The Copyright Alert System – Copyright Infringement and The Educational Approach

There have been many attempts over the last few years to address online copyright infringement. The most recent effort is the Copyright Alert System (“CAS”), which was rolled out in February 2013 as a system created to educate and alert the public about the dangers and harm caused by copyright infringement. The CAS is the first to outline pro-active, temperate measures to try to remedy one cause of the problem: the perceived anonymity of infringers operating through peer-to-peer websites. The CAS gives infringers the opportunity to be notified of and to discontinue their wrongful actions before costly litigation ensues.

The CAS is not a “law” but a voluntary effort by a private consortium (the Center for Copyright Information) comprised of a variety of large copyright owners (e.g., the Motion Picture Association of America [MPAA], the Recording Industry Association of America [RIAA] and Disney, among others) and internet service providers (e.g., cable companies such as Verizon, Cablevision, and Comcast or “ISPs”). Under the CAS, when content owners discover infringing content posted on websites alleged to knowing permit copyrighted content to be infringed (such as BitTorrent), they will send the suspected infringers a series of escalating “alerts” notifying them that they are accused of infringing copyright protected content. The CAS does not involve litigation or demands for damages. The hope is that through this process, users will realize that infringement is not taking place anonymously on peer-to-peer file sharing websites, that content owners are aware of the infringement, and that there can be serious and expensive legal repercussions if the infringement does not cease.

Under the CAS, content owners communicate with alleged infringers anonymously through a series of “alerts” sent to the users by their ISP after that user is identified by a content owner as having participated in copyright infringement. The ISPs will not monitor for copyright infringement. Rather, the content owners will monitor peer-to-peer websites, such as BitTorrent, alleged to knowing allow users to traffic in infringing material, and will send an alert to an ISP that an infringement is taking place, identifying the user by their IP address. The ISP will then send to the registered users of that IP address (without revealing to the content owner any names, addresses or other contact information) a series of alerts stating that that IP address is suspected of copyright infringement and outlining possible sanctions for future infringements.

How will the “alert” system work? The series of six possible escalating “alerts” will be implemented individually by each ISP under its own process. Generally, the system will work as follows:

First and Second Alerts – These “information” alerts notify the user that an infringement has been identified by a content owner associated with that IP address and force the user to acknowledge receipt of the notice. For example, a message may be sent via pop-up to the user’s browser requiring a click through acknowledgement, or a user may have to log into their ISP account to read and acknowledge a message.
Third and Fourth Alerts – These “warning” alerts will use more urgent language. Some ISPs may require the primary account holder (rather than just authorized users of the account) to log in to view a message.
Fifth and Sixth Alerts – Fourteen days after each of these last two urgent alerts have been sent, an ISP may take “mitigation actions.” During the fourteen day window, the accused user may file an appeal of these alerts, as discussed below. “Mitigation actions” could include Verizon, for example, throttling data speeds down to dial-up speeds for a few days, Comcast posting a persistent pop-up in the user’s browser requiring that user to contact Comcast for “further education and information about copyright infringement” before it will clear the alert from the user’s browser, or Cablevision disabling internet access for 24 hours.

How do you “appeal” an alert or argue you didn’t do it? Several of the ISPs, such as Cablevision, Verizon and Comcast, have already published their appeal processes, which are the same. They provide for an anonymous appeal (since, forcing the user to identify themselves would have a chilling effect) to the American Arbitration Association if an appeal is filed within fourteen days of the user receiving either their fifth or sixth “alert.” No appeal can be filed before then. The user must pay a fee of $35 (which will be refunded if the user wins the appeal), which may be reduced or waived if the user can prove financial hardship.

Generally, there are six grounds upon which a user can argue that the fifth and sixth “alerts” (and any mitigation measures) were unjustified.

The reproduction of the copyrighted work and distribution of it through the file sharing website is a “fair use” as interpreted by copyright law and the courts.
The IP address and account were incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred.
The allegedly infringed copyrighted work was published prior to 1923 and is in the public domain.
The alleged infringement was committed through the unauthorized use of the IP address and account and the ISP customer was unaware of it and could not reasonably have prevented it.
The sharing of the copyrighted material was authorized by its copyright owner.
The allegedly infringing file/content is not primarily the allegedly infringed copyrighted work.

What happens after six alerts if there is no appeal and the ISP has taken all “mitigation actions”? Since the CCI’s stated goal is to educate the public, no further alerts will be sent and no further actions will likely be taken via the CAS process. However, just because an ISP may not take any further action under the CAS does not mean that the content owner itself will not take action (e.g., file a copyright infringement lawsuit).

It remains to be seen however how this program will be received and whether content owners will find it to be an effective strategy. We will continue to provide updates on developments under this system as it is implemented.

Written by Joseph M. DiCioccio

Department of State Releases May 2013 Visa Bulletin

EB-2 category for all chargeable areas other than China and India remains current, with some considerable forward movement but continued backlog in the EB-3 category.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its May 2013 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the May 2013 Visa Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries other than China and India remain current. A cutoff date of May 15, 2008, reflecting minor forward movement, has been imposed for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from China. A cutoff date of September 1, 2004, remains in effect for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from India.

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category for all countries, with considerable forward movement for EB-3 individuals chargeable to countries other than India and the Philippines.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: December 1, 2007 (forward movement of 223 days)
India: December 22, 2002 (forward movement of 14 days)
Mexico: December 1, 2007 (forward movement of 153 days)
Philippines: September 15, 2006 (forward movement of 7 days)
Rest of the World: December 1, 2007 (forward movement of 153 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

In November, the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India became current. This meant that EB-2 individuals chargeable to countries other than China and India could file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after November 1, 2012. The May Visa Bulletin indicates that the EB-2 category will continue to remain current for these individuals through May 2013.

China

The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of May 15, 2008, for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to May 15, 2008, may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after May 1, 2013.

India

In April, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India was September 1, 2004. This meant that EB-2 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to September 1, 2004, could file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after February 1, 2013. The May Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

The May Visa Bulletin announced that the cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries have advanced significantly in an attempt to generate demand and utilize fully the annual numerical limits for the category. The May Visa Bulletin indicates that these advancements are likely to continue for the next few months and that such rapid forward movement in cutoff dates is often followed by a dramatic increase in demand for numbers. If there is a dramatic increase in demand within the EB-3 category, the movement of cutoff dates will begin to slow or stop.

The April Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 22, 2007, for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of December 1, 2007, for these individuals, reflecting forward movement of 223 days. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to December 1, 2007, may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after May 1, 2013.

Additionally, the April Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 8, 2002, for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of December 22, 2002, for these individuals, reflecting forward movement of 14 days. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to December 22, 2002, may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after May 1, 2013.

The April Visa Bulletin also indicated a cutoff date of July 1, 2007, for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World. The May Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of December 1, 2007, for these individuals, reflecting forward movement of 153 days. This means that individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India with a priority date prior to December 1, 2007, may file an AOS application or have the application approved on or after May 1, 2013.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the May 2013 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website here.

Written by

Eric S. Bord

Lisa Stephanian Burton

Tracy Evlogidis

Malcolm K. Goeschl

Eleanor Pelta

A. James Vázquez-Azpiri

Inside Counsel 13th Annual Super Conference – May 6-8, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Inside Counsel Super Conference:

Super Conference May 6-8 2013

SuperConference

No longer just providing legal counsel, in-house attorneys have become strategic business partners within their companies.They not only need to be influential in the boardroom, but must demonstrate the ability to make strategic decisions on both commercial and legal analysis.

Elevate your legal knowledge
Create innovation within your legal department
Change and evolve to become a better strategic partner

InsideCounsel’s 13th Annual SuperConference is designed to provide senior-level legal professionals insights, ideas and solutions to help them meet their growing responsibilities and evolving needs.Developed by in-house counsel, for in-house counsel,SuperConference will provide you innovative resolutions essential to addressing your department’s business and legal needs.

The 2013 SuperConference will be held May 6th-8th, in Chicago, IL

U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Application of ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) to State and Local Workers

The National Law Review recently published an article, U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Application of ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) to State and Local Workers, written by Jennifer Cerven of Barnes & Thornburg LLP:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan on the issue of whether state and local government employees can bypass the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and sue for age discrimination under an equal protection theory. The case is Madigan v. Levin, Docket Number 12-872.

Appellate courts are split on whether the ADEA is the exclusive route for state and local government employees to bring a claim for age discrimination, or whether an equal protection claim via Section 1983 is available. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the Plaintiff, a former Assistant Attorney General, could go forward with a Section 1983 age discrimination claim against certain defendants (including Madigan) in their individual capacity. The Seventh Circuit decided that the ADEA does not preclude a Section 1983 claim, but acknowledged that its decision was contrary to rulings in other circuits holding that the ADEA is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims.

The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding that state and local government employees may avoid the ADEA’s remedial regime by bringing age discrimination claims under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. 1`983.

In the petitioner’s brief asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, Madigan noted the circuit split and argued that if the Seventh Circuit’s ruling were to stand, there would be about one million state and local workers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin who would be able to bypass the ADEA’s administrative dispute resolution process at the EEOC and go straight to court. Madigan argued that this would undercut the ADEA and would deprive state and local governments of prompt notice of claims.

The outcome of the case will be important not only for state and municipal employers, but also for individual employees. As a practical matter, the plaintiff could end up with no further opportunity for an age discrimination claim if the Supreme Court decides that the ADEA forecloses age claims under Section 1983. That is because the lower court decided that the employee fell under the ADEA exclusion of policy-making level employees, 29 U.S.C. §630(f). Moreover, sovereign immunity applies to protect states from individual suits for monetary damages under the ADEA, under Supreme Court precedent in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62.

The case is likely to proceed to briefing during the current term and may be scheduled for argument in the fall term.

Health Care Fraud 2013 – May 15-17, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Health Care Fraud Conference:

May 15 – 17, 2013

Where

Eden Roc Renaissance Miami Beach
4525 Collins Ave
Miami Beach, FL 33140-3226
United States of America

The 23rd Annual National Institute on Health Care Fraud provides a rewarding educational experience for health care attorneys, regulators, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and qui tam relators’ counsel. This National Institute draws panelists, facilitators, and participants from each of these significant groups and offers unique opportunities to meet and share experiences and concerns in a non-adversarial setting. The program planning committee is committed to creating a program that advances education, communication, professionalism, and discussion of current legal and ethical issues that arise in the health care fraud practice. These issues are addressed in panel discussions and small workshop formats designed to maximize audience participation.

Warning to in-house Counsel: Be Careful When Responding to Demand Letters

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP‘s Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth recently had an article, Warning to in-house Counsel: Be Careful When Responding to Demand Letters, featured in The National Law Review:

It’s a common occurrence: counsel sends a demand letter to an employer explaining the basis for his/her client’s claim of discrimination or wrongful discharge, and threatening to sue, but offering to discuss settlement in advance of filing a complaint. In-house counsel responds by explaining why the claim has no merit, but expressing a willingness to discuss settlement, with the understanding that in the event of litigation the correspondence would be inadmissible under Evidence Rule 408 as a communication concerning settlement. It says so right in the Rule: “a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim” is inadmissible “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.” But the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has reminded us that is not always the case.

In its recent decision in Bourhill v. Sprint Nextel Corp., the District Court affirmed the decision of the magistrate judge allowing the plaintiff in his cross-motion for summary judgment to rely on a portion of in-house counsel’s response to a demand letter. In that case, the demand letter first described the factual basis for the contention that the employee’s discharge was unlawful under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and then set forth counsel’s position that while he believed the case had merit, his client was willing to avoid litigation if the matter could be resolved by means of an “adequate compensatory settlement.” In-house counsel wrote a two paragraph response under the subject line caption “Confidential/For Settlement Purposes Only.” In the first paragraph in-house counsel denied that the discharge was unlawful and explained in factual detail that it had been made for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. The second paragraph expressed an interest in discussing an amicable resolution and requested a specific demand. In the ensuing litigation, plaintiff’s counsel relied on the letter as an exhibit in his cross-motion for summary judgment, and defense counsel moved to strike.

Before moving on to discuss the decision of the magistrate judge it is important to recognize that in-house counsel responded in the normal, customary fashion when responding to a demand letter of this type. It is the magistrate judge’s decision, and the subsequent decision of the District Court discussed in the next part, that should give every in-house counsel pause when responding to any demand letter.

The magistrate judge granted the defendant’s motion to strike with respect to the second paragraph inasmuch as it clearly invited plaintiff’s counsel to make an offer to settle, but denied it as to the first. In this regard, the magistrate judge determined that the two parts of the letter were not “logically connected” and could therefore be evaluated separately because the first was addressed to the merits of the claim articulated in the demand letter while the second concerned the offer to compromise. The magistrate judge then found that the first paragraph did not implicate Rule 408 because it did not “contain an actual compromise or a suggestion of a genuine willingness to resolve the dispute.”

On appeal, defense counsel argued that the letter should be read in its entirety as a response to the settlement inquiry, that the first paragraph was designed to make clear that the company did not place a high monetary value on the claim, and that public policy requires that the parties be free to express their positions in settlement communications without fear they will be used to prove liability. The District Court did not disagree, but affirmed the decision of the magistrate judge based on the conclusion that he had simply made a finding of fact – that the paragraphs were not “logically connected” – which could not be overturned on appeal.

This is not the first time a court has determined that a portion of a communication otherwise covered by Rule 408 may be admitted into evidence because it did not directly address the subject of settlement. But the decision should serve as a reminder to in-house counsel to be extremely careful when responding to demand letters, to avoid including any facts, statements or admissions that could be difficult to explain in litigation and to make clear in each paragraph that it has been written in response to the demand letter for the limited purpose of exploring the possibility of settlement.

New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) – ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse Goes Live

Anne Alkman-Scalese of Lewis and Roca LLP recently had an article, New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) – ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse Goes Live, featured in The National Law Review:

Trademark Clearinghouse Launch

Complaints regarding inadequate protection for trademark owners will apparently not stop the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN“) from launching its new unlimited gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) program as quickly as possible in 2013. The new web environment will include hundreds of different words appearing to the right of the dot in domain names, in sharp contrast to the existing limited number of authorized strings such as .com, .biz, .net, and .info. Initial evaluations of over 1900 applications for new Top Level Domains have begun to be published by ICANN and will continue through August. Strings containing non-Latin script, known as Internationalized Domain Names (“IDNs”), of which there are over 100 in Chinese, Arabic and other alphabets, will launch first in May or June.

Trademark owners concerned about cybersquatting and counterfeit goods or services that could be sold at websites created at second level (before the dot) urls via domain name registrations obtained in the new gTLDs should consider filing registered trademarks with ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) which goes live this week. For example, a manufacturer of food products may consider recording its registered brand names with the TMCH to help protect against use of the brand name by an infringer who might purchase the name to the left of the dot in the new (dot)food domain. As long as the registration was applied for before the particular TLD application was published and was also registered before that TLD contract is awarded, entry of a trademark registration record into the TMCH will provide two benefits: (1) eligibility for Sunrise registrations before the general launch of any particular new TLD if a specimen of use is filed at the time the registration record is entered into the TMCH and (2) notification to the owner if a third party proceeds to register the owner’s trademark at the second level after being notified by the TMCH of the owner’s claim. Common law marks and state registrations are not eligible for entry into the TMCH, but marks validated through judicial process or by statute will qualify

There are caveats associated with these benefits because eligibility for Sunrise does not guarantee the trademark owner will get the Sunrise registration if other parties also own the same registered mark (perhaps for different goods or services). It’s easy to see how this might become a problem in proposed TLDs such as (dot)store. For example, Apple Records may want to sell downloadable music at apple.store, but Apple Inc. may also want to sell consumer electronics at apple.store. Registries will have a method in place for resolving Sunrise registration disputes and this may not be first come, first served. It could ultimately involve a bidding or auction process. Further, the notification described above will only be in place for the first 90 days after general launch of a new TLD so the holder may need to employ a watch service to track registrations purchased by third parties after that 90 day period.

Unlike the recent launch of the XXX domain, there is no “blocking” mechanism available to trademark holders in connection with the new TLDs. This puts a premium on obtaining a preventive Sunrise registration or being willing to follow up with cybersquatters on an “after-the-fact” basis once they have already obtained a registration.

In a decision issued at the end of last week, ICANN confirmed requested improvements for (a) 30 days prior notice of the launch of Sunrise, (b) extending IP claims notification from 60 days to 90 days out from general launch and (c) allowing previously “abused names” (such as those established as “abused” by way of prior UDRP proceedings) to be entered into the TMCH alongside the registered trademark even if not identical to the registered trademark. Presumably these previously abused names would then give rise to IP Claims notifications, but the implications are unclear since the TMCH has yet to issue its final Submission Guidelines based on these latest changes to the system. Entry of TMCH records will involve legal decisions, including, but not limited to (1) whether to enter a registration into the TMCH or not, (2) whether to seek Sunrise registration or not, (3) how best to provide proof of use if a Sunrise registration is desired in any new TLD, (4) which period of protection to select (1, 3, or 5 years), and (5) which domain names and previously “abused names” will qualify for TMCH protection.

3rd Annual International Trade Compliance Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Marcus Evans conference – 3rd Annual International Trade Compliance Conference:

Navigating the Latest Changes in Trade Regulations and Global Controls for Improved Compliance

24-26 Apr 2013
venue to be confirmed – Chicago, IL, United States of America

Building from the success of our 2012 conference, the marcus evans 3^rd Annual International Trade Compliance Conference will bring together senior executives looking to improve processes with evolving global markets, trade agreements, technology requirements and compliance. Additionally, this conference will provide attendees with the latest updates in international trade regulations, as well as insights and tools for strengthening internal operations in order to remain compliant with critical requirements on a day-to-day basis.

The 3^rd Annual International Trade Compliance Conference features two distinct tracks; allowing attendees to fully customize their agenda.

Track one focuses specifically on advanced import & customs topics, such as identifying the latest changes to the ISA program, discovering advancements in supply chain programs and applying recent FDA regulation updates to your business plan.

Track two is entirely centered on export controls. Featured topics include evaluating the recent updates to the ECR, understanding requirements for OFAC compliance and dissecting US and global technology regulations for secure transfers.

Delegates are able to mix and match sessions from both tracks to create a complete conference experience that covers every area of interest.

Attending this conference will enable you to:

1.) Identify the latest regulatory changes within emerging markets for seamless trade operations

2.) Navigate Free Trade Agreements to increase efficiency and decrease corporate costs

3.) Institute a successful global trade compliance program to improve company procedures

4.) Conquer import and export classification for more effective business practices

5.) Tackle the latest regulations and requirements for technology transfers and determine various tactics for remaining compliant

Industry leaders attending this conference will also benefit from a dynamic presentation format consisting of workshops, panel-discussions, and industry-specific case studies that provide accurate, real-world knowledge. Attendees will experience highly interactive conference sessions, 10-15 minutes of Q&A time after each presentation, 4+ hours of networking, and exclusive online access to materials post-event.

Who Should Attend

marcus evans invites Heads, Vice Presidents, In-House Counsel, and government agencies with responsibilities in the following areas:

-Global/International Trade Compliance
-Import/Export Trade Compliance
-Global Customs Compliance
-Import/Export Operations
-Export Controls

Congress Renews Violence Against Women Act, Expands Tribal Court Jurisdiction

The National Law Review recently featured an article by Brian L. Pierson with Godfrey & Kahn S.C., regarding Recent Congressional Actions:

On February 28, 2013 the House of Representatives approved Senate Bill 47, which reauthorizes and amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA). The Bill, already approved in the Senate, became law when the President signed it on March 7th.

The VAWA is a major legislative achievement for Indian country. The Supreme Court held in 1978 that tribes lack inherent power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. For the first time since that decision, Congress has authorized tribes to exercise such jurisdiction. Title IX of the VAWA amends the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) to permit tribes to exercise “special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” over non-Indians who are charged with domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders that occur on their lands. Features of special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction include:

either the perpetrator or victim must be Indian
the tribe must prove that the defendant has ties to the tribal community
tribal jurisdiction is concurrent with state and federal jurisdiction
the defendant has the right to a trial by an impartial jury that is drawn from sources that –
- reflect a fair cross section of the community; and
- do not systematically exclude any distinctive group in the community, including non-Indians
In the event that a sentence of imprisonment “may” be imposed, the tribe must guarantee the defendant the enhanced procedural rights added to the ICRA by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, including:
- effective assistance of counsel, paid for by the tribe if the defendant is indigent
- a legally trained judge licensed to practice law
- published laws and rules of criminal procedure
- recorded proceedings

Rainmaker Retreat: Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp:

WHY SHOULD YOU ATTEND?

Have you ever gone to a seminar that left you feeling motivated, but you walked out with little more than a good feeling? Or taken a workshop that was great on style, but short on substance?

Ever been to an event that was nothing more than a “pitch fest” that left a bad taste in your mouth? We know exactly how you feel. We have all been to those kinds of events and we hate all those things too. Let me tell you right up front this is not a “pitch fest” where speaker after speaker gets up only trying to sell you something.

We have designed this 2 day intensive workshop to be content rich, loaded with practical content.

We are so confident you will love the Rainmaker Retreat that we offer a 100% unconditional money-back guarantee! At the end of the first day of the Rainmaker Retreat if you don’t believe you have already received your money’s worth, simply tell one of the staff, return your 70-page workbook and the CD set you received and we will issue you a 100% refund.

We understand making the decision to attend an intensive 2-day workshop is a tough decision. Not only do you have to take a day off work (all Rainmaker Retreats are offered only on a Friday-Saturday), but in many cases you have to travel to the event. As a business owner you want to be sure this is a worthwhile investment of your time and money.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Partners at Small Law Firms (less than 25 attorneys) Solo Practitioners and Of Counsel attorneys who are committed to growing their firm. Benefits you will receive:

Solo practitioners who need to find more clients fast on a shoe-string budget. In addition to all the above benefits, solo attorneys will receive these massive benefits:

Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff who are either responsible for marketing the law firm or manage the team who handles the law firm’s marketing. In addition to all the above benefits, Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff will also receive these benefits:

Of Counsel Attorneys who are paid on an “eat what you kill” basis. In addition to all the above benefits, Of Counsel attorneys will also receive these benefits:

Associates who are either looking to grow their book of new clients in the next 6-12 months or want to launch their own private practice. In addition to all the above benefits, Associates will also receive these benefits:

The National Law Forum

The Copyright Alert System – Copyright Infringement and The Educational Approach

Like this:

Department of State Releases May 2013 Visa Bulletin

EB-2 category for all chargeable areas other than China and India remains current, with some considerable forward movement but continued backlog in the EB-3 category.

What Does the May 2013 Visa Bulletin Say?