website, we will provide regular updates on the status of this very important case. Assemblyman Tony Chiappone represents the 31st Legislative District.  The district covers the City of Bayonne and Wards “A’ and “F” in Jersey City.  He served honorably as a City Councilman for Bayonne until early this year.  While a member of the Bayonne City Council, Tony was a fiscal watchdog and whistleblower.  The problem with being a whistleblower is that you can make some very powerful enemies. That’s just what happened when Tony blew the whistle on a very big and very shady land deal.  The very big and very shady land deal involved the City of Bayonne and the Military Ocean Terminal.  When the mayor of Bayonne made a deal to sell the land to the Port Authority for fifty million dollars, Tony objected because the price offered for the very strategic piece of land was grossly insufficient.  Furthermore, the deal was done in violation of the Sunshine Laws.  Tony succeeded.  The transaction was voided.  The land was sold for ninety million dollars not long after the Port Authority contract was canceled. Ever since, Tony’s powerful enemies have tried to get rid of him politically.  First, he was forced out of his seat on the Bayonne City Council this April.  Not long thereafter, an investigation surfaced, an investigation of very old and very scurrilous allegations made by Tony’s enemies.  Yesterday, those allegations ripened into an indictment. It has often been said that you can indict a ham sandwich.  That is, the proof level for an indictment is so low that it doesn’t take much evidence for a grand jury to return an indictment.  A grand jury can indict someone based on hearsay evidence.  It can indict someone if there are one or more alternate explanations for each piece of evidence, or even if there is some inconsistency in evidence.  A conviction is quite different. To get a conviction, the State must prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.  We have been trying criminal cases at Howes & Howes for seventeen years, and we intend to try this case.  We fully expect that the jury will find Mr. Chiappone not guilty.  PLEASE VISIT THIS WEBSITE FOR PERIODIC UPDATES. NJ Legal Beat 2009-08-27T19:28:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/no_entiendo_is_no_defense_according_to_the_new_jersey_appellate_division/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/no_entiendo_is_no_defense_according_to_the_new_jersey_appellate_division/#When:16:38:00Z On July 1, the Appellate Division ruled that “no entiendo” is no defense to the charge of refusing to take a breath test.  A motorist who clearly did not speak English stated that he did not understand the standard DWI rights form.  He did not take the breath test, then was tried and convicted for refusing to take a breath test.  The court held that New Jersey law does not require the state to publish or the police to use a foreign language rights form when investigating a case of driving while intoxicated, and upheld the conviction. A duly licensed driver drove drunk through Plainfield.  He was stopped because the police suspected that he was driving while intoxicated.  When asked for his credentials in English, he did not understand.  When asked in Spanish, he complied.  He had a valid drivers license, valid registration and valid insurance.  He was also driving while intoxicated.  As such, the investigating officer arrested him and took him to the Plainfield Police Division for further investigation. A standard and legally required part of a DWI investigation is the use of a written statement of rights.  The officer reviews the written statement with the motorist prior to the administration of the breath test.  Among other things, the statement explains the mandatory nature of the breath test, the minimum penalties for refusing the test, and the test subject’s right to have a defense expert conduct independent chemical testing of the sample.  The statement was written in English. After the standard statement was read to him in English, defendant responded in Spanish, “No entiendo,” meaning “I do not understand.” Officer Lugo then visually demonstrated to defendant, an estimated “three or four times,” how to blow air into the test device.  Defendant did not perform the test.  Instead, he shook his head and pointed to one of his eyes.  The motorist defended against the refusal charge by arguing that due process required a Spanish language form.  The municipal court and the Law Division did not agree.  The Appellate Division upheld the conviction, opining: “In the present context of this case involving the refusal statute, we are persuaded that due process was satisfied, and that Officer Lugo was not constitutionally obligated to read the standard statement to defendant in Spanish.  We are mindful that it is undisputed that defendant is not fluent in English.  However, we are also mindful of the clear implications of the implied consent law, a statute that our courts have consistently upheld as constitutional.  Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 89; Breslin, supra, 392 N.J. Super. at 584.  In procuring his New Jersey driver’s license and in operating his automobile on our public roadways, defendant provided his advance consent to submit to a breath sample.  That consent, as a constitutional matter, sufficiently reflects that defendant knew, or should have known, that he could not decline to blow air into the breath testing device without exposing himself to licensure sanctions. The sufficiency of notice is buttressed by the fact that the New Jersey motor vehicle license testing process includes specific coverage of our drunk driving laws, including the refusal statute.  Defendant was permitted to take the written portion of the examination in Spanish.  It is noteworthy that the MVC’s driver’s manual, which is made available to persons such as defendant before they sit for the examination, is translated into Spanish.  The manual contains a specific section that describes the refusal statute and the informed consent law,” NJ Legal Beat 2009-07-02T16:38:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/will_the_new_jersey_budget_crisis_hurt_parental_rights/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/will_the_new_jersey_budget_crisis_hurt_parental_rights/#When:13:53:00Z The State of New Jersey is on the precipice.  Tax revenues are down due to the effects of the recession.  The Division of Youth and Family Services seems oblivious to the hard fact of declining resources.  DYFS continues to increase the number of families that it supervises or seeks to supervise.  Something has to give.  What will be cut, and how will that effect your parental rights if you are involved with DYFS? Because of the New Jersey state budget crisis, there will be pressure - and rightly so - for the state government to cut spending.  For DYFS, the solution to diminished resources should be simple.  DYFS could respond by using the “Jerry Maguire” philosophy.  In the hit movie “Jerry Maguire”, the protagonist causes quite a stir in the sports and entertainment agency firm when he circulates a memorandum that proposes a change in corporate philosophy.  Jerry’s thesis:  Serve less clients, do a better job.  It would make sense for DYFS to serve less clients and do a better job with the more serious cases of abuse and neglect.  I think that we are pretty safe in predicting that DYFS will not reduce the number of families that it supervises, despite the fact that it could do so without any danger to children. The budget pressure will manifest itself in other ways, ways which will harm parental rights. It is likely that there will be short furloughs.  According to reports, state workers will be asked to take two day furloughs.  DYFS workers and the attorneys who represent them will have two less days in which to do their jobs.  The likely result is that it will be much more difficult for parents to communicate with their DYFS workers and for the parents’ attorneys to communicate with DYFS’s representatives.  The result will be to make life even more difficult for those whose lives are supervised by DYFS. It is also likely that there will be less money for rehabilitative services.  In many instances, DYFS is required to provide rehabilitative services to parents.  Services such as drug/alcohol rehabilitation, parenting classes, anger management etc. are quite often required by law and enforced by court order.  The budget crisis will likely restrict the resources available to DYFS to provide rehabilitative services.  Reduced services will tend to cause more conflict between DYFS and families, and will tend to extend DYFS’s supervision of many individual families. The bottom line is that the budget crisis has the potential to erode parental rights and privacy in New Jersey.  NJ Legal Beat 2009-02-26T13:53:00-05:00 http://www.njcases.com/folio/legal_services_in_an_economic_downturn/ http://www.njcases.com/folio/legal_services_in_an_economic_downturn/#When:20:49:00Z There is no doubt that both New Jersey and the nation are in a full-fledged recession.  The need for legal services is blind to the economic realities of the day.  Howes & Howes was born in a recession.  We know how to provide effective and efficient legal services without taking the client’s last dollar.  We know how to settle cases when it is in the client’s best interest.  And if a legal matter must go to trial, we know how to do that too. The economic news continues to be bad.  The stock market is down.  The bubble under real estate prices has burst.  The private sector is laying off workers at all levels.  The New Jersey state government teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.  Despite the economic downturn (or perhaps because of it), people still need lawyers, but because most people don’t have the money that they used to have, they can’t afford extravagant legal bills. That leaves the consumer of legal services on the horns of a dilemma:  Do I hire a less known, less experienced attorney who charges less or do I hire a more experienced and better known attorney who will cost me money that I don’t really have?  As always, there is a third option. Howes & Howes opened its doors in 1992 in a family-owned building.  You may recall that in those days, New Jersey and America were both in a recession.  Indeed, that recession cost a president and a New Jersey governor their jobs.  We began on a shoestring without institutional clients.  We learned how to provide effective services without a large staff and without marble floors.  In those early days, we did not have the benefit of large, well-healed clients.  In short, we learned how to provide good value. How do we do it? (1) We do all of our own work.  We do not use subcontractors or associates.  As such, there is no redundant work.  Research and analysis are done by the same attorney who represents you in court.  You do not pay our firm to have one attorney do the work, then explain it to another attorney who will then represent you. (2) We know how to settle cases when it is in the client’s best interest. That involves being prepared and communicating effectively with the court, with our adversary (the other side’s attorney) and with our client.  Kathy Howes is an experienced mediator and panelist on the Somerset County Early Settlement Panel.  She knows how to get to “yes”.  Tim Howes has taken enough cases to trial that he “knows when to hold ‘em and knows when to fold ‘em.” (3) Our hourly rates are competitive. Our hourly rates reflect the twenty years of experience that both of us have.  Our hourly rates reflect our low overhead.  We don’t have the highest rates in New Jersey.  We don’t have the lowest.  And more importantly, it doesn’t take us as many hours as most other firms to get to a good result. The attorney-client relationship is a personal one.  You should do some research before making your decision.  We would be honored to represent you. NJ Legal Beat 2009-02-17T20:49:00-05:00