Joseph Fields
Over the last decade, legal organizations have begun to reap the benefits of using computerized practice management systems. The only remaining drawback is document creation manually via hand typing. This process is painful (literally) and costly for highly paid legal professionals. On average, a single attorney or judge spends upwards of $20,000 per year to digitize case information. In times like these, reducing costs, unnecessary errors and providing better service to clients can be the key to your organization's success and profitability.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
Shari Claire Lewis
Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <i>Bates v. State Bar of Arizona</i> (433 U.S. 350 (1977; holding that 'blanket suppression' of attorney advertisements was an unconstitutional interference with First Amendment rights. However, the Court also recognized that some regulation of attorney advertising was necessary to protect consumers who lacked legal sophistication. Thus, the Court ruled that statements in lawyer ads that might pass muster in other industries could be misleading and were subject to reasonable regulation as to time, place and manner. The conflict between the First Amendment right to speech and the necessity and reasonableness of regulation of attorney advertising has continued to evolve since <i>Bates</i>, responding not just to changing mores regarding professional conduct, but to the challenges of new technology media.
Features
David B. Broughel
On Feb. 20, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in <i>Philip Morris USA v. Williams</i>, ____ U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007), the latest in a series of decisions since 1991 exploring the limits that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes on state jury awards of punitive damages. An Oregon jury had awarded the widow of a Marlboro smoker $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages on a deceit claim against Philip Morris. After a series of appeals, the Supreme Court of Oregon had upheld the punitive damages award. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case to address two specific questions: 1) whether a state-court jury in a punitive damages award may punish the defendant for harm caused to parties not before the court; and 2) whether the $79.5 million punitive damages award was 'grossly excessive' because it was not reasonably related to the actual or potential harm caused by the defendant to the plaintiff. In a 5-4 decision, the Court answered the first question 'no' and declined to address the second question until the Oregon state courts had considered the case further.
Features
Judye Carter Reynolds
The highly publicized release of Microsoft Office 2007' was received with caution in the legal industry. Promises of greater compatibility with non-Office programs were offset by a drastically redesigned user interface and concern over a new file format. Productivity hits and resulting end-user frustration are anticipated.
Features
Andrea Obston
Amid the screaming and righteous indignation of the Don Imus incident, communications crisis managers were learning their own lesson. And it wasn't that TV networks, hit in the pocketbook, can get very moral (we already knew that); it was that speed really does kill.
Features
Mark Lieb
This article identifies select law firm issues that can significantly impact cost and speed throughout the entire case lifecycle, and offers viable solutions to dealing with them.
Features
Carolee Swallie
Have you ever wondered why, when everyone in your firm supports the concept of business development, you just can't seem to get initiatives implemented? While business development inside a law firm isn't a new concept, many directors and CMOs have so far failed to recognize just how significant an impact these initiatives will have on the basic structure and organization of the firm.
Nancy Manzo
It's not just who you know anymore that counts in the business of law. It's what you know and how you and others can access the information when a client needs it. When a client calls and asks, 'Can you help us negotiate an acquisition of a power plant in Dubai,and do you have lawyers experienced with this kind of transaction?' how quickly can your firm respond?
Jay P. Mayesh
&
Oscar Ramallo
In <i>General Electric Co. v. Joiner</i>, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court entrusted district courts with the primary responsibility for applying the <i>Daubert</i> standard for admission of expert testimony. <i>Joiner</i> held that appellate courts could reverse a decision to exclude or admit expert testimony only if the district court abused its discretion. <i>Id.</i> at 143.
