The 2026 Jazz & Rib Fest will take place July 24 through July 26 at West Bank Park and Bicentennial Park along the Scioto Mile. The free downtown event brings live music, barbecue, beverages, busy streets, packed parking areas, and large crowds to the riverfront.

Most guests will leave with good memories. A smaller number of families may face a late-night call after an OVI stop, open-container allegation, fight, disorderly conduct charge, underage alcohol issue, drug allegation, theft accusation, or arrest on an outstanding warrant.

The new guide gives families a clear place to begin. It explains where to search for Franklin County inmate and court records, what details to collect before calling a bail bondsman, when a person may appear before a judge, and why bond may not be available immediately in every case.

An arrest can create panic when relatives do not know where their loved one was taken, what the charge is, or what happens next. The guide was created to replace confusion with practical first steps.

Readers are encouraged to gather the arrested person’s full legal name, date of birth, possible jail location, charge, case number, court date, and listed bond amount. The guide also warns families not to assume that a minor festival incident will lead to immediate release, especially when an old warrant, probation issue, felony allegation, or court hold is involved.

The Jazz & Rib Fest Arrest and Bail Guide is available now on the Andy Callif Bail Bonds website.

The National Law Review’s list highlights agencies that help law firms improve online visibility, drive qualified traffic and convert searches into signed cases. BluShark Digital was recognized as a top agency that is setting the standard for how modern law firms grow online.

“We saw early on how local visibility could turn searches into calls and calls into cases. Lawyers need to be ranking before they can be hired,” said Seth Price, founder of BluShark Digital and co-author of “Local SEO for Lawyers. “That principle matters even more today as clients use Google, local results and AI-powered tools to choose a lawyer.” 

Price, who scaled a two-person law firm to over 40 lawyers in less than a decade, attributes his firm’s growth to digital marketing. Today, that firsthand experience shapes BluShark Digital’s approach to local SEO, market expansion strategy, and competitive positioning, helping law firms build sustainable systems for long-term visibility and stronger lead generation.

The ranking comes as law firms continue to face rising competition in Google search results, local map packs and AI-generated search results. For many firms, digital visibility has become a central factor in whether potential clients find and contact them before choosing another attorney.

BluShark Digital is a Herringbone company. Hennessey Digital, a sister agency, was ranked No. 1 on the same list, placing Herringbone brands in the first two positions on The National Law Review’s 2026 ranking.

To learn more about BluShark Digital or to schedule a consultation, please visit https://blusharkdigital.com/contact-us/ 

The hearing officer found that, although the teacher had faced a series of disciplinary matters over several school years, the Education Department did not establish that their conduct reflected a lack of “good moral character” required to teach in New York’s public schools under 8 NYCRR Part 83.

The Part 83 case was heard at the Education Department. The Department’s Office of School Personnel Review and Accountability presented testimony from an investigator; the Respondent testified and called two witnesses on their own behalf.

The hearing officer wrote that, under Part 83, the central question is whether the teacher’s behavior stems from a defect in moral character. The regulation specifically mentions criminal convictions but does not define moral character. In the report, the hearing officer noted that in the legal context, moral turpitude is often understood as conduct that is “inherently base, vile, depraved, or contrary to accepted community standards of honesty and justice.”

The report also cited an earlier § 3020-a decision, in which the hearing officer concluded that terminating the Respondent “for the actual proven improper actions would violate one of the bedrock standards for discipline in teacher tenure matters because such a penalty would be shocking to the conscience,” in light of their positive attributes and “credible understanding of their obligations as a science teacher.”

Concluding that the misconduct “did not appear to be connected to their moral character,” the hearing officer recommended that all Part 83 charges against the Respondent be dismissed, thereby allowing them to continue to hold their New York State teaching license.

The Brill Legal Group represents educators and other licensed professionals in disciplinary and administrative proceedings throughout New York.

The First Department held that Family Court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 812 of the Family Court Act. According to the decision, the petition was filed by a stepmother against her adult stepson’s spouse, and the relationship alleged between the parties did not fall within the categories covered by the statute.

“Although Family Court may have jurisdiction over parties who have a relationship of affinity, petitioner is not related by affinity to respondent, as respondent is not a blood relative of petitioner or petitioner’s spouse,” the panel wrote, citing Matter of Anstey v. Palmatier, 23 A.D.3d 780 (3d Dept. 2005). The court noted that while the petitioner had a relationship of affinity with her stepson, “that affinity does not extend to respondent.”

The First Department further concluded that the petition did not allege an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). The panel observed that the petitioner alleged only a hostile relationship with the respondent, pointed to a handful of interactions over a five-year period and acknowledged that the parties never lived in the same household. Those circumstances, the court held, were “insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon Family Court,” citing prior appellate decisions.

The ruling adds to a body of appellate authority addressing when relationships by affinity and nonmarital relationships qualify for Family Court jurisdiction in family offense matters. The panel, consisting of Justices Webber, Mendez, Rodriguez, O’Neill Levy and Michael, cited precedent from multiple departments in concluding that the petition did not meet those statutory thresholds.

CASE INFORMATION

State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
A.G. vs. K.V.
Case No. 2025-00359

According to prosecutors, Ahmad, 28, is accused of returning to the Brooklyn apartment building hours after the initial response, when the woman had called for help regarding her teenage son. Authorities allege that during a later interaction, he entered the woman’s apartment and engaged in conduct that led to charges including sexual abuse, forcible touching, official misconduct and harassment. The allegations prompted a report to law enforcement and an investigation by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau.

Brill said the situation has been mischaracterized and emphasized the context of his client’s actions. “It’s a sad state of affairs when you go out of your way to help someone, and you wind up getting accused of sexual assault,” he said.

He added that Ahmad returned to the apartment with the intention of assisting the woman. “Sgt. Ahmad didn’t have to go back to that apartment, but he wanted to make sure his accuser had the resources she needed to avoid problems with the criminal justice system in the future,” Brill said. “This is the thanks he got.”

Ahmad was arrested and later released following his arraignment in Brooklyn Criminal Court. He has since been suspended without pay, and the charges are not eligible for bail. The case remains pending.

Brill also addressed the length of the interaction, stating, “He was in the apartment for a grand total of 30 seconds.” The defense team will review the evidence and address the allegations in court.

Ahmad has previously been recognized within the department for his service, including his response to a prior domestic incident.

At a recent sentencing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the judge imposed a sentence of two years of probation on Dennis Ostermann after he admitted to filing false tax returns related to $150,000 in payments that benefited former union president Ed Mullins’ legal defense.

Prosecutors had sought a term of imprisonment. In a sentencing memorandum, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexandra Rothman asked the court to impose a sentence of six to twelve months in custody, arguing that anything less would be “a mere slap on the wrist” and would not fully reflect the seriousness of the offense.

Ostermann, who had served as the union’s controller, pleaded guilty in June 2025 to charges arising from past tax returns. According to the government’s submissions, he disguised $150,000 in payments to Mullins’ attorneys as “legal fees” of a separate company he created and then claimed those amounts as business expenses on his personal returns.

In written submissions to the court, attorney Peter Brill of Brill Legal Group described Ostermann as a long-serving law enforcement professional who joined the NYPD in 1979, retired as a sergeant in 1999, and later became the union’s controller.

The defense emphasized his lack of prior criminal history, his age, and his consistent work history in arguing that a prison term was not necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. The filing detailed Ostermann’s long-standing community ties, including his involvement in his Nassau County church, his education in Catholic schools in Brooklyn and at St. John’s University in Queens, and his history of assisting others with tax preparation and accounting.

The firm also argued that Ostermann had been misled by Mullins and that the union’s internal controls relied heavily on trust in the then-president. Brill stated that the outcome in Ostermann’s case reflected the court’s consideration of his client’s decades-long work history and lack of prior criminal record.

CASE INFORMATION

District Court, S.D. New York
United States v. Ostermann
Case No. 1:25-cr-00252

According to various media sources, prosecutors allege that on Dec. 30, the complainant called 911 to report a domestic violence incident. The woman claims that the sergeant groped her buttocks during the incident. Shortly afterward, the officer was charged with various misdemeanor sex offense charges. The sergeant was then arraigned and released on recognizance; he was later suspended without pay. 

“When an accusation involves unwanted sexual contact, the first court appearance often brings immediate conditions that reshape day-to-day life,” Brill said. “That can include a temporary order of protection and other restrictions that are easy to violate if someone does not understand the terms.

“A single allegation can lead to several charges, and the accusatory instrument is only the starting point,” Brill said. “The focus should remain on what the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, using reliable evidence and lawful procedures.

​The arraignment stage also entails practical risks that many people underestimate. New York courts issue a securing order at arraignment, and courts frequently issue temporary orders of protection in pending criminal cases. Those orders can include no-contact and stay-away terms that apply immediately, including through third parties and digital communication.

The ​Brill Legal Group, P.C., represents individuals and organizations facing prosecution for state and federal crimes in New York, and also represents professionals in disciplinary inquiries and hearings, including doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, and police officers. For more information, contact the Brill Legal Group, P.C., at 888-315-9841.

According to the filing, the agency’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and made “in violation of lawful procedure,” allegations that form the legal basis for relief under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Article 78 proceedings provide a mechanism for individuals and entities to challenge actions by New York state and local agencies, boards, and officers. In the petition, Brill Legal Group argues that the agency failed to follow its own rules and did not give adequate consideration to the evidence presented by the petitioner, as outlined in the court documents.

The proceeding will be decided largely on the written administrative record and legal briefs submitted by both sides, rather than on live testimony. Under New York law, the court’s review in an Article 78 case typically focuses on whether the agency acted within the scope of its authority and whether its determination had a rational basis in the record.

Brill Legal Group represents individuals and organizations in matters involving administrative agencies, professional discipline and related judicial review in New York’s trial and appellate courts. The firm’s attorneys regularly handle Article 78 proceedings challenging a range of governmental determinations, from licensing and disciplinary actions to employment and regulatory disputes.

CASE INFORMATION

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division
Ryan Cargill v. David Howard
Case No. CV-25-0143

Garcia, 34, pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse, a misdemeanor, in connection with a 2023 incident involving an intoxicated woman in the Bronx. He was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to complete a sex offender treatment program, prosecutors said.

Attorney Peter Brill of Brill Legal Group said Garcia opted to resolve the case with a misdemeanor plea in light of the potential exposure he faced if convicted on felony counts at trial.

“Mr. Garcia accepted responsibility to avoid the risks of a felony conviction and the far harsher penalties that could have followed,” Brill said, noting that the plea agreement reflects a negotiated outcome in a contested and closely scrutinized case. He added that Garcia will be under supervision during his probation and must comply with all court-ordered treatment requirements.

The case, prosecuted in Bronx County, drew attention because the defendant was a then-serving NYPD officer and because of the role forensic DNA evidence played in the investigation, as described in court documents and by prosecutors. The pleas and sentences mark the latest development in ongoing public and judicial scrutiny of alleged off-duty misconduct by law enforcement officers in New York City.

Developed through the combined lens of metropolitan law enforcement experience, adult learning systems, curriculum analysis, and organizational review, the Police Praxis framework focuses on a recurring institutional issue increasingly visible within modern constitutional litigation: the distinction between documented training activity and the operational capacity of an organization’s underlying training structure.

In many police-related civil actions, municipalities and public entities may present policy manuals, lesson plans, academy materials, training rosters, and administrative records as evidence that personnel received instruction regarding constitutional obligations and operational procedures. Police Praxis examines the broader institutional questions surrounding those records, including whether the surrounding instructional environment demonstrates meaningful organizational continuity, administrative coordination, supervisory integration, and implementation integrity.

“A training record may document that instruction occurred,” Loglisci stated. “The more difficult institutional question is whether the organizational system surrounding that instruction possessed the structural integrity necessary to support what an agency later suggests its personnel were prepared to execute operationally.”

Examining the Institutional System Beneath the Record

In complex Section 1983 and Monell litigation, discovery frequently produces extensive collections of policies, directives, attendance records, lesson plans, internal memoranda, and training materials. While these records may document institutional activity, they do not necessarily establish how instructional decisions were made, how curriculum standards were maintained, how supervisory expectations were reinforced, or how organizational deficiencies were identified and addressed over time.

Police Praxis approaches police training as an interconnected administrative structure rather than a series of isolated classroom events. The framework examines whether organizational systems surrounding police training activity demonstrate coherent alignment between administrative expectations, documented instruction, institutional oversight, and operational implementation.

Rather than concentrating exclusively on individual officer conduct or subjective intent, the framework shifts analytical attention toward institutional systems, organizational design, and administrative continuity. Its purpose is not to provide legal conclusions or advocacy positions, but to assist licensed counsel in examining whether a law enforcement organization’s documented training structure reflects meaningful organizational alignment across the broader institution.

For licensed counsel navigating high-volume constitutional litigation, the framework is intended to assist in isolating institutional training issues that may otherwise remain buried within expansive administrative productions. By organizing attention around structural training questions, organizational continuity, and documented implementation practices, the framework may help attorneys develop more focused lines of inquiry regarding policymaker oversight, institutional notice, administrative follow-through, and broader patterns of organizational response relevant to municipal liability analysis.

The framework further recognizes that modern police training environments increasingly operate through layered administrative systems involving digital learning platforms, evolving policy structures, distributed instructional materials, supervisory review mechanisms, and institution-wide implementation responsibilities. As those systems become more administratively complex, evaluating institutional preparedness may require analytical review extending beyond traditional document production alone.

“Artificial intelligence systems can summarize records, organize policies, and process large quantities of administrative data,” Loglisci said. “What they cannot independently replicate is lived institutional understanding developed through years inside complex organizational systems where curriculum, supervision, operational culture, administrative decision-making, and implementation realities intersect simultaneously across time.”

Police Praxis was developed as a writing-centered analytical framework intended for attorney-retained review in matters involving police training systems, instructional governance, organizational preparedness, curriculum alignment, and administrative oversight. Its work remains document-focused, systems-oriented, and grounded in institutional analysis rather than incident-specific advocacy.

Professional and Academic Foundation

Prior to developing Police Praxis, Loglisci spent more than two decades working within one of the nation’s largest metropolitan policing environments, including assignments connected to police instruction, curriculum development, training coordination, and organizational educational systems. His academic work includes advanced study in adult learning and workforce development principles, with continuing doctoral research examining instructional alignment and organizational structures within police training environments.

That combined professional and academic background contributed to the development of Police Praxis as a specialized framework situated at the intersection of organizational systems analysis, adult education, and law enforcement institutional review.

Plaintiff is a Forensic Social Worker in The Legal Aid Society’s Parole Revocation Defense (“PRDU”) Unit. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has ankylosing spondylitis and underwent medical treatment that rendered her immunocompromised. According to the complaint, Plaintiff sought a disability-based accommodation that would allow her to limit unnecessary courthouse exposure while remaining available to attend court when her physical presence was needed for client meetings, attorney support, hearings, or other court-related needs.

The complaint alleges that, rather than provide interim protection or conduct a good-faith individualized assessment, The Legal Aid Society required Plaintiff to remain physically present in court or the courthouse for up to seven hours per day during several court-coverage days, including when no client-specific or attorney-specific need required her physical presence. Plaintiff alleges that she had previously performed her job by working from The Legal Aid Society office across the street from the Bronx courthouse and attending court in-person when needed.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff requested a disability-based accommodation to work from The Legal Aid Society office during onsite court-coverage shifts and to attend court when called, rather than maintaining continuous courthouse presence. The complaint alleges that The Legal Aid Society denied her disability-based accommodation request on January 20, 2026, asserted that in-person/onsite court coverage was an essential function of the PRDU Forensic Social Worker role, and failed to provide an effective interim accommodation while the request was pending.

The complaint further alleges that The Legal Aid Society re-characterized Plaintiff’s job duties after she sought an accommodation, demanded unnecessary additional medical documentation, failed to engage in a good-faith cooperative dialogue, and retaliated against Plaintiff and similarly situated employees who requested disability-based accommodations or opposed disability accommodation practices.

Plaintiff alleges that, during the period when her accommodation request remained unresolved, she was required to continue disputed in-person court coverage without interim protection. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ refusal to provide interim protection required unnecessary or excessive courthouse exposure while she was immunocompromised and materially increased her risk of infection.

The complaint further alleges that other Legal Aid Society employees experienced similar accommodation-related practices. It seeks certification of four proposed classes: (1) a Location-Based Accommodation Class for employees who requested work-location, remote-work, reduced-presence, or exposure-limiting accommodations, (2) a Post-Request Job-Duty Recharacterization Class for employees whose duties or asserted essential functions were allegedly changed after they requested accommodations, (3) a NYCHRL Accommodation Delay Class for employees whose requests were allegedly delayed, including without interim measures, and (4) an Additional Medical Documentation Class for employees allegedly required to provide unnecessary or excessive medical documentation.

The ten-count complaint asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint’s claims include: alleged failure to reasonably accommodate; retaliation; interference, coercion, threats, and intimidation; medical inquiry violations; unlawful qualification standards and screening; failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue; and aiding and abetting liability against the individual defendants under the NYCHRL.

Among other requested relief, Plaintiff seeks class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring lawful, timely, individualized accommodation procedures, prompt interim measures while accommodation requests are pending, limits on allegedly unnecessary medical-documentation demands, as well as training, monitoring, and other forward-looking relief. As to declaratory relief, Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that The Legal Aid Society’s alleged conduct was willful and undertaken with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the proposed classes.

Plaintiff also seeks individual relief including back pay, front pay, reinstatement and/or full grant of the requested accommodation, compensatory damages, punitive damages under the NYCHRL, nominal damages, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, and interest.

The case is Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03882, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint contains allegations only. The Court has not made any findings on the merits, and Defendants have not been adjudicated liable for any of the alleged conduct.

CASE INFORMATION

Southern District of New York
Kubicki v. The Legal Aid Society, et al.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03882

Former Prosecutors Continue to Deliver Hard-Hitting Defense While Expanding Attorney Wellness Initiatives

PARSIPPANY, NJ – The Bianchi Law Group, LLC, a premier New Jersey criminal defense firm founded by former prosecutors, proudly celebrates 13 years of serving clients across all 21 counties of New Jersey. Founded in 2013 by Robert A. Bianchi, Esq., former Morris County Prosecutor, and David J. Bruno, Esq., former Major Crimes Assistant Prosecutor, the firm has built a reputation for aggressive, knowledgeable criminal defense rooted in insider prosecutorial experience.

“After leaving the Prosecutor’s Office, Bob and I were excited to build BLG from the ground up, and 13 years later, we are still standing, still fighting, and still growing,” said David J. Bruno, founding partner at The Bianchi Law Group. 

What sets The Bianchi Law Group apart is the rare combination of credentials and experience that its founding partners bring to the table. Robert A. Bianchi served as Morris County Prosecutor from 2007 to 2013, appointed by the Governor of New Jersey and unanimously confirmed by the New Jersey Senate. He is the only practicing criminal defense attorney in New Jersey who is both a New Jersey Supreme Court Certified Criminal Trial Attorney and a former Governor-appointed County Prosecutor.

David J. Bruno served alongside Bianchi in the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office from 2007 to 2013, where he was assigned to the Major Crimes Unit prosecuting the most serious criminal offenses, as well as the Professional Standards Unit monitoring police misconduct and the Fraud Unit investigating white collar crimes.

Both partners hold the prestigious designation of Certified Criminal Trial Attorney by the New Jersey Supreme Court, a credential held by less than 1% of the more than 93,000 attorneys licensed in New Jersey.

The transition from prosecution to criminal defense was driven by a deep understanding of the justice system and a commitment to ensuring fair representation for those accused of crimes.

“Our team of former prosecutors brings the kind of experience and dedication that allows us to deliver hard-hitting criminal defense work. We do this while Bob and I expand our reach to serve more people through both representation and our attorney wellness and performance mindset initiatives,” Bruno added.

The firm’s attorneys understand prosecution strategies, courtroom procedures, and the inner workings of the New Jersey criminal justice system from years of experience on the other side. This insider knowledge has proven invaluable in defending clients facing charges ranging from criminal cases and domestic violence to complex white collar crimes and serious felonies.

Beyond case results, the firm has made a commitment to giving back to the legal community by lecturing or numerous Bar Associations, as well as, supporting attorney wellness, an often-overlooked aspect of legal practice. The firm’s attorney wellness initiatives reflect the partners’ dedication to supporting their colleagues and promoting a healthier, more sustainable approach to legal practice.

“Thirteen years ago, we set out to build a different kind of criminal defense firm, one grounded in prosecutorial experience and unwavering commitment to our clients. Today, I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished, not just in the courtroom, but in giving back to the legal community and supporting our colleagues through our attorney wellness initiatives. This is only the beginning.” This is not to mention all of the mentoring and performance mindset practices we give to the entire community of lawyers, and non-lawyers alike,” said Robert A. Bianchi, founding partner at The Bianchi Law Group.

Robert Bianchi and David Bruno have become a prominent legal voice on national television, having appeared as legal analysts on Court TV, CNN, ABC, FOX News, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC. Bianchi served for 6 years as a host and anchor at the Law & Crime Network, providing expert commentary on high profile criminal cases across the country. Both he and David host the Nothing but the Truth Podcast–a show about resilience and mindset practices. 

Throughout their career, Robert and Dave have been recognized with numerous awards, including:

• Prosecutor of the Year Award from the New Jersey Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association
• Honored speaker for both the Hudson and Morris County 200 Club(s)
• District Attorney of the Year Award from the National Council of Columbia Associations in Civil Service
• Community Service Award from the New York/New Jersey Asian-American Law Enforcement Advisory Board
• Man of the Year from the Italian American Police Society of New Jersey
• Man of the Year from The Columbian Foundation
• Bianchi Proudly serves his community as an EMT and rides as a volunteer ambulance member for the South Orange Rescue Squad. 

The Bianchi Law Group provides comprehensive legal representation in the following practice areas:

• Criminal Defense
• DWI/DUI Defense
• Domestic Violence Defense
• Municipal Court Cases
• Juvenile Crimes
• Drug Offenses
• Assault & Aggravated Assault
• Sex Crimes Defense
• White Collar Crimes
• Theft Crimes
• Murder & Manslaughter Defense
• Appeals
• Restraining Orders

The firm serves clients in all 21 counties of New Jersey, with a particular focus on Morris County, Monmouth County, Somerset County, Bergen County, and surrounding areas. Offices are located in Parsippany, with a strong presence serving Morristown and the greater Morris County region, as well as offices in Red Bank, NJ. .

As The Bianchi Law Group enters its next chapter, the firm remains committed to its founding principles: aggressive advocacy, insider prosecutorial knowledge, and unwavering dedication to client service.

“We are deeply grateful for every client who trusted us, every colleague who sends referrals our way, and a community that has supported us every step of the journey,” said Bruno. “The first 13 years built the foundation. The best is still ahead, and we are committed to delivering impact, service, and community at the highest level.”

The firm continues to expand its services while maintaining the personalized attention and high-level representation that has become its hallmark. With a team of former prosecutors who understand the system from the inside, The Bianchi Law Group is uniquely positioned to defend clients facing criminal charges and to advocate for those injured by the negligence of others.

For more information, visit bianchilawgroup.com.

In a highly competitive championship round, MSLAW faced Case Western Reserve University School of Law, which ultimately secured the national title in an exceptionally close and hard-fought trial. MSLAW’s second-place finish marks the first time in the school’s history that it has advanced to the National Championship Final, building on its previous record of multiple Top 4 finishes.

“This achievement reflects the extraordinary talent, preparation, and determination of our students,” said MSLAW faculty. “They continue to demonstrate that MSLAW competitors are among the very best in the country.”

The 2025–2026 competition centered on a complex double murder case set in a Philadelphia condominium. Students were challenged to analyze crime scene evidence, autopsy and forensic reports, and argue motions in limine to admit or exclude key evidence. Competitors conducted full trial proceedings, including opening statements, direct and cross-examinations of lay and expert witnesses, and closing arguments. Each four-person team argued both prosecution and defense sides, with students rotating roles as attorneys and witnesses.

MSLAW competed against 18 of the nation’s top law school teams—each a regional champion—progressing through multiple elimination rounds:

• Sweet 16: Defeated University of Maryland (Mid-Atlantic Regional Winner)
• Elite 8: Defeated Florida State University (Southern Regional Champion)
• Final Four: Defeated Syracuse University in a rematch of the NEBLSA regional competition
• Championship Round: Competed against Case Western Reserve University School of Law

The MSLAW team representing the school at the National Finals included:

• Klara Fleury (Brockton, MA)
• Kevin Marful (Worcester, MA)
• Sophia Basile (Rowley, MA)
• Julio Hernandez (Chelsea, MA)

Additional MSLAW Trial Team members who placed second in the Northeast Region of NBLSA include:
Marc Fevry, Dzidzai Mashoko, Cin Duran Valdez, Ashley Lopez Dishmey, Thor White, Farrah Kannan, Justin Fairbanks, and Preston Jackson-Stephens.

The team is coached by Professor Amy Dimitriadis and Professor Dan Harayda, whose leadership and mentorship have been instrumental in the program’s continued national success.

This milestone achievement underscores MSLAW’s commitment to practical legal training and excellence in advocacy, preparing students to excel in real-world courtroom environments.

About the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover
The Massachusetts School of Law provides an academically rigorous and affordable legal education with a focus on advocacy, ethics, and professional skills, preparing graduates to become effective lawyers and leaders in their communities.

Media Contact:
Rohit Bhasin, J.D.
Director of Admissions and Marketing
ro@mslaw.edu

The Center Square was launched in 2019 to fulfill the need for high-quality statehouse and statewide news across the United States. The focus of our work is federal, state and local government accountability and economic reporting. A taxpayer sensibility distinguishes our work from other coverage of federal, state and local issues. As a result of this approach, our readers are better informed about the focus of government and its cost to the citizens whose tax dollars fund governmental decisions.

According to Michael Arrigo, “All 50 states and three territories have a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, a joint federal-state agency that investigates and prosecutes not only the abuse and neglect of recipients in hospitals and nursing homes but also fraud by Medicaid providers.” 

Michael Arrigo is the CEO of No World Borders. The company provides expert witnesses for civil and criminal litigation in medical billing disputes involving usual customary and reasonable (UCR) charges for medical bills in personal injury litigation, performs medical record audits to determine the accuracy of medical coding in alleged civil overpayment disputes between providers and health plans, and fraud expert analysis.  The company’s founder Michael Arrigo has been admitted as an expert by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Court and State Courts. He is admitted as an expert in medical billing, electronic health records, HIPAA privacy, HIPAA security rule, cybersecurity in healthcare, physician compensation, and corporate governance.

eFraud Investigator was built to bridge the gap between discovery and forensic analysis. While traditional e-discovery tools make documents searchable, they rarely make the numbers usable. This new platform extracts, digitizes, and mathematically verifies financial transactions from static PDFs, allowing legal teams to get to the truth faster.

Defensible Data for Court

“Attorneys have been burned by software that guesses at numbers,” says Barbara Steinberg, CEO of eFraud Services. “In litigation, data integrity is everything. eFraud Investigator delivers virtually 100% extraction accuracy and automatically verifies every transaction against the statement’s ending balance — ensuring the evidence you present is mathematically identical to the source documents provided in discovery.”

Key Capabilities for Litigators:

• Handle Redactions & Rotations: The AI is trained to handle the specific “messy” reality of subpoenaed records.
• Immediate Case Triage: A built-in dashboard visualizes the flow of funds instantly, allowing attorneys to decide if a case is worth pursuing before investing in hours of forensic accounting.
• Cost Recovery: Drastically reduces the billable hours associates spend on manual data entry.

This ruling follows the previously reported hung jury and mistrial in November 2025. As detailed in Aiello Harris Abate, Law Group PC, Achieves Hung Jury in Federal Tax-Fraud Trial of New Jersey CPA, defense attorneys James A. Abate and Jay J. Freireich of Aiello Harris Abate Law Group PC secured the hung-jury outcome after deliberations were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. At that time, the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S.D.J.  reserved decision on a pending motion for acquittal.

In a detailed written Opinion and Order issued on February 13, 2026, the Court determined that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying the standard under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Demba willfully violated a known legal duty — a required element in criminal tax prosecutions.

The tax fraud case involved Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) credit calculations, an area the Court recognized as particularly complex within federal tax law. The Opinion emphasized that inaccuracies alone are insufficient to prove criminal intent and that the Government failed to negate Mr. Demba’s good-faith belief regarding the methodology used.

The Court further found insufficient evidence to support the obstruction charge, concluding that the record did not establish corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judgment of Acquittal prevents retrial under double jeopardy principles and brings the matter to a final resolution.

Aiello Harris Abate Law Group PC, which represents clients in complex criminal defense matters including Federal and New Jersey tax fraud cases, successfully defended Mr. Demba throughout the proceedings, led by James A. Abate and Jay J. Freireich.

CASE INFORMATION

United States District Court – District Of New Jersey – Trenton, NJ
United States of America v. Christopher Ward Demba
Case No. 3:25-cr-00032-ZNQ

Over the past decade and a half, Bixon has built a reputation for determined advocacy, personalized client support, and strategic courtroom representation. Now, as he celebrates this professional milestone, he continues defending clients facing a wide range of criminal charges, including drug-related offenses, theft crimes, weapons charges, and DUI.

“Fifteen years in practice has reinforced one thing for me, every person deserves a strong and unwavering defense,” said Michael Bixon. “Being accused of a crime can turn someone’s world upside down in an instant. My goal is to step in immediately, protect my client’s rights, and fight for their future from day one.”

Bixon Law handles a wide range of criminal defense matters, including:

• Drug possession charges
• Drug trafficking allegations
• Marijuana-related offenses
• Weapons charges
• Assault and battery
• Theft crimes
• DUI and other serious offenses

Michael Bixon has secured favorable outcomes for clients facing charges ranging from misdemeanors to the most severe felony accusations, including dismissals in cases involving violent crime allegations and major drug offenses.

“Every case deserves attention, preparation, and a defense strategy tailored to the individual,” Bixon added. “I don’t believe in treating people like case numbers. I believe in treating them like human beings who deserve a real chance to be heard.”

Courtroom Experience and National Media Insight

In addition to his work in the courtroom, Michael Bixon has gained recognition through appearances on CourtTV, where he has provided legal insight and commentary on high-profile criminal cases. His media presence reflects a deep understanding of criminal law, trial strategy, and the realities defendants face within the justice system.

“CourtTV gives the public a window into how complex criminal cases really are,” said Bixon. “But what matters most to me is applying that knowledge and experience directly to the people here in Atlanta who need a strong defense when everything is on the line.”

Commitment to Clients, 24/7 Support, and Fair Representation

Known for being accessible and client-focused, Bixon emphasizes communication and support throughout the legal process.

“When someone is facing any kind of criminal accusation, fear and uncertainty come with it,” Bixon said. “My job is to bring clarity, guidance, and aggressive advocacy so my clients never feel like they’re facing the system alone.”

Bixon Law serves clients across the Atlanta metro area and is committed to defending the constitutional rights of the accused while pursuing the best possible outcomes through negotiation, litigation, or trial when necessary.

About Michael Bixon

Michael Bixon earned his Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the University of Central Florida before receiving his Juris Doctorate from Barry University School of Law. He clerked in criminal and constitutional law matters early in his career and later became a Senior Associate Attorney at the Reynolds Law Group after moving to Atlanta.

He has also volunteered extensively with the Atlanta Volunteer Lawyer Foundation, assisting clients with housing and debt-related legal matters.

Michael Bixon is a member of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and is a graduate of the Bill Daniel Trial Program.

Bixon Law is a criminal defense firm based in downtown Atlanta, Georgia, located at 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200. The firm represents clients throughout the Atlanta metropolitan area and surrounding counties, providing strategic defense in state and local courts across Georgia.

Byrd Davis Alden & Henrichson will distribute $25 Uber vouchers to help Austin residents ring in 2026 safely. The credits are limited to one per person and valid exclusively within the Austin area from 7:00 PM on December 31, 2025, through 4:00 AM on January 1, 2026.

To claim a credit, visit https://byrddavis.com/helping-austin-get-home-safely/, scroll to the bottom of the page, and enter the mobile number or email associated with your Uber account. The $25 credit will be automatically deposited into qualifying accounts on the morning of December 31st.

“New Year’s Eve should be about celebration, not tragedy,” said Kevin Henrichson, Partner at Byrd Davis Alden & Henrichson. “We’ve expanded our program this year because we want even more Austin residents to have a safe ride home.”

Throughout their 66 years serving Austin families, the firm has witnessed the devastating impact of holiday impaired driving incidents firsthand, motivating their continued investment in prevention efforts.

“Behind every DWI statistic is a shattered family,” Henrichson explained. “We’ve represented parents who’ve lost children, children who’ve lost parents, and spouses left to pick up the pieces. When getting home safely is as simple as opening an app, there’s absolutely no excuse for impaired driving.”

Texas Impaired Driving Reality:

• A DWI-related death occurs every 7 hours and 2 minutes in Texas
• In 2024, 26.2% of all Texas traffic fatalities involved alcohol, according to TxDOT
• DWI penalties can exceed $17,000 in fines, legal fees, and associated costs

To secure your free New Year’s Eve Uber credit, visit https://byrddavis.com/helping-austin-get-home-safely/.

Somerville, New Jersey – The tragic deaths of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, and the subsequent arrest of their son Nick have raised numerous legal and financial questions for many people. Among those questions is, can and should Nick, as the accused killer, still receive his inheritance? The short answer is not likely.

Although parricide is rare, it accounts for approximately 2% of homicides in the United States, and of that number, only about a quarter involve the killing of both parents.

While investigators work to piece together evidence in this parricide case, and try to bring the Reiner family justice through the criminal system, important legal and financial questions remain for the three other Reiner children: Jake, Romy, and Tracy (adopted). Rob Reiner, an accomplished Hollywood director, and his wife, Michele, had an estimated net worth of over $200 million. Many have asked whether Nick Reiner would still be entitled to any inheritance from his parents.

Under California’s Probate Code, sections 250-259 (also known as the “Slayer Statute”), if Nick is found to have “feloniously and intentionally” killed his parents, he would be precluded from receiving “any property, interest, or benefit under a will of the decedent, or a trust created by or for the benefit of the decedent or in which the decedent has an interest.” California’s Slayer Statute goes on with more specificity as to all kinds of other prohibitions against Nick, but the overall spirit and language of the law is clear. Children who kill a parent are not entitled to receive estate benefits from the person they killed.   

Of course, since Nick Reiner has not yet been convicted, and is still presumed innocent under the law, he could try to make an argument that he is entitled to at least some portions of his parents’ estate until the conclusion of the murder trial. Such monies could help fund his legal defense. However, if the other beneficiaries of the estate desire to stop such preliminary distributions, they also could bring their own action in California Probate Court to try prevent any proceeds from being distributed until after the murder trial has concluded.

What all of this means is that, while all four Reiner children will have to say goodbye to their parents, Nick likely will also have to say goodbye to his parents’ money.

Theresa A. Lyons, Esq., MSW is a lawyer, social worker, and the Managing Partner of Lyons & Associates, PC, a law firm that represents clients in many matters, including estate planning and litigation issues.  Fabian T. Ardila is a law student at Seton Hall University and also serves as a 2ndLieutenant Firefighter in Raritan New Jersey. They can be reached at 908-575-9777.  www.lyonspc.com 

HMW Law’s New Year Safe Ride Campaign offers 100 free Uber or Lyft vouchers, helping participants get home safely after their celebrations. Each voucher is valued at $20 and can be used through Uber or Lyft between 5:00 PM on December 31, 2025, and 11:59 PM on January 1, 2026.

Reserve your voucher by December 29, 2025, by completing the form on HMW Law’s campaign page.

“We see too many cases that start with one avoidable decision,” said Brandon Henderson, managing partner of HMW Law. “This campaign is about giving people an easy, no-excuses option. If we can help one person make the safer choice, it’s worth it.”

Taking Action During a High-Risk Holiday

The National Safety Council projects nearly 375 traffic fatalities nationwide over the New Year’s holiday period, with drunk driving as a leading cause. In response, HMW Law—The Ohio Trial Attorneys is encouraging people to plan ahead and use rideshare services to avoid tragic consequences.

Open to residents in Cleveland and surrounding areas, the firm’s campaign seeks to prevent DUI-related incidents and support community well-being through direct action.

How to Participate

• Sign Up by December 29: Complete the short form on HMW Law’s campaign page to reserve your voucher.
• Use on New Year’s Eve or Day: Vouchers are valid for Uber or Lyft from December 31 at 5:00 PM through January 1 at 11:59 PM.
• One Per Person: Limited quantity available—early sign-ups encouraged.