Five relatively small law firms were recognized for their litigation successes over the past year, making the list of top 50 litigation firms despite having fewer than 200 attorneys. These firms were Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Bracewell LLP, Kaye Scholer LLP, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP. They achieved victories for clients in high-stakes cases worth millions or billions of dollars through strategic focus on litigation, cooperation between attorneys, and developing expertise in key practice areas. Firm representatives said their litigation-focused models and cultures allowed them to compete successfully against larger firms.
Antitrust seminar at 2014 CreditScape, Western Region Credit Conference Seminar Slide Deck, sponsored by Credit Management Association. More information: www.creditmanagementassociation.org
Antitrust seminar at 2014 CreditScape, Western Region Credit Conference Seminar Slide Deck, sponsored by Credit Management Association. More information: www.creditmanagementassociation.org
Connecticut Latest State to Join Ban the Box MovementDaniel Chammas
In over a decade of practicing law, Daniel (Dan) Chammas, an attorney based in Los Angeles, California, has become known as an established litigator who represents Fortune 500 companies in employment law matters. A graduate of Stanford Law School, attorney Daniel Chammas is a partner at Ford Harrison LLP, which recently published a commentary on Connecticut’s new “Ban the Box” law.
Case Analysis · Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem f.docxwendolynhalbert
Case Analysis
· Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem for the week in the corresponding weeks assignment dropbox. The case assignments will be posted by professor in the Announcements each week. In a large class some students may have duplicate cases assigned to other students.
· The assignment should consist of a presentable and entertaining presentation (Power Point or other medium) and will be delivered in some form of participative medium (webex/on-site/or alternative as determined by professor) . It should include a summary of the relevant facts, the law, judicial opinion and answer the case questions. All that is necessary for an understanding of the case is important and required.
· The report must go beyond the discussion of the problem posed in the textbook, to achieve a superior grade. Do research outside the textbook- this must include research outside the case citation such as the Lexus-Nexis in the DeVry Library or FindLaw.com, do research on the parties and circumstances of the case itself and incorporate some audio-visual modality as a part of the case analysis.something about one of the parties, as well as some background contained in the legal opinion. Doing significant research outside the textbook is essential.
· Utilize the case format below.
· Your grade comes from the content contained on the actual submission.
Case Analysis Format
1. Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:
Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]
Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]
Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]
Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.
Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision]
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation.
4. Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds!
5. Wrap up with a Conclusi ...
As the Boy Scouts of America goes through a contentious bankruptcy, dozens of lawyers are working on the case. Many are charging more than $1,000 an hour.
Connecticut Latest State to Join Ban the Box MovementDaniel Chammas
In over a decade of practicing law, Daniel (Dan) Chammas, an attorney based in Los Angeles, California, has become known as an established litigator who represents Fortune 500 companies in employment law matters. A graduate of Stanford Law School, attorney Daniel Chammas is a partner at Ford Harrison LLP, which recently published a commentary on Connecticut’s new “Ban the Box” law.
Case Analysis · Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem f.docxwendolynhalbert
Case Analysis
· Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem for the week in the corresponding weeks assignment dropbox. The case assignments will be posted by professor in the Announcements each week. In a large class some students may have duplicate cases assigned to other students.
· The assignment should consist of a presentable and entertaining presentation (Power Point or other medium) and will be delivered in some form of participative medium (webex/on-site/or alternative as determined by professor) . It should include a summary of the relevant facts, the law, judicial opinion and answer the case questions. All that is necessary for an understanding of the case is important and required.
· The report must go beyond the discussion of the problem posed in the textbook, to achieve a superior grade. Do research outside the textbook- this must include research outside the case citation such as the Lexus-Nexis in the DeVry Library or FindLaw.com, do research on the parties and circumstances of the case itself and incorporate some audio-visual modality as a part of the case analysis.something about one of the parties, as well as some background contained in the legal opinion. Doing significant research outside the textbook is essential.
· Utilize the case format below.
· Your grade comes from the content contained on the actual submission.
Case Analysis Format
1. Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:
Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]
Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]
Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]
Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.
Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision]
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation.
4. Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds!
5. Wrap up with a Conclusi ...
As the Boy Scouts of America goes through a contentious bankruptcy, dozens of lawyers are working on the case. Many are charging more than $1,000 an hour.
BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview .docxjasoninnes20
BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, sell services and products, and
engage in employment and labor practices—activities that must all adhere to certain laws and regulations. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a
fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business world.
The final assessment for this course will require you to analyze three case studies and produce a short report for each. You will apply your legal knowledge and
your understanding of the types of business organizations. The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the
course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Six. The final project will be
submitted in Module Seven.
This assessment addresses the following course outcomes:
Apply appropriate elements of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Constitution to business scenarios for impacting decisions in authentic situations
Apply concepts of ethics, morality, and civil and criminal law to business scenarios for informed corporate decision making
Analyze the basic elements of a contract and a quasi-contract for their application to commercial and real estate scenarios
Differentiate between the various types of business organizations for informing rights and responsibilities
Prompt
Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases. You will review the case studies and compose a
short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In each of the three reports, you will focus on
areas of law covered in this course. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord-
tenant law. Case Study Three involves environmental law and business organizations.
Case Study One
Chris, Matt, and Ian, who live in California, have decided to start a business selling an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the internet. They contract with
Novelty Now Inc., a company based in Florida, to manufacture and distribute the product. Chris frequently meets with a representative from Novelty Now to
design the product and to plan marketing and distribution strategies. In fact, to increase the profit margin, Chris directs Novelty Now to substitute PYR (a low-
cost chemical emulsifier) for the compound in Novelty Now’s original formula. PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face is marketed nationally on the radio and in
newspapers, as well as on the web and Facebook. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO and public speaker, buys one bottle of Funny Face over the internet. Afte ...
BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview .docxRAHUL126667
BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, s ell services and products, and
engage in employment and labor practices—activities that must all adhere to certain laws and regulations. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a
fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business world.
The final assessment for this course will require you to analyze three case studies and produce a short report for each. You will apply your legal knowledge and
your understanding of the types of business organizations. The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the
course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Six. The final project will be
submitted in Module Seven.
This assessment addresses the following course outcomes:
Apply appropriate elements of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Constitution to business scenarios for impacting decisions in authentic situat ions
Apply concepts of ethics, morality, and civil and criminal law to business scenarios for informed corporate decision making
Analyze the basic elements of a contract and a quasi -contract for their application to commercial and real estate scenarios
Differentiate between the various types of business organizations for informing rights and responsibilities
Prompt
Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases. You will review the case studi es and compose a
short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In each of the three reports, you will focus on
areas of law covered in this course. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord-
tenant law. Case Study Three involves environmental law and business organizations.
Case Study One
Chris, Matt, and Ian, who live in California, have decided to start a business selling an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the internet. They contract with
Novelty Now Inc., a company based in Florida, to manufacture and distribute the product. Chris frequently meets with a representative from Novelty Now to
design the product and to plan marketing and distribution strategies. In fact, to increase the profit margin, Chris direct s Novelty Now to substitute PYR (a low-
cost chemical emulsifier) for the compound in Novelty Now’s original formula. PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face is marketed nationally on the radio and in
newspapers, as well as on the web and Facebook. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO and public speaker, buys one bottle of Funny Face over the internet. After
he ...
Washington Court Holds Stipulated Covenant Judgment Sets Minimum Amount of Da...NationalUnderwriter
Washington Court Holds Stipulated Covenant Judgment Sets Minimum Amount of Damages in Bad Faith Case. (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center)
Recently, Division One of the Court of Appeals of Washington State affirmed a jury verdict awarding $13 million in damages to a passenger injured in a car accident, finding that the $4.15 million agreed amount of the covenant
judgment in the insurance bad faith case sets a floor, not a ceiling, on the damages a jury can award.
In Miller v. Kenny and Safeco Ins. Co.,[1] the Court of Appeals ruled on several additional issues on appeal including whether evidence of an insurance company’s loss reserves is properly admissible at trial.
The cost of litigation for those people in society who lack financial substance, are unable to afford the official legal process and therefore often lose out in disputes, the introduction of PrivateCourt offers them a means to have the access to justice."
A class action, also known as a class action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.
Similar to 5 Small(er) But Mighty Litigation Shops (20)
1. Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th
Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | customerservice@law360.com
5 Small(er) But Mighty Litigation Shops
By Aebra Coe
Law360, New York (July 26, 2016, 11:07 PM ET) -- Five relatively small but fearsome law firms landed a
spot on Law360's 2016 list of 50 Litigation Powerhouses after they laced up their gloves and brought the
pain in their fights for clients, winning some of the biggest cases over the past year.
The elite group of firms with fewer than 200 litigation attorneys that made it on this year's list of
litigation heavyweights are, in order, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Bracewell LLP, Kaye
Scholer LLP, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The firms represented both defendants and plaintiffs in fights at trial courts, intermediate appellate
courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, with millions and even billions of dollars at stake for their clients.
Some examples of the victories this past year — which started March 1, 2015, and ran through March 1,
2016 — include a win at the U.S. Supreme Court by Bracewell for mining company Asarco LLC in a fight
with Baker Botts LLP over attorneys' fees. In a blockbuster win at the Federal Circuit, Kaye Scholer
secured a favorable decision for Acorda Therapeutics Inc. in a decision regarding personal jurisdiction in
abbreviated new drug applications. And Lieff Cabraser served as co-lead counsel in global litigation
against the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. over foreign exchange fees, under which approximately $504
million was awarded to the bank's customers.
The five firms clinched their wins this year with litigation departments ranging in size from 39 partners
and 66 total attorneys to 32 partners and 197 attorneys, smaller than many of the firms they squared off
against.
According to Bracewell litigation chair Stephen Crain, his firm managed to have a mighty year because
of, rather than in spite of, its relatively small size.
He said that the firm's trial leadership sat down together several years ago and came up with a plan to
re-form themselves around a new strategy, and the firm's successes this past year are a direct result of
following through with that plan.
"We coalesced on a strategy of reshaping ourselves as a litigation boutique inside of a large law firm,"
Crain said. "Instead of having pods of trial lawyers doing different things in different locations, we
decided to really work together as one unit."
He said that means that rather than viewing litigation simply as one element of each practice group in a
2. large firm, Bracewell has viewed its litigation department as a team in and of itself, where lawyers
communicate across offices, cross-specialize within offices and share work seamlessly.
"We went from being somewhat siloed to being completely unsiloed," he said.
It is that litigation boutique atmosphere that allows Bracewell to hang with the big dogs, Crain said, as
attorneys work together in a "relatively selfless" manner, asking for each other's help and offering a
helping hand where needed.
In addition to the Asarco case, this past year was a big one for Bracewell both in the appellate courts
and at the trial court level.
Partner Sean Gorman successfully defended Italian energy giant Eni SpA in a $6.4 billion dispute with
Brenham Oil & Gas Corp. over an oil concession from the government of the African nation of Togo.
Brenham Oil appealed the trial court's dismissal of the case, and last July, a state appellate court
affirmed the dismissal.
And last May, the Ninth Circuit reversed an $81 million judgment against Bracewell client KBR Inc. over
hazardous chemicals at an Iraqi water facility, ruling that in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision, the trial court did not have jurisdiction in the case.
At the trial court level, the law firm secured complete dismissal for Waste Management Inc. on summary
judgment in a $3 billion environmental enforcement suit and then represented Waste Management of
Texas Inc. as co-counsel in an ensuing five-week trial. Immediately before closing arguments, the
government settled with Waste Management of Texas for less than 1 percent of the amount of penalty
it had requested during trial.
Another law firm among this year's small and mighty litigation shops, Lieff Cabraser, has a slightly
different story as a plaintiffs firm, often coming up against some of the largest and strongest defense
law firms in the world.
Lieff Cabraser managing partner Steve Fineman explained that his firm has been able to come out on
top because of its laser focus: All 66 of the firm's attorneys focus on litigation, and all represent
plaintiffs.
"I think that makes a difference," Fineman said. "We're able to excel because we only represent
plaintiffs and almost entirely on a contingent fee basis."
He said that the firm has a practice group model that mimics those found at larger law firms, which he
says has allowed the firm to find a niche in a few key areas such as securities, financial fraud, consumer
fraud, mass tort environmental and whistleblower cases.
"By having our lawyers focus on these different substantive areas, we're able to develop expertise and
become leaders in all of those fields," Fineman said.
The firm's success can also be attributed to careful case selection and the efficient and smart use of
lawyers on a case, he said. Because the law firm fronts all costs for clients against any future recovery, it
has to be — and is — especially careful about only picking the cases that have good prospects in court.
3. "Our interests are definitely aligned with those of our clients because we only get our costs back if we
prevail," Fineman said.
Kaye Scholer managing partner Michael Solow says that like Bracewell and Lieff Cabraser, his firm has
also placed a very strong emphasis on litigation, with its nearly 200 litigators making up almost half of
the firm's total population.
But, rather than focusing on one area of litigation, Kaye Scholer aims to provide the gamut to its clients,
Solow said.
"For each of our clients, we offer a one-stop shop to handle all the related elements of cases that now
more than ever involve different and parallel civil, criminal and government investigations," he
explained.
Some areas that he sees as the firm's specialties include the life sciences and financial service sectors.
"Our team has steadily built and long enjoyed a reputation as trial lawyers in heavyweight commercial
disputes and as lead counsel on major product liability defense and IP cases," he said.
The firm’s victories this past year include the Acorda Therapeutics win at the Federal Circuit, as well as a
Seventh Circuit victory for Vintage Pharmaceuticals LLC dismissing a generic prescription product liability
case on preemption grounds — the first time the court has considered the extent to which product
liability claims against generic-prescription-drug manufacturers are preempted by federal law since the
U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Pliva Inc. v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Inc. v. Bartlett.
Additionally, Kaye Scholer won a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of Philip Morris after a three-
week trial when an eight-person jury found that Philip Morris cigarettes did not cause a plaintiff’s lung
cancer.
The remaining two law firms on the list of five, Cravath and Kramer Levin, had no shortage of wins over
the last year either.
Cravath attorneys last July secured a favorable ruling at the Second Circuit for IBM Corp., finding the
company cannot be held liable in the U.S. for selling identification technology and military vehicles to
South Africa that allegedly facilitated the country's human rights abuses while under apartheid because
the alleged conduct was largely perpetrated outside the United States.
And in November, Cravath won dismissal for ABC and ESPN of a putative class action in Tennessee
federal court brought by former NCAA football and basketball players against various broadcasters,
athletic conferences and licensing entities, centered on the issue of whether student-athletes should
receive compensation.
Additionally, last August, the firm secured summary judgment for Time Inc. in New York federal court of
a $1 billion antitrust lawsuit filed by a defunct magazine wholesaler.
In one of the year's most high-profile cases, Kramer Levin represented SAC Capital Advisors LP's Michael
Steinberg, who faced insider trading charges in New York federal court. A Kramer Levin team led by
partner Barry Berke handled the matter throughout the trial and appeals process, eventually securing
outright dismissal of the suit after a favorable decision at the Second Circuit.