LJN Newsletters

With the exception of about 15 firms nationwide, there are no solid programs that truly benefit women in law firms. Yes, many firms list their women in law programs on their Web sites, and several tout their programs as being at the forefront of the movement, but this is not the reality. While there are lots of women in law firm programs, most of them merely exist to 'paint a picture' that will demonstrate to clients that they are diverse. For all intensive purposes, this is a joke ' and the joke is on the women in these firms. Is it any wonder that many women leave law firms to either go in-house or leave the profession entirely?

One of the questions I am most often asked relates to the area of public relations and particularly how media is handled in law firms as it impacts marketing and business development. To answer those questions, I am pleased to introduce a new series that will feature interviews with top law firm in-house public relations professionals. These interviews will be conducted by the public relations team of Jaffe Associates.

I found your Op-Ed piece, 'The Land of Wannabe,' in the May 2006 issue of Marketing The Law Firm, to be a valid assessment of what I believe to be a failed incursion of 'marketing' into the business of law firms. You conclude that if the right marketers were available, law firms might figure out how to use them. However, I don't see this happening by any evolutionary or natural process, for all the reasons it has failed to date.

As a marketing junkie, I am always looking for that yet-untapped space in which to implement good business-development practices. I found that the legal field area was crying out for attention.
Law firms are slow to warm up to dedicated marketing programs. The most tactical entry was a flank attack. By working my way through the third-party sidelines, I maneuvered to my ultimate goal: Director of Marketing at a respected firm.

The careful negotiation of the rights and responsibilities involved with the operation of parking facilities associated with commercial properties is an often-overlooked component of the acquisition and leasing of those properties. It has been noted that the inadequate resolution of the competing interests between owners, lessors, and lessees of parking facilities can harm the interested parties' businesses and ultimately drive the parties into costly and time-consuming legal battles. Stacy E. Smith, Negotiating Parking Privileges in Commercial Leases: What Every Tenant Should Know. Com. Leasing L. & Strategy, July 2005, at 1. Unfortunately, the presence of a real estate investment trust ('REIT') among the concerned parties adds an additional layer of complexity to an already challenging situation.

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

Generally speaking, after a bankruptcy filing, executory contracts are not enforceable against a debtor that has not yet assumed the contract. N.L.R.B. v. Bildisco and Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513, 531 (1984). However, the reverse is not true. During the pre-assumption period the non-debtor party to the contract is presumed to be obligated to perform in accordance with a contract. Howard C. Buschman III, Benefits and Burdens: Post-Petition Performance of Unassumed Executory Contracts, 5 Bankr. Dev. J. 341, 346, 359 (1988); Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan (In re Univ. Med. Ctr.), 973 F.2d 1065, 1075 (3d Cir. 1992); McLean Indus., Inc. v. Med. Lab. Automation, Inc. (In re McLean Indus., Inc.), 96 B.R. 440, 449 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989). Of course, a debtor who elects to receive the benefits of a contract while deciding whether to assume or reject the contract is expected to pay for the value of the goods and services received in accordance with the contract. As the Supreme Court noted in Bildisco, 465 U.S. at 531, 'If the debtor-in-possession elects to continue to receive benefits from the other party to an executory contract pending a decision to reject or assume the contract, the debtor-in-possession is obligated to pay for the reasonable value of those services ... ' See also Schokbeton Indus., Inc. v. Schokbeton Prods. Corp. (In re Schokbeton Indus., Inc.), 466 F.2d 171, 175 (5th Cir. 1972).

With a borrower in default and facing the threat of imminent litigation or bankruptcy, both lenders and borrower are increasingly looking to the appealing alternative of forbearance agreements. These are arrangements whereby lenders refrain from exercising their available default remedies in exchange for certain concessions from the borrower. Depending on the circumstances, forbearance agreements give lenders an alternative to the expenses and delays associated with litigation or bankruptcy. Forbearance agreements can also be used to take the place of a more long-term modification of the parties' arrangement. Accordingly, a forbearance usually gives up little on the part of the lender, but allows the lender to secure a number of benefits that will be very helpful in the event of a subsequent default by the borrower.