EXPLAINING THE INSIDER/OUTSIDER DISCONNECT
September 21, 2007
Our last column explored the disconnect between how in-house and outside counsel view the work of the latter. The reader will recall that in a recent survey, 62% of law firms gave themselves an "A" for overall performance during the past 3 years. Only 19% of in-house counsel scored them that high. There are a few possible explanations. 1. The in-house sector radically changed its value proposition in the year or so separating the surveys. 2. Radically different…
IN-HOUSE DISCONNECT Cont'd.
September 11, 2007
Recent surveys telescope shifting client priorities. For example, INSIDE COUNSEL'S "18th Annual Survey of General Counsel," published in July, 2007, shows a multi-level disconnect. On the one hand, there is the predicatble synapse between in-house and outside perceptions of 68% of outside counsel believe the level of service they provide has improved over the past five years, while only 29% of in-house counsel agree. Law firms are self-delusional, according to these data, as 62% gave…
Federal Judge Strikes Part of Patriot Act
September 06, 2007
According to the Associated Press, a federal judge in New York struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Sept. 6, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.
Movers & Shakers
August 31, 2007
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Court Watch
August 31, 2007
Highlights of the most recent franchising cases from around the country.
The Suspension of Coordinated Review: A Giant Step Backward on the Road to Uniformity
August 31, 2007
In a disappointing announcement released on Aug. 6, 2007, Dale Cantone, chairman of the Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group of the North American Securities Administrators Association, informed the franchise bar that the state authorities that participate in the coordinated review program ('Coordinated Review') have suspended the program until further notice. The announcement also stated the franchise administrators would re-evaluate whether to reintroduce the program after July 1, 2008.
Franchisor Price Fixing: What Does Leegin Really Mean for Franchising?
August 31, 2007
By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in <i>Leegin</i> held that vertical resale price maintenance is no longer unlawful in and of itself. Although hailing the decision as overruling a nearly 100-year prohibition on minimum price fixing, the pundits writing in the wake of <i>Leegin</i> have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: <i>Leegin</i> does not open the door to unrestrained resale price maintenance, but rather changes the rules under which courts will evaluate sales agreements setting minimum prices. No longer will courts treat them as unlawful <i>per se</i>; they will now evaluate their legality under something called 'the rule of reason.' If a court (or jury) concludes that an agreement establishing a minimum price is an 'unreasonable restraint of trade,' then the supplier has violated the antitrust laws. If the threat of treble damages from such a finding isn't sobering enough, writers warn us that courts may interpret state 'baby Sherman Acts' as still making resale price maintenance unlawful <i>per se</i>, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
Enforceability of Pre-Dispute Jury Waivers: An Update
August 31, 2007
Arbitration is under judicial and legislative attack. Late last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held an unexceptional arbitration agreement to be substantively unconscionable simply because it allowed the franchisor to litigate certain trademark-related claims and gave the franchisor home court advantage. <i>Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc.</i>, 469 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006). On July 12, 2007, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced Senate Bill 1782, known as the 'Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007,' a key provision of which would invalidate pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate franchise disputes.
