|
|
|
Imagining a Public Law Firm’s Earnings Report
Attorney Blogs |
2008/04/23 12:39
|
Nearly a year after an Australian law firm went public, many in the legal profession are still tittering over whether any American players would follow suit. By necessity, law firms are fairly tight-lipped about much of the work they do. That would have to change if any were to become a publicly traded company, what with the disclosure requirements and the probing questions of shareholders. In the midst of earnings season, Above the Law’s David Lat pens a mostly tongue-in-cheek piece for The New York Observer speculating on what a quarterly earnings report by an American firm would look like. (A hint: It wouldn’t say much.) Mr. Lat, a former corporate lawyer himself, gently jabs the pampered-partners culture of Big Law, which may take a hit as corporate profits slide. Niceties like $160,000 starting salaries for first-year associates, 18 weeks of paid parental leave and Friday Swedish massages, he imagines, would go out the window. And how would the firm describe secrecy-shrouded practices like mergers and acquisitions work or criminal defense? Perhaps thusly: The M&A department spent a significant amount of time on several potential transactions for a client in the energy sector that were never consummated. Unfortunately, the firm was unable to bill for most of this time … The firm cannot provide additional details about this representation, due to client confidentiality rules. As a point of comparison, consider the semiannual disclosures of Slater & Gordon, the personal injuries firm that now resides on the Australian stock exchange. Its recent annual report (PDF) resembles virtually any other public firm’s, with general income statements and descriptions of its business. Which is not to say that public law firms would ever fully open their kimonos, much as representatives of another industry tend to play their cards close to the vest. Alternative asset managers — including private equity firm Blackstone Group, buyout- and hedge-fund manager Fortress Investment Group and hedge fund Och-Ziff Capital Management — have been criticized by some analysts and investors as presenting opaque looks into their businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court allows search and seizure in Virginia case
Court Feed News |
2008/04/23 12:38
|
| The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law. The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense. David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go. Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence. "We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety. Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search. State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore. Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law. The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors. The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency. Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
White House challenges release of visitor logs
U.S. Legal News |
2008/04/22 16:54
|
A federal appeals court sought compromise Monday between a liberal group demanding the names of White House visitors and the Bush administration, which says releasing the names would erode the president's power.
If released, the documents would show how often prominent religious conservatives visited the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's residence, allowing a glimpse into how much influence they exerted on government policy.
White House calendars are not generally considered public records, but reporters and watchdog groups have used Secret Service documents, which normally are public, to report on White House visitors.
Rather than having those documents released on a case-by-casis basis, the Bush administration wants them considered White House documents, which would keep them from public view for more than a decade.
A federal judge rejected White House arguments in December and ordered the documents released. On appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, government attorneys said the president has a well-established right to seek advice privately.
Releasing lists of visitors would trample on that right, said Justice Department lawyer Jonathan F. Cohn, and the logs should be treated like other White House documents.
The judges were skeptical. They said they wanted to find a way to protect the president's rights without broadly prohibiting access to information that should be public.
"What in the documents are so quintessentially presidential?" asked Judge David S. Tatel.
"The name of the person going in to visit," Cohn replied.
"That's a public building," Tatel said. "You can stand out on 17th Street and watch who goes in and out."
"The Secret Service might have some qualms with that," Cohn responded.
"They might have some qualms but they couldn't stop you from doing it," said Chief Judge David B. Sentelle.
Rather than balancing the president's interest with the public's, Tatel said, the government was simply disregarding the Freedom of Information Act. He said the policy would allow the president to "draw a curtain around the White House."
Judge Merrick B. Garland said he was concerned the Bush administration's policy could extend to other White House agencies such as the budget office, which normally releases public records. Under the government's theory, Garland said, visits to the White House social planner, caterer and gardener would all be secret because the president needs to receive advice privately.
The judges seemed equally dissatisfied with the argument of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group seeking the documents. Sentelle and Tatel said the group was using the Secret Service as an end-run, a way to get documents that normally would not be public.
"I think Congress would be surprised that, by requiring the president to receive Secret Service protection, it was opening up his calendars," Tatel said.
Sentelle became frustrated and at one point put his head in his hands after pressing attorney Anne L. Weissman to acknowledge that the president must be allowed to seek advice privately. He repeatedly urged her to explain how to balance the two interests.
"I don't understand what you don't understand," Sentelle said. "You're not acknowledging the separation-of-powers problem."
The judges pressed both sides to offer a compromise that would strike the right balance. Government lawyers said they couldn't discern from the logs which meetings were presidential policy meetings and which ones might not be sensitive, such as a meeting with the White House gardener. Weissman bristled at the idea that the government's only solution was blanket secrecy.
"I haven't heard from you a counter-suggestion," Tatel told Weissman. "We've never had a case like this."
Garland seemed to search for a solution short of the government's blanket secrecy but that would not allow journalists and special-interest groups to regularly request the names of every visitor to the White House. Under that scenario, he said., the president could never ensure that any meeting was confidential, he said.
The court did not immediately rule on the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court requires subpoena for Internet subscriber records
Court Feed News |
2008/04/22 16:51
|
Internet service providers must not release personal information about users in New Jersey without a valid subpoena, even to police, the state's highest court ruled Monday.
New Jersey's Supreme Court found that the state's constitution gives greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the U.S. Constitution.
The court ruled that Internet providers should not disclose private information to anyone without a subpoena.
A Washington lawyer who handles Internet litigation, Megan E. Gray, said the ruling "seems to be consistent with a trend nationwide, but not a strong trend."
"It's contrary to what is happening with rights of privacy at the federal level," Gray said. "But it's all over the board for the states, with a mild trend toward protecting this information."
The 7-0 ruling upheld lower court decisions that restricted police from obtaining the identity of a Cape May County woman accused of retaliating in 2004 against her boss after an argument by changing her employer's access codes to a supplier's Web site.
Police obtained the woman's identity through her Internet provider, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), by tracing an Internet fingerprint left by her computer. The fingerprint consisted of an Internet protocol address, often called an IP address, that could be identified only by Comcast.
Police obtained a subpoena for the data from a municipal court, but higher courts said a grand jury subpoena was necessary because an indictable offense was at issue.
Police must seek a criminal grand jury subpoena to get such information, the court found. And it said the woman's 2005 indictment on a charge of theft by computer cannot stand unless prosecutors have enough proof without the evidence, now suppressed, that they got from Comcast without having the right subpoena.
It was not immediately known how the Cape May County Prosecutor's Office will proceed. Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor did not return a message seeking comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHILIP DANIELS JOINS SHEPPARD MULLIN
Law Firm News |
2008/04/21 22:51
|
LOS ANGELES, April 21, 2008 — Philip E. Daniels has joined the Century Cityoffice of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP as a member of the firm's Entertainment& Media transactional practice group. Daniels, who is dually qualified in both California and the UK, joinsfrom boutique law firm Goldring, Hertz & Lichtenstein in Beverly Hills. Daniels specializes in all matters relating to music,new media and technology. His digitaland technology expertise includes structuring, drafting and providing strategicadvice on deals for Internet and mobile platforms, as well as advising clientsoperating in the social networking space on the development and distribution ofdigital content and digital premium goods. Daniels negotiated deals with Yahoo, MSN, Bebo, Daily Motion and MySpacefor the distribution of content along with a number of technologyinfrastructure agreements around the provision of social networking tools anddelivery content. Daniels began his legal career in London. He practiced with a number of UK law firms, includingthe well-recognized London boutique Lee & Thompson, representinginternational entertainment and technology clients. Daniels also worked in-house at BBC Worldwide,where his responsibilities included the company's Internet and Interactivedivisions. "Philip's music industry expertise and international entertainmentexperience are an excellent complement to the global matters which wehandle," said Bob Darwell, chair of the firm's Entertainment & Mediapractice group. "His experience in newmedia and digital business transactions is a perfect fit for our practicegroup, which crosses over all areas of the entertainment and media industriesand intersects with the technology sector." Commented Daniels, "Sheppard Mullin has built a top-notch Entertainmentpractice and I am thrilled about joining the group in Century City. I am very impressed by how Bob has grown theteam, and by the high profile international clients they represent and thematters they handle." Daniels graduated from Nottingham Law School (UK) in 1996 and earned aB.Sc. (Hons) from Bristol University (UK) in 1994. He is the latest in a recent flurry ofattorneys joining Sheppard Mullin's Entertainment & Media practice group inthe firm's Century City office. Lastmonth, Robb Klein joined as special counsel in the firm's Entertainment &Media practice group from the London office of European law firm SJ Berwin LLP. Additionally, Jim Curry joined theoffice in March as an Entertainment and Media litigation partner. Curry most recently practiced as a foundingpartner with White O'Connor Curry LLP in Century City. Sheppard Mullin has 40 attorneys based in its Century City office andthe Entertainment & Media practice group includes more than 55 attorneysfirmwide. About Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton LLP Sheppard Mullin is a full service AmLaw 100 firm withmore than 520 attorneys in 11 offices located throughout California and in NewYork, Washington, D.C. and Shanghai. Thefirm's California offices are located in Los Angeles, Century City, SanFrancisco, Silicon Valley, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Diego and Del MarHeights. Foundedin 1927 on the principle that the firm would succeed only if its attorneysdelivered prompt, high quality and cost-effective legal services, SheppardMullin provides legal counsel to U.S. and international clients. Companies turn toSheppard Mullin to handle a full range of corporate and technology matters,high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions. In the U.S., the firm's clients include morethan half of the Fortune 100 companies. Formore information, please visit www.sheppardmullin.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
People's may face class-action suit
Class Action News |
2008/04/21 20:54
|
A New Haven-based law firm dove into the fray over People's United Bank's alleged failure to protect customers' information from Dumpster divers. "We don't comment on pending litigation," said People's spokeswoman Valerie Carlson, of the new lawsuit filed in Bridgeport Superior Court Monday.
Michael Stratton, partner and founder of the firm Stratton Faxon, said he notified an attorney for People's of his intention to seek class action status for a suit filed on behalf of five customers worried their information could have been exposed to identity theft by the bank's alleged failure to properly dispose of private information. "Some People's Bank customers were pretty upset," Stratton said after reading a Connecticut Post report that Fairfield resident James Hastings had spent months pulling many unshredded papers listing private information, including account and Social Security numbers, from trash bins at branches in Fairfield County. The bank didn't know about Hastings' activities until Hastings showed up at its headquarters with a video depicting him rummaging through the trash and pulling out documents. Hastings still has documents he culled from branch Dumpsters, although police raided his home and seized some documents. The bank is suing Hastings; that case begins today in Bridgeport Superior Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
