The question has been asked what my motivation was in writing the most recent Op Ed about the state of law firm marketing. Simply stated, it was written to deliver a wake-up call ' so that law firm marketing does not devolve into a back room staff function but assumes it rightful role at the management table."
You might not have followed, or might not even be aware of, a suit by former Sullivan & Cromwell associate Aaron Charney against his firm, and the firm's subsequent suit against Charney. Gossip aside, the case, which settled on Oct. 25, 2007, should be noted by law firms, if for no other reason, than to learn how not to handle discrimination and retaliation complaints.
What obligations does an employer have under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate the impairments of employees who are 'regarded as,' but not 'actually,' disabled? This tricky question has created a split in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, leaving employers with little uniformity or clarity on the issue.
In 2007, the National Labor Relations Board ('NLRB'), a majority of which was composed of appointees of President Bush, issued a series of important and, in some cases, unanticipated decisions. To the labor community, the decisions represented a significant roll-back of well-established employee rights, while to the management community, they represented hard-won but less-than-revolutionary changes in some settled rules.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
What rights does an employer have in an employee's patent? The short answer is, it depends. The employer may have a right of assignment — that is, a right to outright ownership of the patent. Another possibility is a so-called 'shop right,' in which the employee owns the patent, but the employer has a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the invention in its business. There is also a distinct possibility that the employer has no rights whatsoever in the patent.
Recent litigation of interest to you and your practice.
In light of the complex and opaque nature of the subprime mortgage market, government investigators are probing the valuation and disclosure decisions made by market participants at multiple levels. It is not yet clear what charges prosecutors will assert to prove fraud claims against dishonest subprime market participants.
Sky-high loss enhancements are increasingly scrutinized in a post-Booker world. Drawing on civil securities law, recent decisions in several circuits endorse an approach holding a defendant responsible for only the portion of victims' losses that was proximately caused by the offense. Some courts' critical analyses bode well for future sentencings.
