|
|
|
Law Firm, LPD Among Those Backing Career Academies
Headline News |
2007/10/15 10:56
|
When the Polk County school system issued a request seeking partnerships from area businesses in creating career academies at high schools, several answered the call.
The result is a handful of strong partnerships that will provide relevant instruction to students interested in a variety of professions, ranging from automotive technology and construction to criminal justice and legal studies.
The career academies - all of which have at least two businesses represented on their boards of directors, though some have 10 or more - are in 11 Polk high schools and were created to address the Florida A++ education plan approved by the Legislature last year, said Serena Peeler, career academies coordinator for the Polk County school system. The plan is designed to get students thinking about careers before they graduate.
Most career academies started this year, but a handful have been up and running for a few years. Kathleen High School's Criminal Justice, Law and Career Academy is 3 years old and is supported by the Lakeland Police Department, which partners with the academy by providing board of directors representation and training assistance, said Lakeland Police Lt. John Thomason.
"We supply officers, equipment and give demonstrations," Thomason said. "We have a great deal of interaction with the students by teaching about police work and various services the department provides to the community."
Each year, LPD presents a static display involving area law enforcement agencies, where students in the academy get to view technology and equipment used in law enforcement.
LPD is working to also include fire and emergency services agencies in the static displays, because not every student enrolled wants to enter law enforcement. Some have interests in becoming firefighters, 911 dispatchers, crime scene technicians and even lawyers, Thomason said.
"I think these academies are a valuable asset to students because if they believe they want to be in this field, the academy gives them a better understanding of the work involved," Thomason said. "It also helps them decide how to further their education - whether through the police academy or college."
The Academy of Legal Studies at George Jenkins High School benefits from partnerships with the Lakeland Bar Association and the law firm of Peterson & Myers.
Jonn Hoppe, a lawyer with Peterson & Myers, said the firm partners with the academy by providing lawyers to be guest speakers, serving as host for student orientations and providing law books for research and instruction.
The partnership with the Lakeland Bar Association is a bit more formalized, said Hoppe, who serves as the president.
"Every month, a couple of students attend Bar meetings," he said. "We hope in February to have students put on a mock trial at the monthly luncheon."
Members of the Bar Association also serve on the academy's board and provide opportunities for student internships at area law firms.
"We were very excited about the academy when it began because students can choose from an attorney, paralegal or legal assistant track," Hoppe said.
The partnerships go beyond finding businesses and organizations to contribute to classroom instruction, Peeler said. Area colleges and universities are partnering in the form of articulation agreements, which enable students enrolled in the academies to earn college credit while still in high school. Agreements are in place with Polk and Hillsborough community colleges, and officials are in discussion with Florida Southern College, Southeastern University and University of South Florida, among other colleges. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Survey of Law Firm eMarketing Practices
Headline News |
2007/10/12 15:34
|
The law firms in the sample employ a surprisingly low number of editorial employees, a mean of less than one writer per firm. Firms with more than 200 lawyers employed a bit less than 1.5 writers per firm or less than one per 300 lawyers since the mean number of lawyers in the 200+ lawyer’s category was 478. The firms in the sample employed a mean of less than ½ proofreaders per firm, and
the largest number of proofreaders employed per firm was two.
In many industries, an expanding web presence led companies to hire more editorial
employees and to spend more on content development. This is less the case with the
law firms in the sample. Most have not increased their spending on editorial staff in
the past two years, though a substantial minority say that they have.
About half of the firms in the sample hire freelancers to produce editorial content but
only 13.51% note that they do so frequently.
BLOGS & BLOGGING
A shade less than 20% of the firms in the sample published their own blogs. Firms
with 20 or more distinct practice groups were the most likely to publish blogs, and
nearly forty percent of the firms in this category did so.
The mean number of blogs published per law firm was 0.96 though this figure also
reflects the firms that do not publish blogs.
Only 16.67% of firms have a policy of surfing the web to market the firm’s opinions
and prowess through legal blogs by responding to postings or making commentaries
in such blogs to demonstrate legal expertise or in some way promote the law firm.
More than 37% of the law firms in the sample plan to increase their spending on
blogs as promotional vehicles, although close to 44% have not used blogs for this
purpose.
WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
More than half of the firms in the sample hired a consulting firm when they
overhauled (or initially created) their firm’s website. Only a shade less than 12% of
firms in the sample did most of the website design or overhaul work in-house, and
these were mostly smaller firms
Mean spending on website overhauls was $40,583 for the firms in the sample, with
median spending of $27,500.
The firms in the sample received a mean number of 27,462 unique monthly visitors to
the firm website, with a median of 8,000.
E-NEWSLETTER PUBLISHING
Close to 60% of the firms in the sample published e-newsletters, as did nearly 90% of the firms with 200 lawyers or more. The mean number of e-newsletters maintained by the law firms in the sample was 7.45; the median, 4. Mean spending on electronic press release services was also relatively modest, with mean annual spending averaging just a shade less than $536.00.
OPT IN EMAIL MARKEING
Nearly 58% of the firms in the sample use opt-in email marketing to promote the law
firm.
BANNER ADS AND SITE SPONSORSHIPS
Mean spending by all firms on banner ads and website sponsorships within the past year was only $2038.50, a figure that also incorporates the many firms that did not spend anything on banner ads or website sponsorships.
SEARCH ENGINE PLACEMENT
Only 12.5% of the firms in the sample have paid search engines for higher search
engine placement, a practice that was more common among smaller than larger firms.
A bit more than 32% of the firms in the sample say that it is “likely” or “very likely”
that within the next two years that they will hire a consultant to help the firm to
appear higher in search engine rankings.
PODCASTING & WEBCASTING
Less than 3% of the firms in the sample have ever done a podcast to help market the
law firm. The study presents more than 175 tables of data describing the use of various emarketing practices by major law firms. Data is broken out by firm size and by the number of distinct practice groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
Study: Law firm technology expected to grow
Headline News |
2007/10/12 13:18
|
Although the largest U.S. law firms have average annual technology operating budgets of almost $10 million - about 17,000 per lawyer - market penetration by most legal software products is still relatively moderate, according to a new Legal Technology Market Assessment study released today by ALM Research and Cogent Research. The study, by Cambridge, Mass.-based Cogent and New York-based ALM Research, measured user satisfaction, market penetration and brand loyalty to technology products in five legal technology areas: case/management, document management, electronic discovery, client development and online research. Online research tools proved to be the most widely available and used technologies at law firms, according to the study. The study also documents the proliferation of free legal information on the Web. The average respondent spends about 40 percent of his or her research time using search engines such as Google, to find free, basic information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Denver, Calif. Law Firms to Merge
Headline News |
2007/10/12 11:39
|
An influential Denver law firm said it would merge with a California firm that specializes in water law, a move it said would position it to represent clients across the West in water cases. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck's merger with Hatch & Parent is effective Jan. 1. The merged firm, which will still be called Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, will be based in Denver but will have 210 lawyers and advisers in 12 locations mostly in the West but one in Washington, D.C. Brownstein already handles water cases in addition to real estate, lobbying, litigation, corporate law and gaming cases. Jim Lochhead, a Brownstein lawyer who specializes in water, said Thursday that the merger will allow the combined firm to handle cases across the West at all stages, from arguing for water rights in court to securing permits from regulators. Lochhead said water will become the most important natural resource in the West over the next 20 to 30 years because of climate change and population growth. He thinks utilities and private industry will increasingly be looking for new ways to provide it and willing to go farther to get it, such as recycling water or converting sea water to drinking water. "Those kinds of projects and that kind of thinking is really going to require a broadbased approach," Lochhead said. He said the firm would not be able to represent any cases in which California and Colorado water interests are in direct opposition. But increasingly he thinks complicated water disputes will be worked out by negotiating, as happened recently among upper and lower basin states who depend on water from the Colorado River. Brownstein's current clients include the Denver suburb of Aurora, the Idaho Power Co. and real estate developers in New Mexico and Colorado. Hatch & Parent represents the San Diego Water Authority, the cities of Fresno and Oxnard and the South Tahoe Public Utility District. |
|
|
|
|
|
Skeptical Court Considers Investors Case
Headline News |
2007/10/09 22:13
|
The Supreme Court reacted skeptically Tuesday to arguments that banks, lawyers, accountants and suppliers should be held liable for helping publicly held companies deceive investors. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that federal law imposes strict limits on shareholders who want to sue companies and firms other than the one in which the investors hold stock. The two conservative justices subjected a lawyer for corporate investors to tough questioning during arguments as the justices try to set boundaries in stockholder lawsuits for securities fraud. Investors in Charter Communications Inc., one of the country's largest cable TV companies, are suing two suppliers that allegedly schemed with Charter executives to mislead stockholders about the company's revenue growth. The outcome of the case will determine the fate of a separate suit by Enron shareholders who are seeking over $30 billion from banks accused of colluding with the energy company to hide its debts. If the court rules against investors, "it will mean the end of the case" for Enron shareholders and the banks that were primarily liable, attorney Patrick Coughlin, representing Enron stockholders, said outside the Supreme Court after the arguments. In the case before the court, suppliers Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc. "were not passive bystanders facilitating a fraud by Charter," said investor attorney Stanley Grossman. "Their deceptive conduct was integral to the scheme to create fictitious advertising revenues for Charter to report to investors." Why shouldn't the court be guided by its 1994 ruling that sharply restricted liability by saying investors cannot sue for aiding and abetting a securities fraud? the chief justice asked. "You're asking us to extend that liability." Outside the courthouse later, Grossman said, "We are not asking for an expansion. The other side is asking for a cutback." Earlier this year, Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate when the court decided to hear the case. On Tuesday, Roberts was back, but Breyer was still out. As of last year, both owned stock in Cisco Systems Inc., which now owns Scientific-Atlanta. Though the absence of Breyer means the case could end up deadlocked 4-4, the hour of arguments Tuesday seemed to weigh against investors. Scalia suggested that the court might "sensibly limit" the right to sue so that schemes can be attacked by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but not by investors' lawsuits. That is how aiding and abetting violations are handled. "What distinguishes the liability that you propose from aider and abettor liability?" asked Scalia. Stephen Shapiro, the attorney representing Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, said the lawsuit cannot proceed against the two suppliers unless they made misstatements to Charter's investors, prompting an objection from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Under the theory of Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, "they are home free because they didn't themselves make any statement," said Ginsburg. "But they set up Charter to make those statements, to swell its revenues — revenues that it in fact didn't have." Charter persuaded the two suppliers to buy advertising that was bankrolled with money from Charter, which paid a $20 premium on each of hundreds of thousands of cable TV set-top boxes, for a total of $17 million. The amount of the overpayments equaled the amount the two suppliers paid for the advertising. Charter reported the advertising payments as revenue, a step that helped Charter paint a rosy financial picture for the fourth quarter of 2000, a move designed to artificially inflate the price of the stock. |
|
|
|
|
|
Roe Vs. Wade For The Securities Industry
Headline News |
2007/10/08 11:19
|
This Tuesday promises to be a historic day for the securities industry. At stake? The very integrity of our financial system, according to one pension fund manager. The dramatic verbiage is not misplaced. Without question, there's a lot riding on the outcome of StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC vs. Scientific Atlanta, the high-profile securities case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court this week. Characterized by some as the "Roe vs. Wade for the securities industry" and others as "the most important securities case in a generation," the eventual decision will have a significant impact on whether investors in companies that commit securities fraud should be able to sue investment banks, accountants, lawyers and others who were direct "participants" in that deception. Current shareholders' rights for going after third parties that aid or abet corporate fraud are not as clearly defined as one would think. First, a quick synopsis of the StoneRidge vs. Scientific Atlanta case: In 2000 to 2001, technology companies Motorola and Scientific Atlanta (now owned by Cisco Systems) allegedly agreed to supply cable TV provider Charter Communications with equipment at a $20 premium over the traditional cost with the knowledge that Charter intended to account for the transactions improperly as advertising revenues (the vendors used the extra funds to buy advertising space). These "sham" transactions inflated Charter's revenue by $17 million. When the revenue inflation came to light in 2002, Charter's stock crashed from $26.31 to 76 cents, a $7 billion loss in market cap. StoneRidge, an institutional investor in Charter, accused the two vendors of participating in a "scheme to defraud" investors and now wants the right to sue them for remediation. StoneRidge's ability to go after the tech companies remains thwarted, however, by the outcome of a 1994 Supreme Court case known as Central Bank vs. First Interstate. The Court held that while all "primary actors"--those who were directly part of a scheme (the emphasis is mine) to defraud investors--can be sued for federal securities fraud, the "secondary actors" who aided and abetted the fraud cannot be sued. This case once again raises this all-important issue of third-party liability in securities cases, settling it once and for all. As an advocate for individual investors, it's not surprising, I'm sure, to hear me contend that all participants who directly engage in activities to deliberately defraud investors be held liable for their actions. Whether the Court will agree with me depends on their definition of the word "scheme" under the federal securities statute. If you look it up in the dictionary, one definition for the word has it as a synonym for an underhand plot or conspiracy. Since it generally takes two or more to plot and conspire, it could be reasonably argued that the use of the word "scheme" in the statute should allow for more than just one party (such as the investment banks, accountants and lawyers) to be labeled the "participants" in the fraud and hence be held accountable. If the Court's strict constructionists are to be intellectually honest in their interpretation of the meaning of "scheme" liability in StoneRidge next week, it would prove a revolutionary milestone in the saga of investor rights. Shareholders would be granted a much more level playing field to target for recourse those who had targeted them for fraud. Sadly, smart money is probably better waged on the Court reaffirming the Central Bank decision from 13 years ago, thereby remaining consistent with its general pro-business stance and previous decisions that limit lawsuits against public companies. While such a toe-the-line decision would generate sighs of relief in the boardrooms of otherwise culpable investment banks, accounting firms and law firms, it is the groans of disappointment at the kitchen tables of victimized shareholders that should ultimately resonate more loudly. The corporate scandals of recent years may have faded from the headlines, but they are still fresh in the minds of American investors. Their confidence in Wall Street already badly shaken, shareholders need more than empty "we've changed" promises from a mostly self-regulating Wall Street to restore their trust in the system. What they need is for the Court to hold all participants in a fraudulent "scheme" just as responsible as those considered the primary actors. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|