« March 13, 2011 - March 19, 2011 | Main | March 27, 2011 - April 02, 2011 »
March 26, 2011
Our Tribute to Women's Month, Teletubbies & Neutered U.S. Males.
Greaseman: Power Boaters v. Sail Boaters.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:59 AM | Comments (0)
March 25, 2011
Ancient Galleries. Ancient Faces. Part II: Is she cheating on you?
"The men don't know."
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
March 24, 2011
At Cross-Culture: Suffolk's Sir Eldon Griffiths on the U.S. in Libya.
At R.D. Lewis's fine Cross-Culture, see "Long Before the No-Fly Zone, the US Hit Gaddafiland Hard" by Eldon Griffiths, a journalist and former editor of Newsweek. He also was a member of the British Parliament, representing Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk, England, between 1964 and 1992. He begins:
The Anglo-French led air incursion over Libya is being presented in Europe as unprecedented. It isn’t. 15 April 2011 marks the 25th anniversary of the American attack on Tripoli and Benghazi by a force of eighteen F‐111 bombers and twenty-eight KC10 and KC135 tankers from airbases in and around what then was the Suffolk constituency I represented in the British Parliament.
Posted by JD Hull at 04:38 AM | Comments (0)
March 22, 2011
Bennet Kelley's CyberLaw & Business Report: Podcasts 1 -7.
You can find the first seven shows right here. In No. 7, "Search Marketing and the Wireless Spam Act", which aired March 16, Kelley interviews author and Santa Clara University professor Eric Goldman, and Canadian lawyer James Gannon.
The Prince of Providence: Bennet Kelley.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
March 21, 2011
Business-to-Business Recession Litigation: Smarter, and Shorter, Battles This Time.
Finality itself is, very often, your client's "win".
--Some in-house guy in northern Italy, and others.
Let's indulge in a few law markets stereotypes.
Good times = expansion and deals. Bad times = smaller pies and lawsuits. Generally, it's true. But expect something different in the long run: more arbitration. The world's economic "new normal" has already given ADR (alternative dispute resolution) a huge boost.
However, I've never bought the idea that ADR generally is "faster, cheaper and better..." than court litigation to hear and decide disputes between corporate clients. Faster? Maybe, if you work at it. Cheaper? Maybe, if you work at it. Better result? Maybe, and only if the arbitrator is not afraid to apply the law, and not wimp out and merely "split the baby".*
But arbitration does hold the promises of its promotional cliches. You have to work hard for them, though.
Arbitration's main advantages--either in U.S. or abroad? For us, there are three. Only three--so don't buy or drink the promotional Kool-Aid unless you have nothing better to do. First, ADR allows non-U.S. litigants who are parties to deals with ADR clauses to avoid U.S. courts, which are dreaded due to perceived inefficiencies, delays, surprises and unexpected expense, and the very real possibility of awakening The Yankee Vampire: big jury verdicts with punitive damages.
Second, and more importantly, ADR lets litigants select their own judge or panel of judges. You can often find more skillful, expert and efficient deciders than the government's jurists (i.e., state court judges in America) to hear and decide your dispute. In ADR, those panelists are everything. GCs and their law firms should spend time, money and brainpower selecting them. And even for many disputes around $10 million, you don't need a panel. You just need one "good" man or woman. Get it over with. Repose and finality is very often itself a "win".
Third, you can write your own procedural rules--or borrow from the many fine sets already out there.
Raphael's "The Judgment of Solomon"
*Your client's case is the weaker one? The "WAF"--Wimpy (or Wanker, in UK) Arbitrator Factor--usually favors the company with the weaker case. If after your firm's best case development you are stuck with really bad facts and/or bad law--and you can't get back to a court with a jury--consider identifying wankers on the Arbitrator List, and manipulating opponents into picking the "least objectionable wanker" for your client.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
Employees are Third. What did yours do for you last week?
(Warner Bros.)
Sorry. But it's not about Your Employees. Ever.
It's about Customers, Clients, and Buyers. If one employee does not put clients first, you have a problem.
Expect something great from employees. Well, this past week, did they help you add value for your clients and customers? It starts in your shop with your employees--who are important and valued, but always "third".
If you are training support staff, paralegals and associates properly, and giving them meaningful things to do, good for you. Make them part of your client work, and get them to "think like" (a) a client which wants problems solved and (b) you--the owner, shareholder or partner.
And on item (b), are they treating you like a client? What did employees do for you this week?
How are they adding value?
Do they advance things--or hold you back?
Practicing law correctly is hard. Learning it is hard. Client service is hard. And a job is a privilege--not a right.
"Training"? To be sure, it is likely a myth. Good associates and other support people train themselves, jump into the fray with energy and resolve, and learn by doing. You can't teach it. So find them.
If you have to spend additional time "training" or explaining things to employees, and you still want to keep them, that's fine. (But maybe they should pay you?)
Are they buying into the ethos of great substantive work, and 24/7-availability client service--like it's a crusade, a religion, and a way of life?
After all, you are only asking for the minimum.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)
Sticking: You and yours have it?
Via our friend Andrew Brooks: London Tax Lawyer, Wordsmith & Stand-Up Guy.
Posted by JD Hull at 10:58 PM | Comments (0)