Group items tagged

Law Enforcement and Adult Protective Services Working Together: A Team Approach to Elder Abuse CasesAge in Action; Vol. 19 (3), Summer 2004.Journal article (scholarship)This article highlights the Central Virginia Task Force on Older Battered Women (OBW Task Force), a regional coalition of aging, domestic violence (DV), law enforcement, and legal services agencies dedicated to raising awareness of the needs of women who experience domestic violence/intimate partner violence and sexual assault in later life. Established in 1998, the project focuses on developing collaborative and interdisciplinary community responses to address violence against older women. A case study is presented from Henrico County that illustrates how adult protective services (APS) and the police department conducted a joint investigation of a sexual assault of a 65 year old assisted living facility resident. The following key elements for successful collaboration were identified: the need for all members to understand and respect the expertise and distinct role of each member; the need for investigators to attempt to conduct joint interviews whenever possible; and to the need to ensure that time and resources are shared effectively. (Note: This article is available online only at:   http://www.vcu.edu/vcoa/ageaction/AGEsu04.htm.) 2003 P5623-25Heisler, C. & Stiegel Enhancing the Justice System's Response to Elder Abuse: Discussions and Recommendations of the "Improving Prosecution" Working Group of The National Policy Summit on Elder Abuse Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect; Vol. 14 (4), 31-54; 2002.**Journal article (scholarship)This article elaborates upon two of the recommendations identified through the "Improving Prosecution" working group session of the National Policy Summit on Elder Abuse (December 2001, Washington, D.C.): "improving the legal landscape by strengthening elder abuse laws" and "increasing awareness within the justice system." The following topics were considered: the role of the federal and state governments in increasing elder abuse reporting and enhancing prosecution; the need for expert witnesses, support, and technical assistance; the identification of barriers to accessing the criminal justice system; the improvement of outcomes in criminal cases; and the need for training of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, coroners, court personnel, and advocates. The authors also provide a historical perspective on the response of the criminal justice system to elder abuse, which was initially minimal, based in part upon the underreporting of the problem. P5404-88* Johnson, K., for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS

Part IV acknowledges the tension between the difficulty of proving causation in legal malpractice actions and one of the goals of legal malpractice, which is to allow litigants recovery when their attorneys are negligent. The part then considers the "loss of chance" doctrine, which is used in medical malpractice cases, as a possible alternative to the rigorous "but for" causation requirement in legal malpractice. Since a shift away from the "but for" standard is likely to cause more problems than it solves, and because adequate protections already exist for litigants, Part IV argues that the current causation requirements should be maintained for litigants who allege that they suffered an injury during Supreme Court oral argument. [*pg 115]

The opportunity to convince [the Justices] of the merits of your position is at its highpoint."47

See 3 MALLEN & SMITH, supra note 15, § 29.41, at 772 ("In presenting the underlying appeal in the subsequent legal malpractice action, the parties must specify the issues that should have been urged in the underlying action."). Failure to specify the issues is a failure to prove causation. See id. 146. See infra note 151 and accompanying text. 147. See Smith v. Lewis, 530 P.2d 589, 595 (Cal. 1975). 148. See Lysick v. Walcom, 258 Cal. App. 2d 136, 153 (Ct. App. 1968). The attorney's action need not be the sole cause of the client's loss, just a substantial factor. See id. at 153 n.7. 149. See infra note 213 and accompanying text.

they filed their objections to the lawsuit’s legal bases, the Golins filed oppositions that should under any standard defeat their objections and allow them to try their case, reaching discovery and trial.