DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2008 Lawcrossing Salary Survey Is to Serve As a Bridge Between Law firms and Attorneys

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 2008 Lawcrossing Salary Survey Is to Serve As a Bridge Between Law firms and Attorneys J^[(&&.BWm9heii_d]IWbWhoIkhl[o 8dbe^aZYWn/AVl8gdhh^c\ BWm9heii_d] &,*Hdji]AV`Z6kZcjZ!Hj^iZ'%% EVhVYZcV!86.&&%& -%%".,("&&,,idaa"[gZZ XdciVXi5aVlXgdhh^c\#XdbZbV^a K^h^idjglZWh^iZlll#aVlXgdhh^c\#Xdb[dgbdgZ^c[dgbVi^dc# Cdedgi^dcd[i]^hWdd`bVnWZgZegdYjXZYdgigVchb^iiZYl^i]djii]ZZmegZhhlg^iiZcXdchZci d[i]ZejWa^h]Zg# L]^aZi]ZejWa^h]Zg]VhZcYZVkdgZYidegdk^YZVXXjgViZVcYje"id"YViZ^c[dgbVi^dc!^ibV`Zh cdgZegZhZciVi^dchdglVggVci^Zhl^i]gZheZXiidi]ZXdciZcihd[i]^hWdd`#AVl8gdhh^c\#Xdb XVccdiWZ]ZaYa^VWaZ[dgVcnadhhdgYVbV\ZgZhjai^c\[gdbi]ZjhZd[i]Z^c[dgbVi^dc]ZgZ^c# >H7C/ Eg^ciZYVcYWdjcY^ci]ZJc^iZYHiViZhd[6bZg^XV# PREFACE he 2008 LawCrossing Salary Survey (formerly 2007 Judged Salary Survey) is a unique resource Tamong legal publications. It provides current and essential information on more than 500 of the top U. S. law firms, including each firm’s primary practice areas, hiring trends, and salary and benefits information. The Salary Survey is an important resource for several reasons. First, the scope of the Salary Survey is unmatched in that it details information about more than 500 national and regional law firms. Second, its coverage is exhaustive, as the firms are analyzed according to 15 different parameters. Third, its degree of detail is substantial. The compilation of thorough information about each firm — such as year of establishment, number of offices, office locations, number of attorneys, and key practice areas — make the Salary Survey an invaluable addition to every law library. The structure of the Salary Survey facilitates its use as a resource: the facts and tables in each chapter are organized in a clear, accessible format so that readers have volumes of solid information at their fingertips. The primary purpose of the 2008 LawCrossing Salary Survey is to serve as a bridge between law firms and attorneys. Although an overwhelming amount of information about law firms is accessible from the Internet and numerous other sources, finding trustworthy, accurate information about law firms is a challenging task. Thus, attorneys and law students who seek to evaluate firms based on critical hiring and salary information may be overwhelmed at the daunting task of finding and sorting this information. The 2008 LawCrossing Salary Survey is an invaluable resource in that it is a compilation of volumes of information in an easy-to-use format that spares readers the frustrating and time-consuming process of exploring the market and gathering bits of statistical information about top law firms. The Salary Survey is designed to provide up-to-date information about recent changes to law firm salaries, hiring practices, and key practice areas; thus, it allows attorneys and law students to use this information in the evaluation of their own employment prospects. Here, their academic records, work histories, and unique talents and abilities will all come into play. Salary Survey is one of the most important guides any legal professional, who is serious about his career, can own. Over the last two years, the survey has helped thousands of legal professionals in evaluating their employment prospects in the U.S. legal marketplace. TABLE OF CONTENTSThe 2008 LawCrossing Salary Survey Identifying Trends xiii The Bayard Firm 123 Appendix I: First-Year Salaries Offered by Law Firms xiv Beirne, Maynard & Parsons LLP 125 Appendix II: Salaries of Summer Associates in Law Firms xv Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC 128 Appendix III: The Law Firm Size xvi Bergmann and Moore, LLC 131 Appendix IV: Offices of the Law Firms xvii Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP 133 Adams and Reese LLP 1 Best & Flanagan LLP 135 Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. 6 Best Best & Krieger LLP 137 Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP 9 Bickel & Brewer 141 Akerman Senterfitt P.A. 11 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP 144 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 16 Bingham McCutchen LLP 147 Allen & Overy 21 Blake Cassels and Graydon LLP 151 Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble, Mallory, & Blank Rome LLP 154 Natsis LLP 23 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 159 Alston & Bird LLP 26 Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey 163 Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. 30 Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC 165 Andrews Kurth LLP 33 Bondurant, Mixson, & Elmore, LLP 170 Archer & Greiner P.C. 37 Borton Petrini, LLP 173 Arent Fox LLP 41 Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry, PLC 176 Armstrong Teasdale LLP 45 Bowen & Lloyd, PLC 180 Arnall Golden Gregory LLP 50 Bracewell & Guiliani LLP 182 Arnold & Porter LLP 53 Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP 186 Arnstein & Lehr LLP 58 Brault Palmer Grove White & Steinhilber LLP 190 Ashurst 62 Bricker & Eckler LLP 192 Ater Wynne LLP 65 Briggs and Morgan, P.A. 196 Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz 68 Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione 199 Baker & Daniels LLP 70 Broida and Associates, Ltd. 203 Baker & Hostetler LLP 74 Bromberg & Sunstein LLP 205 Baker & McKenzie 79 Brown McCarroll LLP 208 Baker Botts LLP 83 Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP 211 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 86 Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 215 Balch & Bingham LLP 91 Brunswick Group LLP 220 Ball Janik LLP 95 Buchalter Nemer 223 Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP 98 Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 225 Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 103 Budd Larner, P.C. 231 Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP 106 Bullivant Houser Bailey PC 234 Barley Snyder LLC 109 Burns & Levinson LLP 239 Barnes & Thornburg LLP 112 Burr & Forman LLP 243 Baron and Budd, P.C. 117 Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada PLCC 247 Bass, Berry & Sims PLC 120 Butzel Long 249 v The 2008 LawCrossing Salary Survey Bryan Cave LLP 254 Cox Castle & Nicholson, LLP 376 Cades Schutte LLP 259 Cozen O’Connor 379 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP 262 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP 385 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 266 Crowe & Dunlevy 387 Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP 269 Crowell & Moring LLP 391 Cantey & Hanger 272 Cummings & Lockwood LLC 394 Carlsmith Ball LLP 275 Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP 398 Carlton Fields 278 Davis & Harman LLP 402 Carr McClellan Ingersoll Thompson & Horn 283 Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 404 Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP 285 Davis Polk & Wardwell 408 Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP 288 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 411 Cesari and McKenna LLP 291 Davis, Malm & D’Agostine PC 416 Chadbourne & Parke LLP 293 Day Pitney LLP 418 Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin 297 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 422 Chapman and Cutler LLP 300 Dechert LLP 425 Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP 304 Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 430 Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Dickinson Wright PLLC 435 Shapiro, LLP 307 Dickstein Shapiro LLP 439 Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP 309 Dilworth Paxson LLP 442 Clark & Elbing LLP 313 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 445 Clark Hill PLC 315 DLA Piper 450 Clark, Thomas & Winters 319 Dorsey & Whitney LLP 457 Clausen Miller P.C. 322 Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC 462 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 326 Downey Brand LLP 466 Clifford Chance LLP 330 Doyle Restrepo Harvin & Robbins, LLP 469 Clyde & Co 333 Dreier & Baritz LLP 471 CMS Cameron McKenna Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP 473 (CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre) 336 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 475 Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. 339 Duane Morris LLP 479 Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A. 343 Duncan & Allen 484 Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford LLP 346 Dykema Gossett PLLC 486 Connell Foley LLP 348 Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 490 Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 351 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP 494 Cooley Godward Kronish LLP 354 Emmet, Marvin & Martin LLP 499 Cooley Manion Jones LLP 359 Epstein Becker & Green P.C. 502 Corboy & Demetrio PC 361 Faegre & Benson LLP 506 Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 363 Farella Braun & Martel LLP 510 Covington & Burling LLP 366 Farrell Fritz, P.C. 513 Cowles & Thompson 370 Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C. 516 Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated 373 Fennemore Craig, P.C. 518 vi The 2008 LawCrossing Salary Survey Fenwick & West LLP 522 Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody 652 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A. 654 Dunner LLP 526 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP 658 Fish & Richardson P.C. 530 Greenberg Glusker 660 Fisher & Phillips LLP 534 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 663 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto 539 Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC 671 Foley & Lardner LLP 542 Gunderson Dettmer 674 Foley Hoag LLP 547 Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 677 Folger Levin & Kahn LLP 550 Hall & Evans LLC 680 Ford & Harrison LLP 553 Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover PC 682 Foster Pepper PLLC 558 Hancock & Estabrook, LLP 685 Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A. 562 Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin 687 Fox Rothschild LLP 566 Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy, LLP 690 Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 572 Harris Beach PLLC 694 Freeborn & Peters LLP 575 Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 699 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 577 Harry Gee, Jr. & Associates 701 Frey Petrakis Deeb Blum & Briggs 580 Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP 703 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP 582 Hartman & Craven LLP 707 Frost Brown Todd LLC 585 Hawkins & Parnell LLP 709 Fulbright & Jaworski LLP 591 Haynes and Boone, LLP 711 Fulwider Patton LLP 596 Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P. A. 716 Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. 598 Heller Ehrman LLP 719 Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP 602 Helms Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC 724 Garvey, Schubert & Barer 606 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 728 Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger, & Hodgson Russ LLP 734 Vecchione, P.C. 610 Hogan & Hartson LLP 738 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 614 Holland & Hart LLP 743 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla 618 Holland & Knight LLP 749 Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. 620 Holme Roberts & Owen
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ELA Annual Report 2012-2013
    The Honourable Mr Justice Langsta President Employment Appeal Tribunal England & Wales David Latham President Employment Tribunals England & Wales Shona Simon President Employment Tribunals Scotland Lady Anne Smith (to March 2013) Chair Employment Appeal Tribunal Scotland Lady Valerie Stacey (from March 2013) Chair Employment Appeal Tribunal Scotland ELA Management Committee 2012 - 2014 Chair Richard Fox Deputy Chair Richard Linskell Treasurer Damian Phillips Secretary Fiona Bolton Editor, ELA Briefing Anna Henderson Chair, Training Committee Gareth Brahams Chair, Legislative & Policy Committee Bronwyn McKenna ELA Management Committee 2012 - 2014 Chair, International Committee Juliet Carp Chair, Pro Bono Committee Paul Daniels Representative of the Bar Paul Epstein QC In-house Representative Alison Leitch (to January 2013) Mark Hunt (from February 2013) Regional Representatives London & South East – Betsan Criddle and Eleena Misra Midlands – Ranjit Dhindsa North East – Anjali Sharma North West – Naeema Choudry Scotland – Joan Cradden South Wales – Nick Cooksey South West – Sean McHugh Members at Large Merrill April Stuart Brittenden Yvette Budé Karen Mortenson Catherine Taylor ELA Law Society Council Seat Tom Flanagan Life Vice Presidents Dame Janet Gaymer DBE QC Jane Mann Fraser Younson Vice President Joanne Owers ELA Support Head of Operations Lindsey Woods ELA Administration - Byword Sandra Harris Charley Masarati Emily Masarati Jeanette Masarati Claire Paley Finance Administrator Angela Gordon Website Manager Cynthia Clerk Website Support and Maintenance Ian Piper, Tellura Information Service Ltd Bronwen Reid, BR Enterprises Ltd PR Consultants Clare Turnbull, Kysen PR Chair Richard Fox, Kingsley Napley LLP Deputy Chair Richard Linskell, Ogletree Deakins This has been an extraordinary year for ELA and not just because 2013 marks our 20th Anniversary! Until relatively recently, there was a view that employment law had “plateaued”, and that the rate of change had started to mellow.
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2010
    CROSS-BORDER DISPUTE RESOLUTION: THE PERSPECTIVE FOR RUSSIA AND THE CIS The Lotte Hotel, Moscow | 8 bld.2, Novinskiy Boulevard SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 Judicial Assistance and Enforcement Proceedings International Asset Recovery Business and Corporate Raiding Disputes Involving Russian State and State Entities Late-Breaking Developments CONFERENCE WITH SUPPORT OF: STRATEGIC PARTNER: SPONSORS CONFERENCE STRATEGIC PARTNER CONFERENCE PARTNERS LUNCHEON SPONSOR PRE-CONFERENCE SPEAKER DINNER SPONSOR CONFERENCE DELEGATE BAG SPONSOR THERMAL MUGS SPONSOR NETWORKING BREAK SPONSORS MEETING SUPPORTER COOPERATING ENTITIES Federal Chamber of Advocates COOPERATING ENTITIES Moscow City Chamber of Advocates MEDIA SPONSORS Cross-Border Dispute Resolution: The Perspective for Russia and the CIS PROGRAM AGENDA All events to be held at the Lotte Hotel, Moscow located at 8 bld.2, Novinskiy Boulevard, unless otherwise indicated. 7:30 AM Registration and Breakfast Maxim Kulkov, Goltsblat BLP, Moscow, Russia Charles D. Schmerler, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, New York, New York USA 8:30 AM Opening Session Moderator & Program Chair: Glenn P. Hendrix, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Atlanta, Georgia USA Welcome: Glenn P. Hendrix, Immediate Past Chair, American Bar Association 10:30 AM Networking Break Section of International Law, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Atlanta, Georgia USA 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Introductions: Show Me the Money: Recovering Assets Abroad Andrew Somers, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, Moscow, Russia "Winning" the case is great, but did you prepare upfront for the hard part -- actually collecting the money? While never easy against a recalcitrant Opening Remarks: debtor, recovery is especially difficult if the assets are tucked away The Honorable Aleksander Vladimirovich Konovalov, Minister of offshore.
    [Show full text]
  • Lex 100 P014-024 Winners.Qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14
    Lex 100 p014-024 Winners.qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14 Job satisfaction How would you rate your overall job satisfaction? Lex 100 winners 1 Farrer & Co 9.10 2 Harbottle & Lewis LLP 9.00 Analysis = McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP 9.00 This important category is topped this year by Farrer & Co in what’s = Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP 9.00 been a highly impressive overall performance – the firm appears in every single one of our Lex 100 5 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 8.75 Winners tables, often near the top, the first firm to do so. So why is this 6 Covington & Burling LLP 8.71 mid-sized London firm so popular with trainees? It certainly sounds a fun place 7 Latham & Watkins 8.67 to work and offers six seats in a wide variety of practice areas. There’s a strong 8 Ashfords 8.63 bond between current trainees, who praise the ‘great people and great mix of work’, ‘unique atmosphere’ and ‘sheer breadth of training = Stephens & Scown 8.63 opportunities’. Media boutique Harbottle & Lewis comes next. Trainees here feel they have ‘considerably 10 Bristows 8.60 better quality work than peers, better experience and more exposure’. Then, as last year, there’s a strong showing = Shoosmiths 8.60 by five US firms: McDermott Will & Emery, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Cleary Gottlieb, Covington & 12 Browne Jacobson LLP 8.58 Burling and Latham & Watkins. These firms have not been offering training contracts for that long in London and all have 13 Birketts 8.50 limited intakes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Test of Remoteness. at First Sight Wellesley Partners LLP V Withers
    TWO IMPORTANT CASES WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP – the test of remoteness. At first sight Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 is “just another slightly dreary solicitors’ negligence case where attributing fault and assessing damages depended on a combination of close fact-specific analysis and a certain amount of educated guesswork”. The words are not mine, they are those of Professor Tettenborn. However, the learned Professor considers that the case gave rise to two interesting points of law, which it did. It is those I wish to look at briefly. As we all know in very many cases the live issues in professional negligence claims are as much involved with causation and damage as they are with breach of duty and this was a case which resolves important issues which have the potential to impact on a number of claims in the area. The facts of Wellesley can be set out very briefly. Wellesley was a successful firm of head-hunters or as they preferred “executive placement consultants”. It was based in London albeit that one of the founding partners had spun off a business in Hong Kong. In order to facilitate growth it wished to expand the membership of the LLP. One of the new members was to be a middle eastern based bank: ADDAX. The defendant solicitors were engaged to amend the LLP agreement but in doing so, as the trial judge 1 held, mis-drafted the same so that ADDAX could withdraw its money prematurely which, following the Lehman Brothers collapse, it duly did. One of the largest elements of alleged loss related to an allegation that the business had been deprived of the opportunity to open a New York office and to obtain a contract with Nomura which was reconstructing the Lehman Brother business of which it had purchased part.
    [Show full text]
  • Contentious Commentary
    Contentioius Commentary 1 Newsletter December 2015 Contentious Commentary Contract money, the obligation to pay the On the penalty spot specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being Contents The rule on penalty clauses is alive! a penalty; but if the contract does English contract law generally adopts The rule on penalty clauses is not impose (expressly or impliedly) a laissez faire approach – the parties restricted but left in place an obligation to perform the act, but can usually do what they want (at simply provides that, if one party Tolling agreement extends to least, unless consumers are involved). does not perform, he will pay the fraud despite lack of mention The rule on penalty clauses is one of other party a specified sum, the Waiver of immunity for assets the few common law rules that obligation to pay the specified sum allows an injunction controls what the parties can agree. is a conditional primary obligation Terms will rarely be implied It bans an agreement requiring a and cannot be a penalty." into contracts party in breach of contract to pay a Contractual remoteness sum out of all proportion to the losses The rule can therefore be evaded by applies to tort claim caused by the breach in order to deter appropriate drafting in some – breach. Because of the rule's perhaps many – cases (though the Securitisation vehicle can sue exceptional nature, it has always court will look to the substance rather valuers been controversial. than the form). Legal context is wide for privilege purposes In Cavendish Square Holding BV v When the rule applies, the test is no Potential waiver of privilege Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, the longer about reasonable pre- can be undone Supreme Court was offered the option estimates of damages or whether a of abolishing the rule altogether or, clause is a deterrent to breach.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal Judgment Template
    Case No: A3 2014 1026 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION MR JUSTICE NUGEE [2014] EWHC 556 (Ch) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 11/11/2015 Before : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE FLOYD and MR JUSTICE ROTH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : WELLESLEY PARTNERS LLP Claimant - and - WITHERS LLP Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Fiona Parkin QC and Mr Micha Balen (instructed by Enyo Law LLP) for the Claimant Mr Michael Pooles QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 30 June, 1 July 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Lord Justice Floyd: 1. We have before us appeals by both parties from the judgment of Nugee J dated 11 March 2014 in a professional negligence action, and from his consequent order. The appeals raise issues about the appropriate rule for remoteness of damage where a claimant has concurrent causes of action for pecuniary loss in tort and in contract, and about the application of the “loss of a chance” principle to the assessment of damages. 2. In the action, Wellesley Partners LLP (“WP”) claimed damages against Withers LLP (“Withers”) for negligence in the drafting of a partnership agreement for WP. The judge found in favour of WP and awarded damages of £1,612,313. On this appeal, as below, the case for WP was argued by Ms Fiona Parkin QC with Mr Micha Balen and the case for Withers by Mr Michael Pooles QC. The facts Background 3. The background to the action is set out in the lucid and comprehensive judgment of Nugee J: [2014] EWHC 556 (Ch).
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who Legal: Thought Leaders
    Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders - Global Elite 2020 Arbitration .................................................................................................................................... 4 Asset Recovery ............................................................................................................................ 5 Aviation - Contentious ................................................................................................................. 7 Aviation - Finance ........................................................................................................................ 7 Aviation - Regulatory ................................................................................................................... 8 Banking - Finance ........................................................................................................................ 9 Banking - Fintech ....................................................................................................................... 10 Banking - Regulatory ................................................................................................................. 10 Business Crime Defence - Corporates ...................................................................................... 11 Business Crime Defence - Individuals ....................................................................................... 12 Capital Markets - Debt and Equity ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jennifer Haywood Year of Call: 2001
    [email protected] +44 (0)20 7242 6105 Jennifer Haywood Year of Call: 2001 “Second to none: she combines high-level strategic advice and lateral thinking with an attention to detail and client service that has made her our go-to counsel this year.” Chambers and Partners [email protected] Practice Overview Jennifer Haywood has a broad commercial chancery practice encompassing litigation, drafting and advisory work across a wide range of traditional and commercial chancery, with a strong emphasis on breach of fiduciary duty, company, partnership, (both contentious and non-contentious) trusts and probate and fraud. Jennifer is particularly well regarded for her commercial outlook and client interaction. She is praised by The Legal 500 as being “exceptionally user-friendly, easy work with and a great team player” and Chambers and Partners says “she attracts particular praise for her excellent, candid and common sense-based client service.” She is ranked in Tier 1 for Partnership work. A CEDR accredited mediator, Jennifer has conducted more than 30 mediations, mostly in the areas of contested trusts and probate and Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 and partnership/LLP. Jennifer also acts as an arbitrator and is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Jennifer has been called to the BVI Bar and is a member of the BVI International Arbitration Centre Panel. Areas of Expertise Arbitration Jennifer has acted as an advocate in arbitrations, mostly concerning professional service firm disputes. She was www.serlecourt.co.uk recently instructed by Clifford Chance LLP on behalf of a European bank, and led by John Machell QC, in an LCIA arbitration against a private equity house.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2013
    Index January – December 2013 CONTENTS Subject Index 2 UK Statutes 26 Statutory Instruments 28 International Legislation 29 Law Reports 32 Table of Cases 34 Author Index 52 Book and Online Reviews 56 Glossary 56 2 SUBJECT INDEX www.newlawjournal.co.uk | January – December Index 2013 | New Law Journal Numbers in bold refer to issue use of ADR to resolve landlord and how courts deal with question of costs numbers, followed by page numbers tenant disputes (ADR) 7573:21 where an arbitration award is being CAS refers to the who pays the mediator (judicial line) 7557:19 challenged 7554:14–15 Charities Appeals Supplement America jurisdiction of High Court under American Bar Association and external Arbitration Act 1969 (law digest) 7565:29 ownership of law firms (comment) 7588:8 local court is free to impose its own A American Bar Association to permit procedural conditions (law digest) 7583:17 foreign lawyers to practise as in- negative aspect of a London arbitration abuse of process house counsel 7549:182 (law digest) 7565:29 former wife’s claim was abuse of process 7560:4 animals points needed to succeed under s.68 access to justice dangerous dogs and destruction orders Arbitration Act 1996 (law digest) 7581:29 access to justice debate (comment) 7543:7 (law digest) 7588:21 seat of arbitration sufficiently indicated age anti-social behaviour by the country chosen as the place former partner in law firm loses age proposals in new legislation to of arbitration (law digest) 7550:237 discrimination claim 7563:4 introduce statutory injunctions
    [Show full text]
  • June/July 2014 Litigation and Dispute Resolution Review
    June/July 2014 Litigation and Dispute Resolution Review EDITORIAL In a much anticipated judgment on the application of CPR r3.9 and relief from sanctions (Denton & ors v TH White Ltd), the Court of Appeal has set out guidance on the approach that should be taken when a party seeks relief from sanctions. Commenting on the controversial backdrop to this appeal, the Master of the Rolls noted "we think that the judgment in Mitchell has been misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts. It is clear that it needs to be clarified and amplified in certain respects", whilst Lord Justice Jackson observed "The new rule 3.9 is intended to introduce a culture of compliance … It is not intended to introduce a harsh regime of almost zero tolerance". As Jason Rix notes in his commentary on this appeal, notwithstanding the apparent rebalancing exercise by the Court of Appeal, the fact remains that compliance with court deadlines (eg the service of witness statements or filing Precedent H) is an area of increased scrutiny by the courts and thus a heightened risk area for litigators (see Procedure). In this edition we also cover two decisions of particular note for finance parties. First, we discuss a recent disclosure order made by the English court in Credit Suisse Trust & anr Sarah Garvey v Banca Monte Dei Pasche Di Siena where the court required two London branches of PSL Counsel Litigation – London Italian banks to provide information about a customer where the information (and the Contact relevant banking activity) was in Italy (see Disclosure).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    Investment Treaty Forum Annual Report 2020 A global centre for high level debate on International Investment Law www.biicl.org/itf Introduction from the ITF Director Dear colleagues, Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 has been a successful year for the Investment Treaty Forum (ITF). ITF grew its membership and launched several new projects with its members. It has quickly moved into the online-only format to address the most pressing issues of the day helping its members to stay informed and demonstrate their expertise on the most recent developments in international investment law. By the end of 2020, ITF had 28 corporate members and around the same number of individual members who include senior academics, government officials or practitioners in the area of international investment law. ITF has also opened free consultative membership to States and intergovernmental organisations. New consultative members include various governmental agencies of Canada, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Latvia, Mexico, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey. In 2020, ITF organised three major online conferences: on state regulatory powers, arbitration in Africa and investor-state mediation. In addition, ITF hosted several smaller events covering UK investment protection post-Brexit with Steptoe & Johnson, responses to the pandemic, corporate restructuring and investment law with Baker McKenzie, intra-EU BITs and emissions trading with Three Crowns. The newly launched BIICL Blog features summaries of the most recent ITF events. In March, ITF launched, at Baker McKenzie’s London office, an empirical study on Corporate Restructuring and Investment Treaty Protections. We are currently working with Baker Botts, Withers, Dechert and Allen & Overy on new studies, which we hope to launch in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Witness Familiarisation
    Witness Familiarisation The essential pre-hearing service for both Witnesses of Fact and Expert Witnesses who are about to give evidence. BOND SOLON Wilmington Legal What is witness familiarisation? What is the difference between ‘ ‘ Witness familiarisation is a process which witness familiarisation and provides witnesses with a comprehensive coaching? Witness Familiarisation is vital to understanding of the theory, practice and procedure of giving evidence and Coaching has always been prohibited. ensure witnesses know what to Lawyers are not allowed to prepare expect at a hearing so they can what is expected of them when they are required to give evidence. This includes witnesses on what they should say or ‘‘give their evidence effectively. familiarising the witness with the layout attempt to persuade the witness into of the legal forum, the likely sequence of changing their evidence. Ali Malek QC events when the witness will be giving In contrast witness familiarisation is Three Verulam Buildings evidence and a balanced appraisal of the encouraged by both the Bar Council and different responsibilities of the various the Court of Appeal. Witnesses should not people at the hearing. be disadvantaged by the ignorance of the process or taken by surprise at the way in which the hearing works. There is a duty to put witnesses at ease as much a possible ‘ ‘ Why should witness before their hearing. Bond Solon in just one session familiarisation be considered? transformed an over confident Giving evidence can be a daunting, and impatient CEO into a calm unfamiliar and uncomfortable experience Why shouldn’t solicitors ‘‘and thoughtful witness who for witnesses.
    [Show full text]