Features

Confronted by increased competition and changes in the way expense conscious corporate clients procure legal services, law firms are responding by building capacity ' increasing their size through aggressive lateral hiring and acquisition. It is an appropriate response; driven by the market perception that in order to compete today for global corporate business, it is imperative that the modern law firm be large enough to handle both commoditized work as well as provide high end counsel, deep enough to handle any and all matters that a company may face, and streamlined enough to take advantage of technological and other economies of scale. But the myriad of market-based arguments that enable the creation of these large partnerships with hundreds of partners beg the question: 'Now that we've built the infrastructure, how do we truly distinguish ourselves in a manner that actually confirms these assumptions and secures the business?'

Practice management is gaining strength as a discipline in many mid-sized firms. Long adhered to in large firms as a way to interact most effectively with clients, produce the client's work in the most timely and cost-effective manner, and generate collegiality among lawyers, in mid-sized firms many managing partners have relegated the practice of law to individual partners, reluctant to impose their judgments on how individual client matters were being performed. This results from their belief that lawyer management should not have to follow up on partners responsible for performing client work or for managing substantive practice areas.

Features

It has become an increasingly common fact pattern: An employer discriminates against an employee, for example, because of her gender. She files a claim of discrimination against the employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In a matter of days, the employer finds out about her charges and decides to make her work life miserable. This might create a straightforward claim for unlawful retaliation, that is if the employer's actions made her life 'miserable enough.' The question of what is 'miserable enough' has divided the courts, and thus there may not be a clear answer to questions on adverse employment actions for employers or employees.

Part One of this series discussed the rationales courts typically draw upon in deciding whether to apply a heeding presumption in failure-to-warn cases in general. This installment analyzes the application of the heeding presumption in pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases specifically and explains why justifications for the presumption in the general product liability context do not necessarily hold true in the pharmaceutical failure-to-warn setting.

Features

New Internet Phone Wiretap Rules Challenged<br>Congress May Consider Mandatory ISP Snooping <br>Movie Piracy Losses Bigger Than Expected, Says a Recent Study<br>House Panel Approves Bill to Ban Cyber-gambling <br>Group Sues NY to Overturn Law Banning Internet Tobacco Sales

Alleged Movie Pirate Claims Innocence<br>Online Legal Scrivener Guilty of Unauthorized Practice of Law

Features

Lawyers Get Online Encyclopedia ' and Lounge ' As Popular Sites Get Adapted

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.