Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In May, just 1 month after Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld announced Chang-Joo Kim had joined its New York office as a partner, the law firm cut a check to recruiting firm Boston Executive Search for $227,500. <br>But did it pay the right recruiter? New York search firm Sivin Tobin Associates says it sent Akin Gump a package about Kim last December, along with a term sheet. Sivin Tobin is now suing the law firm, alleging breach of an implied contract. In September, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Jane S. Solomon denied Akin Gump's motion to dismiss.
Features
Law firms have been largely unable to take advantage of modern business improvement methods such as Six Sigma and the Theory of Constraints ' complex techniques often applied to manufacturing processes ' with much success. Those methodologies are measurement-based strategies that focus on process improvement and variation reduction.
Features
Improved hard-disbursements management can mean major improvements for firms' financial performance. <br>In the mid-1990s, the IRS stopped allowing lawyers to deduct as a business expense funds advanced for clients, treating their repayment as income. The agency said such advances should be treated as loans. This policy turned the nation's lawyers into bankers making interest-free loans. Last year, the AmLaw 100 firms alone reportedly advanced more than $4.5 billion in such loans.
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Real-time collaboration (RTC) has advanced to a point where its advantages bring benefits to almost every aspect of organizational communications. For law firms, RTC makes possible new ways of working that are simple to adopt, easy to afford, require little or no CapEx and, in most cases, utilize existing computer and peripheral equipment. RTC can bring together employees, clients, trainers and others in ways that save time and overcome distance, thereby delivering measurable competitive advantage.
As a result of the Seaboard Release (SEC, 2001) and the Thompson Memorandum, potential conflicts in representing both a corporation and its officers and executive employees have become more frequent. The corporation, in order to avoid prosecution and limit its exposure to civil damages, must promptly conduct an internal investigation and turn over the results of that investigation to the appropriate governmental agency as soon as possible. This may not be the best way to defend executives exposed to criminal liability.
Features
A white-collar criminal investigation, a business entity seeking to cooperate, and individual employees talking to the prosecutors ' all familiar scenarios to anyone experienced in federal criminal law. Recently, however, these elements combined to produce an unusual result: the suppression of the employees' statements to the government as involuntary under the Fifth Amendment. U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued this ruling in the KPMG tax shelter prosecution, finding that the prosecutors, through their pressure on KPMG, economically coerced the company's employees to speak with the government in violation of their privilege against self-incrimination. Once again, the government's overly aggressive interpretation of the Thompson Memo has come back to haunt it.
Features
Two months ago, the American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted a 'recommendation' stating opposition to prosecutors' and other enforcement officials' taking into consideration 'any of the following factors in making a determination of whether an organization has been cooperative in the context of a government investigation: 1) that the organization provided counsel to, or advanced, reimbursed or indemnified the legal fees and expenses of, an Employee; 2) that the organization entered into or continues to operate under a joint defense, information sharing and common interest agreement with an Employee or other represented party with whom the organization believes it has a common interest in defending against the investigation; 3) that the organization shared its records or other historical information relating to the matter under investigation with an Employee; or 4) that the organization chose to retain or otherwise declined to sanction an Employee who exercised his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response. This article discusses the recommendation and the events that led to it.
Many technology companies believe the current law on obviousness hinders product development by extending patent protection to insignificant advances. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('CAFC') reconfigured the obviousness framework established by the Supreme Court to limit the subjectivity of obviousness determinations by adding a 'teaching-suggestion-motivation' test, which is at the heart of a case the Supreme Court has recently agreed to consider. In <i>Teleflex</i>, the CAFC applied the 'teaching-suggestion-motivation' test in vacating a lower court finding of obviousness. <i>Teleflex Inc. v. KSR Intern. Co.</i>, 119 Fed.Appx. 282 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Substantially unchecked to date, this will be the first full hearing on the obviousness doctrine in more than 30 years.
