The greatest, and perhaps the most frustrating challenge with which effective leaders of law firms must deal is the approach to follow to provide leadership to their firms. Central to this conflict is whether to lead by consensus or decree. Astute leaders achieve the appropriate balance of building consensus among the partners versus managing as an autocrat.
In early October, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Bill). President Bush is expected to sign it shortly. The Bill includes a number of tax breaks and is primarily directed toward ending export subsidies that were declared illegal in 2002 and that caused the European Union to impose tariffs on certain imports from the U.S.
In addition, the Bill includes provisions affecting deferred compensation that have been described as a "sea change" by senior government officials.
Partners at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich and Piper Rudnick voted to merge the two firms in mid-October, creating a firm with close to 1400 lawyers in 20 offices and setting the stage for an even larger combination later this year.
Some may wonder why a partner in a major law firm is going to tell you how to save money on litigation legal expenses. The answer is simple. My job, first and foremost, is to obtain the best possible result for my clients. In my view (and the view of my colleagues), achieving the best result includes cost efficiency and cost effectiveness. Over the course of 18 years, I have had a front row seat to a wide range of client approaches to managing ' or not managing ' legal fees.
Recent rulings across the country.
For laypersons and lawyers alike, the trial of Martha Stewart last winter was irresistible legal theater. But if, between all the discussions of Ms. Stewart's courtroom attire and lunchtime dining habits, you missed seeing how the district court and Second Circuit wrestled with the issue of media access to jury selection, you may want to give ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2004) a read.
Three recent cases involving government inquiries provide sobering lessons about electronic evidence to corporations and their lawyers. The most notorious, U.S. v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, resulted in criminal convictions. Another, In the Matter of Banc of America Securities LLC, involved SEC enforcement action. The third, United States v. Philip Morris, arose in a Department of Justice civil suit. If nothing else, the cases demonstrate that corporations exposed to such investigations must implement effective and well-maintained information management systems.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
In the February 2003 edition of this Bulletin, I commented on the then recently issued "final" Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The "final" rules were not in fact final, because the SEC both had sought additional comments on the rules and had proposed, and sought comments on, a modified form of its controversial proposed "noisy withdrawal" rules. Since then, there has been no further word from the SEC about when and how a lawyer for a company or business executive is required or permitted to report client misconduct to a third party, including regulators and law enforcement authorities. But that does not mean all has been quiet. Significant changes have been made by the ABA to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in this area and by international organizations wrestling with the role of lawyers in anti-money laundering compliance efforts.
