U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced."

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had," said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.

Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.

In response to today's ruling, Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to have helped make students feel safer in school."

The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.

"Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."

The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.

In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.

The decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html

The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160lgl20090325.html

Scott Drake interviews ACLU attorney Adam Wolf.

Why Are Major Law Firms Shrinking?

Jerome Kowalski, a legal consultant who tracks the New York Market discusses why major law firms are shrinking with LBN host Scott Drake. Kowalski says “The mood at White & Case — and at probably 15 or 20 more firms in New York — is kind of like sitting at a deathbed and watching a close relative wither away. It’s like you’re right there in the I.C.U. with the patient and you know that the condition is terminal.”

(NY Times)

While the legal industry is hardly battling the existential threat that is facing, say, the newspaper trade, Big Law — especially in competitive New York — is facing a potential paradigm shift as fundamental as the one that has hit investment banks and the auto industry. Big, as a business model (let alone as an expression of the national mood), seems bound for obsolescence.

The Hildebrandt index found, for example, that at the nation’s 20 top-grossing law firms — 12 of which are in New York — average profit per partner and revenue per lawyer both dropped in the first quarter of 2009, for the first time since 1991.

At the root of the law-firm crisis, legal experts say, is the credit crisis, which has pulverized the need for traditional practice areas like structured finance, mergers and acquisitions and private-equity transactions — the very things that have always kept a high gleam of polish on the city’s whitest shoes. The downward trend has been unrelenting: fewer Wall Street deals mean fewer Wall Street lawyers.

“I hear the stories all the time,” Mr. Kowalski, the consultant, said. “Real estate lawyers are honing their skills playing solitaire. Younger lawyers are gossiping all day and scaring the crap out of one another. The head of the corporate department of a major firm just told me that he hasn’t billed a minute’s worth of work in the last two weeks,” he added.

The article in the New York Times

Watch the Interview below.

Sotomayor is Obama's Second Salvo in the Culture Wars

Brad Bannon's writes about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings in this commentary from US News and World Report:

Scott Drake interviews Brad Bannon in the accompanying video.

Brad Bannon is president of Bannon Communications Research, a political consulting and polling firm that works for Democrats, labor unions, and progressive-issue groups.

Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the person that the Supreme Court needs. She is a distinguished jurist and will be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. As a bonus, she will improve female representation on the Court and, because of her background as a poor kid from the Bronx, she will give voice to the millions of Americans who are struggling economically to keep their heads above water.

President Obama's appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court will also begin the culture wars in earnest.

Actually, the first shot in the culture wars was President Obama's response to antiabortion advocates who boycotted his appearance at Notre Dame University's commencement ceremony. In his speech, the president tried to find common ground between the pro-choice and pro-life forces. His attempt to moderate the culture war contrasts with his economic program, where the president has gone full steam ahead without compromises that would lessen Republican opposition.

The contrast between the president's approach to social and to economic policy reflects Democratic confidence in its strength on bread-and-butter issues and a defensiveness on cultural issues.

Even though Democrats usually win battles on the economic front, their track record in culture wars are not nearly as good. Since the 1960s, Republicans have successfully used the social issues to drive a wedge between blue-collar union members and the Democratic Party with a steady diet of guns, God, and gays. And even now, after getting Congress to pass his stimulus program, the president not been able to prevent NRA supporters in the Senate from attaching pro-gun riders to important pieces of legislation.

But after three months of focusing on the economy like the proverbial laser beam, the Sotomayor confirmation hearings will force the president to fight the culture wars whether he wants to or not. Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage four years ago, the focus of the culture wars has moved from abortion to gay rights.

This week, the California Supreme Court upheld the voter ban on gay marriage that passed last year. This case is likely to get to the Supreme Court, so the Republicans in the Senate will probably focus on Judge Sotomayor's positions on same-sex marriage. The judge will probably be noncommittal on the subject to avoid prejudicing future cases, but the left and right will press her on the ramifications of the California case.

The GOP is chomping at the bit for a fight over Judge Sotomayor, even though Republicans know they will lose the confirmation battle. They will fight the nomination anyway because it energizes the base, helps them raise money, and puts Democrats, including the president, on the defensive. So expect the Senate Republicans to fight Judge Sotomayor tooth and nail.

But the GOP should be wary of the demons that fly out of Pandora's box during the confirmation hearings. Although the culture wars have not been kind to the Democrats in the past, they may become an advantage for the party.

Support for gay marriage has increased significantly in the last few years and a clear majority of Americans under 40 support same-sex marriage. As the millennial voters make up more of the electorate, support for gay marriage will increase. Voters under 30 voted for Barack Obama last year, and the GOP is in danger of losing a group that could give Republicans fits for a whole generation. Young voters are very liberal socially and GOP opposition to gay marriage will drive a wedge between the party and the fasting-growing segment of the voter pool.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for four years and it clearly has not shaken the cultural foundations of the state. As more and more states like Vermont and Iowa legalize same-sex marriage, more and more voters will get used to the idea.

Cultural issues have backed the GOP into a corner. The problem for Republicans is that the party's base is shrinking because of moderate defections. As moderates leave the party, it becomes even more conservative, which in turn causes the GOP to lose even more moderates. So the GOP's focus on cultural issues during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation battle will make the party appear even more conservative and drive even more millennial voters out of the party.

If Republicans don't stop this vicious circle and get their act together, they party will go into the wilderness where Democrats have spent most of the last 40 years. The GOP's challenge starts with its handling of confirmation battle over Judge Sotomayor.

Dahlia Lithwick Discusses Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings

Dahlia Lithwick's commentary at Slate:

Confirmation hearings are inevitably an invitation to behave badly. Something about the bright lights of the Senate judiciary committee brings out the worst in people. Legal thinkers who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent somehow become great big puddles of snarling, hateful id. I think Democrats made a mistake when they accused Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito of being misogynists and racists at their confirmation hearings. And Republicans are poised to make the same mistake when they attack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as a "liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," as Wendy Long, of the Judicial Confirmation Network, did today. (Don't those phrases ever get old? Don't these people own a thesaurus?)

Undaunted by the hyperbole that festers beneath her hyperbole, Long then went on to condemn Sotomayor for somehow aiding and abetting the 9/11 attackers with her decision in the controversial New Haven, Conn., firefighters case: "On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas." So just to get this straight: Sotomayor isn't just a far-left activist, she's also out to destroy firefighting?

The case against Sotomayor—to the extent it's being made, is that her life is such a tumultuous blend of personal hardship and deep feeling that she cannot separate the law from her own agenda. In short, she feels too much.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer was also quick to condemn Sotomayor on Fox News today, warning that her "concern for certain ethnicities overrides justice." And even though Sotomayor has decided only a single abortion case (against the abortion-rights side), Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, rushed to describe her as "a radical pick" who "believes the role of the court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board."

If the Republican attack on Sotomayor is really going to consist of scattershot claims that she is too female and ethnic to be truly fair or impartial, it will be a losing demographic battle. Recall that 67 percent of Hispanics and 58 percent of women voted for Obama in 2008, along with 96 percent of blacks. Folks across the political spectrum may wish that Obama hadn't opened the door to discussions of the complicated connection between experience and judicial "empathy." But now that we are there, it simply has to be a mistake for her opponents to attack Sotomayor as someone who is just too darn human to sit on a court.

For one thing, such outbursts tend to offend other humans.

Moreover, the case against Sotomayor on this front is so ideologically loaded, and selective, that it quickly starts to look hypocritical. Why did Republicans treat Samuel Alito's blue collar upbringing as a great humanizing factor in his confirmation hearings? Why did they deem Clarence Thomas' childhood poverty an advantage, whereas they now cast Sotomayor's as a handicap?

Instead of wading into a bruising identity politics war they cannot possibly win, conservatives—even the angriest conservatives—should wade into Sotomayor's vast legal writings. There are hundreds of cases for them to read and parse and quote out of context. Let's have this confirmation battle on the merits, rather than in the sinkhole of unfounded character attacks. The real problem for Sotomayor's opponents is that anyone who has closely read her opinions won't find much to build a case on. As the indefatigable team at SCOTUSblog has chronicled here and here, on the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor has taken a fairly moderate, text-based approach to the cases before her, placing her much closer to retiring Justice David Souter than to the late Justice William Brennan on the judicial activism spectrum.

She has been overturned three times at the Supreme Court, and may well be again soon. But she was also a state* prosecutor, a corporate lawyer, and a Bush I appointee to the federal bench. As the White House points out in its talking points today, "In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time."

What evidence does anyone anywhere have that Sotomayor has spent her career departing from the letter of the law to impose her personal preferences? Her participation in the (poorly handled) decision in the New Haven firefighters case was anything but judicial activism, much as it will be spun as symbolic of her lifelong hatred of white men. On a conference call with reporters today, a senior administration official noted that in the New Haven case, Judge Sotomayor did nothing more than apply the case law: "You can't say she's a judicial activist and then criticize her for applying 2^nd Circuit precedent." Her judicial record reveals a lot more humility than hubris.

Sotomayor will also draw heat in the coming weeks for a speech she made in 2002 at the University of California at Berkeley. Talking about the effect of race and gender on judicial decision-making, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She also said that "the aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging." That seems a particularly thoughtful observation, in the context of a long and thoughtful meditation on the role of personal experiences in judicial thinking. Sotomayor never pretends to know better than white men, and she doesn't purport to speak for all Latinos or all women. She merely believes that different judges make a difference in judging. And if you strip away all the rage of the identity politics wars, that point is irrefutable.

The angry screeching from the right that Judge Sotomayor is too emotional to fairly apply the law is already starting to sound, well, hysterical. And the fun is only just beginning.

$29.5 Million Chicago Metra Derailment Verdict

Renea Poppel, a passenger seriously injured in the Metra derailment in Chicago on September 17, 2005, received a $29,560,081.15 jury verdict after a two-week trial presided over by Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thomas H. Hogan. The verdict is believed to be the largest mass transit crash verdict in Illinois history. The plaintiff was represented by Chicago personal injury attorneys Thomas A. Demetrio, Daniel M. Kotin and William T. Gibbs of the Corboy & Demetrio law firm.

Metra Lawsuit

"Renea is one of the most extraordnary individuals I've ever had the pleasure to represent. It is professionally satisfying that the jury responded to her in such a favorable manner"

On September 17, 2005, a double-decker five car Rock Island Metra train was traveling from Joliet toward downtown Chicago with 185 passengers on board. At about 8:30 a.m., the train encountered a track crossover with a maximum allowable speed of 10 miles per hour (mph). The train entered the crossover at 69 mph, causing it to violently derail.

Renea Poppel, 25 years old and a graduate of Lewis University, was traveling downtown on the Metra Rock Island Line from her home in Midlothian, Illinois, to her new job as an admissions counselor at Kaplan University. She was 13 weeks pregnant at the time. As a result of the derailment, Renea suffered traumatic brain injury. She remained in a coma for several months. Renea's unborn child survived the wreck, and was born via emergency C-section on January 21, 2006.

According to Tom Demetrio, "Renea is one of the most extraordinary individuals I've ever had the pleasure to represent. It is professionally satisfying that the jury responded to her in such a favorable manner."

Dan Kotin stated, "This verdict exemplifies the fact that juries almost always do the right thing. This jury learned all about Renea before she was injured. They met seven of her treating doctors and heard about her future. By this jury verdict, Renea will be taken care of for the rest of her life."

Bill Gibbs added "Renea Poppel is a remarkable young woman whose life was forever changed by this derailment. The jury's verdict appropriately compensated her for all she has been through and all she will go through for the rest of her life."

Bank of America, N.A. and Geraldine Edmonds, Co-Guardians of the Estate of Renea Poppel, a disabled person, v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, d/b/a/ Metra. Case number 200L010320 E

About Corboy & Demetrio
Named as a Top Law Firm by Chicago Magazine in 2008, Corboy & Demetrio is one of the nation's premier law firms. The Chicago law firm represents individuals and their families in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, and is renowned for its achievements in the courtroom and for its contributions to the community. The rights and concerns of its clients are at the core of Corboy & Demetrio's practice. That dedication, compassion and relentless drive has resulted in exceptional service and exceptional results for its clients. The Chicago based personal injury firm has acquired more than $3 billion in settlements and verdicts and has attained more than 500 settlements and verdicts in excess of $1 million.

Source: PRWEB

Scott talks with Thomas Demetrio about the verdict and some of the unusual aspects of this case.

Should the LSAT be Replaced?

(Legal Broadcast Network)

Ex-Berkeley Law Professor Marjorie M. Shultz and Psychology Professor Sheldon Zedeck have come up with a new test they claim measures raw talent for being a lawyer. Professor Shultz and Professor Zedeck have developed a test that could be administered to law school applicants to measure their raw lawyerly talent.

Shultz has long insisted that the LSAT does a poor job of predicting how good a lawyer someone will be and also discriminates against minorities, so with some funding from LSAC, which administers the LSAT, she and Zedeck set out to identify important lawyer characteristics and formulate a test based on them.

The result is a test that presents hypothetical situations and asks test takers to respond. This new test was much better in predicting lawyer effectiveness than the LSAT but didn’t better predict how a student would perform in law school. Significantly, though, the newly formulated test didn’t result in score gaps among racial and ethnic groups. (Source: About.com)



Scott discusses the study with Professor Sheldon Zedeck

AIG Employees Fearful...Rich. Jordan Kimmel Analysis

A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.

"It's a mob effect," one senior executive said. "It's putting people's lives in danger."

Politicians and the public spent yesterday demanding that AIG rescind payouts that they said rewarded recklessness and greed at a company being bailed out with $170 billion in taxpayer funds. But company officials contend that the uproar is scaring away the very employees who understand AIG Financial Products' complex trades and who are trying to dismantle the division before it further endangers the world's economy.

"It's going to blow up," said a senior Financial Products manager, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company. "I have a horrible, horrible, horrible feeling that this is going to end badly."

Scott Drake gets analysis from CNBC's Jordan Kimmel.

President Obama yesterday vowed to "pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses." But that pledge might have come too late. About $165 million in retention payments started to go out Friday to employees at Financial Products, after numerous discussions with the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.

Attorneys working for the Fed had been examining the matter for months and determined that the retention payments couldn't be touched because AIG would face costly lawsuits and be subject to penalties from states and foreign governments. Administration officials said over the weekend that they agreed with that assessment.

AIG disclosed its retention-payment program more than a year ago, and the amount of the bonuses -- more than $400 million for Financial Products alone -- had been widely reported. But as the payments were coming due in recent days, the White House began to express its indignation.

Pressure on the 370-person Financial Products unit, based primarily in Connecticut and London, grew even more intense yesterday when New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo threatened to issue subpoenas if the company failed to provide details about recipients of the retention payments.

The payments represent only the most contentious of a larger group of bonuses being paid throughout AIG. The company's top seven officials, including chief executive Edward M. Liddy, agreed in November to forgo bonuses through this year.

After a Wednesday call between Liddy and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, AIG agreed to restructure payments for the next 43 highest-ranking officers at the company, who are to receive half of their bonuses -- which total $9.6 million -- immediately, one-quarter July 15 and the rest Sept. 15. The last two payments would depend on whether the company makes progress in restructuring its business and paying back taxpayers. In addition, the company is set to pay another $600 million in retention awards to about 4,700 people throughout its global insurance units.

But each dollar remains in question after the president's reprimand yesterday and the deluge of rage from legislators and the American public. Government leaders already say they plan to recoup some of the bonus and retention pay while restructuring the company. In addition, administration officials said that the Treasury is planning to try to recover some of the bonus money by adding provisions to the additional $30 billion it gave AIG access to earlier this month.

The payment plan had been no secret.

Beginning in the first quarter of 2008, AIG disclosed the plan to offer retention awards at Financial Products. The unit had already begun to hemorrhage money, a problem that would later grow exponentially. The unit's executives, fearing they might lose valuable employees in the tumultuous months to come, successfully negotiated more than $400 million for their workers, to be paid this month and again next year.

At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has directly overseen AIG since its federal takeover in September, officials have studied the possibility of rescinding or delaying the bonuses. They even brought in outside lawyers for advice. The conclusion: If the bonuses weren't paid, the AIG staffers would be able to sue the company and probably would win, not just what they were owed but also punitive damages that would make the ultimate cost perhaps two to three times as high as the bonuses themselves.

Moreover, Fed officials also hope to keep current employees with the company. The senior executives whose decisions caused the company's collapse are long gone. Most of those left behind are trying to unwind complicated derivative contracts. Completing that process correctly is essential to preserving as much value as possible for taxpayers, officials at both the government and AIG have argued. If it is mishandled, it could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in additional losses.


Law professors agreed with the Fed's assessment but said AIG employees could still agree to reduce their own bonuses.

And the outrage expressed by the president and lawmakers was designed to put pressure on these officers to do just that, the legal experts said.

Jonathan Macey, a professor at Yale Law School, said it was unlikely that any AIG employees would end up suing the company for changing compensation contracts, mainly because their names would be revealed publicly in a lawsuit and they would then be excoriated.

Macey added that the government is caught in a difficult position, squeezed between public outrage over the bonuses and the need to keep AIG Financial Products going so the company can restructure and the government can recoup some of its money.

"What's good for AIG is definitely not good for the country," Macey said. "But now that the government is invested, it may have to do what's good for AIG."

Liddy is scheduled to appear tomorrow in front of a House financial services subcommittee.

What Will it Take To Get Investors to Invest?

Scott Drake and Jordan Kimmel discjuss what it will take to get investors back in the stock market. Consumer and investor confidence may be all thats left to jumpstart the economy. They also discuss PBS Frontline's "Meltdown". It chronicles the beginning of the economic collapse and how unsure economic leaders were about not only what to do but what was coming. They also touch on the often misunderstood and shadowy world of credit default swaps.

Credit default swaps (CDS) are contracts that insure against default of municipal bonds, corporate debt and. They are sold by banks and hedge funds who collect a premium for providing the insurance.

Unlike insurance, however, CDS are unregulated. This means that, when the bond defaults, there is no regulator to make sure the seller of the CDS actually has the money to pay the holder.

When it was only sold as insurance, it worked fine. However, soon CDS were used to insure complicated financial products like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO's). Swaps were traded in unregulated markets between those who had no relationships to the underlying assets.

By mid-2007, there was more than $45 trillion invested in CDS - more than the money invested in U.S. stock market ($22 trillion and falling), mortgages ($7.1 trillion) and U.S. Treasuries ($4.4 trillion) combined. In fact, it is almost as much as the output of the entire world in 2007, which was $65 trillion.

As the value of underlying assets fell, and the insurance had to be paid, the value of CDS fell. This is partly what led to the demise of AIG, which had an $11 billion CDS write-down. Other companies that have been hard hit were Swiss Reinsurance Co., MBIA and Ambac Financial Group Inc. The breakdown in the CDS market means less ability to get insurance for loans, which also means banks are less likely to make loans.

Source: ( Time )

How Do We Fix The Banks?

Could it be? Has the era of greed that began with the election of Ronald Reagan come to an abrupt end? Peter Cohan says, “It appears the seething emotions of greed and envy that come along with bonus time at investment banks will now have fewer dollars attached to them. Talent will now flow to government and academia rather than Wall Street. This could be good for the U.S.!” Cohan says some of the ‘masters of the universe’ in the investment banking industry have seen the value of their stock tumble and many of them are going without bonuses this year.

For a great discussion on who’s suffering now and what’s coming next to Wall Street watch the video. Cohan owns a management consulting and venture capital firm and teaches strategy at Babson College. He is a frequent commentator on developments in economics, technology,and finance and has appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America, CNN, CNBC, PBS’s Wall Street Week, and New England Cable News (NECN)

Michael Blum-The Challenge

Michael Blum, CEO of Law Finance Group talks about some of the challenges he and his company face.