Best Lawyer Videos

Kingsley & Kingsley is an Encino, Calif.-based law firm dedicated to serving individuals and their families in the Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento areas and throughout California in employment matters, personal injuries suffered at the fault of another, or insurance company benefits? denials.

The Los Angeles unpaid wages lawyers at Kingsley & Kingsley stand ready to handle even complex litigation cases that may involve class-action suits. In 1981, when the firm?s doors opened, they set out to help people harmed by wrongdoing or negligence caused by American corporations. With the motto ?Dedicated to fighting corporate wrongdoing,? the firm commits itself to protection of individual rights in the workplace, such as the right to earned wages, overtime compensation, safe working conditions, and adequate rest and break periods.

Led by Eric B. Kingsley, the lawyers and team can be reached at the City National Bank Building, 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200, Encino, CA 91436, (818) 990-8300, or toll-free at (888) 840-5118 for a free consultation (Spanish translation available).

Transcript of video:

If you?ve been wronged by an employer or insurance company, or have been the victim of a personal injury, you need the experienced and caring legal representation from the attorneys at Kingsley and Kingsley. Since 1981, we?ve been dedicated to helping people across California harmed by the negligence or wrongdoing of corporate America. We help you fight corporate rip-offs. Our attorneys know the importance of swift justice, and are here to help you recover what you deserve as quickly as possible. So give me call for a free consultation to see if we can help you make things right.

In January 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law.

Though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Goodyear in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case, Lilly Ledbetter‘s effort to be paid the same as men doing equivalent jobs yielded new protections for American workers.

This clip, hosted by actor Bradley Whitford, tells her story.

Lilly Ledbetter began work at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Alabama on February 5, 1979. After 16 years of employment with the company, she received an anonymous tip: men at the factory doing the same job as she was were being paid more.

By 1997, when she learned about the pay difference, Lilly Ledbetter made $44,700 a year. Men doing the same work made as much as 25% more.

While local courts ruled in Ledbetter‘s favor, Goodyear appealed, and the case made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito delivered the Court‘s decision, stating that according to Title VII, discriminatory intent must take place within 180 days of being alleged Â? meaning only Ledbetter‘s recent-most paycheck was in play, and whether or not she was being discriminated against would need to be proved based on that alone.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, and read her statement from the bench, joined by justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. She concluded that the 180-day limit shouldn‘t be applied, that discrimination happens in pieces, over time.

In the wake of Lilly Ledbetter‘s case, Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which revised the law to state that if discrimination is taking place, pertinent acts of discrimination outside of the 180-day limit for pay discrimination may be included in the clam.

Find other courtroom videos about Supreme Court matters, famous courtroom movie scenes, firm information clips and more at BestLawyerVideos.com.

Former Superior Bank executive Alan Schein took accounting giant Ernst & Young to court, alleging the company was guilty of accounting malpractice and fraud in its audit of Superior Bank‘s books.

In the accounting fraud case, Schein‘s lawyers argued that Ernst & Young failed to detect financial manipulations that culminated in the bank‘s 2001 seizure by federal regulators. Alan Schein sought at least $200 million dollars in damages.

Unfortunately, Superior Bank‘s failure was just a small foreshadowing of what was to come in the years ahead.  From 2008 through the first half of 2010, 251 U.S. banks failed. The same type of overvaluation of assets that was responsible for the demise of Superior Bank caused a liquidity shortfall in the U.S. banking system, which triggered the current financial crisis

In the Alan Schein case, the jury ruled that Ernst & Young LLP must pay $10.2 million in actual damages to Schein. The jury did not find evidence of fraud and, therefore, did not award punitive damages.

To learn more about the Alan Schein case, watch a video of the plaintiff‘s attorney, Jack Scarola, as he delivers his opening statement. You can also find more courtroom videos throughout our site. Our collection includes a library of videos on criminal law, courtroom battles, disability, and much more.

In this courtroom video, Bill Gates gives his deposition during the Microsoft antitrust case in the late 1990s.

In 1998, the United States Department of Justice and 20 states filed a consolidated set of civil actions against Bill Gates’ Microsoft Corporation Â? a case now known as United States v. Microsoft.

Pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act, it was alleged that Microsoft held a monopoly in the personal computer sector, and that it was abused by Microsoft bundling their operating system, Microsoft Windows, and their web browser Internet Explorer. It was alleged that because of this bundling, rival browsers Netscape and Opera were muscled out of the "Browser Wars."

Bill Gates gave his deposition on August 27, 1998. Sources present said Gates was "evasive and nonresponsive" as he was asked questions based on information Microsoft printed in their user manuals and dictionaries. Watch Bill Gates’ deposition in this courtroom video and decide for yourself.

The initial ruling was that Microsoft did in fact have a monopoly, and that it must separate into two separate entities: One that produces Windows, and one that produces Bill Gates‘ browser, Internet Explorer.

However, an appeals court later ruled that Microsoft did not need to be dismantled, and would instead incur a smaller antitrust penalty Â? sharing their application programming interfaces with third-party companies.