Connecticut vs Massachusetts
April 29, 2005
In a first-of-its-kind case, Hartford (CT) Superior Court Judge Linda Pearce Prestley has told two Connecticut women seeking to annul a civil marriage they filed with the clerk of Provincetown, MA, that both states view their attempt to wed as legally void from the start. In a 10-page decision issued March 18, Prestley determined that Connecticut courts have no jurisdiction to rule in such a case, because the state legislature has so far deemed same-sex marriage as against public policy.
Hispanic/Latino LGBT Families in Florida
April 29, 2005
Adoption by "homosexuals" is specifically prohibited by statute in Florida, and foster care and/or adoption by lesbians and gays is restricted in some manner in Mississippi, Arkansas, Utah, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Courts have been asked to decide on the constitutionality of such restrictions in recent years, most prominently when the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Florida statute (Fla. Stat ch. 63.042(3)) in <i>Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Children and Family Services</i>, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir 2004). In that case, the court refused to take sides in what it considered an ongoing public policy debate. Florida statutes also ban same-sex marriage and prevent the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Fla. Stat ch. 741.04; Fla. Stat ch. 741.212.
Tax-Free Education Benefits For Law Firm Employees
April 29, 2005
Law firms can provide a valuable fringe benefit for their employees by paying for their education costs. There are several ways a firm can choose to provide this benefit, and depending on the circumstances, one way may be more valuable than another. In addition, the different ways of providing the benefit are not mutually exclusive, and can be mixed and matched to provide greater benefits than one method might provide.
Around the Firms
April 29, 2005
This Month:<br>Ex-Partners Sue Townsend for Cut of Fees<br>L.A. Firm Brings Johnnie Cochran Name to San Francisco
Baby-Boomer Partners In Transition
April 29, 2005
The ranks of law firm partnerships include tens of thousands of "baby-boomer" partners (BBPs), born between 1945 and 1955. These attorneys are now ages 50-60. Surprisingly, little has been written about the expectations and needs of BBPs or the expectations, needs and strategies (if any exist) of their law firms and fellow partners as to BBPs. Moreover, law firm partners both younger and older than their BBPs may be substantially affected by their law firm's strategies for and treatment of the baby-boomer generation. <br>This two-part article illustrates the expectations, intentions - and tensions - of baby-boomers and their firms, respectively, by using two models. Of course, there can be as many variants as there are BBPs, with numerous potential responses to each unique situation.
Law Firms Gain, But With Big Caveat
April 29, 2005
Law firms are back ' sort of. <br>Revenues and profits were up by nearly 10% in 2004, a clear sign that firms have shaken off the tech bust slump. <br>But even as the biggest legal shops are reaping the harvest of a buoyant economy, they face some difficult choices ahead to maintain revenues ' and to grow profits.
Of Partners And Employees
April 29, 2005
In January, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, alleging discrimination in connection with that firm's demotion of a group of equity partners. The suit highlights an area of potential uncertainty for law firms and other businesses organized as professional corporations and limited liability partnerships ' whether the shareholders and partners of such businesses are entitled to the protections afforded "employees" under federal and state employment laws. <br>Although the outcome of the EEOC's case may not be known for some time, recent decisions illustrate a developing legal standard that will likely impact the organization of many professional service businesses.
