Blog

Locks Law Firm has called Philadelphia "home" for several decades and looks forward to many more.  As a firm that represents people in need, we also recognize that there are those in our own communities who have needs on a daily basis.  This year, we wanted to reach out to those in our own community and neighborhoods.  With careful thought, we chose to partner with Cradles to Crayons.

Cradles to Crayons is an organization that provides children from birth through age 12, living in homeless or low-income situations, in Philadelphia and Boston, with the essential items they need to thrive - at home, at school and at play. They supply these items free of charge by engaging and connecting communities that have with communities that need.

I recently had the privilege of arguing as amicus counsel before the Supreme Court in the case Morgan v. Sanford Brown Institute.  As with all too many consumer cases in recent memory, the case involves an arbitration clause, in which a business – in this case a for profit college – sought to strip consumers of their ability to file a lawsuit in a Court of law.  The facts of the case were pretty straight-forward, Annemarie Morgan and Tiffany Dever each entered into an enrollment agreement with Sanford Brown to take medical sonography courses. The cost for sixteen months of courses was an astronomical $37,500 – more than triple what a year of in-state tuition would have cost them at my alma mater, Rowan University, for the 2015-2016 year.  Unfortunately for Ms. Morgan and Ms. Dever, they were not told that the course in medical sonography was unaccredited – meaning they could not receive the licenses they needed to work in the sonography field in New Jersey.  

Locks Law attorney David Langfitt was recently interviewed by The National Alliance for Youth Sports' Sporting Kid Live as part of their Ask the Experts series. An expert on legal issues concerning youth sports, David discussed the laws that govern how pictures of youth athletes may be used and how parents can control this usage:

http://www.nays.org/sklive/ask-the-experts/youth-sports-and-the-law-how-photos-of-youth-athletes-are-used/

Congratulations to Michael Galpern, Andrew Bell, James Barry, and everyone else here at the Locks Law Firm who contributed to the recent granting of class certification in  Martinez-Santiago vs Public Storage. Class certification is the first step in a long battle, but it is a very important step.  Emboldened by increasingly corporate-friendly decision by the Courts, including SCOTUS, corporations now believe they can ignore important laws that have been passed which protect the rights of consumers. This anti-consumer client was recently detailed in a series of articles regarding mandatory arbitration in The New York Times. Locks Law Firm has long been in the forefront when it comes to holding such corporations accountable and protecting the rights of consumers, and we will continue to do so.

All Actos bladder cancer cases that were part of the Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) involving use of Actos prior to Dec. 1, 2011, and most other Actos cases filed elsewhere,  were settled as of April 28, 2015.  This includes all Actos clients who had retained Locks Law Firm to represent them as of that date.  The settlement includes nearly 9,000 cases for a total of $2.4 billion.  Completed claims packages with all required supporting documentation must be submitted by January 8, 2016.  The Locks Law Firm pharmaceutical team has been working diligently to meet this deadline and ensure that all of our Actos clients receive the highest possible offers.  It is not known how long it will take for all of the cases to be processed and paid, but we are hopeful that everything will be concluded in 2016.  Locks Law Firm continues to accept Actos cases for persons who used Actos prior to Dec. 1, 2011 and were diagnosed with bladder cancer within the last two years.

The Locks Law Firm is now investigating claims against e-cigarette "juice" manufacturers.  A recent Harvard study revealed that a number of manufacturers were selling juices which contained diacetyl and other chemicals without indicating the presence of those chemicals or including warnings related to those chemicals on their labels.  Two of the manufacturers in the study specifically represented that their products were "diacetyl free," while the Harvard study seems to indicate that the products did contain diacetyl.

This month the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added new warnings to the Type 2 diabetes medications known as SGLT2 Inhibitors.  In May of 20-15 FDA issued warnings that the use of these drugs could cause too much acid to be present in the blood, a condition called ketoacidosis. The updated warnings issued in December 2015 reinforce that patients and their doctors should be on the look-out for signs and symptoms of ketoacidosis which include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, tiredness and trouble breathing.

In over thirty years of practicing law only once has a film so inspired me that I felt compelled to discuss it in a speech to my entire firm.  That film was Michael Clayton, which was released in 2007 and starred George Clooney.

If you haven't seen this movie I highly recommend that you do.  If you have, and you would like a vivid reminder of the reason our society needs plaintiffs' attorneys, watch it again.  I am proud to be on the front lines in the battle against corporate corruption and greed.

Although I have watched very little television other than sports throughout my adult life, during the last few years, aided by the convenience of on demand, Netflix, and Amazon my wife and I have begun watching a few series. This year's choice is The Good Wife. Last night we watched the final episode of season six, last season, in which Alicia decides to start her own Law Firm and handle only cases that she truly believes in.

Watching that episode I was struck with how fortunate I am. The show implied that for an attorney to be able to represent only clients he or she believes in is rare luxury that very few are able to have.

A state court jury in Philadelphia has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $1.75 million dollars in damages to a young man who developed gynecomastia, or abnormal breast development, while taking the drug. The verdict compensates the young man for disfigurement and mental anguish, among other damages, and signifies a significant step forward for individuals and their families who were harmed by the drug.

By way of background, Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals division are accused of improperly marketing Risperdal for off-label uses and engaging in false and misleading promotional activities, negligently designing the medication, failing to warn consumers of the risks of the medication, and breaching warranties to consumers. In 2013, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion in criminal and civil fines to the Department of Justice to settle charges that the defendants improperly promoted the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.