Good tips in general, not that I've ever worked anywhere that ever took me on a trip!
Think big money firms like Flower White for this folks!
Traveling Tips for Young Lawyers
Kip Mendrygal
April 02, 2010
At some point, new associates will go on their first business trip with the partners for whom they work. I usually have learned travel lessons the hard way. Here is what I wish someone had told me long ago.
1. Immediately sign up for airline, hotel and rental car frequent flyer programs.
I asked around and was disappointed to hear that some young associates I work with hadn't done this. Lawyers who travel even a little will find that these points add up quickly. Most programs let account holders retain points and miles for a long time. Early on, I signed up for every airline, hotel and rental car program I conceivably could use, and I make sure I get my points on every trip.
What a pain, right? Not necessarily. Just trash all of those individual plastic cards for each program, pick one sturdy one and write down all membership numbers on a sticky note taped to the back. Assistants and travel agents should have those numbers and add them at the time of booking. Carry the card with the master list for times when they don't. I've been to Europe twice (gratis) thanks to the points I earned on business trips.
2. Get some practical and respectable luggage.
When I was in college and law school, I was the guy who traveled with that dirty gym bag with a tree- and stump-removal service logo printed on it. Once that first legal job comes through, it's time to get new luggage.
Lawyers' travel plans often are unpredictable. Despite the fact that a new lawyer carefully plans the trip to allow time to check into the hotel and drop off bags, he inevitably will end up delayed, requiring him to go directly from the airport to the courthouse or client's office. He should not embarrass himself by carrying something that suggests he is a well-dressed stump removal representative.
Second, that crummy rolling backpack from law school probably won't keep business attire in reasonable traveling shape. I'm fiscally conservative (read: cheap) and still found nice luggage that was not terribly expensive, holds two suits and lawyerly accompaniments comfortably and pretty wrinkle-free, and fits nicely in the overhead bins. Speaking of overhead bins ...
3. Learn to carry on.
When traveling with senior lawyers, odds are high that they will not be checking bags. It will make for an uncomfortable 25 minutes while the traveling party feigns patience as the junior lawyer retrieves his bag from the baggage claim -- if it made it on the plane. Airlines lose checked-in bags, often at inopportune times. The odds are high that the hapless new lawyer will have packed business attire in that missing luggage. No one will feel sorry for him when he shows up to the big meeting in a powder blue, snug-fitting tuxedo because that was the only thing the Newark airport kiosk had in his size. Another key rule: Never, ever check important documents.
4. Pack heavy.
If the trip is scheduled for one night, pack for two. If the plan is to stay for two nights, pack for three. Although the recent law grad is now a fancy lawyer, she is in the customer service business. Clients, judges and/or Mother Nature might need her to stay another night, and her answer needs to be "No problem." This will happen more often that one might think. Steam cleaning once-worn socks with the hotel iron or washing nylons in the hotel sink is so college.
5. Get organized.
Once the wheels leave the ground, logistics are (or should be) the problem of the most junior person on the trip, who needs to add value not only to the case but also to the trip. Know the address of the hotel, client's office and courthouse, and have directions to get there. Use that fancy GPS on the iPhone or Blackberry to generate point-to-point directions. For bonus points, download a few apps for finding good restaurants within walking distance. Be the person that can pull directions to the nearest sushi joint. To ensure an invitation on the next trip, don't tell the partners how you did it.
6. Plan ahead.
Be careful about working on the plane. Most firms have policies that strongly encourage attorneys to work while in transit. Follow them, but be careful. Plane people can be a nosy lot. I take generic work with me on the plane, such as case law, law review articles, motions that have already been filed and are therefore public, etc. I don't review anything that is not public or that is confidential or privileged. Plan ahead with appropriate work to fill that long flight.
7. Remember that time is money.
Identify travel conveniences that are cost-neutral (or better) for the client. On business trips, a lawyer's time is her client's money. Some things that a new lawyer wouldn't splurge for on her own dime might make sense for the client's bottom line. Take parking: On an overnight trip, some airport valet services are only $5-10 more than short-term parking. Saving 15 minutes on each end of the trip provides a significant cost savings for the client. The same is true with the hotel. If that nice hotel next to the client's office is an extra $25-50 per night over that budget joint on the outskirts of town, the money saved on a taxi (and the lawyer's hourly rate getting there) means everyone wins. Apply the same math to nonstop flights and choosing a rental car or a taxi.
7. Enjoy the city.
Tack a day (or a weekend) on the back end. If that fancy trip is to Detroit in February, come back when business is finished. But if a new lawyer is headed to New York City or Washington D.C., she should tack on an extra day to tour the city. She can spend her own money for an extra night's room and board and scout out a potential future vacation destination.
Kip Mendrygal is a senior associate with Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell in Dallas. The opinions and statements in this column are his own.
Friday, April 2, 2010
March Consumer Bankruptcy Filings Reach Highest Monthly Total Since 2005 Bankruptcy Overhaul
The 149,268 consumer bankruptcies filed in March represented the highest monthly consumer filing total since Congress overhauled the Bankruptcy Code in 2005
Facebook May Face Patent Challenge in Federal Court
Iam not happy! I love my Facebook! See the law.com article below:
Facebook May Face Patent Challenge in Federal Court
Shannon P. Duffy04-02-2010
Facebook, the wildly popular social networking site, may soon be squaring off in federal court in Philadelphia to defend itself against claims that the site's design infringes on a patent that was filed several years before Facebook was launched in 2004.
In the suit, plaintiff Cross Atlantic Capital Partners, also known as XACP, claims that it holds the rights to a patent for an Internet-based "community for users with common interests to interact in" that was invented in 2000.
If XACP's suit is successful, Facebook could be ordered to pay millions in damages and possibly face an injunction that could shut the site down.
Facebook, which was launched at Harvard University by then-student Mark Zuckerberg and several of his dormmates, was initially limited to college students in its first few years, but expanded to the public in 2006 and has grown rapidly, especially in the past two years when users over 35 began to join, swelling its membership from 42 million in 2008 to more than 103 million in 2009.
The company also recently began turning a profit and has been rumored to be gearing up for going public with an initial public offering in which some analysts predict the company could be valued at up to $5 billion. But before an IPO, the patent litigation would likely have to be resolved.
The case, Cross Atlantic Capital Partners Inc. v. Facebook Inc., was filed in 2007 and was nearly ready to go to trial in 2008 when Facebook asked for a stay of the litigation in order to pursue an "inter partes" re-examination of the patent before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In September 2009, the PTO examiners issued a decision that reaffirmed the validity of XACP's patent. And in late March 2010, the examiners issued a right of appeal notice, effectively finalizing their decision and clearing the way for Facebook to challenge the decision before the Patent Office Board of Patent Appeals.
Now plaintiffs attorneys Frederick A. Tecce of McShea Tecce and Thomas J. Duffy of Duffy & Partners say they are poised to file a motion to have the case reopened.
Anticipating that the litigation will intensify in the lead up to the trial, Tecce and Duffy have now joined forces with powerhouse patent litigator James H. Wallace Jr. of Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C.
Wallace garnered international attention when he led the team that secured a $612.5 million patent infringement settlement with Research in Motion Ltd., the maker of BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices, on behalf of his client NTP Inc.
Canadian-based RIM was looking down the barrel of a federal judge's injunction that threatened to shut down the popular wireless e-mail service for its 3 million Blackberry users when it struck a deal in which NTP granted RIM the right to keep running its BlackBerry business.
In an interview, Duffy said Wallace "brings tremendous expertise" in patent litigation, and that the plaintiffs team will also include two of Wallace's partners, Kevin P. Anderson and Gregory R. Lyons.
Facebook is represented by attorneys Heidi L. Keefe and Mark R. Weinstein of Cooley Godward & Kronish in Palo Alto, Calif., along with Alfred W. Zaher and Dennis P. McCooe of Blank Rome in Philadelphia.
McCooe declined to be interviewed about the litigation.
According to court papers, a patent application was filed in February 2000 by four men -- Jamey Harvey, Andrew Fegley, Matt Hulan and Robert Dekelbaum -- that described an invention of software and hardware that would establish "novel systems and methods for creating a community for users with common interests to interact in."
The suit alleges that initial development of the Facebook Web site began "no earlier than December 2003."
So far, the litigation has proceeded on two tracks, with XACP setting out to prove that Facebook infringes its patents and Facebook focusing most of its efforts on proving that XACP's patents are invalid because of "prior art," a term that essentially means the claimed invention was nothing new and therefore not patentable.
Tecce said that Facebook will now be legally bound by the findings of the Patent Office examiners and cannot lodge any defenses premised on invalidity.
Although Facebook still has a right to pursue an appeal from the examiners decision, Tecce said, the plaintiffs team will be asking U.S. District Judge John R. Padova to lift the stay and allow the case to proceed to trial.
Facebook May Face Patent Challenge in Federal Court
Shannon P. Duffy04-02-2010
Facebook, the wildly popular social networking site, may soon be squaring off in federal court in Philadelphia to defend itself against claims that the site's design infringes on a patent that was filed several years before Facebook was launched in 2004.
In the suit, plaintiff Cross Atlantic Capital Partners, also known as XACP, claims that it holds the rights to a patent for an Internet-based "community for users with common interests to interact in" that was invented in 2000.
If XACP's suit is successful, Facebook could be ordered to pay millions in damages and possibly face an injunction that could shut the site down.
Facebook, which was launched at Harvard University by then-student Mark Zuckerberg and several of his dormmates, was initially limited to college students in its first few years, but expanded to the public in 2006 and has grown rapidly, especially in the past two years when users over 35 began to join, swelling its membership from 42 million in 2008 to more than 103 million in 2009.
The company also recently began turning a profit and has been rumored to be gearing up for going public with an initial public offering in which some analysts predict the company could be valued at up to $5 billion. But before an IPO, the patent litigation would likely have to be resolved.
The case, Cross Atlantic Capital Partners Inc. v. Facebook Inc., was filed in 2007 and was nearly ready to go to trial in 2008 when Facebook asked for a stay of the litigation in order to pursue an "inter partes" re-examination of the patent before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In September 2009, the PTO examiners issued a decision that reaffirmed the validity of XACP's patent. And in late March 2010, the examiners issued a right of appeal notice, effectively finalizing their decision and clearing the way for Facebook to challenge the decision before the Patent Office Board of Patent Appeals.
Now plaintiffs attorneys Frederick A. Tecce of McShea Tecce and Thomas J. Duffy of Duffy & Partners say they are poised to file a motion to have the case reopened.
Anticipating that the litigation will intensify in the lead up to the trial, Tecce and Duffy have now joined forces with powerhouse patent litigator James H. Wallace Jr. of Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C.
Wallace garnered international attention when he led the team that secured a $612.5 million patent infringement settlement with Research in Motion Ltd., the maker of BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices, on behalf of his client NTP Inc.
Canadian-based RIM was looking down the barrel of a federal judge's injunction that threatened to shut down the popular wireless e-mail service for its 3 million Blackberry users when it struck a deal in which NTP granted RIM the right to keep running its BlackBerry business.
In an interview, Duffy said Wallace "brings tremendous expertise" in patent litigation, and that the plaintiffs team will also include two of Wallace's partners, Kevin P. Anderson and Gregory R. Lyons.
Facebook is represented by attorneys Heidi L. Keefe and Mark R. Weinstein of Cooley Godward & Kronish in Palo Alto, Calif., along with Alfred W. Zaher and Dennis P. McCooe of Blank Rome in Philadelphia.
McCooe declined to be interviewed about the litigation.
According to court papers, a patent application was filed in February 2000 by four men -- Jamey Harvey, Andrew Fegley, Matt Hulan and Robert Dekelbaum -- that described an invention of software and hardware that would establish "novel systems and methods for creating a community for users with common interests to interact in."
The suit alleges that initial development of the Facebook Web site began "no earlier than December 2003."
So far, the litigation has proceeded on two tracks, with XACP setting out to prove that Facebook infringes its patents and Facebook focusing most of its efforts on proving that XACP's patents are invalid because of "prior art," a term that essentially means the claimed invention was nothing new and therefore not patentable.
Tecce said that Facebook will now be legally bound by the findings of the Patent Office examiners and cannot lodge any defenses premised on invalidity.
Although Facebook still has a right to pursue an appeal from the examiners decision, Tecce said, the plaintiffs team will be asking U.S. District Judge John R. Padova to lift the stay and allow the case to proceed to trial.
Friday, March 19, 2010
HOUSING PRESERVATION AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 (H.R. 4868)
Provide Resources and Incentives to Prevent the Further Loss of Affordable Housing Units
· Provides grants and loans to for-profit and non-profit housing sponsors to help recapitalize and/or transfer the property to a preservation purchaser.
· Establishes a voluntary Preservation Exchange Program to encourage owners to sell properties to purchasers who will keep the housing affordable.
· Establishes a federal first right of refusal that provides HUD with an opportunity to purchase a property from an owner who wishes to sell their property. Significantly, the bill does not require an owner to sell their property or prevent them from obtaining fair market value.
· Allows owners to request project-based assistance in lieu of enhanced vouchers, which serves to help preserve the long-term affordability of the project, assist with capital for rehabilitation, and ensure that tenants are not displaced.
· Allows owners to receive budget based rent increases, thus ensuring that the properties are adequately maintained and encouraging owners to renew Section 8 contracts.
Prevent the Displacement of Disabled, Elderly and Other Low-Income Tenants
· Closes gaps in existing law to ensure that all low and moderate-income tenants are eligible for enhanced vouchers in the event that the assisted housing is converted to market rate housing.
· Gives HUD and affordable housing groups the tools needed to recapitalize the aging Section 202 elderly housing portfolio.
· Enables tenants to be partners with HUD, RHS and owners to ensure that federally-assisted housing is properly maintained.
· Includes notification requirements to ensure that tenants are given sufficient notice prior to the conversion of the property to market rate housing.
Rural Housing
· Makes permanent a rural housing revitalization demonstration program launched in Fiscal Year 2006 that is designed to preserve and recapitalize Section 515 properties.
· Authorizes vouchers for tenants in properties that are converted to market rate housing or foreclosed.
· Extends the same protections that tenants in HUD-assisted housing currently have to tenants in RHS-assisted multifamily properties.
Establish a National Database to Further Preservation
· Directs HUD to establish a nationwide public database of HUD and RHS assisted properties to enable policymakers and the public to more effectively monitor and preserve the existing portfolio of affordable housing and contains adequate safeguards to ensure the protection of owners' privacy rights and proprietary information.
· Provides grants and loans to for-profit and non-profit housing sponsors to help recapitalize and/or transfer the property to a preservation purchaser.
· Establishes a voluntary Preservation Exchange Program to encourage owners to sell properties to purchasers who will keep the housing affordable.
· Establishes a federal first right of refusal that provides HUD with an opportunity to purchase a property from an owner who wishes to sell their property. Significantly, the bill does not require an owner to sell their property or prevent them from obtaining fair market value.
· Allows owners to request project-based assistance in lieu of enhanced vouchers, which serves to help preserve the long-term affordability of the project, assist with capital for rehabilitation, and ensure that tenants are not displaced.
· Allows owners to receive budget based rent increases, thus ensuring that the properties are adequately maintained and encouraging owners to renew Section 8 contracts.
Prevent the Displacement of Disabled, Elderly and Other Low-Income Tenants
· Closes gaps in existing law to ensure that all low and moderate-income tenants are eligible for enhanced vouchers in the event that the assisted housing is converted to market rate housing.
· Gives HUD and affordable housing groups the tools needed to recapitalize the aging Section 202 elderly housing portfolio.
· Enables tenants to be partners with HUD, RHS and owners to ensure that federally-assisted housing is properly maintained.
· Includes notification requirements to ensure that tenants are given sufficient notice prior to the conversion of the property to market rate housing.
Rural Housing
· Makes permanent a rural housing revitalization demonstration program launched in Fiscal Year 2006 that is designed to preserve and recapitalize Section 515 properties.
· Authorizes vouchers for tenants in properties that are converted to market rate housing or foreclosed.
· Extends the same protections that tenants in HUD-assisted housing currently have to tenants in RHS-assisted multifamily properties.
Establish a National Database to Further Preservation
· Directs HUD to establish a nationwide public database of HUD and RHS assisted properties to enable policymakers and the public to more effectively monitor and preserve the existing portfolio of affordable housing and contains adequate safeguards to ensure the protection of owners' privacy rights and proprietary information.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Supreme Cour Moved it's Site
Today the Court will commence in-house hosting of its Web site, assuming site
management responsibilities from the Government Printing Office (GPO), which had provided
hosting services since the site's inception ten years ago. The Court received funding in its FY
20 10 appropriation to make the transition from GPO to in-house management. That transition
will enable the Court to integrate the Web site with the Court's other operations, improve the
quality of the site, and expand services for the public's benefit. The Web address for the site will
change from www.supremecourtus.gov to www.supremecourt.gov, t either address will
provide access through July l ,2010.
management responsibilities from the Government Printing Office (GPO), which had provided
hosting services since the site's inception ten years ago. The Court received funding in its FY
20 10 appropriation to make the transition from GPO to in-house management. That transition
will enable the Court to integrate the Web site with the Court's other operations, improve the
quality of the site, and expand services for the public's benefit. The Web address for the site will
change from www.supremecourtus.gov to www.supremecourt.gov, t either address will
provide access through July l ,2010.
FFIEC Issues FAQs on SAFE Act Registration for Depository Institution
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council published a question and answer document regarding licensing obligations of depository institutions under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act. See: http://www.ffiec.gov/safeact.htm
As you may recall, the SAFE Act requires individual mortgage loan originators to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, a database established by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators to support the licensing of mortgage loan originators by the states.
The FDIC recently approved a draft final rule (attached) to put the federal registration requirement into effect, which will require registration by individual residential mortgage loan originators employed by agency-related institutions. These originators will obtain a unique identifier that will stay with them regardless of employment. The draft rule would provide financial institutions with 180 days to complete initial registrations once the system is operational.
The FDIC's draft final rule is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
As you may recall, the SAFE Act requires individual mortgage loan originators to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, a database established by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators to support the licensing of mortgage loan originators by the states.
The FDIC recently approved a draft final rule (attached) to put the federal registration requirement into effect, which will require registration by individual residential mortgage loan originators employed by agency-related institutions. These originators will obtain a unique identifier that will stay with them regardless of employment. The draft rule would provide financial institutions with 180 days to complete initial registrations once the system is operational.
The FDIC's draft final rule is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Get Free Credit Report
Consumers can request one free credit report each year from each of the three nationwide credit-reporting companies—Equifax, Experian and TransUnion—through AnnualCreditReport.com. You are also entitled to a free report in certain situations, including if you are unemployed and plan to look for a job within 60 days, or if a company says it didn't hire you because of your credit history.
BAD CREDIT DERAILS JOB SEEKERS
Concerned about rising rates of employee theft and fiduciary issues, more employers are conducting credit background checks on applicants for some positions, the Wall Street Journal reported today. Companies say that the financial information can offer insight into a candidate's level of responsibility. However, people whose previously solid credit has been damaged by the economic downturn say they are victims of circumstances beyond their control. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act gives employers the right to conduct background checks on current and potential employees through third-party companies, with the individual's approval. Some 47 percent of employers say they check the credit history of applicants for certain positions, according to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management of more than 430 organizations in late 2009, up from 42 percent of employers in 2006. Lawsuits or other judgments outstanding, or multiple accounts in debt collection, were the types of credit information most likely to keep an organization from extending a job offer, according to the survey.
HAMP MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS JUMP 45 PERCENT IN FEBRUARY
The U.S. Treasury Department reported on Friday that mortgage modifications jumped 45 percent in February. In total, more than 170,000 individuals in the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) have been successfully steered into more manageable loans, with another 1.3 million receiving offers for trial modifications. However, the program is still short of the minimum 3 million at-risk homeowners President Obama targeted when the measure was unveiled nearly one year ago. The timeline for that goal extends through 2012. Borrowers in permanent modification plans are saving a median of 36 percent of their before-modification payment with a median savings of more than $500 each month, according to the Treasury Dept. These homeowners' lower monthly payments represent a combined savings of more than $2.7 billion.
BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIP BILL ADVANCES TO THE SENATE
The House of Representatives on Friday passed H.R. 4506, the “Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010,” authorizing the creation of 13 new permanent bankruptcy judgeships and the conversion of 22 temporary judgeships to permanent judgeships, as well as the extension of two temporary judgeships for another five years. To finance the positions, the bill also raises the filing fees for debtors filing chapter 7 or chapter 13 cases by $1 and for those filing chapter 11 cases by $42 to satisfy the “pay-go” budgetary offset requirement. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and was submitted at the request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The last judgeship bill was introduced in 2005. H.R. 4506 was received in the Senate yesterday and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
