Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  21365-21371 displayed

1  3051 3052 3053 3054 3055  3627

---

Gordon & Silver, Ltd.

GORDON & SILVER, LTD. NAMED 2005 RECIPIENT OF "PRO BONO LAW FIRM OF THE YEAR," AWARD IN THE "LARGE FIRM" CATEGORY
The selection was made by the Pro Bono Project of Clark County Legal Services. The award was presented by Nevada Supreme Court Justice Michael Douglas to Gordon & Silver, Ltd. at a ceremony attended by Federal, State and Municipal judges, political dignitaries and over 600 members of the State Bar.

The award recognized the contributions by lawyers at Gordon & Silver, Ltd. who regularly accepted pro-bono cases referred to the Firm. This important public service provided free legal assistance to citizens of the community who could least afford to hire an attorney.

07-22-2006

---

Winston & Strawn, LLP

Corporate Heavyweight Liederman Joins Winston & Strawn
Winston & Strawn LLP announced today the further expansion of its Geneva office with the addition as a partner of Carl L. Liederman, a prominent corporate lawyer who has for many years led a broad-ranging cross-border practice from London and Paris. Liederman joins from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe where he was the head of the firm's European mergers and acquisitions corporate practice.

"Carl is a great complement to our international arbitration and litigation practice here in Geneva," said Marc Palay, managing partner of Winston & Strawn's Geneva office. "In addition to being an arbitration center, Geneva has emerged as the global headquarters for an ever-growing number of multinational corporations, and Carl's broad expertise and leadership abilities are a good fit for our clients and our firm."

Liederman focuses his practice on international transactional work with an emphasis on cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, outsourcing and technology, and capital markets. He has significant experience in private and public offerings of debt and equity securities representing issuers and underwriters, leveraged buyouts, and private equity transactions. He has worked on transactions in most European jurisdictions.

"Carl will be a key part of Winston's growing international corporate team," said Governor James R. Thompson, chairman of Winston & Strawn, "We anticipate a continued emphasis on growth in Europe." Winston has aggressively expanded its international corporate practice in recent months, including Paris with the addition of five lawyers from FIDAL. The Geneva office has also added two lawyers within the last two months.

Liederman, who is fluent in French and conversant in Italian, Spanish and Greek, will also work closely with the firm's London and Paris offices, where he maintains many clients from his work in both jurisdictions.

Liederman represents clients in the media, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, life sciences, high tech, retail, manufacturing and other industries. He has been named as an industry leader in Chambers and Partners UK Directory and Legal 500, both of which are UK-based legal research and publishing organizations.

Active in charitable organizations, Liederman is a director of Right To Play UK and a member of Team USA for Right To Play International, a global humanitarian organization using sport and play to encourage the healthy physical, social and emotional growth of the world's most disadvantaged children. Liederman served as the head of international pro bono activities at Orrick.

Liederman earned his juris doctor at Yale Law School where he was co-editor-in-chief of the Yale Journal of International Law. He was the John M. Olin fellow in law, economics and public policy. Lieberman received his bachelor's degree from Pomona College, summa cum laude, and was valedictorian and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Prior to entering law school, he was a researcher at the D.C.-based Brookings Institution, where he assisted Charles Schultze in writing Barriers to European Growth (Brookings, 1987) and also assisted renowned economist Alice Rivlin with several books and articles.

07-21-2006

---

Goodwin Procter, LLP

Goodwin Procter Pro Bono Lawyers Secure Landmark Murder Conviction Reversal
Goodwin Procter LLP today announced a landmark decision reversing a first-degree murder conviction in the case of Lakeisha Wilson-Bey and Sckeena Marbury v. United States, in which two Goodwin Procter partners, Matthew Hoffman and John Moustakas represented defendant Sckeena Marbury on a pro bono basis.

In the ruling issued Thursday, July 20, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals — D.C’s highest court — held that that the trial judge’s jury instructions misstated the law by allowing the jury to find Ms. Marbury guilty of first-degree premeditated murder without deciding that she intended to kill anyone.

“This is a very important decision because it emphasizes that you can’t be convicted of premeditated murder — the most serious crime that the law recognizes — unless you personally intend to kill someone,” said Mr. Hoffman, who argued the case for Ms. Marbury. “That’s a fundamental principle of criminal law, and with this decision the Court of Appeals is moving D.C. back into the jurisprudential mainstream.”

Prior to yesterday’s decision, a defendant who assisted in (or "aided and abetted") a killing in the nation’s capital could be convicted of first-degree premeditated murder so long as the killing was a "natural and probable consequence" of his or her actions. In the decision, the court held that this rule was contrary to long established principles of criminal law and numerous decisions from other state and federal courts. It held that an aider and abettor can only be convicted of premeditated murder if he or she specifically intends to kill someone.

The three judges who originally heard the appeal in September 2004 had reached the opposite conclusion. But last fall, the court took the unusual step of calling for a new "en banc" argument before all nine judges on the Court. Yesterday's decision in favor of Ms. Marbury was unanimous.

Mr. Hoffman is a partner in Goodwin Procter's appellate litigation group and Mr. Moustakas, a former federal prosecutor, is a partner in the firm's white collar crime group. Goodwin Procter represented Ms. Marbury on a pro bono basis a part of a program to provide appellate representation to defendants who cannot afford to pay for lawyers.

07-21-2006

---

Boundas, Skarzynski, Walsh & Black, LLC

BSWB attorneys recognized by peers in Super Lawyers
Two BSWB lawyers, James A. Skarzynski and Evan Shapiro have been recognized in Super Lawyers by their peers in the legal community. The Manhattan edition of Super Lawyers magazine was published on June 16, 2006, in a special advertising supplement of The New York Times. New York's Super Lawyers magazine was mailed to more than 76,000 Manhattan attorneys and nationwide to the lead corporate counsel of the Russell 3000 companies and ABA-approved law schools.

Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of lawyers in a practice area through polling, independent research and a review process, specifically designed to identify lawyers who have attained a substantial level of peer recognition and professional accomplishment. Super Lawyers is a comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys, representing over 60 practice areas.

07-21-2006

---

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

FCC Adopts Fiscal Year 2006 Regulatory Fees
The Commission has adopted its annual regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2006. The filing deadline will be announced in a Public Notice that should be released at any time now.

07-21-2006

---

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP

California Supreme Court Holds Out-Of-State Callers May Not Surreptitiously Tape Record Telephone Conversations With People In California
On July 13, 2006, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. ("Kearney"). The decision clarifies the extraterritorial reach of California's broad invasion-of-privacy statute and puts companies nationwide on notice that they may not secretly tape record telephone conversations with people in California no matter where the taping takes place.

07-21-2006

---

Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons

Supreme Court Clarifies "Compensable Time" Under Fair Labor Standards Act
In IBP Inc. v. Alvarez, decided November 8, 2005, the Supreme Court clarified what constitutes “compensable time” under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). In two consolidated cases, workers in meat-packaging plants sued their employers for failing to pay them for time it took to put on and remove protective clothing and also to walk from the changing rooms to the production area. One group of workers also sought compensation for the time they waited in the locker rooms prior to actually changing into the protective gear.

In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, a unanimous Supreme Court held that FLSA, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, required employers to compensate employees for dressing and walking, but not for the time waiting.

Relying on the text of the two statutes, Department of Labor regulations, and prior case law, the High Court explained that the statutory scheme defines “compensable time” as the time it takes to conduct “those activities [that] are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workmen are employed.” The companies conceded that donning and doffing the protective clothing—such items as hardhats, hairnets, chain-link metal aprons, Plexiglas armguards, earplugs, and special gloves—were “an integral and indispensable part of the principal activity” of meat packaging, and thus compensable under the FLSA. They objected, however, to compensating workers for the time it took to walk from the changing rooms to the production area.

Continuous workday rule

The Court rejected their argument, relying in large part on the long-standing “continuous workday rule,” which provides that under the FLSA, a “workday” is defined as “the period between the commencement and completion on the same workday of an employee’s principal activity.” In other words, the Court rejected the employer’s suggestion that time be broken up into pieces (e.g., compensable as employees changed into protective clothing, non-compensable as they walked from the locker rooms to the production area, compensable as they worked packaging meat, non-compensable as they walked back to the changing areas at the end of the day, and compensable again as they took off their protective gear).

In contrast, however, the Court held that time waiting to change was not compensable. Relying on language from the Portal-to-Portal Act, in which Congress specifically excluded from “compensable time” any activities that are “preliminary or postliminary to the principal activities,” the Court found that waiting time was a “preliminary activity” similar to walking from their cars in employee parking lots to their workplaces. While both are indisputably necessary to complete a day’s work, Congress, in the Portal-to-Portal Act, specifically placed them outside the definition of “compensable time.” The Court noted, though, that the result would be different if an employer required its employees to arrive at a particular time (e.g., 8:00 a.m.), only to have them wait until their protective equipment was ready to be donned.

Practical significance

Employers should carefully review their manner of calculating compensation if they employ large numbers of nonexempt, hourly employees who are required by the nature of their positions to wear protective clothing, take special care to remain clean (e.g., by showering after their shift), or spend time on safety precautions. Violations of the FLSA may subject employers to liability for not only the underpayments themselves, but also for attorneys' fees and costs and, in certain circumstances, civil and criminal penalties.

Eric V. Hall is an associate in RJ&L's Colorado Springs office, where he practices in the firm's Religious Institutions and Labor and Employment Law Groups. Prior to joining RJ&L, Mr. Hall served the Honorable David M. Ebel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as a law clerk. He can be reached at 719-386-3030 or by email at ehall@rothgerber.com

07-21-2006

---

25383 matches |  21365-21371 displayed

1  3051 3052 3053 3054 3055  3627