|
|
|
Thompson Hine Grows Business Litigation Practice
Law Firm News |
2007/12/21 17:59
|
Russell Rogers has joined the Atlanta office of the law firm Thompson Hine LLP as a partner in the firm’s Business Litigation practice group. Prior to joining Thompson Hine, Mr. Rogers was a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP.
Mr. Rogers’ practice will focus on product liability defense, commercial litigation—specifically insurance coverage litigation and litigation for financial institutions—and environmental law.
“We are pleased to have Russ as part of our growing Business Litigation practice,” says Jim Robenalt, Thompson Hine’s Business Litigation practice group leader. “His extensive experience will be a significant asset to the firm and its clients.”
“Russ’ addition to Thompson Hine’s Atlanta office allows us to continue to expand the breadth and depth of our services in the Atlanta market,” adds Walt Linscott, partner-in-charge of the Atlanta office.
Mr. Rogers received his J.D. from Emory University School of Law and his B.A. from the University of Louisville. He is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.
About Thompson Hine LLP: Established in 1911, Thompson Hine is a business law firm dedicated to providing superior client service. For the last several years, the firm has been named one of the Best Corporate Law Firms in America (in an annual survey of corporate directors conducted by Corporate Board Member magazine). With more than 400 lawyers, Thompson Hine serves premier businesses worldwide. The firm has offices in Atlanta, Brussels, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, New York and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ThompsonHine.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro-Life Law Firm Sues Oakland
Law Firm News |
2007/12/21 17:55
|
A pro-life law firm has filed suit against the city of Oakland for approving an expanded bubble zone that would keep abortion protesters and sidewalk counselors further away from abortion businesses. The Life Legal Defense Foundation filed suit on behalf of pro-life advocate Walter B. Hoye II to keep the city from enforcing the law.
The city council approved the 8-foot zone around the entrances to abortion facilities on Tuesday.
The new ordinance makes it unlawful, and punishable by up to one year in jail, to go within that distance of an abortion business unless heading there for an abortion. It applies to protesters as well as sidewalk counselors who help women with alternatives.
LLDF's suit maintains that the ordinance is a content and viewpoint-based restriction of speech and is unconstitutional.
Hoye regularly engages in pro-life counseling and leafleting at the Family Planning Specialists abortion center in Oakland. Two elderly women from his church often join him.
Hoye told the Oakland City Council that "We are not a threat to public safety and these women aren't even capable of harassing clinic clients."
Their activities include handing out leaflets, education about abortion and holding signs with a pro-life message. All of these activities occur on the public sidewalk.
Local attorney Mike Millen, who filed the lawsuit in conjunction with LLDF, talked about it in a statement sent to LifeNews.com.
"Rather than helping women, this ordinance prevents them from receiving valuable information about their developing baby and options which would let that baby live," he said.
Millen added, "It is sad that city leaders are spending time and money on laws that maximize revenue for the abortion industry at the expense of the health of women and babies."
The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order blocking the ordinance.
City Attorney John Russo told the San Francisco Chronicle he thinks the lawsuit will fail and claimed it is about stopping harassment, not First Amendment rights.
"They can distribute literature in City Hall Plaza and on just about any street corner," Russo said. "What they cannot do is harass or intimidate women who are exercising their right to choose and right to privacy." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chinese Law Firms Opening In The US
Law Firm News |
2007/12/21 17:37
|
For many years, U.S. law firms have been rushing into China, investing people and resources to help clients on the ground there.
Now, a Chinese firm is mimicking their strategy -- opening a representative office in the United States. This year, Guangzhou-based Alpha & Leader, with more than 60 lawyers, planted its flag in Los Angeles.
The firm is among a handful from China that have set up shop here -- such as King & Wood in Silicon Valley and Jun He in New York City -- likely harbingers as Chinese law firms mature and expand internationally.
"I think we're going to see more Chinese firms here -- they want to have a footprint here," said Robert Allan, the managing partner of Alpha & Leader's Los Angeles office.
For now, the advantages for Alpha of having its five-lawyer office here are mostly practical, he said. They also mirror what American firms say about opening in Asia: It's helpful to have someone based in the distant time zone, who literally speaks the client's language.
Allan is a Canadian-trained lawyer who has been a solo practitioner in the U.S. since 1985. In 2003, a client suggested that Allan meet one of the client's Chinese lawyers. Through an interpreter, he connected with Wesley Pan, now the senior partner in Alpha & Leader's China office. The two started working together under a loose alliance called the USA China Law Group. This summer, they formalized the relationship under the Alpha & Leader name, and Allan now devotes most of his time to the firm because, he says, the name says it all.
"We're first and first. You can't beat that."
He and Pan formed an alliance that resulted this summer in the L.A. representative office.
The firm targets much of its practice on a specialized niche: the purchase and sale of non-performing loans -- loans that are in or near default. As the Chinese government has transferred NPLs from state-owned banks to asset management companies over the past decade, it opened the door for foreign investors. Those foreign investors were looking to invest in China's development, but were limited by the Chinese government's currency restrictions and rules governing foreign ownership of property, Allan explained.
The legal work includes locating a loan, doing the due diligence on it, and handling the actual transaction. The firm's clients include Chinese banks and asset management companies as well as purchasers such as Citigroup, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.
Allan said it was Pan who realized that a firm could find a lot of work in that specific area.
"Wesley's theory really struck me -- I thought it was an astute observation," Allan said.
Alpha & Leader has been involved in some aspect of more than 50 percent of the transactions involving non-performing loans in China, Allan said. Its competitors are other Chinese firms and American-trained lawyers such as Howard Chao, the head of O'Melveny & Myers' Asia practice.
But Chao said he wasn't familiar with Alpha, and dismissed the importance of a non-performing-loan practice for firms like his.
"The NPL practice in China has not blossomed the way some people thought it would," he said "The market for those deals has been decidedly smaller and local, domestic. There haven't been large-sized transactions anymore."
Chao attributes that, in part, to the policy of the Chinese government that encourages smaller, domestic bidders. There's so much liquidity in the Chinese domestic market that they don't need foreign investors in that sector, he said.
But, within China, Alpha & Leader is known as the go-to counsel on NPL portfolios, said Jinshu "John" Zhang, the head of the China practice at Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has sponsored Alpha attorneys to work in its L.A. office for a summer.
"In connection with the sale of NPL portfolios, they have worked with quite a few major I-banking houses," Zhang added. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell Sanders to Merge with Husch
Law Firm News |
2007/12/21 17:22
|
Two of Missouri’s biggest law firms have agreed to merge, creating a 630-lawyer powerhouse that will rank among the top 100 in the country in size and revenue.
Partners at Kansas City-based Blackwell Sanders and St. Louis-based Husch & Eppenberger approved the combination over the weekend. The electronic vote in favor of the union was nearly unanimous, according to Blackwell Chairman David Fenley.
“The whole notion of achieving a great deal more depth and more expertise is very attractive to clients and to people who may become our clients,” he said.
The merger is expected to close in January. A name for the combined firm has yet to be chosen.
Blackwell has about 330 attorneys and grossed $116.5 million in 2006, according to The American Lawyer, a legal publication. About half the firm’s attorneys are based in the Kansas City area.
Husch, which has a 40-attorney office in downtown Kansas City, has about 300 attorneys overall. The firm tallied $124 million in revenues in 2006.
The firms said they expected to generate combined revenues in 2008 of more than $275 million.
The marriage of the two firms dwarfs any previous law firm combination in Missouri, creating the state’s second-biggest legal shop. The biggest firm headquartered in Missouri is St. Louis-based Bryan Cave, which has about 800 attorneys.
“This will really differentiate them from other firms in the market,” said Lisa Smith of Hildebrandt International, a provider of consulting services to law firms. “And it gives them the platform to expand regionally.”
Smith, who advised Blackwell and Husch on the merger, said the union would give the new firm the kind of beefed-up resources that clients are increasingly demanding.
“Clients aren’t looking for size so much as practice depth,” she said. “This gives them additional depth in all of their practices. It really combines complementary practices because the relative strengths of each firm are a little different.”
Blackwell is best known for its corporate, transactional, real estate, and labor and employment practices. Husch is best known for its litigation, commercial finance, environmental and bankruptcy practices.
The last major cross-state merger of law firms took place 3 ½ years ago when Kansas City-based Polsinelli Shalton & Welte merged with St. Louis-based Suelthaus PC, creating a 190-lawyer firm with 70 lawyers in St. Louis. The firm, now called Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, currently has close to 300 attorneys.
The biggest law firm merger in Kansas City occurred more than five years ago when two of the city’s largest and oldest firms — Stinson Mag & Fizzell and Morrison & Hecker — combined to create a 342-lawyer practice. That firm is now known as Stinson Morrison Hecker.
The union of Blackwell and Husch will give the combined firm 16 locations in Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Tennessee, Washington, D.C., and London. The firms have overlapping offices in three cities — Kansas City, St. Louis and Springfield.
Fenley said the merged firm will address lease issues in those cities “as soon as we can, but we’re going to accomplish physical integration irrespective of having two offices in the same cities.”
Blackwell has 13 years remaining on its lease in the Plaza Colonnade, located at Main Street and Ward Parkway overlooking the Country Club Plaza. The firm moved in three years ago and occupies about 120,000 square feet on four floors. Husch occupies three floors downtown at 1200 Main St. and has nine years to run on its lease. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mayer Brown Merges with Hong Kongs JSM
Law Firm News |
2007/12/21 17:21
|
US-based international law firm Mayer Brown and Hong Kong’s Johnson, Stokes and Master are merging in a move that will create the world’s tenth-largest law firm by revenue.
The rare trans-pacific merger reflects the increasingly global operations of large businesses. It brings together two firms founded in the 19th century which are both largely focused on commercial transactions and litigation.
The combined entity, which will be known in Asia as Mayer Brown JSM, will have an annual revenue of $1.3bn and around 1800 lawyers. Jim Holzhauer, Mayer Brown chairman, will chair the global firm’s central policy and planning committee, and Elaine Lo, chairwoman of JSM’s partnership board, will head the combined entity’s Asia board.
The firms expect to grow substantially after the merger. Mr Holzhauer projects annual revenue to hit $2bn ”very quickly” and Ms Lo predicts earnings of $4bn within two to three years. ”This kind of growth cannot be obtained by just organic growth alone,” said Ms Lo.
Up to now, Mayer Brown’s Asia presence has been limited to one office in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing. JSM, whose clients include HSBC, Bank of China and Cathay Pacific, has 200 lawyers in mainland China, but none outside Asia.
That has meant that both firms had to find outside partners when handling cases that involve elements outside the firms’ home regions, such as cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
”The synergies will come from the clients,” said Paul Maher, Mayer Brown vice-chairman. ”Many of the major banks or industries we represent have transactions that will have both a European and Asian component, for example, and we will soon be able to do both within one firm.”
The merger comes nearly six years after the trans-atlantic tie-up between the US’s Mayer, Brown & Platt and the UK firm of Rowe & Maw to create Mayer Brown. The firm has suffered a tumultuous year, most recently with partner Joseph Collins being indicted in Manhattan on fraud charges related to the collapse of trading firm Refco in 2005. Mr Collins has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Ms Lo said the merger brings together JSM’s knowledge of the Chinese market with Mayer Brown’s global reach and experience in sophisticated commercial transactions. ”The world is becoming more globalised,” she said. ”Chinese companies are encouraged by the central government to expand overseas and they are just poised to grow out of China.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love Being Sued
Law Firm News |
2007/12/12 20:17
|
An Oklahoma oil and gas company has filed a $16 million lawsuit against a Charleston law firm and two of its attorneys for legal malpractice and for breach of contract.
Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP and attorneys Charles B. Dollison and Julia A. Chincheck are the defendants in the case filed by Hinkle Oil & Gas Inc., which is based in Oklahoma City. The case originally was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, but was removed to the Western District of Virginia in October.
Hinkle claims the firm and its attorneys are responsible for them losing millions of dollars because of a collapsed deal to buy some oil and gas wells.
A representative for Bowles Rice, which primarily does defense work, dismissed Hinkle's claims.
"The firm thinks the lawsuit is without merit, entirely without merit," partner Gerry Stowers told The West Virginia Record.
According to its complaint, Hinkle buys and develops oil and gas wells across the country.
"Hinkle is a small operator that seeks out, purchases and develops small wells and properties, many of which are quite old and nearly 'played out,'" the complaint states. "Because of the history of these wells, Hinkle occupies a special niche in the market: it purchases wells that are generally smaller than those that would attract so-called 'major players,' and because of the relatively small size of the wells, the owners-sellers, and producers, Hinkle can normally obtain these properties at highly favorable rates, then redevelop these properties, and earn substantial profits in so doing."
The lawsuit stems from Hinkle and a subsidiary - Minerals Management Group Inc. - dealing with a company called Buffalo Properties LLC. Hinkle and MMG were involved in "substantial legal disputes" with Buffalo Properties. In 2004, Buffalo filed for bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
In 2005, Hinkle and Buffalo began negotiations to settle their differences. In November, they reached an agreement that Hinkle would buy 17 oil and/or gas wells and 900 acres from Buffalo for $400,000.
Hinkle was being represented by Louisa, Ky., attorney Raymond Dodson. But the company needed an attorney licensed in West Virginia because Buffalo's bankruptcy was pending here.
In April 2006, Hinkle retained Bowles Rice to complete the paperwork on the Buffalo contract. Chincheck was assigned to Hinkle. Chincheck was group leader of Bowles Rice's commercial and financial services group.
"Since the underlying terms of the resolution agreement [with Buffalo] had already been agreed-to, Hinkle justifiably expected that the settlement agreement would be consummated and effected within two weeks at the most," the complaint states.
After a month, Hinkle says it contacted Chincheck, who said Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee was "difficult to get hold of" or "was not returning telephone calls."
Hinkle then states that Chincheck met with Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee on May 25, 2006. The trustee told Chincheck that Buffalo "had entered into another contract concerning the exact same subject matter as that involved in the Hinkle-Buffalo Properties resolution agreement, with an entity named Elk River Energy LLC."
The complaint says Hinkle was "flabbergasted at this development."
Between May 25 and June 2, Hinkle says it learned that Elk River Energy was formed only two weeks before the May 25 meeting and that Dollison, a partner at Bowles Rice, "was not only the organizing attorney," but "he also had a financial stake in Elk River Energy."
Had Hinkle known of what it called this "absolutely inexcusable conflict of interest," it never would have retained Bowles Rice nor would it have disclosed confidential and proprietary information consisting of the terms of the agreement with Buffalo.
On June 2, 2006, Chincheck informed Hinkle - "in a transparent attempt to excuse her culpability," according to the complaint - that she would no longer being representing the company.
Three days later -- through current counsel Hugo N. Gerstl of Monterey, Calif. - spoke with Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee, who said Elk River was trying to back out of its contract with Buffalo and trying to dissolve. Meanwhile, the trustee also moved to sell the subject property in bankruptcy court. The "Objection or Upset Bid" date was set for June 14, 2006.
Hinkle states that the contract it had with Buffalo "would have gone through promptly and with no difficulties." But because of the defendants' actions, Hinkle said it had to lodge its "upset bid" at a much higher price than it would have had to pay under the agreement. It also had to bid on all of Buffalo's properties instead of just the ones it wanted in the original deal.
Meanwhile, a new Nevada-based company called Heritage Financial Group Inc. made a bid for all of Buffalo's assets for $7 million. On Sept. 18, 2006, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the sale to Heritage.
Hinkle claims wrongful acts by Bowles Rice, Chincheck and Dollison are responsible for the collapse of its contract with Buffalo Properties and that, as a result, it has suffered and sustained damages because of the breach of fiduciary obligations. Those damages include loss of opportunity, loss of credibility in the oil and gas industry and natural incremental increase in its asset and profit base.
It also says it has lost profits from the wells it would have purchased. Studies show that amount, Hinkle says, exceeds $16 million. Hinkle says it also lost $6.6 million in consideration. That represents the $7 million Heritage purchase price for properties Hinkle would have bought for $400,000.
Hinkle also seeks compensation for resolving litigation involving two wells in Boyd County, Ky. The company says the actions of the defendants resulted in it having to settle on terms that would have been different had its purchase gone through.
Hinkle also seeks attorney fees and court costs for trying to salvage its contract with Buffalo Properties and the fess and costs paid to Bowles Rice.
It also seeks punitive damages.
"The acts of the defendants, and each of them, constituted constructive fraud, oppression and malicem [sic] and was, at least in part, motivated by defendants' desire for profit," the complaint states. "Said acts were made with conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights.
Hinkle claims Bowles Rice, Dollison and Chincheck breached their written contract with the company and breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Hinkle also says the defendants are guilty of legal malpractice.
Hinkle says the defendants "assumed a duty of care to represent plaintiff's interests competently, completely and without any conflict of interest."
Stowers said Bowles Rice did nothing wrong.
"Hinkle Oil & Gas claim they had a done deal with the bankruptcy trustee for the purchase of these wells," Stowers said. "All bids are subject to court approval and upset bids. When they went through the process, there was indeed an upset bid. The suit claims we are responsible for not completing the deal with the bankruptcy trustee. We deny that unequivocally because everything is subject to court approval.
"The law firm developed a conflict, and we couldn't go forward. Hinkle engaged new counsel, and their bid didn't go through."
Bowles Rice is being represented by Gerald P. Green and Mark E. Hardin of the Oklahoma firm of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green as well as Richmond, Va., attorney William D. Bayliss of the firm Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins.
The jury trial originally was scheduled for April 22 in Roanoke before Judge Samuel G. Wilson, but has since been rescheduled for May 19-21. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
