Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Health Benefit Increases Spare No One
After years of foot-dragging, large U.S. law firms have embraced the mainstream business practice of countering rising health care costs by steering employees and partners into managed care plans. A recent comprehensive survey of large law firms' employee benefit practices conducted by The Segal Company shows, among other findings, that less than one in five firms offers a traditional indemnity health plan today. The survey also found that health plans at law firms continue to reflect the special needs of these professional service organizations as a whole ' as well as those of the individual firms that participated.
The survey universe comprised the 200 largest U.S. law firms. Of these, 56 (28%) responded ' all in all a strong result. Survey data shows that most large law firms:
- Finance a significantly higher proportion of the cost of employee health coverage for paralegals and administrative staffers than for senior attorneys and associates; and
- Provide health coverage to employees' domestic partners (generally including both same-sex and opposite-sex couples).
Besides health plan information, the Segal survey gathered data from law firms about their life and disability insurance benefits, as well as their policies on maternity, paternity and adoption leave, employee assistance plans, transportation benefits and a variety of other benefits.
The fact that law firms have been pummeled by the same relentless assault of double-digit health cost inflation (14.5% on average in 2003 with similar rates anticipated for 2004) as other employers appears to explain the current prevalence of PPOs (82%), HMOs (58%) and point-of-service (POS) plans (46%), offered by the firms surveyed. Only 17% of the surveyed firms offered a traditional indemnity plan.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.