Today's Date: Add To Favorites
South African Law Firms Merge to be Biggest
Law Firm News | 2007/11/14 08:50
COMMERCIAL law firms Webber Wentzel Bowens and Mallinicks yesterday announced plans to merge in a move that would make the new entity one of SA’s biggest law firms, and rival corporate law advisers Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs.

The new firm, which will be led by Webber Wentzel Bowens senior partner David Lancaster, will have 300 lawyers.

The Ernst & Young Mergers & Acquisitions Review for 2006, which ranks legal advisers on the value of transactions they advised on, ranked Webber Wentzel Bowens as second last year with 29 deals worth R52bn, followed by Edward Nathan with 35 deals worth R46,75bn. Mallinicks was ranked 36th with three deals worth R178m.

Combined, the firms could be a large player in the market and their merger is part of the recent trend which has seen consolidation in the legal services sector.

The merger follows that of Edward Nathan’s recent blockbuster merger with Cape Town based-law firm Sonnenberg Hoffmann Galombik. Prior to that, Cliffe Dekker entered into an alliance with the world’s second-biggest law firm , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary.

Law experts say that the South African legal profession is a marketplace that is undergoing dramatic change. Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs chairman Michael Katz said mergers for large law firms “make good commercial sense. Nowadays law firms require scale.” Law firms must either scale up or become niche practices, he said. “Somewhere in between is problematic.”

However, Werksmans chairman Des Williams said relationships were more important at this stage than size for South African law firms to be world class.

Webber Wentzel Bowens had been looking for a merger partner for some time. “We have been focused on growth for some time now and we believe the new firm will allow us to enhance our delivery service to clients by capitalising on the enhanced quality, scale and scope of the merged firm to the advantage of our clients and staff,” Lancaster said.

The combined firm would start operating from March 1 next year . The merger would take effect when regulatory approvals were granted.

Mallinicks chairman Michael Evans said: “Webber Wentzel Bowens is the major force in corporate law in SA and merging with them will undoubtedly result in a strong, strategic and regional fit as a large part of our business is in corporate law too.”

“We will run the new merged entity as one firm. The new name and branding will underscore this fact,” Lancaster said.

Evans said both firms were committed to transformation. Between them they would have more than 100 black lawyers, of which 30 would be partners.


Supreme Court takes no action in handgun ban case
Breaking Legal News | 2007/11/13 08:18
Both sides in a closely watched legal battle over the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law are urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the justices agree — a step they may announce as early as Tuesday — the Roberts court is likely to find itself back on the front lines of the culture wars with an intensity unmatched even by the cases on abortion and race that defined the court's last term. The question is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to "keep and bear arms." If the answer is yes, as the federal appeals court held in March, the justices must then decide what such an interpretation means for a statute that bars all possession of handguns and that requires any other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by trigger locks.

The Supreme Court has never answered the Second Amendment question directly, and it has been nearly 70 years since the court even approached it obliquely. A decision in 1939, United States v. Miller, held that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the "arms" to which the Second Amendment referred in its single, densely written, and oddly punctuated sentence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Asked during his confirmation hearing what he thought that sentence meant, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. responded that the Miller decision had "side-stepped the issue" and had left "very open" the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right as opposed to a collective right.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on which the chief justice formerly sat, ruled in March by a vote of 2 to 1 that "the right in question is individual," not tied to membership in a state militia. On that basis, the court declared that the 31-year-old statute, one of the country's strictest, was unconstitutional.



Gibson Dunn Promotes 14 Lawyers to Partner
Law Firm News | 2007/11/13 07:23



Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that the Firm has elected 14 new partners, effective January 1, 2008.  The new partners represent a wide range of practice areas and geographical regions.

"We are proud to recognize the accomplishments of this extraordinarily talented group of attorneys," said Ken Doran, Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn. "The new partners are exceptional lawyers, who reflect our firm's values of excellence, personal integrity, collegiality and dedication to providing the highest level of service to our clients.  Representing diverse practices across our offices, they bring a wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise that will be a tremendous resource for our clients and our firm."

  The new partners include:

  -- Dora R. Arash -- Arash's practice focuses on federal income tax
    planning for corporations and partnerships, as well as tax controversy
    matters.  Resident in the Los Angeles office, she graduated magna cum
    laude from the Pepperdine University School of Law in 1994.

  -- Ron C. Ben-Yehuda -- Ben-Yehuda practices in the areas of transactional
    intellectual property, media and technology, focusing extensively on
    agreements relating to technology development, marketing and licensing,
    as well as e-commerce and other online activities.  Prior to joining
    the Firm, he was general counsel of a public software company.
    Resident in the Los Angeles office, he graduated with distinction from
    Stanford Law School in 1987.

  -- Anne Lee Benedict -- Benedict's practice focuses on corporate finance,
    business combination, securities and general corporate matters.
    Resident in the Washington, D.C. office, she graduated from the
    University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1999.

  -- Frederick S. Chung -- Chung practices intellectual property litigation,
    focusing on patent litigation.  Resident in the Palo Alto office, he
    graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995.  Following his
    graduation from law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable
    Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in
    Cleveland, Ohio.

  -- Rachel Couter -- An English-qualified lawyer, Couter practices
    international litigation, arbitration and other dispute resolution,
    including contentious regulatory disputes.  She is a Solicitor of the
    Supreme Court of England and Wales.  Resident in the London office, she
    obtained a first class honors degree in law from the University of
    Cambridge in 1994.

  -- Michael M. Farhang -- Farhang practices white collar criminal,
    securities, and general business litigation.  Prior to joining the
    Firm, he served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central
    District of California, where he specialized in white collar fraud
    prosecutions in the Major Fraud section.  Farhang also participated in
    legal assignments in Iraq for the Department of Justice in 2003.
    Resident in the Los Angeles office, he received his law degree cum
    laude from Harvard Law School in 1995.

  -- Drew C. Flowers -- Flowers focuses his practice on real estate
    transactions, with a particular emphasis on representing capital
    partners, developers and lenders in complex financing transactions.
    Resident in the Los Angeles office, he received his law degree from the
    University of Southern California in 1998.

  -- Eduardo Gallardo -- Gallardo concentrates his practice on mergers and
    acquisitions and general corporate transactions.  Resident in the New
    York office, he graduated from Columbia Law School in 1999, where he
    was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.

  -- Joshua Lipton -- Lipton is a member of the Firm's Antitrust Practice
    Group.  His practice includes antitrust litigation, merger and
    acquisition investigations, antitrust counseling, and antitrust
    investigations by federal and state agencies and the European
    Commission.  Resident in the Washington, D.C. office, he received his
    law degree magna cum laude from the University of Michigan School of
    Law in 1998, where he graduated first in his class.

  -- Michael K. Murphy -- Murphy's practice focuses on environmental
    litigation and counseling.  He also has experience handling various
    government contract-related issues.  Resident in the Washington, D.C.
    office, he graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in
    1999.

  -- Julian W. Poon -- Poon is an appellate and general commercial
    litigator, with a broad range of experience at both the appellate and
    trial court level across the country in antitrust, intellectual
    property, class action, labor, energy, media-access, and general
    commercial litigation.  Prior to joining the Firm, he served as a law
    clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United
    States during the 2000-2001 Term, and to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 1999-2000.  Resident
    in the Los Angeles office, he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard
    Law School in 1999, receiving the Fay Diploma for placing first in his
    class.

  -- C. William Thomas, Jr. -- Thomas's practice emphasizes the formation
    and operation of domestic and international private investment funds,
    including hedge funds, private equity funds, real estate funds and
    funds of funds.  Resident in the Washington, D.C. office, he received
    his law degree magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1998.

  -- Michael L. Reed -- Reed's practice involves corporate securities,
    merger and acquisition, corporate finance, and general business and
    contract matters.  Resident in the San Francisco office, he received
    his law degree from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1994.

  -- Aric H. Wu -- Wu practices complex commercial litigation with a
    significant concentration in the area of securities litigation.
    Resident in the New York office, he received his law degree, with
    distinction as a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, from Columbia University
    School of Law in 1998.



Court orders White House to preserve e-mail backups
Court Watch | 2007/11/13 07:18
A federal district court judge issued a temporary restraining order today requiring the Bush administration to safeguard backup media files that may contain copies of millions of White House e-mail messages — the subject of ongoing litigation.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group, requested the order last month. It and George Washington University’s National Security Archive are suing the Bush administration for allegedly failing to “recover, restore and preserve certain electronic communications created and/or received within the White House.”

The complaint alleges that since 2003 the Bush administration has illegally discarded about 5 million e-mail messages that it was required to keep under records laws. The plaintiffs are demanding that the missing messages be restored using the backup media files and that the administration implement a new “adequate electronic management system.”

The groups’ lawsuits against the Executive Office of the President, the White House’s Office of Administration, and the National Archives and Records Administration have now been consolidated.

CREW filed for the temporary restraining order after the group said it did not receive adequate assurances from the White House that the backups were being protected.

The decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirms a magistrate’s earlier recommendation that the order be issued. Under the temporary restraining order, the defendants are required to safeguard all media in their possession as of Nov. 12.

But because the order is not retroactive, it does not clarify what has happened to the backups since 2003, said Meredith Fuchs, the National Security Archive’s general counsel. Concerns that the backups could have been erased in the past four years -- perhaps as part of normal business processes -- coupled with the limited time remaining for the Bush administration prompted the plaintiffs to ask for an expedited discovery process, she said.

The Bush administration formally opposed the early discovery request Nov. 9, she said.


Court Rejects Request From Detainee
Court Watch | 2007/11/13 06:19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to consider the case of a Guantanamo Bay detainee fighting U.S. plans to return him to Algeria. Ahmed Belbacha says his life will be in danger from terrorists and that it is likely Algerian authorities will torture him if he is sent home. The U.S. military has classified him as an enemy combatant, while saying he is eligible for transfer subject to appropriate diplomatic arrangements for another country to take him.

"Caught between domestic terror groups and a government that brutalizes suspected Islamists, Belbacha cannot safely return to Algeria," his lawyers wrote in asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "His fear is such that he would prefer to endure the oppressive environment of Guantanamo until an asylum state can be found."

Brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 from Pakistan, Belbacha was an accountant at the government-owned oil company Sonatrach. He says his problems began when he was recalled for a second term of military service in the Algerian army, prompting death threats against him by terrorists in Groupe Isalmique Armee, then at the height of a violent campaign for an Islamic Algeria.

Belbacha never reported for duty, but says the GIA visited his home at least twice and threatened him and his family. He left the country, traveling to France, England, Pakistan and Afghanistan before being brought to Guantanamo Bay.



When joining a rival firm, watch out for legal traps
Legal Business | 2007/11/13 04:22

Ready to join a rival, you urge several subordinates and clients to come along. You assume you're safe because you lack a noncompete agreement.

Big mistake. Your poaching attempt may bring you big trouble. A growing number of companies sue job hoppers for luring staffers or customers while still employed there. Such lawsuits often claim breach of fiduciary duty. One financial-services concern waged a nasty court fight that stalled defections for months after a manager handed out applications for his new workplace during an office party shortly before he joined the competitor.

In addition, costly litigation over your pre-exit antics "can cast you in a bad light at your new employer," says Christopher Stief, head of the employee defection and trade secrets practice for Fisher & Phillips, a national law firm. "You don't want to have this happen to you."

Even a threatening letter from your old bosses can jeopardize your move. "Just the whiff of a suit is enough to spook an employer," notes Allan Bloom, an employment law specialist for Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in New York. "I have seen offers pulled."

There are ways to avoid landing in legal hot water when you jump ship to a rival. Experts recommend choosing your words and deeds carefully from the outset of the courtship until you clean out your office.

Beginning with your job interview, never suggest how many loyal co-workers would tag along with you if you got hired. Some skittish businesses reject candidates for boasting about their ability to recruit teammates. "It would be a negative," the general counsel of a major high-technology concern says. "You question the ethics of that individual."

And don't reveal secret customer information to a hiring manager. You'd be safer -- and viewed more favorably -- describing your annual sales and commissions, without giving the exact number of sneakers you peddled to Foot Locker last year.

Brett Senior & Associates, a law firm in Conshohocken, Pa., sued accountant Stephen Fitzgerald last year soon after he quit and joined Fesnak & Associates, a Blue Bell accounting firm that Brett Senior considered a competitor. While discussing his possible employment, Fitzgerald showed several Fesnak partners a list of about 69 clients he served plus the fees paid by 48, the suit alleged.

Mary A. McLaughlin, a U.S. district court judge in Philadelphia, dismissed nearly all of the suit's charges this past July. Among other things, she said, Brett Senior failed to prove those client names and fees paid "were its property."

Still, the judge ordered Fitzgerald to stand trial on his alleged breach of fiduciary duty for calling 20 clients before he left. Fifteen clients followed him. He "conceded that at least some of these contacts were solicitations," her ruling noted. "An employee cannot solicit customers for a rival business."

In court filings, Fitzgerald denied any wrongdoing. He quit Fesnak six months ago for a better job and declines to comment on the case, according to his attorney Bruce E. Rodger.

You can steer clear of such legal troubles by keeping customers clueless about your new employer's identity. You shouldn't even announce your fresh title, phone number or email address before you resign.

As an extra precaution, conceal your departure plans from everyone at work except your supervisor. "Almost anything you say about your intentions to leave could cross that line," cautions Keith Wexelblatt, a senior counsel for Reebok International.

Other job hoppers get in trouble because they suddenly treat differently some subordinates they hope will follow them. "They try to take the distasteful things off the employee's plate" or overlook that staffer's mistakes, explains Steven L. Manchel, a partner at Manchel & Brennan, a law firm in Newton, Mass.

It's also wise to seek legal advice, bankrolled by your employer-to-be, about proper exit behavior. Reebok retains legal specialists like Manchel to coach every incoming executive and certain managers. "I just hope we can stop people from doing stupid things," Wexelblatt says.

The confidentiality of your chats with an attorney vanishes, however, if you email her from work. "The minute you think of leaving, stop using the company computer" for personal matters, suggests a Washington trial lawyer who handles cases involving officials joining rivals.

Even bringing home sensitive documents during your final days could raise red flags. Bottom line: Leave your holiday card list at the office -- especially if it includes names of key customers that competitors don't know about.

You may woo former clients and co-workers once your new job starts as long as your efforts don't involve confidential information, Manchel says. He quit a Boston law firm 10 years ago to launch his own shop.

The day after he resigned, the lawyer recalls, "I informed my most significant litigation clients -- and they all continue to use me."




First U.S. Law Firm Creates Sustainability Officer Job
Law Center | 2007/11/13 04:19

In recent years, sustainability officers have been hired by corporations and universities, foundations and government agencies to manage their relationships with the environment on many levels - ecological, social, economic, policy and political, and governmental.

But law firms? No.

Until now.

The international law firm Nixon Peabody LLP today announced the appointment of a chief sustainability officer. Carolyn Kaplan, an attorney in the firm's energy and environmental practice, will serve in the new role.

Nixon Peabody is the first in the legal industry to establish such a position, although many of the firm's clients and global industries have done so as part of corporate commitments to sustainability.

"This new position reflects our commitment to implement sustainable principles at every opportunity in our firm. We are supporting the commitment to sustainable practices that our clients are adopting and implementing," said Harry P. Trueheart III, chairman and managing partner of Nixon Peabody.

"I'm proud to serve in this new role at Nixon Peabody," said Kaplan. "In addition to improving our own performance, I believe we can assist our clients to achieve their business goals while attaining the best environmental result."

In her new role, Kaplan will work closely with Nixon Peabody's operations director to further reduce the firm's carbon footprint and implement internal green initiatives, as well as to look for opportunities to partner with clients and potential clients on joint sustainability activities.

While serving as chief sustainability officer, Kaplan will continue her legal practice in energy, environmental and land use law. Kaplan also co-chairs the firm's Renewable Energy Team and has assisted clients on a variety of renewable energy projects, including the siting of land-based and offshore wind facilities.

Nixon Peabody has been fostering sustainable business practices. Earlier this year, the firm announced the opening of its first green office in San Francisco which is a model of sustainable design, green building techniques, and a healthy work environment.

The office has been certified by the U.S. Green Building Council under the program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, making Nixon Peabody the first law firm in the United States to be LEED certified in the category of Commercial Interiors.

In the coming months, other Nixon Peabody offices will also pursue LEED-certification.

All of the firm's offices are implementing sustainability programs, adopting waste minimization practices, switching to eco-friendly building materials and cleaning products, and identifying other ways to reduce the firm's carbon footprint.

With 700 attorneys collaborating across 25 major practice areas in 17 office locations, Nixon Peabody is one of the largest law firms in the United States and is recognized by American Lawyer Media as a "Global 100" firm.

Nixon Peabody has been recognized by FORTUNE magazine as one of its "100 Best Companies To Work For" in 2007 for the second consecutive year. The firm has also been named to the Human Rights Campaign's 2007 "Best Places To Work For GLBT Equality" list.



[PREV] [1] ..[831][832][833][834][835][836][837][838][839].. [1187] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Florida Attorney General Ash..
Americans’ trust in nation..
Trump asks the Supreme Court..
Rudy Giuliani is in contempt..
Small businesses brace thems..
Appeals court overturns ex-4..
Amazon workers strike at mul..
TikTok asks Supreme Court to..
Supreme Court rejects Wiscon..
US inflation ticked up last ..
Court seems reluctant to blo..
Court will hear arguments ov..
Romanian court orders a reco..
Court backs Texas over razor..
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design