Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

Monkeypox Outbreak Declared a Public Health Emergency

On August 4, 2022, the Biden administration declared the monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency. This comes at a time where the number of cases in the United States are rapidly rising and with cases found in almost every state. This declaration primarily affects testing and vaccination. The government’s focus on vaccination has primarily been on health care workers treating monkeypox patients and men who have sex with men. The declaration follows the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration last month of monkeypox as a public health emergency of international concern.

The information affecting the workplace is still somewhat limited. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that people with monkeypox remain isolated at home or in another location for the duration of the illness, which typically can last two to four weeks.

It is still not known if monkeypox can be spread through respiratory secretions. Accordingly, a well-fitting mask and frequent handwashing are likely important preventive measures.

Monkeypox can spread to anyone through close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact, including:

  • via direct contact with monkeypox rash, scabs, or body fluids from a person with monkeypox;

  • by touching objects, fabrics (clothing, bedding, or towels), and surfaces that have been used by someone with monkeypox; and

  • possibly through contact with respiratory secretions.

Employers may wish to educate their employees about monkeypox, including that employees with concerns should consult their physicians or health department, and may wish to inquire about testing and vaccination. Employers may also wish to consider how they will handle absences of up to one month, if remote work is not a possibility and/or when remote work is a possibility. Knowledge is often a way to avoid panic in the workplace and both the CDC and WHO have excellent fact sheets on their websites. State health agencies are likely to have them as well.

It may also be worthwhile to consider how to protect employees who are required to handle linens used by other people, people who are frequently in close contact with others for extended periods, or who come into close physical contact with others. For example, in its monkeypox congregate settings guidelines, the CDC recommends that personal protective equipment (PPE) be worn when cleaning the area where an individual with monkeypox has spent time.

The CDC also stated in its monkeypox congregate settings guidelines that “[e]mployers must comply with [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s] standards on Bloodborne Pathogens…, PPE…, Respiratory Protection…, and other requirements, including those established by state plans, whenever these requirements apply.”

Public health officials are emphasizing the fact that anyone can get monkeypox. The current outbreak is most prevalent among men having sex with other men, but can spread to anyone. Employers may want to stay attuned to any harassment or discrimination in the workplace resulting from misinformation about the disease.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor and report on developments with respect to monkeypox.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Episode 3: How Law Firms Can Benefit From CRM Technology With Chris Fritsch of CLIENTSFirst Consulting [PODCAST]

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 3 of Legal News Reach! NLR Managing Director Jennifer Schaller speaks with Chris Fritsch, Founder of CLIENTSFirst Consulting, about how law firms can thoughtfully and successfully integrate customer relationship management systems, or CRMs, into their daily operations—boosting contact management, business development, and client service in the process.

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

INTRO  00:02

Hello, and welcome to Legal News Reach, the official podcast for the National Law Review. Stay tuned for a discussion on the latest trends in legal marketing, SEO, law firm best practices, and more.

Jennifer Schaller

Thank you for tuning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Jennifer Schaller, the Managing Director of the National Law Review. In this episode, I’ll be speaking with Chris Fritsch, who’s the CRM and Marketing Technology Success Consultant and Founder of CLIENTSFirst Consulting. She’s going to talk to us about CRM technology, specifically how it impacts law firms. Chris, would you like to introduce yourself?

Chris Fritsch

Happy to do so! I am Chris Fritsch, I’m actually a CRM Success Consultant. And no, that is not an oxymoron. For the last over 15 years, my team at CLIENTSFirst has helped hundreds of top firms succeed with CRM and related and integrated technology. I’m actually a little bit of a recovering attorney, which is sort of how I got into the industry. And it’s just been a great 15 years working together with top law firms.

Jennifer Schaller

What prompted you to start CLIENTSFirst Consulting?

Chris Fritsch

You know, that’s a good question. I actually worked at a CRM company years ago, and those companies are terrific at building and selling and installing and implementing software…not necessarily as great at being able to take the time to get to know each law firm to really understand the firm’s needs, the requirements, the culture in order to really help them succeed with the technology. So I saw that was a real opportunity to be able to help clients succeed. The company’s called CLIENTSFirst. And so we’re really focused on sharing information, ideas, best practices for success gained from years of experience doing this, and it has been a great 15 years of growth. And the most important part is we get to help clients.

Jennifer Schaller

So what are the main reasons that prompt law firms to implement CRM systems?

Chris Fritsch

CRM systems are about communication, coordination, and client service. And of course, business development. Law firms of all types and sizes really are focused on those areas. So I think that’s why CRM has been such an important piece of technology over the years.

Jennifer Schaller

What are the most common uses of CRMs in law firms?

Chris Fritsch

Use in most firms starts with contact management and list and event management. Those are some of the fundamental capabilities that CRM systems provide. You know, in law firms we write, we speak, we do events and webinars and seminars. That’s a really big need, and CRM fills that need very, very well. These are things that are maybe not exciting, but essential. So that’s creating a centralized repository of information that can be clean and correct and easily updated. That’s usually where firms start. Being able to have marketing build and manage the list to be able to get all the events done and managed, to be able to allow the attorneys or assistants to update lists, and just basically making sure that clients and prospects and other contacts are getting the information that the attorneys and the law firm need to put out there. You know, because as attorneys, if we can’t share information about our experience and our expertise and changes in the law and capabilities, then it makes it really challenging to develop business. And so that’s where CRMs start, but what we’re seeing more recently is a focus on more advanced business development features. Business development has taken a little bit longer in legal than in some other professional services, but I think we’re getting there. So we’re seeing a lot more emphasis on those tools right now. A lot of people right now are actually switching CRM systems because they want to get some more of these advanced business development features.

Jennifer Schaller

What are some of the features law firms should be implementing but that aren’t being utilized enough, in your opinion? Or does that kind of piggyback on business development stuff?

Chris Fritsch

Yeah, that’s a big piece of it. The big thing is activity tracking. That’s one of those things that everybody agrees, it would be incredibly valuable to know who’s taking who to lunch, who are we doing proposals with? Who are we having phone calls and meetings with? But the challenge with that is those have to be entered manually. A lot of things in CRM we’ve been able to automate, but that’s one that you really just can’t because the information lives in the attorney’s head, right? So it’s got to be done, and you can’t have computers or even assistants doing that really well. But everybody wants the information. So I think that has been a big challenge. Probably one of the biggest firm challenges is to get attorneys to sort of function that way and think like salespeople, whereas outside of legal, you know, you can mandate behavior and do reporting on activities. In a professional services, specifically, in a law firm model that’s a little more challenging, there’s sort of a hesitancy to mandate anything. So we do have challenges with that. That also sort of turns into adoption. You know, that has always been a challenge as well. In a law firm time is money, literally. And so anything that they have to do in terms of technology that takes away from serving the clients and frankly, billing time, there’s got to be a lot of value there. Any of the features that require them to do data entry are going to be challenging because we have taken a little bit longer to be focused on business development. There are really advanced pipeline features in a lot of the CRMs, outside of legal, and now in some of the ones that are vertically focused for law firms, but getting attorneys to enter data into a pipeline is probably going to be challenging, and it may not be the highest and best use of their time. And so a lot of firms that are dealing with implementing pipelines, they’re having internal business development resources actually do the data entry, and then just getting the information related to reports and pitches and things. Let them give that information to the attorneys to use when they need it.

Jennifer Schaller

These people are billing their time in six-minute increments. What are some of the built-in features of CRMs that help law firms capture the things that lawyers are reluctant to do other than…. obviously, there needs to be a culture change. But what are some of the things that make it smoother?

Chris Fritsch

So there’s actually a tool that I’m a big fan of called ERM, or enterprise relationship management. And it is a technology most of the CRMs in the legal vertical do have built in, but there are also some freestanding systems. And what they do is they create the contacts from the signature blocks of the emails. So the attorneys don’t have to deal with contact data entry and collection and updating. In the past, the systems worked with sort of an Outlook Sync process where the contacts would flow in, but lately, people don’t use Outlook like they used to. I mean they still use it for email and for calendar, but not so much address books. So the problem with address books was people were putting data in but never removing it. And so you just ended up with more and more contacts. And you know, they’re not particularly relevant anymore. These ERM systems will create good contacts, because frankly, if you just got a signature block, the information is probably good. And so you enter that data–it does it automatically. And so attorneys don’t have to do data entry, which is great. But it also creates a who-knows-who relationship, which is something we really want to be able to capture. You know, if you want to pitch some client or get a connection in a corporation, you might want to know who in the firm knows that person. The ERM uses an algorithm based on recency and frequency of communication to tell us not just who, but how well they know that person based on frequency and recency of communication. There are also some calendar capture features that are available; I think ERM is really the one that has changed the game. Also being able to have a connected email and e-marketing and event management tool that allows the data to flow seamlessly between the systems is incredibly important, because otherwise you end up with disconnected databases and double data entry, and I think e-marketing systems are also a really big deal.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, wow, I didn’t know the depth of that. That’s really interesting. One of the things that you’ve touched on is lawyers and law firms and culture and change, so how large, or substantial or established, does a law firm need to be to benefit from a CRM?

Chris Fritsch

Pretty much any firm can benefit from CRM, because again, it is the fundamental communication coordination, client service, business development that’s important to every firm. So they’re different types of software for different sizes of firms. And I’ve worked with the largest firms in the world, and we help them find systems that meet their needs. But every once in a while, I’ll work with a solo or small firm, and they have different needs, and, of course, different budget requirements. And so they have different types of products that make sense for them. But I think pretty much anybody from the largest firm in the world to a solo can benefit from CRM.

Jennifer Schaller

Knowing that small law firms are not a homogenous group, meaning that intellectual property law firms or even a solo can have different needs than a family law practitioner, what would be some of the core features that even smaller law firms can look for in CRM systems, or should kind of have as, like, table stakes?

Chris Fritsch

Smaller firms for the longest time had challenges trying to implement CRM because they were licensed models, they require a lot of professional services to install and implement, and they required a lot of staff to manage, and that’s contrary to the small firm model. Ideally, in a perfect world, they want a less expensive option that doesn’t require as much training and ongoing sort of care and feeding. And what’s happened is most of the software providers have gone to a subscription model because it makes it easier to budget for the software over time, you don’t have a big upfront cost, and a lot of them have also moved to the cloud.

Jennifer Schaller

You’ve touched a couple different times about large law firms having multiple data stewards and dedicated CRM people, but smaller firms or firms that are not in the select 100 may not have those resources. What type of staff is required to succeed with CRM technology, or what tasks would need to be at a bare minimum assigned to somebody within their teams to get it up and running or to make it a viable option within the firm?

Chris Fritsch

The larger the firm and the more complex the system and processes required, the more staff and the more resources that are going to be needed, the more training that’s going to be needed, the more communication and planning and strategy. That’s always important. But right now we’re working with a firm that has a database with 7 million records. They’re bringing together information from databases all over the world, that’s a big undertaking. Whereas the most essential staff in bigger firms with a bigger implementation, you’re going to need perhaps a CRM manager, whereas a smaller firm with a smaller implementation that’s less complex, you’re not going to need a CRM manager, perhaps you might just need someone part time. The most important staff though, is in the area of data quality, because data degrades rapidly. And now with all the changes taking place, people are changing jobs left and right. So data is degrading faster than ever, and you’ve made this investment in the technology. But as an attorney, I can tell you, if the data is bad, then the system is bad, and I’m not going to use it. So you definitely have to focus on that data to get the return on investment from the technology. And you know, firms don’t necessarily want to hire a data steward, but it’s super important to focus on.

Jennifer Schaller

So firms are stretched, and plus, you touched upon too, everybody’s changing jobs. So it’s really tough for smaller firms to hire, any smaller organization to hire. So how does the firm stretch their existing staff to implement or, you know, make viable a useful CRM system, because as you mentioned, it’s only as good as its data?

Chris Fritsch

You know, one of the biggest trends we’re seeing is the move to outsourcing and having that really escalate. You know, firms have been outsourcing data stewards for decades, well, for at least the 10, 15 years that I’ve been around, because not every firm has the luxury of being able to hire a data steward or an experienced CRM manager who’s done a rollout before. Again, most firms don’t have the ability or even the desire to have their internal people doing data work. And so they’re turning to outsourcing to fill these positions, because the great thing about it is you can get the experience and the expertise, and just the amount of hours that you require. So especially for smaller firms, you wouldn’t want to hire a 40 hour a week data steward anyway. But with outsourcing, you can get you know, 10 hours a week, 20 hours a week, whatever you need during the rollout, and then you want to focus ongoing you might need even less, but you need to dedicate those resources, and you don’t have to do it with internal people, because data quality work is not particularly fun, and a lot of people don’t enjoy doing it. But yeah, we outsource a lot of data stewards. It’s actually our highest growth area right now because of the focus on outsourcing.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so a part of lawyers is–speaking lawyer to lawyer—a bit of a control freak. You might not have noticed or heard about it, but you know, anyway. So outsourcing is kind of a scary thing to them, meaning, you know, a smaller firm might be in the devil of not being able to hire somebody or being able to hire too much of somebody, as you indicated. So with outsourcing, what would they look for?

Chris Fritsch

I think number one is experience and reputation. All of our folks that do data work, you know, we try to hire the right people that have the aptitude to actually enjoy the work and then train them, train them and retrain them. We spend a lot of time really getting them to understand not just how to use the CRM tools and how to do the data quality, but also to do the research and how to also understand the law firm. There’s a lot of complex relationships in terms of financial institutions, I think that’s a really big piece of it, you know, having a lot of knowledge and experience doing it. For a lot of our clients, very, very large law firms, they have often significant privacy and security issues, so we have a team of US based people, because that helps them with challenges around GDPR. So you may want to ask, where are your people based? Can they do background checks is a really big important thing.

Jennifer Schaller

Oh, wow. That’s true, yeah, especially if they’re doing government or any type of work. You brought up some really good points there. So you mentioned training, so law firms that would consider outsourcing would be then benefiting from the training not only that they receive from a company like yours, but experience that they’ve picked up from other law firms along the way.

Chris Fritsch

The training is challenging. So you know, you have to train and retrain, you know, things are changing all the time with the software and systems. And it really is a big component, making sure that you have good experienced people. And then we also have a team that does quality checking as well, because I think in law more than any other industry even more than in other professional services, you mentioned earlier, you know, being a little bit of a control freak, we want good data. Outside of legal people are thrilled to have data quality of 70% . “We have automated data sources that’ll get you 70% correct data.” In a law firm 70% would get you fired! Right?

Jennifer Schaller

We got 70% of your lawsuit correct! That tends to not be an acceptable thing for attorneys, and I think they tend to hold anybody else that they work with or any product that they use to similar standards. It’d be really challenging. What are some of the things, not that there’s any silver bullet–and I’m sorry, legal marketers, there isn’t–to kind of overcome some of the, you know, maybe they were at another firm, or they had a friend who had a problem with it. Lawyers actually talk amongst each other and have a tendency to, well, they’ll discount it for their own clients, other people’s experiences, but if they have a lawyer friend who went through something, and it was negative, that’s, you know, good as gold. How do you overcome some lawyers’ reluctance, because of bad data quality, which seems to cause the problems to incrementally kind of chip away at that?

Chris Fritsch

You know, we used to think—and these things are tied together–so bad data is a big challenge. And adoption is a big challenge, getting attorneys to “use” the system, right? So we forever have defined adoption as attorneys would get trained, they would go through their data, they would, you know, mark the ones that they wanted to share or didn’t want to share, the assistants had to get involved and it all sort of fell down because again, we’re busy, and you know, time is money, literally. You know, I think the adoption challenge is tied to the data. Because again, if the data is bad, they don’t want to use the system. So going to these more automated ERM systems that pull in good data, I think it’s time that we really need to redefine adoption from attorneys doing data entry, which is probably not the highest and best use of someone’s time who’s billing $500, $200, $1,000 an hour, whatever it might be, let’s do more automation. And the other thing with the data is, it used to be the researchers would say 30% was degrading each year. Now it’s got to be closer to 50% with, you know, the Great Realignment and you know, staffing and people working from home and hybrid and people are moving and companies are starting and ending and getting acquired. So if you don’t focus on the data, if you don’t have good data, it’s going to hinder adoption, and it’s sort of all tied together. So we have to really sort of think through things, and that’s, again, why we are so focused on the ERM methodology. It minimizes attorney data entry, it maximizes good data, it automates the process, it really just is a very helpful tool.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s really interesting. Anything that can be used to make it simpler to get it off the ground. You mentioned data quality. And you mentioned ERM software implementations or kind of pairing it with the CRM system or having a CRM system that has that built in as a way to help with data quality. What is the part, you mentioned, that’s still gonna leave maybe 20 to 30% of the data in there? How are ways that law firms or outsourcing groups or, maybe I got the statistic wrong, cleaning up the balance of that, or is that, even within law, acceptable?

Chris Fritsch

What we’ve arrived at is a process that I have named True DQ, and it’s a multi-step process. For some firms, it might just be one step, an outsourced data steward. But for some firms, it’s multiple steps. First thing that you need to do is assess the mess. Figure out how bad is your data, if you’re getting a new system, right, you may not want to move, if you’ve had your system, 10, 15 years, you probably don’t want to move all that data, you definitely don’t want to clean all that data, it can cost more than the CRM system. So helping figure out strategically, what are the right contacts to move, key client data, top lists, getting all that data together and getting it cleaned and deduplicated  because, again, as, attorneys, we all know the same people. Some of us have good data, some is bad, and it’s got to be researched but you want to minimize the amount of data so you want to do a really strong assessment process upfront. And that’s if you’re changing systems, or if you’re just trying to clean your existing system, you want to focus your limited time and resources where you can get the most value. So then there’s an automated data quality process. So you know, as I said earlier, automated, you know, only gets you part of the way there. But when you’re doing projects, like, sometimes we’re doing projects, where there’s 7 million records. You couldn’t hire enough people or have enough money or time to clean all that data. So you can take an automated process that will get you quickly and cost effectively part of the way there. And then you know, at each step in the process, you can say that’s good enough, or I want a cleaner, I want it better. And for a lot of law firms, they want it as clean as possible. And so the final step would be to add data stewards to kind of finish off the remaining data that couldn’t be automatically matched. And also we have a quality checking process to quality check the results of the automated process as well. There’s a lot that goes on to keep good data clean and correct and complete, but it’s absolutely imperative and essential to CRM success and people are investing a lot of money in these systems. They should be getting value from them.

Jennifer Schaller

I know you can’t, us lawyers are all profound individuals, lump them all into one group–

Chris Fritsch

We’re all special snowflakes.

Jennifer Schaller

We are all special snowflakes! But if you have noticed one trend, is it if the data is better, there’s more chance of a successful adoption in use, or does that tend to be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome?

Chris Fritsch

A lot of the new systems that are ERM focused, the adoption model changes a little bit. So before with sort of the CRM systems that have been around longer, the idea was an Outlook Sync. And then everybody used Outlook. And so the contacts–you know, in a law firm, things are sort of inside out, we don’t just join the firm and get given the keys to the CRM, here are the contacts and clients. Instead, they come in with the attorney and new lateral joins, and the contacts are with them. And so we’ve had these tools to bring in Outlook data, and that required training and installations at the attorney level, and then the data would sync back. And if it was wrong, and it changed somebody’s Outlook, you’d hear about it. With the new ERM methodology, and or maybe a one-way sync, so we’re not, you know, pushing potentially incorrect or what people think might be incorrect data back into the Outlook for the attorneys to see, instead we’re gathering the data through an electronic process, we’re getting good data from the signature blocks, we’re bringing that data in. For some of us, what we do is we actually enhance the data with things like industries, because industry marketing is a big priority for a lot of firms. And nobody says they do it really well, you either have to spend a lot of money to get subscriptions, or you have an automated process, or you can do it manually. And so we try to help firms think through strategies to enhance the data when their data stewarding it with company information, size of company, industry of company, so then you don’t have to rely as much on the attorneys. Like they’ll come and say, “Hey, we want to pull an energy list. Because we’re doing an energy seminar.” Well, you can’t do that. “We want to pull a list of clients.” But without a time and billing integration, you really can’t do that. So these new tools are really helping automate that process, so suddenly, maybe I can’t pull 100% perfect energy or manufacture or whatever, pharmaceutical industry list, but I can get you at least a really good start, and then you can add individuals to it. These are tools we didn’t have years ago. And they really are taking the attorneys out of the process and taking them out of the data entry role. And instead, let’s give them the data they want. Let them be consumers of the data, let’s get them the reports that they need to do what they need to do and minimize the time required. Sometimes it’s staff that are helping to support these processes as well. So never underestimate the power of having good folks to help the attorneys get what they need. And so we’re going to define it instead of attorneys entering data into the system, it’s going to be attorneys getting value out of the system. And that’s how I think adoption needs to be redefined.

Jennifer Schaller

So once they see the value in it, they begin to adopt and of course they see another attorney getting value out of it.

Chris Fritsch

And while you might use ERM, when you implement a CRM you have to consider both a macro and a micro. So we’ve got to be able to get the contacts to do the list to do the events. That’s sort of a core component of it. And if you don’t get that data, you can’t do the other things like the fundamental who-knows-who and the business development. So a lot of firms are going to, “Okay, let’s do an ERM model and capture the context.” And most of the attorneys then don’t have to be users of the system. Instead, you can give licenses to key business developers or practice group leaders or whoever might need the information. And they have the data that they need to do what they need to do. But the day-to-day work of the attorneys is they can focus on the clients.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s interesting to hear, and good to hear actually, that it’s rolling out a lot better. You founded CLIENTSFirst Consulting 15 years ago. I’m not trying to age you, you must have founded it when you were 15 and, you know, even more of a prodigy. Name some of the ways that not only things have changed over the last 15 or so years, but some of the incremental successes I mean, it might have been a small firm, it might not resonate, but what are some of the wins that you’ve had, or some of the ways that you’ve been able to help firms succeed over the years?

Chris Fritsch

A key thing that we do, I think, that firms have found particularly valuable is called a CRM Success Assessment. And so whether you’re getting your first CRM system or you’re looking to change systems, or just improve your current implementation, we come in really getting to know the firm. So we do meetings with key stakeholders throughout the firm to really understand their different needs and requirements, and document that. The last thing you want to do is oh, we need a CRM, let’s figure out what everybody else is using, because that has proven over time to be a recipe for disaster. Instead, it’s all about your unique firm, your needs, requirements, and culture. And so we document that for the firms and then we help them go through a selection process where we take the information from the assessment and turn that into what we call a vendor demo roadmap that we can provide to the providers so that they can follow a roadmap during the demonstration. “Hey, focus on these things that the firm really cares about. Let’s compare apples to apples. Let’s put together the right proposal and get the right technology.” Because that’s the first thing is making sure you get the right system. The other thing is back many years ago, success was defined as, “We’re going to roll it out all at once and everybody’s going to use it.” Right? All the attorneys are going to log in every day. Well, I think it’s been 20 years, and it hasn’t happened yet. So again, we’re sort of redefining success doing the macro for the whole firm, but then really being able to, and this sounds a little counterintuitive at a big firm, but you really focus on the micro. Let’s get the macro right, you know, lists and events. But then let’s find the strong leader that has a problem to solve or a process to improve. And the beauty of CRM is it can do 1,000 things, the problem has been it can do 1,000 things, you should probably do three, or maybe even one. And so you get all these tools, but you only want to implement one here. And then you know, each group might want to do something a little differently, one group may actually track activities, there’s a big firm, we’ve worked with that one group is really focused on activity tracking. And so then configure the system to support that one thing, build the reports out the processes around it, the training materials around it, and you train that group on that thing, and maybe just that thing. You know, but then you might have, you know, a labor and employment group that does a lot of events, and webinars and seminars. Let’s show them how to manage the invitation process and add people to lists because they care about that. And so you focus on special snowflake scenarios, one group at a time, and you call them a pilot group. I had a smart Managing Partner say to me, you do a pilot group, and you get them success, you communicate that success, and you do another pilot group, and everybody feels like a special snowflake. Everybody gets their needs met. But it’s not quick. But it’s not designed to be quick, because CRM is not a project. It’s not an initiative, it is a fundamental improvement in how the firm manages its most important asset, its relationships. So as a result, it never really ends. And so if you do it in little pilot groups, you know, you’ve got forever to get better at it. You know, a lot of it is sort of daunting, you’re like, “Oh, our data is terrible.” Well, that’s okay you know, you don’t have to clean it up 100% right now, you want to do it in pieces and get successes, do it in increments, focus on top clients, focus on, you know, one group is doing an event, focus on their lists. There are a lot of different ways to do it to be effective, and get incremental successes, because they do they all add up.

Jennifer Schaller

Start with a coalition of the willing. Thank you, Chris, for going through some of the pilot groups at larger law firms, that sounds like a good way to find some early successes and kind of replicate it, but maybe in a customized form with different groups within a firm. But again, the majority of law firms are small. And while it’s great to learn from what the larger firms are doing, are there any initiatives, you know, to help smaller firms, either within your company or industry-wide, to work with CRMs?

Chris Fritsch

There are definitely some products out there for smaller firms. But what I have seen over the years is it’s been a little challenging because of the resource constraints and the staffing constraints. And so for years, smaller firms would come to me and say, you know, can you help us find a system? And you know, now the software is less expensive because of the subscription model. But the professional services has always been $50,000 plus dollars. And for a smaller firm, that’s without integrations. You’re looking at a lot of money to do the professional services. And so we’ve actually come up with a new piece of software we’re about to come out with that, hopefully, is going to make it easier for smaller firms to get a system to do what they need to help capture and augment the data and do lists. And so we’re pretty excited about that.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so if I can ask, what are some of the features in the product that CLIENTSFirst has coming out that helps small firms?

Chris Fritsch

As you can imagine, because I talk so much about it, I really think ERM is a fundamental piece of it. And we’re also going to be doing data cleaning, because obviously that’s a big focus for us as well and data augmentation with the things that we talked about, business information and industry information. And we’re going to make sure the data is clean and correct and complete. And we’re also going to have a built-in email functionality too. So it’s all integrated into a single platform to help smaller firms succeed as well. So the largest firms in the world, they need a certain type of software, and we thoroughly enjoy helping them succeed. And we just think that the smaller firms could benefit from some additional options.

Jennifer Schaller

That’s good to hear. Otherwise, a whole portion of the market is underserved. As always, thanks to Chris Fritsch from CLIENTSFirst Consulting for joining us today and for updating us on the nuances of CRM, specifically in the legal world or in the law firm environment. Law firms have such a challenging time to know where to start or what to do with what they already have. And thank you for helping us understand some of those steps or decision trees that go into law firms or especially smaller firms picking a CRM system. Thanks, Chris.

Chris Fritsch

Happy to help and thank you for the invitation to be here.

OUTRO 

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Article By The National Law Review Editorial Team

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Threats of Antitrust Enforcement in the Supply Chain

With steep inflation and seemingly constant disruptions in supply chains for all manner of goods, the Biden Administration has turned increasingly to antitrust authorities to tame price increases and stem future bottlenecks. These agencies have used the myriad tools at their disposal to carry out their mandate, from targeting companies that use supply disruptions as cover for anti-competitive conduct, to investigating industries with key roles in the supply chain, to challenging vertical mergers that consolidate suppliers into one firm. In keeping with the Administration’s “whole-of-government” approach to antitrust enforcement, these actions have often involved multiple federal agencies.

Whatever an entity’s role in the supply chain, that company can make a unilateral decision to raise its prices in response to changing economic conditions. But given the number of enforcement actions, breadth of the affected industries, and the government’s more aggressive posture toward antitrust enforcement in general, companies should tread carefully.

What follows is a survey of recent antitrust enforcement activity affecting supply chains and suggested best practices for minimizing the attendant risk.

Combatting Inflation as a Matter of Federal Antitrust Policy

Even before inflation took hold of the U.S. economy, the Biden Administration emphasized a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement. President Biden appointed progressives to lead the antitrust enforcement agencies, naming Lina Kahn chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Jonathan Kanter to head the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ). President Biden also issued Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy.” This Order declares “that it is the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony….” To that end, the order takes a government-wide approach to antitrust enforcement and includes 72 initiatives by over a dozen federal agencies, aimed at addressing competition issues across the economy.

Although fighting inflation may not have been the initial motivation for the President’s agenda to increase competition, the supply disruptions wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and persistent inflation, now at a 40-year high, have made it a major focus. In public remarks the White House has attributed rising prices in part to the absence of competition in certain industries, observing “that lack of competition drives up prices for consumers” and that “[a]s fewer large players have controlled more of the market, mark-ups (charges over cost) have tripled.” In a November 2021 statement declaring inflation a “top priority,” the White House directed the FTC to “strike back at any market manipulation or price gouging in this sector,” again tying inflation to anti-competitive conduct.

The Administration’s Enforcement Actions Affecting the Supply Chain

The Administration has taken several antitrust enforcement actions in order to bring inflation under control and strengthen the supply chain. In February, the DOJ and FBI announced an initiative to investigate and prosecute companies that exploit supply chain disruptions to overcharge consumers and collude with competitors. The announcement warned that individuals and businesses may be using supply chain disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic as cover for price fixing and other collusive schemes. As part of the initiative, the DOJ is “prioritizing any existing investigations where competitors may be exploiting supply chain disruptions for illicit profit and is undertaking measures to proactively investigate collusion in industries particularly affected by supply disruptions.” The DOJ formed a working group on global supply chain collusion and will share intelligence with antitrust authorities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK.

Two things stand out about this new initiative. First, the initiative is not limited to a particular industry, signaling an intent to root out collusive schemes across the economy. Second, the DOJ has cited the initiative as an example of the kind of “proactive enforcement efforts” companies can expect from the division going forward. As the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement put it in a recent speech, “the division cannot and will not wait for cases to come to us.”

In addition to the DOJ’s initiative, the FTC and other federal agencies have launched more targeted inquiries into specific industries with key roles in the supply chain or prone to especially high levels of inflation. Last fall, the FTC ordered nine large retailers, wholesalers, and consumer good suppliers to “provide detailed information that will help the FTC shed light on the causes behind ongoing supply chain disruptions and how these disruptions are causing serious and ongoing hardships for consumers and harming competition in the U.S. economy.” The FTC issued the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies and seek various types of information without a specific law enforcement purpose. The FTC has in recent months made increasing use of 6(b) orders and we expect may continue to do so.

Amid widely reported backups in the nation’s ports, the DOJ announced in February that it was strengthening its partnership with and lending antitrust expertise to the Federal Maritime Commission to investigate antitrust violations in the ocean shipping industry. In a press release issued the same day, the White House charged that “[s]ince the beginning of the pandemic, these ocean carrier companies have been dramatically increasing shipping costs through rate increases and fees.” The DOJ has reportedly issued a subpoena to at least one major carrier as part of what the carrier described as “an ongoing investigation into supply chain disruption.”

The administration’s efforts to combat inflation through antitrust enforcement have been especially pronounced in the meat processing industry. The White House has called for “bold action to enforce the antitrust laws [and] boost competition in meat processing.” Although the DOJ suffered some well-publicized losses in criminal trials against some chicken processing company executives, the DOJ has obtained a $107 million guilty plea by one chicken producer and several indictments.

Most recently, the FTC launched an investigation into shortages of infant formula, including “any anticompetitive [] practices that have contributed to or are worsening this problem.” These actions are notable both for the variety of industries and products involved and for the multitude of enforcement mechanisms used, from informal studies with no law enforcement purpose to criminal indictments.

Preventing Further Supply-Chain Consolidation

In addition to exposing and prosecuting antitrust violations that may be contributing to inflation and supply issues today, the Administration is taking steps to prevent further consolidation of supply chains, which it has identified as a root cause of supply disruptions. DOJ Assistant Attorney General Kanter recently said that “[o]ur markets are suffering from a lack of resiliency. Among many other things, the consequences of the pandemic have revealed supply chain fragility. And recent geopolitical conflicts have caused prices at the pump to skyrocket. And, of course, there are shocking shortages of infant formula in grocery stores throughout the country. These and other events demonstrate why competition is so important. Competitive markets create resiliency. Competitive markets are less susceptible to central points of failure.”

Consistent with the Administration’s concerns with consolidation in supply chains, the FTC is more closely scrutinizing so-called vertical mergers, combinations of companies at different levels of the supply chain. In September 2021, the FTC voted to withdraw its approval of the Vertical Merger Guidelines published jointly with the DOJ the year before. The Guidelines, which include the criteria the agencies use to evaluate vertical mergers, had presumed that such arrangements are pro-competitive. Taking issue with that presumption, FTC Chair Lina Khan said the Guidelines included a “flawed discussion of the purported pro-competitive benefits (i.e., efficiencies) of vertical mergers” and failed to address “increasing levels of consolidation across the economy.”

In January 2022, the FTC and DOJ issued a request for information (RFI), seeking public comment on revisions to “modernize” the Guidelines’ approach to evaluating vertical mergers. Although the antitrust agencies have not yet published revised Guidelines, the FTC has successfully blocked two vertical mergers. In February, semiconductor chipmaker, Nvidia, dropped its bid to acquire Arm Ltd., a licenser of computer chip designs after two months of litigation with the FTC. The move “represent[ed] the first abandonment of a litigated vertical merger in many years.” Days later Lockheed Martin, faced with a similar challenge from the FTC, abandoned its $4.4 billion acquisition of missile part supplier, Aerojet Rocketdyne. In seeking to prevent the mergers, the FTC cited supply-chain consolidation as one motivating factor, noting for example that the Lockheed-Aerojet combination would “further consolidate multiple markets critical to national security and defense.”

Up Next? Civil Litigation

This uptick in government enforcement activity and investigations may lead to a proliferation of civil suits. Periods of inflation and supply disruptions are often followed by private plaintiff antitrust lawsuits claiming that market participants responded opportunistically by agreeing to raise prices. A spike in fuel prices in the mid-2000s, for example, coincided with the filing of class actions alleging that four major U.S. railroads conspired to impose fuel surcharges on their customers that far exceeded any increases in the defendants’ fuel costs, and thereby collected billions of dollars in additional profits. That case, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, is still making its way through the courts. Similarly, in 2020 the California DOJ brought a civil suit against two multinational gas trading firms claiming that they took advantage of a supply disruption caused by an explosion at a gasoline refinery to engage in a scheme to increase gas prices. All indicators suggest that this trend will continue.

Reducing Antitrust Risk in the Supply Chain and Ensuring Compliance

Given the call to action for more robust antitrust enforcement under Biden’s Executive Order 14036 and the continued enhanced antitrust scrutiny of all manner of commercial activities, companies grappling with supply disruptions and rampant inflation should actively monitor this developing area when making routine business decisions.

As a baseline, companies should have an effective antitrust compliance program in place that helps detect and deter anticompetitive conduct. Those without a robust antitrust compliance program should consider implementing one to ensure that employees are aware of potential antitrust risk areas and can take steps to avoid them. If a company has concerns about the efficacy of its current compliance program, compliance reviews and audits – performed by capable antitrust counsel – can be a useful tool to identify gaps and deficiencies in the program.

Faced with supply chain disruptions and rampant inflation, many companies have increased the prices of their own goods or services. A company may certainly decide independently and unilaterally to raise prices, but those types of decisions should be made with the antitrust laws in mind. Given the additional scrutiny in this area, companies may wish to consider documenting their decision-making process when adjusting prices in response to supply chain disruptions or increased input costs.

Finally, companies contemplating vertical mergers should recognize that such transactions are likely to garner a harder look, and possibly an outright challenge, from federal antitrust regulators. Given the increased skepticism about the pro-competitive effects of vertical mergers, companies considering these types of transactions should consult antitrust counsel early in the process to help assess and mitigate some of the risk areas with these transactions.

Article By Elizabeth A. N. Haas, Ian T. Hampton, and Kate E. Gehl of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

What Employers Need to Know in a Post-Dobbs Landscape

On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held the access to abortion is not a right protected by the United States Constitution. This article analyzes several employment law issues employers may face following the Dobbs decision.

Federal Law

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits employment discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” In construing the PDA’s reference to “childbirth”, federal courts around the country have held the PDA prevents employers from taking adverse employment actions (including firing, demotion, or preventing the opportunity for advancement) because of an employee’s decision to have an abortion as well as an employee’s contemplation of an abortion. The PDA also prohibits adverse employment actions based upon an employee’s decision not to have an abortion. So, for example, an employer would violate the PDA if it pressured an employee to have, or not to have, an abortion in order to keep her job or be considered for a promotion.

State Law

Several states have implemented “trigger laws,” which impose restrictions or categorical bans on abortion following Dobbs. In addition, states such as Texas have enacted laws that allow individuals to file civil actions against entities that “knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the cost of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.” Relying on that law, Texas legislators have already threatened at least two high profile employers for implementing policies which reimburse travel costs for abortion care unavailable in an employee’s home state. Although the Texas statute is currently being challenged in court, its text provides for statutory damages “in an amount of not less than $10,000” for “each abortion . . . induced.”

Although the issue has not been litigated yet, courts will likely have to decide how the PDA’s protections interact with a state’s anti-abortion laws.

Employer Handbook Policies and Procedures

The Dobbs decision may also impact workplace morale and productivity. Accordingly, employers should consider reviewing their handbooks as well as policies and procedures, with human resources and managers to ensure requisite familiarity with the employer’s social media policy, dress code, code of conduct, and how the employer handles confidential health information. Employers should be prepared for increased public expression from the workforce—including social media posts, discussions with other employees and third parties, and wearing clothing or other accessories reflecting strong opinions. Human resources should also be prepared for an increase in leave requests and employee resignations.

Travel Benefits for Employees Seeking Reproductive Care

In the wake of Dobbs, many businesses in states where access to abortion will be prohibited or highly restricted are considering—or have already implemented—benefit or employee expense plan amendments that would cover travel and lodging for out-of-state abortions. Ultimately, the legal and regulatory future for such plans remains unclear; especially in states where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contain “aiding and abetting” liability.

At a high level, employers seeking to enact such benefit or expense plans may find some comfort in a statement contained in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Dobbs. Specifically, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:

  • Some of the other abortion related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.

Thus, it appears that outright travel bans or similar prohibitive restrictions would face significant legal challenges, and could be declared void.

At this early stage in the post-Roe era, there appear to be several ‘paths’ emerging for employers seeking to provide travel benefits. Each comes with its own set of potential issues and considerations that employers, in conjunction with their counsel and benefit providers, should evaluate carefully. Below is a brief discussion of some of the travel-reimbursement plans employers have begun to implement or consider in the wake of Dobbs:

  1. Travel and lodging benefits under existing group health plans.
    • Assuming the plans are self-funded and subject to ERISA, they must also comply with other applicable rules such as HIPAA and the ACA.
    • Such benefits may not be available under non-ERISA plans in states restricting abortion access.
    • Generally would be limited to individuals enrolled in the employer’s plan.
  2. Travel and lodging benefits under Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA’s).
    • An HRA is a type of health savings account offering tax-free reimbursement up to a fixed amount each year.
    • HRA’s are generally subject to ERISA and cannot reimburse above the very minimal IRS limits (Section 213), such as mileage (.18 cents) and lodging ($50/per day).
    • Should be integrated with other coverage or qualify as an “Excepted Benefit HRA” or else it may violate certain ACA rules that prohibit lifetime annual dollar limits for certain benefits.
  3. Employee Assistance Programs (EAP’s).
    • EAP’s are voluntary benefit programs some employers use to allow employees access to certain types of care without accruing co-pays, deductibles, or out of pocket costs. Historically, EAP’s have been predominately used for mental health benefits such as therapy or substance abuse counseling.
    • In certain circumstances, EAP’s are exempt from the ACA. To be an “excepted benefit,” the EAP:
      • Cannot provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment;
      • Cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan;
      • Cannot charge a premium for participation; and
      • Cannot require cost sharing for offered services.
    • The first of the above requirements (significant benefits of a medical nature) is highly subjective and may create risk for employers because it is difficult to determine whether a benefit is “significant.” Accordingly, it may be difficult to locate a third-party vendor or provider that would administer travel and lodging benefits through an EAP.
  4. Travel and lodging benefits to employees as taxable reimbursements.
    • Taxable reimbursements—up to a certain amount annually—for travel to obtain abortion or other medical care not available in the employee’s place of residence.
    • Some employers are requiring only receipts for lodging, but are not requesting substantiation of the employee’s abortion procedure. Some argue this might insulate an employer from liability in states with statutes prohibiting “aiding or abetting” an abortion, on the grounds that the employer does not know what the employee is using the benefit for. Ultimately, whether that is true remains largely untested and unclear.
    • Likely more costly for the employer, because the benefit is broader in scope. In addition, employers may run the risk that a payroll reimbursement of this kind could qualify as setting up a “new medical plan,” thereby raising compliance and other related issues.

Additionally, employer travel-and-lodging benefits of this type present innumerable other questions and issues. Such questions should include:

  1. Is the employer’s benefit plan subject to ERISA?
    • ERISA is the federal law applicable to qualifying employee benefits plans, including employer-sponsored group health plans. Plans subject to ERISA must also comply with HIPAA, the ACA, and other applicable rules and regulations. So-called self-funded employer plans are subject to ERISA.
    • With some exceptions, ERISA preempts or blocks the implementation of state laws that ”relate to” the ERISA plan.
    • However, ERISA does not:
      • Preempt a state law that regulates insurance companies operating in the state; or
      • Preempt state criminal laws of general applicability.
    • If a plan is self-insured and subject to ERISA it may not be required to comply with state laws related to abortion services based on ERISA preemption.
    • However, the impact of new and untested civil and/or criminal penalties remains unclear.
  2. What procedures does the plan cover?
    • In this environment—especially in states with the most restrictive abortion laws—employers should have a firm understanding of what specific type of abortion procedures the plan covers.
  3. Specific or “general” travel stipends?
    • As noted above, some companies are choosing to provide travel/lodging stipends and benefits to access abortion care in jurisdictions where the procedure is lawful.
    • Some employers are making this travel stipend more general—i.e., not requiring the stipend be used for abortion, or otherwise naming abortion in the benefit program. As an example, a policy that provides a stiped for an employee to “travel to receive medical care that is unavailable within 100 miles of the employee’s place of residence.”
    • Note that out-of-plan reimbursements to employees are likely taxable as wages. Some employees may choose to gross up such stipends to compensate.
  4. What about privacy concerns?
    • Employers should think carefully about how to provide any benefits or stipends while protecting employee privacy, not violating HIPAA, and—where applicable—not running afoul of so-called ‘aiding and abetting’ legislation.
    • To that end, as noted above, some companies are requiring only that employees provide travel receipts—not documentation of the underlying procedure—to qualify for the benefit, reimbursement, or stipend.
    • Of course, without any verification, there is always the potential for abuse—or otherwise using the program for something well beyond its core intent, such as travel, elective plastic surgery, etc. However, some employers may evaluate the risk of abuse as worth the potential lessening of privacy and other concerns.

Protected Activity

Employers must also be aware that certain speech in the workplace—including speech about abortion—may be legally protected. Although the First Amendment generally does not extend to private companies, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits retaliation against employees who discuss the terms and conditions of employment, commonly referred to as “protected concerted activity.” Thus, employees (1) discussing or advocating for an employer to provide benefits to women seeking reproductive and abortion-related healthcare services, (2) advocating for the employer to take a certain public stance on the issue, or (3) protesting the employer’s public position on the issue, may constitute protected activity under the NLRA.

Contacts and Next Steps

Employment law issues will continue to arise and evolve in the coming months following the Dobbs decision. The EEOC, DOL, and HHS may provide further guidance on how Dobbs impacts employment laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and PDA. Employers should consult with legal counsel concerning these developments.

Article By Denise E. Giraudo, Stephen E. Fox, Jonathan E. Clark, and Dan Syed of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Summertime 2022 Legal Industry News Roundup: Law Office Hiring and Expansion, Legal Industry Awards, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives

Welcome back to another edition of the National Law Review’s law firm news roundup. We hope you are staying safe and healthy – please read more below for the latest updates in law firm hiring and expansion, legal industry awards and recognition, and diversity and inclusion initiatives!

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Beveridge & Diamond has added two new environmental litigators and regulatory advisors, Jackson Garrity and Tim Nevins.

Mr. Garrity handles natural resource management and litigation at the firm’s D.C. office, with a special focus on state and federal compliance under the Clean Air Act, Administrative Procedure Act, CERCLA, National Environmental Policy Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act. He advises clients on matters such as compliance, litigation, administrative enforcement actions, and more. Mr. Nevins, who works out of the firm’s New York office, practices environmental litigation and provides regulatory guidance to his clients. He has a background in toxic torts, groundwater, administrative rulemaking, and site remediation.

“We are thrilled to have Jackson and Tim as part of the B&D team,” says Paula Schauwecker, Beveridge & Diamond’s Chief Talent Officer. “Their past experiences have enabled them to hit the ground running at B&D. We are excited to see how they will continue to help our clients and contribute to B&D’s long success of being a leading environmental law firm.”

National law firm Dykema has selected Commercial Litigation Practice Group member Isaac Villarreal as Managing Member of the newly established Houston office. Mr. Villarreal is a 13-year complex commercial litigator who frequently works as outside general counsel for midmarket businesses. A highly successful trial attorney, Mr. Villarreal has won a majority of the over 50 cases he has served as first-chair counsel for. He is well-known in the Houston legal community for his work with groups such as the State Bar of Texas Litigation section and Houston Bar Association Alternative Dispute Resolution section. He has been recognized in publications such as Houstonia Magazine, H-Texas Magazine, and Texas Super Lawyers.

“It’s been an absolute thrill to be a member of the group establishing Dykema’s Houston office,” Mr. Villarreal says. “The firm’s culture, strong national presence, bench strength of top-notch attorneys, and its pragmatic approach to building upon that foundation in a market where I have practiced extensively throughout my career have helped make the launch of the Houston office an early success.”

Michael Kornak has joined the Partner Recruiting Practice Group as a Managing Director at Major, Lindsey & Africa, in order to assist with the international firm’s legal search and lateral recruitment efforts. Mr. Kornak joins the Chicago office after more than two decades of experience as a litigation and hiring partner, managing professional reviews, work allocation, and various business law practices.

Expressing excitement for Kornak’s arrival, Partner Practice Group Executive Director David Maurer said, “We are thrilled Mike decided to join the Chicago Partner Practice Group. He has extensive firsthand knowledge of all aspects of partner recruiting, including compensation and conflicts analysis, and can adeptly identify opportunities as well as potential issues for both partners and firms.”

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips has added two tax incentive financing experts to the firm’s Impact Investing and Community Development practice. D.C.-based Corenia Riley Burlingame and John Dalton each have over a decade of experience managing tax credit construction and preservation projects for stakeholders interested in benefiting communities through low-income housing, historic preservation, and energy-efficiency investments. Ms. Burlingame assists clients with issues related to resyndication, scattered-site portfolios, and year 15 properties, while Mr. Dalton assists with energy and New Markets tax credits, Opportunity Zone investing, and post-closing asset management concerns.

“As developers, lenders and investors place greater emphasis on social impact investment opportunities, Corenia’s and John’s deep understanding of the nuances within each respective transaction, and their impressive backgrounds guiding clients through these sophisticated matters, further solidifies Manatt’s position as a leader in these types of tax credit deals,” said Neil Faden, leader of Manatt’s Impact Investing and Community Development Practice.

Industry Awards and Recognition

Frank E. Schall of Moore & Van Allen PLLC has been recognized as a leading litigator by Benchmark Litigation. Mr. Schall, who focuses his practice on white-collar, internal investigations, and regulatory defense work, is listed in Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under guide to the nation’s most notable up and coming litigation attorneys. He has significant experience in a wide range of matters, including healthcare litigation, commercial litigation, and financial services.

“We congratulate Frank on being recognized by Benchmark Litigation as one of the top young litigators in the country,” said John A. Fagg, Jr., Co-head of Litigation and White Collar Defense & Investigations practice. “We are very proud of Frank’s successes and achievements for our clients.”

ArentFox Schiff LLP was awarded the Chapter 11 Reorganization of the Year by The M&A Advisor at their 16th Annual Turnaround Awards. Of more than 250 participating companies, The Turnaround Award nominees were judged by an independent panel of industry experts. ArentFox Schiff LLP was selected for their work as counsel to CoverFX, a high performance, vegan, and cruelty-free cosmetics company. Partners George Angelich and Justin Kesselman, and Associate Patrick Feeney served as counsel.

Roger Aguinaldo of The M&A Advisor said, “The award winners represent the best of the distressed investing and restructuring industry in 2021 and earned these honors by standing out in a group of very impressive candidates.”

Los Angeles Business Journal has recognized Partners Roland Juarez and Anne Marie Mortimer of Hunton Andrews Kurth in the 2022 Leaders of Influence: Top Litigators & Trial Lawyers list. The list recognizes 76 litigators chosen by the LABJ as “lawyers who go to the proverbial mat to fight for their clients before judges and jury [and] have their own unique set of skills.”

Notably, Mr. Juarez was recognized as a top litigator, handling high-stakes labor and employment cases for California’s largest and most high-profile employers. He has served as Chief Counsel of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for nearly a decade. At Hunton Andrews Kurth, he developed two mentorship programs for minority lawyers.

Diversity and Inclusion in the Legal Field

In conjunction with CT Consultants, Shumaker Advisors has awarded $10,000 worth of scholarships to three minority college students for the Fall 2022 semester. Since 2008, Shumaker and CT Consultants have offered more than $100,000 to minority engineering students attending accredited Ohio universities; this year, the organizations were able to offer the $5,000 Edwin B. Hogan Memorial Scholarship, as well as two $2,500 Ohio Minority Engineering Student Scholarships.

“We are extremely proud of this year’s awardees,” said Ami Williams, Shumaker Advisors Director of Client Relations and Administrator of the CT Scholarships Program. “The field was highly competitive and we look forward to supporting these well-deserving students as they continue their education.”

Foley & Lardner LLP has been awarded with the 2022 Gold Standard Certification for promoting gender diversity in the legal industry. The Women in Law Empowerment Forum, which issued the award, grants Gold Standard recognition to major firms that meet specific objective criteria regarding the number of women among equity partners, in firm leadership positions, and in the ranks of their most highly compensated partners.

Foley has now been recognized with this honor for three years in a row. In order to meet 2022’s certification metrics, firms had to satisfy two mandatory criteria: 25% of equity partners or, alternatively, 40% of the attorneys becoming equity partners during the past 12 months are women, and 10% of women equity partners are women of color or 4% of women equity partners are LGBT. Firms additionally had to meet two of the following for criteria:

  • 20% of the firm and U.S. branch office heads are women.
  • 25% of the firm’s primary governance committee are women.
  • 25% of the firm’s compensation committee or its equivalent are women.
  • 20% of the top half of the firm’s equity partners in terms of compensation are women.

Yvette Loizon, a partner at Clifford Law Offices, has been recognized by the Law Bulletin Publishing Company as one of the Top Women in Law in 2022. On July 20th, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and Chicago Lawyer Magazine recognized Clifford’s Ms. Loizon at the 2022 Salute! Top Women in Law Awards Celebration.

The honorees were chosen by the Law Bulletin Media selection committee for their noteworthy efforts in the legal field, more specifically their “work to mentor and promote other women in the profession, their success in the legal community, and being a shining example of leadership.”

Article By Crissonna Tennison, Chandler Ford, and Shelby Garrett of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

GAO Publishes Report on Technologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report on July 28, 2022, entitled Persistent Chemicals: Technologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment. GAO was asked to conduct a technology assessment on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) assessment, detection, and treatment. The report examines the technologies for more efficient assessments of the adverse health effects of PFAS and alternative substances; the benefits and challenges of current and emerging technologies for PFAS detection and treatment; and policy options that could help enhance benefits and mitigate challenges associated with these technologies. GAO assessed relevant technologies; surveyed PFAS subject matter experts; interviewed stakeholder groups, including government, non-governmental organizations (NGO), industry, and academia; and reviewed key reports. GAO identified three challenges associated with PFAS assessment, detection, and treatment technologies:

  • PFAS chemical structures are diverse and difficult to analyze for health risks, and machine learning requires extensive training data that may not be available;
  • Researchers lack analytical standards for many PFAS, limiting the development of effective detection methods; and
  • The effectiveness and availability of disposal and destruction options for PFAS are uncertain because of a lack of data, monitoring, and guidance.

GAO developed the following three policy options that could help mitigate these challenges:

  • Promote research: Policymakers could support development of technologies and methods to more efficiently research PFAS health risks. This policy option could help address the challenge of limited information on the large number and diversity of PFAS, as well as a lack of standardized data sets for machine learning;
  • Expand method development: Policymakers could collaborate to improve access to standard reference samples of PFAS and increase the pace of method and reference sample development for PFAS detection. This policy option could help address the challenges of a lack of validated methods in media other than water, lack of analytical standards, and cost, which all affect researchers’ ability to develop new detection technologies; and
  • Support full-scale treatment: Policymakers could encourage the development and evaluation of full-scale technologies and methods to dispose of or destroy PFAS. This policy option could help address the challenges of cost and efficiency of disposal and destruction technologies and a lack of guidance from regulators.

GAO notes that these policy options involve possible actions by policymakers, which may include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academia, and industry.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

USDA To Declare Salmonella An Adulterant in Some Raw Poultry

  • On August 1, the USDA’s FSIS announced that it will declare Salmonella an adulterant in breaded and stuffed raw chicken products. Breaded and stuffed raw chicken products will be considered adulterated when they exceed 1 colony forming unit (CFU) of Salmonella per gram. Products that exceed the limit would be subject to regulatory action. FSIS believes the limit of 1 CFU/gram will significantly reduce the risk of illness from consuming such products.
  • Breaded and stuffed raw chicken products have been associated with up to 14 food safety outbreaks and approximately 200 illnesses since 1998. The products at issue are those found in the freezer section and that appear to be cooked, but are only heat-treated to set the batter or breading; the products contain raw poultry. FSIS has found that continual efforts to improve product labeling have not reduced consumer illnesses.
  • FSIS is expected to publish a notice in the Federal Register in the fall and will be seeking public comments on whether a different standard for adulteration (i.e., zero tolerance or one based on specific serotypes) would be more appropriate, an implementation plan, and a verification testing program.
  • This announcement is part of FSIS’ effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry. In October 2021, USDA announced that it was reevaluating its Salmonella control strategy. USDA plans to present a proposed framework for a new comprehensive strategy to reduce Salmonella illnesses attributable to poultry in October and convene a public meeting to discuss in November.

Article By The Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Federal Bill Would Broaden FTC’s Role in Cybersecurity and Data Breach Disclosures

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced H.R. 4551, the “Reporting Attacks from Nations Selected for Oversight and Monitoring Web Attacks and Ransomware from Enemies Act” (“RANSOMWARE Act”).  H.R. 4551 was introduced by Consumer Protection and Commerce Ranking Member Gus Bilirakis (R-FL).

If it becomes law, H.R. 4551 would amend Section 14 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 to require not later than one year after its enactment, and every two years thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report (the “FTC Report”).  The FTC Report would be focused on cross-border complaints received that involve ransomware or other cyber-related attacks committed by (i) Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran; or (ii) individuals or companies that are located in or have ties (direct or indirect) to those countries (collectively, the “Specified Entities”).

Among other matters, the FTC Report would include:

  • The number and details of cross-border complaints received by the FTC (including which such complaints were acted upon and which such complaints were not acted upon) that involve ransomware or other cyber-related attacks that were committed by the Specified Entities;
  • A description of trends in the number of cross-border complaints received by the FTC that relate to incidents that were committed by the Specified Entities;
  • Identification and details of foreign agencies, including foreign law enforcement agencies, located in Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran with which the FTC has cooperated and the results of such cooperation, including any foreign agency enforcement action or lack thereof;
  • A description of FTC litigation, in relation to cross-border complaints, brought in foreign courts and the results of such litigation;
  • Any recommendations for legislation that may advance the security of the United States and United States companies against ransomware and other cyber-related attacks; and
  • Any recommendations for United States citizens and United States businesses to implement best practices on mitigating ransomware and other cyber-related attacks

Cybersecurity is an area of recent federal government focus, with other measures recently taken by President Biden, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and other stakeholders.

Additionally, H.R. 4551 is also consistent with the FTC’s focus on data privacy and cybersecurity.  The FTC has increasingly taken enforcement action against entities that failed to timely notify consumers and other relevant parties after data breaches and warned that it would continue to apply heightened scrutiny to unfair data security practices.

In May 2022, in a blog post titled “Security Beyond Prevention: The Importance of Effective Breach Disclosures,” the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection had cautioned that “[t]he FTC has long stressed the importance of good incident response and breach disclosure as part of a reasonable information security program, and that, “[i]n some instances, the FTC Act creates a de facto breach disclosure requirement because the failure to disclose will, for example, increase the likelihood that affected parties will suffer harm.”

As readers of CPW know, state breach notification laws and sector-specific federal breach notification laws may require disclosure of some breaches.  However, as of May 2022 it is now expressly the position of the FTC that “[r]egardless of whether a breach notification law applies, a breached entity that fails to disclose information to help parties mitigate reasonably foreseeable harm may violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.”  This is a significant development, as notwithstanding the absence of a uniform federal data breach statute, the FTC is anticipated to continue exercise its enforcement discretion under Section 5 concerning unfair and deceptive practices in the cybersecurity context.

Article By Kristin L. Bryan and Jeffrey L. Turner of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

PFAS Health Advisories Under Legal Attack…Again

On June 15, 2022, the EPA issued Health Advisories (HAs) for five specific PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. On July 29, 2022, the American Chemistry Council filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the validity of the EPA’s PFOA and PFOS HAs. The group alleges that the EPA did not follow proper procedure in setting the HAs and that the EPA’s determinations were scientifically flawed. The petition follows closely on the heels of a similar challenge to the EPA’s HA for GenX PFAS. Industries that will be impacted by upcoming EPA PFAS regulations will closely follow the petition as it makes its way through court, as it may provide predictive indicators of arguments that will unfold as the EPA’s PFAS regulations increase.

PFAS Health Advisories

In October 2021, the EPA released its PFAS Roadmap, which stated explicit goals and deadlines for over twenty action items specific to PFAS. As part of the Roadmap, the EPA pledged to re-assess the existing Health Advisories (HAs) for PFOA and PFOS, as well as establish HAs for PFBS and GenX chemicals. In June 2022, the EPA fulfilled its promise on all fronts when it set HAs for PFOA (interim), PFOS (interim), PFBS (final) and GenX (final). While not enforceable levels for PFAS in drinking water, the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories are nevertheless incredibly significant for a variety of reasons, including influence on future federal and state drinking water limits, as well as potential impacts on future PFAS litigation.

The levels set by the EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories were as follows:

PFOA

.004 ppt

PFOS

.02 ppt

GenX

10 ppt

PFBS

2,000 ppt

Legal Challenge To PFAS Health Advisories

On July 13, 2022, The Chemours Company filed a petition challenging the validity of the EPA’s GenX HA. On July 29, 2022, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) followed suit and petitioned to have the EPA’s HAs for PFOA and PFOS vacated. In the petition, the ACC argues that the EPA circumvented procedural requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act by setting interim HAs for PFOA and PFOS and that the EPA is improperly attempting to create enforcement standards for drinking water that are unattainable. While the HAs themselves are not enforceable, the ACC argues that the HAs are relied upon by states when they set their own drinking water standards and signal an EPA intent to set unachievably low levels of enforceable PFAS standards at the federal level. The ACC points to recent findings by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) that criticized the EPA’s reliance on the same studies and scientific articles upon which the HAs were based.

Conclusion

Now more than ever, the EPA is clearly on a path to regulate PFAS contamination in the country’s water, land and air. The EPA has also for the first time publicly stated when they expect such regulations to be enacted. These regulations will require states to act, as well (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Beyond drinking water, though, the EPA PFAS Roadmap shows the EPA’s desire to take regulatory action well beyond just drinking water, and companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

War and Peace at Rospatent: Protecting Trademarks in Russia

Yes, we shall live, Uncle Vanya. Could Anton Chekhov ever have imagined that his literary work would be used to sell hamburgers? In March, a controversial application for an “Uncle Vanya” mark in connection with “snack bars, cafes, cafeterias, restaurants, bar services, canteens, cooking and home delivery services,” incorporated the red-and-yellow golden arches logo of McDonald’s. It was just one in a series of recent applications in Russia that have caused serious pearl-clutching among intellectual property lawyers.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the country has faced numerous financial, trade and travel sanctions. It’s also been snubbed by major intellectual property partners. In a February 28 letter, a group of whistleblowers and staff representatives at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) called for the entity’s public condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the rapid closure of its Russia Office. The European Patent Office severed ties with Russia on March 1, and shortly thereafter the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) confirmed that it had “terminated engagement” with officials from Russia’s agency in charge of intellectual property, the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent), and with the Eurasian Patent Organization.

In response, Russia has adopted an aggressive posture in the intellectual property realm where it once sought to peacefully engage with the world, an effort that began well before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. When the USSR joined the Paris Convention in 1965, it eagerly sought to develop Soviet intellectual property. Yet in March, Russia issued Decree No. 299, which effectively nullifies the enforcement value of Russian patents owned by entities and individuals in “unfriendly” countries including the United States, European Union member states, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin also greenlighted the importation of branded products without the brands’ permission, creating gray market headaches. As Boris Edidin, deputy chairman of the Commission for Legal Support of the Digital Economy of the Moscow Branch of the Russian Bar Association, clarified in a recent legal commentary published by Moscow-based RBC Group: “entrepreneurs have the opportunity to import goods of well-known brands, regardless of the presence or absence of an official representative on the Russian market.”

Russia, like the EU, had traditionally adopted a tougher stance than the United States on parallel imports. Now, however, “both by ‘anti-crisis’ measures and by cloak-and-dagger methods” Russia is sure to do all it can to keep its planes flying and its factories running, said Peter B. Maggs, research professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and noted expert on Russian and Soviet law and intellectual property.’

The increase in parallel imports makes trademark prosecution and maintenance more important than ever in Russia, but it’s not the only cause for concern. In March, as political tensions reached a crescendo, a Russian court declined to enforce the trademark rights for Peppa Pig, the famous British cartoon character, due to “unfriendly actions of the United States of America and affiliated foreign countries.” (See case No. A28- 11930/2021 in the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region; an appeals court later overturned this holding, in a win for the porcine star.) RBC Group reported in March that it had tracked more than 50 trademark applications by Russian entrepreneurs and businesses for the marks of famous foreign brands, many in the fashion and tech sector. While most trademark applications were explicit copies of existing brands, in other cases applicants were content to imitate well-known trademarks and trade dress.

For example, a Russian entrepreneur from a design studio called Luxorta applied to register an IDEA brand that mimics the style and yellow-and-blue color schemes of famous Swedish brand IKEA. He told RBC that his business had suffered after IKEA suspended its Russian operations, and that he aspired to develop his own line of furniture and work with IKEA’s former suppliers. Other applicants RBC interviewed indicated they hoped to sell the marks back to foreign companies once those companies return.

On April 1, Rospatent published a press statement clarifying that “in case an identical or similar trademark has already been registered in the Russian Federation, it would be the ground for refusal in such registration.” More recently, the head of Rospatent, Yury Zubov, has responded with frustration to news coverage of trademark woes in Russia, noting that intellectual property legislation is unchanged and the “Uncle Vanya” hamburger mark had been withdrawn.

Prof. Maggs agreed that those trying to register or use close copies of foreign marks in Russia will likely fail. He cited a June 2 decision by the Court of Intellectual Property Rights to uphold lower court findings that the mark “FANT” for a carbonated orange soft drink violated unfair competition laws, because it was confusingly similar to the “FANTA” brand owned and licensed to third parties by Coca-Cola HBC Limited Liability Company. Russia’s consumer protection agency had originally brought the case.

The Court reasoned that “confusion in relation to two products can lead not only to a reduction in sales of the FANTA drink and a redistribution of consumer demand, but can also harm the business reputation of a third party, since the consumer, having been misled by the confusion between the two products, in the end receives a different product with different quality, taste and other characteristics.”

In addition, Prof. Maggs said, “the Putin Regime is and will be promoting Russian products as ‘just as good’ as foreign products. An example, obviously approved at high levels is the adoption of a totally different trademark for the sold McDonald’s chain,” he said, referring to the June 12 reopening of former McDonald’s restaurants in Moscow under the name “Vkusno & tochka” (“Tasty and that’s it”).

Brands should be wary of inadvertently jeopardizing their Russian marks by suspending local operations; a trademark may be cancelled in Russia after three years of uninterrupted non-use. While Article 1486 of the Russian Civil Code states that “evidence presented by the rightholder of the fact that the trademark was not used due to circumstances beyond his control [emphasis added] may be taken into account,” brands claiming infringement still risk being ineligible for damages or injunctive relief, because technically they are not losing sales while pausing business in Russia.

Moreover, if a company has suspended sales in Russia to show solidarity with Ukraine but seeks to stop sales in Russia by others, it may be accused of violating the good faith requirement of Article 10 of the Russian Civil Code, which states that exercising “rights for the purpose of limiting competition and also abuse of a dominant position in a market are not allowed.”

Russia remains a party to numerous intellectual property treaties, including the Paris Convention, the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Hague Agreement. But as the Peppa Pig case illustrates, court decisions on intellectual property are not immune to political heat.

The question looming on the horizon is whether, if the current crisis escalates, the Russian government would outright cancel trademarks from hostile countries. It would not be the first time a state denied intellectual property rights during political conflicts. In the aftermath of the First World War, for example, the US government advocated for the “expropriation” of property, including intellectual property, of German nationals, perceived as responsible for the militarism of their government1. And in the 1930s, the German patent office removed Jewish patent-holders from its roster as part of its notorious “Aryanization” process. However, because Russia is not officially at war with the countries it has deemed “unfriendly,” these precedents are not directly on point.

Brands that have suspended business operations in Russia should monitor their trademark portfolios closely for infringement and consider how they can prove use of each mark during a prolonged absence from the Russian market. In other words: keep your eyes on Uncle Vanya.

FOOTNOTES

1 Caglioti DL. Property Rights in Time of War: Sequestration and Liquidation of Enemy Aliens’ Assets in Western Europe during the First World War. Journal of Modern European History. 2014;12(4):523-545. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2014_4_523.

Article By Cynthia Martens of Katten

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP