Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The early days of 2003 have brought a stark reminder to the leaders of law firms: While strong law firms have experienced an exceptional level of prosperity and growth in a consolidating market, continued expansion and ever increasing profitability are not the only potential destinies for law firms today. As the high profile closures of long established firms such as Brobeck; Peterson & Ross; Hill & Barlow and others demonstrate anew, firms can fail. And with failure come career interruption, client uncertainty and financial distress for many. Recent dissolutions reinforce the fact that law firms are fragile enterprises. If not carefully and constantly renewed and developed, they are in danger of falling apart, often rather quickly. In reality, in spite of appearances of rapid failure, the seeds of collapse are generally sown long in advance ' in most cases, even long before the firm begins to noticeably decline (eg, as seen in the form of firm shrinkage or lowered profitability). The lessons learned from dissolving firms offer leaders an opportunity to avoid seeing their firms consigned to the dustbins of history ' if properly focused and motivated, there is almost always time to intervene and change a firm's direction, before it is faced with a final crisis. Of course, leaders must know where to focus their efforts. There is no simple list of things that drive a firm to failure, and in most situations the underlying problems are many and complexly interwoven. In general, the sources of failure come from three overriding areas, and usually from more than one simultaneously:
' Weak or non-existent strategic focus
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.