Category: Litigation

6 Tips to Better Organization for Lawyers

Practicing law involves managing countless details and deadlines. For this reason, organization for lawyers can become a challenge for many lawyers in a high-paced law firm juggling various projects.

Without essential organization skills or resources to support the workload, it’s easy for information or tasks to innocently fall through the cracks. Adversely, this can leave lawyers feeling burnout or overwhelmed which could lead to a deterioration of quality of service, impacting overall client satisfaction.

Maintaining organization for lawyers is more than having pristine files and an uncluttered office — it includes critical skills like strategic planning, time management, and task prioritization.

Why Do Lawyers Struggle with Organization?

For years, lawyers were often depicted as busy professionals constantly shuffling through papers and running to the courthouse. Remote work and the rise in legal technology have certainly modernized a lawyer’s day-to-day activities, but that doesn’t mean those tasks are necessarily organized.

Lawyers have a lot to manage in a high-stress, high-performance environment. Often, this can lead to a system of organization that’s known only to the lawyer — billable hours written on sticky notes, case files interspersed with other papers, and deadlines tracked on a notepad. To avoid chaos, here are a few tips to have a more organized work life.

Organization for Lawyers: 6 Tips

Maintain an Organized Workspace

There’s no right or wrong way to set up an office or workspace, but it should work for you. That said, clutter can be a barrier to organization. Keep your desk tidy and free of clutter. Put away anything you’re not working on right now and gather loose documents and file them.

If your law firm relies on paper, consider the benefits of transitioning to a digital process. Lawyers have traditionally dealt with mass amounts of paper which can lead to disorganization and hinder productivity. Limiting the amount of paper you use in your day-to-day with a digital filing system will greatly improve the accessibility you have to the work you need.

Establish a Routine

While we all have the same amount of hours in the day, the way we use them directly impacts our productivity.

Highly productive people often start the day with a priority to-do list that reflects the tasks that absolutely must get done that day. The rest are tasks that you could do, if you have time, to get a jump on the next day’s work.

When you’re planning your routine, be sure to leave time to make calls and emails, take a break, and have lunch. Before signing off for the day, take a few minutes to create your priority to-do list for the next day.

Block Time

We’re more connected than ever before, which comes with the pressure to stay in touch with work colleagues, family, and friends at all times. Our devices can become a source of distraction instead of productivity at work.

This is where blocking time comes in handy. For some, using time blocks and a calendar is more effective than to-do lists. Use your calendar as a time-blocking tool and divide your day into different blocks of time, each with a specific task.

Improve Time Management

Lawyers often find themselves struggling to balance time spent on non-billable administrative tasks and their caseload.

Fortunately, legal project management tools can help with time management, time tracking, and overall organization, with project management features to manage your caseload along with time tracking and billing functionalities. The right platform allows you to separate time and expenses, add notes or related files, collaborate with colleagues, and set customizable notifications to ensure you’re focused on the highest-priority tasks.

Commit to Better Communication

One of the casualties of disorganization is a reduction in client satisfaction. This can be due to a decrease in the quality of service a lawyer provides because they’re so busy.

A simple way to combat this is by blocking time, but also leveraging modern technology to streamline your communication. Features like client portals are a way for clients to feel connected to your firm while also having on-demand access to the information they need.

Track Time in Real Time

When you’re shuffling between cases, it can be easy to lose track of your billable time. This is why it’s important to have resources that allow lawyers to work as they go without having to guess how many hours they spent on a client.

Neither overestimating nor underestimating billable hours is good for a law firm. If you overestimate your time, you could be in violation of the American Bar Association’s Rule 1.5 on billing and fees. If you underestimate your time, you’re leaving money on the table for valuable services you’ve provided to your client.

Tracking time in real-time is important for accuracy and your organization’s well-being. Time tracking tools allow you to set timers on your laptop, tablet, smartphone, or desktop.

Proper timekeeping not only helps you stay organized and bill accurately, but it helps you identify where you could improve your time management and productivity to get more accomplished in your day.

How Legal Technology Keeps Lawyers Organized

Law practice management software offers plenty of tools to help you stay organized. Time tracking, project management, and document management tools ensure you can organize files, plan your calendar and tasks, communicate with clients, and track time to improve your productivity from anywhere.

Organized Lawyers Are an Asset

Firms and clients realize the value of having modern processes to assist lawyers with staying on top of tasks and deadlines. It may not happen overnight, but taking steps toward better organization with tools like law practice management software will improve your efficiency and productivity.

This article was authored by Nina Lee of Bill4Time.

For more law office management news updates, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2006-2022, BILL4TIME. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Name, Image and Likeness: What Higher Education Institutions Need to Know for Legal Compliance

More than a year has passed since the NCAA v. Alston ruling and roll-out of the NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Interim Policy. What processes should institutions have in place, and what situations should they be on the lookout for at this point in the NIL game? While institutions cannot provide compensation to student-athletes or potential student-athletes in exchange for use of a student’s NIL, below are items counsel at higher institutions should have on their radar.

Review and Approval of NIL Agreements

The NCAA Interim Policy does not require student-athletes to disclose NIL agreements and/or opportunities to their institutions. In the State of Michigan, however, pursuant to House Bill 5217, beginning December 31, 2022, student-athletes must disclose proposed NIL opportunities or agreements to the institution at least seven days prior to committing to the opportunity or contract. For the institution, this means there needs to be a process in place by which student-athletes submit opportunities or agreements to the institution and the institution does a timely and thorough review of the submission. The institutional representative reviewing the submissions must be knowledgeable of the institution’s active contractual obligations and only sign off on the student-athlete’s potential NIL opportunity or contract once confident there is no conflict with an existing institutional contract. This is most likely to come up in agreements with exclusivity terms, such as sports apparel and campus-wide pouring rights agreements. If there is a conflict, the institution needs to articulate the specific conflict to the student-athlete so they can negotiate a revision, which is then subject to additional review and potential approval by the institution.

Institutions are the Regulating Bodies

Institutions in states that require submission of NIL opportunities by student-athletes need to pay close attention when reviewing submissions because the NCAA has placed most of the NIL regulatory burden on institutions. Specifically, institutions are obligated to report potential violations of NCAA policy. Among other potential violations, institutions must report possible abuses on the prohibition of pay-for-play and improper inducements of potential student-athletes and current student-athletes. Essentially, in addition to spotting potential conflicts between NIL agreements and current institution agreements, institutions need to review NIL agreements to determine if a student-athlete is being compensated for athletic achievement and/or for their enrollment or continued enrollment at a particular institution. Any indication that the student-athlete’s NIL agreement will be void if they no longer participate on an athletic team requires the institution to complete due diligence and determine the appropriateness of the arrangement in light of the NIL policy. Institutions are ultimately responsible for certifying the eligibility of student-athletes, and the presence of the previously mentioned terms place the agreement in direct violation of the language in the NIL Interim Policy and corresponding NCAA guidance.

Institutional Staff Members

It is in the best interest of institutions to train their staff members on appropriate interactions with boosters because the NCAA holds institutions responsible for the “impermissible recruiting activities engaged in by a representative of athletics interest (i.e., a booster).” Staff members need to understand the actions they are permitted to take and conversations they are permitted to have, as failure to do so could land them deep in the gray area of NIL.

  • An institutional staff member cannot directly or indirectly communicate with a potential student-athlete on behalf of a booster or NIL entity.
  • An institutional staff member cannot enter into agreements with an NIL entity to secure NIL deals between the entity and potential student-athletes.
  • An institutional staff member cannot “organize, facilitate or arrange” a meeting or any conversations between an NIL entity and a potential student-athlete, which includes transfer students coming from other institutions.

Financial Aid

Institutions should ensure they are not influencing how a student-athlete uses their compensation. Specifically, institutions should not direct student-athletes to use their NIL compensation for financial aid. Student-athletes’ financial aid is not impacted by compensation they would receive from NIL agreements. Financial aid limitations exclude compensation which also extends to NIL compensation. However, if a student receives NIL compensation, this may impact need-based financial aid.

FERPA

Many public institutions have made the argument that FERPA precludes them from disclosing NIL agreements without a release executed by the student-athlete. If a copy of an NIL agreement or summary of an NIL opportunity is provided to the institution by the student-athlete, this becomes a record of the university per the definition of FERPA and is likely part of the student-athlete’s educational record. There may be a particular circumstance in which a FERPA exception would apply to a request, but there is no broad FERPA exception that would apply in this situation. Institutions might find it strategic to include their stance on FERPA in an NIL policy to ensure all requests for NIL agreements are handled consistently.

International Students

International students can receive NIL compensation but with some caveats. In its documentation, the NCAA directs international student-athletes to their institution’s Designated School Official for “guidance related to maintaining their immigration status and tax implications.” As a result, institutions should make sure the individual(s) is/are well equipped to provide answers regarding NIL from international students.

Five Steps to Become a Well-Organized and Compliant Institution

  1. Have an NIL policy and procedures that are followed consistently and made available to student-athletes for reference and consultation;
  2. Have a process in place to review NIL agreements between the institution’s student-athletes and outside entities or individuals (if located in a state that requires student-athletes to make such disclosures);
  3. Have trained its staff (especially athletics staff) on what actions can and cannot be taken in relation to student-athletes’ NIL opportunities;
  4. Have trained its student-athletes on available resources; and
  5. Have a team of institutional staff members ready to pivot if additional laws are enacted by their state, if additional guidance is provided by the NCAA or if federal legislation is enacted.

Article By Richard T. Hewlett and Jessica E. Visser of Varnum LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Varnum LLP

Ethylene Oxide Verdict First of Its Kind, and It’s Eye Opening!

Our prior reports discussed when an ethylene oxide case would go to verdict, and what the ensuing result would look like.  We no longer need to speculate.  On September 19, 2022, a Cook County (Illinois) jury awarded $363 million to a plaintiff who alleged that she developed breast cancer as a result of ethylene oxide emissions from the Sterigenics Willowbrook plant.  This was the first ethylene oxide personal injury case to go to trial, but there are hundreds of cases behind it waiting their turn.

Trial

After a five week trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Law Division (Sue Kamuda v. Sterigenics et al, case number 2018-L-010475), the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $363 million.  Plaintiff had requested $21 million in compensatory damages and $325 million in punitive damages.

Plaintiff Kamuda argued that the ethylene oxide utilized at the Willowbrook plant, opened in 1984 and used primarily to sterilize medical equipment, caused serious cancer and reproductive health risks. Kamuda alleged that the company failed to analyze how long the chemical would stay in the air in the Willowbrook community or the distance it would travel. Further, Kamuda argued that Sterigenics recklessly failed to install emission controls decades earlier to reduce releases of the chemical.

For its part, Sterigenics argued that plaintiff Kamuda’s reliance on risk assessment and regulatory studies inaccurately led to her assertion that her breast cancer resulted in part from the plant’s ethylene oxide emissions.

Notably, the facility was closed a few years ago after the state of Illinois issued a seal order in February 2019 directing that ethylene oxide emissions had to be reduced significantly. Ultimately, the company decided to keep the facility closed.

Analysis

With this very large jury verdict, plaintiff firms will surely be pushing to get their ethylene oxide cases to trial, or, at a minimum, leverage steep pre-trial settlements.  Further, plaintiff firms will surely recruit new plaintiffs who allege some type of cancer as a result of residing in the vicinity of an ethylene oxide plant.

The next ethylene oxide case to go trial is scheduled for two weeks from now in the same court, though with different plaintiff counsel and judge, as well as a different alleged disease (leukemia).

We note that it remains to be seen whether the Kamuda verdict will be appealed. It also remains to be seen whether this verdict is aberrational or is a bellwether for future trials. Will juries return verdicts based on one type of cancer but not for another?  We will continue to report as these ethylene oxide trials go to verdict and analyze the ramifications.

Article By David A. Goldman of CMBG3 Law

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

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

EMTALA in the Post-Dobbs World

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals with emergency departments and participating in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs to provide medical screening, treatment and transfer for patients with emergency medical conditions (EMCs) or women in labor.1 EMTALA, which was enacted in 1986 to address concerns about patient dumping, went unnoticed for many years, but has garnered heightened attention as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and more recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs).2

EMTALA is a federal law and expressly preempts state laws with which it directly conflicts. After the Dobbs decision was officially published in June, a number of states implemented laws that prohibited or restricted access to reproductive care. Many of these laws include potential civil sanctions and criminal liability for healthcare providers offering or performing these services regardless of the circumstances, including emergency situations. The Biden Administration, in contrast, has taken action to preserve access to reproductive care through a number of executive and federal agency actions. These actions are intended by the federal government to apply in all states, including those states where restrictions have been put in place. Following this activity, litigation between the federal government and several states has ensued to address potential conflicts between federal laws requiring the provision of access and state laws that prohibit or restrict access to reproductive health services. A summary of the current EMTALA landscape is set forth below.

EMTALA Requirements

Under EMTALA, hospitals with emergency departments (EDs) must provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to the ED, regardless of insurance status. EMTALA prohibits hospitals with EDs from refusing to examine or treat individuals with an EMC. Upon provision of a medical screening examination, hospitals must provide necessary stabilizing treatment for EMCs and labor within the hospital’s capability. If the hospital is unable to properly treat or stabilize the patient, the hospital must provide an appropriate transfer to another medical facility.

Under EMTALA, an EMC includes “a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part…”3

Many common pregnancy-related complications, such as preeclampsia or ectopic pregnancies, qualify as EMCs. However, certain state anti-abortion laws prohibit or criminalize abortions regardless of the existence of an EMC under federal law, which creates a potential conflict when an abortion is necessary to stabilize an EMC under EMTALA. As a result of this friction between state and federal law, EMTALA has received renewed attention at a federal and state level in recent months.

Executive Order on Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services

On July 8, 2022, after the Dobbs decision was officially issued, President Biden issued Executive Order 14076 (Executive Order), which directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a report identifying steps to ensure all patients, including pregnant women and women experiencing pregnancy loss, receive the full protections offered by EMTALA. The Executive Order also directed HHS to consider updates to guidance on obligations under EMTALA.

CMS Memorandum and HHS Letter to Healthcare Providers

On July 11, 2022, in response to the Executive Order, CMS published a memorandum to State Survey Agency Directors to restate existing guidance for hospital staff and physicians in light of new state laws that prohibit or restrict access to abortion (Memorandum). The Memorandum reinforced CMS’ view that:

  • EMTALA mandates that all patients who come to a EDs and request examination or treatment must receive an appropriate medical screening examination, stabilizing treatment, and transfer regardless of any state law restrictions about specific procedures,

  • Only physicians and qualified medical personnel may make the determination of an EMC,

  • Hospitals should ensure that all staff who interact with patients presenting to the ED are aware of the hospital’s obligations under EMTALA,

  • Hospitals may not cite state law or practice as the basis for transfer,

  • Physicians’ professional and legal duties under EMTALA preempt any conflicting state law or mandate,

  • If a physician believes that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an EMC, the physician must provide that treatment, and

  • State law is preempted by EMTALA when it prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person or has a more restrictive definition of EMC.

The Memorandum also clarified that pregnant patients may experience EMCs including, but not limited to, ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features and that stabilizing treatment encompasses both medical and surgical interventions, such as methrotrexate therapy or dilation and curettage.

The Secretary of HHS also published on July 11, 2022 a letter to healthcare providers reminding them of their obligation to provide stabilizing medical treatment to their pregnant patients in accordance with EMTALA, regardless of the state in which the provider practices (Letter). The Letter also reiterated that:

  • any state laws or mandates which employ a more restrictive definition of EMC are preempted by EMTALA statute, and

  • the course of necessary stabilizing treatment is under the physician’s or other qualified medical personnel’s purview.

The State of Texas Sues the Biden Administration

On July 14, 2022, the Texas Attorney General brought suit against HHS and CMS to challenge the Memorandum and Letter relating to federal law obligations for pregnant patients.4 The complaint alleged that EMTALA does not preempt state law when state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person or draws the exception more narrowly than the definition of EMC under EMTALA. Specifically, Texas sought to enforce a state statute, the Human Life Protection Act, which would ban and criminalize abortions unless a woman “has a life-threatening physical condition arising from pregnancy that places her ‘at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed”(emphasis added).5 The complaint also alleged that EMTALA does not require a healthcare provider to perform an abortion if it is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an EMC. On August 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Lubbock Division) blocked enforcement of the Memorandum and Letter in the State of Texas on the basis that federal guidance did not preempt state law, exceeded the authority of EMTALA, and was issued without a proper notice and comment period. The Court found that, because EMTALA is silent regarding abortion and “how stabilizing treatments must be provided when a doctor’s duties to a pregnant woman and her unborn child possibly conflict,” “there is no direct conflict” between federal and Texas law with the end result that “EMTALA leaves it to the states”.6

The Biden Administration Sues the State of Idaho

On August 2, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the State of Idaho, alleging violation of EMTALA. Under Idaho’s proposed abortion law, which was slated to go into effect on August 25th, the performance of all abortions are criminalized regardless of the reason for which they may be performed including to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.7 Instead, the law permits physicians to raise two affirmative defenses to avoid criminal liability:

(i) The physician determined, in h/her good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and

(ii) Prior to the performance of the abortion, the pregnant woman reported the act of rape or incest to a law enforcement agency and provided a copy of such report to the physician.8

The DOJ’s complaint alleged that  Idaho’s law does not provide a defense when the health of the pregnant patient is at stake, which is considered to fall within the definition of an EMC under EMTALA. In addition, the DOJ asserted that the fear of criminal prosecution may lead providers to avoid performing abortions even when it is a medically necessary treatment to prevent severe risk to the patient’s health. On August 24, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho found that Idaho’s law conflicted with EMTALA and granted the federal government a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Idaho’s proposed abortion law.9 In contrast to the Northern District of Texas Court’s interpretation of the conflict between state law and EMTALA, the District Court of Idaho noted that found that Idaho’s criminal abortion statute deterred abortions given that it provided for an affirmative defense rather than an exception for the provision of emergency care and, therefore, obstructed EMTALA’s purpose.10

Looking to the Future

While EMTALA has been in place for decades, its applications in the post-Dobbs world continue to evolve and will be at the forefront in states with abortion restrictions, particularly where the scope of federal law obligations to provide stabilizing treatment for conditions that threaten the health of the pregnant patient conflict with state law exceptions or affirmative defenses.

The law, policy and regulatory climate surrounding the Dobbs decision is complex and quickly developing. The information included in this article is current as of writing, but it does not address all potential legal issues or jurisdictional differences, and the information presented may no longer be current. Readers should consult counsel regarding their specific situation.

FOOTNOTES

1 42 U.S.C. §1395dd.

2 For additional information regarding the Dobbs decision, please refer to the following resources: Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Overturns 50 Years of Precedent on Abortion Laws and Rights | Healthcare Law Blog (sheppardhealthlaw.com), WHLC Dobbs Series Part 1 Where are we now?: Sheppard Mullin Webinar.

3 42 U.S.C. §1395dd(e)(1).

4 State of Tex. v. Becerra, et al., No. 5:22-cv-185 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2022).

5 Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.

6 State of Tex. v. Becerra, et al., No. 5:22-cv-185 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2022), Memorandum Opinion and Order at 49.

7 Idaho Code § 18-622.

8  Idaho Code § 18-622(3).

9 U.S. v. Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW.

10 U.S. v. Idaho, No. 1:22-cv-00329-BLW, Memorandum Decision and Order at 26-31.

Article By Amy J. Dilcher and Arushi Pandya of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more health and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

What Are the Standards and Procedures for Jury Selection in My Jurisdiction?

As a national trial consulting firm, we are often asked to assist with jury selection in jurisdictions where lead counsel has been admitted pro hac vice and may not be closely familiar with the standards and procedures for jury selection in the trial jurisdiction. Although local counsel can be a great resource for obtaining more information about jurisdictional rules and individual judges’ preferences, there is also a wealth of information available in online publications to help you prepare for what to expect in most trial venues.

Rules of Civil Procedure

The vast majority of states outline their procedures for jury selection, including standards for hardship and cause, within their Rules (or Codes) of Civil Procedure. These days, many states post their statutory Rules of Civil Procedure directly on the court’s website. It may take a little fishing, but a search for the “[State] Rules of Civil Procedure” on any major search engine will often yield a link directly to the table of contents, where you can then locate the sections pertaining to jury selection.

For example, California’s Code of Civil Procedure Sections 190-237 on Trial Jury Selection and Management provides detailed guidance to judges and attorneys regarding juror questionnaires, mini-openings, breadth and scope of voir dire, and the processes and standards for exercising challenges, among other things. Though less detailed than California, Virginia’s standards and procedures are also online. As another example, the Louisiana Legislature posts its Code of Civil Procedure online, with the procedures and standards for jury selection beginning with Article 1751.

Of course, this information can also be obtained through subscription services like Westlaw and LexisNexis, but if you need to access the statutory language quickly from a tablet or cell phone in court, it is wise not to discount these shortcuts.

Handbooks and Articles

Other valuable resources for trial attorneys include handbooks and articles that summarize the pertinent information. These handbooks are sometimes published by the courts themselves, such as New York’s Implementing New York’s Civil Voir Dire Laws and Rules. This 32-page handbook is especially helpful since, in this jurisdiction, voir dire and jury selection is conducted almost entirely outside the judge’s presence and there are bound to be disagreements between the parties. The handbook is written in common vernacular and includes a helpful table of contents for quick reference, along with citations (and corresponding links) to supporting statutory language from the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules.

Many bar associations also publish articles that summarize the applicable statutes, as well as the subsequent case law, that further define the scope of voir dire in these jurisdictions. For example, this article on the law of jury selection in Missouri state courts, published in the Journal of the Missouri Bar, discusses limits that the court has imposed on the scope and manner of jury selection, including the incorporation of jury instructions, previewing case facts, seeking commitments and rehabilitation—to name a few. It also includes a lengthy explanation of how the courts deal with juror non-disclosure in this jurisdiction.

While we always recommend that counsel review and Shepardize or KeyCite any case law they find in articles such as these, they can be a valuable first step in identifying the important rulings that may be at issue during jury selection in any given jurisdiction.

Incorporate Cause Standard into Voir Dire Questions

Some of the most important pieces of information to know in advance of voir dire are the court’s standards for securing cause challenges. While each judge may have their own “magic words,” incorporating the statutory language into your cause sequence and rehabilitation efforts can be a powerful tool for gaining an edge over opposing counsel.

For example, knowing whether the statute references words such as “fair,” “impartial,” “bias,” “unequivocal,” “assurance,” or “leaning” should guide the language you use when questioning the jurors. Then, when cause challenges are argued before the judge, we advise counsel to first cite the statutory language, followed by the quotes from jurors that mirror such language. While this is not a fool-proof technique—judges can always exercise their discretion—it will be difficult for any judge to deny a challenge that directly reflects the legal standard.

Similarly, if opposing counsel fails to get jurors to echo the statutory language, you can argue that they have failed to meet the requisite cause standards, increasing the odds that their challenges will be denied.

Prepare for Jury Selection

We recommend researching the applicable rules or code in advance of jury selection and printing them, so they are readily available to cite or hand over to the judge when appropriate. It is also helpful to know your judge’s procedures for jury selection. (Some important questions to ask local counsel can be found in this article.)

Though most jury consultants are not lawyers, selecting a jury consultant with experience in your trial jurisdiction is an important consideration. Your consultant may be able to help you prepare for jury selection by identifying what information you will need to gather in advance and helping you find it quickly.

Article By Christina Marinakis, JD, PsyD of IMS Consulting & Expert Services

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

© Copyright 2002-2022 IMS Consulting & Expert Services, All Rights Reserved.

It’s Time To Review Your Online Patient-User Interface: DOJ Issues New Federal Guidance on Telemedicine and Civil Rights Protections

As online digital health services continue to enjoy broader use and appeal, federal regulators are concerned some telemedicine online patient-user interfaces fail to accommodate persons with disabilities and limited English proficiency. Such failures in “product design” can violate federal civil rights laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), according to new policy guidance jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The document, Nondiscrimination in Telehealth, is specifically directed to companies offering telemedicine services and instructs such covered entities to immediately take specific steps to comply with the various “accessibility duties” under federal civil rights laws. The guidance focuses on ensuring accessibility for two populations of users: 1) people with disabilities and 2) people with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

Who is Subject to these Rules?

The guidance refers to “covered entities” subject to these rules. Under the rules, “covered entities” are any health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (in addition to programs and activities administered by either a federal executive agency or an entity created by Title I of the Affordable Care Act). While the guidance does not define what constitutes “receiving federal financial assistance”, HHS has historically held that providers who receive federal dollars solely under traditional Medicare Part B were not covered entities. However, a recently-proposed rule suggests HHS will significantly expand the scope of covered entities, and soon. Telemedicine providers should be prepared to comply with these federal laws.

People with Disabilities

The guidance explains that no person with a disability shall – because of the disability – be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a covered entity, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination by a covered entity. The requirements in the guidance is supported by several federal laws, including the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Affordable Care Act Section 1557, and the Rehabilitation Act Section 504.

Applying these federal civil rights protections to telemedicine services, the guidance states companies must make reasonable changes to their policies, practices, or procedures in order to provide “additional support to patients when needed before, during, and after a virtual visit.”

DOJ and HHS provided the following as examples of such “additional support” obligations:

  • A dermatology practice that typically limits telehealth appointments to 30 minutes may need to schedule a longer appointment for a patient who needs additional time to communicate because of their disability.

  • A doctor’s office that does not allow anyone but the patient to attend telehealth appointments would have to make reasonable changes to that policy to allow a person with a disability to bring a support person and/or family member to the appointment where needed to meaningfully access the health care appointment.

  • A mental health provider who uses telehealth to provide remote counseling to individuals may need to ensure that the telehealth platform it uses can support effective real-time captioning for a patient who is hard of hearing. The provider may not require patients to bring their own real-time captioner.

  • A sports medicine practice that uses videos to show patients how to do physical therapy exercises may need to make sure that the videos have audio descriptions for patients with visual disabilities.

People with LEP

The second area of the guidance is protections for LEP individuals under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Under Title VI, no person shall be discriminated against or excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

For telemedicine services, the guidance states that the prohibition against national origin discrimination extends to LEP persons. Namely, telemedicine companies must take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. Such “meaningful access” includes providing information about the availability of telehealth services, the process for scheduling telehealth appointments, and the appointment itself. In many instances, HHS states, language assistance services are necessary to provide meaningful access and comply with federal law.

These language assistance services can include such measures as oral language assistance performed by a qualified interpreter; in-language communication with a bilingual employee; or written translation of documents performed by a qualified translator

DOJ and HHS provided the following as examples of such “meaningful access” obligations:

  • In emails to patients or social media postings about the opportunity to schedule telehealth appointments, a federally assisted health care provider includes a short non-English statement that explains to LEP persons how to obtain, in a language they understand, the information contained in the email or social media posting.

  • An OBGYN who receives federal financial assistance and legally provides reproductive health services, using telehealth to provide remote appointments to patients, provides a qualified language interpreter for an LEP patient. The provider makes sure that their telehealth platform allows the interpreter to join the session. Due to issues of confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest (such as in matters involving domestic violence) providers should avoid relying on patients to bring their own interpreter.

What if Making These Changes is Expensive?

While not directly addressed in the guidance, the cost for implementing accessibility measures generally falls on the company itself. Federal ADA regulations prohibit charging patients extra for the cost of providing American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or similar accommodations. In fact, a covered entity may be required to provide an ASL interpreter even if the cost of the interpreter is greater than the fee received for the telemedicine service itself. With respect to LEP interpreters, HHS issued separate guidance stating it is not sufficient to use “low-quality video remote interpreting services” or “rely on unqualified staff” as translators.

However, companies are not required to offer an aid or service that results in either an undue burden on the company or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the services offered by the company. This is an important counterbalance in the law. Yet, the threshold for what constitutes an “undue burden” on a company or a “fundamental alteration” to the nature of the services is not bright line and requires a fact-specific assessment under the legal requirements.

Conclusion

Telemedicine companies subject to the guidance should heed the government’s warning and look inward on patient-facing elements. The first step is to simply have the website and app platform reviewed (most particularly the patient online user interface) by a qualified third party to determine if its design and features are sufficiently accessible for people with disabilities, as well as LEP persons. That time is also a prudent opportunity to review the user interface to confirm it complies with state telemedicine practice standards, e-commerce rules, electronic signatures or click-sign laws, and privacy/security requirements. Because these laws have undergone rapid and extensive changes during the Public Health Emergency, it is recommended to conduct these assessments on a periodic/annual basis.

If a company believes the expense of making these product design changes to ensure accessibility would be prohibitively expensive, it should check with experienced advisors to determine if the changes would constitute an “undue burden” or “fundamental alteration.” Otherwise, federal guidance is clear that refusing to make reasonable changes can be a violation of federal civil rights laws.

Article By Kate L. Pamperin, Larry S. Perlman, and Nathaniel M. Lacktman of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more health and telemedicine legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Update Alert on Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc.

On August 16, 2022, we prepared an alert discussing Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc. and the claims made by suspended PGA Tour players (“Player Plaintiffs”) against PGA Tour, Inc. (“Tour.”) Quite a bit has transpired in the past three weeks both in and out of the courtroom. This alert highlights new developments that stem from an amended complaint that was filed in the US District Court, Northern District of California on August 26, 2022 (the “Amended Complaint.”)

The Amended Complaint can be found here and the original alert can be found here.

The Amended Complaint removes several Player-Plaintiffs listed as plaintiffs in the original complaint. Originally, the Player Plaintiffs were comprised of the following eleven golfers: Abraham Ancer, Bryson DeChambeau, Taylor Gooch, Matt Jones, Jason Kokrak, Phil Mickelson, Carlos Ortiz, Pat Perez, Ian Poulter, Hudson Swafford, and Peter Uihlein. Per the Amended Complaint, four of the original Plaintiff Players have been removed as plaintiffs, namely: Abraham Ancer, Jason Kokrak, Carlos Ortiz, and Pat Perez.[1] As a result, only seven of the eleven original Player Plaintiffs remain as Player Plaintiffs.

Perhaps the most significant development in the case is that LIV Golf has been added as a Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint generally reiterates allegations made by the Player Plaintiffs (together with LIV Golf, collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the original complaint and incorporates LIV Golf’s alleged harm, mainly, that the Tour’s efforts made to prevent LIV Golf’s entry into the elite professional golf market forced LIV Golf to delay and restructure its 2022 launch plans and required LIV Golf “to pay excessively higher guaranteed payments to recruit a number of marquee players than would be required in a competitive market.”

Three more claims were added to the Amended Complaint, for a total of eight claims brought by the Plaintiffs. The first new claim alleges that Tour has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the market for promotion of elite professional golf events (which is in addition to the Section 2 claim in the original complaint that alleges that the Tour maintains a monopoly on elite event services.) In addition to the now three antitrust claims brought in the Amended Complaint, LIV Golf also brought separate tortious interference claims of contractual relationships and prospective business relationships. The antitrust claims and the tortious interference claims are based on the premise that the Tour’s exclusionary actions: (i) prevent competition for the promotion of golf entertainment among stakeholders, such as broadcasters, players (via the Media Rights Regulation), vendors, sponsors, advertisers, partners, and agencies, and (ii) interfere with LIV Golf’s ability to negotiate and enter into contracts with those stakeholders.

Key Observations

Although more than one-third of the original Player Plaintiffs have withdrawn from Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc., the addition of LIV Golf as a plaintiff elevates the lawsuit because it brings the very public rivalry between the Tour and LIV Golf to the courtroom. The circumstances surrounding the case are also rapidly evolving. Since the order denying Player Plaintiffs Talor Gooch, Hudson Swafford, and Matt Jones’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued on August 9, 2022, six Tour members (most notably world number 2 Cameron Smith) have joined LIV Golf, which amounts to nearly half of the major winners since 2016 and 26 of the world’s top 100 golfers that have now signed with LIV Golf. In addition, the Tour announced various rule changes for the 2023 PGA Tour season, including increased purse winnings, bonus pools, and elevated events. It remains to be seen whether these circumstances will materially alter the arguments made throughout the TRO proceedings.

The tentative date to hear dispositive motions (such as summary judgment) has been scheduled for July 23, 2023, and the jury trial date is expected to begin on January 8, 2024.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Pat Perez was the only player who directly provided the reason for his withdrawal: “I didn’t really think it through… I did it to back our guys,” he reportedly said. He also said that he does not have “ill will” towards the Tour and emphasized his content of playing for LIV Golf.

Article By Richard L. Brand, Thomas R. Castiello, Brian D. Schneider, and Anjelica L. Fuccillo of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 ArentFox Schiff LLP

Legal News Reach Episode 4: The Perfect Storm: Law Firm Marketing & Business Development Budgeting with Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp

Welcome to Season 2, Episode 4 of Legal News Reach! National Law Review Managing Director Jennifer Schaller is joined by Beth Cuzzone, Global Practice Leader of Intapp. Together, they discuss the best budgeting strategies for legal marketing departments as firms emerge from the pandemic with a new set of priorities and perspectives.

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

Jennifer Schaller

This is Jennifer Schaller, and I’m the Managing Director of the National Law Review. We’ll be speaking with Beth Cuzzone, who’s the Global Practice Leader of Intapp. Beth, can you tell us a little bit about your background and what you do at Intapp?

Beth Cuzzone

Thank you for asking, Jennifer. I think it’s an important table-setting question. So I recently joined Intapp in 2022. It’s a global technology firm, and it partners with investors and advisors to help them run their businesses. And it basically follows those companies through the lifecycle of their companies, whether it’s intake or relationship management, or deal management, or billing or marketing or risk, and so many other operational functions. But my role Intapp sits in the marketing and business development corner of those companies. So as a Global Practice Leader, I’m responsible for working with a team of subject matter experts who help clients align their strategic priorities with our solutions. It’s been an interesting and challenging shift, because I spent more than 30 years of my career in the very types of companies that Intapp now helps. So it’s been an interesting and exciting and challenging change all at once. And I think it also gives me a unique lens into what we’re going to be diving into today.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, wow, it sounds like a spot-on match here we have today. So let’s dig into it. We’re talking about law firm budgets. So for this upcoming budget cycle, for firms who are either almost done with it, or in the process, or close to wrapping it up. What’s different this year than in previous years in law firm marketing and business development departments?

Beth Cuzzone

In one word, everything. If we take a step back and look at the easy formula that law firms have used traditionally when creating their budgets, there hasn’t been a lot of secret sauce. In its simplest form, and I am oversimplifying it for illustrative purposes, but in its simplest form, law firms for years and years and years, and year over year, would take into consideration their former budget number and give it an increase that aligned with the firm’s increase in their revenue for that year. And then the real work would begin on saying, Okay, we’re going to give ourselves a 2 or 3% increase, because we increased our revenue by 8%. So we’re going to take some slice of that, and we’re going to increase what we did last year, and then they would reallocate that number. And so if it was my budget was $1,000 last year, and you know, now I’m going to increase it by 3%, it’s going to be $1,300. And now let me just play around with the line items and see where we want to spend a little more, where we want to spend a little less. Given the years that we’ve had coming up to the 2023 budget season, we had 2020, when the pandemic hit, we had 2021, where we were still experiencing the effects of that. And then in 2022 as people tried to move back into some normalcy of spend market, you know, marketing, outreach, awareness, credibility, relationships, going back into the office, that sort of thing, the budgets are a little bit all over the place. So to answer your question, why is this coming year’s budget different? It’s because you don’t have last year’s budget that you get to just reset.

The interesting thing is that I think it actually is going to provide opportunities to relook at the way you think of your budget and think a little bit about very specific line items. You know, I do think one of the places that people are going to spend a lot of time thinking about is digital marketing. And, you know, a question I had for you is, have you seen an uptick in the digital marketing spend from law firms, where we were pre-pandemic, to pandemic to where people are moving towards?

Jennifer Schaller

That’s kind of a multi-layered question. I mean, over the last five years, there’s obviously been a switch to more digital. There’s a couple of different things going on in the larger digital advertising industry. Advertising rates right now as a whole are pretty suppressed digitally. So that’s impacting us a little bit, just because the baseline is down. But if you’re in a specific niche, like the National Law Review, where you know, we very much have the traffic and the audience, there’s always going to be a demand for it. What’s going to be super interesting to see is when cookies go away. People keep talking about that, because that’s going to make the content on the website far more relevant, as opposed to having retargeting ads and things like that. But the date keeps changing on that. So, you know, we’ll let you know when we know. And related to publishing end of it, there’s been a bit of a sea change on that. There always was sort of a pushback or a stigma somewhat attached to pay-for-play publishing. But a little bit of a difference with that is, over time, most marketing professionals, especially in legal, understand that there’s costs involved in running a quality publication, if you want to have analytics, if you want to have a responsive staff who’s around to make edits, that you have to pay for that, and that, you know, if you don’t have money coming in from subscriptions, if you’re a no login website, that there’s going to be cost. So there’s been a bit of a change there. There’s more receptiveness to it. And I think maybe because law firms themselves understand what it takes to publish, they’re a little more forgiving, and understanding that we have costs too, if that makes any sense.

Beth Cuzzone

It makes complete sense. It makes complete sense. And again, there’s no direct answer to some of these complicated questions that we’re asking each other today about where people are spending and where it’s going versus where it’s been when we’ve had this pause on so many levels. And like you said, I also just think that the lens of the marketing and business development departments and law firms are really starting to appreciate that looking at digital assets as a way to create awareness and credibility is going to be a leader in their budget.

Jennifer Schaller

Well, yes, especially since events have changed and gone away. And a lot of sponsorships have changed. And given that pandemic ripple effect of live events versus sponsoring tables at events, which used to be a part of legal marketing department spends, what’s becoming more the standard for law firm, legal marketing department and business development spend, is it changed? Is it reallocating? How is that working?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s a great question. So typically–I heard somebody say once, law firms are like snowflakes, everyone is different. And I know that when I look at industry statistics that talks about the swing of spend, that has to do with you know, the percentage of revenue of law firms, that it goes anywhere from 2 or 3% to 18, 19, 20%. And the reason that they have that swing is because in some marketing and business development department budgets, they include personnel when others don’t, okay, or in some marketing and business development, department budgets, it’s all marketing, whether it’s for the HR department, or legal recruiting, or the firm, and others. Those are each very separate departments and separate budgets. So there is this huge spread across the industry. But I think for most firms, we’re going to find that there’s that 3.5 or 4% to 8% budget target of revenue. And that’s kind of where people settle in. There are outliers on both sides. And interestingly, there’s often some surprises. I find that sometimes some of the smaller, mid-sized firms have larger percentage budgets. But I think that’s because they can’t enjoy the scales of economy that larger firms can. If you’re looking at your budget, and we can talk about this in a little bit, you know, in 2020 when the pandemic started, all discretionary budget items were removed from law firms, whether it was in marketing and business development or not. So it was like, “Unless we’re contractually obligated to pay something, we’re taking it off the table.” And so now firms are getting that opportunity to rebuild it. And again, that approach and that budgeting exercise is a real opportunity for these firms to say, “What haven’t we been asking ourselves?” Or, “What haven’t we done that we’ve wanted to? What’s not in our budget? What should be or what are the opportunities out there in terms of places or people or technology or intersections that we’ve never tried before?” So I think there’s some of those questions that are happening, too.

Jennifer Schaller

Yeah, I think if anything, this is just helpful to know, to have legal marketers or even law firm administrators, or management know how to ask questions about legal marketing budgets, that there is such a wide range, but the wide range prompts people to ask the question, “What’s in that figure and what’s not?”  I’ve never really had it broken down that well before. So thank you for taking the time to spell that out. Because it’s not spelled out a lot of different places. Many people will appreciate that.

When you’re talking about law firm marketing budgets, what’s the difference between acquisition marketing and retention marketing and preparing budgets? Should law firms dedicate more resources to one or the other? Or is it some sort of blend?

Beth Cuzzone

That is a very forward-thinking question that you’re laying out there. Because I think that law firms basically had two types of buckets, if you will: they thought of it as awareness and credibility building, or relationship building, it was one of the two. And so they had some things around awareness and credibility, we talked a little bit about it earlier, you know, it’s that one to many, the website, you know, the content, the newsletters, the big events, that sort of thing. And then the relationships are kind of those one-on-ones. It’s the spending time going out and sitting down with a prospective client to learn something, or having an entertainment budget or doing some small roundtables with thought leadership, or sitting down with different decision makers at a particular client site so that you’re staying close to them. And it was a little bit all over the place. And the shift that I’m starting to see happen is that law firms are starting to break down their budgets into exactly what you said: acquisition marketing, which is, “How are we getting new clients?” versus retention marketing, which is, “how are we keeping and growing the clients that we have, or the brands that we have, or the relationships that we have?” And by doing that, they’re also starting to do account-based marketing. And they’re able to put their budgets together and say, “We’re going to spend 70, or 60, or 80% of our budget on our existing relationships, because we know that it costs six to eight time more money, resources, people budgets to get a new client than it does to keep and grow an existing one. So when you look at the scale of acquisition versus retention, retention is going to get that bigger budget. And then the acquisition is going to have a smaller wallet share of the overall budget. But within that big budget, you’re going to start that retention budget, you’re going to start to see that being broken down a little bit by account-based marketing as therefore account based budgeting. Again, this is a little bit around the corner. And this is I think what firms are going to be dealing with over the next five years of exactly being able to measure their return on objectives or their return on investments and where their money is really being spent. Because they’re going to be tying it down to very specific objectives and very specific strategies, if you will.

Jennifer Schaller

Okay, so what would be some of the areas that there would be an overlap, like between acquisition and retention marketing, would that fall in the digital area? Or where would that be?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s a perfect example, please look at what we’re talking about like a Venn diagram, right, you’ve got your acquisition, you’ve got your retention and then there’s the place where they overlay. Digital assets are a perfect example that fall into both. It’s helping you in the marketplace. And it’s helping you find your next big relationships and clients and referral sources. And those are the same assets that you can use to add value and stay close to some of your existing relationships, places where they start to separate a little bit, again, is really by account or by client, client-based marketing versus account-based marketing. And so you might have a firm where you say, we’re going to spend a lot of our travel and entertainment budget on going to each one of their offices and doing junior executive training. So that we’re aligning ourselves with the next generation of decision makers, and that’s how we want to spend our money and our time and our budget and our resources and our people on that particular client this year, sort of thing. So it all depends, again, on the strategy. And it also depends a little bit on the firm.

Jennifer Schaller

Yeah, would it vary by practice group, or just like, if you had a firm that was, you know, just intellectual property law based, would there be differences in the ratio or the mix or network?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s a great question. So there are some firms and also practice areas where there’s annuity streams, if you will, right. There’s just an ongoing, “We represent this particular finance institution on all of these sorts of loans. And, you know, we do 5, 10, 15 a year for them.” Think about if you were actually a litigator, and you were representing financial institutions where you didn’t know how many you were going to have in a year or whether you were not going to have any for two years and how they think of you and they call us when it’s about the company or they don’t call us when it’s about the company so you have to again, look at the firm, its strategy, the cadence of those open matters, the cadence of when they’re being asked to help clients and then try to align your budget and the activities in your budget around those very objectives. Does that make sense?

Jennifer Schaller

Yeah, it does. A lot of what you’re breaking down is really helpful because people throw numbers out there, but they don’t go into the details of what moves the numbers up or down, like your example of depending on if the law firm is including the expenses for HR, or including the salaries of the marketing department in there, that should make a big difference. And nobody really spells that out. So that was very helpful.

Beth Cuzzone

What kinds of trends are you seeing…there’s this nuance that’s happening now Jennifer, where there was a period of time “back in the day” where all law firms took out one-page ads in some of the biggest business-to-business publications and journals, or like yours, very, very niche, industry-specific news-related channels. And it was “we want to be top of mind” with whoever the reader is, whether it’s our peers, whether it’s our competition, whether it’s a referral source, whether it’s a potential client, whether it’s somebody on the other side of the table, and over time, that awareness campaign started to move into that content campaign. And I’d really be interested to see how are law firms maintaining that mindshare in the marketplace? What are you seeing?

Jennifer Schaller

Some big change from print, and what’s really changed–COVID was sort of terrible for the world, but in a lot of ways good for law firms and legal publishing. Because there were so many rapid developments of a legal or administrative or regulatory nature going on, there was just a lot of content to be written on and a lot of people looking for that content. So there was inherently a lot of traffic just being driven by COVID and all the related changes to it. Now that that’s leveled out a little bit, what we’re seeing from law firms is when they do their informative writing, meeting, talking about cases that happened and why that’s important to a particular industry, or new regulations that are on the horizon, what’s a little bit different is they’re starting to impose–not impose, but impart–their personality a little bit more. We’re seeing more content come in where it talks about people’s journey in the legal profession, how they balance working from home or transitioning out of working from home in a little bit more with the content. So before there was very little of that. I mean, there was some. It’s pretty prevalent now where we’ll see many law firms just have entire blogs and podcasts and a whole kind of vertical dedicated to life balance, people’s career paths, and things like that, which is a bit different than what we’ve seen before. I think it provides a good opportunity for law firms to tease out their competitive differences just by letting people know who they are, because ultimately, with law firms, they’re buying the person and their knowledge and their background. And this is kind of a more forward way of doing it than what’s been done in the past.

Beth Cuzzone

You know, it’s so interesting to hear you say that. I don’t think I really put such a fine point on it until you just mentioned it. All law firms do the same thing. For the most part, a general practice firm does the same thing as the next general practice, you know, an IP boutique does the same thing as the next IP. But how you do it, who you do it with and the culture is what your differentiator is. And you’re right, as I’m thinking a little bit about the sorts of information that I’m seeing, either the types of information or the personality in which people are writing, it really is giving firms a way to showcase their culture and who they are and their differentiator as opposed to all sounding like really smart law firms.

Jennifer Schaller

It’s that and I think it’s a little bit recruiting as well. I mean, the whole world has experienced quite a bit of turnover. Law firms have always had more turnover than other industries. So we’d have some stuff coming in where folks are interviewing their summer associates. And they’re doing that on a couple different levels. I think it plays to people who may be interested to know how a person got a summer associate position at an Am law firm, but also, you know, it’s a big hug to that person, and it shows in a recruiting sense that that law firm really cares about folks at all levels of the organization. We wouldn’t have seen that 10 years ago, so that’s just really different.

Okay, so let’s get into the fun part: budgeting tips! You’ve been doing budgets for years, you work with an organization that helps law firms kind of balance competing things for their attention and help tease out what’s probably the best bet for the firm. Do you have a few tips to share with our readers, or our readers and our listeners today, concerning law firm budgets, what to include what to not get pushed back on?

Beth Cuzzone

Yes, I think that there are a few best practices out there that law firm marketing and business development departments want to be thinking about as they’re either negotiating their budgets with firm management, or if they’re actually putting it together. We talked a little bit about the fact that historically firms have used the previous year and that budget number is a benchmark. Ironically, in 2022 law firm marketing and business development budgets increased by more than 100%. And again, it’s because in 2020, and 2021, they were decimated, it was the place where there was the most discretion in the budget, there were things like they weren’t going to be doing sponsorships, they weren’t going to be holding webinars, they weren’t going to be traveling to see clients or things–like take it all out. So then when we started to move towards this normalcy of, “let’s get back to business in 2022”, with a kinder, gentler, more softer approach, they had to increase their budgets by more than 100%. So the first thing I would say is, do not prepare your 2023 budget based on your 2022 budget, because you’re going to show that there’s already been 100% increase, and there will probably be very little wiggle room. I would also scrap 2020 and 2021. So I think one of my tips or best practices is, use 2019 as your benchmark, not 2021 or 22. For the reasons we’ve just talked about.

The other thing, you just mentioned this in the way you asked the question, is that there is a very complex ecosystem in law firms, and the marketing and business development budget is one of many competing priorities. And I think understanding that budgeting is a long-term game, not one you win every year. And so what I’m trying to say is, take a panoramic view of where the firm is, what they’re trying to accomplish, what some of their major goals are for the next year or two, look left and look right at what other operating department budgets are going to be impacted by that, and prepare your budget within the context of what’s happening. So don’t ask for the greatest budget increase among every operations department, every year. There becomes a fatigue, where it’s like, “Nope, just give them the 2%, we’re not going to listen to why they deserve more every year, year over year than every other department.” So I think walking in and being able to communicate, “We understand that lateral growth is one of our top strategic priorities, and that you’re going to be spending a lot of our budget on legal recruiting. So this year, I’ve put in some particular items and activities that will support legal recruiting, and I’ve moved my budget request from a 6% increase to a 2% increase.” And again, you can negotiate two or three years in advance, then say, “I just ask that when we’re looking at my budget in two years, or in three years that we appreciate that I’m asking for a smaller increase this year, given where we are, what we’re doing.” You know, it also goes a long way when there’s been a down year.

So, so far we’ve said, use 2019 as your benchmark, don’t ask for the greatest budget increase among every operations department every year, try to negotiate for two or three years in advance at your firm, but also negotiate two or three years in advance with your partners or vendors, depending on what you call them. You know, to be able to say, “Listen, we want to do this. And we can’t be all-in this year because our budget isn’t going to allow us, but can we negotiate an 18-month relationship with you and spread it over a 24-month period?” Negotiate a little bit! These are companies that want to partner with you. I also think it never hurts to ask and get comfortable with, again, just partnering with your vendors. That’s why I always call them partners and not vendors. Be comfortable with partnering with them and saying, “Look here are two or three things I’m trying to accomplish. And I only see one of those things in the proposal that you sent to me. Are there some things that you can put in here that are revenue neutral? Or are there ways that you can reallocate our spend and help me hit these other budget objectives?” They’ll work with you. So negotiate with management and then partner with your vendors.

I’ve been talking with a lot of firms. And another thing that I’m seeing firms really start to do is ask themselves, “Where is the lowest risk and the highest return?” and vice versa, and making sure that your budget is representing that like, “Boy, this is the lowest risk and a really good return. So we’re going to do more of this. And this is a really high risk, very questionable return. We’re going to do less of this.” And by the way, having those conversations with your management committee or your manageing partners or your executive committee about the ways that you’re looking at risk versus return, or contextually where you are in the firm’s operational churn, if you will, those sorts of things will help you in the long run.

Jennifer Schaller

It’s really great that you point out the need to let your vendors know what your goals are. It’s very challenging sometimes when people are like, “What’s the price? You know, what, what, what is your best price?” What is important to you? It’s not really a negotiating technique, we want to know where to focus to best meet your needs. And if we have no concept of what your goals are, or what you’re trying to highlight, it makes it infinitely more challenging.

This year, or any historically, are there budget items that you would suggest CMOs pay more attention to this year than in previous years or anything that’s unique about this year that they might want to highlight other than the points that you made about using 2019 as a base point versus the previous two years? Which were just weird. Is there anything else different?

Beth Cuzzone

You know, I think this is the time everybody is peeking over the horizon wondering, “Is there a downturn? Is there a recession? Is there a down year coming? What do we do?” You know, you’ve got, you’re asking yourself all of those questions. I think this is also a year, when you’re looking at your budget, to look at things that are driving efficiencies, scalability, revenue generation, right? There’s a difference between cost and investment. Make sure that your budget has a nice healthy mix of, “These are things where we want to spend money to get more money. And then these are places where we want to spend money so that we can meet an objective,” and I call them return on objectives, and return on investments. “We want to be known in this new market. We want to open up an office in Texas. And so we’re going to be spending a lot of time and money and energy and budget on really getting the word out creating some top of mind awareness in Texas.” That’s an objective, right? If it is that we really want to get a little closer to the bottom quartile of our clients in terms of revenue and say, “How can we help them with more problems than we do now? How do we take them and really try to grow the wallet share that they spend on outside counsel?” That’s a return on investment. So you know, have that healthy mix on return on investment, and return on objective.

Jennifer Schaller

Fair enough. So briefly, your firm Intapp? How do they help law firms with their budgeting process? Are there specific things that they’re set up to do to help?

Beth Cuzzone

Thank you for asking me that and for being so gracious. Because yes, I think the answer is yes. So Intapp can help law firms create insights to find revenue, find where there’s work that’s more profitable, find where, you know, there’s whitespace, and opportunities, or be able to basically measure things, and have this one source of truth in your law firm, where you’ve got all of these technologies that help all of these different operating departments that all connect, that’s why it’s called Intapp, there’s an integration to this, and they all integrate and talk to each other. And those kinds of insights can inform law firms about the kind of money that they’re spending and the kind of return that they’re getting. And it can be as simple as looking at your marketing campaign open rate for your last email, all the way to looking at some very strategic insights of “here are some spaces or places in our firm where we could be working closer with clients, or an industry where we haven’t saturated as much as we could.” So it can go from tactical to strategic, and that’s what Intapp does. That’s why it’s such an amazing company.

Jennifer Schaller

So is Intapp more process or technology based or kind of marrying the both of them when they work with law firms?

Beth Cuzzone

That’s another great question. So it’s a technology company. And I think the thing I’ve been most surprised with is the brainpower that sits in Intapp and all of the people that are there to help clients successfully deploy, or change management professionals that help you get more engagement at your firm, or help you with use cases of smarter ways to use the technology.

So Intapp sells technology that has professionals that help you with the people in the process as well. It’s a little competitive secret.

Jennifer Schaller

Sounds like a good match. As always, we appreciate Beth’s time sharing her thoughts with us and her experience and kind of the trends that she’s seeing and marrying it with the experience that she’s had over the years. Thank you very much.

Beth Cuzzone

It was so great to see you, Jennifer. So great to see you. Thank you for inviting me and be well. True North.

Conclusion

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 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

Top Legal Industry News Highlights for August 2022: Law Firm Expansion, Legal Awards and Recognition, and the Latest in Women in Law

Thank you for reading the latest edition of the National Law Review’s bi-weekly legal news roundup! In these last weeks of summer, we hope you are remaining safe and healthy. Read more below for updates on law firm hiring and expansion, industry awards and recognition, and spotlights on women in the field of law.

Law Firm Hiring and Expansion

Moore & Van Allen PLLC has added Julianne Farnsworth as counsel and as a member of the firm’s Litigation practice group. Presently based in the Charleston office, Ms. Farnsworth dedicates her practice to complex civil litigation, representing clients in areas such as business torts, environmental law, employment law, and other areas. She has practiced before state and federal courts across the U.S. and is additionally certified as a mediator in the state circuit and federal courts of South Carolina.

“We are pleased to welcome Julianne who has been a top litigator in the Charleston area for over 30 years,” said Trudy H. Robertson, co-managing member of the firm’s Charleston office. “Julianne’s experience and reputation will be valuable assets for servicing our litigation clients across the full spectrum of business areas and industries.”

Trey Baker, a former senior advisor for public engagement at the White House, has joined Barnes & Thornburg LLP as a partner in the Government Services and Finance Department. In his former role, Mr. Baker specialized in outreach to civil rights organizations and minority communities, focusing on criminal justice and law enforcement reform. He has also served for four years as the city manager for Grenada, Mississippi.

“Trey’s deep well of government experience and strong foundation in the D.C. market will prove invaluable to our clients – both locally and nationally,” said Roscoe Howard, managing partner of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. “His passion for community engagement, evidenced by the breadth of his work at the local and federal level, brings a unique skill set to our talented group of legal professionals. We’re happy to have him.”

Honigman Law, LLP has advanced its recent growth efforts, announcing the launch of Honigman Law Israel, an Israeli subsidiary focusing its efforts on U.S. mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, venture capital, real estate, and more. For prospective candidates, the subsidiary offers the opportunity to continue practicing complex U.S. legal matters while located in Israel. The HLI team has already added its first five attorneys: Sam Katz, who practices in corporate and capital markets; Inbar Rauchwerger, who practices in mergers and acquisitions; Aviv Avnon, who practices in finance; David Snyder, who practices in tax law; and Rachel Rhodes, who practices in corporate and capital markets.

“We’re honored to bring on these five top-notch attorneys from some of the most prominent law firms in the U.S. and expect to bring in many more highly qualified individuals through this initiative,” said Honigman CEO and Chair David Foltyn. “We have continued to see incredible demand for our transactional counsel, which in turn requires that we continue to grow with the most talented lawyers. With HLI, we have created a win-win opportunity for A+ attorneys who want to reside in Israel for personal reasons but did not have a path to doing so, and for Honigman, which can deepen and expand the great talent we can devote to our clients.”

Much Shelist, P.C. has added three new attorneys: Jonathan Friedland, Jeremy Waitzman, and Hajar Jouglaf. Mr. Friedland joins the firm’s Restructuring & Creditors’ Rights group, and Mr. Waitzman and Mr. Jouglaf join the firm’s Corporate & Finance group. The trio has formerly worked together to represent businesses across the U.S., focusing their efforts on mergers and acquisitions, insolvency, and bankruptcy matters. Together, they counsel clients across many industries, including manufacturing, information technology, retail, and hospitality.

“Jonathan, Jeremy, and Hajar impressed us from the very beginning of our conversations,” said the firm’s Managing Partner Mitchell Roth. “They bring legal prowess and business savvy that will be immensely valuable to our clients, and they share our commitment to top-tier service.”

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC has added Jeffery D. Mulrooney as Of Counsel to the firm’s Business Department. Mr. Mulrooney has a great deal of experience managing intellectual property matters, with particular emphasis on patent, trademark, and copyright applications across all industries, including medical devices, material sciences, consumer products, and more. At the firm, he will focus his practice specifically on intellectual property and transactional matters.

“Jeffrey’s focus on copyright, trademark, and patent law is a great addition to our Pittsburgh office,” said Steptoe & Johnson CEO, Christopher L. Slaughter. “We are always looking for the best attorneys to meet our client’s needs and with the explosive growth in technology industries across our footprint, Jeffrey’s background will be a great asset to our clients and our firm.”

Industry Awards and Recognition

Two Romer Debbas partners, Michael R. Feldman and Alison L. Weisman, have been honored by Best Lawyers. The award is based on peer reviews and feedback and acknowledges attorneys at the beginning of their law careers for “upstanding professional standards and excellence in private practice.” Mr. Feldman and Ms. Weisman were specifically recognized as rising industry stars in the field of real estate law.

Michael Feldman is a partner and manager of the residential real estate department at Romer Debbas’ New York office. His practice focuses on residential and commercial real estate transactions. Alison Weisman is a partner in Romer Debbas’ commercial real estate department. She concentrates her practice on representing buyers, sellers, tenants, landlords, and developers in various real estate and lending transactions. She is also a trained mediator.

Greenberg Traurig was nominated by JUVE Verlag, a business law publisher based in Germany, as the Law Firm of the Year in the Labor and Employment category. The firm was nominated for its “positive, dynamic development over the past year.” The award ceremony will take place on Oct. 27 in Frankfurt where the winners will be announced.

197 attorneys at Ballard Spahr received 330 recognitions in this year’s The Best Lawyers in America guide. Of additional note, 58 Ballard Spahr attorneys have been featured in the Ones to Watch category, which is intended for lawyers at the beginning of their careers. Ballard Spahr attorneys also received 7 recognitions for Lawyers of The Year:

Best Lawyers uses annual surveys to assess lawyers in the field, asking attorneys to evaluate their peers based on professionalism, integrity, and legal skill. Lawyers of the Year receive the highest overall peer feedback for a given practice area and region.

Women in Law

Clifford Law Office partner Sarah F. King is scheduled to present “The Power of Visual Persuasion” at the Society of Women Trial Lawyers’ 2022 Fall Conference in Nashville, TN. A medical malpractice attorney based in Chicago, Ms. King will be sharing her insights on technological innovations and visual storytelling in virtual and physical courtrooms. She has previously presented at events such as the Michigan Association of Justice Medical Malpractice Seminar and the American Association for Justice Annual Convention, and is an active member of the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois and Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

The Society of Women Trial Lawyers conference provides an opportunity for women practitioners across the U.S. to enhance their trial skillset while building valuable professional and personal connections. This year’s event will be at the Thompson Nashville Hotel on Thursday, October 6, 2022.

The Texas Diversity Council will recognize Foley & Lardner partner Michelle Ku as a 2022 Top Women Lawyers Award winner at a virtual ceremony on September 27, 2022. Ms. Ku is a business litigator known for taking on high stakes trials at the local, state, and federal levels, covering issues related to antitrust, government investigations, class actions, tax, and intellectual property. She and her fellow awardees were selected for their professional success, legal industry impact, integrity, and commitment to supporting other women in the field.

Alyson Brown of Hunton Andrews Kurth has been selected for the National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 for the second year in a row. Inclusion on the list provides access to a national network of leading figures in the Black legal community and requires a reputation for professional excellence and leadership as determined through peer nominations and a third-party research process.

Ms. Brown is a Richmond, VA based employment attorney. At Hunton Andrews Kurth, she handles issues related to unfair workplace practices, labor law compliance, and employment litigation. In addition to her experience arguing before the National Labor Relations Board, Brown is a Program Committee Member of the Richmond Bar Association and Board Member of the Downtown Richmond YMCA. She has recently been listed on the 2022 Virginia Access to Justice Pro Bono Honor Roll.

Article By Chandler Ford, Shelby Garrett, and Crissonna Tennison 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

Whistleblowers Put Magnifying Glass on Optical Lens Manufacturer’s Kickback Scheme

September 1, 2022.  The United States Department of Justice settled two civil fraud cases against an optical lens manufacturer, marketer, and distributor Essilor regarding allegations that the company violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.  Under the terms of the settlement, the optical lens companies, Essilor International, Essilor of America, Inc., Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., and Essilor Instruments USA, paid $16.4 million.  The three whistleblowers were former district sales managers.  The whistleblowers—or relators—filed two qui tam lawsuits under the False Claims Act, and as relators, they entitled to 15-25% of the government’s recovery.

According to the allegations, the optical lens companies created incentive programs which they marketed to eye care providers.  The programs offered incentives for optometrists and ophthalmologists to steer patients to choose Essilor brand products because the providers received (unlawful) remuneration for doing so.  When a healthcare provider’s choice of medication or device is driven by a financial reward from that device’s manufacturer, that is misconduct that violates the Anti-Kickback Statute.  Since providers submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid for Essilor optical products allegedly chosen as part of these incentive programs, those claims violated the False Claims Act.

The optical lens company has to hire an Independent Review Organization (IRO) as part of the five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) it entered into with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Independent Review Organization will review any discount programs Essilor plans to roll out in the future.  The Acting Chief Counsel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General emphasized the impact of this case, “Kickback schemes can impact medical judgment, eroding the trust of both patients and taxpayers.”  Patients—and taxpayers—should not wonder whether their healthcare provider is recommending a particular healing modality because they are incentivized to make that recommendation.  Whistleblowers, such as the sales representatives in these two cases, can spot unlawful kickback schemes and be rewarded—properly—for reporting them.

Article By the Whistleblower Practice Group at Tycko & Zavareei LLP

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

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP