Tag: Corporate Compliance

Evaluating Critical Regulatory Reforms to Facilitate Compliance and Effectively Manage Regulatory Risk in the Financial Industry May 9-10 NY, NY

The National Law Review would like to remind you of the upcoming conference in NYC May 9-10:  Evaluating Critical Regulatory Reforms to Facilitate Compliance and Effectively Manage Regulatory Risk in the Financial Industry This conference is geared towards C-Level Executives, EVPs, SVPs, VPs, and Directors involved in compliance, risk, audit, AML or regulatory policy. Hear from leading executives within the financial services industry on how to stay up-to-date and ensure compliance with regulatory reforms such as the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III.

Attending this premier conference will give you the chance to address critical issues within the industry including new capital and liquidity requirements, economic consequences of new regulations and the restructuring of regulatory bodies. Conference attendees will gain practical knowledge on how to optimize their compliance and regulatory risk management programs.

Attending this conference will allow you to:

  • Examine critical regulatory reforms affecting the financial services industry, including the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III
  • Address the impact of tighter regulation on the financial sector
  • Evaluate the people, process and technology required to facilitate compliance with regulatory reforms
  • Develop a long term approach to increasing operational efficiency in the compliance arena
  • Discuss best practices for regulatory compliance in the financial industry

The marcus evans Regulatory Risk Compliance conference is a highly intensive, content-driven event that includes presentations and panel discussions over two full days. This conference targets industry leaders in compliance, risk, audit, anti-money laundering, legal, regulatory policy, and general counsel roles in order to provide an intimate atmosphere for both delegates and speakers.

This is not a trade show; our Regulatory Risk Compliance Conference is targeted at a focused group of senior level executives to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.

Current Speakers Include:

  • HSBC North America
  • Wells Fargo Brokerage
  • UBS Wealth Management Americas
  • State Farm Bank
  • JP Morgan Chase
  • Bank of New York Mellon
  • The Northern Trust Company
  • Capital One Financial
  • Societe Generale

 

Registration, Location & Details…..

  • Doubletree Metropolitan Hotel, New York City, NY, USA 9-10 May 2011
  • For More Information and to Register – Please Click Here:

 

Racial Discrimination and the Hostile Work Environment: Employers May Be Responsible for the Actions of Their Customers and Vendors

Recently posted by Robert Neiman of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.:  details of a recent Seventh Circuit Appellate court ruling that a nursing home, by catering to a resident’s preference for white nurses, had created a hostile work environment for its employees based upon race.

All employers know that they must protect their employees from a hostile work environment based upon discrimination and harassment by other employees. A recent federal appeals court decision, however, clarified the steps that employers should take when their customers and vendors discriminate against or harass company employees.

In Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a nursing home, by catering to a resident’s preference for white nurses, had created a hostile work environment for its employees based upon race. This Seventh Circuit decision reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in the nursing home’s favor, ultimately remanding the case for a trial.

Understanding the Issues

In the Chaney case, the resident told the nursing home’s managers that she only wanted white nurses to care for her. Plainfield Healthcare Center acknowledged that it maintained a policy of complying with its residents’ racial preferences. The nursing home also argued that it expected employees to respect these preferences because it otherwise risked violating state and federal laws that grant residents the right to choose providers, as well as the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.

Chaney, an African American nurse’s aide, followed Plainfield’s policy, even though the prejudiced resident continued to appear on her assignment sheet. Chaney reluctantly refrained from assisting the resident, even when she was in the best position to help. However, after Chaney had worked for Plainfield for just three months, the nursing home fired her for alleged misconduct on the job.

Chaney then brought a race discrimination claim against the nursing home, alleging that Plainfield allowed a hostile workplace to exist in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The federal appeals court had “no trouble” ruling that a reasonable person would find the nursing home’s work environment hostile or abusive. The court found that the nursing home fostered a racially charged environment through its assignment sheet, which daily reminded Chaney and her coworkers that certain residents preferred not to receive care from African American nursing assistants. Unlike her white counterparts, Chaney was restricted regarding the rooms she could enter, the care that she could provide and the patients she could assist.

The appellate court ruled that “a company’s desire to cater to the perceived racial preferences of its customers is not a defense under Title VII for treating employees differently based on race.” The court rejected Plainfield’s argument that laws designed to protect residents’ choices and autonomy justified its conduct, holding that residents’ privacy interests did not excuse the nursing home’s disparate treatment of its employees based upon race. Furthermore, the court suggested that Plainfield could have insisted that the racially biased resident employ a white nursing aide at her own expense.

The nursing home also argued that by preventing its African American nurses from treating the prejudiced resident, it was protecting those nurses from harassment, and that it could not simply discharge the resident to avoid exposing its employees to racial hostility. But the court noted that Plainfield had a range of other options, such as warning all residents of the facility’s non-discrimination policy prior to admission, securing written consent to the non-discrimination policy and attempting to reform the behavior of the racially biased resident after admission. The court further noted that the facility could have assigned staff based on race-neutral criteria that minimized the risk of conflict.

Notably, the court also suggested that Plainfield could have advised its employees that the resident was racially prejudiced, and informed them that they could ask the nursing home for protection from this and any other prejudiced residents. That way, the court explained, the nursing home would have allowed all employees to work in a race-neutral, non-harassing environment as the law requires, rather than imposing an unwanted, race-conscious work limitation on its African American employees.

Protective Steps for Employers

The Chaney case offers several lessons that employers should bear in mind. For starters, ensure that your discrimination and harassment policy clearly states that employees have the right to work in an environment free of hostility based on any legally protected class, even if that hostility is generated by customers, vendors or other non-employees. You should also consider informing customers and vendors of your non-discrimination policies where appropriate. If customers or vendors express a preference to deal only with certain employees—to the exclusion of others who belong to a legally protected class—then you should not tacitly cooperate. Instead, theChaney decision suggests that you should remind these third parties of your non-discrimination policy, warn employees that the customer or vendor is prejudiced, protect those employees from any hostility created by the customer or vendor, and help ensure that your employees have an easy way to communicate any hostile work environment to management.

Ultimately, you must measure the benefit of doing business with a prejudiced customer or vendor against the risk that your employees will suffer a hostile work environment, possibly leading to expensive discrimination or harassment claims. The Chaney decision suggests that employers don’t necessarily have to choose one over the other, but that they are required to take steps to protect their employees from racial prejudice.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

 

Life Sciences Strategies for Anti-Corruption & FCPA Compliance 23-24 June Washington, DC

The National Law Review is  a proud media sponsor of the upcoming Life Sciences Strategies for Anti-Corruption & FCPA Compliance – which addresses  the Unique Challenges and Risk Areas Tied to FCPA and Corruption Faced by the Pharmaceuticals, Medical Device and Biotechnology Companies  

Pharmaceutical and medical device companies operating overseas are particularly vulnerable to FCPA violations because of the nature of public health systems in many foreign countries where health care systems are owned and operated by the government. Given the fact that employees are in constant contact with the health care providers at different touch points within the organization, there is a need to ensure all interactions are monitored and effective policies are in place to curb any potential violations.

Gain insights on how to deal with issues stemming from gifts and entertainment of government officials to develop effective training programs and best practices in operating in emerging countries as well as dealing with 3rd parties.

With a one-track focus, the Life Sciences Strategies for Anti-Corruption & FCPA Compliance Conference is a highly intensive, content-driven event that includes case studies, presentations and panel discussions over two full days. This conference targets industry leaders from the pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology and clinical research organizations in order to provide an intimate atmosphere for both the delegates and speakers.

key conference topics include:

  • Analyze the key provisions of the UK Bribery Bill and the impact on life sciences industries by Abbott Laboratories

  • Identify practical strategies to develop effective global anti-corruption compliance program from CareFusion

  • Assess the challenges of conducting and implementing effective global traning programs by Medtronic, Inc.

  • Develop robust internal controls for 3rd party due-diligence by Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc.

  • Address FCPA and corruption risk stemming from sales and marketing activities and interaction from Covidien

    •  

    key conference features include:

  • Expert Case Studies and Presentations by Industry Leading FCPA & Anti-Corruption Professionals

    •  

  • Illuminating Roundtable Discussions Led by St. Jude Medical (June 23rd) and Johnson & Johnson (June 24th)

  • Earn up to 16 hours of CLE Credits

    •  

    for more details and to register:


    Highlights of the UK Bribery Act Guidance: What It May Mean For Your Company

    Recently posted by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP – a great overview of the recently passed UK Bribery Act:  

    On March 30, 2011, the UK Ministry of Justice issued its highly anticipated guidance (Guidance) for the UK Bribery Act (the Act), a criminal anti-corruption statute that will become effective July 1, 2011.1 The Act covers both commercial and official bribery, within and sometimes outside the UK, and a company may be criminally liable for failing to prevent bribes from being offered or paid by its employees, agents or subsidiaries.

    Following a brief overview of the new Guidance, in this Update we review:

    • The jurisdictional reach of the Act
    • The impact of extended liability for business organizations
    • Six fundamental principles that can form a full defense for companies
    • Facilitation payments, which are considered illegal bribes under the Act
    • The treatment of hospitality and promotional expenses

    Overview

    The newly-released Guidance offers some assistance to commercial companies doing business in the UK seeking to implement “adequate procedures” – both to prevent violations and serve as an affirmative defense against liability under the Act. For United States companies doing business in the UK, both the Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) form essential components of a comprehensive global anti-corruption compliance program.

    The Guidance sets out six fundamental principles (see below), but one overarching theme is clear:  Companies would be wise to fully evaluate and understand their entire business operations – how and where they do business — assess the differing risks they face and tailor common sense programs to address those specific risks. In pursuing a risk-based approach, companies may be afforded reasonable flexibility (depending on the size, structure, and complexity and the sophistication of their operations) to implement appropriate, and varying, programs.

    Jurisdictional Reach Over US and Other Companies

    The Act’s jurisdictional reach extends to business organizations that are incorporated or formed in the UK, and also to those that conduct business in the UK (wherever they are incorporated or formed). Whether a business is deemed to “carry on” business, or even part of its business, for the purposes of the Act – and be rendered a “relevant commercial organisation” — will be a fact-sensitive determination, which the Guidance submits will be based on a common-sense approach. Ultimately, the courts will make the final determination based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. The Guidance provides two examples which in and of themselves will not confer jurisdiction on the company: (1) where the company’s securities are listed and may be traded on the London Stock Exchange; and (2) where it merely has a UK subsidiary (which “may act independently of its parent or other group companies”).

    Extended Liability for Business Organizations

    A “relevant commercial organization” risks prosecution if the government determines there is sufficient evidence to establish that an “associated person” bribed someone else with the intent to obtain or retain business or an advantage for that business entity. The associated person — someone who merely needs to “perform[] services” for or on behalf of the company — is not required to be prosecuted as a predicate for the company’s prosecution. Nor is the associated person required to have a close connection with the UK. Moreover, the determination of who performs such services is to be based on a broad interpretation. Employees are presumed to perform services, agents and subsidiaries qualify, and contractors and suppliers may also qualify depending on the circumstances. Titles and position are not determinative; far more important are the underlying conduct and the practical realities.

    In addition to liability for failing to prevent bribery from occurring, the business organization may also be prosecuted if the government can prove that the bribe giving or receiving (or offering, encouraging or assisting) took place by someone “representing the corporate ‘directing mind.'” JPG.

    An Adequate Compliance Program Is A Full Defense: Six Fundamental Principles

    The Act creates a full defense for companies that can demonstrate they have implemented “adequate procedures” to prevent associated persons from engaging in bribery (even if a case of bribery has been proved). The affirmative defense is required to be proved by “the balance of probabilities.” In deciding whether to proceed with its case, the government will also consider the adequacy of compliance procedures, which can turn on the case-by-case facts and circumstances, including the level of control exercised over the conduct of the relevant associated persons and the degree of risk for which mitigation is required.

    Six core principles have been set out in the Guidance and accompanying commentary to help advise companies in devising and implementing adequate procedures to prevent bribery:

    1. Proportionality of response to the bribery risks that the organization faces and to the nature, scale and complexity of the organization’s activities
    2. Commitment of top-level management to prevent bribery by associated persons (e.g., effectively communicating no tolerance policy from top to bottom)
    3. Risk Assessment (to promote periodic, informed and documented assessment proportionate to the company’s size and structure and to the nature, scale and location of its operations)
    4. Due Diligence: Demanding that companies investigate and are aware of who is acting on their behalf in order to mitigate bribery risks
    5. Communication (and training): Ensure that policies and programs are “embedded and understood” throughout the company through internal and external communication.
    6. Monitoring and Review: Undertake systematic review to assess changed circumstances and new risks and implement improved procedures where deemed appropriate

    Facilitation Payments Constitute Illegal Bribes Under the Act

    Unlike the FCPA, the Act prohibits facilitation payments – small grease payments to low-level government officials to perform or expedite routine, non-discretionary services (e.g., processing immigrations or customs forms, turning on the electricity, etc.)… Nonetheless, the Guidance makes clear that the UK government appreciates that given the realities in certain global regions and in certain sectors, overnight elimination is not feasible. Moreover, “eradication” of facilitation payments is recognized as a “long-term objective.” However, the JPG identifies factors tending in favor of and against prosecution:

    Factors in favor of prosecution: (i) large or repeated payments; (ii) planned or accepted payments that may reflect standard operating procedure; (iii) payments reflective of an official’s corruption; and (iv) the failure to follow the organization’s facilitation payment policies and procedures

    Factors against prosecution: (i) a single small payment; (ii) payment identified as part of genuinely proactive approach involving self-reporting and remedial action; (iii) adherence to the organization’s clear and appropriate procedures for facilitation payment requests; and (iv) the particular circumstances placed the payer in a vulnerable position

    Hospitality and Promotional Expenses Are Not Prohibited by the Act

    Like the promotional expense exception under the FCPA, the Act does not criminalize bona fide hospitality and promotional expenses, as long as there is no improper intent. Specifically, the guidance makes clear that providing tickets to sporting events or taking clients to dinner to promote and continue good relations, or paying for reasonable travel expenses in order to demonstrate your company’s goods or services, if reasonable and proportionate, will not run afoul of the Act. However, where hospitality expenses are made to mask an intent to bribe or improperly induce advantageous business conduct, the authorities can be expected to view the expense payment as an illegal bribe under the Act. The extent of the hospitality and promotional expenses offered, the way in which they were provided and the level of influence the client exercised or could exercise in the business decision will all be examined.

    Current Considerations

    The next three months, until July 1, when the Act goes into effect, will provide a special opportunity for U.S. and other companies doing business in the UK to re-evaluate their operations and take a fresh look at the effectiveness, or “adequacy,” of their anti-corruption policies and procedures. Conducting a measured, proportionate and risk-based assessment makes eminent good sense in light of the UK Bribery Act, the FCPA and an evolving global propensity for strict anti-corruption enforcement.

    The Ministry of Justice Guidance can be found here.

    _______________________

    1Also issued that same day is the Joint Prosecution Guidance of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions (JPG), which provides some insight into the Directors’ views as to “prosecutorial decision-making” regarding violations of the Act.

    © 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

    Financial Services Compliance Summit May 25-26 New York, NY

    The National Law Review is a proud media sponsor of the IQPC Financial Services Compliance Summit May 25-26 in New York, NY

    Rethinking Compliance Strategies to Maximize Business Value

    In the aftermath of the financial crisis, financial institutions must adhere to changing regulations and have undergone a dramatic transformation. These changes have caused a drastic shift in business practices, regulatory oversight, and litigation exposure. Companies are spending immense amounts of time, resources and money to ensure that compliance polices are meeting evolving regulatory mandates

    The Financial Services Compliance Summit, led by leading legal and compliance professionals, including senior staff at the SEC, FTC and CFTC will offer expert insights on how to improve internal controls across departments.

    Highlighted topics include:

    • Key changes in regulations including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act, and what it means for broker-dealers and investment advisers
    • Compliance challenges facing financial services companies in this new operating environment
    • Advice on the use of social media and the latest on advertising and marketing restrictions
    • SEC, FINRA and CFTC enforcement and examination developments
    • How to use technology to analyze and create an enterprise-wide compliance program

    For Registration and Details:

    21st SOX Compliance & Evolution to GRC May 3-4 Boston, MA

    The National Law Review is proud to be a Media Partner for the upcoming- 21st SOX Compliance & Evolution to GRC conference May 3-4 in Boston, MA. 

    The 21st edition of the SOX Compliance & Evolution to GRC Conference will afford SOX practitioners a unique opportunity to review the required blend of compliance and risk-based strategies and methodologies neccessary to meet federal mandates while developing greater efficiency across their GRC footprint.

    Attendees will have the opportunity to:

    –Formulate methodologies to gain greater efficiency through the deployment of a risk-based approach

    –Ascertain the impact a cross application of controls will have for SOX and greater GRC efforts

    –Review innovative approaches for the successful launch and maintenance of control self-assessment initiatives

    –Identify the latest strategies being utilized to ensure that SOX is a continuous process rather than an annual compliance exercise

    –Realize the necessity of a cross-functional structured training and continuing education curriculum to ensure consistent performance of SOX controls and integrated GRC efforts

    –Discover proven approaches for the integration of SOX compliance into GRC

    –Analyze strategies to engage external auditors in the front end to establish common goals and reduce external expenditures

    Key Conference Topics Help You Learn How To:

  • Formulate methodologies to gain greater efficiency through the deployment of a risk-based approach

  • Ascertain the impact a cross application of controls will have for SOX and greater GRC efforts

  • Review innovative approaches for the successful launch and maintenance of control self-assessment initiatives

  • Identify the latest strategies being utilized to ensure that SOX is a continuous process rather than an annual compliance exercise

  • Realize the neccessity of a cross-functional structured training and continuing education cirriculum to ensure consistent performance of SOX controls and integrated GRC efforts.

    • Registration, Location & Details…..

    • May 3-4 in Boston, MA
    • For On-Line Registration and for more complete information Please Click Here:

     

     

    The Six Biggest Mistakes Law Firms Make When They Upgrade Technology

    Recent featured blogger at the National Law Review –  Ben M. Schorr of Roland Schorr & Tower – provides some great insights into common mistakes made by lawfirms when upgrading technology.   

    As an information services professional I’ve spent the past two decades helping law firms with their technology. Over that time I’ve come to identify 6 major mistakes that they tend to make when they install or upgrade new technology.

    #1. They Don’t Have A Goal.

    It’s important before you even consider upgrading your technology to ask this question: What problem are we solving? Too many firms forget what business they’re in and run around installing fancy new systems that don’t address any specific needs. Sometimes they’re talked into it by vendors or consultants; sometimes it’s the brainchild of a computer-savvy associate or staff member. Far too often the result is a lot of money spent for new systems and no increase in productivity. If you don’t have a goal, you’ll never reach it. Back home in Indiana folks say “If you don’t know where you’re going, pull over and stop ’cause you’re there.” This is rarely truer than in technology where you are constantly bombarded with possible routes – in the form of cool toys – but unless you have a destination it makes no sense to even start the car.

    How can I avoid making this mistake?

    Start by identifying the problem. Write it down. Write down the proposed answers. Review the problem (and proposed solutions) with the users and with your information services people (or consultants). Once you have a clearly defined (and agreed upon) problem and solution, set a timetable. Make it realistic. This can be one of the hardest parts of this step because you don’t want to rush things and end up with a hastily implemented, and poorly constructed, solution.  But at the same time you can’t drag your feet too much or the technology will change right out from under you and you may find that your preferred solution has been discontinued in favor of a new and improved (read that “more sophisticated and expensive”) solution.

    #2. They Don’t Talk To Their Users.

    Too many firms get a great idea for a new technology, throw the switch and roll it out to their users without even much warning to the users that it’s going to happen. As a result there is confusion, resentment, fear and a LOSS of productivity.

    How can I avoid making this mistake?

    Don’t just impose change from the top down or you’ll end up with users who resent and are intimidated by the new technology. Ask them what they need. Ask how they will use it. Have them compose a “wish list”. Observe their procedures. You’ll find that the users will accept the new systems much faster and easier if they have some input into its selection/creation. If you’re in a large firm consider putting together a users group of various staff members. Try to include at least two members of each category (partners, associates, paralegals, support staff, accounting, etc.) and don’t just pick the ones who know a lot about technology. Oftentimes the most valuable input will come from that partner or secretary who is awkward with the computers. Have them meet each month and ask them to talk about how the technology is (or isn’t) working for them. Have them suggest improvements. It’s important that you listen to their input and let you know that you value their contributions.

    #3. They Don’t Do Their Homework (Or Pay The Smartest Kid In Class To Do It For Them).

    I often see firms that buy a solution they don’t understand. What is it? How does it work? Why do we need this again? Many times they see a flashy ad or get a presentation from a salesman and sign the papers in the excitement of the moment.   They don’t clearly understand the problem or how this solution solves it.

    How can I avoid making this mistake?

    Do your research. Visit the Internet sites for the products you’re interested in. Visit the sites of some of their competitors. Read the trade magazines and try to keep a handle on what’s happening in the industry. Talk to the users (see #2) and vendors. Attend demos and seminars. You’ll probably have to start learning about the technology at least 3-4 months before you plan to upgrade or the hill will be too steep to climb. If you can’t (or don’t want to) do the research yourself, find a consultant that you feel comfortable with. Get recommendations from other firms in your area of people they’ve enjoyed working with. Ideally the consultant should be familiar with the solutions you’re interested in, but shouldn’t sell those solutions themselves (that way he has no financial interest in selling you something you don’t need). Never hire a consultant that you don’t trust completely. Your consultant should be able to explain the basics of the relevant technology to you in language you can understand and, most importantly, should be able to clearly explain the expected benefits to you.

    #4. They Don’t Document Everything.

    At one firm I worked for, I discovered that they had an entire floor of the building wired for network cabling but didn’t have a map or any other documentation about the cabling. All they had was plugs in the walls and loose wires in the computer closet. As you can imagine troubleshooting cabling problems became quite an adventure. It’s far too common to ask what kind of hardware is in use and have firms not know for sure.   Documentation failures go well beyond cabling – system configurations, numbers of licenses, software in use…oftentimes goes unrecorded and when it’s time to troubleshoot or upgrade there is not enough information available to make good decisions or accurately foresee potential problems.

    How can I avoid making this mistake?

    The solution is easy, but can be tedious. Insist upon complete documentation from your vendors. Maps of cabling. Labels on everything. When you deploy new equipment keep a file that indicates serial numbers and specifications (RAM, hard drive, processor, operating system, etc.). Often you can get that information from the invoice you received for the machine. Keep a list of what software you have in use, how many licenses you own, and what versions you’re running.  Document the date that the system or application was deployed and from where it was purchased. This documentation can make troubleshooting MUCH easier down the road.

    #5. They Skimp On Training.

    This is a VERY common error. It never fails to surprise me when I see a firm that will spend $50,000 on computer equipment but won’t spend $500 to train the users.

    How can I avoid making this mistake?

    The most important part of your system is the user – upgrade them! Would you fly an airline that advertises that “All of our pilots have driver’s licenses and we have a copy of “Big Planes for Dummies” in every cockpit!” I doubt it…yet many of you are flying your firms with crucial personnel who haven’t had even 20 minutes worth of training in the products that you depend upon to get your work done. Even long after the installation training can be productive. You may think that your assistant knows the ins & outs of your word processor, but what if a 2-hour class could teach him or her new tricks or secrets to get things done faster? If these new tricks saved them just 12 minutes a day that would be an entire HOUR each week that they’d gain. In a month they’d have recouped all of the time invested in the class, twice over. This goes for executives as well, by the way…

    Consider bringing in an outside trainer (or even an inside resource) to do a 1-hour lunchtime training in your conference room.  Try producing an internal e-newsletter with tips and tricks for the products you use (ProLaw, Word, Excel, WordPerfect or whatever).  Encourage your users to have interest and discussions about technology.

    Consider creating a “Trick of the Week” award where the person in your firm who submits the best new trick or tip for using your systems wins some prize – maybe a prime parking space in your lot for the week, an extra-long lunch break on Friday or a box of chocolates.

    #6. They Don’t Follow-Up.

    This comes back to talking to your users. If you don’t look out the window how do you know if you reached your destination? Don’t find out 6 months later that the staff hates the new software or that the new printers don’t work properly.

    How can I avoid making this mistake?

    After the upgrade is in place you need to contact your users and ask them if they’re happy. Try to be there when they first use it to get their initial reaction. Check in with them again the following day. Check in again the next week…and again weekly or bi-weekly for the next month or two. Look back at your written “goal” from #1 and see if you’ve solved your problem. If you didn’t, figure out why and make adjustments. Users will often forgive you if you find and fix problems quickly they often won’t forgive you if you give them a “solution” that doesn’t work and then leave them to deal with it on their own. Many times you’ll find that the problems are really “pilot error” and can be corrected with more (or better) training. Sometimes the problems will be equipment or software problems and finding them in the first days or weeks can mean the difference between getting your vendor to replace the inadequate product with something more suitable and getting stuck with it for the long term.

    Preventing these mistakes takes a little effort but it’s not expensive. What’s expensive is making these mistakes and ending up with a system that you paid considerable money for and that leaves your users frustrated and your productivity down.

    Copyright ©2011 Ronald Schorr

    IQPC’s 11th eDiscovery Summit – April 27-29, 2011 San Francisco, CA – Save Big if Registered Before April 1st!

    The National Law Review is a proud media partner for IQPC’s 11th eDiscovery Summit – April 27-29, 2011 San Francisco, CA

    IQPC’s 11th eDiscovery Summit features hands on sessions and practical instruction to bring back to your eDiscovery teams. You will engage with IT and legal focus groups to candidly discuss anticipated push back issues, observe how different roles within your company approach imminent litigation and put bridging the gap strategies into practice.

    It is no secret that you want to reduce the cost of eDiscovery, yet how do you know if you are paying a reasonable price for ESI processing and review? Do not miss this unique opportunity to learn about outside the box pricing structures and benchmark with your peers to gain a realistic picture of fair pricing for electronic information management.

    Why attend the 11th eDiscovery Summit?

    • United States District Court Judges share their experiences with companies committing costly electronic discovery mistakes
    • Bridge the gap between IT and legal through a practical exercise with IT and legal focus groups
    • Learn practical steps to create a solid cross-functional eDiscovery team fostering communication and effective workflow between departments
    • Gain valuable metrics to assess the repeatability and defensibility of your eDiscovery procedures
    • Maximize the benefits of social networking and cloud computing without compromising security and increasing risk
    • Earn CLE Credits! Find out more

    Registration, Location & Details…..

    • April 27 – 29, 2011 The Hyatt Regency San Francisco, CA

    • Save Big on Registration – if you sign up prior to April 1st
    • For More Information and to Register – Please Click Here:

    4th Annual SOX/MAR for Insurance Conference 14-15 Apr 2011 Boston, MA

    The National Law Review is a proud Media Sponsor of the 4th Annual SOX/MAR for Insurance Conference April 14 -15 in Boston, MA 

    This fourth annual conference comes at a critical time for re/insurance companies. Organizations will need to file for the first time their audited statutory statements under MAR in June 2011.

    This event will bring together top-level executives to discuss the challenges and requirements when it comes to NAIC compliance for the re/insurance industry.  It will examine SOX and MAR strategies that re/insurance companies can implement to create consistent controls and documentation within their organization. The conference will also include a thorough examination of up-and-coming technological advances that are available to increase efficiency.

    By engaging with their peers on these and other critical topics, attendees will leave the conference with a clear understanding of how to approach SOX and MAR to increase performance and effectiveness while decreasing cost and time.

    key conference topics include:

  • Evaluate the NAIC regulations for Model Audit Rule and what is needed to reach compliance for June 2011
  • Improve communication between business units to increase performance and efficiency with documentation and controls
  • Utilize information technology to streamline controls, documentation and spreadsheets for both SOX and MAR compliance
  • Enhance SOX and MAR controls to increase efficiency for statutory financial statements
  • Discuss how automated controls can increase effectiveness and decrease cost
    • To Register and for more information – please click here:


    15th Annual North American Shared Services & Outsourcing Week – March 1-3 Orlando, FL

    The National Law Review is a proud media partner of the 15th Annual North American Shared Services & Outsourcing Week – March 1-3 Orlando, FL    

    The Shared Services & Outsourcing Network (SSON) is the largest and most established community of shared services and outsourcing professionals. SSON’s 15th Annual Shared Services Week is the largest annual gathering of Shared Services professionals in the world! This can’t-miss multi-tracked event is designed to provide executives from start-ups, intermediate and mature shared services with everything they need to know to bring shared services to the next level. Featuring outstanding keynotes, an impressive speaker faculty, workshops, master-classes, site-tours and the shared service excellence awards, there is little the Shared Services Executive could want outside of this conference.

    The 15th Annual North American Shared Services & Outsourcing Week represents the next big wave of innovation in the shared services and outsourcing space. You will meet and network with the very best thought leaders, practitioners, providers and advisors in the shared services and outsourcing space, connecting with over 1,000 senior level attendees from various sectors all over the region.

    If you want to seek fresh initiatives and reach new thresholds of productivity or revenue growth, are looking for game changing, innovative content and ideas to leverage technologies, and desperate to leave behind old legacies and shape the future of the sourcing world, then this event is for you.

    Click Here -For More Information and to Register.