Connecticut

Connecticut was hit less hard by Superstorm Sandy than New York and New Jersey, but there are still Connecticut-based legal issues arising out of the most destructive hurricane of the 2012 season, I reported for the Connecticut Law Tribune: 

In the 18 months since Superstorm Sandy swept in from the Atlantic, Connecticut lawyers have been untangling knotty legal issues that have arisen concerning insurance coverage for home and business owners who suffered property damage.

Lawyers are litigating some cases in Connecticut. But because New Jersey and New York were hit harder by the storm, some Connecticut-based firms are litigating cases in those jurisdictions as well.

More than 1,000 Sandy-related cases are pending in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York, and 949 cases are pending in the District of New Jersey, according to reports made by two U.S. magistrate judges at a conference held earlier this month focusing on Superstorm Sandy insurance litigation.

As of May 2013, 47,002 residential-property claims were reported in Connecticut as a result of the storm. There were also 4,460 commercial-property claims, 2,772 flood claims and 1,212 business-interruption claims, according to the Connecticut departments of banking and insurance.

Stephen Goldman and Gregory Varga, both partners with Robinson & Cole in Hartford who are defending insurers in Sandy cases, said that the litigation will be influenced by decisions related to other major disasters in courts in other parts of the country. A lot of case law concerning insurance coverage for property damage and interruption to business operations comes out of catastrophes "because the losses are so numerous and losses are often so large," Goldman said.

Judges and insurance litigators look to past experience with other catastrophes around the country when dealing with the large number of cases that arise out of a natural disaster, Goldman said.

"What we're always looking at [is] … 'What was the most recent experience that was analogous to our situation?'" Varga said.

Hurricane Katrina-related decisions from the Mississippi Supreme Court, Louisiana Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit could be influential in Sandy cases, Varga said.

Like Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy raises questions of how courts will interpret policy clauses that address situations when there are multiple weather-related reasons for property damage. Often, these policies block claims when one type of weather is covered by the insurance but another type isn't, Varga said.

Most insurance companies will not cover flood damages, and so-called anticoncurrent cause provisions prevent insurance payouts if both wind and flood could have caused damage, he said.

Leonard Isaac, an insurance litigator with offices in Waterbury and West Hartford, represents policyholders and said Connecticut had more wind damage than flood damage from Sandy, so there are fewer situations in which claims might be rejected. In contrast, there was more rain-driven damage from 2011's Hurricane Irene, which has led to more coverage disputes, he said.

Theresa Guertin, an associate with Saxe Doernberger & Vita, said the Hamden firm is handling as many as 20 Superstorm Sandy cases with policyholders suing insurance companies, including cases pending in the Eastern District of New York. Their claims range from a case Guertin is handling involving damages to a new condominium complex that was being developed on Long Island to businesses whose operations were interrupted because electric power was off for several days.

In past disasters, insurance companies did not do a good job of getting agents out to inspect sites in a timely manner, Guertin said. In Sandy's aftermath, insurance companies generally responded quickly, she said.

Goldman agreed that insurance companies are far better at addressing claims quickly than they were when Hurricane Andrew hit Connecticut 20 years ago. "They've been to this rodeo before," he said.

But there are exceptions. "Superstorm Sandy cases that are going to go to litigation here in Connecticut are going to involve bad-faith claims," Guertin said. She explained those are often cases where there has been a lot of back-and-forth communication between insurers and policyholders with no results. "That leaves policyholders feeling like they've been mistreated, or, in fact, [and] that legally amounts to bad faith," Guertin said.

Also, insurance companies are in a catastrophe mode because of the number of Sandy claims, Isaac said. "As a result, companies sometimes just don't have the ability to take the same positions [in terms of providing coverage] as they might take on an individual claim," Isaac said.

Business-interruption claims are presenting another legal complication, as policyholders must show that their lost profits or additional expenses are directly related to a covered event. Robert Glasser, director of East Coast claims preparation and valuations for Aon Risk Solutions, a risk management and insurance brokerage firm, said it's difficult to define what actual loss of business income is. "If we knew what 'actual' was, you wouldn't need forensic accountants," he said at the conference.

Another emerging issue is "civil authority" coverage, which provides insurance coverage for loss of income if a business had to shut down because of an order made by governmental authorities. Sometimes, government officials don't explicitly prohibit the public from leaving their homes, but they do advise the public that it's best to stay home. In the latter situation, there is litigation over whether businesses affected by the lack of customers can file claims, Guertin said.

Another issue is the liability of insurance brokers, Varga said. Policyholders often argue they thought they had flood coverage, and then when they find out they didn't, "it's my broker's or my agent's fault," he said. That cause of action didn't used to be viable in New York but has become more attractive, Varga said.

Sandy also may lead to changes in how insurance policies are written in the future. Policies are often changed when courts construe policy language in a way no one ever intended, attorneys said.

"You can't make insurance policies clear" because no one would buy them if the exclusions were written in plain language, Jay Levin, a partner at Reed Smith in Philadelphia who represents policyholders, said at the conference. When language is vague, he said, that leads to litigation.

"Insurance is a method of risk transfer of some risk that can be economically modeled and transferred—but not all risk," Levin said. "Insurance is not government handouts."

Here's a version of the article I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune about what may be the first plaintiffs' victory in an excessive force case involving a police officer from the Mohegan Tribe or the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation:

When a drunken bar patron gets forcefully subdued by a police officer and wins a five-figure verdict as a result, it's usually not big news. But move a similar confrontation to an American Indian casino, and that’s a different story.

A patron of the Mohegan Sun Casino has prevailed in what may be the first successful excessive force claim against a tribal police officer in Connecticut, according to the plaintiff's attorney who won the case.

Mary Puhlick, Puhlick & Cartier, in Norwich, regularly practices in the courts of both the Mohegan tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. The recent $92,344 judgment rendered in favor of her client "is the first [successful] tort claim in either tribal court involving use of force by a police officer," Puhlick said in an interview.

Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court Chief Judge Paul Guernsey, in an April 28 opinion, rule that arresting officer Todd Maikshilo was not justified in using a control technique that resulted in serious ligament and bone damage to the plaintiff's leg.

Even after calling plaintiff Jerry D'Ambra Jr.'s behavior "drunken and obnoxious," Guernsey said he was entitled to more than $32,000 in actual damages and $60,000 in non-economic damages. At the time, D'Ambra worked as the equipment manager in his family's construction business and was attending flight school.

D'Ambra, then 20, visited Mohegan Sun with an older friend, Merrick Bolcum, then 49, almost five years ago in order to attend a concert of country singer Eric Church. D'Ambra reached his drunken state by consuming three large rum and Cokes poured into large Dunkin' Donut travel mugs, according to the written opinion.

Later in the evening, D'Ambra threw up in the men's room and security officers took him and his friend to Krispy Kreme at the casino premises for coffee and doughnuts. D'Ambra and Bolcum were both given a Breathalyzer test, and the results revealed they were both unfit to drive. They were both told to wait two hours before heading back home to Rhode Island.

After the plaintiff said he was going to get sick again and needed fresh air, Security Officer Edward Martin walked outside with him. Martin testified that D'Ambra got increasingly belligerent. Martin called for a tribal police officer. Maikshilo was the first officer to arrive.

Maikshilo testified that D'Ambra swore at the two of them, challenged them to Taser him and put both hands behind his back in a dare to the officers to arrest him.

After Maikshilo and another tribal officer arrested D'Ambra, they said the the plaintiff attempted to lunge away. Maikshilo said he needed to bring D'Ambra under control for his own safety, and that he applied his right foot to the rear of D'Ambra's left calf, bringing the man down onto Maikshilo's extended right leg.

"Maikshilo conducted a memorable in-court demonstration of the effectiveness of this maneuver on plaintiff's counsel," the judge commented in his opinion. "His skill in performing it was impressive."

D'Ambra offered contradictory testimony. He said he encountered Maikshilo on his way out of the casino, and that he ignored the officer's request to go to the men's room. He acknowledged the Taser challenge, but denied trying to run away from the officers. He said he leaned over, put his hands on his knees, got whacked on his knee from behind and fell forward with his face landing on the mulch. "'That's when I got loud, after I was on the ground and handcuffed,"' D'Ambra testified.

If D'Ambra's account is correct, Guernsey said, it is unsurprising that there was no surveillance video of the incident because it would have taken place off to the side of one of the casino's valet entrances. The officers testified that the incident took place closer to the front of the valet entrance, making "the lack of video surveillance puzzling," Guernsey said.

There was probable cause to arrest D'Ambra for breaching the peace, the judge said. But the question was if there was probable cause for the officer to use the control maneuver to take him down.

The judge found D'Ambra's testimony persuasive in finding the controlling maneuver — called a rear sentry takedown — constituted excessive force by the officer. Guernsey also credited the testimony of defense expert Reginald Allard, who taught, for 23 years, the rear sentry takedown and other methods of control at the Connecticut State Police Academy.

Allard testified that he has never had an injury result from recruits practicing rear sentry takedowns. "Hundreds, thousands of times that I've applied it, had it applied to me, to the recruits, we've never had an injury based on the strike itself causing injury to the recruit," the defense expert testified.

The result of Maikshilo's maneuver was a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and a fractured tibia. The plaintiff needed surgery in July 2009 to remove a loose piece of bone almost two inches in length.

The Mohegan Torts Code provides the tribe and its officials with immunity from most lawsuits. But the judge said that immunity did not apply in this case. He went on to apply the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness standard in determining whether the tribal officer used excessive force on the plaintiff.

"The court finds that Maikshilo's decision to perform the modified rear sentry takedown satisfies the standard of objective reasonableness… [But] the force applied to the back of D'Ambra's knee, sufficient to break off a two-inch piece of bone within the knee … was far beyond what was objectively reasonable under the circumstances faced by Maikshilo and constituted a tort within the limited waiver of sovereign immunity in the Mohegan Torts Code," Guernsey said.

Puhlick said it was interesting that the judge chose to apply federal constitutional law even though the Mohegan tribe — while it has adopted Connecticut common law — has not adopted the U.S. Constitution. The Mohegan tribe has its own constitution.

Defense counsel Robert Rhodes, of Halloran & Sage, in Westport, did not respond to a request for comment, including on whether his clients will appeal. Appeals are heard by the other four judges of the tribal court sitting en banc.

Here's the story I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune regarding a civil-rights attorney who alleges her own civil rights were violated by the city of Bridgeport in its hiring of outside counsel to represent city employees: 

osephine Miller is no stranger to litigation involving the city of Bridgeport and its school district.

In the highest profile case, which went to the state Supreme Court, the Danbury-based civil rights litigator represented parents who objected to the state's decision in 2011 to replace members of the elected school board with its own appointees.

Now Miller also has her own legal complaint pending. She is alleging in federal court that her civil rights were violated by the Bridgeport City Attorney, who is responsible for hiring outside counsel for school district employees entitled to city-paid legal representation. Specifically, Miller alleges that City Attorney Mark Anastasi paid a white attorney who formerly provided representation for a certain client, but that he has refused to pay Miller, who is an African American, for her work for the same client.

Miller's client, Andrew Cimmino, is a former Bridgeport elementary school teacher who was fired following sexual abuse allegations. Cimmino claims the allegations were fabricated by two school employees, and he has pursued civil claims against the employees and the school district. Miller defended Cimmino in a sexual harassment and constitutional-rights lawsuit the two school employees brought against the Bridgeport Board of Education, the city of Bridgeport and Cimmino.

Most recently, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant has ruled that Miller's claims of racial discrimination regarding payment for her representation of Cimmino could survive a motion to dismiss. But the judge seemed to express some skepticism about the complaint, writing Miller "faintly alleged" her conspiracy claim.

Miller's new counsel in the civil rights action, Richard C. Gordon, of Bloomfield, said in an interview that it is "not unusual" to see skeptical language from judges at an early stage of court proceedings. Discovery is not complete, Gordon pointed out, and he expressed confidence that they will fully prove the allegations of racial discrimination.

Miller's complaint does not provide any information about how much she thinks she is owed. The complaint does says she has not been paid since January 2010 and that Cimmino's prior attorney was not required to first incur legal fees and expenses before he received reimbursement.

Bridgeport Associate City Attorney Betsy Edwards said the allegations of racial discrimination in the city attorney's hiring of outside counsel "are demonstrably untrue." She said Miller has personal knowledge that the City Attorney's Office has African-American attorneys on its staff and also hires them for outside counsel.

The bottom line, according to the city, is that Anastasi is the only one authorized by the city charter to decide if city employees can hire outside counsel paid for by public tax dollars, and that authorization has not been granted to Miller in the Cimmino case. Edwards said Miller is trying to "force and coerce the City Attorney's Office" into hiring her to represent city employees entitled to legal representation, Edwards said.

But Gordon said the choice of outside counsel should not belong to the city attorney. "Any plaintiff in any matter has the right to select his or her attorney," said Gordon. "It would patently unfair to essentially require a plaintiff to use an attorney that he or she does not want."

In her ruling, Bryant noted that Miller often represents non-school employee clients who are suing the city of Bridgeport. For that reason, the judge said, the city may be reluctant to hire Miller to represent its own employees.

"While the record does not indicate the nature of the various representations, it is not inconceivable, for example, that an attorney who represented the city would be privy to information which would be adverse to its interests in a subsequent action against the city," Bryant said.

The federal judge rejected Miller's request to amend her complaint to add new claims of tortious interference with her contracts with her clients, conspiracy between two or more individuals to unlawfully deprive Miller of the right to make and enforce contracts due to her race, and other claims.

According to the judge's opinion, Miller also wanted to add allegations that she was told by an assistant city attorney that the city would not settle lawsuits brought by Miller because she has so many cases pending against Bridgeport. Miller also wanted to add a second allegation that another assistant city attorney told Cimmino, the fired principal, that "he should not employ Miller, that she was often reversed on [court] decisions entered in her favor, and that the client should employ a different attorney."

Miller also wanted to add a third allegation she has not been paid for representing another Bridgeport city employee.

Bryant ruled that those allegations don't share a nucleus of common fact with what Miller has already alleged regarding Cimmino, the judge said.

"While Miller alleges that various Bridgeport city attorneys were involved in the alleged conspiracy, she has utterly failed to connect either the attorneys or the incidents she alleges to be involved," Bryant said. "Moreover, although she alleges that this conspiracy's goal was to deprive her of her right to make or enforce contracts based on her race, Miller has failed to allege any inference of discrimination in the new incidents she seeks to add to the action."

Gordon said he will file a new complaint on Miller's behalf with the allegations that the judge did not permit to be added to the Cimmino case as well as the conspiracy claim regarding the Cimmino situation.

Read more: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202649823476/Attorney-Claims-City-Refuse...

Legislation is pending again in Connecticut that would reduce the size of the zones near schools, daycares and public housing projects that trigger enhanced sentences for defendants convicted of drug possession and selling within those zones. Here is the piece I wrote about the subject for the Connecticut Law Tribune:

During the crack epidemic of the 1980s, it seemed like a commonsense move to help protect the young and the innocent.

The state would add enhanced penalties for drug possession and drug trafficking within 1,500 feet of schools, day-care facilities and public housing complexes. Drug defendants faced an extra three years on their prison sentence if convicted of the extra charge.

But in recent years, some lawmakers and members of the legal community have had second thoughts. The Connecticut General Assembly is once again considering legislation that would reduce the size of the drug-free zones from 1,500 to 200 feet.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the matter March 12. The legislation, which has the backing of both prosecutors and defense attorneys, has not been scheduled for a vote.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Borden, who now chairs the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, said the commission has recommended that there be a reduction in the size of the sentencing enhancement zones.

The commission found that in Connecticut's biggest cities nearly every piece of land is within 1,500 feet of a school, day-care center or public housing facility. And so the penalties for posessing drugs are the same in virtually every part of those municipalities. If there are no zones where penalties are increased, "there's no special deterrent, which is the theory of the enhanced sentences," Borden said. "If every area is a special area, then there is no special area."

The commission includes members from various sectors of the criminal justice system, and proposals adopted by the panel have the group's consensus, Borden said. Mark Dupuis, a spokesman for the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, said there are state's attorneys on the Sentencing Commission and the office is supporting the commission-backed legislation.

Morgan Ruecker, a board member of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and a partner with Shipman & Goodwin, said the Sentencing Commission "has come up with commonsense changes to address some issues that need to be addressed. This is a recommendation that we really support. It's an appropriate time to move forward with this."

The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), a Northampton, Mass.-based reform group, says the concept of drug-free zones in areas where children congregate is a popular one across the nation. A just-released PPI report says that Connecticut is one of the states with the largest zones. PPI found that 94 percent of Hartford residents, 93 percent of New Haven residents and 92 percent of Bridgeport residents live in areas covered by the sentencing enhancement.

The report's author, PPI's legal director Aleks Kajstura, said she understands the concern about reducing sentencing enhancement zones at a time when narcotics remain illegal. But Kajstura echoed Borden's point that the law hasn't really created any "pressure penalties" because entire "urban areas are essentially all within enhanced penalty zones."

There also are "racial disparities that this law creates" because more minorities live in cities, Kajstura said.

In a 12-month period ending in October 2012, 3,109 white defendants in Connecticut and 3,102 nonwhites were charged with drug crimes in school zones, according to prepared testimony by Sentencing Commission Acting Director Andrew Clark.

Connecticut is not the only state to revisit the issue. In 2010, New Jersey passed a law that requires judges to consider a variety of factors before handing down an enhanced sentence for drug arrests near schools and day-care centers. This past January, Massachusetts reduced its school zone radius to 300 feet.

Legislation that would have shrunk Connecticut's zones to 300 feet appeared on the way to passage last year in the Legislature before lawmakers from suburban and rural areas raised objections. They said the problems with the enhanced enforcement zones covering entire municipalities is an urban problem and that the zones should not be shrunk statewide.

"We're identifying an issue in urban areas and applying it to 169 cities and towns," Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, said during debate on the issue last year. "Who are we helping? We're helping that drug dealer who happens to sell his product 500 feet from a school."

This year, state Rep. Prasad Srinivasan, R-Glastonbury, submitted testimony in opposition to the legislation. "Shrinking the drug zone, to my mind, is sending the wrong message" about illegal drugs, Srinivasan said.

The legislator said he does understand the concern that urban residents convicted of drug possession and drug trafficking are more likely to face enhanced penalties than rural residents. He said other policy changes should be considered. Last year, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, R-Naugatuck, proposed and then withdrew an amendment that would have allowed municipalities to determine the size of school zones by local ordinance.

State Rep. Christie Carpino, a Republican who represents Cromwell and Portland, also submitted testimony this year to the Judiciary Committee opposing the reduction in drug-free zones.

Carpino noted that there are about 3,500 schoolchildren in her district. "Each one of these kids will face struggles throughout their lives," she said. "Giving drug dealers reduced penalties for selling close to their schools is one danger we should not impose on them."•

Earlier this year, I wrote about how many homeowners still waiting for insurance payouts after Superstorm Sandy will soon run out of time to take their cases to court if that is necessary. In Connecticut, it is industry practice to include in homeowners' insurance policies a time limitation on lawsuits. The law lets insurers limit lawsuits by property owners to 18 months after a disaster hits.

Now the Connecticut General Assembly has taken up a bill that would extend the time period to sue to two years after a disaster hits. Another bill would allow property owners to recoup attorney fees and court costs after a disaster.

An excerpt on my piece about the legislation for the Connecticut Law Tribune: 

Lawmakers are considering several pieces of legislation that would change state laws governing homeowners' insurance policies, including a bill that would award reasonable attorney fees and lawsuit costs to plaintiffs who win their cases against insurers.

The legislation is supported by trial attorneys, but opposed by the insurance industry.

State Rep. Robert W. Megna, D-New Haven, and co-chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, said there's merit in authorizing plaintiffs who win their cases to be able to obtain attorney fees and lawsuits costs.

When policyholders report damage claims to their insurers and when those claims have been denied to some extent, the policyholders have the burden of hiring an attorney and paying for that attorney out of any recovery they obtain, Megna said. The proposed legislation would remove that burden.

As it stands, attorney fees are "going to come off the property damage settlement," Megna said. "Even if the homeowner prevails, they're at a disadvantage when it comes to fixing their home."

The committee will decide this week whether the bills, including the attorney fees measure, will be voted out of committee, Megna said.

Ryan Suerth, a Hartford-based solo practitioner who represents policyholders in insurance disputes, testified in support of the legislation. "The intent of it is to ensure that the policyholder gets the benefit of the policy they purchased… You get taken care of 100 percent," Suerth said in an interview.

If the legislation is passed, there may be a decrease in litigation alleging bad faith by insurers or alleging that insurers violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Suerth said. Attorney fees can be obtained in those types of lawsuits but not in breach of contract actions prosecuted against insurers.

The Insurance Association of Connecticut said in submitted testimony that, at times, it can be unclear when policyholders "prevail" in legal action against an insurer, and thus it would be confusing just who is entitled to attorney fees and costs.

"The proposal is contrary to the traditions of the American judicial system," the association said in its prepared testimony. "Insurers should be able to challenge questionable claims when there is a good-faith basis for such a challenge … Examining the validity of claims helps insurers maintain rates for all policyholders by weeding out the frivolous or meritless claims."

If the policy behind the legislation is to deter insurers from unnecessarily denying or delaying claims, the threat of bad-faith claims or penalties from the Insurance Department already does that, the association said.

An excerpted version of a piece I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune:

One of David Rosen's personal injury cases resolved for a confidential amount last fall. When he got the case, his offices were in New Haven, about 10 miles away from where plaintiff Brenda Adelson was living in Hamden.

But Adelson hadn't been hurt in Connecticut or even the continental United States. Her leg was severely crushed by a failing water tower in Mali, a landlocked Western country and a former French colony. Adelson's companion was killed.

Adelson was airlifted from Mali to Paris, then taken from Paris to Hartford, and then by helicopter to New Haven. Even though Adelson lost her left leg near the hip, doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital saved her life, Rosen says.

In pursuing a lawsuit against the owners of the water tower, her lawyers traveled even further. Discovery was conducted in four countries on three continents, including Mali's capital of Bamako and Quebec City. Meanwhile, Rosen's associate, Hunter Smith, flew to Paris in just his third week on the job to participate in a deposition being taken in French. Smith grew up in Europe, and he learned French in school.

Adelson was in Mali as a volunteer for MBA Enterprise Corps, an organization that deploys recently graduated MBAs from U.S. business schools for long-term volunteer assignments in developing nations.

She went to a tiny village in Mali to view the newly constructed water tower at the invitation of Cristina Nardone, the local employee of a nonprofit group that supports sustainable tourism projects in developing countries and is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

According to court papers, Nardone was the one who issued the purchase order for the construction of the water tower. She was also the one killed when the tower collapsed while it was being filled with water for the first time during Adelson's and her visit to the village. The builders of the tower were ultimately convicted in a Malian court of involuntary homicide, involuntary battery and violating Mali's construction law.

Rosen and Smith, along with their cocounsel and opposing counsel, traveled to Mali to take depositions for the civil lawsuit. The capital was in the last section of Mali that was still held by the government, which was trying to put down an Islamist rebellion with the help of the French.

The attorneys stayed in a nice hotel in Bamako, where there was a "very, very high level of security," Rosen said. Armed guards screened vehicles in the parking lot and guests in the hotel lobby.

When the lawyers asked a witness why he was willing to travel eight hours to the capital to give a deposition, Rosen said the witness explained that it was the Malian way to try to help someone if asked for assistance.

At one point, the plaintiffs team looked for a piece of rebar—concrete reinforced with steel rods—because the issue arose whether rebar had been used in the water tower. During a break, taken so the witnesses and the interpreters could go to Islamic Friday prayers, Smith said he went out onto the street and asked a complete stranger if he could help acquire rebar. Just like that he got assistance.

Here's an excerpt of a piece I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune about how clerical and administrative jobs in law firms are changing due to technology as well as being reduced in number:

Technology has allowed people to work together in different offices around the country on labor-intensive cases like class actions.

There's no typing pool anymore.

The clerical and administrative work on legal cases has changed to tasks like legal work by paralegals, basic document review, and creating the formatting on legal documents.

The result is that some law firms have reduced the number of people they employ in clerical roles or the administrative work has changed from taking dictation and filing hard copies in accordion folders to specialized roles like paralegals who can bill for the legal work they do, and jobs in quality control, client satisfaction and retention, practicing attorneys and legal consultants say.

Another trend, they also say, is that administrative professionals are becoming much more efficient in how they spend their time.

Part of Boston-based legal consultant Jeff Coburn's work is interviewing the legal clients of his law firms' clients to find out their satisfaction levels. One thing he has learned is that larger firms are under more pressure from their Fortune 1,000 clients to cut costs, said Coburn, managing director of Coburn Consulting.

"The last five years or so there's been a huge pressure on in-house legal counsel to get accountability for the legal department, which you never used to have 25 years ago," Coburn said. "It was like a black hole. They spent what they spent."

According to a survey conducted in March and April 2013 by legal consultancy Altman Weil, 89.7 percent of managing partners or chairs from U.S. law firms with 50 or more lawyers said that the legal market trend of having fewer support staff is permanent (238 firms answered the survey).

The vast majority of respondents also identified price competition, improved efficiencies in legal practice, more commoditized legal work and more contract lawyers as permanent trends.

The survey also reported that 38.6 percent thought they would have fewer support staff in five years, 41.6 percent thought they would have about the same, and 18.9 percent thought they would have more.

Eric A. Seeger, a principal with Altman Weil out of suburban Philadelphia, said the industry standard has changed to have one secretary for every three lawyers or even one secretary for every four or five lawyers.

Clerical jobs that were cut in the five years or so since the Great Recession also won't be restored, he said.

Twenty years ago, overtime for secretaries would be put on the bills for intensive matters like mergers and acquisitions or litigation, Seeger said. "You would be hard-pressed to get away with that today," he said. "I think that corporations that examine their legal fees and have billing guidelines pretty much uniformly say that we expect the law firm overhead to be included in the rates that are charged."

"Clients want templates," Coburn said for his part. "They want systems [that] ... get to the heart of it, which is a document, a jury trial, an opinion or the cost of a merger situation."

The biggest costs for law firms are the people they employ and the spaces they use for their offices, Seeger said. Reducing staff means not only that law firms save on labor costs but also potentially space costs if they can move into smaller spaces, he said.

"Some of it is driven by clients applying pressure and the fear that more clients will apply pressure," Seeger said.

The types of clerical services that are being automated include data processing, word graphics and document management, Coburn said.