Thursday, July 25, 2002
Who Has Your Client's IP Work?
IP Worldwide -- 07-25-2002
Also, see chart.
and
Experience is What GCs want from Outside Counsel
Christopher Allbritton -- IP Worldwide -- 07-25-2002
and
Trademark Applications Down Dramatically
Glenn Gundersen -- IP Worldwide -- 07-25-2002
Also, see chart.
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Two Network Firms Collaborate to Win $8.2 Million Insurance Coverage Decision for Asension Health
Network firms Morgenstein & Jubelirer of San Francisco and Baker, Sterchi of Kansas City recently won a $8.2 million insurance coverage action in Kansas federal court for Ascension Health, one of the nation’s largest hospital chains. In the underlying case Ascension was sued in Mobile, Alabama by a plaintiff who collapsed an Ascension facility parking lot suffering severe brain damage which plaintiff attributed to Ascension’s security guards’ delay in responding to his wife’s call for help. After funding the settlement, Employers Reinsurance Corporation, Ascension’s carrier, sued Ascension for reimbursement, contending that Ascension should repay the settlement payment.
Ascension had two policies with Employers Re, one for commercial general liability and one for professional liability. The professional liability policy had a $10 million deductible, so if the delay was professional negligence, Ascension would have been required to reimburse. However, because the conduct was considered general negligence, Ascension had no remaining liability at all. On July 10, U.S.D.J. John Lungsturm held as a matter of law that the acts in question were not professional negligence.
Ascension was represented by John Worden, assisted by Shawn Parrish and associates Tracy Lemmon and Jason Houghton. Scott Kreamer (photo unavailable) of Baker, Sterchi was local counsel.
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
Top 100 Earners Among Corporate General Counsel
Corporate Counsel -- 07-23-2002
General Counsel make how much? Would you believe that many in the top 100 range made millions, with millions more in option grants and exercisable options?
Read more . . .
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
Network Attorney, Mike O'Donnell (Colorado), Wins Defense Verdict in One of First Paintball Suits
Paintball has 7 million players, according to nationalpaintball.com. Players fire capsules at 200 to 300 feet per second.
Sara Langer -- The National Law Journal -- 07-17-2002
Millions of Americans play with paintball guns, and that has led to lawsuits aimed at manufacturers and their marketing tactics (much like the gun and cigarette litigation). According to plaintiff lawyers, at least 20 cases are pending in the U.S. against paintball manufacturers and distributors. Many plaintiffs allege that marketing is preferentially directed to young, inexperienced teen-agers, leading to serious injuries.
In one of the first paintball liability cases to go to trial, trial attorney Michael O'Donnell and Carolyn Fairless of Denver's Wheeler Trigg & Kennedy, a member of The Network of Trial Law Firms, scored a defense win in Colorado. The case is being appealed. Travis v. Barton, Brass Eagle, Wal-Mart, et al., No. 00CV352 (Larimer Co., Colo., Dist. Ct.).
(The paintball shooter in the case, Justin Barton, 15, was in a car in 1998 with two other youths when he shot Jorel Lynn Travis, 14, who was standing outside a Fort Collins, Colo., ice cream parlor, with a paintball gun. The incident left Travis blind in one eye. She and her family settled with Barton, but her case against Brass Eagle Inc., the manufacturer of the gun, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which sold it, went forward.)
Mike O'Donnell is President and Managing Director of Wheeler Trigg & Kennedy. His national litigation practice focuses on complex civil litigation involving product liability, professional liability, toxic tort and commercial matters. He has acted as national or regional counsel for a number of Fortune 500 companies and has appeared in state and federal courts in 25 states. He was elected a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Read more . . .
Monday, July 15, 2002
Once a stigma, Ch. 11 seen as 'management tool'
Sheri Qualters -- Boston Business Journal -- From the July 12, 2002 print edition
Often the strategy is to go into bankruptcy to sell assets in a manner beneficial for the company. Companies with financial woes may find it hard to sell outside of bankruptcy because they're vulnerable to lawsuits filed by unpaid creditors.
Read more . . .
Coalition forms to fight asbestos litigation
Jenna Colley -- Houston Business Journal -- From the July 12, 2002 print edition
Nearly 30 years after asbestos-related illnesses sent U.S. manufacturers heading for the hills, companies farther down the food chain are running scared.
Read more . . .
Trade associations and business groups with heavy Houston influences have formed the Texas Asbestos Consumer Coalition to lobby state legislators into stumping what they call the staggering number of asbestos-related lawsuits. The coalition, headed by the Austin-based Texas Civil Justice League, condemns lawsuits filed against third-tier and fourth-tier companies -- not a new phenomenon but an growing trend in asbestos-related legal battles (commercial real estate companies, hospitals and chemical plants; any building or facility where asbestos might have been present is likely to attract claims for asbestos exposure).
Read more . . .
Employee handbook viewed by courts as a contract
Stephanie Hainsfurther -- New Mexico Business Weekly-- From the July 12, 2002 print edition
New Mexico and almost all other states hold the policy of at-will employment. Simply put, either the employer or the employee may terminate a position at any time, for any reason. The existence of a written employment contract had been the only circumstance that took precedence over at-will employment practice. Until now.
At-will employment has taken a beating lately in the courts. In particular, two New Mexico appellate court decisions published this year have changed the ironclad terms of at-will employment in this state. By taking two seemingly bulletproof employee handbooks and deeming them to be contracts of employment, these decisions may have taken the wind out of at-will employment's sails.
Read more . . .
Thursday, July 11, 2002
Marty Beirne Quoted on Firm's Entering "Texas' Biggest" Category:
(This from "No Doom and Gloom at Big Texas Firms"
Brenda Sapino Jeffreys -- Texas Lawyer -- 07-11-2002)
Beirne Maynard, an unusually large litigation-only firm, has been adding lawyers in recent years and finally grew enough to make the list. Compared to 2000, the firm's gross revenues in 2001 were up 23.3 percent to $45 million. Managing partner Martin Beirne says the firm's growth plan is kicking in. In 2001, litigation in two areas, pharmaceuticals and energy, was particularly strong, he says.
While the firm had 70 lawyers on Aug. 31, 2001, the snapshot date for the firm finance report, it's grown by nearly 30 lawyers since then. The firm is on track to bulk up to between 150 and 175 lawyers, Beirne says, and it presumably will move up on the Top 25 ranking.
"I really don't see any limitations," Beirne says. "We're not faced with the limitations of a full-service firm, by a conflicts standpoint. The trial lawyer is faced mostly with the tradition of one side or another."
The biggest deterrent to new business at Beirne, Maynard is issues conflicts, he says, but the firm hasn't reached the size where issues conflicts would hamper growth. But the larger size of the firm makes it easier for it to land big litigation.
Notes Beirne, "It's a question of having the firepower."
Law Firm Revenues in 2001: The Regional Roundup
law.com -- 07-11-2002
The American Lawyer's new Am Law 100 revenue numbers.
Read more . . .
Washington, DC:
Gross Revenue
Revenue per Lawyer
Profits per Partner
Net Operating Income
California:
Profits per Partner
Revenues
New York:
Size and Profits per Partner
Texas:
Size and Gross Revenues
Profits per Partner
Net Income
Revenue per Lawyer
Profitability Index
Pro Bono Hours
New Jersey:
Size, Revenue, Income and Profits
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia Firms' Gross Profits and Profits per Partner
Phladelphia Firms' Size, Pro Bono Hours
Georgia:
Revenue, Income, Size, Profits
Partner Compensation Comparison Charts
Tuesday, July 09, 2002
Insurers Lost Big in 2001 -- State Farm and GenRe Lost Most
The nation's property and casualty insurers reported a $9-billion loss in 2001, compared with a $27-billion profit in 2000, showed research by Weiss Ratings Inc. The firm reported that claims in 2001 were a record $381 billion, an increase of $175 billion, or 86 percent, from $205 billion in claims reported in 2000. The firm reported that the loss, the first ever for the industry, reflects not only catastrophic losses from the Sept. 11 attacks but also a general increase in claims across a majority of lines of business.
"The industry was hit hard by the staggering claims from the terrorist attacks," stated Martin D. Weiss, chairman of Weiss Ratings, in a release. "The economic malaise, the rash of corporate bankruptcies and the market downturn have also taken their toll."
Losses were concentrated among 905 insurers, 34.1 percent of the 2,653 companies analyzed. "Investment income and capital gains typically help offset losses from claims, but market declines eliminated that cushion in 2001," Weiss noted.
Read more . . .
Hot Market -- White-Collar Criminal Practice
The Recorder -- July 9, 2002
White-collar crime defenders are a hot commodity in the Northern California lateral partner market. Robert Sims, a Latham & Watkins white-collar criminal specialist hired from San Francisco's McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, notes an "increased government focus -- and resources being focused -- on sophisticated financial crimes." L.A.-based Latham is just one of a handful of firms bulking up on criminal defense lawyers.
(Link to full article not working on law.com website)
Monday, July 08, 2002
Today's Hot M&A Market: Bankruptcy
Julie E. Satowhere -- Corporate Financing Week -- July 7, 2002
With more companies in restructuring and a dearth of traditional mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcy has become a leading source of deal flow. For the first half of 2002, the market has recorded 122 deals involving bankrupt companies. And according to Mergerstat, should that same pace continue through the end of the year, this year would record the highest number of M&A bankruptcy deals ever. There are numerous ways bankruptcy M&As offer benefits to potential buyers, but three key reasons stand out:
Bankruptcy is a buyers' market: Assets tend to be undervalued.
Bankruptcy has a high barrier to entry: The complexity and general lack of understanding of the bankruptcy process creates a barrier to entry for many bidders, giving potential acquirers who can maneuver in this arena an advantage.
Bankruptcy offers the acquirer transparency: The bankruptcy process necessitates transparency of an entity's assets and liabilities as creditor committees and others work to establish the value of the entity, allowing potential acquirers to more clearly understand their risks than if they were considering acquiring companies in distress.
There are other benefits as well that, depending on the acquirer, could be important, including tax breaks and the elimination of successor liability.
Read more . . .
Say It Ain't So Joe -- Brobeck is Lowering Its Rates?
Ron Leuty -- San Francisco Business Times -- From the July 5, 2002 print edition
Discounts on billing rates, which former Brobeck employees say was prohibited during Snow's [Brobeck's past chair] three years as chairman, are being proffered to some of the largest clients of the Bay Area's fourth-largest law firm, said Sandford Lechtick, president of Esquire Inc., a Los Angeles-based legal recruiting firm. Partners can charge $450 an hour or more, and fifth-year associates as much as $300, he said. Lechtick and other sources said they don't know how deeply Brobeck is discounting rates.
Read more . . .
Big 4 Accounting Firms Concerned Over More Suits from Troubled Companies
Habhajan Singh -- NSTP EMedia -- July 8, 2002
Expressing concern that more legal suits may come their way from financially troubled corporations, officials from some . . . accounting giants said that troubled . . . company’s directors and all parties directly involved in . . . wrongdoing must be held accountable.
Read more . . .
Wednesday, July 03, 2002
AIG's Lewis, D'Amato Has New Name, Office, Partners
Renee Deger -- The Recorder -- July 3, 2002
Los Angeles-based insurance defense firm Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard on Tuesday unveiled a new name, a new office and a slew of new hires from two chief competitors.
The 340-lawyer firm -- now called Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith -- has raided about a dozen lawyers from San Francisco's Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and two from a New York firm. Sedgwick's strategic shift toward more corporate litigation is incompatible with representing insurance companies in bad faith and other kinds of suits. Plus, the slimmer margins of insurance defense work no longer matched Sedgwick's push for premium, corporate litigation.
The firm's long ties to insurance giant American International Group, commonly known as AIG, and other companies in New York prompted Lewis Brisbois to open up across the country.
Read more . . .
Four Hot Practice Areas From 2001 Retain Warmth
Laurie Stewart -- The Legal Intelligencer -- 7/2/02
Bankruptcy, energy, labor and employment, and litigation lawyers are having a banner year in 2002, according to the mid-year update of "What's Hot and What's Not in the Legal Profession," released by Wayne-based legal consultant Robert Denney. The four practice areas topped the report's "still red hot" list and retained their top spots from the year-end 2001 report.
Read more . . .
Tuesday, July 02, 2002
Questions Clients Want to Ask
At the recent 3rd Annual “2001 LawPartnering Forum” held November 14-16 in Carefree, Arizona, law department leaders were asked to list “the most important questions you would like outside counsel to ask you in connection with the services they provide.” Here are the responses received (not grouped in any particular order):
· What is it you want to achieve?
· How can I best work with you?
· How can I best provide you with and get feedback from you?
· How can we best meet your needs?
· What issues concern you about our costs?
· How can we provide cost-effective service without compromising quality?
· What are the company’s objectives regarding the matter in question?
· Do you want us to leverage partnership arrangements?
· Do you desire alternative fee arrangements?
· What can we do to become more of an extension of your in-house staff?
· How can we structure rates, payment, etc., to save costs and not sacrifice quality?
· How can we leverage our relationship in terms of recruiting, training and developing attorneys (with focus on diversity)?
· How can we implement LawPartnering strategies?
· What outcome do you seek from this matter assignment? And when?
· Will in-house attorneys play a role in this? And, if so, how?
· What collaborative technology tools should we use?
· Will you tell me when a less than 100% answer is required?
· Will you tell me (in a timely manner) about issues developing between us?
· Will you tell me when something is not necessary to do?
· Will you challenge me to make sure I have evaluated the risk/benefit with my business (internal) clients?
· What is your definition of success for this matter?
· How can we help you achieve that success at the lowest possible cost to you?
· How can I best learn what’s important to you?
· How can I learn how you operate?
· By when do you need my solution?
· How can I help your organization learn from this project (e.g., so this problem won’t reoccur)?
· How can we best collaborate on this matter?
· What do you see as timely performance?
· Are there online research resources you would like us to use?
· What is important to you as a client?
· How can I maximize the value of the services I provide to you?
· How can I be “in business” with you?
· How can I make you a hero with your senior management?
· What are the company’s strategic goals?
· How do I obtain information about the company’s business and personnel?
· What do you view as the role of inside and outside counsel for the company? And how should inside and outside counsel interact?
· Which areas of legal services do you consider to be commodity work? Specialized areas?
· What are your strategies and goals?
· What is your risk tolerance?
· How can we better serve you in areas other than just providing good legal services?
· How can we involve other resources within both our organizations so that we can collaborate more effective and exceed your goals?
· What can we do to assist you in accomplishing your goals economically?
· What business are you in? How can we help you build your business?
· What are your expectations?
· What inefficiencies do you see in delivery of legal services? How can we help you eliminate those?
· What is your definition for winning this case or issue?
· What is the effect of the result, or even the process, in this matter on your company’s business units? What are the potential ramifications of taking a particular strategy? What can we do to get to the point of knowing the answers to these questions without having to ask?
· How can we do a better job for you?
· How can be best learn and continue to learn about your business?
· How can I provide more value to you?
· How can I be more efficient in my services to you?
· How can I be more cost effective in providing value to you?
· What is your most important business objective – right now, 5 years from now, 10 years?
· What do you see as the obstacles to achieving these objectives?
· What was it that you didn’t like about your last legal services provider?
· What is your business objective?
· Short of total victory, what are you willing to accept?
· What are the major issues facing your business?
· Have our services contributed positively to your business?
· How can we make a greater positive contribution to your business?
· How can we help you improve your delivery of legal services to your company?
· What types of services do you need?
· What are you company’s goals (in various contexts)?
· What are your policies regarding risk tolerance?
· How can we work together on staffing and budgeting to help control your legal costs?
· How can we more efficiently share knowledge and manage documents?
· What are your goals and business strategies?
· How can we structure our relationship so that we both win?
· What is your understanding of the problem?
· What are your specific expectations? Time frame for performance? Procedures to be followed? For getting the problem resolved?
· How can we best work together to accomplish your goals?
· What is the objective of the corporation?
· How can we do better?
· What can you provide to us (research, tools, resources, experience, etc.) to reduce our costs in providing services to you?
· How can we share the risks and rewards in this engagement?
· What can we do to help you manage and grow your business?
· What information can our firm provide to you to help you assess our performance?
· What is your goal in this litigation?
· Whom may I contact directly in your organization for assistance?
· What depositions should be set only when I can attend?
· What experience have you had in similar issues?
· What do you recommend as the path forward for quick resolution?
· What do you really need to know?
GCs' Seven Deadly Sins
Catherine Aman -- Corporate Counsel -- 07-02-2002
Corporate Counsel pairs Seven Deadly Sins with a matching GC and company
Arrogance -- Ford's evolving litigation management strategy for personal injury and death cases.
Obstinancy -- Arthur Andersen LLP's handling of the Enron crisis.
Sloth -- Enron's GC's failure to act vigorously on important issues.
Aggression -- Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc.'s GC's uncompromising litigation strategy which contributed to the company's poor financial performance and declining stock price.
Greed -- Dot-com GCs double whammy -- unrealized expectations coupled with personal liability for their companies failures.
Pride -- Microsoft Corp. prolonged, costly and image-damaging litigation, blamed by some on its GC William Neukom
Duplicity -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. litigation strategy resulting in the largest sanction for discovery abuse ever levied for its policy of hiding evidence from plaintiffs and judges and withholding key documents.
