Search

There has been much recent press about the USA Patriot Act, and in particular the seemingly unlimited power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) as part of its efforts to combat terrorism (under 18 U.S.C. '2709). NSLs are a form of administrative subpoena issued by the FBI upon self-certification and are shrouded in a cloak of secrecy. Specifically, Section 2709 permits the FBI to demand the production of certain records where the FBI certifies that the materials are sought to "protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." On a more controversial note, Section 2709 also contains a gag provision, which prohibits the recipient of an NSL from ever disclosing that the FBI has sought or obtained information pursuant to an NSL. To date, Section 2709 has received little judicial scrutiny, with reported controversies focusing on NSLs issued to Internet Service Providers and libraries. Now, NSLs are being issued to private corporations, with the FBI demanding the production of records regarding employees.

Employer cannot make assumptions in "regarded as disabled" casesThe Fifth Circuit has ruled that an employer may not maintain a blanket policy to deny…

Earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a set of questions and answers about cancer in the workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).<br>The Q&amp;A does not contain much in the way of new information, but rather gives examples that help illustrate the position the EEOC will take on issues regarding cancer as a disability. Since these are the types of issues that often puzzle human resources managers ' and land on the desk of in-house counsel ' the EEOC's Q&amp;A serves to provide some assistance on how to handle these issues.

Over the past 3 years, nonprofit organizations have wrestled with the degree to which they should undertake the types of governance reforms that are mandated for SEC registered companies under the terms of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). Common reasons for proceeding slowly, or not at all, were that SOX does not apply to nonprofits, and except in a handful of states, such as California, there have been no state law mandates for change. There are also practical considerations that militate against strict application of SOX in the non-profit context, including significant differences in the development and expectations for board members, focus on mission rather that profitability and the overlay of federal exempt organization rules.

On Aug. 9, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its decision in In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 2005 WL 2056651 (Del. Ch. Aug. 9, 2005), a case that had drawn intense media attention to a relationship that definitely had gone awry despite the best laid schemes of The Walt Disney Company and its former President, Michael Ovitz. (The case currently is on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.) As the court noted, the case became something of a "public spectacle ... commencing as it did with the spectacular hiring of one of the entertainment industry's best known personalities to help run one of its iconic businesses, and ending with a spectacular failure of that union, with breathtaking amounts of severance pay the consequence." The severance package amounted to approximately $140 million in cash and vested stock options, which was paid to Ovitz upon the termination of his employment under a "no-fault" termination provision in his employment agreement. (The court found that the $140 million severance payment, while "breathtaking," was not economically material to Disney.) Now that the dust has settled and that breathtaking $140,000,000 severance payment is history, the question is: what has been learned?

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Waiver of the attorney-client privilege by corporations "cooperating" with the government during investigations of alleged misconduct has become an issue of increasing concern within the legal community. Current U.S. Department of Justice policy, as set forth in a document entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations" (dated Jan. 20, 2003, sets forth a number of factors that federal prosecutors should consider when contemplating whether or not to criminally charge a corporation. It clearly states that "[g]enerally, prosecutors should apply the same factors in determining whether to charge a corporation as they do with respect to individuals." This policy statement goes on, however, to note that "due to the nature of the corporate 'person,' some additional factors are present," including "[t]he corporation's timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents, including, if necessary, the waiver of the corporate attorney-client privilege and work-product protection."

An often-overlooked component of a company's intellectual property portfolio is the company Web site. This is especially true in the fast-paced world of technology firms, whose primary emphasis is usually core technology in the form of patents or trade secrets. The Web site, as a matter of course, is the most innocuous of assets, but it's an asset nonetheless.

A&amp;FP reviewers rated Ed Wesemann's feature article from "much to agree with" to "excellent" to "super," but three Board members had differing views on specific points. The following exchange between Ed, John Alber and Jim Davidson is followed by a comment received later from Ed Poll. Yet another perspective on the question of associate profitability is being formulated by another discussant as an upcoming article.

Does a firm's enthusiasm for hourly rate variants correlate with a similarly higher than average interest in true alternative billing? How about the reverse? Judge for yourself from the following tables, derived from reported results of the recent <i>National Law Journal</i> survey of billing practices at 300 firms.