Sign Up for THE DAILY JUDGED VERDICT. Our daily newsletter covers law firm salaries and everything you want to know about changes affecting law firms from people in the know. Sign Up Now!
9.00
9.00
8.69
8.40
8.33
8.25
8.13
8.03
8.00
8.00
2.70
2.86
3.09
3.12
3.12
3.30
3.35
3.46
3.47
3.65
The Judge has grown weary of sulking in the shadows and letting the MeJDs and Chinaskis of Judged hog the limelight. Here you will find news about Judged, updates to our law firm rankings and the Judge’s daily ramblings. Want the real scoop? Check it out here.
The Judge has grown weary of sulking in the shadows and letting the MeJDs and Chinaskis of Judged hog the limelight. Here you will find news about Judged, updates to our law firm rankings and the Judge’s daily ramblings. Want the real scoop? Check it out here.
Gender: Female
Industry: Law
Age: Unknown
Location: Undisclosed
Judged Blog
Judged Weekly - 13th July
In a June 21 post on legal sanity, Arnie Hertz says law firms risk losing business by unilaterally raising associate salaries without considering other relevant industry factors such as clients and clients’ general counsel. In fact, some reports suggest that most general counsel in the market are not happy with the current state of affairs. Hertz points out, “Most observers would agree that it makes sound business sense for law firms to establish strong and enduring relationships with the lawyers they hire and the clients they serve.” He goes on to ask, “But what happens when one of these relationships is forged at the other’s expense?” This post is a good read, and Hertz’s series of posts on optimizing lawyer-law firm relationships is something you won’t want to miss.
At the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman raises an issue that has always haunted me in his June 27 post “Taking Cases for Publicity: Does it Pay?” Then, just below, he asks “Are Lawyers Emotional Wrecks?” Count on Lattman to come up with the best topics in this blog.
There’s a detailed June 27 post at Overlawyered entitled “The Significance of Roy Pearson.” Don’t know who that is? Pearson is the judge of the-$67-million-lawsuit-for-a-pair-of-pants fame. And he’s lost his suit over his pants. David Nieporant raises significant questions about a system that would allow such a frivolous lawsuit to be filed and left hanging over the heads of the defendants for more than two years. Pearson could have guessed well enough the eventual outcome of the lawsuit, but he apparently wanted to take revenge on the dry cleaners. He did so by using the legal system to cripple the ability of the defendants to make any major business decisions and compelling them to incur $100,000 in legal costs fighting the case, which should never have been entertained in the first place (except perhaps in a small-claims court). Whether they’ve won or lost is immaterial to people like Pearson as long as they succeed in causing the suffering that is their actual objective.
07-13-2007
In a June 21 post on legal sanity, Arnie Hertz says law firms risk losing business by unilaterally raising associate salaries without considering other relevant industry factors such as clients and clients’ general counsel. In fact, some reports suggest that most general counsel in the market are not happy with the current state of affairs. Hertz points out, “Most observers would agree that it makes sound business sense for law firms to establish strong and enduring relationships with the lawyers they hire and the clients they serve.” He goes on to ask, “But what happens when one of these relationships is forged at the other’s expense?” This post is a good read, and Hertz’s series of posts on optimizing lawyer-law firm relationships is something you won’t want to miss.
At the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman raises an issue that has always haunted me in his June 27 post “Taking Cases for Publicity: Does it Pay?” Then, just below, he asks “Are Lawyers Emotional Wrecks?” Count on Lattman to come up with the best topics in this blog.
There’s a detailed June 27 post at Overlawyered entitled “The Significance of Roy Pearson.” Don’t know who that is? Pearson is the judge of the-$67-million-lawsuit-for-a-pair-of-pants fame. And he’s lost his suit over his pants. David Nieporant raises significant questions about a system that would allow such a frivolous lawsuit to be filed and left hanging over the heads of the defendants for more than two years. Pearson could have guessed well enough the eventual outcome of the lawsuit, but he apparently wanted to take revenge on the dry cleaners. He did so by using the legal system to cripple the ability of the defendants to make any major business decisions and compelling them to incur $100,000 in legal costs fighting the case, which should never have been entertained in the first place (except perhaps in a small-claims court). Whether they’ve won or lost is immaterial to people like Pearson as long as they succeed in causing the suffering that is their actual objective.
Top Performing Jobs
USA-TX-Dallas
Galloway\'s Dallas office is seeking an Associate Attorneys with 2 - 5 years of ...
Apply NowUSA-CA-Santa Ana
Part-time Staff Attorney – Housing and Homelessness Preven...
Apply NowUSA-CA-Santa Ana
Full-time Staff Attorney – Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit Org...
Apply NowUSA-CA-El Segundo
El Segundo office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an educatio...
Apply NowUSA-CA-Carlsbad
Carlsbad office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an education ...
Apply NowUSA-CA-El Segundo
El Segundo office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an educatio...
Apply NowDo you ever experience any physical danger in the courtroom? You do deal with all those criminals, right?
Sincerly,
Concerned Bailiff's Mommy
+ more Judged Dear
+ write to Your Honor
The Attorney Profile column is sponsored by LawCrossing, America`s leading legal job site.
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now! |