|
|
|
Associate Attrition Rates are on the Upswing
Law Firm News |
2007/11/30 09:15
|
With associate attrition rates on the upswing and young lawyers unwilling to sacrifice personal time, law firms are being forced to rethink the classic high-workload, partner-track model for associates or watch as valuable talent slips away.
Firms have found that the lure of a hefty paycheck in exchange for a rigorous schedule has lost some of its shine for associates, who have different views on what success represents and increasingly leave firms after a handful of years. The new paradigm presents a dilemma for law firms, which have for years relied on the assumption that money -- and the potential of making partner -- buys loyalty.
Local and national law firms have begun to tweak that model, looking for creative alternatives to retain associates who are expensive to hire, but even more expensive to replace.
In 2006, the associate attrition rate in the U.S. was 19 percent, the same percentage as the previous year, which was the highest rate documented by any prior study of attrition, according to the National Association for Law Placement Foundation in Overland Park, Kan. Broken down, larger firms experience even higher rates of attrition with firms larger than 500 reporting a range of 13 percent to 27 percent attrition, according to NALP.
Associates' salaries at large firms range from $160,000 to $285,000 with the possibility of bonuses of $25,000 to $50,000. Meanwhile some law firms peg the cost of replacing an associate at around $300,000.
"Obviously law firms are quite concerned that associates are bailing out left and right," said Paul Clifford, a principal at Law Practice Consultants LLC in Boston. "Firms are starting to wake up to this and are starting to get more creative."
Nationally, McDermott Will & Emery is in the process of hiring a new class of about 15 staff associates who will charge less per hour for lower-end work, make less money and not be on the partnership track, according to a story on Law.com. The lawyers hired will be those who are not interested in working 80-hour weeks. The move is designed to benefit clients, who will pay less for their services. A representative from McDermott Will & Emery said the firm did not wish to comment for this story. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archdiocese in Boston Finds New Representation
Breaking Legal News |
2007/11/30 08:49
|
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, in a step long sought by critics of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, said yesterday that he is hiring a new general counsel who will largely replace the controversial law firm that for years defended the archdiocese against scores of people who said they were sexually abused by priests.
more stories like this
* 2 teenagers hurt in shooting near schools in Dorchester
* Church to close 2 Hub schools, create regional system
* Amid closures, parochial school a triumph in Brockton
* Archdiocese to close two parish schools in Boston as part of system overhaul
* Man suing diocese testifies in second trial
*
F. Beirne Lovely Jr., a partner at Goodwin Procter, will effectively replace the Rogers Law Firm, which has represented the archdiocese in most legal matters for at least two decades. The Rogers Law Firm, led by lawyer Wilson D. Rogers Jr., has been viewed with suspicion and hostility by many victim advocates and would-be church reformers - in part because of Rogers's close relationship with Cardinal Bernard F. Law, who resigned five years ago at the height of the clergy sexual-abuse crisis, and because Rogers was viewed as an architect of the archdiocese's yearslong adversarial handling of complaints and lawsuits brought by people who said they were sexually abused by priests.
"Wilson Rogers was the iron fist inside Bernard Law's velvet glove, the operative who for many years obstructed and outmaneuvered victims' attempts to hold the archdiocese accountable for sheltering pedophiles," said Anne Barrett Doyle, codirector of BishopAccountability.org, a victim advocacy organization. "God only knows how many children were harmed because of Rogers's success in silencing victims and his ruthless dedication to keeping the archdiocese out of civil courts."
The archdiocese, which has a vast array of legal issues ranging from personnel and real estate matters to more publicly sensitive cases involving parish closings and sexual abuse, said only that it had decided the time had come for an in-house counsel who would oversee all of the archdiocese's legal concerns and hire outside lawyers as needed.
"We believe that an in-house counsel having a broad-based legal background will best serve the archdiocese," James P. McDonough, archdiocesan chancellor, said in a statement.
Terrence C. Donilon, archdiocesan spokesman, said the Rogers Law Firm would continue to do some work for the archdiocese and represent Caritas Christi, the archdiocesan hospital network. He said the archdiocese would still retain Thomas H. Hannigan, a longtime and trusted O'Malley adviser from the law firm Ropes & Gray, to handle abuse-related litigation.
Donilon said Lovely would report to the archdiocesan vicar general and would be "a member of senior leadership" at the chancery.
Rogers declined to comment yesterday, but his firm offered the Globe a statement congratulating Lovely and saying, "The extent and magnitude of legal issues affecting the archdiocese on a daily basis warrants an in-house full-time general counsel. The Rogers Law Firm looks forward to working with Mr. Lovely and to continue providing legal services to the Archdiocese of Boston."
Lovely also declined to comment, except via a statement from the archdiocese in which he said he was "honored" by the new position. The archdiocese would not say how much Lovely would be paid, but said it would report his salary next year, with the archdiocese's annual financial disclosure forms, if he is among the archdiocese's top five salaried employees.
The archdiocese reported paying The Rogers Law Firm $610,000 in fiscal 2006 and $448,054 in fiscal 2005. Caritas Christi reported paying the firm $6.9 million over the past eight years.
Lovely is a decorated Vietnam veteran who graduated from Dartmouth College and Boston University Law School. He has been at Goodwin Procter since 1976 and is a member of its business law department. He is chairman of the Milton School Committee and a parishioner at St. Elizabeth Church in Milton. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben Push On in Bridge Case
Breaking Legal News |
2007/11/30 08:46
|
An attempt by lawyers for victims of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse to pull back the blanket of secrecy over the investigation into its cause was blocked Thursday by federal law and a Hennepin County judge.
The law firm Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, which represents several collapse victims and their families, sought information about the collapse from Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc., a Chicago-area engineering firm hired by the state to look into the reasons the bridge suddenly gave way during rush hour Aug. 1, killing 13 and injuring about 100.
But citing National Transportation Safety Board restrictions, Hennepin County District Judge Herbert Lefler ruled that the information does not have to be released without the approval of federal investigators.
"(Wiss Janney), which has contracted with the State of Minnesota, is an agent of the state and considered by the NTSB to be a participant in the investigation of the bridge collapse," Lefler wrote. "As such, all data collected by (Wiss Janney) for the investigation is non-public. ... Plaintiff has no right to the data it requests at this time."
So far, the NTSB has only offered clues into the course of its investigation, outlining several broad areas it is studying. They include the design of large steel plates that held pieces of the bridge together, the weight of construction materials and equipment on the bridge at the time of collapse and the effects of an automated anti-icing system installed on the bridge in 1999.
The NTSB has declared the Minnesota Department of Transportation a party to its investigation, which might not be completed for another year. Federal rules prohibit the release of information unless approved by the NTSB's investigator-in-charge.
The state argued that Wiss Janney is also subject to those rules, but Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben sought a ruling that information developed by the firm should be released under Minnesota's Data Practices Act.
"We're going to appeal this. It's outrageous that MnDOT should be allowed to hide under the shield of secrecy of the NTSB," lawyer Jim Schwebel said. "What are they afraid of disclosing?"
Victims' lawyers have been frustrated by a lack of access to pieces of the collapsed bridge and are concerned that any independent investigation will be compromised without prompt access to the materials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,000 Walmart Employees File Class Action
Class Action |
2007/11/30 07:23
|
More than 75,000 current or former Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) employees in the State of Washington will receive letters over the next several days notifying them that they are part of a statewide class action lawsuit against the nation’s largest private employer: Wal-Mart. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2001, is believed to be the largest class action in the State’s history. Beth Terrell, attorney with the Seattle law firm Tousley Brain Stephens, will address the Seattle media this morning at 10:30 a.m. at the firm’s offices: 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200, downtown Seattle.
According to the notice that could arrive in the mail as early as today, hourly employees who worked “off the clock” (without compensation) or worked through rest or meal breaks at Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club stores in Washington at any time from September 10, 1997, to the present are automatically considered Class Members. Employees in the class will share in any money or benefits that come from a trial or settlement.
The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court nearly six years ago and was certified as a class action in October of 2004. The case was put on hold when Wal-Mart appealed the class-certification decision to both the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals ruled against Wal-Mart and affirmed class certification. The Supreme Court denied review, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
Trial is expected to begin in Spring of 2009. King County Superior Judge Julie Spector will preside.
Attorney Beth Terrell (Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, Seattle), represents the employees. Terrell says the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed as a class action “is a victory for Wal-Mart employees who, like other hourly employees in Washington, deserve to receive proper rest and meal breaks and to be paid for all hours worked.”
For a decade now, hourly employees of Washington Wal-Mart stores have complained of missing their rest and meal breaks and having to work off the clock. Georgie Hartwig, one of the plaintiffs in the class action, will participate in today’s press conference.
Hartwig worked for the Colville, Washington store for six years, and estimates that she worked two to five hours over her “clocked” time every week. “For hourly workers like Wal-Mart employees, a few hours of pay a week can make a real difference in their paychecks,” Terrell stated. Hartwig’s work load was so heavy that she often skipped meal and rest breaks in order to finish her work.
Hartwig’s story is echoed by other Wal-Mart employees, not only in Washington, but around the country. In California, a judgment was entered against Wal-Mart for nearly $167 million brought on behalf of 115,919 employees who said they did not receive proper meal breaks. In Pennsylvania, a $151 million dollar judgment was entered against Wal-Mart on behalf of 187,000 employees who made similar claims about breaks, and worked off the clock without pay. A class action on behalf of 56,000 Minnesota Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club employees is currently in trial in that state. That trial is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Rachel Geman, co-lead class counsel (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York), says, “Wal-Mart’s own documents show that it systematically deprived its employees of hard-earned pay through widespread wage and hour violations. Wal-Mart knew about these violations but did nothing to correct them.”
WAL-MART EMPLOYEES SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE ENCOURAGED TO GO TO: www.walmartwageswa.com or call toll free 800-795-8543.
MS. HARTWIG AND ATTORNEY BETH TERRELL WILL DISCUSS THE LAWSUIT WITH MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AT 10:30 A.M. (PACIFIC). COPIES OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS ATTENDING THE PRESS CONFERENCE.
For further information, contact Seattle attorney Beth Terrell at 206-682-5600. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ericsson LM Telephone Co. Class Action Filed
Class Action |
2007/11/30 07:22
|
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Pennsylvania and Ohio, announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Ericsson LM Telephone Co. (“Ericsson” of the “Company”)(NASDAQ:ERIC) between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive, (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit was filed against Ericsson and certain officers and directors (“Defendants”).
If you are a member of this class and wish to view a copy of a complaint and join this class action, please e-mail us at info@gsk-law.com and request a copy of the complaint and a plaintiff certification. If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later than December 29, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. However, if you choose to remain an absent class member, unless and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements regarding demand for the Company’s mobile network equipment. When Defendants belatedly conceded that demand for its products was far weaker than disclosed, shares of ERIC reacted negatively to the news. Ericsson’s ADS shares, traded on NASDAQ, which had traded as high as $43.41 during the class period, fell to a three year low of $23.00 per share following its announcement that demand for its products had in fact fallen.
If you bought Ericsson securities between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive, and would like to obtain information about the lawsuit, then you are invited to call (888) 753-2796 to speak with an advisor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virgin Mobile USA faces class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2007/11/29 08:14
|
Shareholders who lost money after investing in Virgin Mobile USA have filed a class-action lawsuit against the mobile phone company. Virgin Mobile USA began as a 50:50 joint venture between Sprint Nextel and Branson's Virgin Group
Law firm Kahn Gauthier Swick filed the suit on behalf of investors and is urging those who lost more than $100,000 to inquire about applying for lead plaintiff status in the case.Virgin Mobile USA began as a 50:50 joint venture between Sprint Nextel and Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Group, which floated the company last month. The shareholders suing the business invested in Virgin Mobile USA's initial public offering, or later bought its stock in the open market. Last month, the pay-as-you-go service provider sold 27.5m shares for $15 each, at the low end of expectations. The shares rose as high as $16.63 a share on the first day on the open market, but have since steadily declined, amid a broader market sell-off. advertisementThey were trading down 27c at just $7.25 yesterday afternoon, having fallen around 55pc from their peak. The offering raised $413m. The company had said it would use the proceeds from the stock sale to repay debt and to buy out 16.7pc of Sprint Nextel's interest. A spokesman for the company said: ''The lawsuit is completely without merit and we will defend it vigorously." The company is a separate entity from Virgin Mobile in the UK, which was sold to cable giant NTL to form Virgin Media, in which Sir Richard is the largest shareholder - as he is is Virgin Mobile USA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O.J. Simpson back in court to enter plea
Breaking Legal News |
2007/11/29 08:12
|
O.J. Simpson arrived this morning at a Las Vegas courtroom, where he and two codefendants are expected to plead not guilty to 12 charges stemming from the alleged robbery of two men who traffic in sports memorabilia.
Accompanied by his lawyers, Simpson flashed a smile at television cameras as he entered the building to deal with his latest confrontation with the legal system. Wearing a suit in an elegant shade of gray, he seemed at ease, sitting on a railing and smiling as he talked to people in the courtroom.
Simpson, the former football star, actor and pitchman, is perhaps best known for being acquitted in 1995 for the murders of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.
In the current case, Simpson, 60, who now lives in Miami, is charged with kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, coercion and conspiracy charges in connection with a Sept. 13 confrontation with the sports dealers. If convicted, Simpson could face life in prison on the kidnapping charge and mandatory prison time on the robbery charge.
Simpson has maintained that he entered the hotel room to recover personal property that had been stolen by a former agent. The prosecution alleges that Simpson and his colleagues took tens of thousands of dollars of sports collectibles not tied to the star.
The arraignment of Simpson with Clarence Stewart, 53, and Charles Ehrlich, 53, is a pro forma step after a justice of the peace ruled two weeks ago that there was enough evidence for them to be tried.
Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass is expected to set a trial date for next year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
