On October Twenty one, 2009, several U.S. Senators introduced a proposed federal “Elder Abuse Victims Act (S. 1821)” as a “companion” Senate bill to one adopted earlier this year by a vote of 397 to 25 in the House, known as the Elder Abuse Victims Behave (H.R. 448), introduced by Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA). It appears that key provisions of this legislation have become enfolded into the pending Health Care Reform bill under consideration in the Senate.

On September 21st, Congressman Sestak had urged Senate action in response to the previous House adoption of H.R. 448 on February 11, 2009. See: Press Release, Congressman Sestak Recognizes World Alzheimer’s Day (09/21/09).

This is Senate Bill 1821’s Summary according to GovTrack:
A bill to protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder humiliate prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response practice groups to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes.

 
A Press Release (10/21/09) issued by the office of Senator Patrick Leahy listed the key Senate sponsors and noted the need for such legislation:
Today Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chairwoman of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging, and Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) introduced the Elder Abuse Victims Behave, a bill that would improve the law enforcement community’s ability to target and combat abuse and exploitation of senior citizens.

A companion to the Elder Abuse Victims Behave (H.R. 448), introduced by Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), was passed earlier this year by a vote of 397 to 25 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“For years, Congress has failed to take concrete action to address the consequences of elder abuse, and that must change,” told Senator Kohl. “With this bill, we hope to help local enforcement agencies and other advocates tackle the often-hidden scourge of elder abuse.” * * *
That Press Release summarized the key provisions of the Senate’s proposed Elder Abuse Victims Act:
• Stipulates that elder abuse includes mail, telemarketing, and Internet fraud aimed at elderly people;
• Seeks to develop a common definition of elder abuse as knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm, or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm;
• Seeks to develop a common definition of elder exploitation as fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper acts or processes of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets; and
• Funds creation of jobs within State courts, prosecutors’ offices or State Medicaid Fraud Control Units to coordinate elder justice-related cases, training, technical assistance, and policy development for State prosecutors and courts.

Thus, Senate Bill 1821 was one response to Sestak’s call for action. But the response in the Senate may have extended far beyond it, into the pending, sweeping health care reform bill to be subject to debate in the Senate. See: Health Care Reform Bill Moves to Senate Floor for Debate (11/22/09), published by U.S. News & World Report, which noted:
Senate Democrats managed to push health care reform legislation past a key hurdle on Saturday night, with a cloture vote that will lead to a debate on the Senate floor later this month, the Associated Press reported. * * *

“Elder justice” and “elder abuse” proposals in Congress began in the early years of this decade; but none has become law, despite broad-based, non-profit organizations supporting such legislation through political coalitions. See: EE&F Law Blog postings Federal “Elder Abuse Victims Act” Reintroduced (02/20/09), and Federal “Elder Justice” Acts Appear Elusive (09/12/08). See also: Transcript of Hearing on June 18, 2002 before the Senate’s Committee on Finance, “Elder Justice: Protecting Seniors from Humiliate and Neglect” (PDF, 74 pages).

Now, in the most recent version of the Senate’s proposed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Behave (H.R. 3590)” (PDF, 2074 pages!), I discover a Subtitle H entitled “Elder Justice Act” under under Title VI (”Transparency and Program Integrity”), consisting of 3 sections — Sections 6701 through 6703, which begin at page 1798.

H.R. 3590 in the 111th Congress, as amended from time to time, can be accessed through the Thomas Legislative Information Service, of the Library of Congress.

That subtitle “may be cited as the ‘Elder Justice Behave of 2009′” per Section 6701.

It appears that prior federal “elder justice” and “elder humiliate” proposals have been enfolded into the pending health care legislation that would reorder health care delivery nationally.

The definition of “elder” under the legislation is “an individual age 60 or older” according to Section 6702.

Regarding such elders, the bill would amend the Social Security Act to introduce into federal law the concept of “Elder Justice,” defined as:
(A) from a societal perspective, efforts to — (i) prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and (ii) protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their autonomy; and (B) from an individual perspective, the recognition of an elder’s rights, including the right to be free of humiliate, neglect, and exploitation.

“Abuse” would be defined as: “The knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm.”

“Exploitation” would be defined as “the fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper behave or process of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets.”

A “fiduciary” would be “a person or entity with the legal responsibility — (i) to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of another person; and (ii) to act in valuable faith and with fairness.” It would include “a trustee, a guardian, a conservator, an executor, an agent under a financial power of lawyer or health care power of lawyer, or a representative payee.”

To review the status of “elder justice,” the proposal would create a new Elder Justice Coordinating Council, consisting of high federal officials, including the Lawyer General. See: Pages 1808-1811.

There would also be created a new Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation to “create short- and long-term multidisciplinary strategic plans for the development of the field of elder justice and to make recommendations to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council established under section 2021.” See: Pages 1811-1818.

These activities would be funded with $6.5 Million in 2011, and $7 Million annually in 2012 through 2014. See: Pages 1818 & 1819.

The proposal provides for grants to be made to Elder Humiliate, Neglect, and Exploitation Forensic Centers, and funds them to the extent of $20 Million in 2011, $17.5 Million in 2012, and $15 Million annually in 2013 and 2014. See: Pages 1821-1830.

In addition, funding would be provided for “State and local adult protective services offices that investigate reports of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders” at the levels of $3 Million in 2011 and $4 Million annually in 2012 through 2014. See: Pages 1830 & 1831.

There would be created an “adult protective services grant program under which the Secretary shall annually award grants to States * * * for the purposes of enhancing adult protective services provided by States and local units of government.”

The current version of H.R. 3590 to be debated in the Senate would also create a Long-term Care Ombudsman Program and a National Training Institute for Federal and State surveyors. These initiatives, too, would be funded significantly through 2014.

Whether these provisions in the controversial H.R. 3590 will survive, I don’t know. But the fact of their inclusion for debate and consideration is a monumental step forward in federal involvement to curb elder abuse and enhance elder justice.

Update: 11/23/09:

An article was posted November 23, 2009, by the Kaiser Health News, entitled Congress Targets Senior Abuse, by Rick Schmitt (also published in The Los Angeles Times and The Baltimore Sun on the same date).

The author highlighted the Elder Justice Act aspects of the pending health care reform bill presently in the Senate for consideration:
The Senate is considering an even more expansive Elder Justice Behave. It would boost federal aid for identifying and investigating elder humiliate at the state and local levels, require long-term care providers to report possible crimes to federal authorities and create new oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services for coordinating state and federal anti-abuse efforts.

These provisions, already approved by the Senate Finance Committee, are included in the health legislation that is being prepared for floor debate after Thanksgiving. With broad support in and out of Congress, at least some of the measures appear to have priceless prospects for being enacted into law.

More than Five hundred advocacy groups have lined up behind the legislation. It still faces opposition on budget grounds, although proponents say the cost of the Elder Justice Act — about $757 million over four years — is pocket change in the context of a near $1-trillion healthcare bill. * * *
The article is lengthy, offers personal examples of elder abuse, and engages in a political analysis about inclusion of Elder Justice Act provisions into the health care reform legislation.

Economics now appears to drive inclusion of such federal protections for senior citizens:
Supporters say elder humiliate should be addressed in healthcare overhaul legislation because it pushes up healthcare costs and because financial exploitation of the elderly leaves many destitute and reliant on public assistance.

“This is prevention, which is a healthcare issue,” says Robert Blancato, who heads the Elder Justice Coalition, an umbrella group for more than Five hundred groups that support the legislation. They include AARP, the American Bar Assn., and industry groups representing nursing homes and long-term providers, among others.

State and local governments have long been on the front lines of such problems. But many studies have shown a shortage of resources among licensing agencies, long-term-care ombudsmen and adult protective service workers.

“The universal lack of resources, the enormous variation across jurisdictions and the low priority given to elder humiliate and neglect make it difficult to see how significant progress can be made without federal standards and financial support,” concluded researchers at Texas A&M University in a report prepared for the Justice Department last month. * * * [Links added.]

I am heartened by this article’s analysis as to the prospects for adoption of key provisions of past Elder Justice Act proposals into federal law with appropriate funding.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works every day in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

FindLaw

By Eric Sinrod

Whether a particular patent is valid has potentially far-reaching implications. Novelty or newness is the basic underpinning of every invention that leads to a patent.
After a patent has been granted, parties may seek to defeat its validity in litigation by arguing that the patented subject matter was not novel at the time of invention. There may be a showing that the invention at issue was anticipated by what is referred to as prior art.
Given the vast access to information now provided by the Internet, parties have a much greater ability to search for and potentially find prior art with respect to particular patented inventions. It’s in this context that along comes Article One Partners, LLC (Article One). Article One has just launched a “new global community to legitimize the validity of patents.”

Article One seeks to have its member “Advisors” submit previously difficult to find prior art evidence relating to the validity of “high profile patents.” Article One in turn intends to analyze this information to determine whether it can show patents to be legitimate or invalid.
If Article One concludes that patents are invalid (the real focus), Advisors can earn up to $50,000, with a total of $1 million being offered potentially at launch. Furthermore, Advisors who actively build the Article One community can earn compensation in Article One’s profit sharing plan.

A patent is a powerful government-granted right that enables a patent-holder to prevent competition with respect to an invention for a certain period of years. Article One claims that its efforts are intended to “restore the patent system to its original intent of granting exclusive rights for true innovation.”

Accordingly, Article One apparently believes that prior art that establishes that a patent has been granted for an “invention” that in fact was not novel should be used to invalidate the patent.

Article One’s name comes from that portion of the United States Constitution that provides that “the Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times . . . inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.”

Lest we not be mistaken, for some time already the Internet has been used by others to harvest information of prior art that may have anticipated particular patented inventions. But here, Article One seeks to provide financial incentives to potential global Advisors in one community to come forward with possible prior art information.

Article One states that its mission is to “evaluate and provide information to the patent industry.” One would think that that means that Article One could become a support player in patent litigation against patent holders. Time will tell whether Article One’s approach will gain traction.

Eric Sinrod is a senior partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Website is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a every week email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.
This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

By Paul Cherner

                 The Centers for Disease Control and prevention (”CDC”) has just issued a report indicating that in the past six months 22 million Americans have become sick with the H1N1 influenza virus (a/k/a the “swine flu”), of which 4,000 have died.  As this pandemic shows no signs of abating, employers are faced with many legal issues in addition to being concerned about the health and safety of their workers,  customers and clients, while at the same time attempting to determine how best to carry on their businesses under these circumstances.

                 An excellent reference source for most questions pertaining to this pandemic  is the federal government’s website http://www.flu.gov., which contains very useful and specific information, as well as links to issues of specific concern to various businesses.

                The U.S. Department of Labor has just issued two sets of queries and answers concerning the impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act (”FLSA”) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (”FMLA”) on issues pertaining to employees absences from work and payment to employees who are directly or indirectly affected by the H1N1 flu virus.  Additional guidance is provided by the EEOC with respect to the impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (”ADA”) on this pandemic situation. 

                As this situation has evolved, the federal government has continued to issue additional information and guidelines, some of which modified prior guidance.   Accordindly, continued monitoring of the main website -  www.flu.gov is advised.

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

KEYS TO SUCCESS

Please note that the following steps are not listed by order of importance.  They’re all equally vital to the success of lateral hiring.  Therefore, those are not “a la carte” suggestions from which you can pick and choose, but prototype of which all must be implemented to achieve success without unnecessary risk with your new hires. 

THE PROCESS

               I.      Someone must clearly “own the process” of managing the lateral attorney’s entry into the firm and integration for several months thereafter.

§         This should be an authoritative lawyer and not a member of the firm’s HR or lawyer recruitment staff.

Ø       There should be one partner who is fully empowered with the backing of the firm’s management committee to guide the process.

Ø       This person may be a practice group chair relevant to the new lateral.

Ø       There must be no question of this person’s authority to drive the process.

§         Those who are also involved in the process must receive concrete, appreciable recognition and compensation for this involvement.  The firm should:

Ø       Clearly outline the mission via well-publicized firm policy, identify the leadership involved in the process and reward the effort.

Ø       Institute a system of accountability so there is a high level of familiarity as to what exactly needs to be done.

Ø       Reward lawyers when it comes to compensation who help other lawyers develop business or who engage other attorneys to develop prospective business.

Ø       Track, as an element of the compensation decision, the efforts of attorneys who work with other attorneys in cross-marketing, internal marketing, business development between practice groups, introductions of existing clients to others in the firm, etc.

IMPLEMENTATION

             II.      Develop a Joint Business Plan Between the Firm and the Lateral.

§         Maximize the mutual benefit of the lateral move.

§         Designed to integrate the lateral and his business base.

§         To deal with client introductions.

§         Introduce the lateral to other practice groups in the firm.

§         To develop a marketing plan to expand the lateral’s business by exploiting the platform offered by the firm.

           III.      Focus on Improvement and Growth.

§   Focus on improvement of the lateral’s practice.

§   Focus on clients, firm’s existing clients and new business development.

§   Develop a plan for personal introductions and cross-selling.

           IV.      Develop an Awareness of the Lateral.

§         Have a champion within the firm, backed by management.

§         Arrange negotiations with business groups.

§         Introduction of the lateral of himself and his practice and clients.

§         Introductions of the lateral to business development discussions.

§         Identify those attorneys who best fit with the lateral, either for development of the lateral’s practice or the development of his clients.

§         Identify new opportunities and add Them to the lateral’s business plan so the firm can help accomplish the growth and assist in the follow through.

             V.      Periodic Briefings.

§         Practice leaders should meet monthly with the lateral during his first 6 months with the firm to monitor the above practices and to avoid missed opportunities.

§         Review progress of the lateral’s integration with practice groups.

§         Review development of the new cross-marketing opportunities.

§         Use this as a time to interact and make sure there’s continued chemistry.

§         Identify a course of action which will help the lateral further integrate, which will help him feel he is an important member of the team.

           VI.      Technical and Human Support.

§         Make the lateral aware of the firm’s full array of resources.

§         From the very beginning, make sure the lateral has full access to associate and staff support.

§         Placement of the lateral’s office near active, dynamic lawyers and other synergistic business groups.

§         Make sure others seek out the lateral for lunches or casual meet-and-greets.

§         Whenever possible, place the lateral on meaningful firm committees or in management positions.

CONCLUSION

Ability to expand and get support for the lateral’s practice is the single most important factor.

The next critical element is being integrated.

Having a well-defined and managed lateral integration plan and the commitment to the actual implementation should be at the forefront of everyone’s consciousness.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

April 2008

By Bruce Jackson

Part One of a Two-Part Article

The lateral movement of attorneys between firms requires a well-defined and well-executed management program in order to maximize the benefits of the move to both sides. This article sets forth the key elements, all of which must be addressed in order to maximize the investment a law firm makes in the lateral and in order to achieve career satisfaction and retention of lateral attorneys.  Recruiters and firms are constantly trolling for new prospects. Most attorneys get frequent calls soliciting ‘em for potential moves. This means firms not only must develop effective management strategies to play the lateral game, they must also, and perhaps more importantly, effectively work to integrate laterals they acquire, and retain them. This has led to another piece of the lateral movement growth industry: people studying the issues and publishing survey results, articles and books on the how to integrate and retain laterals (and retain existing attorneys).

Survey Results

A survey of published materials, an interview with a lateral recruiter and talks with lawyers who have made recent lateral moves lead to a few key and undisputable conclusions about how – and how not – to effect a successful lateral hiring and retention program at the firm. Most, if not all, of these key principles apply regardless of firm size, though the smaller the firm, the less complex actual implementation is likely to be. This article is about the essential elements of the successful implementation of lateral hiring, meaning how to bring the lateral lawyer on board and do so to the mutual benefit and personal satisfaction of the lateral and the firm. The process involves far more than throwing the new attorney into deep water and seeing if he can swim.

The process is not one of lip service, but requires actual ongoing effective management. The job is not one for the firm s hiring coordinator or the HR department. The task demands a responsible partner to manage the process and a group of firm lawyers with the backing of firm management and the authority to make it happen over a period of time. Here is what it takes, according to lateral industry authorities and according to attorneys who have made lateral moves in the recent past who were interviewed for this article. 

Validating what many authors and laterals say about the subject are surveys conducted in 1996 and 2006 by lawyer search consultants Leading, Lindsey & Africa. The 2006 survey report by Jonathan Lindsey of MLA New York, Lateral Senior partner Satisfaction: A Decade of Perspective (hereinafter called the MLA Survey ), which compares 2006 results with the 1996 report, is widely available online. It is worth more than a casual read.

The Association for Legal Career Professionals has also published a Lateral Hiring Best Practices Guide available as of March 2008 at http://www.nalp.org/assets/769_07lateralhiringbestpracti.pdf. The Institute of Management & Administration is in the process of conducting a 2008 Law firm Lateral Hiring Survey in which you can participate via the IOMA legal firm management Web page at http://www.ioma.com/law_firm_management as of March 2008. Completion of the survey entitles you to a free “summary” of the results. The full report is to be published in IOMA s Compensation & Benefits for Law Offices newsletter, for which you will likely got to pay real money.

The Blueprint for Success

The following steps under the blueprint for success aren’t listed in order of importance. This is because all are equally important. This is not a menu from which to pick and choose, but a blueprint of instructions, all of which must be accomplished to do all you can do to achieve success without taking unnecessary risk with your investment in a new attorney or group of lawyers. There are many more elements applicable to beginning and conducting the actual hiring process that aren’t listed here. This list begins when the hiring process is far enough along to begin to bring the new lawyer on board.  Having said this list is not in order of importance, there is one element that must be in place, and be sustained, in order to make the rest of the process work. That one element is, who is going to do it?

Ownership of the Process

Someone must clearly own the process of managing the lateral lawyer s entry into, and first months of existence at, the firm. This should be an authoritative lawyer and not a member of the firm’s HR or attorney recruitment staff. There should be one partner (either a different person for each lateral or lateral group or one person for the firm as a whole) fully empowered to guide the process with the backing of the firm s management committee. This person may be the practice group chair relevant to the new lateral. There must be no question of this person’s

authority to drive the process.

In addition, as listed below, others in the firm will got to be active in the process over a period of time. The one designated manager and those who are also involved in the process must receive actual, tangible recognition and compensation for this effort. The firm should define the mission via well-publicized firm policy, recognize the leadership involved in the process and reward the effort. In return, the firm should expect and demand that the progress of the effort be tracked, documented, adjusted as necessary and followed up on. 

According to the author of the MLA Survey, “The firm should implement a system of accountability so that there is a high level of awareness as to what exactly needs to be done and in fact is being done – and by which specific individuals, by what deadlines – to integrate the lateral more fully.”  Another way of saying this is to employ good management principles – and reward it.

The concept of paying for billable hours and originated business is no stranger to the practice of law. The management of a lateral integration process should be no different. In fact, a wise firm will take the process one step further and reward when it comes to compensation any lawyers who help other lawyers develop business or who engage other lawyers to develop prospective business. Track the number of attorneys who work on business originated by other attorneys. This concept actually goes beyond the scope of, but is certainly applicable to, lateral integration. Track as an element of the compensation decision the efforts of lawyers who work with other lawyers in “cross-marketing”, internal marketing, business development between practice groups,

introductions of existing clients to others in the firm, etc. All of this is essential to lateral integration so why not apply it firm wide?

According to Elizabeth Purcell of MLA, whose practice concentrates on high-profile lateral partners and opening new offices for Amlaw 100 firms in Atlanta, Dallas and Charlotte, NC, firms should clearly track matters referred from one lawyer to another to gauge whether partners are truly serving clients as a team. “Track how many different senior partners and associates bill time to a particular senior partner’s clients.”  Specifically regarding lateral integration, she said, “Your firm should design a compensation plan that rewards both the owners of the lateral integration process and, equally important, others who play a role in lateral partner integration and retention.”

Here are the key elements of implementing the lateral integration program.

Use a Business Plan

In the Oct. 2006 issue of this newsletter, Natasha Ciancutti of Major, Lindsey & Africa wrote an article headlined Using Business Plans As a Due Diligence Tool for Lateral Senior partners. Her article focused on developing a joint business plan between the firm and the lateral to avoid the lateral s making a wrong move in the first place and in order to maximize the mutual benefit of the lateral’s move.

It would seem the firm should first have a business plan itself in order to make lateral moves consistent with the business plan as opposed to the throwing darts at the target method and hoping the lateral move is a nice one.  The task would then be to develop a business plan with the lateral consistent with the firm s business plan but specifically designed to integrate the lateral and his business base, to deal with client introductions, introduce the lateral to other practice groups in the firm, and to develop in detail a marketing plan to expand the lateral’s business by exploiting the platform offered by the firm. Like any well managed business plan, it should be revised

from time-to-time as things progress.

A big aspect of the process should be the marketing plan, both lateral and firm-focused. According to Purcell, the plan should have an element that assumes the lateral has no portable business, “Assume he’s an assistant U.S. lawyer being brought onboard. Who would you introduce him to? How would you market his expertise outside the firm? How would you cross-market him within the firm?”  Devising a plan to do this, she says, will go a long way toward expanding the value of the lateral beyond his portable business alone. “Increase his value , she

says. Don t just try to take advantage of his self-created value.”

Improvement and Growth

Thus, the focus should be on improvement and growth. The term “lateral” is itself a misnomer because it implies a simple sideways move, from one firm to another. Think of the actual plan as a growth move, not just a lateral one.  The move should result in an improvement of the lateral’s practice and value (and his compensation) and of the firm’s value and scope of practice and client service (and thus profitability).

 Part Two of this article (look for it on Wednesday, October 28) will deal with more specific elements of the business plan.

Bruce Jackson, a member of this newsletter s Board of Editors, is a partner in the Atlanta law firm of Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, where he is a member of the Corporate Practice Group and the firm.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

By Paul Cherner

The EEOC has just published for public comment proposed new regulations interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Behave of 2008 (”ADAA“). The ADAA, which became effective January 1, 2009, required the EEOC to revise its ADA regulations and to redefine the term “substantially limits” in accord with the Congressional goal of defining the term “disability” in favor of broad coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA.

The proposed new rules reiterate that the definition of “disability’ should be broadly interpreted. The new rules liberally interpret the term “substantially limits” by providing that a limitation need not significantly or severely restrict a big life activity in order to meet the ADA standard for disability. The definition of “major life activities” has been expanded and now include factors on 2 non-exhaustive lists, including one that identifies big bodily functions.

Those rules provide that actions based on an impairment should also include actions based on symptoms of an impairment. They also provide that qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria based on an individual’s uncorrected vision shouldn’t be used unless shown to be job-related for the position in issue and consistent with business necessity.

There is a 60 day period for public comment and then a period of time in which the EEOC will consider the comments before issuing final rules, which will probably not occur before early 2010. However, all employers should be reviewing their ADA policies and practices NOW to take into account the new realities of dealing with a broader and more liberal ADA. The EEOC has published musings and answers regarding their proposed new ADAA rules and employers are advised to review that document with legal counsel and their HR team.

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment lawyer in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

From the small city solo practitioner to the top national players, every law firm must get involved in marketing at some level in order to obtain and retain clients. The quality of work a firm does can maintain clients and become a source of referrals but in order to reach and garner potential clients, a certain marketing strategy must be implemented in order to achieve the firm’s goals.

Lawyers practice law. Marketers offer a service or product. Marketers and lawyers have very different backgrounds, personality types, and career expectations. Lawyers and marketers have to accommodate their differences and play to each other’s strengths in order to have a successful relationship. And so it becomes necessary for a legal firm to entrust its marketing to either an outside firm or an in-house department dedicated to the promotion of their business.

Who you’ve marketing your services will greatly impact the success of the plan. If you entrust this task to a team with whom you don’t have a relationship built on respect and clear communication, the goals will never be achieved. Broad, undefined goals will hinder the marketer’s success. An agent that’s misinformed or makes assumptions about the firm’s record will sabotage the outcome of the marketing plan. This lack of clarity often results in an “us vs. them” environment, a culture that can range from tolerant to uninterested to hostile when lawyers relate to their marketing professionals.

There are key factors to consider when preparing your marketing plan. Here are just a few:

Know your business development staff and give ‘em clear goals and expectations.

Most marketers recognize that lawyers must feel comfortable with the marketer’s style and approach to create a productive working relationship. Most marketers offer a reasonably substantial sample product and will also provide a no cost initial consultation. This information can help you determine whether you would like to work with a particular marketer.

Once you have chosen someone to represent you, it’s the law firm’s responsibility to determine priorities, with the advice of their marketing professionals. Lawyers must learn how to delegate certain parts of the marketing plan, whether it’s sending out letters, making follow up phone calls after a seminar, sending out your monthly newsletter, or building your law firm web page. Your job as an lawyer is to do 2 things: bring in new clients and bill them for your services. Everything else should be delegated or outsourced.

It’s critical you establish the priorities of your marketing plan and are willing to delegate important tasks to your key people or representative. Your relationship with a marketing executive will only be successful if they have a clear understanding of what you expect of them versus what they can reasonably deliver.

Focus on important, achievable actions that will result in satisfying clients and attracting prospects. Identify the areas of business, the specific partners, and the aspects of a marketing plan that will have the greatest impact. Recognize those practices, events, or even cities that have high potential for an expanded market.

The Right Support Can Do Wonders For Success

A well-formed and balanced team can bring about the best results in any situation. The right support may include a partner or partners whose enthusiasm and openness to the marketer’s ideas can serve as a liaison and create a nurturing relationship with the firm. Often the most senior senior partner is not necessarily the right person to be involved with the firm’s marketing but a partner who holds a clear understanding of the marketing goal is the best choice. A candid approach with each other will attain the right balance of experience and personnel, resulting in a common goal.

Trust & Respect Your Marketing Team!

Trust is developed and must be mutual. In order to delegate your law firm’s marketing plan you must have someone you can allocate to and you must trust ‘em. You must believe the person entrusted with marketing has your best interests at heart and is competent. They must believe you will support their decisions and won’t try to undermine their authority to make progress.

Perhaps choosing a marketing consultant who is either a practicing lawyer or who formerly practiced will help gain that trust. Another possibility is to choose a consultant with considerable experience working with attorneys. Why is this important? As many of us know, most bars heavily regulate lawyer advertising, imposing all sorts of rules, so it can be essential for your marketing agent to be aware of ethics issues or at a minimum, be sensitive to them. By contrast, a marketer with no background in the law or with lawyers could recommend a marketing campaign that revolves around an ethically prohibited practice.

It’s much more likely that business development staff will be respected if the expectations of the firm’s marketers are clear. If lawyers don’t know whether the marketing personnel at the firm are to perform a strategic role, a sales role, or something else, marketers may discover themselves shut out of important decisions or avoided by the lawyers. Success comes when marketers and lawyers communicate clearly and with mutual respect.

Last But Certainly Not Least, Your Budget…

Ideas abound but funding is not always available for these ideas. The marketing budget is one expense that many law firms will consider reducing, or eliminating entirely, in the time of cutbacks. But studies have shown that this is the wrong move. When the economy is tight, it’s important to look at each marketing activity in terms of value and return on investment. Focus the majority of your firm’s marketing budget on investments that have low risk and high reward. If you have money left in the budget afterward, you can use it to test other marketing activities.

So whether your firm is large or miniature, survival rests on the basic principles of providing quality work and getting the word out there about your firm. With the assistance of a trusted, qualified marketing team the opportunities to expand your firm’s service are boundless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nancy Grimes has over 20 years’ experience serving the legal industry. Clients include international, national, regional, local and independent law firms and lawyers. “Counsel to Counsel” is updated every single week. Have a question you’d like answered? Email it to ncgrimes@grimeslegal.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

September 8, 2009

With the advent of the Internet, cell phones, wireless email devices and portable music players, many of us wear as a badge of honor our ability to multitask. But not so fast - a recent study by Stanford researchers concludes the opposite of what we might think: those of us who frequently are inundated with multiple sources of electronic information don’t pay as close attention, control memory, or move from one task to another as well people who tend to complete one function or task at a time.

As part of the study, titled “Neural Predictors Of Moment-To-Moment Fluctuations In Cognitive Flexibility,” the researchers conducted several identical experiments on two groups - people who generally multitask and people who usually do not.

The groups were shown images of certain types of rectangles in one experiment, and they were said to ignore certain blue rectangles while determining the career opportunities of red rectangles across image frames. In this experiment, it was the non-multitasking group that performed better than the multitasking group.

In yet another experiment, the non-multitasking group once more performed better than the multitasking group in picking out repeat instances of alphabetical letters appearing in sequences.

In one more experiment, the non-multitasking group again outperformed the multitasking group when it came to following instructions to focus on certain letters or numbers when shown photos of letters and numbers at the same time.

Intuition may lead people to think that a multitasking population would do better at these juggling experiments than a non-multitasking group, because they supposedly are used to and generally handle multiple streams of information. But science disagrees.

At the end of the day, it appears from the Stanford study that people who multitask are less able to focus and have trouble ignoring irrelevant information. Indeed, they appear to be easily pulled away from what is important and right in front of Them.

So, the next time you plan on moving back and forth between emails, text messages, Facebook, cell phone calls, television, work assignments, home projects, personal interactions, and driving a car, please consider tackling just one of these tasks at a time.

Of course, your author certainly can learn this lesson, but he was only interrupted by 2 phone calls while writing this piece - it could have been worse!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Website is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.

This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and shouldn’t be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are these of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

September 8, 2009

With the advent of the Internet, cell phones, wireless email devices and portable music players, many of us wear as a badge of honor our ability to multitask. But not so fast - a recent study by Stanford researchers concludes the opposite of what we might think: these of us who frequently are inundated with multiple sources of electronic information don’t pay as close attention, control memory, or move from one task to another as well people who tend to complete one function or task at a time.

As part of the study, titled “Neural Predictors Of Moment-To-Moment Fluctuations In Cognitive Flexibility,” the researchers conducted several identical experiments on 2 groups - people who generally multitask and people who usually do not.

The groups were shown pictures of certain types of rectangles in one experiment, and they were said to ignore certain blue rectangles while determining the career opportunities of red rectangles across image frames. In this experiment, it was the non-multitasking group that performed better than the multitasking group.

In yet another experiment, the non-multitasking group once more performed better than the multitasking group in picking out repeat instances of alphabetical letters appearing in sequences.

In one more experiment, the non-multitasking group again outperformed the multitasking group when it came to following instructions to focus on certain letters or numbers when shown images of letters and numbers at the same time.

Intuition may lead people to think that a multitasking population would do better at these juggling experiments than a non-multitasking group, because they supposedly are used to and generally handle multiple streams of information. But science disagrees.

At the end of the day, it appears from the Stanford study that people who multitask are less able to focus and have trouble ignoring irrelevant information. Indeed, they appear to be easily pulled away from what is important and right in front of them.

So, the next time you plan on moving back and forth between emails, text messages, Facebook, cell phone calls, television, work assignments, home projects, personal interactions, and driving a car, please consider tackling just one of these tasks at a time.

Of course, your author certainly can learn this lesson, but he was only interrupted by 2 phone calls while writing this piece - it could have been worse!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Website is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a every week email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.

This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and shouldn’t be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the author’s legal firm or its individual senior partners.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

While lateral associate hiring has generally slowed in this rough economy and in-house opportunities have become scarce, lateral partners are finding themselves in a favorable job to make a move.  Many firms have increased their efforts to hire partners in the practice areas that are proving to be profitable: intellectual property, bankruptcy, employee benefits, tax and litigation.  But just how do you initiate the change and make it a success?  It’s not as hard as one may think if you use the right tools and resources.

Often our first inclination is to network with friends or colleagues.  Be careful when calling on friends!  It may be true that a friend is always there when you need them, but in the case of calling on a friend at another firm, be mindful of the circumstances involved.  Know their status and job at the firm so his/her influence or recommendation doesn’t backfire on you.  When talking money, it is never wise to discuss compensation with friends and co-workers.  If your friend offers to counsel you on compensation negotiations, politely refuse the offer and handle it yourself.  No need for hard feelings or misguided counsel once they realize you’re parleying for higher comp than theirs. 

Remember that you will have to decide if issues with the firm or negotiating with the firm are worth risking the friendship.  Sometimes it’s best to keep your allies at a distance and make your own opportunities.

So instead of relying on friends, why not trust the professionals?  This is your career we’re talking about!  You’re a wonderful asset and should be presented in that light.  An experienced, talented recruiter who knows the market, firm reputations and the right contacts can open doors for you that would never be accessible on your own.  You will know you’re in good hands when your recruiter guides you through the entire process – from presenting firms to you that are a good fit both financially and culturally, to working on a business plan, completing questionnaires, and most of all assisting in the negotiation of your compensation and bonuses.  A recruiter that personally knows the hiring partners and recruitment coordinators can provide invaluable insight to a multitude of factors that can affect you including financial performance and stability, management style, and reputation.

Recruiters and headhunters can provide a smooth path to finding your new firm; however, it is important that you make the initial move.  Don’t just wait for them to find you!  You got to be assertive enough to initiate the first contact if you’re ready for the change.  You got to do your own due diligence on firms that will best dress your practice and clients.  Being educated on the market, firm styles, and what each has to offer the other is working smart.  Often a headhunter is searching for someone to fill a specific slot within one particular firm.  That may not be the optimum job for you.

The key to a winning relationship with an experienced legal recruiter is to work as a team.  Be open to options you may not have considered.  Be sure your agent has quality information about as many firms and opportunities as possible.  Likewise, present firms that you’ve researched to the recruiter.  A seasoned recruiter can give you insight to a firm’s historical financial information; compensation arrangement; sources of capital; client base, as well as other issues. Additionally, you must consider the firm’s culture – will you be happy in that environment?  The way you’re treated at your firm affects how successfully you practice law.  With the right support you can become an essential and vital team member.  If the firm is open to your associates joining you in your move and there are opportunities for Them to make partner, it shows that they are interested in their strength and longevity.  Your recruiter may have already placed attorneys at a specific firm and can share previous experiences that demonstrate the firm’s culture.

And then of course there are issues of how to handle the process itself.  It may be years since you have had to prepare a resume or answer musings in an interview.  Your legal recruiter can advise you how to judiciously provide information to a firm you’re in negotiations with, what a senior partner can tell his or her clients about a possible move, and what to expect once you give your notice.  Counteroffers often lure a partner back because it is easier than the change but do counteroffers ever really prove to be beneficial to the partner? Your recruiter can provide guidance on those questions – rely on Them to pilot you through the process step by step.

Be supple and open to new ideas.  Listen and be patient.  Honest, open communication between you and your recruiter will result in more than just one opportunity knocking at your door!  Work smart with your recruiter to discover your new firm and as a result, you, your clients and your new employer all reap the benefits.

Nancy Grimes has over 20 years’ experience serving the legal industry.  Clients include international, national, regional, local and independent law firms and lawyers.  “Counsel to Counsel” is updated every single week.  Have a question you’d like answered?  Email it to ncgrimes@grimeslegal.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved