When Toysrus.com, Toys 'R' Us, Inc.'s Internet retail business, sued Amazon.com to end their Internet partnership for breach of contract, it faced a key strategic decision: Could it gamble on using its opponent's own Web site as a key trial witness? Toys 'R' Us had to prove to the court that Amazon was violating its exclusivity rights under their contract. The only way to effectively do this was to show the court, live, what was happening in real time on www.amazon.com.

Attorney attrition is expensive. Replacing departing colleagues means not only recruiting and hiring strong candidates, but also investing in training for the new hires. Cost estimates for replacing an associate are typically between 100% and 200% of one's annual salary. The soft costs may be even greater ' lost institutional knowledge and potential morale problems. And attorneys who leave with bad feelings about the firm can spread their ill will in the local legal community, or try to lure others to follow. A mass exodus, of course, can cripple a firm.

Features

Federal prosecutors continue to attack attorney-client privilege through aggressive use of the crime-fraud exception ' a government tactic easy to forget amidst the hoopla surrounding the government's attempts to exact attorney-client privilege waivers as the sine qua non of cooperation. A recent Third Circuit case illustrates the worrisome potential breadth of the exception.

Features

All product liability cases are difficult; however, toxic product cases that involve a substance that has caused injury during its use or application pose more of a problem than most others. For example, some spray paints may contain toxic substances that are part of the composition of the product. The warnings on such products are covered by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act ('FHSA'), which requires hazardous household products sold in interstate commerce to contain cautionary labeling, 15 USCA 1261. (A hazardous substance is toxic, an irritant, or a strong sensitizer if the substance may cause substantial personal injury or illness as a result of any reasonably foreseeable use.)

Law firms are spending more money on professional development and hiring more staff to oversee this area than ever before. In addition to substantive skills programs for the many different practice areas, internal programs have expanded to include leadership and business-development curriculums, deal and case management training, presentation skills, business development and client relationship training.

This article is intended by the author to comprise Part Four of Four in a series on lawyer retirement planning. Parts One and Two, 'What In the World Is Going on with Lawyer Retirement Planning?' were published in the November and December 2005 issues of LFP&B. Part Three, last month, examined the history of the 401(k) and why there are problems with the popular retirement vehicle. In this part, we find out how to make things better.

Features

The late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun once said: 'A wedding is an event; a marriage is an achievement.' Much the same could be said about the attainment of ownership in your professional practice. Your ascension is an event; partnership is an achievement. And so the analogy goes that a law firm partnership is much like a marriage, and a breakup much like a divorce. Life repeats itself in business. But as newly minted partners settle into their new roles, this article provides guidance (some serious, some lighthearted) to begin what I hope will be a long and satisfying achievement ' a partnership. Congratulations.

In multidistrict litigation ('MDL') proceedings involving product liability claims, the choice of what law to apply continues to be a thorny issue. For instance, in <i>In re Ephedra Products Liability Litigation</i>, No. 04-1598 (S.D.N.Y) (the 'Ephedra MDL'), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York raised the question of whether the Restatement of the Law Third of Torts could be applied as the universal law applicable to all claims in the proceeding. <i>See</i> Case Management Order ('CMO') No. 4 at '11, July 9, 2004. Judge Rakoff later concluded, at the Sept. 10, 2004 Status Conference, that application of such a 'universal law' would be inappropriate. Such choice-of-law issues, however, remain problematic. That is so not only with regard to substantive law, but with regard to procedural law as well.