Pre Employment Screening Articles

Between the ambulance chaser, frivolous lawsuits, corporate maneuvering, high finance, and other big dollar areas of our society which are controlled by attorneys, it’s no wonder that dead lawyer jokes are as common as peanuts on a Southwest 737.

It’s understandable. Consider our nation’s finest minds, our most brilliant and highly educated physicians. These are people have worked their way to the pinnacle of the most highly competitive and respected field of work on the planet. They can cure the obscure disease, reattach severed limbs, and banish pain. Yet these very same people cower in fear at a simple legal envelope bearing a return address containing the phrase “The Law Offices of…”

The sad fact of the matter is attorneys hold all the power in modern America, and that in bound to create some resentment.

Even so, I don’t know many people who would have wished yesterday’s events upon Jerry Curry. Mr. Curry is a 53 year old Van Nuys attorney who was shot multiple times on live TV at point blank range over a dispute in a probate case.

If you haven’t seen the video, it’s pretty incredible. The assailant, William Striler, walked up to Curry outside the Van Nuys courthouse and began shooting. Curry took refuge behind a small tree and attempted to duck and weave around gunshots being fired from less than one foot away. After a half dozen shots, Striler said, “That’s what you get for taking my money” and walked away.

According to news sources, the Striler’s story was this: he’d been injured in an accident a year ago, and had received a $100,000 settlement. These funds were earmarked for his physical therapy and rehabilitation. The court had put these funds into a trust and appointed a professional trustee to manage the money (this was probably done due to some physical or mental disability on Striler’s part).

Anyway, this court appointed trustee had been collecting money for “managing” the trust (which is completely legal). Striler wanted access to the funds, so he had to hire an attorney, which cost him money. The trustee then hired Mr. Curry to defend the trust. Mr. Curry was being paid by the trustee out of Mr. Striler’s own assets in the trust. So in essence, Striler’s money was involuntarily being sucked out by attorneys to defend against his own attempt to gain access to money that was rightfully his.

Now I would be the last one to defend Mr. Striler’s actions, but I have to admit that his frustration and story are a familiar one. And from what I know of the probate court system, I am surprised this sort of thing doesn’t happen more often.

Our legal system has many problems. This is no surprise. But this incident brings to light one of the least publicized ones: the slow pace at which the probate courts operate. When I say slow, I mean slow.

There are several court systems. For example, the criminal courts are probably the fastest–if you kill someone, you’ll get your day in court pretty quickly. A little slower are the civil courts. So if you sue someone for slander, you’ll get your day in court, but it might take a while. The tax courts are slower still. But the granddaddy of them all is the probate court. This is primarily a court system for the assets of people who have died. So speed is not required, right?

Wrong.

Sometimes people are waiting on those assets in order to do things like buy food or pay for medical care (which was apparently the case for Mr. Striler). If it sounds like I have some personal experience with this, I do.

In 1982, my father died. I was ten years old at the time. When he died, his will was admitted to probate. The case remained open for fifteen years. By the time it was over, one attorney had been suspended by the state bar, the original trustee was being investigated by the court, and I gone from fifth grade to being a college graduate and the final trustees for the estate. I won’t bore you with the details, but let’s just say it was a mess. What should have been a substantial estate was in ruins, and I walked away from the experience feeling that the legal system had done nothing but feed its own largesse by robbing a child after he was orphaned.

Even so, I can’t cast an aspersion against all attorneys. I’ve encountered some fantasic lawyers, two of which tried to bail my father’s estate out of the mess it was in. They did the best they could, and I will always remember their efforts. But the years of mismanagement and outright illegal conduct by certain parties had taken their toll.

Beyond the criminal conduct in my father’s estate, there are numerous other problems with the current probate court. The trustee situation is one of them. Right now, courts can appoint a professional trustee to run things. The problem is that they collect fees for their services, fees that in many cases can bleed away the assets until there is nothing left for the beneficiary except a mountain of paperwork. When I became executor of my father’s estate, I did so primarily because my attorney told me that if I didn’t the court would appoint one and there would be nothing left by the time the fees were paid. So fresh out of college, I got to step right into the middle of a decade-old legal battle.

The probate courts are also extremely slow, unresponsive, and the oversight of trustees, executors, and attorneys is solely lacking, as is appropriate punishment for those in the legal system who violate the law.

The past is the past. No sense dwelling on it. But as I said, I can understand Mr. Striler’s aggrevation with a probate case.

In the best of all possible worlds, this shooting would end with justice for Mr. Striler and a big dose of reform for our probate courts. If history is any indication, through, it will probably end with a lot of sensationalistic news clips for CNN and a visit to Oprah for Mr. Curry.

And so it goes.

Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company

By John Eckberg (Cincinnati Enquirer)

The Cincinnati Enquirer

A new Ohio law that allows people to carry concealed weapons might give some soon-to-be-armed individuals a greater sense of security - but it’s creating headaches for many employers.

The measure, which goes into effect Thursday, already has forced hundreds if not thousands of Ohio companies to remove or rewrite rules that prohibit or regulate weaponry in the workplace.

“Every client who has called - and that’s several dozen - every one wants to know how to bar weapons from their workplace,” said Jackie Ford, a partner at the law firm Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease.

“We have yet to hear from a client who says, ‘How can I have concealed weapons in the workplace? Please, that would be great.’

“This is legislation that has been written on a napkin.”

The law allows concealed weapons to be brought into every workplace - except government buildings, day-care centers, airports and bars - unless employers notify visitors and employees at the entrance that a weapons ban is in place.

Sponsored by state Rep. Jim Aslanides, a Republican from Coshocton, the law allows sheriffs to issue gun permits. Among the requirements, Ohioans must not be felons and they must complete a criminal background check and a safety-training course and pass a test.

Gun-free zones

Last month, Procter & Gamble Co. sent an e-mail to all its employees to notify them that the concealed handgun law was signed into law and would go into effect April 8.

The company’s workplace violence prevention policy prohibits workers or visitors from bringing weaponry onto P&G property.

That policy will not change.

“We reminded our employees of the longstanding principle we have of maintaining a safe and healthy environment for individuals,” P&G spokesman Terry Loftus said.

The company will not post signs about weaponry. Instead, P&G will post on visitor cards and sign-in sheets the policy against concealed handguns on company property.

Loth MBI Inc., which provides workplace solutions and sells office furniture and accessories at its Sharonville headquarters, will ban weapons at the facility and prohibit employees from taking them to clients’ workplaces.

“We intend to post signs - probably in the employee lounge and on the doors at employee entrances,” said Joe Elfers, chief financial officer for Loth MBI, which employs 110.

That is likely to be the approach, too, at Clark DD-A, a Sharonville-based distributor of industrial engines and transmissions.

“It has long been our company policy to prohibit handguns, and that’s not going to change,” said George Wunderlich, customer support manager.

Executives at Clark DD-A are debating how to notify visitors of the ban. “We will probably post a sign,” Wunderlich said. “That’s probably the only way to advise first-time customers.”

A workplace safety policy is in place at SS&G Financial Services, which employs 25 people at the Montgomery office, and it bans concealed weapons in the workplace, said Rebecca Osborne, director of human resources for the public accounting firm.

The office has not yet decided whether the ban will be posted to alert visitors.

And at Terry Lee Chevrolet in the Kings Auto Mall in Deerfield Township, general manager Mel Lehrner said a handbook for the 85 employees has been amended to reflect the new law and the old policy against handguns.

“We will post on our doors that we don’t want people in our establishment who are concealing and carrying weapons,” Lehrner said. “We want to protect our employees and customers. If (customers) have a gun, they can leave it out in their car.”

Sense of security

Among the workplace implications for the Ohio law:

. Employers will decide whether they want guns on their premises and whether they want someone who brings a gun onto their property to face criminal liability.

. Employers who operate company parking areas will have to decide whether to allow employees to have guns in their cars.

. Retailers and others whose businesses are open to the public may have to post signs if they do not want armed individuals on site.

. Employers may have to negotiate with unions regarding any changes to current policies.

. Employers have immunity for injuries caused by an individual who brings a licensed handgun onto property unless the employer acted with “malicious purpose” in the incident.

One workplace that is not going to post signs or notices banning weapons is Madisonville-based Cincinnati Motor Car, which specializes in repairing cars made by BMW and Mercedes-Benz.

“I think the law will reduce the crime rate,” said John Brindle, 56, who owns Cincinnati Motor Car.

“Crimes of opportunity may be reduced. The perpetrators might have to think twice. There will be less crime when people have second thoughts.”

On a personal note, Brindle said, he will feel safer walking his Alaskan Malamute, Misby, at night in his Hartwell neighborhood. He and his dog were attacked in 2001 by a loose pit bull named Sweet Pea, which he could have shot had he been allowed to carry a gun.

“You talk about feeling defenseless. It almost killed my dog - and I have a very big dog,” he said. “I had my hands in the pit bull’s mouth that night. That’s not a very safe feeling.”

Handguns at Cincinnati Motor Car are out of sight but commonplace, said Brindle’s wife, Sharon, the company’s office manager.

In fact, the Brindles worry about legalities if they decided to ban weapons from workers, customers or visitors.

“If a person had to leave his gun in a car and is harmed because of that, wouldn’t he have a great lawsuit?” she said. “I’d think the shop owner would be wide open to litigation.”

While the Ohio measure goes into effect Thursday, Kentucky passed a law in 1996 that offered permits for residents to carry concealed weapons.

Brian Hendricks, 32, of Campbell County, does not own a weapon, but he doesn’t worry about others carrying weapons to work.

He is a drywall installer and says that as long as there is a Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he would not be surprised if people around him at work were armed.

“Every American has the right to protect himself,” Hendricks said.

Powered by Info Cubic - a pre employment screening company