Although a handful of law firms has hired non-lawyer sales teams, most still rely upon individual attorneys or practice groups to generate new client matters (i.e., to sell) even though the majority of them have never received business development skills training. This article describes some of the important characteristics and habits shared by attorneys who have built successful practices.
Law firm leadership is at a proverbial fork in the road. The people running law firms can continue to do business as usual, or they can lead their firms toward a model of business that reflects the new and still evolving client expectations and market demands.
<b><i>Optimal Insights Through Inter-Departmental Initiatives</b></i><p><p>As dizzying amounts of resources and the need for the timeliest insights grow, the conduit and collaboration between business development and an organization's information management department, especially, becomes more critical than ever.
Over the years, the structure of law firms has shifted from a geographical model to a practice group model. Rather than placing leaders in each geographical office, law firm practice group leaders have more power. As law firms have evolved in size, reach, and complexity, so too has the need for seasoned executives to manage the business of law.
With associate compensation dominating the headlines over the past several months, partner compensation has managed to slip under the radar. This isn't particularly surprising, however, given how uncomfortable discussions regarding partner pay can be for lawyers and their firms.Despite the tendency to delay or even avoid such conversations, partnership compensation remains one of the most scrutinized decisions in a law practice.
<b><i>The Paradigm Shift Hits the Fan</b></i><p><p>AI — artificial intelligence — and its relatives: digital research engines, “bots” and other automatons, have made their beachhead in the legal profession, and it really looks like this is gonna change everything.
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
