Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mass.
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N.Carolina
N.Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S.Carolina
S.Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W.Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Law Firm Website Design Companies : The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


by breakinglegalnews.com

Hawaii’s Supreme Court recently made a significant ruling that allows a $4 billion settlement regarding the catastrophic 2023 Maui wildfire to move forward.

This settlement, which involves thousands of lawsuits and various defendants, had been in jeopardy due to the insurance companies seeking the right to pursue their own legal actions against those blamed for the fire, including Hawaiian Electric Company. The court ruled that state laws limiting health care insurance reimbursement also apply to casualty and property insurance, preventing insurers from filing independent claims.

The wildfire, the deadliest in the U.S. in over a century, destroyed much of Lahaina, Hawaii, causing over $5.5 billion in damages and claiming more than 100 lives. The settlement, announced last summer, was initially threatened by the insurers’ demands, but the court’s decision helps clear a crucial hurdle for the victims’ attorneys who feared prolonged litigation and less money available for victims.

Attorneys representing the individual plaintiffs agreed to the deal amid fears that main defendant Hawaiian Electric, the power company blamed for sparking the blaze, could be on the brink of bankruptcy. Other defendants include the state, Maui County and Kamehameha Schools, the largest private landowner in Hawaii.

As of now, the settlement includes seven defendants, including Hawaiian Electric, Maui County, the state of Hawaii, and Kamehameha Schools. While the $4 billion figure is seen as insufficient to fully compensate victims for their losses, it is considered the best option given the financial limitations of the main defendant, Hawaiian Electric. The next steps will be determined by a Maui judge, and this ruling is seen as a significant move toward recovery and healing for the affected communities.



by breakinglegalnews.com

In a bold move, top officials within the Trump administration are openly challenging the judiciary’s role in overseeing executive power. In the last 24 hours, prominent figures like Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance have not only criticized a judge’s recent decision to block Musk’s team from accessing Treasury records, but have also questioned the legitimacy of judicial checks and balances.

Vance took to social media, comparing judicial interference with executive power to a hypothetical situation where a judge would dictate military or prosecutorial decisions. Musk, meanwhile, echoed Vance’s sentiments, calling for the impeachment of the judge involved and even shared a controversial post suggesting the administration might defy the court order altogether.

The case centers around Musk’s efforts to uncover government waste through the Department of Government Efficiency. However, the court temporarily halted his team’s access to sensitive Treasury Department data, citing potential legal violations. The ruling is a setback to the administration’s broader goal of dismantling government agencies and reducing the federal workforce.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller added fuel to the fire, calling the ruling an “assault on democracy” while decrying the influence of unelected bureaucrats within the government.

This legal pushback comes amid growing resistance to Trump’s sweeping agenda, including efforts to stop mass buyouts and federal leave mandates. With a February 14 hearing looming, the administration faces a tough road ahead as it battles to implement its ambitious reforms.

In the meantime, critics, including Democratic attorneys general, warn that Musk’s access to sensitive financial systems could undermine public trust and legal boundaries. The dispute is far from over, and the future of the administration’s plans rests on the outcome of this heated legal fight.



by breakinglegalnews.com


President Donald Trump's recent actions to assert extensive presidential power during his term have raised questions about potential judicial checks, with several policies likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal scholars note that Trump's efforts, including attempts to restrict birthright citizenship, curtail funding, and disband federal agencies, represent a significant stretch of executive authority.

Trump's administration has initiated dozens of lawsuits that could challenge these decisions, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional boundaries between executive and legislative powers.

The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, has previously favored Trump, supporting his broad claims of presidential immunity and other key rulings. However, scholars predict mixed outcomes for Trump's policies, believing some, like birthright citizenship restrictions, may be invalidated due to constitutional protections.

As Trump faces numerous lawsuits, including from FBI agents and families concerned about transgender youth healthcare, the judiciary becomes the key check on presidential power, especially as Congress, controlled by Republicans, has largely avoided challenging his unilateral actions.

With lawmakers aligning with his demands to cut spending and remove government watchdogs, the courts remain the last line of defense against presidential overreach.

The court's position as a potential check on executive power remains uncertain amid the ongoing legal battles.




by breakinglegalnews.com

The order says the U.S. will impose “tangible and significant consequences” on those responsible for the ICC’s “transgressions.” Actions may include blocking property and assets and not allowing ICC officials, employees and relatives to enter the United States.

Human rights activists said sanctioning court officials would have a chilling effect and run counter to U.S. interests in other conflict zones where the court is investigating.

“Victims of human rights abuses around the world turn to the International Criminal Court when they have nowhere else to go, and President Trump’s executive order will make it harder for them to find justice,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “The order also raises serious First Amendment concerns because it puts people in the United States at risk of harsh penalties for helping the court identify and investigate atrocities committed anywhere, by anyone.”

Hogle said the order “is an attack on both accountability and free speech.”

Driving that turnaround was Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who organized meetings in Washington, New York and Europe between Khan and GOP lawmakers who have been among the court’s fiercest critics.

Now, Graham says he feels betrayed by Khan — and is vowing to crush the court as well as the economy of any country that tries to enforce the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.

The executive order signed by President Trump imposes sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to its investigations involving Israel, specifically regarding an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes.

The sanctions are aimed at ICC officials, including their families, and include actions such as blocking assets and barring entry into the United States. This move is in line with the U.S.'s longstanding opposition to the ICC, given that neither the U.S. nor Israel recognizes its authority. Critics, however, argue that the sanctions undermine efforts to hold individuals accountable for human rights abuses worldwide and may inhibit justice for victims of atrocities.


by breakinglegalnews.com

A hearing in a New Mexico courtroom devolved into chaos when three people rushed the defendant in a homicide case, setting off a brawl with flying fists and kicks.

Courtroom video cameras recorded the Jan. 31 melee, which subsided as a law enforcement officer drew a stun gun and protected the defendant from further attack.

Felony charges were filed against two men: battery and assault on a public official.

A woman was also arrested on the same charges, Albuquerque TV station KRQE reported Thursday. The courtroom video showed her hitting the defendant and an officer with a chair.

The presence of corrections officers and other security details in courtrooms does not always keep the peace. Last year a defendant in a felony battery case in Nevada flung himself over a judge’s bench and grabbed her hair, sparking a bloody brawl with court officials.

Katina Watson, court executive officer at New Mexico’s Second Judicial District, told KRQE that “these are the types of things that we see regularly.”

She praised an officer for reacting to ensure safety, without mention of potential security enhancements.

General Historical Trends

  1. Consistently Above National Averages

    • New Mexico has historically experienced higher-than-average crime rates compared to many other U.S. states. This has been true for both property crimes (like burglary and vehicle theft) and violent crimes (like aggravated assault and homicide).
  2. 1990s

    • Across the United States, including New Mexico, violent crime rates were relatively high in the early 1990s. New Mexico followed the national trend of a steady decline in violent crime through the mid-to-late 1990s.
    • Property crime also began to decrease nationally during this time, although in some parts of New Mexico, it remained elevated compared to the U.S. average.
  3. 2000s

    • Through the early 2000s, national crime rates continued a general downward trend. New Mexico’s crime rates mirrored that pattern to some extent, but the state consistently reported higher rates than the national average.
    • Metropolitan areas—especially Albuquerque—tended to account for a sizable portion of reported offenses, including both violent crime and property crime.
  4. Late 2000s to Early 2010s

    • The national decline in crime continued in many states, though New Mexico had periods where certain offenses, particularly property crimes (like auto theft), rose.
    • Violent crime rates in New Mexico also fluctuated. Some years saw moderate declines, but the overall rate stayed somewhat higher than the national level.
  5. Mid-2010s

    • Reports showed an uptick in violent crime in several parts of the country, including New Mexico. Cities such as Albuquerque saw increases in both violent incidents and property crimes.
    • Factors contributing to local crime trends can include economic changes, fluctuations in drug activity, and broader social issues.
  6. Late 2010s

    • New Mexico began implementing various crime-prevention initiatives and criminal justice reforms to address consistently high rates.
    • While certain categories of crime showed improvement, others—especially property crimes—remained challenges in specific regions.

Factors Influencing Crime in New Mexico

  • Socioeconomic Conditions: Poverty and unemployment can correlate with higher crime rates. Rural areas in New Mexico also face unique challenges, such as limited access to mental health and addiction resources.
  • Substance Abuse and Drug Trafficking: Drug-related offenses and activities tied to opioid or methamphetamine use have significantly impacted crime trends.
  • Policing and Criminal Justice Policies: Changes in law enforcement practices, sentencing guidelines, and community policing can all influence crime rates over time.
  • Population Density and Urban Centers: Higher crime rates typically cluster in urban areas. Albuquerque, the state’s largest city, often reports a significant share of New Mexico’s overall crime statistics.

Key Takeaways

  • Longstanding High Rates: New Mexico has commonly ranked above the national average in both violent and property crime for decades.
  • Variable Trends: Although the overall U.S. crime rate declined significantly from the 1990s through the mid-2010s, New Mexico’s rates have fluctuated, sometimes mirroring national trends and sometimes diverging.
  • Concentrated Hotspots: Urban centers, especially Albuquerque, account for a sizable portion of reported crimes in the state.
  • Complex Influences: Economic conditions, substance abuse, and changes in policing policies all play important roles in shaping crime rates.


by breakinglegalnews.com

The deportation of 104 Indian migrants from the U.S. has sparked significant controversy, leading to disruptions in India’s Parliament. The migrants were reportedly shackled during their flight, which prompted strong protests from opposition lawmakers. They described the conditions as degrading, with some of the deportees struggling to use the washroom due to the restraints.

The use of a U.S. military plane for the deportation marked a shift in procedure, as the Trump administration had previously relied on commercial and chartered flights for such actions. This new method of using military planes drew attention due to the reports of the shackling, particularly because it involved long periods of restraint.

Indian lawmakers, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, called the treatment inhumane, displaying placards and chanting slogans in Parliament. They demanded an explanation from the Indian government and called for dignity and humane treatment for the deportees. Gandhi posted on social media, emphasizing that Indians deserved better than handcuffs.

In response, India's External Affairs Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, stated that the U.S. regulations on restraints had been in place since 2012. He clarified that women and children were not restrained and that the procedures used during the flight were consistent with past practices. Jaishankar also highlighted that India’s focus should be on addressing the issue of illegal migration, which has led to an uptick in arrests along the U.S.-Canada border, particularly among migrants from Punjab and Gujarat.

Despite the protests, the Indian government has maintained that while it opposes illegal immigration, it does not object to the deportations. The controversy continues, particularly with Prime Minister Modi’s upcoming visit to Washington, where discussions on immigration are expected to continue.



by breakinglegalnews.com

The Justice Department’s initial stop-work order on January 22 placed a temporary halt on four federally funded programs designed to provide guidance and assistance to individuals facing deportation. These programs were critical in helping people understand their rights and navigate the complex immigration courts and detention processes.

The reversal, just days later, came after nonprofit groups, including the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that suspending these programs would lead to violations of due process and further burden already backlogged immigration courts. The consequences were immediate: in Detroit, for example, the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center had to post a notice at the immigration court indicating that its help desk services were suspended, leaving many without support as they awaited hearings.

This back-and-forth reflects the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement policies and the rights of individuals in the system, particularly those who may not have the resources or knowledge to effectively advocate for themselves. Given that immigration law is incredibly complex, these programs were not just a form of assistance—they were a vital safety net to ensure that people could fully participate in their hearings, understand their legal options, and challenge deportation orders if applicable.

The case also underscores how shifts in policy can have immediate and widespread consequences for those already vulnerable in the legal process. This incident is a reminder of the critical role nonprofit organizations play in filling gaps where government resources might fall short.

Despite the loss of federal funding, staff from the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights went to a Virginia detention center to provide services the day after the stop-work order. They had spoken to about two dozen people when detention center staff escorted them out, telling them they could no longer provide those services, Amica executive director Michael Lukens said.

After the stop-work order, the organization was providing scaled-down services, but they were unsure how long they would be able to continue that with the gap left by federal funding cuts, spokesperson Tara Tidwell Cullen said last week.

Several organizations had been told that posters informing people of their services and information about legal help hotlines have been removed from detention centers.

Congress allocates $29 million a year for the four programs — the Legal Orientation Program, the Immigration Court Helpdesk, the Family Group Legal Orientation and the Counsel for Children Initiative — funding that’s spread among various groups across the country providing the services, Lukens said, adding that the programs have broad bipartisan support. The amount is the same regardless of the number of people they’re helping, and the organizations often do additional fundraising to cover their costs, he said.

Trump previously targeted these programs during his first term, but things moved more quickly this time around.

In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the funding would be pulled from the programs, but the threat of legal action by a coalition of organizations that provide the services, as well as bipartisan support from members of Congress, caused the Justice Department to reverse course.




by breakinglegalnews.com

President Donald Trump signed the first bill of his new administration on Wednesday—a piece of legislation bearing the name of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student whose tragic death galvanized supporters during his White House campaign.

Trump expressed gratitude for the bipartisan support that marked this inaugural legislative effort since his January 20 inauguration. The law, known as the Laken Riley Act, mandates that federal officials detain unauthorized immigrants accused of crimes ranging from theft to acts of violence. The measure garnered support in both the House and Senate, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) present at the signing ceremony at the White House.

Laken Riley’s story lends a poignant note to the act. At 22, while running on February 22, 2024, Riley—a student at Augusta University College of Nursing—was fatally attacked by Jose Antonio Ibarra. Prosecutors detailed that during a struggle, Ibarra killed Riley, later choosing to waive his right to a jury trial. A judge, acting as the sole arbiter in the case, found Ibarra guilty of murder and other related crimes, sentencing him to life without parole.

In the fallout from her death, Trump and other Republicans have pointed fingers at former President Joe Biden. They contend that Ibarra, who had been arrested for illegal entry near El Paso, Texas in September 2022 amid a surge in migration, was released to pursue his case in immigration court—a decision they argue indirectly paved the way for the tragedy. “If this act had been the law of the land, he never would have had the opportunity to kill her,” stated Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican from Georgia.

Laken Riley’s name has also surfaced in broader discussions on immigration policy. Biden referenced her during his last State of the Union address when addressing border security, a moment further amplified when U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene passionately urged, “Say her name!”

Under the Laken Riley Act, any migrant arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, or offenses resulting in injury or death must be detained. “If you come into this country illegally and you commit a crime, you should not be free to roam the streets of this nation,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who was instrumental in shepherding the bill through the Senate.

Moreover, the act empowers state attorneys general to sue the federal government for any harm caused by shortcomings or decisions in immigration enforcement—whether that’s releasing migrants from custody or neglecting to detain those with deportation orders. This aspect of the legislation provides states with a measure of control over immigration policy, reflecting ongoing disputes with executive decisions during both the Trump and Biden administrations.

In essence, the Laken Riley Act stands as both a tribute to a young life lost too soon and a firm policy stance on immigration, encapsulating a significant moment in the current political landscape.


by breakinglegalnews.com

The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing significant challenges after the U.S. decision to withdraw from the U.N. health agency, as highlighted during a recent meeting where global leaders and diplomats urged the U.S. to reverse this move. The WHO relies heavily on U.S. funding, and with the U.S. contributing an estimated $988 million for 2024-2025—around 14% of its total budget—there are growing concerns about how the agency will manage without this vital financial support.

The U.S. contribution plays a central role in funding WHO’s health emergencies program, including efforts in regions like the Middle East, Ukraine, and Sudan. The U.S. also finances a significant portion of the WHO’s tuberculosis work in Europe, Africa, and the Western Pacific. The withdrawal of these funds has left WHO scrambling to address the shortfall, with warnings that critical programs such as polio-eradication and HIV treatment may suffer as a result.

At a recent budget meeting, Germany's envoy, Bjorn Kummel, expressed urgency, saying, "The roof is on fire, and we need to stop the fire as soon as possible." Meanwhile, WHO has struggled to collect owed funds from the U.S. for 2024, leaving the agency facing a deficit as it continues to operate without full financial backing.

The situation is expected to remain a topic of discussion through WHO's executive board session, running until February 11, with health ministers from around the world determining the next steps to address the funding gap left by the U.S. withdrawal.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for promoting global health, coordinating international health efforts, and setting standards for public health practices. Its mission is to ensure that all people, regardless of their location, have access to the highest possible level of health and well-being.

WHO's main functions include:

  1. Providing leadership on global health matters and shaping the health research agenda.
  2. Setting international health standards and regulations, such as guidelines on vaccinations, disease control, and food safety.
  3. Coordinating responses to health emergencies like outbreaks of diseases (e.g., Ebola, COVID-19).
  4. Supporting countries in strengthening their health systems, preventing diseases, and improving health outcomes through technical assistance, training, and funding.
  5. Monitoring and assessing global health trends, like tracking disease outbreaks and assessing health risks worldwide.

WHO is funded by contributions from its member states, and it works with countries, governments, health experts, and partners globally to achieve its health goals.



by breakinglegalnews.com

President Trump’s decision to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, alongside a 10% tariff on goods from China, marks a significant escalation in U.S. trade policy. This move, effective immediately, is likely to impact both the targeted countries and U.S. consumers, as tariffs typically lead to higher prices on goods imported from these nations.

Trump’s justification for these tariffs largely centers on issues like illegal immigration and the illicit fentanyl trade, though they are also positioned as part of a broader strategy to boost domestic manufacturing. However, these tariffs could potentially backfire by increasing costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, especially in sectors like energy, automotive, and agriculture, where Mexico, Canada, and China are key trading partners.

The international reaction has been swift, with both Mexico and Canada planning retaliatory tariffs, and China signaling its intention to take legal action through the World Trade Organization (WTO). This could spark a trade war that could destabilize not only the economies of the targeted nations but also that of the United States. The situation is complex and could lead to further economic uncertainty if tensions continue to escalate.

This move by President Trump, imposing substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, certainly stirs up a lot of economic and political debate. While the president's main justification for the tariffs is to combat illegal immigration and the fentanyl trade, the potential economic impact is significant. A 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on goods from China could lead to higher prices for consumers, particularly in sectors like energy, automotive, and agriculture. This could end up reversing some of the gains made in lowering inflation, which was one of Trump's major talking points.

The retaliatory measures from Mexico, Canada, and China are likely to escalate tensions, potentially leading to a full-blown trade war. The effects of this could ripple through global supply chains, increase the cost of living for U.S. consumers, and cause instability in international trade relations.

The political fallout is also worth noting. Many critics, including Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, argue that Trump is attacking U.S. allies when the focus should be on China, which has been a longstanding trade rival. It seems like this strategy could backfire, especially with voters who were hoping for more economic stability and lower costs.

It will be interesting to see how these developments unfold and whether Trump's administration can navigate the potential economic storm without alienating too many domestic and international stakeholders.


by breakinglegalnews.com

Trump has dismissed Rohit Chopra, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), marking another move to clear out Biden administration holdovers.

Chopra, who remained in his position as one of the last key figures from the previous Democratic administration, was responsible for several significant regulatory actions. These included removing medical debt from credit reports and imposing limits on overdraft penalties—efforts aimed at making the financial system fairer and more competitive, benefiting consumers. However, many in the financial industry viewed these initiatives as excessive government intervention.

In a social media post on Saturday, Chopra expressed gratitude to those who shared their experiences with the CFPB, acknowledging their role in holding powerful companies accountable. He also thanked the public for helping improve the agency’s work.

Chopra was originally appointed by Trump to serve as a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission during his first term.

In his farewell letter, Chopra mentioned that the CFPB was prepared to work with the Trump administration on several initiatives, including rules designed to block foreign entities like Russia and China from using data brokers to spy on Americans. He also highlighted policies aimed at protecting individuals from losing banking access based on their political or religious views. Additionally, the bureau analyzed Trump’s campaign proposal to cap credit card interest rates.

Chopra was informed of his firing by email, according to an anonymous source familiar with the matter. Although Chopra was meant to serve a five-year term, he had publicly stated that he would step down if the new president asked.

Chopra’s departure highlights ongoing tensions between Trump’s push to reduce regulations for businesses and his populist appeals to voters. When Chopra remained in his post after Trump took office, critics in the financial sector called for his removal, saying the president needed to act quickly.




[Image Credit: Pexel]

by breakinglegalnews.com

A conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice announced Thursday that he will not participate in a case that could determine whether tens of thousands of public sector workers regain collective bargaining rights lost under a 2011 law.

Justice Brian Hagedorn, who played a key role in drafting the law known as Act 10 while serving as chief legal counsel for then-Gov. Scott Walker, has recused himself from the case. His decision leaves the court with four liberal justices and two conservatives.

Earlier this week, the Republican-controlled Legislature requested that liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz also step aside, citing her past opposition to Act 10. Before joining the court, she had called the law unconstitutional, signed a petition to recall Walker, and participated in protests at the Capitol in 2011.

In a brief two-page order, Hagedorn stated that legal ethics required his recusal. Democratic lawmakers had urged him to withdraw from the case on Tuesday.

“The issues raised involve matters for which I provided legal counsel in both the initial crafting and later defense of Act 10, including in a case raising nearly identical claims under the federal constitution,” Hagedorn wrote.

Justice Janet Protasiewicz has not responded to calls for her recusal. However, even if she were to step aside, the court would still hold a 3-2 liberal majority.

On Thursday, Protasiewicz did not participate in an incremental ruling related to the case.

Last month, a Dane County Circuit judge struck down most of Act 10, ruling that it violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal protection guarantees by categorizing public employees into “general” and “public safety” workers. The ruling would restore collective bargaining rights to all public sector employees who lost them under the 2011 law.

However, the judge placed the ruling on hold pending an appeal. The school workers’ unions that filed the lawsuit have asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, bypassing the appeals court. The justices have not yet decided whether to hear it.

Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. Affordable law firm web design company
   More Legal News
   Legal Spotlight
   Exclusive Commentaries
   Attorney & Blog - Blog Watch
   Law Firm News  1  2  3  4  5  6 
   More Law Firm Blogs
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
Family Law in East Greenwich, RI
Divorce Lawyer, Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com
Lane County, OR DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
New York Surrogacy Lawyers
New York Adoption Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
Chicago, Naperville IL Workers' Compensation Lawyers
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Raleigh, NC Business Lawyer
www.rothlawgroup.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
Immigration Attorney in Los Angeles, California
Family Immigration Attorney
www.brianohlaw.com/english
   More Legal News  1  2  3  4  5  6
   Legal News Links
  Click The Law
  Daily Bar News
  The Legal Report
  Legal News Post
  Crisis Legal News
  Legal News Journal
  Korean Web Agency
  Law Firm Directory