TRIAL.COM Logo
Home Page About Us CLE Programs Podcasts Blog Online CLE Foundation Members Only
The TRIAL.COM Litigation News Blog 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.

Tuesday, December 23, 2003

Snell & Wilmer Celebrates Back-to-Back Trial Wins for Mayo Clinic
Phoenix -- December 22, 2003

Snell & Wilmer's healthcare litigation group recently won back-to-back medical negligence jury trials for the Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Gina Slattery and Barry Halpern won a defense verdict in Bennett v. Mayo Clinic where plaintiff alleged delayed administration of blood thinning medication resulting in blindness.

Don Smith and Barry Halpern won a defense verdict in Vogel v. Mayo Clinic where plaintiffs claimed that a debilitating stroke resulted from an unrecognized carotid artery dissection.

Experts from leading healthcare institutions on both coasts testified in the trials. In Bennett, Gina Slattery and Mayo in-house counsel Terri Buccino (a former Snell & Wilmer lawyer) assembled a team of experts to establish that plaintiff's risk of injury was infinitesimal, despite plaintiff’s expert's testimony that catastrophic brain damage was highly likely.

Those trial victories capped a year in which the firm’s healthcare litigation group teamed with the appellate group to win another significant victory for Mayo. In Allen v. Mayo, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a statute of limitations summary judgment. Snell & Wilmer identified the medical basis for the defense, which was briefed at the trial court by attorneys with the firm. After it was argued on the trial court motion, Snell & Wilmer's appellate attorneys collaborated on the briefs and successfully argued the appeal.
 

Saturday, December 13, 2003

Survey: Outside law firms may be left on the outside
Sheri Qualters
Boston Business Journal Staff
From the December 12, 2003 print edition


Corporate chief legal officers are still considering curtailing the use of outside law firms to trim costs, according to a survey of chief legal officers.

The Association of Corporate Counsel of Washington, D.C., and Newtown Square, Pa.-based Altman Weil Inc. based these findings on the 137 responses from chief legal honchos who attended the association's annual conference this fall and took part in the 2003 Chief Legal Officer Survey. According to the data, 59 percent of the chief legal officers have fired or were considering firing one of their outside law firms in 2003, a 4.2 percent rise over such actions in 2002. Cost management was cited as the top reason for such moves, followed by lack of responsiveness and overworking projects.

"The current economic pressures on corporations are reverberating in law departments," said Altman Weil principal Daniel J. DiLuccio in a statement. "If law firms don't show some flexibility and imagination in working with clients on managing costs, they risk losing those clients to a firm that will."

Holland & Knight LLP participated in a number of bidding processes this year, said Mark Michalowski, executive partner of the firm's Boston office.

"It appears that some companies were trying to winnow a list of outside approved counsel," Michalowski said.

Fortune 500-type companies are more likely to use such criteria, but such companies still hire on an ad hoc basis outside counsel that aren't on the approved list, Michalowski said.
 

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

Bay Area Silicon Valley Firm Announces Rate Hike
New York Lawyer December 9, 2003
By Renee Deger, The Recorder


In a letter to clients, Fenwick partners said their billing rates beginning Jan. 1 will range from $400 to $700 an hour and hourly fees for associates will range from $190 to $400 per hour. Those fee ranges represent a 10 percent increase in partner rates and a more modest increase for associates, the letter said.
 

Thursday, December 04, 2003

Holiday Parties without a Litigation Hangover:
Tips for ensuring responsible behavior at the annual holiday party. Remember, a company sponsored party is really an extension of the office.
Snell & Wilmer's The Workplace Word, November 2003

Publish or re-publish the company’s sexual harassment policy before holiday parties take place. Remind employees that holiday festivities do not offer an excuse for violating a sexual harassment policy. If a company does not have a written policy, this would be a good time to implement one.

Publish or re-publish the company’s dress code and/or code of conduct. Cases are full of examples where the supposed victim of the harassment dressed provocatively or engaged in unprofessional behavior at an office holiday party, seemingly encouraging other employees to act unprofessionally, leading to sexually harassing incidents.

Train managers about expected behavior guidelines. Supervisors should be reminded before a holiday party to set a professional example during the party.

Restrict alcohol consumption. First, the employer should consider whether to serve alcohol at all -- the choice should not be automatic. I f alcohol will be served, the type of alcohol, duration of access and payment for drinks should be considered. Limiting access to alcohol by placing restrictions on the time it will be available or the number of drinks that will be served (such as through drink tickets) can reduce the possibility that employees will imbibe to excess. Employees who appear intoxicated should not be served any further alcohol. The Department of Labor has recommended that employers ban alcohol from their holiday parties.

Include food. Providing food is a good idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that food typically slows the absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream.

Designated drivers or cabs can be arranged to ensure that such persons have a safe way to get home.

Invite spouses, significant others, and families. Allowing workers to bring their families and inviting significant clients and other persons with whom the company does business can change the atmosphere of a company party. A party that is more family-oriented discourages inappropriate behavior.

Perhaps most importantly, if there is a problem - deal with it!!!

For more, see http://www.swlaw.com/publications/files/November_2003.pdf

SEC Moves to Impose Corporate Governance Reforms and Independent Monitoring of the Required Changes
Corporate Responsibility Alert -- Nixon Peabody -- Scott O'Connell and Richard F. Langan, Jr.
November 24, 2003