Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In this new article for <i>A&FP</i>, Professor Ross takes a fresh look at one of several vexing billing problems he explored in his 1996 book, "The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing By Attorneys."
Features
What is your law firm's definition of "pro bono?" Seems like a simple enough question, but ask any two lawyers or law firms what "pro bono" means to them, and you are likely to get two or even several different answers.
The following remarks are excerpted from "The Outlook for 2004: A Recruiter Roundtable." Lawyers, firms and corporate legal departments can all find reasons for optimism in over a dozen interrelated trends identified by this thoughtful panel.
Two panelists in the Recruiter Views article note current economic trends that favor midsize firms. In this article, the managing director of a suburban midsize firm describes how to position such a firm for profitability.
Features
Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protect an employee regardless of his or her age, once that employee turns 40? The EEOC's regulation provides that it does, stating that the ADEA works both ways once someone reaches protected status at age 40. Finding this regulation "clearly wrong," the Supreme Court recently held in <i>General Dymanics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline</i>, 124 S. Ct. 1236 (2004), that the ADEA does not protect younger employees who are treated less favorably than older employees.
National rulings of importance to your practice.
An umbrella insurance policy that covers a company's employees while "acting within their duties" should cover a worker who drove out of town on a weekend in search of a company cell phone he'd lost -- even if he stopped for personal errands on the way home, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in <i>McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co.</i> 513 U.S. 352 (1995), authorizing employers to contest back pay and front pay/reinstatement remedies if they acquire evidence during discovery that would have led to the plaintiff's termination irrespective of the disputed reason, employers have expanded the reach of their discovery efforts. The purpose: Find anything in the employee's background that the employer can argue would have led to the employee's termination anyway, thereby precluding the potentially costly remedies of back pay and front pay/reinstatement per the <i>McKennon</i> decision. This article posits some possible countermeasures for plaintiffs to employ in combating the "after-acquired evidence" defense.