3/15/2010
Letter From the Publisher
Dear Colleagues,
Tax and estate planning are often two sides of the same coin, and the currency is rarely in more demand than during tax season. The ABA's leading planning experts thoroughly educate and enlighten with a broad array of books on estates and trusts, charitable giving, trustee investments, asset protection, closely held entities, and planning for minors.
Estate planners should begin with Estate and Trust Planning to master the substantive rules and policies of the law of wills, trusts, and estates and to navigate the maze of terminology, rules, and policies raised by wealth transfers. The ABA's popular Estate Planner's Guides, written by nationally known author and speaker Louis A. Mezzullo, are useful for specific areas such as family business entities, buy-sell agreements for closely held businesses, and qualified retirement plan benefits. The second edition of Charitable Gift Planning provides clear, insightful explanations of all relevant tax law and financial considerations for charitable giving, with flowcharts, spreadsheets, and calculations that explain numerically and visually how the concepts work and plentiful case studies that illustrate how the planning tools are used in a variety of situations.
The vast majority of trusts have individuals serving as trustees, often family members or trusted advisors (perhaps accountants or lawyers) who have little familiarity with the nuances of trustee investing. The investment advisors hired by those trustees, moreover, may likewise be unfamiliar with these trust issues. Readers of The Law of Trustee Investments will find a thorough treatment of investment basics, the law of diversification and the prudent investor act standard, breach and damages, and the effects of principal and income acts on investing. The book also focuses on the drafting of an investment plan by the trustee, including specific comments directed to life insurance trusts, and provides appendices with sample trust investment language and an investment plan flowchart.
Asset protection is one of the most demanding areas for estate planners because it requires an understanding of a wide range of disciplines, from property and tax law to estate planning and bankruptcy. Asset Protection Strategies, a two-volume set, offers in-depth analysis and review of the legal and tax aspects of vehicles designed to achieve tax savings, provide for family members, and protect the estate from creditors. Volume 1 is a valuable introduction to asset protection trusts, family limited partnerships and LLCs, foreign grantor trusts, and life insurance and annuities, as well as tax compliance and reporting requirements and noteworthy legal developments. Volume 2 builds on the advice in volume 1 and provides coverage of critical new topics such as trust protectors and the issues of money laundering and attorney's exposure to liability.
For closely held firms, the family limited partnership and limited liability company are the entities of choice, often supplanting C and S corporations. The second edition of The Family Limited Partnership Deskbook covers the basic principles of drafting, how and when to form and fund an FLP or LLC, and the fundamental principles used in valuing FLP and LLC interests that are to be transferred, as well as more advanced income tax concerns such as special allocations of and adjustments to basis and the taxation of nonliquidating and liquidating distributions.
In Tax, Estate, and Lifetime Planning for Minors, IRS attorney Carmina Y. D'Aversa assembles fourteen practitioners and law professors to examine the numerous and often complicated issues surrounding taxation, education funding, insurance, and disability of a minor or a minor's caregiver. Education Planning, written by professor Nancy Shurtz, is an essential guide to the myriad ways to save (and pay) for college. The popular but complex Section 529 plans are discussed at length, as are the options for merit- and need-based financial aid. The author skillfully weaves all the savings options together, explaining how to integrate the tax rules and suggesting various strategies depending on income level.
Sincerely,
Bryan Kay
Publisher
ABA Publishing 3/12/2010
By Marc Lauritsen
When we think about working smart, one of the first slogans that occurs to us is that we should avoid "reinventing the wheel." The notion of devoting energy to a task that results in something already present epitomizes working dumb. (Few firms attract customers with the sign "Wheels Reinvented Here.") Here are some working-smart strategies for legal work and the forms of knowledge involved in that work.
A core goal is to get desired results with the minimum of effort. Get more done with less, and avoid unnecessary motion. One aspect of this is to reuse rather than redo. Don't do things more than once if you don't need to.
Reuse is a form of resource optimization. You can practice knowledge conservation by getting good returns on your intellectual investments. Use the hard-won knowledge you already have.
How can you get future value out of present work? (Or, from the future's point of view, extract value from past work?)
First, be alert to opportunities for reuse. When starting something new, spend some time thinking about existing knowledge you can exploit or knowledge reuse opportunities you can seize. Use whatever you have that's useful, whether or not it was created with an eye toward reuse. Good search tools and methods obviously make this easier.
Second, anticipate and facilitate reuse. When two roughly similar ways of proceeding are presented, choose the one that leaves more reusable knowledge for posterity. Take extra time to memorialize discovered knowledge and know-how while it is still fresh. Think "What did we learn from this case? What mistakes did we make?" Leave a legacy. Try to crystallize generalizable rules. Notice regularities.
Saving just the final work product can mean the loss of lots of valuable stuff. Reference material and intermediate products are also often worth saving. Record alternative arguments and strategies that you considered but rejected, provisions you played with but dropped. Make contemporaneous notes about tools and materials you wish you had. ("What do I wish I saved last time?" "Gee, it would really have been useful if I had saved that list of all of arguments we ended up not using, and the reasons.") Usually the cost of recording, preserving, and retrieving knowledge is less than the cost of reacquiring it.
Third, find work that uses existing knowledge assets. Try to get engagements that allow you to make the best use of existing knowledge and skills.
In addition to reusing past work, you can sometimes accomplish several things with one contemporary process. Be alert to opportunities to "double dip," or to get multiple bangs for the buck. A survey of new developments in an area of law for a client may also provide raw material for a CLE presentation.
A related tactic is to multitask—i.e., do several tasks concurrently. While some forms of multitasking involve switches and divisions of attention that reduce overall effectiveness, it is often possible to interleave processes that require only intermittent attention.
"Keep your axe sharp" is a useful mantra. More broadly, invest appropriately in your production capacity. That involves people, tools, and other aspects of your work environment. It includes cultivating habits of mind that respect continuous learning and improvement. Make working smart an explicit subject of attention. Know and acknowledge your limits.
Most of us eventually form a repertoire of methods that work for us. We develop ways to cope with knowledge management. Lots of practical techniques—like the "funnel method" in taking depositions—involve aspects of working smart. We vary both in terms of our effectiveness in knowledge management and our consciousness and concern about that effectiveness. Most established practitioners are reasonably smart about working smart already.
Not all of us can be world-class knowledge athletes. What we're talking about here is gaining an edge—getting a better "return on effort."
Excerpted From:
The Lawyer's Guide to Working Smarter with Knowledge Tools
By Weston Anson
The classic definition of a trademark is any word, slogan, design, picture, or other symbol used to identify and distinguish goods of any kind. The definition also includes any identifying symbol, such as a logo or shape of a product or container, that can serve as an identifier.
Trademarks serve four basic functions:
- Identification of the trademark owner's goods, distinguishing them from the goods of others.
- Source, which means that all goods bearing the trademark have come from, or are controlled by, a single source.
- Quality, which indicates that the purchaser can expect all the goods bearing the trademark to have equal quality.
- Advertising, which serves to promote and assist in the selling of goods using the trademark.
By Rachelle Alterman
Most countries have laws for regulating land use. These laws vary greatly, but they do share one dilemma: how to deal with changing land values caused by regulation. Sometimes the regulations lead to increases in property values, but other times the effects are downward, reducing current or future values. The latter is one of the "raw nerves" of planning law and practice, for it can have extensive economic and social-justice implications and pose a major impediment to the implementation of land use planning and environmental policies.
In the United States, the law on regulatory takings has some unique characteristics that set it apart from other countries. Perhaps the most prominent is the intensity of the property rights debate itself. In no other country has the issue of regulatory takings become a major topic in national (or state) elections. In no other country has public opinion led to a legislative saga such as Oregon's extremist Measure 37 and its quick demise within only three years. Interestingly, the relatively docile status of the takings issue in most other countries exists regardless of whether the compensation rights in those countries tend to be more restrictive (Canada, Australia, the UK, France, or Greece) or broad (Poland, Germany, Sweden, the Netherland, and Israel).
Another key difference between the United States and the other countries is the prominent role played by constitutional law. In most other jurisdictions in this study, statutory law (whether on the national or subnational levels) is a key player in takings law. Only in the United States is takings law decided largely by direct application of the U.S. Constitution (in most states where there are regulatory takings statutes, these laws do not add substantive causes of action beyond constitutional law).
U.S. takings law is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty that both landowners and government agencies face whenever regulatory takings are challenged in the courts. In two countries studied, Finland and Austria, a high degree of legal uncertainty also prevails. However, in these two countries, the reason for the uncertainty is that there have been few claims and no jurisprudence to interpret the language of the statute. American society is much more litigious. The unique feature of U.S. takings law is that high legal uncertainty persists despite a large body of Supreme Court jurisprudence extending over almost nine decades, alongside many decisions by the lower courts.
Placing U.S. Regulatory Takings Law on the Comparative Scale
In academic or professional discussions—and even in some academic publications—one sometimes encounters Americans who refer to the "European approach" to regulatory takings, as contrasted with the "American approach." The impression is that Europe has a unitary approach that offers less protection of property rights than does the United States. There is a perception that European countries as a group do not recognize the concept of regulatory takings or do not regard these as entailing compensation by the public purse. On the opposite side, one encounters non-American practitioners and scholars—even from English-speaking countries—whose perception of U.S. takings law is that it offers landowners extensive protection from downzoning and generous compensation rights. This view is part of a broader image of the United States as offering extensive protection of property in general.
The evidence from this thirteen-country study shows that both images are far from correct. There is no European approach to regulatory takings. The nine European countries in this book exhibit the full scale of legal (and public policy) approaches to regulatory takings, almost to the very extremes. This is so even though all European countries are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Article 1 of the First Protocol of ECHR provides for property protection, but qualifies it "with the general interest." Furthermore, all European countries in this book also are members of the European Union. Yet the laws and practices of the nine European countries differ so greatly from one another that a "Euro-blind" reader may not have guessed their joint affiliation.
The comparative findings also show that there is no unitary British-legacy approach to contrast with the U.S. approach. The four countries with British law in their background in the past century—the UK, Canada, Australia, and Israel—span the two extremes on takings law: Canada on one side (extremely restrictive) and Israel on the other (excessive compensation rights). Today, not many similarities exist among these countries' laws on takings.
On two important counts, U.S. regulatory takings law is more generous to landowners than the laws of most other countries with similar compensation rights. First, in the other countries, takings claims only can be made when a government body changes an existing regulation to a more restrictive category. Owners of farmland or even vacant land that generates no income usually do not have the right to expect a rezoning. The United States is the only country among the set where refusals to upzone or to grant development permission can conceivably serve as grounds for a taking challenge. Although a challenge on these grounds is difficult to win, the threat of facing one lurks in the background when U.S. policy makers decide on farmland and other environmental protection regulations. Second, in most countries (with few exceptions), regulatory takings—especially partial takings—are not an open-ended concept; a statute usually defines a limited set of government decisions that may entail compensation. The historic as well as the current core of compensable decisions in most countries revolves around classic land use planning and zoning (not even all types of potentially injurious decisions are necessarily included).
Excerpted From:
Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights
3/11/2010By Margaret Graham Tebo
As every litigator knows, never ask a witness a question that you don't know the answer to. But even with this precaution, witnesses manage to confound the court and muddy the lawyers' carefully laid plans more often than lawyers care to admit. In less formal settings such as depositions or "conversations" with opposing parties—or the police—people seem to have an innate tendency to say too much. They trap themselves in a corner like novice chess players, leaving more experienced rivals to pounce on the smallest miscue. Thus it has apparently always been, at least as far back as Shakespeare's time.
In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt
But being seasoned with gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil?
—The Merchant of Venice
What it means: Don't be fooled by how pleasant and reasonable this witness seems; his testimony obscures the evil he has done.
How to use it: To point out to a jury that just because the witness seems like a nice person doesn't mean that everything he says is true. Don't let him fool you.
I shall never be ware of mine own wit,
Till I break my shins against it.
—As You Like It
What it means: Why can't I learn to keep my mouth shut?
How to use it: This can be used as an admonishment to oneself or to point out the foolishness of a witness. For example, "I may have been going a few miles over the speed limit, your Honor, but I wasn't doing seventy-five miles per hour as the officer testified." Of course, with this, the witness has just admitted he was speeding. Verdict: Guilty.
The jury, passing on the prisoner's life,
An honorable murderer, if you will;
For nought I did in hate, but all in honor.
—Othello
What it means: I killed him, but I had to.
How to use it: To show that the accused did the right thing, perhaps in self-defense or defense of someone else. Or, conversely, to show that the defendant believes he did the honorable thing, so much so that he admits to doing it. But what he did is still illegal. We don't condone "an eye for an eye" in our legal system.
He that is robb'd, not wanting what is stol'n,
Let him not know't and he's not robb'd at all.
—Othello
What it means: No harm, no foul.
How to use it: To make an analogy, whether serious or sarcastic, that if the victim was not actually injured, the defendant should not be found guilty or liable.
Excerpted From:
3/10/2010
By David A. Gauntlett
Designing protocols to assure that the maximum policy benefits available to the company are properly secured is a worthwhile effort. To maximize the value of those assets, intellectual property owners should focus on ten issues.
- What claims are asserted in litigation that might implicate your opponent's right to a defense and/or indemnity covered by their insurance?
- What insurance will litigation against your company trigger that benefits its interests?
- What new forms of insurance are available to IPOs that will expand opportunities to transfer litigation costs to their insurers?
- Can an insurance coverage audit reveal hidden opportunities to recapture monies paid for defense fees and settlements and/or judgments under existing insurance policies (e.g., is there "buried treasure" in previous insurer denials of tendered intellectual property claims)?
- Where no notice was provided to insurers of significant intellectual property lawsuits, was constructive notice provided to insurance brokers as well as insurers through the submission of 10-K reports that referenced litigation?
- Was the insurance broker who received constructive notice the general managing agent for the insurer such that notice to the broker can be deemed notice to the insurer?
- Given the exposure revealed by a review of past coverage opportunities, is the present insurance portfolio properly attuned to risks the company now confronts?
- Does the company's history of acquisitions, joint venture relationships, and other forms of corporate interaction expand the coverage opportunities available to it in a manner that requires revisitation of the potential for coverage under previously filed and existent lawsuits?
- Can knowledge of insurance coverage help corporations reallocate risks arising from licensing activities to better assure against risks posed by defaulting or underperforming licensees?
- Is the company's existing coverage for corporate counsel adequate, and can new efforts be taken to track corporate litigation, monitoring costs to better preserve their recapture as part of their insurer's defense obligations?
Excerpted From:
IP Attorney's Handbook for Insurance Coverage in Intellectual Property Law Disputes
|
|
| 5370168 |
| David A. Gauntlett |
| February 16, 2010 |
| 97801-60442-509-3 |
| 339 |
| 6x9 |
| Section of Intellectual Property Law |
 |
| $129.95 (Regular) |
| $110.95 (ABA Member) |
| $103.95 (ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law Member) |
| By Joseph F. McSorley
Imagine that you are a prosecutor evaluating four situations: (1) a shortwave radio operator has intercepted police radio transmissions of an impending raid and notified the target drug dealers; (2) a person has permitted his or her home to be used as a rendezvous for several people he or she knows are plotting to kill a rival business partner; (3) a police officer has provided protection to drug dealers by notifying them of an ongoing police investigation; and (4) a person has knowingly acted as a paid bodyguard to the principal of a scheme to sell stolen securities. Can you prosecute any of these people for aiding and abetting a conspiracy based on their acts of knowingly assisting others engaged in the commission of crimes?
The answer is yes. Aiding and abetting is a vehicle for secondary liability that renders an aider and abettor culpable as a principal.
18 U.S.C. § 2 provides as follows:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
The aiding and abetting statute serves to complement the offense of conspiracy. Recognizing that conspirators often use willing assistants in carrying out their plans, the statute enables the government to prosecute as principals those who knowingly assist the objectives of a conspiracy but who were not members of it.
As the District of Columbia Circuit noted in United States v. Kegler, aiding and abetting is not a crime in itself. It is a theory of liability that "abolishes the distinction between common law notions of 'principal' and 'accessory.'"
The essential element of a conspiracy is an agreement to violate the law. In contrast, aiding and abetting is not a criminal offense but merely a theory of criminal liability that makes the aider and abettor guilty of whatever substantive or inchoate crime is committed. Aiding and abetting a conspiracy does not necessarily make the aider and abettor a member of the conspiracy.
A prudent prosecutor will pay attention to the drafting of an indictment. Careful drafting will prevent a situation in which it is unclear whether an accused is charged with conspiracy or aiding and abetting a conspiracy.
Excerpted From:
A Portable Guide to Federal Conspiracy Law: Tactics and Strategies for Criminal And Civil Cases
3/9/2010
By Gary A. Poon
When a dispute is settled through mediation, a key step involves choosing the right mediator. The corporate counsel rarely has complete control over who is selected, but to the extent you do have control over the selection process, here are tips for conducting a successful search, including qualifications to look for (or not, as the case may be).
Beginning Your Search
In court-directed mediations, the mediator is often appointed by the court or, if the court has a mediation center, chosen by the case administrator. In private mediations, you will need to work with the other side in selecting a mutually acceptable mediator. Your outside counsel may have a list of preferred mediators. If that is the case, you should defer to your outside counsel's judgment.
Absent those recommendations, you may need to do your own search. Relying on word of mouth can be an option if—and only if—you can trust the source of the information. But most likely you will need to conduct a more systematic search. Four general ways to do so are (1) court-approved or governmentally licensed programs, (2) mediator directories and referral services, (3) membership organizations, and (4) alternative dispute resolution (ADR) providers.
Court-Approved or Governmentally Licensed Programs
The first place to begin a search would be a court-approved list of mediators, even though your case may be mediated outside of a court-sponsored program. Many state and federal courts in the United States have certain requirements before a mediator can participate in their mediation programs.
If your case involves an international matter, you may look for a mediator in a country that has adopted a licensing program for mediators. Perhaps one of the more stringent countries is Austria, which requires between 220 and 365 hours of training depending on the preexisting professional experience of the mediator.
Directories and Referral Services
When using these sources, it is critical to understand the requirements for being listed in a particular directory or referral service. Some directories or referral services simply charge the mediators a fee to be listed. Some impose certain requirements in order to be listed. A few directories or referral services may even have different levels of designation, depending on how many hours of training the mediator has received or number of cases he has handled.
There are basically two types of membership organizations or associations: those whose members are mediators, and those whose members are ADR users. Some mediator membership organizations, such as the International Academy of Mediators, will admit mediators "by invitation only."
ADR Providers
Some mediators may be associated or have affiliations with one or more ADR providers, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. Some may even have subject matter specialties, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization, based in Geneva, Switzerland.
The main difference between an ADR provider on the one hand and a directory, referral service, or membership organization on the other is that the former administers cases from filing to closing whereas the latter does not. ADR providers typically have their own rules and procedures for how mediations are to be conducted, and ADR providers set their own standards for admission to their roster of mediators. For example, in order to be included on AAA's panel of mediators, a person must meet the following criteria:
- Has at least ten years of "senior-level" experience in business, industry, or a profession;
- Possesses educational degree(s) and/or professional license(s) appropriate to the applicant's field of expertise;
- Is a member of at least one business, trade, or professional organization;
- Has completed twenty-four hours of mediation training;
- Has mediated at least five cases filed privately or through a court system ("formal mediation") "in the applicant's primary field of expertise" in the past three calendar years or otherwise mediated four "informal" mediations in the past two calendar years.
Factors to Consider (or Not)
It is virtually impossible to define what constitutes a competent mediator. Indeed, a good mediator may play a number of different roles during the course of a single mediation session, depending on the goals of the mediation and the needs of the parties:
- A communicator when the parties cannot talk to one another;
- A listener when the parties cannot hear one another;
- A confidante when the parties are unable to trust one another;
- A devil's advocate when the parties think they are on the side of the angels;
- A scapegoat when the parties need someone to blame;
- A problem solver when the parties cannot find a solution;
- A leader when the parties need to be led.
However, there are other qualitative factors you should consider (or not) in selecting the right mediator for your case.
Mediation Experience
Many believe that there is no substitute for mediation experience. That is why some directories, referral services, membership organizations, and ADR providers require their mediators to have mediated a minimum number of cases or engaged in a minimum number of hours of mediation as a mediator. Also, it may be useful to inquire into the types of cases that the mediator has mediated. A mediator who has mediated nothing but car accident cases may not be best suited to conduct a complex commercial mediation. Likewise, if you are looking for intellectual property experience, a mediator who has mediated only general commercial cases may not be your best candidate.
Settlement Track Record
It is tempting to want to know a mediator's track record in settling cases. However, such information is difficult to obtain. First of all, mediators may not always keep track of how many cases they have settled in relation to the number of disputes they have mediated. Second, even if they did, they may not make their own track record publicly available. Third, if a mediator boasts of a stellar track record, then you may want to maintain a healthy skepticism about the accuracy of such statistics.
But the most important point to keep in mind is that having a "good" settlement track record does not necessarily mean that that mediator is a competent mediator; likewise, having a "poor" track record does not necessarily mean that the mediator is incompetent. Parties decide to settle (or not) based on a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons may have something to do with the skills of the mediator (or lack thereof), but others may not. Bear in mind that a mediator who did not get the parties to settle in a particular instance is not necessarily a good or bad mediator. For example, settlements may occur later because of what the mediator accomplished during mediation.
Professional Degrees
Some people place considerable importance on a mediator's professional degree(s). If you believe that having a master's degree in social work (MSW) is important to understanding the psychological dynamics behind your case or that having a law degree (J.D.) is necessary to comprehend the legal issues, then the mediator's professional qualifications can be taken into account.
However, as the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution Commission on Standards has concluded, there is no evidence that any particular background or degree is required to be a competent neutral. Indeed, there is impressive evidence that some individuals who possess no particular credentials make excellent dispute resolvers.
Subject Matter Expertise
Another obvious way of selecting a mediator is to see if he has expertise in the particular subject matter of your dispute. One note of caution here: a leading expert in the field may be an authority on a specialized area of law but may lack the insight to see the underlying interests behind the parties' dispute. Likewise, a retired judge may have decided important cases but may not have the patience to help the parties work through their dispute.
In sum, subject matter expertise is relevant if the parties are seeking a mediator to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their case and to give them an assessment of their chances of prevailing in litigation or arbitration. For example, a patent lawyer/mediator who has tried numerous patent infringement cases is in a good position to predict how a patent judge might rule on the dispute. Still, some mediators would argue that it may be better to choose a mediator who does not have any expertise in the particular subject matter of your dispute. For example, if your case will be tried before a jury, a mediator who lacks subject matter expertise but has tried many cases before a jury may have a good feel for how a jury might react to your case.
Training or Coursework in Mediation
Another factor that you may look at is how much mediation training the mediator may have had or coursework he may have done. Indeed, many mediators will enroll themselves in mediation training classes as part of their continuing education or may be required to do so in order to stay listed in a directory or referral service, to remain as a member or on the roster of a membership organization, or to continue an affiliation with an ADR provider.
Excerpted From:
The Corporate Counsel's Guide to Mediation
2/19/2010
This month the ABA Book Briefs Podcast welcomes back Sharon Nelson and John Simek, co-authors of the newly updated 2010 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide. Listen to this episode to learn what’s new in this 2010 edition and get advice for small firms on purchasing technology for your practice. This podcast also covers:
- How to avoid the pitfalls of social media,
- Security implications of the iPhone as a business tool, and
- Technology predictions—a recap of 2009 and a look ahead to 2010.
 Subscribe | Download MP3
Letter from the Publisher
Dear colleagues,
Managing your law practice well safeguards the years of investment you make in your practice, and distinguishes you in the practice community. Clients sense and take confidence from a well-run office, as do your employees. The ABA offers titles from leading practice management experts to help you select technology, hire and manage talent, deliver stellar customer service, bill with confidence, market, network, and set sure processes for managing cases and files.
Lawyers, particularly in small firms, must play many roles, among them IT expert. The 2010 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide (read excerpt) offers a thorough overview of current legal technology products and invaluable advice for making sound technology decisions. Authors Sharon D. Nelson, John W. Simek, and Michael C. Maschke help you choose the right operating system and software for your office and show you how to guard against security threats, including viruses, spyware, and spam. (To learn more, check out this month's Book Briefs Podcast.) And once you become educated, there is a great opportunity to put your knowledge to use. At the upcoming ABA TECHSHOW, you can dazzle fellow lawyers with your expertise, see how evolving technology is changing the way the profession works, and discover the latest technological marvels to turn your office into a wonder of efficiency.
Litigators must keep a firm grip on evidence of all kinds without spending an inordinate amount of time doing so. In The Lawyer's Guide to CT Summation iBlaze, noted technology speaker Tom O'Connor unlocks the mysteries of one of the most powerful software programs for storing and recalling disparate types of evidence. You'll find step-by-step instructions on the functions of iBlaze, screenshots of all the procedures being discussed, and "Practice Pointer" sidebars showing you how the software makes the task of managing litigation more efficient. Fully up-to-date and covering the latest version of iBlaze, this is the right book to consult if you're looking to make the software work harder for you—or if you simply want to evaluate the features of iBlaze to see if it's a good fit for your practice.
Although technology is necessary, it is rarely sufficient. It may be tempting to use software and hardware as virtual staff, but the day will come when help from only real human beings will do. Deciding when and what to outsource and when to hire in-house personnel involves many considerations. Employing your own staff frees you to do what you do best, but it also means taking on new responsibilities such as hiring and firing. Poorly supervised employees can cost money—and potentially lose clients and harm your professional reputation. Avoid traps for the unwary with Effectively Staffing Your Law Firm, a toolkit that helps you manage your workload and determine staffing needs that make sense for your firm.
For busy lawyers who want to streamline their practice and their firm without devoting dozens of hours to the task, The Busy Lawyer's Guide to Success: Essential Tips to Power Your Practice is an ingenious solution. Written in an easy-to-understand format, this guide focuses on eight key areas: client service, marketing and client development, technology, coping with e-mail, making (more) money, ethics and professionalism, firm management and operations, and strategy and planning. The tips in this book will help you focus quickly on what you need to do to have more satisfied clients and a more satisfying practice.
Armed with these practical and comprehensive guides, you will gain the expertise and know-how to keep your office running in top form.
Sincerely,
Bryan Kay
Publisher
ABA Publishing | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XsnLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xsn | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.2 | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.3 | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.4 | 255 | | View in Web Browser | /_layouts/images/ichtmxls.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsx | 255 | | View in Web Browser | /_layouts/images/ichtmxls.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsb | 255 | | Snapshot in Excel | /_layouts/images/ewr134.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&Snapshot=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsx | 256 | | Snapshot in Excel | /_layouts/images/ewr134.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&Snapshot=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsb | 256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XsnLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xsn | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.2 | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.3 | 255 | | Edit in Browser | /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser | 0x0 | 0x1 | ProgId | InfoPath.Document.4 | 255 | | View in Web Browser | /_layouts/images/ichtmxls.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsx | 255 | | View in Web Browser | /_layouts/images/ichtmxls.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsb | 255 | | Snapshot in Excel | /_layouts/images/ewr134.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&Snapshot=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsx | 256 | | Snapshot in Excel | /_layouts/images/ewr134.gif | /publishing/bookbriefsblog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&Snapshot=1 | 0x0 | 0x1 | FileType | xlsb | 256 |
|
|
|
|
Last Month Three Mistakes Witnesses MakeWhen someone is called to be a witness of any kind, no book or other outsider's advice can replace the need for good legal help. This seems obvious to anyone who has experience dealing with this question-and-answer format. However, it is not so obvious to many lawyers or laypeople. The Nonspecialist's Guide to BankruptcyFor the nonspecialist in bankruptcy, discovering that your client finds itself on the other end of a relationship influenced by a participant in bankruptcy can be daunting. The Bankruptcy Code is laden with traps for the unwary; just as you become comfortable traversing the interconnectedness of bankruptcy law and, for example, state real property law, a provision of the Bankruptcy Code pulls the carpet out from under you. Creating a Work-Life BalanceWhile technology increasingly encroaches on the daily lives of lawyers, they still make room for creature comforts. Lawyers are communicating on the go, but they are not yet giving up traditions such as a physical office and fee-based research resources. All Time Eleven Things That Annoy Clients MostClients will, understandably, get upset if they are treated badly or confronted with surprises. Make sure you appreciate how your words, actions, or inactions can annoy or even distress your clients. Here are the most common things that a lawyer does that annoy clients, so don't do any of them! Six Key Principles That Help CommunicationUnderstanding your audience is a key factor in communicating ideas and intentions effectively. In order to establish strong connections with your colleagues you must learn to both hear and be heard. Here are six principles to help guide you on the road to more effective communication skills. Expanding Your NetworkA strong professional network can be the catalyst that transforms a good legal career into a great one. When done properly, networking can yield new business opportunities, client referrals, and long-term professional and personal associations. Effective networking takes time and requires a commitment to cultivate relationships. Often the hardest part is simply getting started. Here are a few ideas to help you begin building a valuable professional network. |
|
|
|
