Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The practice of law has seen many changes in the past 10 years. The profession has changed to become more client focused, associates are entering at higher salaries, and firms are pressured to be more efficient. All this adds up to the necessity for new associates to be productive sooner — and that includes developing business. However, young lawyers do not learn how to develop clients during law school. They learn to research, cite cases, and think logically, but they do not learn the practical skill of getting and keeping clients. This must be taught by senior lawyers, outside consultants, or others responsible for training.
Features
Numerous adjectives are used to describe the average law firm today — good, bad, or otherwise. But somehow I don't ever hear 'vibrant' on the list. Why?
Features
As law firms grow in size, and expand geographically and across practice areas, the use of firm-wide profitability tools has become a business necessity. But understanding the urgency to adopt or update a profitability model doesn't guarantee its successful implementation.
Features
Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product. Consequently, most judges have left to the jury the question of whether the danger of injury from a product is obvious. Against this backdrop, a recent decision has cast doubt on the accepted notion that obviousness is necessarily a question for the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 717 N.W.2d 855, <i>reh'g denied</i>, 720 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 2006) that, as a matter of law, hair oil posed an open and obvious danger to consumers that negated any duty to warn that the product could kill if ingested or inhaled.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
This is the conclusion of an interview with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') about the revisions to the Franchise Rule. Toporoff continues his remarks about earnings information contained in the New Rule, and he discusses how the FTC is reaching out to the franchise community and consumers in order to explain the provisions of the New Rule.
In the October/November 2004 Special Issue of <i>FBLA</i>, we speculated that if there was one group that may be unhappy about the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') Staff Report's proposed revisions to the FTC Franchise Rule, it had to be the parents of franchisors (or maybe franchisors who have parents). Now that the FTC has released the final amended FTC Franchise Rule, we know that a parent's disclosure burden will be increased. One provision may have a profound effect on how certain franchise companies do business. Because there are some ambiguities in what is being required, it may be prudent for the FTC to clarify its intention in the Guidelines it plans to issue.
Whatever qualms there may have been about e-disclosure should, with the release of the FTC's amended Franchise Rule, be resolved. Let the record be clear: The Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') has removed all doubt with respect to e-disclosure — it is now officially sanctioned. Whatever concern there may have been, at this stage, is a matter of history.
