Tag: Legal News

Inside Counsel Transformative Leadership Awards – Entry Deadline: October 29, 2010

Inside Counsel is inviting you to help them shine the spotlight on law firms and law departments that have achieved demonstrable results related to increasing opportunities for the empowerment of women in law by submitting a nomination for the 2011 Transformative Leadership Awards.  The Awards honor women general counsel and law firm partners who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing the empowerment of women in corporate law. 

If your firm or legal department has made momentous progress in elevating women to leadership positions, developed significant paths of advancement for women, or has a considerable number of women on key executive, compensation or equity partnership committees, then click here to nominate them for an award.

InsideCounsel magazine’s Editor-In-Chief, Cathleen Flahardy, in conjunction with Allstate Insurance Company’s SVP, General Counsel & Chief Legal Officer, Michele Coleman Mayes, will again co-chair the National Awards Committee to select the 2011 winners.

In 2011, seven total awards are will be presented: three awards for in-house counsel, three awards for law firms and one shared award for both law firm and in-house counsel.

 

Law Firms' Diversity Progress Stalls in Recession

The National Law Review’s Business of Law guest blogger this week is Vera Djordjevich of Vault Inc. Vera describes the findings of a recent Vault / MCCA Minority Corporate Counsel Association  survey which show  how law firm’s efforts to diversify have slowed down dramatically during these challenging economic times.  Read On:      

Law firms had been making steady, if slow, progress in diversifying their ranks.  Recent data collected by Vault and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), however, suggests that some of the profession’s advances have come to a virtual standstill.

This spring, as part of the annual Law Firm Diversity Survey, more than 260 law firms, including many of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the country, completed a detailed questionnaire on their diversity initiatives, programs and demographics. The results have been released in the Law Firm Diversity Database.

The data reveals how the economic crisis has affected law firm hiring, promotion and retention as a whole, and particularly highlights its impact on attorneys of color. While everyone felt the recession, the survey data suggests that minorities were, as many have feared, disproportionately affected.

Among the survey’s major findings:

Law firm hiring declined across the board

While it’s clear that law firm jobs are far scarcer now than they were two or three years ago, the data shows just how dramatic the change has been. For example, the size of the 2L summer associate class dropped by some 20 percent since 2008. In addition, far fewer of those summer associates were offered permanent positions than in the past: whereas nearly 93 percent of 2Ls were offered jobs in 2007 and 87.83 percent received offers in 2008, just 72.85 percent of 2Ls received permanent offers in 2009. Law firms also cut back drastically on the recruitment of experienced attorneys, with lateral hiring falling by more than 40 percent from 2008 levels.

Minority recruitment fell

Law firms have been primarily relying on increased minority recruitment to diversify their populations. What’s particularly troubling about the latest survey data is that not only did the overall number of attorneys hired drop in 2009, but also the percentage of those attorneys representing racial/ethnic minorities fell.

In fact, recruitment of minority lawyers declined at all levels — from law students to lateral attorneys. Of all lawyers hired in 2009 (including starting associates as well as laterals), less than 20 percent (19.09 percent) were minorities; a considerable drop from 2008 (21.77 percent) and 2007 (21.46 percent). And the 2009 2L summer class had the lowest percentage of minority students of the last three years: 25.19 percent (compared to 25.66 percent in 2008 and 25.91 percent in 2007).

Looking at specific racial groups, the most notable decline in hiring was among African-American students. In 2007, 7.32 percent of 2L summer associates were African-American; in 2009, that percentage fell to 6.42 percent. The percentage of Asian American 2Ls also declined, from 12.83 percent in 2007 to 11.74 percent in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of Hispanic students and multiracial students (those who identify with two or more races) inched upward a few tenths of a percent.

Minority lawyers continue to leave in high numbers

Meanwhile, as the number of minority lawyers entering firms has decreased, the number of minority lawyers leaving firms has increased. This is especially striking with respect to minority women. At every level of associate, the percentage of minority women who left their firms (voluntarily or through layoffs) has increased by at least two percentage points since 2007. For example, of third-year associates who left in 2009, 16.64 percent were minority women (compared to 13.98 percent in 2008 and 14.36 percent in 2007). In 2007, 12.83 percent of fourth-year associates who left their firms were minority women; by 2009, that number had climbed to 15.46 percent.

Overall, minority men and women represent 20.79 percent of attorneys who left their firms in 2009 — even though they represent just 13.44 percent of the overall attorney population at these same firms. Moreover, for the first time in three years, the percentage of minority attorneys hired was lower than the percentage of minority attorneys who left. In other words, firms are losing their minority attorneys faster than they can replace them.

Retention becomes more critical as recruitment drops

Given the likelihood that law firm recruiting will not return to pre-recession levels any time soon, there’s a danger that even a one-time drop in minority recruitment could have a long-term impact on overall law firm populations. In order to fend off this risk, firms will need to put greater effort into retention and professional development. Retention has long been a problem among large law firms, but the new economic reality makes progress in this area critical. More effective mentoring and mentoring, better monitoring of attorneys’ progress, overcoming unconscious biases, and ensuring that all have equal access to significant opportunities will help law firms build, and maintain, a talented and diverse workforce.

© 2010 Vault.com Inc.

About the Author:

Vera Djordjevich is senior law editor at Vault.com, where one of her areas of focus is diversity in the legal profession. She oversees the research and publication of information about law firm diversity initiatives and metrics for the Vault/MCCA Law Firm Diversity Database. She also edits Vault.com’s content related to law practice in the UK and co-authors Vault’s law blog, which provides career news, advice and intelligence to the legal community. Prior to joining Vault, Ms. Djordjevich was an editor at American Lawyer Media and practiced law in a small litigation firm in New York. She has a law degree from New York University School of Law and a bachelor’s degree from Stanford University.  www.vault.com / 212-366-4212

Sixth Annual General Counsel Institute Presented by NAWL Nov. 4th & 5th New York, NY

The National Law Review would like to spread the word about an upcoming event presented by NAWL (The National Association of Women Lawyers) .November 4-5, 2010 • Westin New York at Times Square

NAWL’s  Sixth Annual General Counsel Institute, is targeted to women general counsel and senior in-house counsel who want to build top-tier professional and management skills to improvetheir interaction with C-suite executives and the functioning of their legal departments.   The Institute provides a unique opportunity for women corporate counsel, in a supportive and interactive environment, to learn from leading experts and experienced legal colleaguesabout the pressure points and measurements of success for general counsel.

Who should attend?

Senior corporate counsel of public, private, large and small companies, non-profits, government, and educational institutions.

Registration is limited to in-house counsel. Scholarships are available; see “Upcoming Events” at www.nawl.org for a full conference schedule and more details.

Questions about the program?

Contact: Jonathan Becks, Program Coordinator, NAWL: 312.988.6186, becksj@nawl.org

ABA Consumer Financial Services Law Basics -Sept 20 – 21 Boston, MA

Hey Boston – the National Law Review  wants to bring to your attention — The American Bar Association Business Law Section, the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education, and the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law of Boston University School of Law will host the 1st presentation of a one-and-a-half day introduction to the regulation of consumer financial services (“CFS”) products and the financial institutions that provide them. If you need a primer or a refresher on the law governing consumer loans and deposits, the program will provide a jump start.   11.75 hours of CLE have been applied for. 

Program Focus

The program will explain each of the major sources of regulation of consumer financial products in the context of the regulatory techniques and policies that are the common threads in a complex pattern, including:

  • Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
  • Disclosure and transparency serving consumer understanding and market operation
  • Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
  • Privacy and security of consumer data and the problem of ID theft
  • Fair access to financial services
  • Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs
  • Regulatory reform: CFPA and beyond

Rapid change is occurring in CFS law on several fronts. First, Congress and the Administration have proposed significant changes in CFS law, with the Credit CARD Act and other changes going into effect almost immediately and proposed new regulators on the horizon. At the same time, the long-time federal CFS regulators (FRB, HUD, and FTC) have promulgated new regulations of the CFS industry and its products at an unprecedented pace, in response to a financial crisis that began with toxic consumer assets and the perceived failure to regulate adequately in the past. Finally, states continue to impose their individual, local solutions on CFS industry problems. This multi-pronged approach results in, among other things, constitutional issues of federalism that the Supreme Court and Congress are currently tackling in the area of federal preemption of state CFS laws.

This program presents these new developments in the context of the complex, overlapping and often inconsistent federal laws and regulations that have developed over the past 40 years.   September 20 -21 Boston University School of Management For More Information and to Register Click on: http://dld.bz/vCjC

Public Defenders as Effective as Private Attorneys

This week’s featured blogger at the National Law Review is Tom Jacobs of Miller-McCune – who discusses a recent study done comparing the relative effectiveness of public defenders and private attorneys in the Cook County criminal court system. The research team led by Richard Hartley of the University of Texas at San Antonio came up with some interesting and somewhat startling results.  Read on:

Perhaps it’s time for someone to come to the defense of public defenders. A newly published look at Chicago-area courts finds that, when you consider the actual outcomes of judicial hearings, these underpaid and underappreciated attorneys do just as well as their private-sector counterparts.

“This study suggests that there is little difference in the quality of legal defense provided to defendants by private attorneys and public defenders,” a research team led by Richard Hartley of the University of Texas at San Antonio writes in the Journal of Criminal Justice. “The type of attorney representing the defendant was not influential on any of the four decision-making points examined here.”

The researchers examined a random sample of 2,850 offenders convicted of felonies in Cook County Circuit Court, “a large Midwestern jurisdiction which is similar to other large, urban jurisdictions in the country.” They compared cases where the defendant was represented by a private attorney or public defender, focusing on four stages of the judicial process:

  • The decision to grant bail. The researchers looked at whether bail was set rather than whether it was made, since the latter is more a function of ability to pay rather than quality of legal representation.
  • Plea-bargaining decisions. This served as a measure of whether an attorney was successful in getting the initial charge reduced.
  • Whether the defendant, once convicted, served jail time.
  • The length of sentence imposed on those convicts who were incarcerated.

“The overall results of this study generally support the idea that there is no difference between private attorneys and public defenders regarding case outcomes,” the researchers conclude. “The type of attorney representing the defendant was not influential on any of the four decision-making points examined here.”

Two important caveats. The researchers did not look at convictions vs. acquittals. And they found that retaining a private attorney is apparently beneficial “for certain offenders and at certain stages” of the process. Specifically, they noted some interestingly varied outcomes when looking at a defendant’s race.

“White defendants are the only defendants who benefit from having a private attorney at the release decision,” they write. Specifically, they found whites with private attorneys are 2.7 times more likely than whites with public defenders to have bail granted.

For people of color, private attorneys may not help in getting bail, but they do facilitate plea bargains. “Black defendants who retain a private attorney are almost two times more likely to have the primary charge reduced than black defendants who are represented by a public defender,” the researchers write.

Why are public defenders so effective at representing their clients? One theory, according to Hartley, involves the “courtroom workgroup” model of justice, where the public defender, prosecutor and judge work together to dispose of cases.  He notes that when the system functions in this way, “public defenders are in better positions than private attorneys to negotiate favorable plea bargains and to mitigate punishment.”

These findings are not likely to put any law firms out of business. But given the negative media coverage of public defenders offices, they do offer some reassurance that the system is reasonably fair, even for those who can’t afford an attorney.

“This study provides evidence that contradicts the idea that you get what you pay for, at least in Cook County,” Hartley and his colleagues conclude. In Chicago courtrooms, “Public defenders are as effective as private attorneys.”

Miller-McCune © 2010 

About the Author:

Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for The Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Ventura County Star.

TheEditor@miller-mccune.com / www.miller-mccune.com / 805-899-8620

Bratz Hitz Back at Mattel

From the National Law Review’s Featured Guest Blogger Pressly M. Millen of  Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC– the on going saga of Bratz & Barbie……..

It’s football season, so apparently it’s time to trot out the old adage about the best defense being a good offense. This time in the ever-lasting Barbie vs. Bratz fight that we’ve reported on most recently here.

According to an article in Law.com, defendant MGA Entertainment, Inc. (the Bratz company), has filed a new counterclaim against Mattel (Barbie’s company) claiming racketeering and theft of trade secrets in connection with an alleged corporate espionage ring.
 
Among the claims is that Mattel executives used fake business cards to gain access to private toy showrooms of competitors. Those actions, according to MGA, allowed Mattel to assemble an “unparalleled library” of competitors’ plans and products, including products not yet on the market.
 
Mattel’s lawyers are understandably dismissive, calling MGA’s filing “second-rate tactics by desperate lawyers” and indicating that the counterclaim won’t survive the pleading stage.
 
At first blush, although styled a counterclaim, it’s hard to see how these counterclaims relate to the case at hand concerning MGA’s stealing the idea for Bratz dolls from Mattel.

Reprinted with permission from Womble Carlyle’s Trade Secret’s Blog located at:http://wombletradesecrets.blogspot.com/2010/08/bratz-hitz-back-at-mattel.html

 Copyright © 2010 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved. 

What are the Possible Legal Implications of the Passage of California’s Proposition 19?

The National Law Review’s featured blogger Donna Bader discusses the legal implications of legalizing marijuana in California.  

As the November election approaches in California, the proponents and opponents of Proposition 19 are preparing for battle.  Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is an initiative to legalize certain marijuana-related activities. It purports to do the following:

  • Allow people 21 years of age or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use;
  • Permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana; 
  • Prohibit people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, and smoking it while minors are present or providing it to anyone under 21; and
  • Maintain current prohibitions against driving a vehicle while impaired.

(See http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/ for the text of Proposition 19.)

The findings in the initiative make fascinating reading because the initiative acknowledges that laws criminalizing cannabis have failed, millions are using it, and the percentage of citizens using it is double that of the percentage of citizens using in the Netherlands, which allows the sale of cannabis.  In essence, criminalization has had no effect on usage.  The findings also note that cannabis has fewer side effects than alcohol or cigarettes, California wastes millions in trying to enforce laws against it, and its illegality has spawned an illegal drug trade that makes over a $15 billion in California a year.  It does not ignore the fact that that money in the form of taxes and permits could then go to the cities, counties, and states.

While the initiative addressing the implementation of a “legal regulatory framework,” certain activities are left to the cities.  For instance, if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, then buying and selling – not possessing and consuming – would remain illegal.  If the city decides it is willing to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis, then it must implement “a strictly controlled legal system” to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution and sales, including relating how much cannabis can be bought and sold.  It would also allow the California Legislature to adopt a “statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.”  The initiative proposes a number of activities that a local government may regulate.  Finally, it permits amendment either by a subsequent initiative or statute “but only to further the purposes of the Act.”

The supporters of Proposition 19 seem to fall into two general camps:  The first camp includes those who would like to use cannabis and see it be available to others, possibly because they believe it to be harmless, no different than alcohol (with less damage to the body), and that the criminalizing it has not worked.  The second camp is composed of individuals who do not use cannabis and are generally not in favor of its use, but they too recognize the war on drugs and failed, and given the critical financial condition of our State, would welcome a thriving business that would put money into government coffers.

Two major questions arise from passage of Proposition 19.  The first question is what will the federal government do?  Possession of marijuana is still illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.  The Obama Administration has seemingly turned a blind eye to prosecuting the little guy, but passage of Proposition 19 will dramatically increase the commercial and business opportunities to produce and sell marijuana.  The bigger the business, the more attention it will receive from the DEA.  Because the proposition covers commercial production and sale, the federal government may intervene and attempt to enjoin enactment of the measure.

The second question is how will passage of Proposition 19 affect other areas  of law.  Here are just a few areas that could be affected:

  • Counties and cities will have to scramble to make decisions on where they stand and how they want to regulate cannabis under the law.
  • The impact on interstate commerce because one can easily imagine what will happen if legal marijuana is purchased here and then brought over the border into a state that forbids it.
  • Dealing with taxing authorities.
  • Attorney ethical concerns in advising a client about activities that are still considered illegal under federal law.
  • Land use issues and restrictions.
  • Anti-discrimination laws.
  • Employment laws, particularly in the areas of drug-testing and wrongful termination.
  •  Landlord-issues, including a revisions of leases and rental agreements to cover marijuana use, both personally and commercially.
  • Criminal convictions and the effect of Proposition 19 on pending criminal cases.
  • Insurance law, particularly homeowners and health insurance.
  • Impact on federal funding in specific areas touched by Proposition 19.

If the criminalization of marijuana has provided full-time for certain lawyers, then certainly the passage of Proposition 19 will present new and different opportunities for other lawyers as everyone tries to resolve the issues raised by its implementation.

© 2010 Donna Bader 

Donna Bader is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law in Laguna Beach, California. For over thirty years, she has specialized in handling civil writs and appeals, and has written more than 350 appellate briefs. Donna is the former editor in chief of several legal publications, including Plaintiff, The Advocate, The Forum, and The Gavel. She is the author of Rutter’s Civil Litigation Guide, California Summary Judgment and Related Termination Motions. Donna is also a frequent lecturer and contributing writer for various legal organizations. Donna’s blog, AnAppealtoReason.com, is written for California trial attorneys and advises them on how they can protect their appeals at the trial court level.  949-494-7455 / www.AnAppealtoReason.com

National Association of Women Lawyers® Issues Statement Regarding Appointment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan

Chicago, August 5, 2010 — The National Association of Women Lawyers® (NAWL) applauds President Obama’s appointment of Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan following the Senate’s confirmation on Thursday.  NAWL’s Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees previously found Solicitor General Elena Kagan “well-qualified” for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  Committee Co-Chair, Patricia Lee Refo, in testimony submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the confirmation, stated:

“The Committee is confident that General Kagan will approach cases and controversies with a mind that is open to all perspectives and with an appreciation of the professional and societal difficulties encountered by women and minorities.”

NAWL President Dorian Denburg says, “Solicitor General Kagan’s intellect is second to none, her judgment superb, and her perspective a judicious mix of scholarship and common sense.  For all of these reasons, NAWL is confident she will be an effective Supreme Court Justice.  With Kagan’s confirmation, progress is being made on the longstanding disparity in the representation of women on our highest court. While we must continue our efforts to eliminate persistent barriers that hinder the retention and promotion of women attorneys, today is a very good day and everyone should stop and take notice.”

NAWL’s Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees reviews and evaluates the qualifications of each Presidential nominee to the United States Supreme Court with an emphasis on laws and decisions regarding women’s rights or that have a special impact on women. Members of the Committee are appointed by the President of NAWL and include a distinguished array of law professors, appellate practitioners and lawyers concentrating in litigation, with diverse backgrounds from around the country and who work in a variety of professional settings.

Copyright ®, 2010 National Association of Women Lawyers

The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) is the leading national voluntary organization devoted to the interests of women lawyers and women’s rights. Founded over 100 years ago, NAWL has historically served as an educational forum and an active voice for the concerns of women in the legal profession.  www.NAWL.org