Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Successful businesses want to protect their proprietary information, whether it is a "secret ingredient" or a customer list. Many companies seek to achieve this goal by requiring that all employees sign a uniform "non-compete" agreement in an effort to reduce the risk of economic harm when the employment relationship ends and an employee goes to work for a competitor. Businesses often are surprised, however, to learn that the agreements that they were counting on for protection will not be enforced by a court. This unpleasant result can be avoided through careful drafting up front. The key to drafting an enforceable agreement is to remember that there is no "one-size-fits all" document. The laws governing non-compete agreements vary from state to state, and understanding the nuances among the states will help attorneys with the drafting process.
There has been much recent press about the USA Patriot Act, and in particular the seemingly unlimited power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) as part of its efforts to combat terrorism (under 18 U.S.C. '2709). NSLs are a form of administrative subpoena issued by the FBI upon self-certification and are shrouded in a cloak of secrecy. Specifically, Section 2709 permits the FBI to demand the production of certain records where the FBI certifies that the materials are sought to "protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." On a more controversial note, Section 2709 also contains a gag provision, which prohibits the recipient of an NSL from ever disclosing that the FBI has sought or obtained information pursuant to an NSL. To date, Section 2709 has received little judicial scrutiny, with reported controversies focusing on NSLs issued to Internet Service Providers and libraries. Now, NSLs are being issued to private corporations, with the FBI demanding the production of records regarding employees.
Does a firm's enthusiasm for hourly rate variants correlate with a similarly higher than average interest in true alternative billing? How about the reverse? Judge for yourself from the following tables, derived from reported results of the recent <i>National Law Journal</i> survey of billing practices at 300 firms.
Before you run off to copyright your Web site, as advocated in Michael McCoy's accompanying article, you may want to check that it's original! Consider these observations of Ms. Tursi, abridged from her commentary in <i>A&FP</i>'s sibling newsletter <i>Marketing the Law Firm</i>.
An often-overlooked component of a company's intellectual property portfolio is the company Web site. This is especially true in the fast-paced world of technology firms, whose primary emphasis is usually core technology in the form of patents or trade secrets. The Web site, as a matter of course, is the most innocuous of assets, but it's an asset nonetheless.
A&FP reviewers rated Ed Wesemann's feature article from "much to agree with" to "excellent" to "super," but three Board members had differing views on specific points. The following exchange between Ed, John Alber and Jim Davidson is followed by a comment received later from Ed Poll. Yet another perspective on the question of associate profitability is being formulated by another discussant as an upcoming article.
Features
Thirty of the 55 large Manhattan law firms asked by the New York City Bar Association to endorse its aspirational "Statement of Pro Bono Principles" have pledged their lawyers will perform 50 or more hours per year.
Last month A&FP examined the dangers of considering profitability metrics in isolation ("Matter Profitability: When Metrics Mislead" by Steve Campbell). Board member Ed Wesemann now provides a similarly fresh look at the pitfalls of using "business-like" industrial cost accounting to make managerial judgments in a law firm. Ed's most recent book ' Creating Dominance: Strategies for Law Firms ' was featured in our June 2005 edition.
Features
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has publicly defended himself against allegations of insider trading by insisting that he was not aware of inside information when he sold his stock in Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), the hospital chain founded by his father and brother. He has also stated, numerous times since his election to the Senate, that because his HCA securities were in a "qualified blind trust," he could not even be certain about the extent of his holdings at any given time. Frist's civil and criminal exposure under the securities laws is likely to turn on interpretations of SEC Rule 10b5-1, which addresses trading "on the basis of" material nonpublic information in insider trading cases.
