Leadership Transition in a Law Firm
How does a law firm transition leadership from the founders or the current set of leaders to the next generation of leaders? There are three models of transition: King to Prince, CEO with credibility to COO with credibility and accepted founder/leader to people who should become leaders. Obviously the last model is the most difficult to execute. The approach for this transition model is also applicable to the first two. The King to Prince will probably not make the transition because benevolent despotisms crash if the Prince has not gone through a credibility building process. The CEO to the COO assumes the COO has gone through the process outlined below.
Do Contractors Make the Best Firm 'Employees'?
Any personnel professional will remind us that finding the right person for a niche position is difficult at best. Carefully weighing the dictates of a job, the necessary skills and salary limitations can be a daunting task, especially in the legal field. As alternatives to "employment," there are several ideas that warrant a discussion.
Warning Signs: How to Spot Partner Dissatisfaction and What to Do About It
By no means do the economic stability and steady growth of a legal practice ensure harmony in the partner ranks or, for that matter, the contentment of any single lawyer. Managing partners who breathe too easily when reassuring revenue or profit numbers get posted may endanger their firms by ignoring tell-tale signs of disharmony. Law firms have been known to go out of business amid strong financials just as precipitously as when those numbers tumble. Remember Shea & Gould?
How UK Franchisors Protect Their Trade Secrets
As in the United States, franchisors in the United Kingdom usually invest in protecting their brand by way of trademark registrations, usually a Community Trade Mark (CTM). However, although they spend a considerable amount of time, money, and resources developing their customer databases and refining their business methodologies and know-how (and detailing this in the franchise Operations Manual, to which their franchisees and employees are given access), U.S. franchisors rarely seem to devote the same resources to protecting these trade secrets in the United Kingdom.
The Role of Motive in Franchise Termination Cases
Should the franchisor's motive in a franchise termination case ever become the central issue? Some courts answer that seeking the true reason for termination is the target inquiry, as if a franchisor could not have a mixed motive for termination. The question turns the trial into a search as to whether the franchisor has breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which augments the terms of a written franchise agreement. Often the outcome depends on where in the life of the franchise relationship the dispute arises. At the end of the relationship, courts considering the propriety of termination and nonrenewal often treat the role of good faith and fair dealing differently than when, for example, reviewing whether the franchisor imposed unreasonable standards of performance.
News Briefs
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Court Watch
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Book Review: Noteworthy 'Intangibles' and the Obviousness of 'Unseen Wealth'
The book "Intangibles" is largely one of policy, but is not without its practical lessons. Baruch Lev's book is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the management of intangible assets ("intangibles"), such as patents, know-how, and relationships. The book addresses the full scope of intangibles and may be too broad to be of interest to some patent practitioners. However, the book includes interesting observations and supporting data that will reward the practitioner willing to take a broad view of patents and their place in the business world.
Participation in Standard-Setting Organizations
Some patent-owning companies choose to participate in standard-setting organizations (SSOs), such as the IEEE, IETF and ANSI. They do so for a variety of business reasons, including the opportunity to monitor industry trends and to influence technological advancement. However, the business advantages of participation must be balanced against its potential legal consequences to the company's IP rights. Accidental or premature disclosure, failure to disclose, and licensing and enforcement practices can lead to loss of patent and trade secret rights, equitable defenses for infringers, and antitrust concerns. The current litigation between Rambus and Infineon provides a cautionary tale for both SSOs and member companies of what can happen if a company participates in an SSO whose IP patent policy is not clearly defined. <i>See, e.g., Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG,</i> 164 F. Supp. 2d 743 (E.D. Va. 2001), <i>aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and vacated in part,</i> 318 Fed. 3d 1081 (Federal Circuit 2003). In order to avoid such losses, companies need to investigate the IP policies of the SSOs to which they belong and carefully assess and monitor their compliance with those policies.
