Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Protecting the Company's Intellectual Property Crown Jewels
Eric J. Sinrod -- Special to Law.com -- October 30, 2001
Intellectual property is the crown jewel of the new economy, not only for technology-based companies, but also for companies that use technology to make their own businesses more effective. Every business should conduct periodic audits to identify whether they've created innovations that should be protected as intellectual property. But be sure that once you've identified the crown jewels, you're prepared to protect them.
Read more . . .
Law Suits Good for America Says Bogus, Professor
Melanie Nayer -- Rhode Island Law Tribune -- October 30, 2001
Think our litigation-crazy society is out of control? Roger Williams University School of Law professor Carl Bogus doesn't. In his new book, "Why Lawsuits Are Good for America: Disciplined Democracy, Big Business and the Common Law," Bogus argues that litigation is nothing to be feared. Lawsuits -- even seemingly frivolous ones like the McDonald's hot coffee case -- are in fact a very important part of American democracy.
Read more . . .
Shearman & Sterling Foresees 10 Percent Cutback in Associate Ranks
Anthony Lin -- New York Law Journal -- October 30, 2001
Citing the impossibility of "maintaining a boom-economy work force in a weak economy," New York-based Shearman & Sterling is proceeding with plans that may result in about a 10 percent cutback in its associates. In a memo circulated firmwide late Friday, senior partner David Heleniak explained that the 805-lawyer firm was forced to act by simultaneous drops in both activity levels and attorney attrition.
Read more . . .
Monday, October 29, 2001
The Network's Next CLE Program -- April 11-14, 2002 -- Camelback Inn & Resort -- Scottsdale, Arizona
Monday, October 22, 2001
Reinsurers May Retreat from Reinsuring Property and Casualty Losses Caused by Terrorism
Dan Ackman, Forbes.com, 10.22.01, 8:39 AM ET
NEW YORK - * * * Reinsurers have said they intend to insist on terrorism-exclusion clauses in their policies going forward, meaning they won't pay for property losses or liability claims caused by acts of terror, however defined. * * * Neither the insurers nor the states that regulate them can do anything about the great reinsurance retreat since these companies are nearly all offshore. But without reinsurance, the insurance companies would be reluctant or even unwilling to write policies. Without insurance, companies, buildings and construction projects would be unable to obtain financing. General chaos would ensue, so the theory goes.
The administration plan is to step in for the reinsurers. The difference is reinsurance firms charge premiums, while the government proposes to act for free and to offer perhaps more generous claim-payment terms in the bargain.
Under the current plan, details of which are still in the works, in the first year, the government--that is taxpayers--would pay 80% of the first $20 billion in terror-related claims and 90% of the next $80 billion in claims. In the second year, the industry would pay the first $10 billion itself, 50% of the second $10 billion, but just 10% of claims beyond that. In the third year, the industry would pay the first $20 billion in claims and the industry and government would split the second $20 billion. The government would then pay 90% of claims in excess of $40 billion.
This plan replaced an earlier industry-originated proposal that would have created a reinsurance pool administered by the government, modeled on a system used in Great Britain to provide reinsurance for insurance claims resulting from IRA terrorism. In that plan, insurance companies would have, in effect, paid premiums to the government in exchange for reinsurance.
* * * [T]he terms being rushed through (the industry insists legislation must be in place by Jan. 1, 2002, when most insurance contracts are to be renewed) raise several concerns.
First, there is at least some question as to whether the reinsurers will all, individually or collectively insist on terrorism exclusion clauses in their contracts. * * *
Second, critics ask why taxpayers should pay any of the first dollar of losses-- let alone 80% in the first year. "No reinsurance plan pays the first dollar," says Robert Hunter, a former federal insurance official and now Director of Insurance for Consumer Federation of America. Hunter suggests a "deductible" of $35 billion, meaning the government would only intervene in the event of a true calamity of a similar magnitude to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Read more . . .
Mirsky's Letter to the Editor re Corporate Responsibility for Litigation Results
Fruit of the Loom Case Against Fried Frank Law Firm Criticized
Ellis R. Mirsky -- Letter to Editor of National Law Journal -- October 22, 2001
Fruit of the Loom Misplaces Blame
Fruit of the Loom's lawsuit against one of the country's finest law firms is simply outrageous ["Fried Frank settles malpractice case with Fruit of the Loom," NLJ, Oct. 22].
From my experience during 10 years as vice president and chief of litigation of two New York Stock Exchange-listed companies (Combustion Engineering Inc. and GAF Corp.), a case as significant as the underlying LMP case [a dispute over a licensing agreement] in which a $96 million verdict was ultimately returned in a second trial won by the plaintiff licensor would never have gone to trial without a thorough prior review of all options by the defendant's general counsel, executive committee and board of directors.
My experience also includes working with the very same law firm accused of not keeping its client informed of the underlying case's potential downside. Preposterous! In cases of similar magnitude where Fried Frank represented my corporate client, I remember many multi-hour phone calls lasting well into the wee hours with the client's chairman, analyzing and explaining every possible scenario before taking a direction in important cases.
Any responsible corporate management would have held many meetings in-house, formal and informal, to discuss the potential downside of the underlying case, as well as the wisdom of settlement for an amount less than the case's jury potential. The case would have been lunchroom conversation, hallway conversation, night and weekend talk, boardroom material. Slapped once with a $25 million verdict, a company does not go blindly into trial once again without a thorough analysis of the risks of another, and possibly worse, downside result. Such a company thinks, analyzes, conferences, consults and cogitates.
Where does personal responsibility for bad litigation decisions begin in a corporation? Try-settle decisions, particularly of this magnitude, ultimately are the responsibility of the same people who decide other issues material to a company's financial conditionÑthe board of directors. Boards of directors should be responsible for demanding sufficient information to make informed decisions about pending litigation and should not be permitted to escape the very duties for which their members signed on when accepting their directorships.
If our rules of professional responsibility require us to take our client's direction, then law firms cannot be held to be guarantors or insurers of litigation results. Corporate directors & officers policies, not law firm errors & omissions policies, are supposed to protect against poor decisions, bad direction and dereliction by corporate management.
Ellis R. Mirsky
Tarrytown, N.Y.
Sunday, October 21, 2001
Palm Beach 2001
Saturday, October 20, 2001
New Airline Liability Rules May Become Model
Daniel Wise -- New York Law Journal -- October 22, 2001
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America's enthusiastic decision to embrace the new system set up by Congress to compensate victims of the World Trade Center attack could come back to haunt the group. The system contains several features that ATLA in the past viewed as threatening the fundamental right to sue, including a mechanism for bypassing juries, the elimination of punitive damages and an overall cap on liability.
Read more . . .
Bayer Threatens to Sue Over Generic Anti-Anthrax Drug
Tom Cohen -- The Associated Press -- October 22, 2001
A Canadian government decision to override the patent for the anti-anthrax drug Cipro and buy a generic version brought threats Friday of possible legal action from the antibiotic's maker, Bayer AG. In the United States, officials have said they have the right to override a similar Bayer patent on Cipro, but Bayer has promised to triple production of the drug to meet U.S. government needs.
Read more . . .
Friday, October 19, 2001
Swift, comprehensive actions can help clients through the worst of times
Be Ready To Respond to Critical Incidents
Mike Dore's Top 10 List Published Days Before World Trade Center Disaster
Mike Dore -- Lowenstein Sandler -- NJLJ -- 9/3/01
Get to the Scene -- On-site decision-making will be crucial (access, preserving evidence, responding to governmental and press inquiry
Set Up an Alternative Location -- Have a fully-functional office available to move into
Avoid Additional Damage -- Get back online as soon as possible,
Emergency Notifications -- Many persons/entities will need to be notified (prepare in advance with a list, complete with contact information)
What Really Happened? -- Initiate full-scale factual investigation under attorney's supervision,
Locate the Catastrophe Plan
Establish a Chain of Command -- Assign responsibilities for press relations,
Secure the Site -- to prevent loss of information
Liability and Insurance -- Notify insurers
Post-Incident Investigations -- Many different agencies will be involved.
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 18, 2001
Lawsuits Proliferate As Amusement Park Rides Get Wilder
Alan Fisk -- The National Law Journal -- October 18, 2001
When Kathy Fackler's son was injured on a Disneyland ride, she become an advocate for amusement park safety. In doing so, she discovered what plaintiffs' lawyers say they were already confronting: The amusement park industry, intent on maintaining its fun image, often swept injury reports under the rug. These lawyers say there has been an increase in suits over park accidents, as rides get faster, bumpier and scarier.
Read more . . .
Tips About Writing Briefs
Unorthodox strategies can make brief writing quicker, less expensive and more fun
Roy H. Wepner -- New Jersey Law Journal -- October 18, 2001
Highlights:
1. Start in the middle (or even at the end). Begin your brief by writing the section that is easiest to write. It need not be a major point; it can be a secondary argument that requires just a few paragraphs and a case citation or two.
2. Start writing immediately, as though the brief were due in three days.
4. Write all the footnotes you want. That is, write them in your first draft. Then, go through them carefully. If they say something important, you ought to be able to work them into the text of the brief. If you can't, they're probably not all that important. And if they are not important enough to make the grade into the text, bite the bullet and get rid of them. But don't hesitate to load your first draft with footnotes if it will help get you past your writer's block and get all of your ideas down on paper.
5. Don't fixate on court of appeals decisions. In citing cases (and I am here talking about federal cases), there is a tendency to always -- and only -- cite cases from a federal court of appeals. But if you are writing a brief for a trial court, keep your eyes open for decisions by the very same trial judge, as well as decisions by other respected district judges in your district or even in your circuit.
6. Avoid "middle-aged" citations. Everyone knows that recent cases are the best cases. But if you can't find a case to cite from earlier than, say, the 1970s, consider going to the opposite extreme. An 1890 decision could allow you to make a statement such as, "It has been the law for at least a century that ... "
7. Use strong and colorful rhetoric. In your first draft, that is. Get the sarcasm and the ad hominem attacks out of your system.
8. Focus on the "entrée," but don't forget the "side dishes." If you are writing a brief in support of a motion, remember that you will probably need a formal motion as well. Don't dismiss this as a mere formality. In federal practice, a motion "shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." Fed. R. Civ. P 7(b)(1). If you cannot clearly articulate the precise relief you are seeking, there is likely to be something wrong with your brief as well. Figure out exactly what you want the court to do, and ask for it with precision.
With summary judgment motions, most courts also require a separate statement of facts that are considered to be undisputed. Some local rules actually state that these facts will be deemed established if not properly contested. Don't give this statement of facts short shrift with a small number of conclusory assertions. Break it down into bite-sized pieces to include facts that your adversary cannot responsibly dispute.
9. Don't forget those "long lead" items. If the brief you are writing is in support of or in opposition to a motion, you may need affidavits, exhibits or the like to accompany your brief. It is a mistake to leave those items for the end, while you focus on perfecting your brief. Affidavits need to be signed by the affiants before a notary. If you start trying to track down your affiants on the day before your brief is due, you may discover that they are on vacation or otherwise unreachable or miles from the nearest notary.
In federal courts, you can obviate the need for a notary by using the declaration procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1746. Some courts will even accept declarations that are transmitted by facsimile, but you still need a living, breathing, knowledgeable declarant somewhere near a fax machine.
If your papers will include multiple copies of numerous and voluminous exhibits and attachments, assemble them early, and get your staff started on photocopying immediately.
10. Annotate your brief to your declarations before you actually draft them. Many briefs must be accompanied by declarations that provide the evidentiary support for the factual assertions made in the brief. It is most effective for a brief to make repeated and specific citations to the supporting declarations (and other evidentiary materials) whenever significant factual assertions are made. The judge may or may not jump back and forth between your brief and the declarations to make certain that the citations are legitimate, but even if she doesn't, a heavily annotated brief exudes a level of confidence with regard to factual support that is simply not present in a brief that contains little or no annotation.
11. Generate your table of contents as you are writing the various sections of your brief. A table of contents can be extremely helpful in getting your arguments properly organized while you are writing them.
12. Get an outsider to beat up your draft.
13. NOW write that introduction.
Read more . . .
Wal-Mart Hit With $13 Million Verdict
Malicious prosecution verdict hinges on surveillance videotape
Bob Van Voris -- The National Law Journal -- October 18, 2001
A Texas jury hit Wal-Mart Stores Inc. with a $13 million malicious prosecution verdict in a shoplifting case. Irene Aguilera was charged with shoplifting from a Red Rock, Texas, Wal-Mart. Her attorney said Wal-Mart claimed it gave police a surveillance tape proving Aguilera was in the store, but police denied ever receiving it. The jury found Wal-Mart liable for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Read more . . .
Venture Law Group Latest to Lay Off Associates
Renee Deger -- The Recorder -- October 18, 2001
Venture Law Group made another round of employee cuts Tuesday, targeting 10 lawyers and 22 staff. The cuts, following a series of other cost-cutting measures the firm has tried, make Menlo Park, Calif.-based VLG the seventh San Francisco Bay Area law firm to resort to lawyer layoffs because of the ailing economy.
VLG's lawyer cuts represent 15 percent of its 69 associates and senior lawyers, a rank that comes right before partner. All of the firm's four offices are affected. The staff cuts represent nearly 19 percent of the firm's 117 nonlawyer employees.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 17, 2001
New Jersey Judge Hears Thorny Issue of Disclosure of Alleged Tire Defects
Broad protective order attacked in suit over suspect Goodyear tires
Charles Toutant -- New Jersey Law Journal -- October 17, 2001
A New Jersey Superior Court judge must decide a case that pits a corporation's right to guard trade secrets against a watchdog organization's assertion of the public's right to know about dangerous products. Sacramento, Calif.-based Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety is moving to lift a broad protective order in a suit charging that defective Goodyear tires caused the crash of an Air Force vehicle.
Read More . . .
Good Enough Is Best
Outside counsel are told that perfection is not the goal -- just get the job done
Debra H. Snider -- Corporate Counsel -- October 17, 2001
There is often a mismatch between what in-house lawyers want and what outside lawyers deliver. Corporate counsel want to get deals closed, cases won, and companies taken public. They don't want to know everything about the fall of Rome when the question was simply how Caesar died. "Good enough" legal work is competent, expert work shaped for the client's specific business need.
Read more . . .
Rethinking the Workplace After Sept. 11
Companies scrutinize policies, security in terror's wake
Deirdre Davidson -- Legal Times -- October 17, 2001
Evacuation plans. Employees called for military duty. Islamic workers harassed by co-workers. As the United States remains on high alert, there is little that is not affected. For private industry, a whole host of new and complex problems has arisen. Says one employment lawyer, "The events of Sept. 11 will have a dramatic impact on the employment relations field, in some ways that we haven't even thought of yet."
Read more . . .
200-Year-Old Land Dispute Nets $247.9 Million
Suit centered on land of Cayuga Indian Nation
Margaret Cronin Fisk -- The National Law Journal -- October 17, 2001
A 200-year-old dispute over the ownership of a 64,000-acre tract of land in upstate New York has led to a $247.9 million judgment against the state of New York. A federal judge ordered the state to pay $211 million in interest on a $36.9 million verdict awarded to the Cayuga Indian Nation after the Cayugas charged that New York purchased the land two centuries earlier in violation of the U.S. Trade and Intercourse Act.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
Plaintiffs' Lawyers Feel Post-Attack Pinch
Daniel Wise and Tom Perrotta -- New York Law Journal -- October 16, 2001
After the Sept. 11 attacks, plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers feel caught in a vise of two contradictory forces -- both of them bad. On one side, they say, this is a terrible time to take a case to a jury because even a tragic case pales by comparison to the terrorist attack. On the other, the disruption to the courts and thousands of lawyers has put plaintiffs' firms under significant economic pressure.
Read more . . .
Saturday, October 13, 2001
Opinion Concerning Fruit of the Loom's Lawsuit Against Fried Frank
The opinion expressed below is the personal opinion of Ellis Mirsky and does not represent the opinion of The Network of Trial Law Firms or any of its member law firms.
(see article below)
Fruit of the Loom's lawsuit against one of the country's finest law firms is simply outrageous. From my experience over 10 years as vice president and chief of litigation of two NYSE-listed companies (Combustion Engineering, Inc. and GAF Corporation), a case as significant as the underlying LMP case in which a $96 million verdict was ultimately returned in a second trial won by the plaintiff licensor would never have gone to trial without a thorough prior review of all options by the defendant's general counsel, executive committee and board of directors. And, my experience also includes working with the very same law firm accused of not keeping its client informed of the underlying case's potential downside. Preposterous! In cases of similar magnitude where Friend Frank represented my corporate client I remember many multi-hour phone calls lasting well into the wee hours with the client’s chairman analyzing and explaining every possible scenario before taking a direction in important cases.
Any responsible corporate management would have held many meetings inhouse, formal and informal, to discuss the potential downside of the underlying case, as well as the wisdom of settlement for an amount less than the case’s jury potential. The case would have been lunchroom conversation, hallway conversation, night and weekend talk, boardroom material. Slapped once with a $25 million verdict, a company does not go blindly into trial once again without a thorough analysis of the risks of another, and possibly worse, downside result. Such a company thinks, analyzes, conferences, consults and cogitates.
Where does personal responsibility for bad litigation decisions begin in a corporation? Try-settle decisions, particularly of this magnitude, ultimately are the responsibility of the same people who decide other issues material to a company’s financial condition -- the board of directors. Boards of directors should be responsible for demanding sufficient information to make informed decisions about pending litigation and should not be permitted to escape the very duties for which their members signed on when accepting their directorships.
If our rules of professional responsibility require us to take our client’s direction, then law firms cannot be held to be guarantors or insurers of litigation results. Corporate D&O policies, not law firm E&O policies, are supposed to protect against poor decisions, bad direction and deriliction by corporate management.
Ellis R. Mirsky
Tarrytown, New York
Outrageous -- But, When You Tell Your Client He Could Lose, Put it in Writing
Fried Frank Settles Claim by Fruit of the Loom
Maureen Milford -- The National Law Journal -- October 15, 2001
One of the United States' largest law firms has settled a legal malpractice case in which Fruit of the Loom Ltd. was asking for more than $80 million in damages [alleging]negligence in handling a . . . case against a Fruit of the Loom subsidiary in the 1990s. News of the settlement has alarmed attorneys familiar with the . . . case. The suit named 135 Fried Frank partners as defendants and deemed them "legally responsible" for the damages.
* * *
The lawsuit involved the inventor of the "Clapper," a handclap-activated device, well known from TV commercials, that turns lights on and off. According to legal documents, lawyers and newspaper accounts, in 1981 inventor Carlisle Stevens and his business partner licensed their patents for an energy-saving fluorescent-lighting technology to [a] Fruit of the Loom subsidiary . . .. The licensing agreement allowed for the inventor at his business, LMP Corp., to receive a percentage of future royalties from 1982 to 1986. LMP sued in California's Alameda County Superior Court claiming that [the Fruit of the Loom subsidiary] fraudulently induced it to enter into a sales agreement and then suppressed the development of the product.
After a seven-month trial in 1989-90, a jury returned a judgment of $25.8 million against the Fruit of the Loom subsidiary. [Ed. Note: That would have told any experienced inhouse counsel, corporate executive committee and board of directors that there was real risk in proceeding to trial a second time.] On appeal, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for retrial.
Fruit of the Loom [then] hired Fried Frank to handle the second trial, which began in March 1994. [Ed. Note: During the 13-year litigation Fruit of the Loom hired 7 different law firms. -- Should that have been a clue to the management skills of the client? Also, if a jury has previously convicted a company of commercial fraud should that put a law firm on notice that that same company, if you accept it as a client, could turn on you too if it doesn't like the results with which you become associated?] This time the [underlying] plaintiffs asserted new and larger damages claims based on developments in the electronics market after the first trial . . . [T]he jury rendered a judgment of $96 million against [the] Fruit of the Loom subsidiary. The verdict was upheld on appeal in 1997, and Fruit of the Loom eventually paid $126 million, including interest, to the plaintiffs in 1998.
* * *
In the . . . lawsuit [against Fried Frank] filed in October 2000, Fruit of the Loom said Fried Frank was negligent and breached its fiduciary duty in its representation in both the trial and the second appeal. [Ed. Note: Apparently some companies think that good results are guaranteed, no matter how bad the company's own conduct. Hey, two juries found against you. Hello?] "This negligence included Fried Frank's [alleged but denied] failure to keep plaintiff advised of the status of the case, settlement discussions and offers, the risk of proceeding to trial a second time and the progress and status of the second trial," the complaint says.
[Ed. Note. Stop a moment here and think about a case this large and how much communication there usually is with inhouse counsel prior to trial, how much direction inhouse counsel gives and where the settle-try decision is made. What's your experience? It is simply preposterous to think that inhouse counsel, the executive committee and the board of directors of a company in the position of Fruit of the Loom were not aware of the risks posed by proceeding to trial. And if they were not, they they would be negligent, not the law firm they hired to defend the company. Where does personal responsibility begin in a corporation? You sit on a board of directors and have a major case coming to trial and have no idea that a very large verdict could come in against your company? Not in my experience. EM]
Fried Frank denied that it was negligent or breached any duties to Fruit of the Loom. The firm's defense is based on ". . . oral communications" between Fried Frank attorneys and the late Kenneth Greenbaum . . .. Greenbaum, who was general counsel at Fruit of the Loom, died before the legal malpractice case was brought.
. . . Fried Frank . . . contend[ed] that [it] discussed with Greenbaum jury studies which showed some mock juries were inclined to award a verdict for the plaintiffs of more than $100 million; . . . said they . . . told Greenbaum about a new damage study that showed the plaintiffs suffered damages of $137 million; . . . that they had discussions with Mr. Greenbaum about the potential settlement of the LMP Litigation . . .; [and that] during these discussions Mr. Greenbaum indicated that, in his opinion, the case was 'just not settleable' and that Fried Frank would simply have to try the case.
Moreover, the attorney for the plaintiff in the underlying case said he never saw Fried Frank attorneys engage in any conduct that he perceived as negligent or detrimental to its client, Fruit of the Loom. In the past year, Fruit of the Loom . . . sought discovery from Fried Frank, asking for all the files related to work done by the firm that involved the litigation. Fruit of the Loom also took depositions from Fried Frank partners who had primary responsibility for representing Fruit of the Loom in the LMP case.
As part of the settlement, no wrongdoing was admitted. Once Fruit of the Loom receives the settlement payment, it will dismiss the malpractice suit with prejudice.
Read more . . .
Friday, October 12, 2001
AND TODAY, IN THE "OH, THE IRONY OF IT ALL" CATEGORY: Layoffs Announced at Morgan Lewis (50 of 1,100 attorneys gone), Crosby Heafey (13 attorneys gone) and Gunderson (16 attorneys and 28 staff gone)
Firms that Led with Outrageous Starting Salaries Light the Way Again ;-) with Unprecedented Staff Cuts
Cuts follow Fenwick & West (Palo Alto) which previously cut 32 attorneys, and Cooley Godward (Palo Alto) which previously cut 86 attorneys (Cooley COO quoted "doubts that the salary increase drove business away"). Venture Law Group's first years were told not to come
law.com -- October 12, 2001
Philadelphia-based Morgan Lewis & Bockius (Morgan Lewis' story by Otis Bilodeau and Jeff Blumenthal, American Lawyer Media, October 12, 2001) and California-based Gunderson Dettmer (Gunderson' story by Renee Deger, The Recorder, October 12, 2001) and Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May (Crosby's story by Jahna Berry, The Recorder, October 12, 2001) announced layoffs this week, following a trend started by Cooley Godward's cuts in August. The firms cited a shortage of work as reasons for the layoffs.
By the way:
-- Gunderson (164 attorneys) last year earned $900K profit per partner on $70M revenue blamed cuts on shortage of work
-- Crosby (241 attorneys with 19 first years who just started) does not anticipate further cuts
-- Morgan Lewis' managing partner says not a good idea "to keep a workforce that's not aligned with the work."
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 11, 2001
San Jose's Skjerven Morrill Cuts 11 Associates to Trim Costs
Firm is third in Silicon Valley to lay off associates
Brenda Sandburg -- The Recorder -- October 11, 2001
San Jose, Calif.-based Skjerven Morrill MacPherson announced that effective Oct. 15, the firm will cut 11 of its 98 associates, making it the third Silicon Valley firm to announce layoffs as a result of the collapsing economy. Managing Partner Edward Anderson said the Sept. 11 tragedy, while not a direct cause of the reductions, had an effect. "We've seen a considerable slowdown in business conditions in the last month or so," Anderson said.
Read more . . .
Lawyers Still Adjusting to a Post-Sept. 11 World
Attorneys increasingly are using video and teleconferences to move litigation along; Lines at hubs worse than elsewhere, fly very early or very late, First-class does get priority
Margaret Cronin Fisk -- The National Law Journal -- October 11, 2001
Although litigators say they are returning to pre-Sept. 11 patterns of air travel, many attorneys are still adjusting and making changes in the way they run their practices.
* * *
Where and when delays are occurring varies dramatically. The worst lines, says Fred Bartlit (Bartlit, Beck, et al.), are at airports that are airline hubs. The best times to fly are very early in the morning and very late at night, he adds. The attorneys report few problems with the security checks. While they're being asked to take laptop computers out of bags, no one has been blocked from bringing the laptops on board. Frequent travelers have an easier time getting through checkpoints, Bartlit says. "If you're a priority, high-revenue type of passenger, there's no problem. If you're flying regular coach, it's real slow." On one recent flight, he says, he was through the security line within 15 minutes.
* * *
"Business people, including lawyers, have way overdone the perceived need to travel," says Jim Gilbert of Denver's Gilbert, Frank, Ollanik & Komyatte. In the future, he says, "there will be more depositions by teleconferencing or telephone. You don't need face-to-face contact as much as we thought." Teleconferencing has already increased dramatically, Saylor says. But, he adds, this is unlikely to replace travel completely. "I find it a very difficult way to conduct a business meeting -- especially for a trial lawyer. You really like to read faces and body language." With video conferencing, he says, "I completely lose that."
Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 10, 2001
Pick a Side -- Defense Firms Should Consider Their Responsibilities
Large SF Defense Firm Disqualified from Tobacco Suit After Attempting to Represent a Plaintiff Smoker
Susan Beck -- American Lawyer Media -- October 10, 2001
A San Francisco judge Friday disqualified Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison from representing a smoker in a suit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris Inc. The reason? Brobeck had served as RJR's chief counsel for smoking cases in Northern California for 27 years. Brobeck called RJR's motion a "cynical effort" to derail trial, but others are viewing Brobeck's entry into plaintiffs' tobacco litigation with a critical eye. Note: Brobeck's entrance into the case came just a few weeks after a record-breaking verdict made plaintiffs-side tobacco work suddenly look more attractive.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, October 09, 2001
Increasing Use of Technology is Creating New Dilemmas
Risks include mechanical failure, jury's perception of slick, high-dollar strategies
Unexpected Technical Glitches, Trial Lawyer's Unfamiliarity with Presentation Equipment, Inconsistency with "Poor Boy" Approach, High Cost
Linda Romine -- Business First Correspondent -- Business First -- 10/5/01
Downsides of using new courtroom technology.
Making the Case for Technology
Technology is dramatically changing how courtrooms operate, how attorneys present their cases
Linda Romine -- Business First Correspondent -- Business First -- 10/5/01
An overview of technology in the courtroom.
Lawyers Feeling Fallout from Attacks
Delays and Postponements Only Part of It
Juries Requiring More Persuasion Now in Personal Injury Cases
Monica Perin -- Houston Business Journal -- 10/5/01
Lawyers are wondering how the indelible images of the horrific attacks and the ongoing war against terrorism may affect courtroom procedures. "This is going to impact juries," says Houston jury consultant Sharon Lundgren, who holds a Ph.D. in social psychology. "More than ever, litigators will need to tell a compelling story to pull jurors in," she says.
Many jurors may have a more difficult time focusing on the large amount of unfamiliar information typically presented in a trial. Frivolous claims, Lundgren says, will have a particularly tough time. "We may see some backlash in counter-claims."
A survey of jury consultants nationwide conducted by Lawyers Weekly USA found predictions that disputes over money damages, as well as some personal injury claims, may now seem trivial to jurors in light of the recent events and may result in lower damage awards. Such fears are leading some lawyers to seek postponements or settlements in certain cases.
Read more . . .
AAA's Financial Ties to Companies Questioned
Can public count on fair arbitration?
Financial ties to corporations are conflict of interest, critics say
Reynolds Holding, Chronicle Staff Writer -- S.F. Chronicle -- 10/8/01
The American Arbitration Association, the nation's largest arbitration firm, owns millions of dollars' worth of stocks and bonds in major corporations whose legal disputes its arbitrators have heard. Some of the corporations also buy "memberships" in the association, and their executives sit on the association's board of directors. The association denies that any of these financial relationships affect its ability to provide fair and neutral arbitrators. But critics say the arbitration industry is riddled with conflicts of interest that would never be tolerated in court.
"Virtually any lawyer who has had to use arbitration doubts the integrity of the system in a way we never doubted the integrity of the public courts," says Arne Werchick, a lawyer, arbitrator and former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association.
Read more . . .
Monday, October 08, 2001
My Name is Really "Edwin"
"My name is really 'Edwin,'" says Edd Schillay, Manager of Operations for The Network of Trial Law Firms. "Yet the only time I ever heard it growing up was when it was being yelled up the stairs by my father and that meant I was caught. Whether it was report cards, after-school activities or unauthorized use (and misuse) of the family car, the name "Edwin" does not stir pleasant memories.
"So, I go by 'Edd.' My mother thought the spelling 'Edd' was unique, and that since I was unique, that was how my name should be spelled. Since then, I found several other 'Edd's' out there, including three whom you might know:
-- "Edd "Kookie" Byrnes of "77 Sunset Strip"
-- "Edd Hall, announcer of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno"
-- "Baseball Hall of Famer Edd Roush, who batted .323 over 18 years and led the Reds to victory in 1919. You remember him.
"Several years ago, I found a website dedicated to people who share the spelling. So much for being unique. See you in Florida."
Sunday, October 07, 2001
SF's Orrick Relocates Tech Operations to West Virginia
Lower Rents and Salaries, Dedicated Workers, Established Communications Infrastructure Lure Cost-Laden Operations
Ashby Jones -- American Lawyer Media -- October 8, 2001
San Francisco's Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe recently announced it was moving most of its back-office technology and finance operations to Wheeling, West Virginia, a city of 31,000 located in the northern end of West Virginia. The help desk, e-mail administration, accounts payable, billings and collections, and software support are the largest departments that will make the move.
* * *
According to Ralph Baxter, Orrick's chairman, it now seems a perfect way to save money on office space. "We realized the tech, finance and support elements don't need to be centered in high-priced real estate," he says. According to Baxter, commercial real estate in Wheeling costs about $10 per square foot, about one-tenth as much as in San Francisco. Baxter also thinks that creating a center dedicated to back-office functions will reduce the high turnover among Orrick's rank-and-file intellectual technology staff, a problem that has plagued most Bay Area law firms for several years.
"West Virginians will have a higher appetite for these types of jobs than do San Franciscans, who are used to being in high demand," he says. "We think it will yield a work product that is more consistent, more comprehensive and more reliable than what we're used to seeing in San Francisco."
Read more . . .
Health-care Fraud Whistle-Blower to Get $77M
Blow the Whistle, Pick up Your Check
Associated Press -- Posted October 6 2001, 2:38 PM EDT
CHICAGO -- A former executive of TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. will receive a record $77 million reward from the federal government for blowing the whistle on his employer's crimes. Douglas Durand brought to light the health-care fraud committed by TAP, which agreed last week to pay $875 million in civil and criminal penalties and to plead guilty to conspiring to overbill government insurers for the prostate cancer drug Lupron. Durand brought the fraud to light in 1996 when he filed a lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act, prosecutors said. A second whistle-blower will be paid $17 million from the $558 million in civil penalties levied against TAP.
Read more . . .
Tobacco Wins Case in Ohio
Argues Danger Well-Known and Points Finger at Asbestos
Reuters -- Friday October 5, 4:31 PM EDT
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A federal jury in Ohio on Friday rejected a claim for damages sought by the wife of a former smoker who died in 1996, four years after he contracted lung cancer. The jury ruled unanimously against Jocelyn Tompkin in a lawsuit that said her husband, David, developed lung cancer while using cigarettes produced by various tobacco companies from 1950 to 1965, according to a court clerk. The federal suit, filed in 1994 when Tompkin was still alive, claimed that the tobacco companies designed defective products and failed to warn the public of the dangers of smoking. The companies argued that Tompkin's disease was caused by exposure to asbestos as a bricklayer. They also argued that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was common knowledge during the years he smoked.Read more . . .
Saturday, October 06, 2001
Attack Can't Erase Stored Data
Smaller companies manually downloaded data onto magnetic tapes; Larger companies relied on "hot backups."
Julia Scheeres -- Wired Magazine -- 2:00 a.m. Sep. 21, 2001 PDT
A week after a terrorist attack obliterated their offices, tenants of the World Trade Center are slowly piecing their businesses back together again. In addition to the horrific human toll -– thousands of WTC employees are missing and assumed dead –- companies that were housed in the towers are facing computer equipment losses to the tune of $500 million, according to financial services firm Morgan Stanley. But one asset most tenants avoided losing on Sept. 11 was electronic data. They had learned a valuable lesson after the 1993 WTC bombing: Back up information often and completely.
Read more . . .
Tower Wreckage Reveals Clues
Impact did little damage; but fire caused outer columns to buckle and inner column's L-shaped floor supports to turn "drastically askew" -- Floors lost support and fell
Noah Shachtman -- Wired News -- 2:00 p.m. Oct. 5, 2001 PDT
JERSEY CITY, New Jersey -- In a scrap yard across the Hudson River from the fallen twin towers, engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl pores over the 1,500 tons of twisted, charred steel arriving here each day from the remains of the World Trade Center like an archaeologist, like a coroner. The University of California at Berkeley professor unveiled new details about the skyscrapers' cause of death Friday, displaying for the first time beams hit by one of the jets that ultimately brought down the towers, as well as scraps from the plane itself.
Astaneh-Asl -- who has had access to 40,000 tons of scrap -- said his findings confirm the widely held theory about the buildings' demise: that the impact of the planes did relatively little damage to the Towers. Rather, it was 1,000-plus-degree heat from the burning jet fuel that caused key outer beams to buckle, and floor after floor to fall. Within those broad outlines, however, many mysteries remain. For example, what happened to the buildings' inner columns? Did they melt, break or stay whole? Until now, no one knew.
* * *
Astaneh-Asl said that [one] column had remained basically intact during the disaster. But the L-shaped, hinge-like "seat supports" attached to this beam -- the pieces supposed to hold the floor up -- had not fared as well, their formerly right angles turned drastically askew. "So now we know, the column did not fail, it was a failure of the floor in most cases," he said.
Read more . . .
Thursday, October 04, 2001
Houston freight company pays $9 million to settle bias suit
Associated Press -- 10/2/01
HOUSTON – Freight company EGL has agreed to pay $9 million to settle a lawsuit charging that it discriminated against job applicants and employees based on race, sex or age. The company, also referred to as Eagle Global Logistics, agreed to pay $8.5 million in back pay and damages and $500,000 to create a fund to train women and minorities for leadership jobs at the company.
Eight employees and job applicants sued the Houston-based company last year, contending that they were discriminated against because of their race, national origin and sex. The settlement reached with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was only half of what the company offered to pay a year ago, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Read more . . .
Law Firms File Vaccine Lawsuits
William McCall -- AP Business Writer --Tuesday, October 2, 2001; 9:28 PM
PORTLAND, Ore. –– A coalition of law firms went to court across the nation Tuesday, trying to force the pharmaceutical industry to study whether vaccines containing a trace of mercury cause autism and other brain damage in young children. The lawsuits were filed as class actions and led by an Oregon woman who says her 3-year-old son, William, became autistic after getting vaccinations containing mercury in a preservative, thimerosal.
Michael Williams, the lead attorney, said drug companies did not tell doctors how much mercury was contained in the vaccines until Congress ordered the Food and Drug Administration to find out in 1997. "When they added it up, they were shocked to find out it was way above the safe level for an adult, let alone babies or very young children," Williams said.
Defendants in the lawsuits are Aventis Pasteur Inc.; Pasteur Merieux Connaught; Pfizer Inc., a subsidiary of Warner-Lambert; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Co.; Abbott Laboratories; American Home Products; Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; Lederle Laboratories; Baxter International Inc., Eli Lilly & Co.; Integra Chemical Co.; Sigma Chemical Co.; and Aldrich Chemical Co.
Read more . . .
Texas Firms Say No to Layoffs
Managing or hiring partners at nine large Texas firms say there are no plans to cut lawyer staffing for economic reasons: "absolutely no plans for layoffs," "we have a no-layoff policy," "not us" and "so far, so good."
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys -- Texas Lawyer -- 10/4/01
They point to diverse client bases and say their practice offerings are diverse as well, with the currently strong bankruptcy and litigation areas balancing a decline in business in some transactional areas. The strength of the energy business has kept Texas firms busy even as dot-coms tanked and the nation's economy sputtered, they say. And several suggest that Texas firms learned some tough lessons about loyalty and growth more than a decade ago when an economic downturn forced firms to cut staffing.
"If you want to have a truly strong law firm you need to keep your talented people, and you can't treat them like fungible commodities like other businesses do, because the taint lasts a lot longer," says Kenneth Menges, the Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld partner in charge in Dallas. "Some of our clients in other industries can lay off 20, 30 percent of their workforce and go right back into the job market and replace. * * * Texas law firms realized you can't do that," he says.
Read more . . .
Courts Split on Expert Testimony in Parlodel Drug Liability Case
Absence of an epidemiological study showing increased risk of stroke leads an Alabama magistrate to allow what scientific evidence is available, while an Illinois District Judge excluded the testimony of two experts finding their data "suspect" and their opinions more like "personal opinions" than scientific evidence.
Margaret Cronin Fisk -- The National Law Journal -- 10/4/01
Parlodel had been approved for prevention of lactation in 1981 by the Food and Drug Administration. It was taken by new mothers who weren't breast-feeding. The FDA began receiving reports of young women having heart attacks and strokes after using it, and in 1994, under government pressure, Sandoz voluntarily withdrew it from the market as a lactation suppressant. The FDA banned it for that purpose in 1995. Dozens of lawsuits ensued, and initially the defense record was poor. The company settled several cases, and the first to trial resulted in a plaintiff's verdict.
After Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy merged to form Novartis, the newly created company changed its litigation strategy concerning Parlodel lawsuits. It began attacking the scientific claims of the plaintiffs (women who claim the drug Parlodel caused them to suffer strokes) -- with mixed results. Last month, an Alabama magistrate found two Parlodel plaintiffs' expert opinions "scientifically reliable and admissible," while a judge in Illinois reached the opposite conclusion in another Parlodel suit.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, October 03, 2001
Suits Still Pending From 1993 Trade Center Blast
Litigation over security papers has caused delay
Bob Van Voris -- The National Law Journal -- 10/3/01
Of all the lawsuits delayed by the World Trade Center destruction, it is hard to find one more sadly ironic than In re World Trade Center Litigation. The legal fallout from the 1993 truck bomb that rocked the World Trade Center hasn't even gone to trial. Plaintiffs' lawyers claim that the Port Authority knew the towers were an attractive terrorist target and that a truck bomb was the most likely weapon.
Read more . . .
From Saccharin to Breast Implants: Mass Torts, Then and Now
Mark Herrmann, Adjunct Professor of Law teaching Complex Litigation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, chronicles the way that our legal system, our media, and our society have handled mass torts over the last few decades. He observes that the cautious approach of the 1970s has given way to the hasty and rash reactions of the 1990s, and he wonders about what this will mean for the future of litigation in general and mass torts in particular.
Read more . . .
Drug Companies Sued Over Vaccines Containing Traces of Mercury
William McCall -- The Associated Press -- 10/3/01
Law firms filed class action suits across the nation Tuesday, trying to force the pharmaceutical industry to study whether vaccines containing traces of mercury cause autism and other brain damage in young children. Lead attorney Michael Williams said drug companies did not tell doctors how much mercury was in the vaccines until Congress ordered the Food and Drug Administration to find out in 1997.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, October 02, 2001
Mirsky Takes Issue with American Lawyer's "2001 Associate Survey" as Not Producing Statistically Significant Results
October 2, 2001
The American Lawyer published its 2001 Associate Survey today of midlevel associates (3rd and 4th years). Ellis Mirsky read the survey results, especially as it concerns the handful of Network firms reviewed in the survey, and was surprised by some of the results reported and comments passed along to readers of the American Lawyer. Here follows (in reverse chronological order) Mr. Mirsky's correspondence with the editor of American Lawyer.
AMERICAN LAWYER'S CONCLUDING REPLY TO ELLIS MIRSKY:
Mr. Minsky [sic, Mirsky],
Thanks for your interest and your views. Although the published methodology is a simplified description of the process for our readers, we do indeed address these issues each year as we plan the survey.
Regards,
Margaret
------------------
Margaret Daisley
Special Projects Editor
The American Lawyer
mdaisley@amlaw.com
212-313-9052 Tel
212-481-8266 Fax
RESPONSE OF ELLIS MIRSKY TO AMERICAN LAWYER:
Dear Ms. Daisley,
Thank you for your response. I am certain that it is your and the American Lawyer's desire to obtain information in your survey that is representative of the views held by the category of associates described as "midlevels" and to report the results of your polling in a manner that can improve the lot of those associates who might make career decisions on the basis of what you write.
However, my concern is that absent random selection of the persons surveyed from within the surveyed population, you can never obtain representative opinions or statisically significant survey results, despite what the academic statisticians consulted by The American Lawyer may have told you.
Your article, "Here's How It's Done" does not, in my view, support the statistical validity or significance of the results reported for the following reasons:
1. firms can request to participate (lack of randomness);
2. surveyed associates are a sub-set of the total population of associates (experience and views change during the course of an employment relationship);
3. recruiting coordinators were used to distribute surveys (that can lead to preferential distribution to like-minded associates);
4. the number of completed surveys needed to meet listing requirements was uniform (5) and did not vary according to the number of associates at the reporting firm (thus the qualification criterion was capable of producing a more or less representative sampling depending on the size of the associate population at the firm surveyed);
5. composite scoring by un-weighted averaging fails to consider that some criteria are more important than others in determining whether associates will want to work at a firm;
6. high response rates from small, pre-selected surveyed cohorts does not necessarily result in a high degree of significance or representativeness of the data collected.
In order to obtain representative information, I believe that any survey conducted by the American Lawyer, the results of which are published, should be designed, conducted and analyzed by qualified polling professionals who stand behind their survey design and results, rather than by journalists with presumably less qualifications in that area.
I mean no disrespect. I appreciate your willingness to respond to my comments which are made in the interest of accurate fact-finding and reporting.
Best regards.
Ellis Mirsky
RESPONSE OF AMERICAN LAWYER TO ELLIS MIRSKY:
Dear Mr. Mirsky,
Your inquiry about the associates survey was forwarded to me, as I have managed and edited the associates surveys for the last four years. As you can imagine, this is not the first time the question has arisen, and indeed firms that score low on the survey are sometimes inclined to dismiss their lackluster results to "a few disgruntled associates," rather than to problems within the firm that our survey is designed to address. However, to answer your specific question: yes, The American Lawyer has periodically asked academic statisticians to review the data, as well as the questions and their relationship to the idea of associate "satisfaction," and each time we have been assured that there is absolutely no correlation between the number of respondents and the score, high or low.
I am not sure if you are familiar with the methodology, so allow me to emphasize the fact that we do not survey all associates at a firm in our annual midlevel associates survey. We only survey third and fourth year associates ("midlevels"), who represent a much smaller pool. This year, for instance, 191 firms asked to participate in the survey, and the average number of midlevels at those firms was 56. Ultimately, 177 firms qualified (i.e. we received at least 5 responses by deadline), and the average number of participants was 23, for a reponse rate of just under 41 percent. This includes 7 firms from which we received no responses, and 7 from which we received fewer than 5 responses; these firms were not included in the survey report.
In cases where the numbers seem especially low -- for instance, the 35 firms from which we received 5 to 9 responses -- the average response rate was slightly over 38 percent. The firm that received the lowest score -- Brown Raysman -- had a response rate of over 30 percent. Again, this is one aspect of the survey we've asked statisticians to look at, and the feedback we've always gotten is that these response rates are well within what would be considered an acceptable range.
The "anecdotal" evidence consists of volunteered comments to three specific open-ended questions -- a perfectly valid surveying tool. Our writers are instructed to use comments only if they supply additional evidence to illuminate the firm's high and low scores, either overall or for specific scoring questions. Our fact-checkers and editors further scrutinize the selected quotes both to assure no respondent's anonymity has been compromised, and to make sure that a quote has not been selected simply because it makes for good reading, regardless of what the other respondents have to say about the firm.
Having said all that, it's plausible there might be an occasion over the years (the midlevel survey has been conducted since 1986; the summer associate since 1979) in which "a few disgruntled associates" have responded to the survey, while other, more contented, eligible participants at the same firm have chosen not to respond, thus skewing the firm's potentially more favorable score. But I believe it would be a rare occasion that such a situation would occur.
I hope this adequately addresses your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me with further questions.
Regards,
Margaret
------------------
Margaret Daisley
Special Projects Editor
The American Lawyer
mdaisley@amlaw.com
212-313-9052 Tel
212-481-8266 Fax
ELLIS MIRSKY'S ORIGINAL LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF AMERICAN LAWYER:
I read with interest the American Lawyer's 2001 Associates Survey.
I question the significance of the survey's numerical and anecdotal results because the number of respondents per firm appears to be so low in comparison with the total number of associates at each firm "measured."
Can you provide any measure of the statistical significance or validity of your report?
My impression is that the low response levels per firm preferentially drew responses from those with the most polarized perspectives, favorable and unfavorable to the firms being reviewed. Do you have statistical information to the contrary?
* * *
Travel Tips for Flying Professionals
Guy Babineau -- The Law Marketing Portal -- http://www.LawMarketing.com -- 10/2/01
AIRPORT SECURITY -- an accumulation of current (at press time) information compiled from websites of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and the airport authorities of NYC, Washington, D.C and Vancouver, Canada.
-- ELECTRONIC TICKETS. Bring a printout confirming your e-ticket purchase or a copy of your itinerary from your airline or travel agency/website.
-- WHAT NOT TO PACK. Don't pack pocket knives, nail files, clippers, razors or other sharp objects. Leave at home any non-essential electronics including hair dryers and electric razors. Essential electronic devices must be packed in carry-on baggage.
-- ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES. Confirm times directly with your airline. Some travel websites are providing automated messaging alerting customers about airline and airport delays.
-- PARKING AND PASSENGER DROP-OFFS. Vehicles are being closely monitored. Some airports have prohibited main terminal drop-offs so call either the airport or your airline to find out.
-- AIRPORT CHECK-IN. Get there two hours before a domestic flight, three hours in advance if it’s an international flight. However, do not arrive earlier than necessary. All non-carry-on luggage must be checked in at the ticket counter.
-- KEEP YOUR COOL. The best way to deal with the new security procedures is to remain patient and calm, especially with airport and airline staff. They’re under considerable strain but they’re trying their best.
-- NEW SECURITY PROCEDURES. You’ll need government-issued photo ID and proof of ticketing – your ticket, boarding pass, e-ticket printout or travel agent’s itinerary – to proceed through security to the gate. Only ticketed passengers are allowed beyond security checkpoints.
-- AIRPORT (U.S.) SECURITY PRESENCE. Additional law enforcement officers are patrolling American airports. Airplanes are searched before boarding as well as prior to departure. Anonymous, armed Federal Air Marshals are flying on selected flights.
-- CANADIANS. Flights into the U.S. are operating from Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and St. John's.
For the most recent information concerning travel restrictions and precautions, anyone traveling within, to or from the United States should get in touch with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA has set up centralized communications specifically to deal with whatever concerns and questions people have.
TEL: 1-866-289-9673 (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time)
FAX: 202-267-50 EMAIL: 9-awa-tellfaa@faa.gov
WEBSITE: http://www.faa.gov
PACKING TIPS -- useful, proven ways to streamline packing time, shorten the wait at airports and arrive at your destination fresh, alert and ready to work.
-- MINIMIZE BAGS. Luggage, baggage; it’s all just so much buggage. For trips of five days and under, try to fit everything into one piece and carry it on. This will enable you to avoid check-in at one end and hanging around the baggage carousel at the other. Most airlines will allow a large purse, shoulder bag or laptop as well as a storable bag, but for the time-being airlines are encouraging passengers to bring only one carry-on item. Follow the suggestions below and in no time you’ll be a master of the Zen of Packing.
-- CHECK IT TWICE. Design a personalized checklist and keep several copies handy so you can quickly pack at a moment’s notice, and feel confident that you didn't forget anything important.
-- ROLLING ALONG. If you don't already have a luggage bag with wheels and retractable handles, the kind you see airline personnel use, you are missing out. Look for one that comes with a zip-on day pack. And remember, no joy-riding through the airport.
-- TAGGING YOUR BAG. Never include your full name and address on the outside of your bag(s). Thieves regularly lurk in airports to find out who’s going to be out of town. Place this information in a Ziploc baggie and put it inside your luggage. Put your email address on the outside tag so whoever finds it can get in touch with you immediately, because of course you’ve got your cell, laptop or palm pilot with you. Don’t you?
-- COLOR COORDINATE, PEOPLE. Try to pack by color, i.e. navy, so that you need only one pair of shoes. If you’re feeling particularly tasteful, pack some basic black and whites which you can combine with other clothes to extend your wardrobe for meetings and dinners.
-- PERSONAL CARE ITEMS. Have a cosmetics bag or shaving kit always packed and ready to go with small versions of everything. Buy empty screw-top bottles with the flip spouts to carry your own personal shampoo, conditioners, etc. Disposable pre-moistened towelettes are a great idea for hygiene. Baby wipes in a Ziploc sandwich bag work great. Try to keep it down to the basics.
-- BITS AND PIECES. Stuff belts (rolled up), ties and stockings in your shoes. You might want to include an emergency kit with a sewing kit, spot remover, a variety of safety pins, sticky-sided Velcro tabs or circles, mini-scissors, super glue and nail polish remover.
-- AVOIDING WRINKLES. Don’t fold your clothes, roll them. Purchase clothing that requires minimum ironing.
-- MAKESHIFT LINT REMOVER. Those peel-off, adhesive-backed sleeves you use on overnight courier packages make the BEST space-saving, easy-to-pack, on-the-road lint removers! Who knew?
-- LAPTOPS AND LIP SERVICE. [Keep the stuff that you absolutely cannot afford to lose with you. Pack everything else away and forget about it during the trip.]
-- EAT YOUR VEGETABLES. For long flights, it’s a good idea to pop some Vitamin C en-route so you don’t get rundown. The air on board can irritate your eyes so keep eyedrops handy. Bring bottled water too (with sports sip lids) and a salt-free snack. Wear loose-fitting clothing especially on you feet, at your waist and shoulders. Your body swells on airplanes. Once you are allowed to move about in the cabin get out of your seat every 45 minutes to give your spine some relief. Avoid caffeinated liquids because they are diuretics.
-- THREE’S COMPANY. Find out from your travel agent if the plane has rows running two or three seats across. Go for two, so you don’t have to crawl over other passengers.
-- DELAYS? CANCELLATIONS? NEVER! If there’s a delay or you’re rerouted, keep your sense of humor. Go directly to the gate you are directed to, or head for customer relations, and on the your way call your travel agent IMMEDIATELY. (Load their number into your cell phone before you leave.) Use 24 hour services – American Express is recommended. 24/7 agents have seen everything and they know all the tricks.
-- PLAY IT SAFE. Carry spare cash, a photocopy of your credit card and your driver’s license in a tuck-away pouch on your person.
TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS
-- GOTTA WORK ON THE PLANE? Dress in comfortable, grubby clothing and beat up sneakers. (Guys, don’t shave.) Fellow travelers will put forth effort to avoid you and then you can spread out. ;-)
-- COURIER FORMS. Take along some filled-out courier forms complete with your company's account number and your firm as the addressee.
-- KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING. Bring along adhesive address labels containing the names of all the "usual suspects" on your mailing list (both personal and business), and stamps. If you want to send a postcard, write a note, forward an article, etc., just peel off the address label and slap it on a postcard or envelope, put a stamp on it and throw it in the mail. Do this on a plane and everyone will think you're a demon of efficiency. People will also think that you are always thinking of them. Great return on a small investment of energy.
-- PREPARE IN ADVANCE. Forward documents, business and promotional materials, etc., to your hotel room via courier so everything’s waiting for you when you arrive. This saves time and space, and the documents don’t get bent or wrinkled.
-- WAITING AROUND. Business travelers can invest in access to the business lounges without having to be an Elite or Super Elite member. [AMEX Platinum card affords access to Continental and Northwest lounges with your ticket.] With a Diners Club/Maple Leaf Club credit card (annual fee approx $150 CAD), you can access all Star Alliance lounges around the world as long as you fly those carriers (Air Canada, United, Lufthansa, etc.).
Read more . . .
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon
American Lawyer -- 2001 Associates Survey -- 10/2/01
Wildman received a spectacular score for management openness about finances and strategy. (The firm also did pretty well at communicating about partnership chances.)
Read more . . .
Thompson Hine's Associates Say Firm is Very Professional
American Lawyer -- 2001 Associates Survey -- 10/2/01
"I chose this firm," said one midlevel respondent, "because it is managed well and run as a business, yet retains some collegiality." Another appreciated the firm's "dedication to serving the client in a highly competent manner." [The firm's] best score -- by far -- was for pro bono.
Read more . . .
Nixon Peabody A Good Place to Work
American Lawyer -- 2001 Associates Survey -- 10/2/01
"If you like to laugh and learn, this is the place." . . . Nixon Peabody must be doing something right. Two-year retention prospects at the firm were in the top quarter nationally . . .. * * * Midlevels . . . like the friendly atmosphere and big-firm quality work (especially in the branch offices), and gripes were only garden-variety.
What's the long-range attraction of the place? It may be job security, however short-term. Although layoffs were reported in the Boston and New York offices, every single respondent in the Rochester, Albany, and Buffalo offices expected the firm to be loyal to them in hard times. On average nationally, only 55.8 percent of midlevels took that leap of faith.
Read more . . .
Lowenstein Associates Happy with Firm
American Lawyer -- 2001 Associates Survey -- 10/2/01
Midlevels at Lowenstein Sandler were a mostly contented group. They were laudatory of the training offered by the firm ("You get your feet wet early," one said; "lots of development opportunities" was another's appraisal), their own treatment by partners, the humane billing requirements, the devotion to pro bono, and the workplace atmosphere. "I think one would be hard pressed to find a more pleasant working atmosphere in any other firm," crowed one midlevel; another expressed enthusiasm for the "fantastic work environment." Respondents also gave high grades for being able to maintain a life outside the office.
Read more . . .
Dykema Gossett Gets High Grades from its Associates
American Lawyer -- 2001 Associates Survey -- 10/2/01
Dykema Gossett may not win any awards for interesting work, but partners make up for it by treating midlevels well, and being open about firm strategy and finances. "The associates appreciate the open lines of communication regarding the finances and future plans of the firm," wrote one midlevel. A commendable attitude toward pro bono also helped raised the firm's overall ranking. * * * Overall, what came through was the sense of a firm that was trying hard to hold on to old-fashioned values and "to maintain a quality of life [with] a good balance between loyalty and hard economic decisions." Short-term retention prospects were consistent with the firm's overall ranking. (Responses: 19)
Read more . . .
Midsize Firms on the Rise
Brenda Sandburg -- The Recorder -- 10/2/01
Firms with 50 to 150 lawyers seem to be enjoying something of a renaissance for the very reasons that made them vulnerable before the dot-com bubble burst. Many had old-economy or litigation-heavy practices that were all over the map at the very time corporate boutiques and big firms were specializing in the hot tech sector. Overhead sucked away partner profits; associate ranks were thin; and they didn't pay enough to lure or keep top talent. But with the downturn in the economy, traditional clients are looking more and more attractive, rents are dropping, and the freeze on associate salaries has given firms more breathing room. Particularly well-situated, firm managers and legal consultants say, are firms with significant litigation or IP practices.
* * *
"Corporate and general counsel say they will go to the Midwest or suburbs of New Jersey where overhead costs are substantially lower and firms have a lower price structure as a result," said consultant Peter Zeughauser of ClientFocus. While high-end work is still going to the large firms, he said a material amount of midmarket work -- such as employment law, general corporate work, commercial litigation and real estate -- is going to regional firms. "It's a bit of a backlash to the increase in fees" that followed the boost in associate salaries, Zeughauser said.
Michael Roster, general counsel of Oakland's Golden West Financial Corp., said companies began turning to midsize firms over the last few years, particularly during the boom period, when they had trouble getting large firms to respond to them. He anticipates that the smaller firms will be more attractive with the coming recession.
"When United Airlines and American Airlines each lay off 20,000 in a week, you can imagine the CEO and CFO telling their general counsel 'you must cut your expenses 20 to 30 percent,' " Roster said. One way to do that, he said, is to shift work to a lower-cost firm. "It isn't as if the gene pool is such that only smart people live on the two coasts and go to large firms," said Roster, who was managing partner of Morrison & Foerster's Los Angeles office 10 years ago. There are attorneys in Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland and other cities "who went to superb schools and do superb work. There's no reason we can't use them."
Read more . . .
