Archive for the ‘law’ Tag
Thomas J. Andersen was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015 in the field of real estate (Copyright 2014 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.) for the 8th time.
Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Trinity Hundredmark recently appeared as a legal analyst on Nancy Grace on HLN.
A criminal defense and family law attorney and Partner at Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C., Trinity discussed the case of little Alexa Linboom, a 5-year old Tennessee girl who was forced to guzzle the grape soda and water after she took “one or two grape drinks” that belonged to her stepmother. She was allegedly force-fed so much liquid that it caused the sodium level in her body to go down and caused her brain to swell. She died as a result.
Trinity also discussed a case involving Sick Kids Hospital of Toronto, who allegedly overdosed a teenage boy with 7 drugs in 7 hours. These drugs were nearly life threatening and were given without any prior testing or blood work completed by the hospital and despite objections by the boys’ parents.
Catch her tonight on HLN from 3-6 as she sits on Verdict Watch in the Michael Dunn trial.
Waterscape, [represented by Andersen, Tate & Carr attorneys R. Matthew Reeves and Robert D. Thomas], [recently asked the] Forsyth County Superior Court Judge David Dickinson to disqualify [attorney George] Butler from representing the [opposing party], on the basis that Butler had been a lawyer for Waterscape.
Waterscape sought dismissal of the appeals, saying that the disqualification order was not a final order, meaning that Butler and his clients had to obtain a certificate of immediate review or follow the application procedures for an interlocutory appeal. Butler’s clients argued that there was a conflict in Georgia case law on whether a disqualification order is directly appealable.
[In reviewing the brief filed by Mr. Reeves and Mr. Thomas], the Nov. 13 opinion by Court of Appeals Judge Lisa Branch, joined by Chief Judge Herbert Phipps and Judge John Ellington…sided with Waterscape, ruling that Butler and his clients could not appeal the disqualification order at this point in the litigation.
The cases are Settendown Public Utility v. Waterscape Utility, No. A13A0830, and Butler v. Waterscape Utility, No. A13A0831.
– photos and summary courtesy of the Daily Report (Nov. 19, 2013).
On March 21, 2013, thanks to the efforts of Tom Tate and other members of the defense team a federal judge in Louisiana decertified a class of plaintiffs who accuse Viking Range Corp. and its distributors of making slipshod appliances in order to create opportunities for repair work, finding the group of products being labeled defective was overly broad and could not be shoehorned into a single case.
Today marks the 25th anniversary of Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.
Originally founded as Thomas J. Andersen, P.C. in March of 1988 the firm has grown and evolved over the years, increasing in specialization while always maintaining a high standard of professionalism and work product. Tom, Ethel Andersen, and Terri Tesler (Tom’s paralegal) can all boast of having been here from the start, with Tom Tate joining after the first months of the firm’s existence.
For more on the firm, please visit our website at http://www.atclawfirm.com/.
Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C. is proud to announce that Donald L. Swift, III has been elected by the shareholders to serve as Managing Partner of the firm. “Don is an excellent lawyer and with his strong communication skills, personal decency and integrity, and understanding of our corporate culture, he has the respect of all of the partners here. I know he will perform superbly in this challenging role and will carry on our tradition of strong and effective managing partners,” says firm founder, Thomas J. Andersen.
Don succeeds Tom Tate, who completed his second term as Managing Partner. “With his background in both law and business, Don is the perfect choice to take over as managing partner. I am confident he will help lead us to continued growth and success in the coming years,” says Tate.
Don is a shareholder in the litigation department of Andersen, Tate & Carr. In addition to his new managerial responsibilities, Don will continue to practice in the area of complex civil litigation and dispute resolution. “I am excited about this new opportunity to lead Andersen, Tate & Carr into the future. We are poised for growth and looking for new ways to serve both our existing and prospective clients.”
About to celebrate its 25th anniversary, Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C. was founded in 1988. In that time the firm has grown from two to almost thirty attorneys and over sixty employees, making it the largest business law firm in Gwinnett County. The firm’s roots in Gwinnett County reach back much further; however, as some of its attorneys have practiced here since the mid-1970s. Andersen, Tate & Carr has become one of the preeminent law firms in suburban Atlanta by offering unparalleled legal representation in a wide variety of practice areas, such as real estate & banking, corporate & business transactions, civil litigation, land use & development, estate planning, criminal defense, and family law.
Brad Carr remarked, “I think the election of Don Swift as the new Managing Partner is simply further evidence of the continued growth of the firm and our practice. As the firm celebrates its first 25 years, I believe we have positioned ourselves to continue to be one of the premier law firms in the region for the next 25 years.” In recent years, Andersen, Tate & Carr’s reputation has spread beyond its base in Gwinnett County, to a practice that encompasses metro Atlanta. Today, the firm stands as one of the area’s most respected law firms, matching the expertise and sophistication of a “Downtown Firm” with “Small Town Firm” personal attention and dedication to its clients’ needs. The firm also encourages its attorneys and staff to take an active role in their community and to give back through community service, and civic and charitable activities throughout the year.
We all know that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), non-exempt workers should be paid for all work hours, including time spent on tasks which may be outside of their core employment obligations – such as training, meetings, education and travel between worksites. A novel question on this topic cropped up in our employment practice recently, and we thought it worth sharing the answer we found.
A service industry client had been conducting in-house training for its non-exempt employees on a quarterly basis for years. The training was related to the employees’ jobs – keeping their skills up-to-date and fresh. However, these training sessions had always been unpaid. Nobody had ever complained; indeed, the work-based training was viewed as a perk by most employees – an investment in their professional development. However, it was clear that this would have to be corrected going forward, at a not-inconsiderable cost. The question was how to minimize this new cost to the business.
There are several options for correcting a wage and hour issue like this one. The first is to simply pay for the training hours going forward at each employee’s regular rate. This option proved too expensive for our client. The next option was to reduce each employee’s hourly rate, and compensate them for the training hours (paying them approximately the same amounts overall, on a quarterly basis, but with a reduced hourly rate of pay). This would be a tough sell to existing employees, however, as it looks like a pay cut on paper. It would also impact recruitment negatively. The third option was to compensate all non-exempt employees for training hours at minimum wage. Although unorthodox, this is permissible under the FLSA. There is no requirement that all work be compensated at the same rate – less profitable tasks can be compensated at a lower rate, as long as overtime and minimum wage rules are observed and as long as the employee has notice of how each task will be compensated.
The client issued a notice to all non-exempt employees, stating that from that point forward, all training hours would be compensated at minimum wage. Although this did not correct the compliance issue entirely (in order to do that, the employer would have to issue two years’ back-pay [at the employees’ regular rate of pay] for training hours). However, with that that solution being cost prohibitive, the prospective solution chosen by the client was a perfectly reasonable “next best thing”.
Keep in mind, though, that a good knowledge of the applicable regulations is necessary to navigate the facts in any situation, and just because this solution worked for this client, it may not work for you. If you are facing a situation like this one we urge you to obtain legal counsel to ensure compliance.
Do you want to use this blog article?
You may, as long as you include this complete bio with it:
Eadaoin Waller is a Georgia attorney, focusing her practice in corporate law.
Her firm, Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C., works with all manner of clients in business and personal matters, providing “big firm” sophistication with suburban law firm attention and service.
Copyright © 2013 Eadaoin Waller & Andersen, Tate & Carr, P.C.