Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As a private practitioner, sitting at a paper-smothered desk getting rapid-fire e-mails and phone calls from multiple clients, each of whom needs something yesterday, filling out time sheets and reviewing mountains of billing, it is easy for those in private practice to envision life as an in-house attorney as the better ' or at least less stressful ' choice of career paths. This article reacts to that vision, highlights some of the different issues facing those in-house, and discusses the manner in which some of the same issues faced by all attorneys translate in an in-house environment.
Features
Firms have good reasons for offering formal associate development programs such as law firm universities and mentoring programs. Clients expect trained associates and associates expect training. Formal programs, often with full-time staff support, can effectively deliver training to groups of associates.
Features
Fifteen years after merger mania started, and despite the invasion of out-of-towners now crowding the Bay Area, these and other firms remain independent ' sometimes fiercely so.
Retirement is a distant and unnoticed object of concern for young lawyers. After the toil of law school, the terror of the bar exam and the career-defining decisions of job searching, a young lawyer cannot be blamed for feeling immortal. With a seemingly endless stream of years ahead to ply his or her skills in the world of the law, slay a few dragons and make his or her fortune, retirement planning is not on the "to do" list. <br>This article reflects the results of a survey of law firms around the nation that reveals a variety of approaches to retirement planning and funding. Interviews focused on the structure and the funding of retirement plans. While the results of this survey are anecdotal, certain conclusions and recommendations emerged from the effort.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a defendant with a means to encourage parties to settle their litigation before trial. A defendant may serve a plaintiff with an "an offer to allow judgment to be taken against [defendant] for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued." F.R.C.P. 68. If the offer is not accepted by the plaintiff, and the "judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer." <i>Id.</i>
Features
When is a proceeding not a proceeding, or more precisely, when is a proceeding affecting a mark not a proceeding affecting a mark? No mere word game, the answer can have a profound impact on foreign trademark owners who routinely (and perhaps unthinkingly) appoint their U.S. attorneys as agents to accept service in proceedings affecting their marks. The answer ' or at least an answer ' recently was provided by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in <i>E&J Gallo Winery v. Cantine Rallo, S.p.A.</i>, slip op. 1:04 cv 5153 (OWW) (Aug. 17, 2005), where just such a profound impact faced an Italian winery with a long history whose American counsel accepted service of a summons and complaint in an infringement suit, but made only fleeting efforts to alert his foreign client. The court vacated a default judgment that threatened to terminate a 50-year business in this country because the domestic attorney designated by the foreign trademark applicant under 15 U.S.C. §1051(e) to receive service in "proceedings" affecting the mark was deemed not authorized to receive service in a "litigation" affecting the mark. (The defendant's failure to answer was also deemed excusable neglect. Following the default, the author is now representing the defendant.)
Over the years, courts frequently have been called upon to determine the nature and extent of the diligence required of licensees, assignees and other parties granted exclusive rights to exploit intellectual property. Dating back to Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo's opinion in <i>Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon</i>, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917), the courts consistently have held such parties to an implied promise to exercise some measure of diligence to commercialize the transferred property in those cases in which the grantor was completely reliant upon the productivity of the intellectual property user to generate royalties or other consideration.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
The tide of franchising regulation continued to sweep across Europe as Belgium brought its new franchise disclosure law into effect.
