Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Managing partners, financial partners, members of executive committees and administrators must devote more of their time today than in the past, to planning and managing their firms' finances and those functions that improve the cash flow. This article describes six aspects of law firm management and economics that the author has recommended to managing partners, financial partners, members of management committees and law firm administrators to assist them improve their firm's cash flow. These factors include: 1) cash flow; 2) a business plan; 3) budgets for revenues, expenses and client advances; 4) partner compensation; 5) a recommended new business and billing committee; and 6) partners' capital and borrowing.
As the wave of baby boomers that swept into the legal profession in the early 1970s and '80s approach middle age and retirement, the managers, colleagues…
Features
Over 10 years ago, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company adopted a model for the procurement of legal services that is based on strict legal spending rules, including early case assessment measures, consolidation of law firms and service providers handling DuPont work, and implementation of numerous other cost-saving measures. The DuPont model, which is commonly referred to as "partnering," has become a platform for the efforts of an increasing number of companies to revamp their legal service expectations and implement changes that embrace partnering between in-house and outside attorneys. Despite the amount of time that partnering has survived and the increasing number of companies adopting a partnering model, most outside counsel still meet the concept of partnering with great skepticism. This skepticism is bred from both an inability to envision the future of the legal services market and the misconception that the sole goal of partnering is to reduce legal bills for corporations at the expense of law firm revenues.
Features
Movement among major law firms and corporations.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
Insurance carriers frequently argue that when insureds face claims for "disgorgement" or "restitution," they need not defend or indemnify under a wide-range of liability policies. Carriers argue that, at least in California, public policy bars coverage for such claims including claims alleging failure to pay employees overtime, failure to pay taxes and penalties, and, in the intellectual property area, for disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains" or payment of a defendant's profits as a measure of damages. Insurance carriers advance this argument under various policies, including commercial general liability (CGL), directors and officers (D&O), employment practices liability (EPL), and errors and omissions (E&O) policies.
Features
In June and July of this year, the New York Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit each rendered a new decision on the proper scope and application of the pollution exclusion under New York law with respect to the duty to defend. In <i>Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance Co.</i>, 100 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 2003), the New York Court of Appeals held that an absolute pollution exclusion did not unambiguously exclude coverage for a personal injury claim asserting injury based on paint fumes inside an office building. In <i>W.R. Grace & Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.</i>, 332 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003), the Second Circuit held that New York's historical statutory proscription against the insurance of nonsudden, nonaccidental pollution vitiated a policy provision granting coverage for "gradual pollution." The Second Circuit also confirmed in an important choice-of-law ruling that New York courts will not apply the law of various "site states" to a general liability policy; rather, New York courts will apply the single law of the state with the greatest contacts to the dispute. These cases provide further guidance to practitioners regarding (a) the limited scope of the pollution exclusion under New York law to nonenvironmental type claims, (b) the priority given to New York Insurance Law '46(13)-(14) in the face of conflicting policy provisions, and (c) the growing certainty that New York courts will apply the law of a single state to interpret a policy covering multiple risks in various locations.
Features
A Manhattan federal district court decided that the airing of an unlicensed clip from a public access TV show to introduce a segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" constituted fair use under copyright law. The "Daily Show" segment at issue opened with a one-second, full-screen shot of the plaintiff ' comedienne/stripper Sandy Kane ' dancing in a bikini. The title of "The Sandy Kane T.V. Show" is visible in the background. The clip is then further shown briefly as part of a video collage. A shorter clip of Sandy Kane's show is used in a commercial promoting "The Daily Show."
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.