|
TRIAL.COM's blawg of litigation management news, clippings, pointers to news reports and articles, and views of interest on issues and developments in the legal market. |
Friday, December 27, 2002
The Biggest IP Cases of 2002
'Festo' again, plus other decisions that made an impact
Lewis R. Clayton -- The National Law Journal -- 12-27-2002
Monday, December 23, 2002
Japanese lawyers scramble to protect their walled garden from outsiders
Sheona Dote -- Special to The Asahi Shimbun -- 12/23/02
As Japan, the world's second-largest economy, undergoes a period of intensive restructuring and large-scale bankruptcies, few places in the world are more in need of a plentiful supply of experienced and highly skilled business-minded attorneys. Instead, what Japan has is a pitiful number of lawyers, most of whom work solely as litigators, and a legal market so strictly regulated that foreign lawyers have to jump through hoops to get a piece of the action.
Mediation seen as less expensive means of settlement
Case backload makes mediation avenue for lawyers, clients
Jane Meinhardt -- Staff Writer, The Business Journal of Tampa Bay -- 12/20/03
As courts become more and more overwhelmed with cases, lawyers and judges have increasingly turned to alternative dispute resolution to provide quicker and sometimes cheaper conclusions. For some attorneys, focusing a practice on mediation is a personal as well as a professional choice.
McDonald's Happy with Network's Wildman Harrold
Changeable Partners -- What does 'primary outside counsel' mean these days anyway?
Ashby Jones -- Corporate Counsel -- 12-23-2002
Last July, when an over-weight Brooklyn, N.Y., man sued McDonald's Corp. for allegedly causing his obesity, the lawyers for the hamburger giant didn't laugh it off; instead, they jumped into action. Despite the seemingly outlandish claim, they feared the case had watershed potential.
But the Oak Brook, Ill.-based company didn't send the case to either of its faithful litigation firms in Chicago: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal or Kirkland & Ellis. Instead, McDonald's held a beauty contest and selected as one of its lead counsel a firm with a midwestern reputation: Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago's 11th-largest (the company also tapped Chicago's Winston & Strawn to help with the suit).
According to Corporate Counsel's first ever "Who Represents America's Biggest Companies?" survey, the McDonald's experience is the tip of a trend among Fortune 250 companies. "It was sort of surprising," admits Phillip Rudolph, the company's corporate vice president and international general counsel. "But Wildman Harroldhad a group of lawyers with expertise defending allegations with similar subject matter. So we went with them. And so far, we've been very happy."
But corporate America is undergoing a sea change in the way it picks its outside lawyers. Increasingly, companies are making like the Golden Arches and venturing into uncharted waters, a trend that's diluting the whole concept of "primary outside counsel" -- and possibly putting it on the cusp of obsolescence.
The reasons? For one thing, companies feeling the pinch of the economic downturn are looking to farm their more routine work out to less expensive lawyers; by the same token, the big, highest-priced firms aren't as interested in the small stuff either. What's more, as companies spread their wings both domestically and worldwide, many are adding local law firms to service complicated work in far-flung jurisdictions.
And then there's been an attitude shift: In recent years, lots of companies have started keeping more work in-house. So they've had to hire more sophisticated lawyers, who typically bring their own sets of trusted contacts to the table. As a result, general counsel have a lot more ready-made sources to tap for outside help.
The result? "The marketplace [for legal services] feels more in flux than ever," says William Barr, the general counsel of New York-based Verizon Communications Inc. "We try to limit the number of firms we use, but nowadays we'll always give a new firm a chance if we see something that attracts us."
CASTING WIDER NETS
That attitude represents a change in the way companies are picking outside counsel. About a decade ago, some executive committees and general counsel took a hard look at their legal departments and saw inefficiency. Their verdict: too many law firms. Too many bills. Too much paperwork. So they demanded that their departments streamline operations and cut costs.
The GCs concluded that they could save money by pushing more work to fewer firms, many of which were happy to extend bulk discounts. Legal departments created tiered ranking systems of their outside law firms and established rigid protocols for farming out cases and deals. "Consolidation" became the buzzword. And it promised to be the wave of the future.
But today, companies have learned that consolidation can be taken only so far. Take New York's Viacom Inc. The company's general counsel, Michael Fricklas, says that a few years ago he realized that a company's legal problems couldn't "simply be solved by people all sitting in one place." So he adopted a more realistic stance on consolidation.
Fricklas says that, last year, media giant Viacom sent the vast majority of its work to several dozen law firms (which represents an expanded pool of firms from past years), and the remainder to several hundred.
"Consolidation is only one part of the equation," says Fricklas. "We look for the best person to handle each piece of work. And [being familiar] with a lot of firms is the best way to ensure that we're doing that."
And how are these firms finally chosen? Fricklas and other GCs still rely on the time-tested dog-and-pony shows.
$225M Verdict in Ford Rollover
Video of Ford rollover crash test was crucial to win, attorney says
Peter Page -- The National Law Journal -- 12-23-2002
A Texas jury has hit Ford Motor Co. with a $225 million judgment, exclusive of any punitive damages, to compensate the families of two people killed when they were ejected from an overturning pickup truck. The recent judgment is one of the largest ever compensation-only products liability judgments, said Jeff Wigington. He and David Rumley of Corpus Christi, Texas' Wigington Rumley represented the family of Paul Alaniz, 35, the driver of the truck.
* * * Wigington said his most compelling evidence was a videotape, obtained during discovery, of the passenger-side doors on an F-150 springing open during a rollover crash test conducted by Ford.
Related:
California Justices Let Stand $290M Award Against Ford
Videotape Revives Lawsuit Against Ford Motor Co.
Wednesday, December 18, 2002
Thompson Hine's DC Office Gets Peter Lesch
Peter Lesch has moved to the D.C. office of Thompson Hine as a partner in the firm's business regulation and government affairs practice group, focusing primarily on energy law. Before joining Thompson Hine, he was a partner with D.C.'s Gallagher, Boland and Meiburger. Lesch, 54, holds a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School.
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
Survey Says:
Rob Thomas -- The Law Marketing Portal -- 12/14/02
An annual survey for the American Corporate Counsel Association involving hundreds of corporate law departments firnds:
· Spending on outside counsel dropped, while in-house spending increased.
· The median increase in hourly rates reported for 2001 was 6.3 percent.
· More in-house counsel are requiring that law firm associates have a minimum level of experience to handle their work.
· Companies are reducing the number of law firms that they work with (often referred to as “convergence”).
· This process is also leading to a greater concentration of corporate work among large firms.
· While fixed fees are used by 25.1 percent of in-house counsel, other alternatives to hourly rates are much rarer.
· In-house counsel rely on personal referrals to find new outside counsel.
· Changing lawyers on a matter without client consent is cited as a primary reason for termination of law firms.
Top Priority: Outside Spending
Controlling outside spending is said to be the most pressing issue facing in-house counsel.
Inhouse counsel are concerned that outside counsel do not share concerns regarding the cost of services.
Specific complaints included resistance to alternative fee arrangements and not responding to RFPs.
Plan on less work being allocated to law firms.
Median increase in outside counsel spending for 2001 was 6.3 percent
Convergence Takes Hold
The median number of U.S. law firms used by law departments during 2001 declined by 15 percent from a year earlier, from a median of 10 law firms to 8.5 firms. Only 8.9 percent of the surveyed law departments used more than 50 law firms domestically during 2001, a marked decrease from the previous year’s 12.4 percent. Large companies (revenue over $1 billion) are twice as likely to have implemented the strategy of convergence than small companies (revenue less than $100 million).
This process is also leading to a greater concentration of corporate work among large firms. The mean average percentage of legal spending with large law firms (more than 100 lawyers) rose significantly, from 33.6 percent to 51.2 percent, while spending with small law firms (up to 10 lawyers) fell from 12.3 percent to 11.8 percent.
Personal Relationships
Even more than last year, in-house counsel rely on personal referrals to find new outside counsel, the most common sources being outside counsel, in-house counsel at other companies, other in-house counsel at their company, a company-approved outside counsel list, and other employees at their company. Declines are seen in the use of published directories, online directories, and searches of law firm Web sites.
When selecting outside counsel, in-house counsel consider the skills of the individual lawyer before the qualities of the law firm. Consistent with this approach, in-house counsel are less likely to tolerate a change of team members unless they are consulted in advance. Changing lawyers on a matter without client consent is often a violation of the client’s terms of retention, and is cited as a primary reason for termination of law firms. Despite more formal management of the work performed by outside counsel, personal relationships remain paramount.
Tactics for Controlling Costs
Budgets, discounted/ alternative fees, billing guidelines/ spending rules, an in-house fee/bill manager, and evaluations of outside counsel.
· An in-house fee/bill manager produced a mean average savings of 23.9 percent
· Discounted/alternative fees saved 21.5 percent
· Evaluations of outside counsel saved 20.4 percent
· Case/matter budgets saved 17.6 percent
· Matter management systems saved 15.5 percent.
To avoid paying for training or inefficiencies of young lawyers, more in-house counsel are requiring that law firm associates have a minimum level of experience to handle their work.
Rob Thomas, Vice President, Strategic Development, at Serengeti Law, can be reached at (425) 748-5115 or rob.thomas@serengetilaw.com. Information about the 260-page “2002 ACCA/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey Report” is available at www.serengetilaw.com/survey.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: Federal Regulation of the Legal Profession
Joe Dryer CEO of Breakaway Systems in Houston, Texas -- The Technolawyer -- 12/17/02
What are an attorney's responsibilities to secure client information? Today we seem to have many opinions. In law school we learned the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.6): "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent...."
State variations of this obligation vary from California ("It is the duty of an attorney to ... maintain inviolate the confidences, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client") to Texas ("a lawyer shall not knowingly ... reveal confidential information of a client or a former client...."). The former would support implementing computer security while the latter would not.
The FTC also has an opinion on the obligations for those lawyers giving financial advice, relying on its authority under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to regulate attorneys whose primary activity consists of giving financial or tax advice (qualifying them as "financial institutions").
The ABA has recently requested that a federal court decide if the traditional ethical rules or the FTC's GLBA interpretation determine attorneys' obligations. The ABA has requested that the FTC exempt attorneys from the GLBA or from the notification provisions required of attorneys who are "financial institutions" by the FTC's Privacy Rule based on section 6802 of the GLBA. The ABA argues that the majority of attorneys would not give enough financial advice to qualify as a financial institution, and that the GLBA is "more permissive" than the attorney's ethical duty. This latter statement will probably be quoted as establishing the GLBA as a "floor" for ethical duties even for attorneys who would not otherwise be covered by GLBA.
I have found that most attorneys do not comply with the notification provisions of the GLBA, and are not aware of the potential liabilities of noncompliance. If the ABA prevails in its suit, there is no problem. If, on the other hand, the ABA loses the suit, the FTC would be free to enforce the Privacy Rule to applicable attorneys.
This rule includes the requirement that all clients after July 2002 be given specific notices at the time the client relationship is established. Violations of the GLBA are treated as "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." Such violations enable the FTC to issue cease-and-desist orders, and impose fines of $10,000 per violation for further violations, seek "mandatory injunctions" and "such other and further equitable relief" as is deemed appropriate. The FTC may also seek rescission of contracts, refunds of money, payment of damages, and public notification of the unfair or deceptive act or practice. Does anybody have a disgruntled client who would make such a complaint to the FTC?
The significance for security obligations of the GLBA goes beyond the Privacy Rule. While the Privacy Rule requires disclosure of steps taken to protect client information, disclaiming any security protection satisfies this requirement. The more interesting provision of GLBA lies in section 6801, which requires affirmative protections. The FTC has implemented section 6801 in its Safeguards Rule (16 CFR 314), with full compliance required by May 2003. If the FTC grants the requested exemption in the ABA suit, the GLBA would allow only an exemption from section 6802 (the Privacy Rule), not section 6801 (the Safeguards Rule).
The Safeguards Rule requires each regulated organization to designate a responsible individual, and assess, design, implement, and document (presumably for audit) protections for "customer information." The implementation guidelines for this regulation specify that the regulated organization follow the usual good practices for computer security, including the use of adequate backup, detection of computer intrusions, proper disposal of computer records, and prompt notification of clients when their information may have been compromised. Secure communication of confidential client information is also required. Most attorneys currently freely use e-mail communications despite the fact that ABA Formal Opinion 99-413, which allows insecure e-mail, is based on a flawed technological analysis, and further states that ordinary e-mail should only be used after informed consent and not for particularly sensitive communications.
There is an additional reason for attorneys to consider compliance with the GLBA. Both the GLBA and HIPAA require covered entities to ensure that their service providers (such as attorneys) protect personal data in conformance with the regulations.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR -- Joe Dryer, A member of the Texas Bar, currently serves as CEO of Breakaway Systems in Houston, Texas. Joe earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Ohio State University and a J.D. and MBA from the University of Houston. You can contact him via e-mail or telephone (713-882-3216).
Monday, December 16, 2002
Hourly Rates Going Higher
Although not huge, increases are the norm in a year when the ABA targeted the primacy of billable hours
Ruth Singleton -- The National Law Journal -- 12-16-2002
 Despite the slumping economy, law firms' hourly billing rates have continued to inch up over the past year. According to NLJ 250 data, 28 firms' high rate for partners was $600 or more, and one Los Angeles firm topped out at $850. According to information gathered as part of The National Law Journal's 2002 survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms, the faltering economy has not resulted in a downturn in rates.
The highest hourly rate reported was $850, which is that of Bertram Fields, an entertainment law partner at Los Angeles' Greenberg Glusker. Twenty-eight firms listed a high rate for partners of $600 or more, double the number reported last year [see Firm-by-Firm Sampling of Billing Rates Nationwide].
The NLJ survey results indicate that many law firms increase billing rates according to associate class.
In August, the American Bar Association released the ABA Commission on Billable Hours Report. The ABA report acknowledged that the billable hour will remain entrenched for the foreseeable future, and listed several reasons why alternative billing is difficult to implement [see Alternatives to the Billable Hour].
A Firm-by-Firm Sampling of Billing Rates Nationwide
The National Law Journal asked the respondents to its 2002 survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms to provide hourly billing rate information for partners and associates firmwide. The firms that supplied this information -- including some firms that are not in the NLJ 250 -- are listed below in alphabetical order. The number after a firm's name indicates the total number of attorneys at that firm. The city listed below the name of a firm is the location of the firm's principal office or largest office.
A B C D
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (1,017)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $350-$600
Associates $170-$330
Alston & Bird (674)
(Atlanta)
Partners $330-$575
Associates $170-$500
Altheimer & Gray (361)
(Chicago)
Partners $220-$525
Associates $115-$360
Andrews & Kurth (375)
(Houston)
Partners $310-$595
Associates $170-$400
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn (249)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $315-$560
Associates $165-$360
Armstrong Teasdale (230)
(St. Louis)
Partners $210-$310
Associates $105-$240
Arter & Hadden (273)
(Cleveland)
Partners $215-$450
Associates $150-$285
Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell (249)
(Memphis, Tenn.)
Partners $175-$480
Associates $110-$275
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll (441)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $240-$525
Associates $145-$300
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd (226)
(Chicago)
Partners $250-$550
Associates $200-$275
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin (301)
(Kansas City, Mo.)
Partners $165-$410
Associates $110-$210
Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley (398)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $285-$565
Associates $175-$360
Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry (89)
(Nashville, Tenn.)
Partners $185-$375
Associates $135-$235
Bracewell & Patterson (362)
(Houston)
Partners $210-$600
Associates $125-$325
Bradley, Arant, Rose & White (181)
(Birmingham, Ala.)
Partners $205-$365
Associates $150-$275
Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione (138)
(Chicago)
Partners $295-$500
Associates $165-$290
Bryan Cave (841)
(St. Louis)
Partners $225-$720
Associates $135-$410
Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger (137)
(Los Angeles)
Partners $310-$450
Associates $160-$350
Buchanan Ingersoll (382)
(Pittsburgh)
Partners $225-$720
Associates $135-$360
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs (135)
(Akron, Ohio)
Partners $205-$360
Associates $135-$260
Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis (97)
(Alexandria, Va.)
Partners $300-$550
Associates $175-$300
Burr & Forman (169)
(Birmingham, Ala.)
Partners $205-$365
Associates $140-$225
Butzel Long (204)
(Detroit)
Partners $205-$380
Associates $135-$215
Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright (59)
(Honolulu)
Partners $185-$325
Associates $135-$205
Carlton Fields (211)
(Tampa, Fla.)
Partners $230-$400
Associates $130-$270
Case Bigelow & Lombardi (30)
(Honolulu)
Partners $210-$340
Associates $125-$210
Choate, Hall & Stewart (159)
(Boston)
Partners $375-$575
Associates $195-$345
Cooley Godward (560)
(Palo Alto, Calif.)
Partners $330-$600
Associates $190-$425
Covington & Burling (522)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $325-$600
Associates $160-$390
Cozen O'Connor (440)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $185-$450
Associates $120-$325
Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May (237)
(Oakland, Calif.)
Partners $234-$454
Associates $170-$320
Cummings & Lockwood (171)
(Stamford, Conn.)
Partners $250-$450
Associates $155-$290
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle (168)
(New York)
Partners $420-$625
Associates $180-$435
Davis Graham & Stubbs (97)
(Denver)
Partners $200-$425
Associates $125-$210
Davis Wright Tremaine (389)
(Seattle)
Partners $225-$525
Associates $130-$270
Day, Berry & Howard (231)
(Hartford, Conn.)
Partners $275-$450
Associates $160-$330
Dickinson Wright (200)
(Detroit)
Partners $215-$410
Associates $130-$210
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky (311)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $350-$550
Associates $180-$340
Dinsmore & Shohl (254)
(Cincinnati)
Partners $190-$345
Associates $125-$235
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson (147)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $310-$600
Associates $160-$335
Drinker Biddle & Reath (433)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $280-$450
Associates $145-$275
Duane Morris (492)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $174.86-$523.47
Associates $146.97-$394.36
Dykema Gossett (252)
(Detroit)
Partners $210-$380
Associates $140-$240
E F G
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott (193)
(Pittsburgh)
Partners $220-$425
Associates $135-$240
Edwards & Angell (290)
(Boston)
Partners $300-$550
Associates $140-$300
Epstein Becker & Green (333)
(New York)
Partners $220-$540
Associates $150-$350
Fish & Richardson (279)
(Boston)
Partners $350-$500
Associates $185-$360
Foster Pepper & Shefelman (106)
(Seattle)
Partners $225-$400
Associates $140-$250
Foulston Siefkin (73)
(Wichita, Kan.)
Partners $145-$300
Associates $100-$155
Fowler White Boggs Banker (180)
(Tampa, Fla.)
Partners $175-$350
Associates $125-$225
Gardere Wynne Sewell (288)
(Dallas)
Partners $250-$550
Associates $130-$320
Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione (160)
(Newark, N.J.)
Partners $235-$600
Associates $145-$265
Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich (402)
(Palo Alto, Calif.)
Partners $310-$620
Associates $195-$345
Greenebaum Doll & McDonald (172)
(Louisville, Ky.)
Partners $190-$365
Associates $130-$205
Greenberg Glusker (104)
(Los Angeles)
Partners $325-$850
Associates $210-$325
Greenberg Traurig (878)
(Miami)
Partners $250-$800
Associates $150-$375
H - K
Haight, Brown & Bonesteel (91)
(Los Angeles)
Partners $200-$300
Associates $115-$175
Hale and Dorr (490)
(Boston)
Partners $350-$675
Associates $230-$395
Haynes and Boone (468)
(Dallas)
Partners $265-$500
Associates $125-$330
Hodgson Russ (189)
(Buffalo, N.Y.)
Partners $200-$475
Associates $110-$320
Hogan & Hartson (937)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $230-$750
Associates $90-$405
Holland & Knight (1,273)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $200-$575
Associates $145-$365
Holme Roberts & Owen (188)
(Denver)
Partners $215-$525
Associates $145-$275
Hughes Hubbard & Reed (282)
(New York)
Partners $375-$625
Associates $175-$415
Husch & Eppenberger (278)
(St. Louis)
Partners $160-$340
Associates $115-$185
Jackson Lewis (351)
(White Plains, N.Y.)
Partners $245-$450
Associates $150-$350
Jenkens & Gilchrist (573)
(Dallas)
Partners $275-$525
Associates $165-$380
Jenner & Block (390)
(Chicago)
Partners $350-$625
Associates $185-$350
Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrère & Denègre (217)
(New Orleans)
Partners $170-$335
Associates $110-$185
| Kelley Drye & Warren (358)
(New York)
Partners $300-$590
Associates $180-$375
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (285)
(New York)
Partners $440-$625
Associates $210-$440
L M N
Lane Powell Spears Lubersky (175)
(Seattle)
Partners $225-$380
Associates $175-$260
Lewis, Rice & Fingersh (170)
(St. Louis)
Partners $160-$355
Associates $110-$270
Littler Mendelson (395)
(San Francisco)
Partners $220-$440
Associates $135-$350
Locke Liddell & Sapp (408)
(Houston)
Partners $300-$595
Associates $150-$340
Loeb & Loeb (175)
(Los Angeles)
Partners $350-$650
Associates $185-$325
Lord, Bissell & Brook (325)
(Chicago)
Partners $165-$510
Associates $140-$285
Lowenstein Sandler (193)
(Roseland, N.J.)
Partners $285-$525
Associates $140-$295
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (202)
(San Diego)
Partners $310-$500
Associates $150-$300
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (244)
(Los Angeles)
Partners $375-$600
Associates $200-$355
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin (298)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $130-$255
Associates $115-$180
Matthews and Branscomb (51)
(San Antonio)
Partners $175-$325
Associates $125-$195
McCarter & English (270)
(Newark, N.J.)
Partners $250-$495
Associates $140-$285
McGuireWoods (559)
(Richmond, Va.)
Partners $210-$575
Associates $85-$325
Michael Best & Friedrich (349)
(Milwaukee)
Partners $180-$425
Associates $180-$240
Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone (301)
(Detroit)
Partners $220-$475
Associates $125-$230
Miller & Chevalier (123)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $320-$650
Associates $175-$340
Miller Nash (140)
(Portland, Ore.)
Partners $210-$350
Associates $125-$225
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough (282)
(Columbia, S.C.)
Partners $200-$390
Associates $145-$270
Nutter, McClennen & Fish (170)
(Boston)
Partners $330-$480
Associates $175-$300
O - R
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel (110)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $300-$475
Associates $145-$325
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart (162)
(Atlanta)
Partners $200-$450
Associates $170-$265
Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly (246)
(Minneapolis)
Partners $225-$500
Associates $125-$375
Patton Boggs (366)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $235-$700
Associates $180-$315
Pennie & Edmonds (233)
(New York)
Partners $365-$500
Associates $190-$360
Pepper Hamilton (389)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $245-$525
Associates $150-$295
Perkins Coie (565)
(Seattle)
Partners $160-$650
Associates $135-$415
Phelps Dunbar (233)
(New Orleans)
Partners $145-$300
Associates $110-$175
Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber (171)
(Buffalo, N.Y)
Partners $185-$350
Associates $105-$265
Piper Rudnick (794)
(Chicago)
Partners $295-$615
Associates $140-$405
Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch (195)
(Morristown, N.J.)
Partners $280-$450
Associates $155-$290
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy (290)
(Atlanta)
Partners $265-$515
Associates $160-$300
Preston Gates & Ellis (386)
(Seattle)
Partners $180-$500
Associates $120-$410
Reed Smith (739)
(Pittsburgh)
Partners $240-$620
Associates $100-$435
Robinson & Cole (202)
(Hartford, Conn.)
Partners $260-$500
Associates $150-$300
Ross & Hardies (181)
(Chicago)
Partners $260-$465
Associates $160-$290
Rutan & Tucker (123)
(Costa Mesa, Calif.)
Partners $250-$425
Associates $165-$275
S - W
Saul Ewing (228)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $250-$475
Associates $145-$265
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis (301)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $220-$465
Associates $135-$285
Seyfarth Shaw (505)
(Chicago)
Partners $260-$600
Associates $160-$265
ShawPittman (407)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $315-$576
Associates $170-$325
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (336)
(Los Angeles)
Partners $305-$525
Associates $170-$295
Shipman & Goodwin (137)
(Hartford, Conn.)
Partners $235-$360
Associates $140-$230
Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross (155)
(Newark, N.J.)
Partners $290-$500
Associates $125-$290
Smith, Gambrell & Russell (177)
(Atlanta)
Partners $185-$465
Associates $130-$350
Steel Hector & Davis (195)
(Miami)
Partners $240-$600
Associates $175-$280
Stites & Harbison (213)
(Louisville, Ky.)
Partners $175-$325
Associates $105-$190
Stoel Rives (364)
(Portland, Ore.)
Partners $210-$400
Associates $140-$340
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young (145)
(Philadelphia)
Partners $200-$465
Associates $140-$250
Strasburger & Price (224)
(Dallas)
Partners $190-$450
Associates $155-$250
Sughrue Mion (94)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $300-$450
Associates $200-$350
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan (356)
(Atlanta)
Partners $275-$545
Associates $160-$280
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman (298)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $310-$590
Associates $170-$380
Thelen Reid & Priest (440)
(New York)
Partners $315-$575
Associates $165-$390
Thompson Coburn (280)
(St. Louis)
Partners $190-$400
Associates $105-$220
Thompson & Knight (333)
(Dallas)
Partners $260-$475
Associates $155-$250
Thorp Reed & Armstrong (103)
(Pittsburgh)
Partners $210-$390
Associates $175-$230
Townsend and Townsend and Crew (151)
(San Francisco)
Partners $415-$525
Associates $265-$355
Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz (213)
(Chicago)
Partners $270-$495
Associates $165-$290
Venable (448)
(Baltimore)
Partners $250-$670
Associates $165-$310
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease (353)
(Columbus, Ohio)
Partners $235-$400
Associates $125-$250
Wiley, Rein & Fielding (221)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $300-$525
Associates $160-$290
Williams & Connolly (211)
(Washington, D.C.)
Partners $350-$600
Associates $185-$330
Williams Mullen (237)
(Richmond, Va.)
Partners $185-$370
Associates $125-$225
Winstead Sechrest & Minick (333)
(Dallas)
Partners $250-$540
Associates $145-$300
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice (437)
(Winston-Salem, N.C.)
Partners $190-$500
Associates $125-$265
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs (201)
(Louisville, Ky.)
Partners $150-$310
Associates $100-$190 |
| (The National Law Journal, December 2002) |
|
Despite It All, Rates Rose at Many Firms
Steve Seidenberg -- The National Law Journal -- 12-03-2001
What goes up doesn't always come down. Despite the weakening economy, law firm billing rates continue to rise, according to data gathered as part of The National Law Journal's 2001 survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms. These rate increases, however, appear to be generally a bit lower than last year's.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
Fired Mary Kay Worker Wins Job Suit
Verdict over dismissal of ailing sales 'contractor' may be first of its kind
Peter Page -- The National Law Journal -- 12-12-2002
A Texas jury hit cosmetics giant Mary Kay Inc. with an $11.2 million verdict, including $10 million in punitive damages, for firing a sales manager disabled by cancer, who, the company said, was not an employee but an independent contractor. Plaintiff's counsel Angela Alioto said the judgment is the first of its type in the U.S. and is a significant step toward extending some workplace legal rights to sales contractors.
Friday, December 06, 2002
Four Network Attorneys Named All-Stars of Client Service
The BTI Consulting Group, a Massachusetts-based professional industry market analyzer, interviewed more than 185 corporate counsel at Fortune 1000 companies throughout the U.S. regarding their outside law firm relationships, how they buy legal services, and a broad range of other issues. The BTI Client Service All–Star Team represents those individual attorneys who have been nominated by their Fortune 1000 clients because they provide superior client service—the All–Stars of client service.
 Jim Dorr and Rod Heard of Network member firm Wildman Harrold, Daniel Rizzi of Network member firm Nixon Peabody, and Matthew Feeney of Network member firm Snell & Wilmer, were named by their clients to the All-Star Team.
Who Makes the All–Star Team: 93 individuals, representing 73 law firms across the country, were nominated for BTI’s Law Firm Client Service All–Star Team.
What Drives Clients to Nominate Their Attorney to The BTI Client Service All–Star Team: BTI found four major reasons clients nominate a particular individual to the All–Star Team. The top three reasons, comprising close to 80%, are all about the ability of the attorney to go beyond technical skill delivery to add something more.
Go Above and Beyond: BTI found 11% of clients see individuals “going above and beyond”, driving superior client service, and bringing the most value to clients. This is up from last year’s 7%. These BTI Client Service All-Stars always deliver more than their clients expect, no matter how high the expectation. For these All-Stars, advice and responsiveness are baseline requirements. These clients see their All-Stars putting the client’s interests ahead of their own and always taking the extra step.
Relationship: Relationships drive All Star status for 7% of Fortune 1000 clients of the All-Star Team. These attorneys have successfully attained a high degree of client loyalty. Their clients trust them and turn to them first when problems arise. All-Stars use it as a source of strength. These lawyers establish exceptional understanding of their client’s issues circumstances and needs and use it to develop mutual investment in the relationship.
Client Focus: Fully 61% of clients nonimate their All-Star because of their outstanding client focus. This is an increase from last year’s 54%. These lawyers consistently look at the services they provide from the client’s perspective, rather than their own.
Business Focus: Our research finds that 5% of clients nominate their candidate because their attorney consistently helps translate legal advice into the business value. These clients benefit from increased time to market, advantage in closing transactions, risk avoidance, and revenue from Intellectual Property assets.
Core Legal Skills: A group of clients, 15%, recommend their candidate because of their lawyers’ legal skills and abilities. These companies are looking for specific skills and expertise, and have found them in their favorite attorney.
Other: The remaining individuals recommend their candidate because of other individual factors.
Thursday, December 05, 2002
GCs for Tough Times
Companies are hiring attorneys who have been prosecutors
Joseph A. Slobodzian -- The National Law Journal -- 12-05-2002
Directors are increasingly hunting for lawyers with experience as federal prosecutors or who have held policy-making positions in government. Others say they want a track record as general or deputy counsel of another corporation of similar size and complexity. Consultants say there is no question that federal prosecutorial, Justice Department or business regulatory agency experience has acquired new currency these days among boards shopping for general counsel.
Jon Lindsey, managing partner in the New York office of attorney search consultants, Major, Hagen & Africa, himself a federal prosecutor for six years, said that candidates with such experience bring two things of value to companies: They know how government works and they fit the public image of being "squeaky-clean."
Have Business -- Stay a Partner
The Decline of the Meritocracy
The Distasteful Medicine of De-Equitization
Jeff Blumenthal -- The Legal Intelligencer -- 12-05-2002
[Article discusses move toward de-equitization among law firms facing profit squeeze. What's driving the trend? Could it be the publication of "Profits per Partner" data? Hmm.] Duane Morris chairman Sheldon Bonovitz said de-equitization is a combination of cosmetics and substance. The cosmetics surround The American Lawyer magazine's AmLaw 200, which calculates which firms have the highest profits per equity partner. Firms want the good public relations that go along with high PPP. It helps with recruiting both lateral partners and upper-echelon, entry-level talent as well as retaining key personnel.
Altman Weil law firm consultant Tom Clay said there are two reasons for the rise in de-equitization:
-- the economic downturn, and
-- the fact that many firms promoted people to partnership status that have no business being partners.
Clay said firms would not have to de-equitize partners if they had not promoted associates to the position who did not deserve such status in the first place. He said [some] firms do not have enough business generators and have too many partners that fit into the category of self-sufficient, service or technical specialist partners.
Loose Your Client, Loose Your Equity Status:
"The greater problem is people who have been partners with the firm for a while and had a substantial amount of business but whose contributions have declined. That's the hardest part and that's what I hear more about around town," according to Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen chairman Mark Alderman.
Lack of Business Plan: "I talk to senior associates who don't even have a business plan," Major Hagen & Africa legal recruiter Frank D'Amore said. "They always tell me that they are too busy billing hours. But especially with the economy the way it is, it's important to carve out some time for that. If you want to make partner, and eventually equity partner, that's what's necessary to get it done."
Clay's 5 Types of Partners:
Entrepreneurial leader: Consistently keeps multiple partners, associates and paralegals busy, often in many practice areas. His or her presence drives the firm brand, transitioning relationships to others and creating deeper, broader relations with clients. These partners are very rare.
Business-generating partner: Capable of staying busy and keeping one to three others busy on a consistent basis with their own business and growing existing client relationships cultivated by others.
Self-sufficient partner: Someone who keeps busy but usually gets a portion of work from others and manages to export a portion of work from others. He or she leverages equally the firm's brand and his or her personal market presence for marketing.
Service partner: Usually a sophisticated lawyer and client manager who can manage a service delivery team but does not generate a significant volume of work on his or her own. This type of partner would not meet the test for self-sufficiency.
Technical specialist partner: A sophisticated problem-solver who is often uncomfortable with the social aspects of client interaction. This person will generally not lead a legal team but may lead a project team on a specific legal issue.
|
|
