Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Coming to terms with retirement is difficult and, like most things, is even harder if you are a law firm partner. As soon as you begin to think about throttling things back a tad, your clients demand a quicker response time and your partners want you to bring in more business. At the same time, what seemed just a short time ago to be a distant respite is now looming over you and you may not even know what to do or if you can even afford to do it. Moreover, even if you do not want to retire, your partnership agreement may have a mandatory retirement provision that takes away your choice.
When involuntary employment terminations become necessary, employers often seek protection from possible post-employment claims by conditioning severance pay on the signing of a general release and agreement not to sue. As a general rule, such waivers are enforceable if they are 'knowing and voluntary.' Less clear, however, is under what circumstances an employer may condition severance payments on a promise by the departing employee that he/she will not pursue a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ('EEOC') in connection with an allegation of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
Features
Along with a multitude of other changes, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 ('TRHCA') extends the time for several tax cuts that had expired at the end of 2005, makes certain tax breaks more beneficial, and provides greater flexibility regarding health savings accounts. This article highlights noteworthy new TRHCA provisions that can benefit law firms and their clients, as well as individual attorneys and staff members and their families.
Features
Lately, we've been hearing from a growing number of our (Hildebrandt International, Inc.) clients about escalating concerns relating to career path and non-equity opportunities. Although 79 AmLaw 100 firms and 169 of the NLJ 250 firms acknowledge a tiered ownership structure, and a large number of others utilize a de facto two-tier structure, many firms still adhere to a single-tier model.
Go to Amazon.com. Locate the books section, type in leadership, and see what shows up. There are more than 197,500 results for this inquiry! Clearly, there is no shortage of approaches to leadership. What is in short supply are models that work for our profession. To help narrow the focus, we will look at a subset of leadership, the art of developing revenue-focused leaders.
Features
You have heard the clich': '60 is the new 40.' In today's law firm, however, the 60-year-old may very well be at the prime of his or her career, and many firms are taking notice. Firms committed to building critical mass, particularly in key practice areas and offices (notably New York) are scrambling to recruit the 'big splash' partner. The seasoned attorney from a top-tier firm, approaching the firm's retirement age but not yet ready to quit, is a prime target. This partner has a loyal client base, the wisdom gained from years of experience, and prot'g's who are frequently eager and willing to follow the master.
Features
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 also choose to invest (either inside or outside their law firms) in opportunities that arise in the law firm setting.
Features
High-stakes disputes often generate hardball tactics by the parties and their attorneys. Even before the lawsuit is filed, attorneys are claiming conflicts of interest, on the part of opposing counsel, with increasing regularity and fervor. As law firms grow, clients merge or divest divisions, and attorney departures and arrivals become more common, conflicts of interest — and the possibility for disqualification motions — become a larger problem for law firms. Do such motions present a legitimate complaint mechanism for wronged clients, or simply one more arrow in the quiver of the scorched earth litigator? Regardless of what you think is the correct answer to the preceding question, disqualification motions and threats are unquestionably something that modern law firms are forced to address with increasing frequency.
Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is 'commercial' speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is 'non-commercial' speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity's consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity's right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is 'non-commercial,' but is available against the company because the print advertisement is 'commercial.' The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects 'non-commercial' speech, it protects 'commercial' speech in a significantly limited way.
