Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
What happens when the U.S. Supreme Court hands you a loss? As anyone can tell you, this usually signals the end of the road, and defeat must be admitted. Not cowed by such a setback, however, is a Colorado woman on a mission to prevent from happening to anyone else what happened to her when law enforcement authorities refused to protect her children from their murderous father. Although she lost her bid to hold the city of Castle Rock, CO, liable for negligence under U.S. law, she has now gone to an international tribunal.
In late January, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP announced that it was hiking its first-year associate pay to $160,000. Since then, the legal press has noted that an increasing number of firms in every major legal market plan to follow suit.
Features
Other than holding that courts cannot use race as a criterion for decision (<i>Palmore v. Sidoti</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court has not delved deeply into defining the constitutional rights of divorcing parents in the context of a custody dispute. In <i>Shepp v. Shepp</i>, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that a divorced parent had a constitutional right to advocate his sincere religious belief in polygamy to his 9-year-old child.
With profits per partner continuing to rise, many attorneys have more discretionary income available for investment. In addition to investing directly in both traditional and nontraditional sources, some partners may choose to invest (either inside or outside their law firms) in opportunities that arise in the law firm setting.
Features
Aside from the many important and critical issues involving children and family, the valuation of a closely held business or professional practice may be one of the most significant issues a practitioner will face when resolving the financial aspects of matrimonial matters. In that regard, one of the most important aspects that the valuator is confronted with is the establishment of a reasonable level of replacement compensation to assign to the owner in the valuation of an ownership interest.
Features
A young, dynamic partner is rapidly building a practice. She is active, visible, and well connected in the market. She aggressively pursues business opportunities. She is known for her keen intellect, is highly respected, and her work is first rate. Clients regularly comment on her ability to seamlessly blend pragmatic legal and business advice that advances their agendas in very positive ways. Other firms have periodically made runs at her beginning around her mid- to-senior associate years, but she began her career here and feels much attached to the firm.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White</i> resolved a split in the Circuits when it held that a so-called ultimate employment decision is not necessary to establish a retaliation claim. Instead, the Court held that any act that might dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a claim of discrimination can create employer liability for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the decision, many commentators have expressed concern that the new standard will open the floodgates for a wave of new retaliation lawsuits, but what has Burlington Northern really changed, and what does the new framework mean for employers?
Features
In employment class actions in federal court, such as class actions under Title VII for which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides the governing procedure, the most critical juncture in the case is often the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion requires the court to evaluate whether the plaintiffs have met the Rule 23 requirements and may proceed as a class; denial of the motion generally deals a devastating blow to plaintiffs' claims. In a new ruling that employers can use to support their bids to defeat plaintiffs' motions for class certification under Rule 23, the Second Circuit recently clarified ' and strengthened ' the standard under which district courts should determine plaintiffs' satisfaction of Rule 23's requirements.