« May 03, 2009 - May 09, 2009 | Main | May 17, 2009 - May 23, 2009 »
May 15, 2009
Boron oxide is damn sexy.
Always describe your sex toys in great detail--no matter how embarrassing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Florida district court finding of a valid patent on a sex toy. Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc., 2008-1528, -1529 (April 24, 2009). The court deemed the phrase, "appreciable amount," to be far too vague with respect to the amount of an oxide of boron present in the glass toy. In other words, the device was the result of ordinary experimentation on compositional structure one would expect from 'experts' in the area--and therefore obvious and unpatentable.
Henry Miller (1891-1980) toying with a new idea.
Posted by Rob Bodine at 11:59 PM | Comments (1)
International banking does a self-audit.
Banking as the industry that failed. See this week's The Economist and "Rebuilding the Banks". Excerpts:
There is still great uncertainty about the nature and extent of the support that governments will end up offering to their banks. But governments are now deeply embedded in banking systems.
The popular perception of bankers as Porsche-driving sociopaths obscures the fact that many of the industry’s staff are modestly paid and sit in branches, information-technology departments and call-centres. Job losses in the industry have been savage. “Being done” used to refer to hearing about your annual bonus. Now it means getting fired.
Posted by JD Hull at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)
Redux: Martindale-Hubbell: Should we all "just say no"?
From an August 8, 2009 post. Martindale-Hubbell is still "no joke". We would all miss M-H--from the ratings process to the familiar look of staid old friends the books have in any library--if it disappeared. But has anything changed?
Is a Martindale-Hubbell listing worth it anymore?
We're not unhappy with the M-H ratings process; generally speaking, if done responsibly and without in effect requiring the "purchase" of the rating, a credible if imperfect ratings process for the global legal community makes lots of sense. And M-H accomplished that decades ago.* But, in view of other and newer ways for law firms to have visibility and credibility, the price of listings at M-H is now officially a rip-off. Lots of fine lawyers seem to be complaining about it, at least in private, both in the U.S. and non-U.S. It's not that Martindale hasn't tried. See, for example, at Law.com the piece "Martindale-Hubbell Gets a Makeover" (mentioning Avvo, LawLink and Legal OnRamp, as new alternatives for marketing, networking and lawyer ratings).
Our humble take: as other ways to locate lawyers emerged, M-H never saw the light fast enough, and didn't successfully change or expand its other services to preempt a backlash. It continued to charge big listing fees that everyone complained about for years. More recently (say, the last 3 years), M-H expenses managed to stay in law firm budgets--but exceeded just about everyone's irritation levels. M-H listings now makes no business sense to anyone sane. Only the embarrassingly lame, gimmicky "Super Lawyer" concept could make Martindale look good these days.
Start the revolution?
*Martindale-Hubbell is no joke. It has a fine, time-honored and even classy reputation, and a history of good work and real utility in the profession. Our firm, Hull McGuire, has actively and earnestly participated in the M-H ratings processes for years; we are happy with the ratings our lawyers received. But, in good times or bad times, the current cost to list firm attorneys for any size firm, with or without multiple offices, is prohibitive and should be resisted on principle given other alternatives. It just isn't worth it. We predict that lawyers will bolt in droves in the next 2 years.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:24 AM | Comments (1)
May 13, 2009
Return of Roxana: The Document Review
More "Notes from the Breadline" at Above The Law. Roxana gets a part-time gig:
Clearly, I have joined an effort that is already in progress. Whether the attorneys who work here ever actually leave the room is less clear. Most of the computer stations look lived-in: pillows, blankets, and sweaters adorn the chairs, and personal effects are lined up on the tiny slivers of desk space between reviewers.
Something about the scene reminds me of a casino, and the way gamblers stake out slot machines by arranging coin cups, drinks, and ashtrays around the perimeter of their territory. Most people have containers of lotion next to their keyboards, and everyone has a large tankard of hand sanitizer nearby. Some have bottles of prescription drugs lined up in their space....
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)
May 12, 2009
Are there any more out there like you, sir?
I don't get this tension between doing your job and enjoying your life. Geez!, if you don't enjoy practicing law, find another line of work. Life's too short to spend 2,000 hours a year doing something you don't enjoy.
When people thank me for doing my job, I often reply, "I live to serve." The usual response is a chuckle. But I really mean it--serving others is a lawyer's job. Any lawyer who doesn't understand that needs to find another line of work.
Raymond Ward, Lawyer and Renaissance Man, New Orleans, May 11, 2009
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:27 PM | Comments (8)
May 11, 2009
The Scramble for Value.
Susan Hackett, general counsel of the ACC, says the new approach to value is necessary because law firms had become so expensive that their fees often outstripped the value of the problem they were brought in to resolve.
The scramble for value, the debate on new models, the future of law firms--the discussion needs a touchstone. There are lots of ways to provide value to higher-end clients: hourly fees, not hourly fees, and hybrids, new firm business models, and all manner of "paradigm-shifts". But WAC? still maintains that they begin and end with customer (lawyers call them "client") relationships.
And Trust. Trust is the place of definitions for all service providers--not just for lawyers.
Anyway, here's one (via Canada's often-prescient Jordan Furlong at Law21) worth reading we missed two weeks ago from Penn's Wharton School: "Legal Strategy 101: It's Time for Law Firms to Re-think Their Business Model". A thoughtful and competent article, if a bit "lawyer-centric". I think we should just get used to it. Lawyers are not special. We are servants, if often well-paid ones.
Billing models, partnership structures, staffing alternatives, the care and feeding of associates, firm culture, collegiality--they mean nothing unless designed and maintained for clients' day-to-day needs. We are not royalty. We serve. We anticipate, prevent and solve client problems. Nothing more. Can we focus more on the real deal: the Art of the Client. What else is there?
Posted by JD Hull at 12:59 AM | Comments (0)
Simple Priorities: Clients First, Lawyers Second.
We work hard, play hard, enjoy life to its fullest. We just don't do so at the expense of the people who put their trust in us. The Slackoisie can't comprehend this as being possible; pleasure is on their terms or can't possibly exist.
--SHG, May 11, 2009
Work-Life. Life-Work. Work as Optional. Lawyer Training as Watered-Down. Work as a Privilege. Work as Important. Clients as The Touchstone? Or is it: Law Firms and their Employees as the Main Event? Stylize Mediocrity? Well, why not? Just make mailing-it-in part of the new U.S. lawyer culture in the middle of a recession. Lawyers might really like it.
That's the New Program, isn't it?
Well, WAC? is very confused. Before we (1) lose our bearings, (2) get a life, or (3) blow a jurisdictional deadline today because it was inconvenient for us to meet it, we will certainly reread Scott Greenfield's radical pro-client (weird, eh?) opus at Simple Justice in "The Slackoisie Fight Back".
Last week in Chicago, Greenfield attended the heavily GC-attended SuperConference by InsideCounsel magazine--spearheaded by Summit Media's hard-working and artful Sheila Brennan. There, at the staid Chicago Fairmont, Greenfield apparently just lost it, and blew, as it were, a tube. He was, and still is, messing up the "Work-Life Balance Movement" for a lot of people. And in particular he is putting the hurt on those who, ironically, are most passionate about Work when they argue for the right not to do it. Can Greenfield be stopped? At least muzzled? Some people. Get the net.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:00 AM | Comments (1)