Sunday, June 27, 2004
Judicial Control Over Questionable Jury Verdicts:
Historical Underpinnings of an Age-Old Practice
The Federal Lawyer Magazine, June, 2004, p. 23
by Martin D. Beirne and Scott D. Marrs
Beirne Maynard & Parsons
Houston and Dallas, Texas
 |  | |
| Marty Beirne | Scott Mars | |
Friday, June 25, 2004
Lightfoot, Franklin & White Wins Hyundai Crash Case
Michael Tomberlin
News staff writer
The Birmingham News
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Hyundai Motor Co. prevailed in a courtroom battle stemming from a fatal car accident in Lowndes County, which has a earned a reputation for socking it to corporations.
 |  | 
|
| Harlan Prater | Jere White | Chandler Bailey |
[Harlan Prater, Jere White and Chandler Bailey tried this case in Lowndes County, Alabama, which is among the most, if not the most plaintiff-oriented counties in Alabama. Many consider it to be one of the worst places for corporate defendants in the country. To our knowledge, this is the first defense verdict in a products liability case in this county in over a decade.]
A Lowndes jury late Tuesday returned a verdict in favor of Hyundai in the lawsuit filed by the family of Christine Graham, killed in 1999 when her 2,300-pound Hyundai Excel was struck by a 79,000-pound Freightliner 18-wheeler going more than 60 miles per hour.
Attorneys for the Graham family argued that a faulty seat belt and door latch design contributed to her death in the accident. Hyundai attorneys said the seat belt and door latch met all safety standards and the sheer force of the accident caused the woman's death.
Hyundai attorneys said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others have singled out Lowndes as one of the most difficult counties in the United States for corporations in actions brought by plaintiffs' attorneys. They saw their victory as significant.
According to Hyundai attorneys, the Freightliner truck driver had his cruise control set at 65 miles per hour at the time of the accident. The truck struck the car on the driver's side, forcing open the door and ejecting Graham.
There was some dispute about whether Graham had just the shoulder portion of her seat belt buckled or whether she was wearing a seat belt at all at the time of the crash, according to Hyundai's attorneys.
Harlan Prater IV, an attorney with Birmingham's Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, which also represented Hyundai, said the automaker is pleased to have won the case after choosing to set up a $1 billion manufacturing plant, which is now under construction in nearby Montgomery.
"A jury verdict in Lowndes County is good news to Hyundai, who I know is looking forward to doing business in Alabama for a long time," Prater said.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Blakes Expands to Better Serve U.S. Clients
Offices in New York and Chicago to Meet Canadian Legal Needs of U.S. Clients
TORONTO (January 6, 2004) – Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP announced today that it is opening offices in New York and Chicago to serve U.S.-based businesses interested in operating or investing in Canada. Blakes will be the first Canadian law firm with an office in Chicago.
"The U.S. market is extremely significant for Blakes’ practice. Adding offices in New York and Chicago is the next step in our overall U.S. strategy to better meet the Canadian legal needs of our existing and prospective clients," said Jim Christie, Chairman. "The U.S. offices will complement the additional resources we are already devoting to the U.S. market. We will practise Canadian law in the U.S. which will continue to position the Firm strategically as a logical partner for its many U.S. law firm contacts."
Blakes has chosen three senior people to manage these new offices. Leading the U.S. initiative will be Tim Unwin, Partner and Co-leader of the Securities Law Group in Toronto. A former Managing Partner of Blakes’ first international office in London, Mr. Unwin has extensive experience in advising U.S. and Canadian companies engaged in cross-border business including capital markets transactions. He will be based in New York.
"With the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian economies, we think it’s important to have a physical presence in the U.S.," said Tim Unwin. "New York because it is the centre of international finance. Chicago because the U.S. mid-west represents a significant untapped market."
Working with Mr. Unwin in New York will be Michael Gans, currently a Partner in Blakes Securities Law Group in Toronto. Mr. Gans has acted as counsel on a variety of cross-border and domestic transactions and in 2002 was named by Lexpert magazine as one of Canada’s top 40 lawyers under age 40. He has previous experience practising law in New York.
Geoffrey Belsher, a Partner practising corporate and securities law in the Blakes Vancouver office, will be based in Chicago. Mr. Belsher’s practice focuses on corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions and cross-border transactions. He was also recognized in 2002 as one of Canada’s top 40 lawyers under 40 by Lexpert magazine.
Founded in 1856, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP has over 500 lawyers and will have nine offices in Canada, United States, Europe and China. The Firm’s signature, "Blakes means business" is not just a catch phrase but a discipline that defines how Blakes helps clients achieve their business objectives.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Survey of CLO's
Altman Weil's Daniel J. DiLucchio is out with another report to in-house attorneys with observations and conclusions based on a recent survey of in-house counsel. Get your copy here.
EDITOR'S COMMENT: Mr. DiLucchio makes the following conclusory allegation "traditionally, legal work could be performed more cost effectively by inside counsel . . .."
My comment is that if that were so, 99.9% of all attorneys would be working in-house for corporations and rather than delivering legal services as partners or associates at law firms.
Competitive markets adjust for ineffiencies and drive out high cost providers. If legal services could be more efficiently, and more cost-effectively delivered by in-house counsel, more attorneys would be working inhouse.
The problem is that misperceptions abound when any large system is viewed in microcosm. (Is it a tree or an elephant's leg?) All of the costs of legal services must be considered when providing for a corporation's legal counsel.
Thousands of make-buy decisions made every year for the past several decades have converged to an overall cost-effective solution -- corporations using a few generalists and maybe some specialists, depending on the company, and a lot of outside counsel. Even large law departments abide by that solution, when corporate revenue per in-house attorney is the measure.
That solution minimizes the total cost of legal services. Were it otherwise, corporations would have seen it years ago and absorbed more of the available legal talent.
Mr. DeLucchio's conclusory allegation is, therefore, incorrect. Moreover, his advice to squeeze outside counsel for legal fees is a bit like a category-killer retailer coming into your neighborhood, wiping out the competitition, and then increasing retail prices. He advises corporations to squeeze legal fees of law firms that survive convergence programs -- hardly the way to get the best and the brightest attorneys to work on your matters let alone dedicate themselves to the solution of your company's problems. And, not a practice that responsible general counsel should take seriously. Ed.
Mr. DiLucchio's advice is contained in Altman Weil's "Report to Legal Management", Vol. 31, No. 6 titled, "Chief Legal Officers Are Questioned — And the Answers Are 'Costs' and 'Compliance'"
Frustration High with Billing Surprises, Lack of Value, Billing Mistakes, Etc.
Mr. DiLucchio reports that the number one reason given for terminating a relationship is "cost management issues" citing a continuing high level of frustration by in-house counsel with law firm billing "surprises" (unexpectedly high bills for work performed), perceived lack of value for cost, billing mistakes and extreme expense charges.
"It appears that the frustration level with law firm services continues to be high for in-house lawyers. These concerns are fueled by a lack of responsiveness, high fees, and lack of value for costs. The survey data clearly suggest that there is an ongoing problem that is not being addressed."
Hourly Rate Still the Rule
The CLO Survey result is consistent with the results of the Altman Weil 2003 Law Department Management Benchmarks Survey, which reports that of 183 reporting companies, 33.9% continue to pay all of their fees to outside counsel based on hourly rates. Only 27.9% of the reporting companies pay from 1% to 10% of their fees on billing arrangements other than the hourly rate, and only 10.9% pay from 11% to 20% of their fees based on other than hourly rates.
Use of Outside Counsel to Decrease
17.3% of the CLOs plan to decrease their use of outside counsel in the next 12 months while only 15.8% of the CLOs plan to increase their use of outside counsel. This is a significant change from 2001 when 86% of the CLOs responding to the Survey planned to increase their use of outside counsel.
Altman Advises Corporate Counsel to Freeze Outside Counsel Rates
Altman advises in-house counsel:
• Law firm convergence programs are only the first step in a two-step process. The second step is leveraging purchasing power with the firms that are selected. [In other words, pick and squeeze. Ed.]
• Install and use e-billing technology. This is the best available tool for cost analysis and management. Task-based billing did not meet the hype and expectations, but e-billing has the potential to be the needed management tool.
• Manage the cost of each matter, not just the substantive legal issue involved. Realize that by the time a bill arrives on the desk of an inhouse lawyer, it is too late to manage the cost.
• Align law firms with types of matters. Use top firms for strategic legal work and low-cost providers
for commodity work.
• Evaluate lawyers, in-house and outside, for their ability to manage costs — it is part of their job.
• If you are still using hourly rates, at least insist on freezing annual hourly rate increases.
