A modern day fixture of the law firm is the revolving door. The increasing frequency with which partners leave law firms for new ones raises many issues concerning the permissibility of a withdrawing attorney's conduct regarding client/attorney solicitation, removal of client files or other documents and breach of anti-competition clauses in partnership agreements. In addition to adherence to the professional ethical rules, a partner is subject to a fiduciary duty to his firm and is thus constrained by such duty throughout the life of the partnership.

According to <i>The American Lawyer</i>, fully 40% of partners in the AmLaw 200 firms will move laterally at least once as partners. This is an astonishing statistic, since lateral partner movement was virtually unheard of a generation ago. Freed from the stigma that once haunted a partner who abandoned his partnership, today's law partners tend to be pragmatists who no longer view their firms as homes for life. Instead, they see them as vehicles to drive their businesses to higher levels. In this article, we take a brief look at lateral partner recruitment from the different perspectives of the law firms, the candidates and the recruiters.

Features

Recent decisions of importance to your practice.

Features

Discovery of electronic communications. Employees generally cannot live without it (if they hope to state a claim), but often cannot afford to pay for it. Employers can generally afford to pay for it, but resent paying to help a plaintiff make his or her case against them. This dilemma is only further exacerbated by the proliferation of electronic communications that has made the discovery of such information very time-consuming and expensive.

Several governmental and regulatory bodies have announced new initiatives aimed at increasing access to their dispute resolution programs, strengthening the credentials of their neutral panels, and improving the efficiency of their dispute resolution processes. These decisions were reached, in part, after evaluating success rates and feedback relating to these dispute resolution programs.

Your ethics questions answered by the expert.

A jury awarded $5.2 million to a plaintiff whose former employer, a modeling agency, failed to accommodate her asthma, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and terminated her in retaliation for making complaints about smoking in the workplace. <i>Gallegos v. Elite Model Mgmt. Corp.</i>, No. 120577/00 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct. 5/14/03)

Features

Last month, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, 2003 WL 21310219 (U.S. June 9, 2003) The Court unanimously held that direct evidence is not required.