Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In today's tepid economy, maintaining client services is sometimes off balance with the skillful practice of law or the recruitment of new talent; the defining dynamic frequently falls on the shoulders of firm leadership. These fundamental concepts needn't be compartmentalized. This delicate balance deserves a dialog with all firm members and firm clients.
Features
The article herein takes the discussion of alternative billing a step further with information from Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). How does a law firm or in-house counsel do it and what steps can taken to create a competitive advantage with alternative billing?
Features
The <i>Ricci</i> decision is a reminder for all employers: Employment decisions cannot be made based on race, regardless of whatever good intentions the employer may have. Even though the Court confirmed that employers can take "affirmative efforts to ensure that all groups have a fair opportunity to apply for promotions and to participate in the process by which promotions will be made," the actual decisions cannot be tainted by racial consideration.
In her dissenting opinion in <i>Ricci v. DeStefano</i>, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg posited that the disparate impact theory has been central to effective enforcement of Title VII for decades. On June 29, 2009, the Court took a step backwards on the path toward fulfilling Title VII's promise of equal opportunity.
The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Ricci v. De Stefano</i> has already garnered a great deal of attention from lawyers, political pundits, and Supreme Court watchers. While the statistical issues got almost no attention in the decision from either side, there are important statistical currents in <i>Ricci</i> that are worthy of further attention.
Special Issue: In <i>Ricci v. DeStefano</i>, decided on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that "race-based action like the City's in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute." The article herein, and this entire issue, examines this ruling.
Features
In-house counsel and their outside counterparts routinely struggle with the problem of when and how to issue legal hold notices. When is litigation reasonably anticipated? Who should get the notice? Should the notice be tailored to the case or based on a rigid template? One question that should have a consistent answer is whether the notice should be in writing.
It has been the longstanding view of most federal courts that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not apply to arbitration provisions in CBAs. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in <i>14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett</i> suggests a different answer.
Features
The ongoing recession has led lawmakers and the SEC alike to focus on limiting perceived excessive risk-taking and improving the accountability of boards of directors to shareholders. This focus has yielded a range of ideas, although none more controversial than the SEC's recently proposed rules to permit shareholders to include their director nominees in a company's proxy statement.
Age Discrimination is once again in the news after a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on an Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) claim. And why not? In the last ten years, age discrimination claims have risen 61% to over 24,000 claims in 2008, according to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.