Wednesday, November 21, 2001
When A Jury Steps on You, Step on Your Lawyer
Opinion and Analysis by Ellis R. Mirsky
I can do no wrong. Therefore the company on whose board I sit, and which is subject to my control, can do no wrong. If a jury clobbers my company, then it must be my lawyer’s fault. Sue him.
When a jury tells you that your company did wrong, and hits you up big time to make its point, go with it. Pass the bad result along to others. Sue your lawyer. Seems appropriate. It’s the natural extension of our faultless upbringings.
Ultimate Impact of Suing Your Lawyer is Bad:
Dan Bailey, co-author, Liability of Corporate Officers and Directors (Sixth Edition, Lexis Law Publishing) 1998, a partner in Columbus, Ohio’s Arter & Hadden law firm, and a lawyer with whom I have worked on a number of cases, notes that "when a company is engaged in defending potentially significant litigation, management, and ultimately the board of directors, needs not only to retain the best available counsel for the case, but also to be very clear from day one what the company's expectations are regarding how and when defense counsel should report material information, analysis and recommendations to the company."
"Information required from defense counsel should include a defense cost budget, a detailed liability and damage analysis, updates regarding developments and discovery, a realistic exit strategy and any settlement overtures from plaintiffs. If the company decision-makers don't receive that information regularly throughout the course of the litigation because they did not ask for it, shame on them -- they are not doing their job properly. If defense counsel fails to comply with those requests, shame on them -- they are not properly representing their clients."
So, if Bailey says the buck stops at the board of directors, that’s good enough for me.
A Case in Point -- Does making good jockey shorts mean you make good litigation decisions?
In 1981 the inventor of the famed handclap-activated "Clapper" switch (clap on, clap off) entered into a royalty arrangement licensing patents for an energy-saving technology to a subsidiary of Fruit of the Loom, the dancing fruit company. But instead of the thunderous applause hoped for from multitudes of clapping hands, the subsidiary evidently sat on its hands, and failed to promote the patents, resulting in less-than-hoped-for royalties to the Clapper folks. At least that’s what a jury thought of the lack of cacophony when it pantsed Fruit the first time and threw up $25.8 million to the Clapper team in 1999.
Embarrassed, the Fruit players changed jockeys and turned to the big guns at Fried Frank in New York City to retry the case in March, 1994. Fried Frank was a natural. Its heavies ironed out things in the past when Fruit had gotten twisted up in its shorts. And Fried was well-known for, ah, "tight briefs."
Fried, as it happened, was just the latest (7th) in a laundry list of law firms engaged to keep Fruit’s underwear clean over the 13-year litigation. But for Fried’s previous close working relationship with Fruit and its general counsel, Fruit’s rotating wash of law firms, like the rotating beacon of a light house, might have been enough to warn off a law firm. Instead, Fried rolled up its sleeves and threw itself headlong into the front-loader the litigation had become.
Fried hired jury consultants, conducted jury research and found that jurors thought Fruit’s laundry bag of a case was dirty. Mock jurors demonstrated an appetite to wash away the problem by awarding multiples of the real (first) jury’s $25.8 million award. What to do? Fried reported the disturbing information to Fruit’s general counsel. His response: "the case is unsettleable. Go to trial."
Now, let’s take a step back. I served 10 years in-house as chief of litigation for two large NYSE-listed companies. We had our share of large, bet-the-company cases, and many opportunities to drop big cases. Once jury research or other information told me what to expect from a jury, I had heard enough. There was no point in confirming ominous predictions of mock jurors with real verdicts from real jurors. In fact, it would have been a dereliction of in-house counsel’s, executive committee’s and board of directors’ responsibility to have done so. That is, a company should not need to have a jury tell it the obvious: "you’re liable and you have to pay." My job was to know that in advance and to avoid the jury verdict. The job at that point is to settle. Even the most "unsettleable cases are settleable. There is always a way.
However, here, to hear Fried tell it, Fruit’s general counsel determined that the case was not settleable and that a jury trial was the only way to go. Now, for all anyone knows, he might well have been right. That is, there might have been no way to allocate sufficient funds or structure a deal with the plaintiff’s attorney that would have made the case go away. That’s not really the point. The point is that once the decision is made to go to trial, the burden of an adverse result must rest with the company making that decision and with its management, and cannot rest with trial counsel instructed to march on. Especially is that so in a case that had been tried once to an adverse verdict, where the facts had only worsened, and where current jury research showed a likelihood of an even worse jury award. Who was knowingly undertaking and assuming a risk and who was warning against the likelihood of a bad result?
Predictably, at trial the Clapper plaintiffs asserted new and bigger damage claims based on developments in the marketplace after the first ($25.8 million) trial. The jury responded, as foreseen by Fried’s jury research, with a $96 million award against Fruit. With interest, after an unsuccessful 1997 appeal, Fruit paid $126 million in 1998.
Fruit then sued Fried in late 2000 alleging that Fried failed to keep Fruit advised of the status of the case, settlement discussions and offers, as well as of the risk of proceeding to trial a second time and the progress and status of the second trial.
Stop another moment here and think about a case this large and how much communication there usually is with in-house counsel prior to trial, how much direction in-house counsel gives and where the settle-try decision is made. What's your experience? It is simply incredible to think that in-house counsel, the executive committee and the board of directors of a company in Fruit’s position were not keenly aware of the risks posed by proceeding to trial a second time. If, in truth, they were not aware, they should have been.
"If the company decision-makers don't receive . . . information regularly throughout the course of the litigation because they did not ask for it, shame on them -- they are not doing their job properly." Dan Bailey
And, if they were aware, then they knowingly took a risk that back-fired. Either way, defense counsel is not to blame.
Assumption of the Risk:
Personal responsibility begins at the board of directors level 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 is on the verge of coming in against your company? Not in my experience.
In its defense of Fruit’s claim, Fried spoke of oral communications with Fruit’s late general counsel Greenbaum who died before the claim against Fried was asserted. Fried said that Greenbaum was aware of the jury studies showing that some mock juries would award $100 million against Fruit; he knew about a damage study showing $137 million in damages ; and he told Fried that the case was 'just not settleable' and that Fried would have to try the case.
We call that "assumption of the risk."
Bailey comments that "ultimately, this type of case does not advance the best interests of corporate America. A predictable response by law firms to this type of corporate finger-pointing is to increase even further the scortched-earth approach law firms use when defending significant lawsuits. Defense costs will escalate even more rapidly than the current dizzying rates. A couple of recent examples: Waste Management recently settled a securities class action law suit for $457 million, but reportedly spent $100 million in 2000 and another $65 million in 2001 in legal fees related to the litigation. Boeing recently settled a securities class action lawsuit for $92.5 million, but reportedly incurred $40 million in defense costs. Those levels of defense expense seem outrageous on the surface, but can only be expected to increase if law firms believe they will be criticized if a case turns sour. One way or another, companies eventually pay those enormous costs, either directly or through increased insurance premiums. Again, the answer is to establish in writing clear expectations and responsibilities at the beginning of the case regarding all aspects of the defense of the case, the reporting obligations of defense counsel and the costs to be incurred. It is the company's lawsuit and the company (through its directors and officers) needs to understand and control the defense of the lawsuit."
In my experience, a case as significant as the underlying Clapper 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, litigation manager, and executive committee.
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 examining every possible scenario before taking a direction in important cases.
Responsible corporate management would have held 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 $26 million verdict, a company would not go blindly into trial a second time 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 executive committee and the board of directors. Company officers and 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 offices and directorships.
If our rules of professional responsibility require us to take our client's direction, then we cannot at the same time be held to be guarantors or insurers of litigation results gone bad. Corporations that assume the risk of a bad trial verdict by directing counsel to march on in the face of ominous contraindications should not be permitted to spread the loss back to their trial counsel when a real jury acts as predicted and slams the company. Corporate directors & officers policies, not law firm errors & omissions policies, are supposed to protect against poor management decisions, bad direction and dereliction by corporate management.
Jerry Oshinsky, a name parter with Washington, DC’s Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, with whom I have worked on a number of matters, and who is generally regarded as the insurance industry’s chief nemesis for all the insurance coverage law and new holdings traceable to his hand, notes that "suits against law firms generate extra unnecessary work by requiring lawyers to paper their files and those of their clients with written advice where oral discussions would otherwise suffice and by necessitating written sign-offs by clients on case strategies. At the end of the day the effect is to drive up insurance premiums for lawyers throughout the country."
Gary Elden, a name partner with Chicago’s Grippo and Elden, and another lawyer with whom I have worked, noted that "the case sadly illustrates what everyone knows: that in high-stakes litigation, an outside firm can best protect itself from second-guessing if it puts its advice in writing and qualifies that advice with warnings of everything that can go wrong. Then, should disaster strike, it need not rely on loyalty, relationships, honesty and memory. Unfortunately, focusing attention on such things can make litigators unduly cautious, warn of too many risks, and be reluctant to state optimistic views. The litigation analysis can start to resemble a prospectus and the attitude of the litigators can change from that of aggressive champions of their clients' interests into wary people at arm's-length from their clients concerned as much about not being criticized as about doing the job."
"Wise corporate counsel would make it clear that the buck stops with the client, that the client understands there are no guarantees in litigation, and that the client wants the most balanced advice possible, undistorted by the need to protect the litigator's own interests. Occasionally a client taking this approach may end up without the ability to bring a malpractice action, but those events will be rare and those suits hard to win in all events. In almost all cases, however, eliminating any risk of an adverse relationship between the litigator and client will lead to better advice. There is enough pressure on trial counsel anyway, especially not to take large cases to trial for regular clients, that the threat of later malpractice litigation is almost always going to be counterproductive."
Trial lawyer Rod Heard of Chicago’s Wildman Harrold law firm says, "in 28 years of commercial litigation, I have never gone to trial without inside counsel insisting that our firm perform a 'full-body cavity search' of every potential liability of a major case."
Trial lawyer Jose Ortego, of New York’s Nixon Peabody, states, "no law firm is a guarantor of results at trial. A trial attorney should reasonably keep his/her client informed but it is the ultimate responsibility of the company and its board to assess those risks and make prudent business decisions on the information provided – decisions the trial attorney cannot make."
And, trial lawyer John Fitzpatrick of Richmond’s LeClair Ryan, adds "it is preposterous to think that corporate executives aren't pulling every string in high exposure litigation. Discussion of exposure, jury research results, and likelihood of prevailing is the rule in big cases and alert executives to the downside risk the company will be embracing.
Conclusion:
Maybe because there’s just so much of it, and it’s generally so well-handled, companies tend to become complacent about litigation. They assign it in-house to a senior specialist who relies on a cadre of dedicated outside trial lawyers who give their all, day-in and day-out, protecting their company client, most of the time with great success. It all fosters a general state of benign disregard. It’s under control.
Once in a while, though, a bad bugger of a case pops up presenting out-of-the-ordinary risks. The natural first reaction is usually denial, as everyone hopes it will go away and drop back into the pile of matters that are under control. And sometimes it does. But, for those cases that don’t go away, company management (the general counsel, the chief operating officer, the chief executive officer) has to be able to recognize the outlier and roll in sufficient resources to handle the problem. They have to weigh in and make some judgment calls, test their in-house counsel and his/her plans to handle the case, and hear first-hand from outside trial counsel just what the situation is. Directors have to direct and officers have to execute the offices to which they have been elected.
Once all of that is done, company management must decide what to do -- try or settle. And they must live with their decision and should not be permitted, ex post facto, to blame the very trial counsel they instructed to proceed with trial.
Litigation has for too long been seen as an unfortunate consequence of doing business rather than for what it really is -- just another one of the many tools of doing business. As such, it falls squarely within the realm of responsibilities that corporate directors and officers have responsibility to manage.
"If you're going to play the game properly,
you'd better know every rule."
Barbara Jordan
(1936-1966) born on Feb 21
US lawyer, educator, politician.
She served as U.S. congressional representative from Texas, 1972-78;
first African-American congresswoman to come from the Deep South.
* * *
Tuesday, November 20, 2001
A Look Back to the Survey of Chief Litigators - by Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky and Corporate Legal Times -- December 2000
More than half of respondents, 67.8 percent, expect intellectual property litigation to increase in the next five years. Another 57.4 percent expect more labor and employment litigation.
Fifty-five percent expect more commercial litigation in five years, and 33.3 percent are anticipating more international litigation. About 24 percent of respondents expect an increase in products liability.
A large majority -- 80.5 percent -- of respondents have a list of preferred providers. Respondents use a variety of methods for choosing firms on the list.
The most popular method? Personal or prior experience with a firm, which is what 28.7 percent of respondents use. A firm's experience is the reason 19.5 percent of litigation heads place it on the preferred-provider list, and area of specialty is the reason 13.8 percent list a firm. Slightly less than 14 percent rely on referrals for their preferred providers, and another 12.6 percent base the decision on a law firm's reputation.
When it comes to sending domestic cases to outside counsel, 28.7 percent of respondents automatically send all IP litigation to their law firms, and 20.6 percent automatically send all real estate litigation to outside counsel.
Slightly more than 20 percent automatically send all litigation to their outside counsel, regardless of the size of the case.
When it comes to litigation, the size of a law firm is only somewhat important or of minimal importance to the majority of litigation heads at the nation's largest legal departments.
Slightly more than 40 percent of litigation heads surveyed in the Corporate Legal Times -- Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP Inaugural Survey of Chief Litigators say the size of a law firm is somewhat important when selecting outside counsel, and 33.3 percent say it of minimal importance. Only 3.4 percent say it is very important.
When asked to elaborate, 27.6 percent of respondents say that the firm must be big enough to handle a case.
Says another, "Size has advantages and disadvantages. We are usually biased towards small to mid-sized firms. For something as large as a mass-tort case, we would use a large firm."
Brobeck Gives Some Associates Buyout Offer
[Will 200+ Associates Be Leaving?]
Brenda Sandburg -- The Recorder -- November 20, 2001
In a last-ditch effort to avoid layoffs, San Francisco-based Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison is offering to pay ["]underperforming["] associates in its business and technology group as much as five months' salary to leave the firm.
The so-called "separation incentive program" is open to associates who will have billed less than 1,300 hours by the end of the year. Brobeck expects associates to bill a minimum of 1,950 hours per year. Those who sign up for the program will receive a lump sum equal to their base salary through April 15. They have until Dec. 6 to take the offer.
* * * The firm declined to say how many of the 265 associates in its business and technology group are eligible for the buyout. But one associate said most of the attorneys in the group will not bill 1,300 hours by the end of the year.
Read more . . .
Saturday, November 17, 2001
Prepare for the Next Disaster
A primer on what to demand from your IT staff
Anthony Paonita -- Corporate Counsel -- November 19, 2001
Mobility and redundancy is good. Centralization isn't. A low-tech solution is to make sure someone trustworthy is physically taking the backup tapes [or backup laptop] home, or somewhere else. Or that it is being done virtually: copy data periodically to a remote location, either across town, or in another city or locale altogether via the Internet.
Test regularly to make sure that the right kinds of files are being copied and are actually usable by the average computer user.
A full backup, a virtual photograph of what you've got (installed operating system and application software) is going to be better than a backup of just the data.
Set up a dummy office somewhere else, with at least some computers fully configured to work with the software you need. That means system software, applications -- and broadband Internet access.
Provide key employees with laptops loaded with the application software they need and with backup devices (e.g., USB CD-ROM writer). And assure that they have high-speed access from their homes.
Read more . . .
Friday, November 16, 2001
Thinking About Law Firm Security After September 11th
Wendy R. Leibowitz -- 11/15/01
Wendy R. Leibowitz is an attorney and writer in Washington, D.C., and the editor of E-Filing Report.
Her Web site is http://www.wendytech.com.
* * *
SECURITY 101
* * *
1. WALK THE WALK: * * * Have you walked the evacuation route of your law firm? * * *
2. APPOINT A SAFETY OFFICER FOR EACH WORK AREA: Immediately assign safety issues to someone in authority. One person should be in charge only of ensuring that everyone is aware of evacuation plans and knows how to exit the building safely. People should know where to gather, or to whom to report, so that all can be accounted for after the building is evacuated.
Designate a place (or two places, depending on the size of your staff) where employees who have evacuated an office will go to assemble. It is important to be sure you can get a head-count, and help them back home, or to another, make-shift office space to continue work if feasible. Whether all or some employees will resume working immediately after a disaster depends on their health and the type of event that precipitated the evacuation of the building.
3. ESTABLISH A CYBER-RENDEZVOUS POINT: Set up a Web site as a check-in point as well. These Web sites were indispensable on September 11. If someone is out of the office at the time of the disaster, they can also check in at the cyberspace rendezvous point, and the site can be made public, so that family and friends can see who has been accounted for.
Obtain alternative e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers for all those who work in an office, so that a way to contact people, other than their work contact information, is on file. Remind people to update their information every time they change their coordinates.
Work continuity issues can be assigned separately to someone else, probably in the information technology department. The goal is, first, to safeguard lives. The second goal is to be able to continue working even if your office or your building is inaccessible for some period of time.
4. EDUCATE PEOPLE THAT DISASTER PLANNING IS NOTHING NEW: * * *
5. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, AND PRODUCES CALM: Consider giving out “wallet cards” that explain to employees emergency procedures, including what to do during and after an evacuation. * * *
DATA SECURITY
Protecting data is a whole different ballgame. Loren Jones, director of WestWorks customer care, a division of West Group, says that September 11 is “really going to push us more firmly towards implementing document imaging systems. The less we rely on the paper, as being the ultimate object of our business fascination, and begin to rely more on electronic versions, the better off we’ll be.” * * *
“Article after article pointed out the firms [in the Twin Towers] were well-protected from the standpoint of their data,” noted Mr. Jones. “Their billing systems were backed up, and their document management systems were backed up, but they were all scrambling to recreate the massive loss of paper files--scrambling to the courts to get copies of pleadings, and going to opposing counsel to get copies of files.” For our day to day transactional needs, recommends Mr. Jones, we should rely less on paper.
* * *
That is the opposite of what many lawyers think. The old belief system is that the paper copy is safe and secure, and that the computer file is prone to mystical disappearances at critical moments. But the truth is that paper is the most perishable. You can easily replicate the electronic data and have it stored in multiple places.
A consensus is emerging that a law firm should have at least two sets of disaster recovery files and backup tapes of your computer’s data. One copy should be stored on your office site in a secure, fireproof, location. Another complete copy should be stored off-site.
These files, like extra paper copies that lawyers are enamored of, are useful for minor disasters, such as a lost document or hardware failure, as well as major disasters. * * *
Read more . . .
Thursday, November 15, 2001
By acclamation, we will be returning to Las Vegas this January for our business meeting. We believe that many Network members will want to make a weekend out of the trip and bring a spouse along. We're planning dinner, recreation and entertainment to make that possible.
WHERE:
WHEN:
Arrive Friday, January 25, 2002
Dinner 6:30 p.m.
As the second generation of the Maccioni family, Sirio and Egidiana's sons, Mario, Marco and Mauro, bring their wildly popular New York restaurant, Osteria del Circo, into the Bellagio family fold. Circo is situated lakeside next to Le Cirque. The Adam Tihany-designed room features upscale and homestyle Tuscan cuisine inspired by the Maccioni matriarch, Egidiana. This vibrant restaurant offers commanding views of the lake.
Saturday, January 26, 2002
MEETING
Breakfast 8:00 a.m.
Business Meeting 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
Lunch 12:00 noon
GOLF
1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
Beyond circus, beyond theater, Cirque du Soleil has created an entirely original form of live entertainment. "O" pays tribute to the magic of the theater - from the simplest street performance to the most lavish of operas - where anything is possible and where the drama of life plays itself out before our very eyes. Cirque du Soleil's first venture into aquatic theater has been seen by more than 2 million spectators and has earned the acclaim of journalists from around the world. The Chicago Tribune says, "…as spectacular and inventive a live as you're likely to find anywhere in the world right now…" while Las Vegas Review-Journal recently honored "O" as the best production show for the second year in a row. With an international cast of 81 artists, performing in, on and above a 1.5 million gallon pool of water, "O" by Cirque du Soleil tells the tale of theater through the ages and frees us to embark on a 90-minute voyage where dreams are not only encouraged, they come true.
Top 10 tips for keeping your website Legal
Nigel Miller (Fox Williams) -- Silicon.com -- 11/14/01
1. If you don't own it, don't use it
You must own or have licence rights to use all elements of the website. This should include graphics, images, text, video and sound. Intellectual property created by an outsourced developer may not belong to the client until there has been a specific assignment of rights.
Particular care should be taken with the meta tags set up on your site which may divert traffic from other sites. This could be construed as passing yourself off as another company.
2. If you own it, protect it
Protect your intellectual property rights. Register trademarks. Think about patenting business methods. Make sure no one is squatting your brand on a similar domain name.
Print a copyright statement on the site to advise others what they are and aren't allowed to do with your content.
3. Mind your Ts and Cs
Protect yourself by limiting your liabilities in the Terms and Conditions of use of your site. You may want to exclude certain people on the basis of geographical location or age for example.
If you allow people to post comments on your site, remind them they may be liable for defamation of character.
4. Respect other people's personal data
The Data Protection Act sets out how you may display customers' and users' personal and financial data. Serious breaches of these regulations could result in a fine.
5. Keep your distance
If you're in B2C, make sure you comply with Distance Selling regulations, which came into force on 31 October 2000. Consumers who buy goods and services online are entitled to certain information to be made freely available, such as the physical address of the supplier, the duration of any services bought and the terms and conditions of cancellation procedures. This information must be available to the consumer in a 'durable form of information', ie. an email is acceptable, putting it on a web page isn't.
These regulations also give the consumer the right to cancel an order any time up to three months after it has been made if this information has not been provided correctly.
6. Stay in the frame
There may be legal problems with framing and deep linking, especially if links made into other websites cause commercial damage. If your links bypass security checks or drive traffic behind pages, which are used to get advertising revenue, you could be held liable for damages.
7. Take care crossing borders
Different countries have different laws protecting consumers, privacy and intellectual property. Make sure you are familiar with the commercial regulations in the countries where you sell goods and services online, as an ignorance of them will not protect you from prosecution.
8. Don't run into developmental problems
Get a website development and support agreement which establishes intellectual property rights, performance criteria, liabilities and payments.
9. Stick to the trail
Save copies of the site regularly especially if you change it often, in case you need them as evidence. If someone threatens you with prosecution, you can refer back to your audit trail to build your defence.
10. Security begins at home
Make sure you comply with employee regulations of data protection and make sure they comply with liabilities concerning libel and sexual, racial harassment via email etc.
Employers tend to win legal battles with workers
Tiffini Theisen -- Knight Ridder Tribune -- 11/14/01
In appeals courts across the country, companies are far more likely than former workers to get verdicts they don't like thrown out - more than seven times more likely, according to two Cornell Law School professors who analyzed nearly 1,300 such cases from 1998 to 1997.
Their analysis is part of a larger study, "Plaintiphobia in the Appellate Courts," which will be published early next year in the University of Illinois Law Review.
"One explanation may be bias of appellate judges who are skeptical of discrimination cases," says Stewart J. Schwab, who co-authored the specific employment report with fellow Cornell Law professor Theodore Eisenberg.
Plaintiffs - those who file lawsuits - don't have much luck overall when it comes to appeals. If you look at all types of lawsuits, plaintiffs prevail on appeal in only about 12 percent of the cases. But their chances are even worse in employment-discrimination cases: less than 6 percent.
Meanwhile, it's a different story for defendants who try to get lower-court decisions reversed. They're successful about a third of the time overall. But companies who fight employment-discrimination cases have even more luck: They win about 44 percent.
Read more . . .
Baxter sued in dialysis deaths
Possible link to blood filter seen
Bloomberg News -- The Boston Globe -- 11/14/2001
DEERFIELD, Ill. - Baxter International Inc., the biggest maker of treatments for blood diseases, is being sued in connection with more than 50 deaths possibly linked to the company's kidney-dialysis filters.
Kenneth B. Moll & Associates Ltd., a law firm based in Chicago, filed the suit on behalf of all patients who used the product, called a dialyzer, which helps cleanse the blood of toxins in patients whose kidneys don't function properly. The suit seeks class-action status.
The firm said it has reports that more than 56 patients died after using the filter, and that number is likely to increase. The US Food and Drug Administration said it was investigating more than 50 deaths possibly linked to the filter.
$15M suit alleges tech firm stole trade secrets
Greg A. Lohr -- Washington Business Journal -- 11/9/01
Two [DC Beltway] software makers are headed to court over a contract with a subsidiary of National Geographic Television and alleged theft of trade secrets. Beltsville-based DSMC has filed a $15 million civil suit against Vienna-based Convera. Both companies help clients manage online content, including music and video.
* * *
Moore Appoints Jennifer O. Estabrook Senior Vice President, General Counsel And Assistant Secretary
Toronto, Ontario and Stamford, Connecticut - Monday, November 12, 2001, 4:38 PM EST
Robert G. Burton, President and Chief Executive Officer of Moore Corporation Limited (TSE, NYSE: MCL) announced today the appointment of Jennifer O. Estabrook as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Assistant Secretary.
In regard to this appointment, Mr. Burton stated: "I am pleased to announce that we have named Jennifer Estabrook as our General Counsel. Jennifer has added tremendous value since she joined us earlier this year. She has been instrumental in helping us execute our game plan, having taking the leadership role in our recently announced divestiture of the Phoenix Group division. Her extensive experience in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures leaves me confident that Jennifer is the right person for this job.
Military courts could try terrorists
Anne Gearan -- Associated Press -- ArmyTimes.com -- 11/14/01
The Sept. 11 attacks and the threat of new terrorism justify President Bush’s decision to approve the use of military tribunals the likes of which the United States has not seen since World War II, administration officials say. Bush approved the framework for such a court Tuesday, for possible use in cases involving terror assaults. His emergency order does not require approval from Congress.
* * *
A special military court could try accused terrorists in greater secrecy than a conventional court, and much more quickly, lawyers in and out of government said.
Rules for such a court could give the government a freer hand to introduce evidence or statements that probably would be excluded from a regular criminal trial, and military jurors might be more likely to vote for a death sentence, said David B. Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who published a legal paper on Bush’s options this month.
Convicted terrorists might be executed shortly after a trial, with few or none of the long delays for additional court appeals common in criminal courts, lawyers said.
* * *
Unlike U.S. district courts or military courts-martial, “a commission is governed by whatever the president and to a certain extent the Congress dictate,” Ifrah added.
Military commissions date to the late 17th century, operating side by side with the better-known courts-martial. The United States last convened one on orders from President Franklin D. Roosevelt after German saboteurs secretly landed on U.S. shores in 1942.
Detention and trial of accused terrorists by a military tribunal is necessary “to protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks,” Bush’s five-page order said.
The administration also could hold a trial in an ordinary criminal court, but said it wanted the option of using a military court.
In either a military or a civilian court, any suspect would retain rights to a lawyer and to a trial by jury, the administration said.
* * *
Bush’s order sets out many of the rules for a future military tribunal and rights of anyone held accountable there. A senior Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said only noncitizens would be tried before the commission.
The defense secretary would follow up with more specifics should a tribunal be needed, the White House said.
Anyone ever held for trial before such a court would certainly challenge its legitimacy, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, and a lawyer who regularly practices before military courts.
“This is going to raise a raft of legal issues and will be a test of the president’s power,” Fidell said.
Gonzales, the president’s top lawyer, said a military commission could preserve the secrecy of U.S. investigations into terror networks.
In a conventional court, a victory might require giving other terrorists information about U.S. “sources and methods,” Gonzales said. “We don’t want to have to do that.”
A military trial also could be held overseas, and Gonzales said prosecutors may feel a trial in America would be unsafe.
Recent terrorism trials have taken place under heavy security in U.S. criminal courts, where the rules require the government to reveal its evidence either in open court or in filings it must fight to keep secret.
Laura W. Murphy, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said for a military trial to have constitutional legitimacy, Bush must justify why ordinary courts could not do the job.
“Absent such a compelling justification, today’s order is deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy,” she said.
Roosevelt had the World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military commission, and six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding, although Rivkin said it is not clear whether that case would guide a modern challenge. An enemy who sneaked onto U.S. soil “for the purposes of waging war by destruction of life or property” was a combatant who could be tried in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled then.
Military tribunals also were used during and after the Civil War.
Clients Complaining About Hourly Rates? Check These Hourly Rates in Recent Bankruptcy Cases
The Deal
Think you might be charging too much? Fagetaboutit! Check these rates. One might say, "No wonder these clients are bankrupt. Only a corpse could suffer this kind of feeding frenzy. And for what? To pick over remains?"
Format: Bankrupt (Court)
Partner Range / Associate Range / Paralegal Range
2001 -- Finova Group (U.S.B.C. D.Delaware in Wilmington)
350-650 / 180-410 / 115-170
2001 -- Warnaco Group Inc. (U.S.B.C. SDNY in Manhattan)
475-675 / 250-335 / 100-135
2001 -- Winstar Communications Inc. (U.S.B.C. D.Delaware in Wilmington)
245-650 / 155-495 / 90-190
2001 -- W.R. Grace & Co. (U.S.B.C. D.Delaware in Wilmington)
365-675 / 130-395 / 90-150
2000 -- ContiFinancial Corp. (U.S.B.C. SDNY in Manhattan)
380-625 / 235-400 / 125-140
2000 -- Integrated Health Services Inc. (U.S.B.C. D.Delaware in Wilmington)
370-660 / 240-390 / 105-150
2000 -- Owens Corning Inc. (U.S.B.C. D.Delaware in Wilmington)
295-670 / 160-390 / 80-165
2000 -- Safety-Kleen Corp. (U.S.B.C. D. Delaware in Wilmington)
415-675 / 180-420 / 160-190
2000 -- UniCapital Corp. (U.S.B.C. SDNY in Manhattan)
465-650 / 270-410 / 100-140
* * *
Judge could alter asbestos claim valuations
Terry Brennan -- Nov-1-2001
Lawyers involved in asbestos-related bankruptcies will watch a New Orleans judge today to see if he takes two views of the past when trying to determine if bankrupt Babcock & Wilcox Co. illegally passed along $622 million to its parent company more than three years ago.
B&W, a unit of New Orleans-based McDermott International Inc., filed for Chapter 11 protection on Feb. 22, 2000. At the time, it had 49,000 asbestos-related liability claims against it.
In a novel strategy, B&W wants Judge Jerry Brown of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, to value those claims without referencing past settlements of asbestos litigation involving the company.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
A Guide to Insurance Coverage for Losses From the September 11, 2001, Attacks (10/23/01)
Download a fairly extensive analysis of coverages likely to be affected together with issues likely to be raised.
Insurers Filing To Exclude Terror Loss
Daniel Hays -- National Underwriter Online News Service -- Nov. 13, 4:28 p.m. EST
A firm that develops policy language for 600 property-casualty insurers said it is putting through the paperwork so its commercial lines insurers can exclude coverage for acts of terrorism.
The American Association of Insurance Services, based in Wheaton, Ill. said its action was a response to requests from members who face loss of reinsurance at year’s end. AAIS said it is initiating countrywide filings of commercial lines endorsements that would exclude losses resulting from acts of terrorism.
Joseph Harrington, a spokesman for AAIS, said he wanted to stress that "these endorsement forms need to be approved by the states."
He said that endorsement language was drafted last week "and the procedural steps are underway. I don’t know that anything has actually been mailed to a state yet."
AAIS President Paul Baiocchi said that the endorsements "address an immediate need of our customers, many of whom have been told that their reinsurers will exclude terrorism losses in contracts effective Jan. 1."
Primary insurers face an acute problem even if their exposure to terrorism losses is remote, Mr. Baiocchi said. Any unceded exposure affects assessments of an insurer's financial condition, he explained.
"These filings do not reflect any determination on the broader question of whether and how exposure to terrorism can be insured," Mr. Baiocchi added. "AAIS will continue to consider that question along with the rest of the insurance industry, but short-term action is needed to address Jan. 1 reinsurance renewals."
AAIS said it anticipates that the exclusions will be filed as optional endorsements for property and liability policies. Companies that have given AAIS filing authority on their behalf will not need to take any filing action with regard to the exclusions, but AAIS advised them to consult with their reinsurers on the extent to which terrorism losses will be excluded from reinsurance agreements.
The exclusions, AAIS said, explicitly base their definition of terrorism on a definition in the U.S. criminal code. By drawing on a statute, AAIS uses a definition of terrorism that is generally accepted and periodically updated, said Deborah Summerlin, AAIS vice president of insurance lines.
The exclusions also expand the scope of "terrorism" to exclude coverage for losses arising from damage to or denial of use of Web sites, computer networks, telecommunications equipment, and mechanical equipment.
"The statutory definition of terrorism is restricted to violent acts," said Ms. Summerlin. "We are also aware, however, of the potential disruption to computer systems by terrorist acts that are not necessarily violent."
The language that will be used in AAIS terrorism exclusions was distributed to all AAIS member companies in a recent bulletin. AAIS said companies that are not affiliated with AAIS and would like to see the language can contact Robert Schnoll, marketing manager, at bobs@AAISonline.com or by calling 800-564-AAIS.
AAIS is a national insurance advisory organization. Property-casualty insurers nationwide use AAIS's policy forms, manual rules, and loss cost rating information.
* * *
ANC Rental driven into Chapter 11
Katie Anderson -- The Deal -- Nov-13-2001
ANC Rental Corp., the owner of the Alamo and National car rental chains, filed Nov. 13 for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Wilmington, Del., as the downturn in the travel sector worsened the company's troubles.
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based ANC claims to have been the hardest-hit car rental company since Sept. 11, mainly because most of its rental offices are at airports.
ANC, which listed assets of nearly $6.5 billion and debts of $5.9 billion as of Oct. 31 in its Chapter 11 filing, plans to use existing cash and revenue generated from normal business activities to finance its operations.
Even before Sept. 11, however, ANC was having problems. It said its loss for the year would be $50 million to $65 million. And in August, the company hired Lehman Brothers Inc. as its financial adviser to help evaluate strategic options, including a "significant investment by a third party, or sale of the company."
The hiring stoked speculation that Cendant Corp., which owns Avis Rent A Car, might want to acquire some of ANC's operations. But since then, dwindling car rentals have left little hope for an acquisition.
The company said Sept. 24 it was looking for ways to cut costs, including reducing its car rental fleet and laying off thousands of employees. It had raised $110 million through the sale/leaseback of real estate in the summer.
Lehman is listed as ANC's largest unsecured creditor with a claim of $203.5 million. Tuesday's filing, however, also said the company believes Lehman's security interest is avoidable under Section 547 of the bankruptcy code, which deals with the avoidance of preference claims. Lehman in September let ANC delay an Oct. 1 loan payment of $70 million until Nov. 30.
ANC estimates it has more than 1,000 creditors and said funds will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors. Discussions with creditors and other parties on liquidity options are ongoing, and the company said it may mimic the airline industry in seeking financial help from the U.S. government.
"The drastic decline in travel after Sept. 11 has taken a tremendous toll on our business, and our current capital and expense structure cannot absorb the shortfall," CEO Michael Egan said in a statement.
Bonnie Glantz Fatell of Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley llp in Wilmington is ANC's counsel, while Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson is New York is the co-counsel.
Andersen llp has been hired for accounting services during the reorganization.
ANC has also hired William Plamondon as ANC's turnaround specialist and Larry Ramaekers as president of the company.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
Asbestos Bankrupts Return to Defending Cases
Terry Brennan -- The Deal -- 11/12/01
The strategy of challenging . . . asbestos claims that bankrupt Babcock & Wilcox Co. is attempting in two New Orleans courtrooms was a tactical failure almost 20 years ago and lawyers watching the case don't think it has much chance in succeeding now. Virtually all of the 30-odd companies and their attorneys facing asbestos-related claims in the past two decades ultimately have chosen to settle rather than face painstaking and costly efforts involved in challenging individual claims.
[Now] two asbestos liability-laden bankruptcy clients, B&W and W.R. Grace & Co., . . . are trying to reverse the nearly two-decade trend and aggressively challenge the claims against them.
See outline of W.R. Grace's asbestos picture.
See Rand Study reporting no end in sight for asbestos suits, claims predicted to double, bankrupting the industry. Bob Van Voris -- The National Law Journal -- August 27, 2001
Read more . . .
Monday, November 12, 2001
Why Web Conferencing Beats Teleconferencing
Deborah Whitman -- MSN -- Net Progress
Businesses are increasingly turning to Web conferencing as a means to offer a more dynamic, interactive presentation than just a phone conference. Where before you might have held a teleconference, and maybe e-mailed a presentation ahead of time, Web conferencing lets you control the presentation and highlight points to help others on the line understand in real time. See, e.g., Placeware.
Different locations, same page
Web conferencing can mean many things. At the most basic level, it's the ability to hold a meeting where participants can listen by phone and simultaneously see visuals through their Web browser. The meeting organizer can control what participants see, keeping everyone on the same page, and can use drawing tools to emphasize points. In its more advanced incarnations, a meeting organizer can show Web pages to the participants, draw on a "white board" to illustrate a point and use any piece of software so that all participants can see the software in action. You can even allow participants to add comments and drawings to a presentation or hand off conference control to another participant entirely.
All in all, it's not as good as being there, yet you can have an effective meeting where everyone hears and sees the same thing at the same time — without the hassle and expense of travel.
Read more . . .
Sunday, November 11, 2001
Arbitration Abroad Key
Serguei Chervachidze -- Kyiv Post Staff Writer --11/08/01
Rather than take their chances with Ukrainian courts, foreign investors are making arbitration by courts and third parties outside Ukraine a condition of investing here.
Read more . . .
MOLD LITIGATION -- California Attorney General Hires Plaintiff Law Firm for Mold Litigation
Pahrump Valley Times -- November 09, 2001
California attorney Alex Robertson and his firm will be on [Nye] county's [California] side as it relates to litigation regarding the twice-evacuated and still mold-tainted county complex in Pahrump.
The commissioners voted . . . to retain Robertson, and chose a "blended" fee arrangement that calls for Robertson to be paid $200 an hour, his staff attorneys $150 an hour, and his staff paralegals $100 an hour. In addition, Robertson's firm will receive a 15 percent contingency on whatever cash settlement is arrived at.
The payment option included straight, and higher, hourly wages. Chairman Jeff Taguchi supported the blended fee schedule, theorizing the potential contingency windfall might make Robertson "extremely aggressive" on behalf of Nye.
Read more . . .
Lawyer Math in Sept. 11 Deaths Shows Varying Values for a Life
William Glaberson --New York Times -- 11/11/01
In measuring the value of a lost life, lawyers often say that dollars are inadequate, but that they are all there is. In addition to damages for economic losses, intangible things, like the suffering before an inescapable death, are given a price tag. Lawyers say they are struggling to analyze how such intangibles should be computed in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Read more . . .
Patent War Pending
Court to hear case that makes infringement claims more difficult
Jenny B. Davis -- ABA Jouirnal -- Law Beat -- Supreme Court Report
Nov. 29, 2000's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 makes it easier for companies accused of infringing patents to win in court when their designs include small changes in details from patented inventions.
Now patent litigators who complain their clients’ patents are getting “Festoed” by copycat competitors hope for a reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the controversial case in December. The ruling is . . . a concern among business interests, which line up on both sides of the Festo divide. The Court received 12 amicus briefs representing 27 parties just on the writ of certiorari issue. [So far], 24 parties, including corporate heavyweights like Litton Systems Inc., 3M and Bose Corp., had filed amicus briefs addressing the merits of the case. Among those urging the Court to overturn the ruling were the U.S. solicitor general and the American Bar Association.
* * *
No More Equivalence Protection
At the core of the controversy is a commonly invoked patent law tenet called the doctrine of equivalents. First acknowledged by the Supreme Court in 1854, the doctrine lets a patent holder sue for infringement without having to show exact duplication of a patent’s express terms. The patent holder must only show that there is “equivalence” between the elements of the defendant’s product or process and those of the patented invention. The doctrine widens the scope of patent protection, but it only works in specific circumstances.
Prior to Festo, a patent holder could invoke the doctrine to protect any design elements, unless they had been changed to obtain the patent. When design elements had been amended on patentability grounds, equivalence claims could be defeated with the defense of “patent history estoppel.” A jury would decide whether an amendment was made for patentability purposes, triggering the estoppel defense.
Festo takes away the patent-ability inquiry and replaces it with a bright-line rule: Patent history estoppel applies when an element has been amended for any reason pursuant to the statutory requirements for obtaining a patent, not just when the amendment relates to patentability.
* * *
Opinion’s Long Reach
* * *
Until the Supreme Court issues an opinion . . . patent lawyers must continue acting as if the dust has already settled on the decision. Instead of relying on the patent examiner to find earlier inventions that cast doubt on the originality of the patent application, inventors will have to do their own extensive research for prior art before filing.
* * *
Read more . . .
Saturday, November 10, 2001
Protocols in Dual-Nation Bankruptcies
Shanon D. Murray -- The Deal -- November 12, 2001
Although a jurisdictional issue concerning the sale of PSINet Inc.'s Canadian business in a dual-nation bankruptcy could have dissolved into contentious bickering, it was instead settled quickly because of protocols constructed by PSINet's counsel. Protocols, which set rules on how assets in different countries will be handled, could become staples of cross-border bankruptcies.
Protocols generally make cross-border insolvencies run smoother by setting ground rules on how assets in different countries will be handled. While they are increasingly being employed by multinational companies to help them navigate the murky waters of a cross-border bankruptcy, some multi-jurisdictional cases are devoid of them.
Standardization may get more sweeping, for protocols could soon become cross-border bankruptcy staples. If Congress approves the Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency, the international provision aimed at setting universal procedures for global bankruptcies, protocols will be a mandatory element of such proceedings.
Read more . . .
Friday, November 09, 2001
Pillsbury Winthrop Cuts 10 Percent of 109 New York Associates
Alexei Oreskovic -- The Recorder -- November 6, 2001
Pillsbury Winthrop joined the growing number of law firms tightening belts this fall by laying off 10 percent of its New York-based associates last week. The move, said New York managing partner Donald Kilpatrick, is "wholly an economic layoff." A large share of the work at Pillsbury Winthrop's New York office is dedicated to capital markets and global corporate deals, which have been especially slow of late.
Read more . . .
Time to Pay Up
Alexei Oreskovic -- The Recorder -- November 8, 2001
At law firms across the United States, the calls are going out. Some lawyers adopt a pleading tone on the phone, others play on a sense of camaraderie. But the underlying message is always the same: time to pay up. It's the time of year when law firms gently remind their corporate clients that payment is due. But this year's collection drive has partners nervously eyeing their stacks of outstanding receipts.
Read more . . .
Together in Adversity
Questions and answers with Morgan Stanley's GC
Andrew Longstreth -- Corporate Counsel -- November 9, 2001
The aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., sent corporate America scurrying to review its emergency response and crisis management plans. Although no company can completely protect itself from inconceivable catastrophes, many businesses affected by the World Trade Center attack responded quickly and were up and running with surprisingly few hiccups.
Read more . . .
Brobeck Phleger and Tower Snow Bracing for Layoffs
Brenda Sandburg -- The Recorder -- November 9, 2001
Associates at San Francisco-based Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison expect to receive pink slips soon; the question is whether the partners will hold off until the end of the year, when Tower Snow Jr. steps down as chairman. Snow has consistently maintained that in the event of a layoff he would immediately step down. Brobeck Phleger's management committee is discussing the subject of layoffs in meetings today.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, November 07, 2001
Law spawns new Hispanic bank in Houston
Jim Greer -- Houston Business Journal -- 11/2/01
Houston is home to the first Hispanic-owned financial institution organized under a community development banking law.
Aquila Bancorporation counts former Houston City Councilwoman Gracie Saenz among its quartet of organizing shareholders. Operating primarily in local inner-city neighborhoods, Aquila is the nation's first Hispanic-owned bank company hatched under community development bank legislation enacted in 1994.
The new community development banking laws in the mid-1990s were a recognition of what package of services it takes "to revitalize the inner-city community," notes Hugh Barrett, managing director of The Strategic Alliance Group in Houston and an outside banking consultant to Aquila.
Read more . . .
Marsh, Lloyd's names continue legal battle
National Underwriter; Property & casualty/risk & b - October 29, 2001 00:00
Lisa S Howard -- National Underwriter -- Erlanger
Lawyers for Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. and a group of Lloyd's members will meet in a New York court next month to determine whether a case filed against Marsh-for alleged failure to disclose relevant information about asbestos liabilities-will proceed or be dismissed.
Marsh in July filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Lloyd's members, who charge that the broker fraudulently withheld relevant facts about general liability policies it placed for Johns Manville and other asbestos manufacturers in the Lloyd's market, beginning in the late 1970s. (See NU, June 4, 2001 and Dec. 6, 1999).
Read more . . .
Ernst & Young Goes Forward with Law Practice
AccountingWEB US 5 November 2001
According to a report in Legal Week, Ernst & Young has initiated its law capacity in this country with a New York connection to law firm Donahue & Partners. Eberhard Rohm, formerly of U.S. firm Fulbright & Jaworski, has joined Donahue & Partners as the firm's managing partner.
Mr. Rohm indicated that the alliance conforms with New York State Bar rules which allow American law firms to have a "side by side" alliance with accountants. The rules became effective November 1.
Previously it was reported that E&Y would associate in New York with the firm McKee Nelson, but that arrangement was severed earlier this year after attempts by the Securities & Exchange Commission to block accountants offering legal and consultancy services to audit clients.
The Donahue office will concentrate on aiding European companies with interests in the U.S.
US Energy Facilities Vulnerable to Attack - Report
November 5, 2001 5:13 pm EST -- Chris Baltimore-- News1
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - From the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to the Golden Gate Bridge and Boston Harbor, there is no shortage of energy-related facilities vulnerable to attack, according to a report sent on Monday to Homeland Defense Secretary Tom Ridge.
"America's energy infrastructure is, as a whole, highly vulnerable to ... terrorist threat," the Texas law firm Bracewell & Patterson said in a 42-page analysis on the nation's energy infrastructure.
The report underscores the Herculean task before federal agencies in guarding the nation's energy installations, including nuclear reactors, oil and natural gas pipelines, and maritime tanker facilities.
It reads like a potential laundry list of targets for saboteurs, and includes the massive pipeline that moves Alaskan oil, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Panama Canal.
Read more . . .
In down times, companies must be careful who they cut and why
Suzanne Elliott -- Pittsburgh Times -- 11/2/01
Big Five CPA Firm Breaks into Top 10 Law Firm Rankings
AccountingWEB US 6 November 2001
For the first time, Andersen Legal, the legal arm of Big Five firm Andersen, has made it into the top 10 in annual rankings of the Global 100 law firms. The survey, compiled jointly by The American Lawyer and London-based Legal Business, analyzes growth, earnings, and productivity of firm members.
Andersen Legal, which is prevented from enjoying a U.S. presence due to U.S. bar regulations, joined the ranks in ninth position, and tied with law firm Shearman & Sterling with $590 million in revenue.
Andersen ranked second overall in terms of number of firm members with 2,880 lawyers. Revenue per lawyer however ranks only 99th on the list of 100.
Florida begins investigation of OxyContin marketing
Glenn Singer -- Business Writer -- Sun Sentinal.com -- November 6 2001
The Florida Attorney General's Office has launched an investigation into marketing and distribution practices surrounding OxyContin, a powerful painkiller linked to scores of overdose deaths nationally in the past two years.
Read more . . .
Sunday, November 04, 2001
Law Firm Extranets: Bring Significant Marketing Advantage
llrx.com -- Jerry Lawson -- 11/1/01
Once exotic, extranets are becoming mainstream. Richard Susskind, author of Transforming the Law: Essays on Technology, Justice and the Legal Marketplace (Oxford 2000) predicts that any major law firm that does not provide clients with access to billing information, case files and related information via an extranet by the year 2002 will be at “a considerable competitive disadvantage” when competing for corporate clients. In fact, he thinks using extranets for this purpose won’t provide a marketing advantage. You will need them just to be in the game.
Cutting edge law firms are finding more exciting uses for extranets: delivering legal services and opening new markets. This article surveys extranet use by law firms, offers practical advice on implementation, warns about possible problems, and trys to put extranets into strategic perspective for law firm planners.
Read more . . .
Saturday, November 03, 2001
PDA Security Is Essential for Portable Practices
Mitchel L. Winick -- Texas Lawyer -- November 5, 2001
Lawyers can manage data, access client information, communicate with clients and associates, and manage their schedules in a more accessible manner with personal digital assistants. Storing confidential client information on PDAs creates new questions regarding the level of protection required to protect client confidentiality. Law school assistant dean Mitchel L. Winick introduces a host of tools to help protect you and your PDA.
Read more . . .
Friday, November 02, 2001
"Well King, this case is closed."
Washington Supreme Court Denies Review of Summary Judgment in Rental Car Class Action
In May of this year, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Corr Cronin's and Alamo and National Rental Car's Summary Judgment in a class action challenging airport concession recoupment fees. On Haloween, Kelly Corr received notice that the Washington Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' request for further review.
The Corr Cronin law firm represented car rental companies Alamo and National in a very large class action challenging airport concession recoupment fees charged at SeaTac airport. The case involved hundreds of thousands of consumers and millions of dollars at SeaTac alone. Perhaps more importantly, the same practice occurs at almost all major airports throughout the country. The Washington case came to stand for a major issue with national implications.
In May, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision granting in full Corr Cronin's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the entire case without ever reaching the class certification issue.
On Halloween Corr Cronin received the final word that the dismissal of plaintiffs' class action against Alamo Rental Car and National Rental Car would not be reviewed.
As Sargeant Preston of the Yukon used to say to his trusty and faithful dog, Yukon King, at the end of each show: "Well King, this case is closed."
