Have you ever had cases that you felt were appropriate for collaboration, where the clients and lawyers got started but then the clients disengaged from the collaborative process somewhere along the way? This article explains the value of a divorce coach in the collaborative process.
In order to stay ahead of the competition in today's economic environment, a law firm needs to be flexible and agile in adapting to change, whether through a corporate restructuring, adopting new technologies or processes, or introducing new products or services. Let's face it, for a firm to grow and be successful, change is inevitable. It's just part of doing business today.
No matter how conflicted inside counsel may be in their expectations of outside counsel, they all want you to be client-centric. Simply by taking tangible steps to clarify their priorities on an ongoing basis, you send a powerful message about yourself. Caring is the crucial first step.
In the real business world, marketing and business development functions co-exist ' albeit uncomfortably at times ' in a more or less equitable partnership that sees them working toward common objectives but living on separate islands. In the somewhat more surreal world of BigLaw business, the functions tend to live together but, all too often work at cross-purposes. And therein lies a budding tale. Who is best suited to lead the firm, at least until the next, next thing comes along? The answer seems clear. There's a new sheriff in town. Its name is business development.
Dewey Ballatine LLP, with 12 offices worldwide, 550 lawyers, and a history of legal service since 1909, is a well-known brand whose lawyers are consistently visible in the press and at conferences. Leading the firm's efforts in marketing is Jason 'Jay' Dinwoodie, long known in the legal marketing industry as a cutting-edge marketer and strategic innovator.
With corporate scandals, terrorism and economic chaos appearing regularly in the headlines of major newspapers and on broadcast news, now more than ever it seems that American business is in need of good crisis communications. No company is immune to crisis ' so no company should be without some kind of plan to communicate in the midst of that crisis. Organizations that have good plans in place will weather crises far better than those that don't ' or those that believe that not communicating will insulate them in some way from the effects of the crisis.
Two-and-a-half years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the remedial portion of its bifurcated decision in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that the system of federal Sentencing Guidelines established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 could pass constitutional muster only if the Guidelines were treated as having advisory, rather than mandatory, effect. But Booker left open the question of how much weight the now advisory Guidelines should henceforth be given in a district court's sentencing calculus. Last November, the Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari in two cases ' Rita v. United States, and Claiborne v. United States, that seemed likely to resolve this question.
Last month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) celebrated the five-year anniversary of the Corporate Fraud Task Force with a press release and a party at which then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in a prepared statement, hailed significant changes in the way white-collar cases have been prosecuted. Gonzales praised the Task Force's role in breaking 'large investigations into smaller, less complex pieces,' and bringing those cases faster. But expedited investigations mixed with quick charging decisions have not been a reliable recipe for success.
With its Feb. 21, 2007 holding in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 127 S. Ct. 1105 (2007), the Supreme Court stepped in to resolve a Circuit Court split concerning a debtor's right to convert a Chapter 7 case to a Chapter 13 case under the Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to ' 706(a) of the Code. On its face, ' 706(a) seems clear ' a debtor has an absolute, one-time right to conversion. Such clarity is, in the Supreme Court's view, hazy at best.
Bankruptcy court procedural rulings typically go unnoticed. However, this year two bankruptcy court rulings regarding procedural disclosure requirements potentially applicable to investors participating in the bankruptcy process have caused quite a stir. Both rulings related to the scope of disclosure mandated by Bankruptcy Rule 2019, which applies to 'committees' and 'entities' that represent more than one creditor in a bankruptcy case.
