IP Law Summit – September 8-10 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming IP Law Summit.

IP Law Sept 2013

 

When: 8-10 September 2013
Where: The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, FL, USA
The IP Law Summit will highlight the current challenges and opportunities through visionary conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by your most esteemed peers and thought leaders from Americas leading corporations and mid-market organizations. The one-on-one meetings with leading service providers will offer vast expertise in the area of intellectual property law. All this, seamlessly integrated with informal networking opportunities over three days, will provide a unique interactive forum. Do not miss this opportunity to network; establish new connections, exchange ideas and gain knowledge.

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming  Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

CFSB Sept 30 2013

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

  • University of Maryland
  • Francis King Carey School of Law
  • 500 W Baltimore St
  • Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
  • United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Legal Marketing Association (LMA) Conference Recap: Pricing, Profitability and the Role of Legal Marketing

LMA_Midwest Logo 300x125

How do you measure success? Ask a lawyer and she may say, “By the number of hours I bill.” Ask a marketer and he may answer, “By the number of clients my firm has.” Ask an economist and he will tell you, “By how profitable we are.”

As we’ve seen in recent years, a firm can have a long list of clients and/or bill a staggering number of hours, but it won’t necessarily stop them from going under. However, this much is true: a profitable firm is a successful firm. In the LMA Annual Conference session titled, “Pricing, Profitability, and the Role of Marketing,” panelists Toby Brown, director of strategic pricing and analytics at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Colleen Nihil, firm-wide director of project management at Dechert LLP, explained how a long list of clients and/or billing a large number of hours can actually lower profits.

Toby and Colleen went on to explain why legal marketers need to understand profitability and law firm economics, in general. As one of the four “P’s” of marketing (along with product, promotion and place), pricing is well-within our realm, yet is often overlooked. They further illustrated how we can use this internal law firm knowledge to our advantage in winning and keeping clients.

A major part of the discussion was geared towards how to create value-based billing for a client. Why do clients want it? What makes a client a good candidate for this arrangement? What type of research should be done? How should it be handled internally within the firm? Each question was addressed plainly:

Why do clients want a value-based billing arrangement?

Many prefer this to the classic hours-based arrangement simply because it provides an element of predictability. Clearly, all clients want cost-savings and efficiency. However, the panelists advised that the firm should first have a conversation with the client about setting up a new pricing arrangement. Understanding what the client wants and why they want it should guide the firm when setting up a new agreement.

What makes a client a good candidate for this arrangement?

Obviously, a client with very predictable legal needs is the best client for a value-based billing arrangement. However, many clients could be eligible if enough good, solid research is conducted, which leads to the next question:

What type of research should be done?

Research on the client’s past history with the firm is imperative in order to decide if it is eligible for value-based billing and what a reasonable and fair pricing structure will look like. Two approaches were discussed:

Bottom-Up

  1. Compare and contrast the client against other similar clients at the firm – size, revenue, industry, etc.
  2. Pull benchmarking data: What services does the firm provide to client? How much does each matter cost? Is there any outlying data?
  3. Don’t look at just historic data, but also look at how the firm can drive down costs. Think about using zero-based budgeting for this process.
  4. Build out the matter. Look at what strategy will be taken on the matter and figure out the firm’s value.
  5. Model the matter based on different types of rate structures (fixed-fee and other alternative fee arrangements)
  6. This approach will require the firm to categorize matters better in order to ensure reliable benchmarking.

Top-Down

  1. Start from an estimated figure for the matter.
  2. Create a scoping conversation, asking the questions: What will double the figure? What will make it shrink? What is the likelihood of…? Determine the cost of the matter, not the price.

How should value-based billing be handled internally within the firm?

Toby and Colleen stressed the importance of educating attorneys on profitability and its four drivers:

  1. Rates
  2. Realization (percentage of money collected versus standard billing rate)
  3. Productivity (number of billed hours per time-keeper, per year)
  4. Leverage (amount of non-partner work versus partner work performed)

Once attorneys learn how profitability works, they can begin to structure their matters in a way to increase profitability (rather than hours or simple revenue). However, some attorneys learn how to “game the system” which can lead to unhealthy profitability; this is something that should be monitored. Toby directed the audience to his paper, “The Four Horsemen of Law Firm Profitability,” which dives deeper into law firm economics.

Toby and Colleen summed up their presentation in three bullet points:

  • Focus on the work that you can have the biggest impact on
  • Understand your clients’ pain points
  • Make sure you have this information before responding to an RFP.

These points fed into their overarching message, “It’s not what you do, it’s what you choose not to do.” In the end, increasing profitability and implementing value-based billing arrangements come down to trust and communication between the firm and client. Once those two pillars are established, a new pricing agreement can easily be built with the two parties coming from places of understanding and a mutual interest in success.

Article By:

 of

Are You Falling Down on Following Up?

KLA Marketing Logo

Of all the marketing initiatives that are critical for lawyers to commit to, the most basic and seemingly obvious is the “sin” of omission – – the failure to follow up.

We have worked with lawyers who have spent innumerable hours and thousands of dollars chasing after new clients and prospects but have largely been unsuccessful in retentions because of a gap in their business development process: following up.

Do any of these example ring familiar:

  • A very sociable corporate partner attended numerous networking events a month, engaged easily with others attending, handed out business cards, but rarely received calls or new clients as a result. Because of her frustration, she curtailed her networking activities and short-circuited this important business development action step.
  • A New York labor and employment boutique law firm hosted an annual educational program which featured leaders in the field and attracted high level CFOs and HR professionals to the event. They received high marks on all aspects of the events but few, if any, calls from prospects.  Members of the disappointed team deemed the effort a “failure” and asserted that seminars don’t “work” to get new clients.
  •  The managing partner of a Connecticut firm received a referral from a trusted client who was searching for new counsel in this attorney’s “sweet spot” of legal practice.  The partner attended a prospective client interview in which he thoroughly espoused all the ways his firm could save this prospect’s firm significant amounts of money, given the specific legal issues at stake.  Day after day, the managing partner didn’t receive a call or email to discuss retention and getting started.  Why did this prospect waste his time was the only thought the frustrated managing partner ruminated upon.

While each of these examples highlight effective marketing initiatives (targeted networking; educational seminars; in-person client interviews), they all share the same flawed result: lack of follow up and planning.

A Follow-Up Re-Do

As part of the business development process, lawyers must recognize and integrate into their “SOP” (standard operating procedures), action steps that extend beyond “showing up.”  By leaving out the planning and following up components, lawyers are short circuiting the process, leaving money on the table, and becoming more cynical that marketing actually “works”, however one defines that.

To examine the first example above, the more effective steps of action would have been:

  • Request an event registration list so that the lawyer could have identified several targeted folks “of interest” to seek out and engage.  It would be very effective to gather some background information (a quick Google search) about the target companies to make conversations more meaningful.
  • With a little research in hand, the lawyer arrives to the networking event with a plan of who she plans to engage, who she intends to connect, and how she will spend the next several hours.  This is work, not an opportunity to have a few free drinks and yuk it up with firm colleagues whom she sees every day.
  • Practicing effective networking techniques, this sociable lawyer knows that it is essential to be more “interested” than “interesting”, so she exercises active listening techniques by asking open-ended questions of her networking partners to learn more about their businesses and challenges.  From this, she receives a number of “high impact” business cards which she will use to follow up after the event.

The steps described above take very little investment of time, but will yield a very different experience which can lead directly to a new client retention or, at minimum, a new business connection for referrals.

Contrasting the legal profession with corporate America in developing new business, one only has to examine the models of each.  Corporate America devotes billions of dollars every year to “sales and marketing”, to the process of cultivating and nurturing new prospect relationships leading to a “sale”.  The typical sales process may involve innumerable “follow ups” before a sale is actually consummated.

The legal profession historically has played a reactive role wherein new clients (new sales) seek out the law firm to engage them.  It is unwise in these ultra competitive times and a poor business model to continue this practice.  If lawyers are the ones seeking new business or even additional work from existing clients, the obligation falls upon them to pursue it and continue to make contacts until they are  directed otherwise.  (Remember, studies show that it takes at least 7-10 “touches” to become top-of-mind with clients and prospects).

Difference Faces of Follow Up

Though follow up can take many different approaches, the overall non-negotiable component involves any action step which provokes the other party (existing client, prospect, etc.) to want to continue contact with you. You are focused on cultivating and nurturing a relationships which will ultimately be mutually beneficial and add value.

A few examples of effective follow up include:

  • Brief thank you emails following an event (networking, educational programs, or entertainment).
  • Handwritten notes of congratulations for personal or business accomplishments.
  • Links to a relevant news article in which your contact would benefit.
  • Personal visits to a client’s work site to deliver a work product.
  • Invitations to social events, professional organization programs, or business workshops.

The more lawyers engage in marketing initiatives, the most important task to remember is to plan appropriately before taking any action what the follow-up steps will be, who will take them, and in what time frame. Treat this component of the business development process as you would a client obligation and coordinate your calendar with all parties involved.  It is in this step that the revenue will be found, the meaningful business relationships will be established and robust practices will be built.

Article By:

of

National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) 2013 Annual Meeting & Awards Luncheon – July 24 – 25, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) 2013 Annual Meeting & Awards Luncheon.

 

NLR NAWL Annual Ad_250x250 v 2

 

Where: Waldorf Astoria New York Hotel in New York, New York

When: July 24 – 25 2013

Join lawyers from across the country at the historic Waldorf Astoria New York Hotel in New York, New York for NAWL’s signature event, the Annual Meeting & Awards Luncheon. At this event, NAWL will honor those who have made significant contributions to diversifying the legal profession as well as NAWL members who have devoted their time and efforts to NAWL. In addition, you will have the opportunity to participate in interesting and timely CLE programs along with networking events.

 

 

 

FATCA Implementation Summit – June 17, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming FATCA Implementation Summit.

FACTA

When:

June 17 – 18, 2013

Where:

The Princeton Club
15 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
212-596-1200

The final regulations are out and FATCA implementation dates are closer than ever! The compliance ball is rolling and funds should have their implementation plans already underway. The FATCA Implementation Summit will examine what funds should have done so far, what is next on the list, and what is still unknown. Our expert speaking faculty is prepared to answer all of your FATCA-related questions – including significant changes revealed in the final regulations, timelines, best practices and procedural benchmarks, new and updated forms, and so much more!

This is the ONLY industry event that addresses the unique challenges alternative funds face under the sweeping FATCA regime. We’ll dig deep into questions about how FATCA is playing out in practice – operational challenges, due diligence and on-boarding requirements, responsible parties, outsourcing– and more!

You can’t afford to miss this essential event!

This event is part of a two-day compliance intensive. For information on day two, Preparing for the AIMFD, click here. Register for both events to receive a discounted rate.

Topics at a Glance –

  • FATCA Today: Overview and Timeline of the Final Regulations
  • Who is Affected by FATCA? – Update on Definitions and Classifications
  • Entering into the FFI Agreement: Registering as an FFI with the IRS
  • Managing Your Clients: Due Diligence in Identifying Existing Investors and Developing On-Boarding Processes for New Investors
  • Reporting and Withholding Obligations Under the FATCA Regime
  • Determining FATCA Compliance with IGA Countries
  • Practical Implementation – Putting it all Together
  • Outsourcing – The Risks and the Rewards

Conflict Minerals Compliance and Disclosure – June 26-27 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Conflict Minerals Compliance & Disclosure Conference:

Conflict Minerals June 26-27

When: 26-27 June 2013

Where: venue to be confirmed – Chicago, IL, United States of America

Why You Should Attend:

In August 2012, the SEC released its conflict minerals rule that many organizations have been waiting for. The SEC now requires public companies to disclose the specific minerals contained in their products, making supply chain due diligence a must. Companies have until May 31, 2014 to track down each level of their supply chain and compile a report of their findings. The marcus evans Conflict Minerals Compliance & Disclosure Conference will allow organizations to see how they compare to their peers in the creation of a conflict minerals management program.

The conflict minerals rule is complex and has many aspects to it. This conference will break down each requirement provided by the SEC and discuss the widely used guidelines offered by OECD and EICC. This advanced course on conflict minerals will tackle key issues, including: the creation of a successful conflict minerals team utilizing various departments within your organization, managing your supply chain, and building an IT program that will successfully secure the data collected from the various levels of the supply chain. By attending this conference, delegates will be able to verify if their conflict minerals program has taken the necessary steps thus far to successfully meet SEC expectations for the first filings deadline.

Key Topics:
  • Review the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conflict minerals rule with Navistar
  • Tailor guidelines from various cross industry associations to meet your organizational needs with the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG)
  • Create a cost effective conflict minerals program with Brady Corporation
  • Obtain necessary data from your supply chain to meet SEC requirements with Rogers Corporation
  • Maintain a strong rapport with all tiers of your supply chain to increase transparency with Applied Materials

Insurance Companies: Friend or Foe?

ACE13_WebAd-250x250

Policyholders and their attorneys frequently experience insurance companies improperly investigating and documenting claims, in turn leading them to wrongfully deny claims that may be inconsistent with their obligations under the policy. Insurance companies often do not have processes in place to satisfactorily review the policy and decision, resulting in angry policyholders, bad publicity and litigation.

Yet Professor Jay Feinman, Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law and noted scholar on insurance law, believes that claim executives and policyholders’ attorneys can work together to avoid any collisions in the claims process. At the America’s Claims Event 2013, he joins Edward Eshoo and Andrew Plunkett of the Childress Duffy law firm, who are expert policyholder attorneys, in a presentation entitled “How Claims Go Wrong: A Policyholders’ Perspective.” Their program will identify common mistakes that insurance companies make and suggests possible remedies.

Professor Feinman recently sat down with me for an interview to express his recommendations regarding the insurance industry. He explained that the ideal structuring in insurance companies would permit claims to be paid promptly and fairly.  In order to meet these goals, insurance companies must invest time and resources to sufficiently train personnel. Also, insurance companies must approach claims with continuity so that claims are not shuffled around. Finally, insurance companies must consult with objective and independent experts to investigate claims.

Claims handlers also repeatedly make errors that adversely affect insurance companies as a whole. Professor Feinman opined that insurance personnel must adopt a standard of remaining adequately informed and knowledgeable. They should always have access to the policy in question as well as insights into how courts interpret the policy’s language to avoid denying a claim based on just the individual insurance company’s authority.

In situations when insurance companies and their personnel act in bad faith, the policyholder often pursues litigation. This may occur when an insurance company blatantly acts in bad faith in denying a claim. However, even if they do not deliberately act in bad faith, insurance companies can create systems that lead to the same results. Professor Feinman points out that litigation can arise even when individuals within insurance companies are not intentionally acting in bad faith but rather when they do not conform generally to the law of claim practices.

Switching to the policyholders’ attorneys, Professor Feinman believes they hold a role in the claims process as well so that their clients’ potential losses can be covered. These attorneys should advise their client to remain open and forthcoming and provide as much information to insurance companies as reasonably demanded. Also, the policyholder’s counsel should work to comply with the terms of the policy. Further, in cases where the independent experts fail to perform their job, counsel may provide for replacement experts.  According to Professor Feinman, insurers and policyholders’ attorneys should not act as adversaries but rather as partners to ensure that the claim process runs smoothly,

When this does not happen, policyholders suffer given the unique nature of insurance in that if an insurance company refuses to fulfill its obligation, a policyholder cannot purchase another insurance plan to cover its past loss. Professor Feinman raises the emotional toll on Hurricane Sandy survivors who lost their homes and businesses without insurance companies’ fulfilling their obligation to cover these losses. In turn, insurance companies suffer because they lose their client base and earn a bad reputation while facing liability. This liability may lead them to disgorge any economic benefits received from retaining a claim, pay the claim as requested, and in many cases, pay consequential and punitive damages. Therefore, insurance companies prosper when they pay the claims that the policy covers in the first place. Ultimately, insurance companies that do not fall into adversarial patterns with policyholders’ attorneys and live up to their obligations reap economic benefits.

As a valued reader of the National Law Review, we would like to extend a special registration offer.  Use the following link to register to attend the 17th Annual America’s Claims Event and receive an additional $50 discount off the prevailing registration rate.  This discount is only for readers of the National Law Review and is only available for new registration.  Please Click Here to Register and Save!

Professor Feinman to speak during the 17th Annual America’s Claims Event “How Claims Go Wrong: A Policyholders’ Perspective” on June 20, 2013 at 2pm.  To register please visit www.americasclaimsevent.com/registration and use promo code ACENLR for a $50 discount off prevailing rates.  Discount available only to new registrations for the 2013 conference, no additional discounts can be applied.

Article By:

 of

 

2nd Annual White Collar Crime Institute – May 20, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 2nd Annual White Collar Crime Institute:

WCC_NLRad

 

When:

Monday, May 20, 2013 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m

Where:

The New York City Bar, located at 42 West 44th Street in New York City, New York

The City Bar Center for CLE at the New York City Bar will present the 2nd Annual White Collar Crime Institute, a full day program co-sponsored by the White Collar Crime committee  with a networking reception to follow.

Th relatively new committee on White Collar Crime, formerly headed by New York City Bar’s former President Samuel Seymour is currently  headed by John F. Savarese of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. The members of the committee are well known in the field and come from law firms with substantial white collar crime practices as well as from government agencies. The committee has been quite active on various fronts, including putting together this groundbreaking CLE program.

Do not miss this opportunity to hear from a talented pool of panelists. Scheduled to participate from the government are George Canellos, SEC Acting Director of Enforcement, David Meister, CFTC Director of Enforcement, Marc Berger, Chief of the Securities Fraud Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the S.D.N.Y., and Richard Zabel, Deputy U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. The Honorable Raymond Lohier of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Honorable John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York are scheduled to participate. Panelists also include distinguished academics and top practitioners in the field. The May 20 program also features two prominent keynote speakers, Loretta Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and Cyrus Vance, Manhattan District Attorney.

Plenary sessions will focus on:

  • the impact of media coverage on prosecutorial decision-making; and
  • the importance of effective pre-indictment advocacy in white collar cases

Break-out sessions will focus on:

  • market abuse;
  • emerging trends and challenges in criminal discovery;
  • navigating conflicts in corporate and executive representation; and
  • cyber crime

Register now!

False Claims Trial Institute – June 05 – 07, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming False Claims Trial Institute.

False Claims Institute

When

June 05 – 07, 2013

Where

  • The Liaison Capitol Hill An Affinia Hotel
  • 415 New Jersey Ave NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-2001
  • United States of America

As the number of False Claims Act cases filed, and settled, continues to rise, an increasing number of cases are litigated through discovery and trial. This one-of-a-kind institute will focus on the discovery, evidentiary, and trial challenges that must be successfully overcome to try a False Claims Act case. The capstone of the program will be a two-day mock FCA trial, from voir dire through jury deliberations.

Attendees of this program will improve their knowledge of the challenges involved in litigating a False Claims Act case, including::

  • Developing trial themes and a litigation plan
  • Obtaining discovery from the government
  • Building or limiting damages
  • Assessing and reducing the risk of exclusion