Want to hire cheaper foreign workers instead of Americans? A lawyer tells you how to game the immigration system—and it’s all on YouTube!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx–jNQYNgA

The video looks as though it could have been shot at almost any sleepy corporate seminar in the country, with one camera panning between a man in a suit and tie standing at a podium and others seated nearby. But the dialogue is riveting: It’s a group of lawyers openly discussing strategies for helping their clients pretend that they’re trying to recruit American workers—as required by law—while they, in fact, hire cheaper foreign workers. 

“[O]ur goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker,” says Lawrence Lebowitz, director of marketing for the Pittsburgh law firm Cohen & Grigsby, before an audience of employers at the firm’s conference. The seminar provides details on how employers can meet the government’s requirements for the Permanent Labor Certificate program (PERM), which lets employers sponsor foreign workers for permanent residency if they can demonstrate no U.S. worker can fill a job. The trick, according to Cohen & Grigsby attorneys, is to only go through the motions of hiring Americans without ever intending to.

The video, which has been posted on YouTube (GOOG), is now sparking a sharp backlash. On June 21, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) fired off a letter to Cohen & Grigsby demanding an explanation for its advice, as well as going so far as to ask for the names of its clients. “Your firm’s video advises employers how to hire only foreign labor, while making it nearly impossible for a qualified American worker to get a job,” they wrote. “We look forward to hearing from you on how such advice is ethical and does not undermine the programs by enticing fraud and misuse.” (See the lawmakers’ letter here.) A public relations firm representing Cohen & Grigsby did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Popularity: 23% [?]

By now everyone on planet earth and maybe even other planets, like the one Paris Hilton is actually from, has heard that she checked herself into jail Sunday night to start serving a 23 day sentence for violating probation.  The sentence was originally 45 days. 

 And now… SHE’S ALREADY OUT.  After just 3 days Paris Hilton was released from jail to house arrest… for 40 more days.

Her Mug Shot

This got me thinking, her Lawyer Richard A. Hutton from Hutton & Wilson, a supposed preeminent DUI Firm in Los Angeles must have seen a surge in prospective clients due to the publicity.   

Or did he… receiving a 45 day sentence for a violation of probation after she was caught driving on a suspended license is hardly what I would call a successful DUI representation (Original DUI charge in September). I know many people that have had similar cases or even more serious charges that did not even sniff the interior of a jail cell.

So the question this poses from a marketing perspective: Is it worth it to take on a celebrity or high profile client, whether it be Pro Bono or not, in order to get free publicity even if you LOSE THE CASE?  I know many people would revert to the cliche “There’s no such thing as bad press”.  Of course it works for Paris, but what about her Attorney?

ps. I promise I will never mention Paris Hilton ever again on LawFirmBlogging.com…

Popularity: 36% [?]

These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are
things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and
now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm
while these exchanges were actually taking place.

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
_______________________________________________________

ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you
forgot?
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that
morning?
WITNESS: He said, “Where am I, Cathy?”
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in
voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his
sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he’s twenty-one.
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shittin’ me?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh…. I was gettin’ laid!
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you shittin’ me? Your Honour, I think I need a
different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a
deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on
dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you
like to rephrase that?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go
to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was
doing an autopsy on him!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh….are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________
And the best for last:
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check
for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive,
nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and
practising law. 

Popularity: 29% [?]