news in brief

Harrisburg – State transportation officials last Wednesday urged the state Supreme Court not to overturn a state law that requires repeat drunken drivers to use a device that prevents them from operating their cars if they have been drinking.



The state’s ignition interlock law requires repeat drunken drivers to use a device that prevents a vehicle from being started unless the operator’s breath sample shows an alcohol level of .025 or below. The minimum blood alcohol content to establish intoxication is .10.



A driver must breathe into the $1,000 device before starting the car. If the device detects alcohol, the car will not start.



The case involves a 19-year-old central Pennsylvania man who was charged with drunken driving after his truck overturned and crashed on railroad tracks. The man, David Mockaitis, was required to use and pay for an interlock device.



The law, which went into effect on Sept. 30, 2000, requires the interlock device after multiple offenders serve a mandatory one-year license suspension. The device would be required on any car driven by someone with more than one drunken driving conviction.



A Cumberland County Common Pleas Court panel ruled the law unconstitutional, and the state Department of Transportation appealed the issue directly to the Supreme Court.



The law was passed under pressure from the Federal Highway Administration, which threatened to force the state to spend $8 million in federal aid on drunken driving unless Pennsylvania passed an interlock law by October 2000. Forty-two states require interlock devices for repeat offenders.



“This was a statute enacted pursuant to a command from Congress,” said Stuart Suss, a senior deputy attorney general for the state.



Suss wrote in a brief that the device was essentially a one-year suspension of full driving privileges, and not a punishment. As such, it addressed a compelling state interest and did not violate the constitution, he argued.



A lawyer for Mockaitis, however, argued that the law violated due process guarantees under the state and federal constitutions because it provided no adequate safeguards for appeals, and was too broad and vague.



The law also violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection to all citizens by not distinguishing between owners and non-owners, said Timothy L. Clawges, who represented Mockaitis.



Those who are under the interlock restriction but do not own cars cannot get licenses, Clawges said. And a business operator who owns a fleet of vehicles would be required to have the devices installed on all of them, he said.



“That’s arbitrary … overbroad and creates numerous problems for the court to enforce,” he said.



Justice Sandra Shultz Newman asked Suss if family members would be required to breathe into the device to operate a car equipped with an interlock device. Suss said they would, although later he added that such an impact would be no different from a situation in which one family member’s driving suspension affects others.

Firm Growth Slowing Along With the Economy

Philadelphia – The National Law Journal‘s annual survey of the nation’s 250 largest law firms reveals what many managing partners already know: The slowing economy has caused firm growth to taper off for the first time since 1993.



From Oct. 1, 2000, to Sept. 30, the nation’s largest 250 firms grew at a rate of 8.2 percent, down from 9.4 percent the previous year.



But the NLJ says law firm consultants tell them that the true slump may be worse than what’s reflected in the NLJ 250 numbers because of the hundreds of associates that have been laid off since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.



Morgan Lewis & Bockius was among the high-profile firms to hand out pink slips over the past two months, laying off 50 associates in various offices. Those losses are not reflected in the survey’s numbers, but Morgan Lewis still reported that its associate ranks were down from 740 to 717 before the layoffs were announced.



Overall, though, Morgan Lewis’ attorney count dropped by less than half a percent and by a total of five lawyers – 1,116 to 1,111. The firm was once again the largest Philadelphia firm on the list, but it did drop two slots in the national rankings from 7 to 9.



Dechert edged Morgan Lewis when it came to having the largest Philadelphia office – 299 lawyers, compared with 298. They were followed by Pepper Hamilton (232), Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley (231), Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll (218), Cozen O’Connor (202), Drinker Biddle & Reath (200), Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis (195), Duane Morris & Heckscher (191) and Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen (183).



In all, 23 firms with Philadelphia connections made the NLJ 250, including two newcomers, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads (230) and Reading-based Stevens & Lee (248).

Ex-swimmer Settles Privacy Suit Over Pregnancy