Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

The CPSC is posed to unveil its own online reporting system and public database of actual and potential product hazards. Unless the CPSC implements adequate safeguards, information disseminated through the new online database may be wholly unverified.

Features

Hardly a week passes without receiving information about a new publication or seminar about law office management. However, information is not readily available about what specifically managing partners and members of management committees should do to coalesce their partners, associates and staff into a well-managed and informed organization.

Features

Franchisors, like other businesses, should periodically review their insurance policies to make certain that they understand the scope of their existing coverage and to identify (and remedy) any significant gaps in that coverage.

Features

In this economic environment, the word "change" looms large in professional services dialogue. Professions can be fairly rigid and resistant to innovation. But the times seem to have accelerated the need for new ideas and structures to cope with new economic and social problems and opportunities.

Even though franchising represents a significant part of the commercial activity in the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court regularly considers legal issues pertaining to commerce, it's rare for the Court to hear a case that is directly related to franchising. But such a rarity took place on Jan. 19, 2010, in <i>Mac's Shell Service Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co.</i> Craig R. Tractenberg, a partner at Nixon Peabody LLP, was in attendance, and he describes the oral argument.

The desire among senior corporate counsel and management to control costs has pushed consideration of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) to the forefront. Some estimates suggest that within five years, as much as half the Am Law 200 revenue might come from AFAs.

Applying the "faithless servant doctrine," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently permitted an employer to recover compensation it had paid to a high-level executive who had been the subject of numerous sexual harassment complaints by other employees.