 |
| image [cc] Karan Jain |
It may appear I am on some Defend BigLaw run with my recent posts. It’s actually not that, but merely some pent up pet peeves I need to air. This one addresses the attack on law firms for how they come up with matter budgets and fixed fees.
The scenario goes
 |
| image [cc] Andrew Mangum |
Following on the heels of recent posts on the market value of BigLaw and the behavior of partners as workers, we explore the merge-point for those two topics in discussing partners as equity owners.
The market refers to the owner level of law firm partners as “equity partners.” After giving
 |
| Image [cc] StockMonkeys |
Some recent activity on Twitter got me thinking. People love to bag on BigLaw (me included). Much like taking shots at Microsoft or Blackberry, BigLaw is an easy target for many. Large firms move slow, are managed by committee too often, and appear to have an aversion to decision making (see how
 |
| Image [cc] calliope_Muse |
I’ve been on the ‘value’ bandwagon for quite some time now, but I recently had an epiphany courtesy of Ulla de Stricker during the recent CLA webinar “Becoming Indispensable: The Value Proposition”. It was one of those moments where you understand that you’ve been headed in the wrong direction; a real lightning bolt. I
Honestly answer the following questions:
“To provide the public with open access to electronic federal court records.”
That is the plan for The Open PACER Act being pushed by OpenPACER.org.
Today there was a cross-posting on the Law Library Blog (not to be confused with the Law Librarian Blog), and Legal Research Plus. You can read the proposed
