Legal Briefing Cases - Essay Example

The Court of Appeal, Minnesota observed that the understanding between The Austin Daily Herald and Neve was that she would deliver newspapers and that she would pay the reassurance taxes. The Court decided that Neve was not an employee of the newspaper and that she was an independent contractor. Consequently, the decision of the Commissioner of Economic Security was reversed.

The gist of the matter is that being termed an employee or not is determined by the extent of control which the person getting the job done has over the person doing that job. In this case, the Commissioner of Economic Security decided that the control exercised by the Austin Daily Herald was sufficient to make Neve an employee. However, the Appellate Court decided that the control exercised was insufficient and hence reversed this decision. All the same one of the judges dissented with a part of this ruling as he disagreed with that aspect of the judgment which, dealt with the de novo renewal of application of the law because, in these types of cases, the master-servant relationship is the main criterion which was drawn out from the inferences for the reason that there were no contested facts. This view is also clearly expressed in the case of Darvell V. Paul A. Laurence Co (1953) and Santiago V. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc (1990). What this implies is that to avoid such unpleasant situations the employer should always enter into an unambiguous and comprehensive contract with any person who does work for him (Darla J. Neve, Respondent, vs. Austin Daily Herald, Relator, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. August 13, 1996).

In this case, the Florida Bar filed a petition against Rosemary W. Furman d/b/a Northside Secretarial Service for unauthorized legal services in the state of Florida. The Bar alleged that Furman, a non-lawyer engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by giving legal advice and rendering legal services in matters of marriage dissolution and adoption. The specific allegation was that Furman solicited information from seven customers to prepare pleadings and that this was in violation of Florida law.

To this, her defense was that she was not giving legal advice but that she was only helping the poor people who came to her for legal assistance by preparing pleadings that met the requirements of her clients and that she charged a nominal amount for this. Further, she stated that this enabled her clients to obtain self-representative relief from the Court. She also alleged that the ruling in Florida Bar V. Brumbaugh denied indigent people the right to equal protection under the law as provided by the US and Florida Constitutions. The referee, in this case, decided that Furman, who had not been trained legally, who was not a licensed attorney of the law of Florida, and who was not a member of the Florida Bar, was guilty of unauthorized practice of law.

The referee and the Court observed that some mechanism would have to be formulated to provide effective legal services to the indigent and the poor. Consequently, the Court directed The Florida Bar to commence a study to provide effective legal services to the indigent and that the finalized report be filed in that Court on or before January 1, 1980, to enable the Court to examine the problem and consider solutions. However, the Court held that Furman had to bear the expenses of the legal proceedings since the Bar Association had done the right thing by filing this case before this Court (Florida Bar V. Rosemary Furman, 10th May 1979).