November 2003, Vol.26, No.8 / $3.00
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Download Magazine
UCLA Volume 27 Q Fall 2004 LAW LAW Volume 27 27 Volume Q Fall 2004 Dean Michael H. Schill Building on a Tradition of Innovation UCLA LAW The Magazine of the School of Law contents 2 Dean’s Message 4 Dean’s Events 6 Go West, Young Man 10 History of UCLA School of Law: A Tradition of Innovation 18 UCLA Clinical Education: Bridging the Gap Between the Classroom and the Courtroom 24 UCLA School of Law Think Tanks: Providing Relevant Scholarship and Reliable Data for Real Issues 30 UCLA School of Law Emphasizes an Interdisciplinary Approach 34 UCLA Students Capitalize on Third Year Opportunities 40 After the JD: A Pathbreaking Study of the Lives of Young Lawyers 46 2004 Commencement 48 Faculty 49 Focus on Faculty 53 New Faculty 58 Recent Faculty Books 64 Faculty Honors 66 Tribute to Norm Abrams, Interim Dean 68 In Memoriam 70 Events 74 Students Moot Court Student Awards In Memoriam Law Fellows Public Interest 82 Development Major Gifts Law Annual Fund 87 Alumni Innovative Alumni Alumni Events Mentor Program Class Notes Planned Giving message from the dean s I assume the deanship of impact of living wage laws on employment and bankruptcy laws UCLA School of Law, I am on corporations. A tremendously excited Throughout this magazine, you will read of the myriad ways in about the prospects for this great insti- which UCLA has approached the study of law and the development of tution. Founded only fifty-five years its programs—both curricular and extra-curricular—with a truly ago, UCLA School of Law is the original mindset. -
Educating Artists
DUKE LAW MAGAZINE MAGAZINE LAW DUKE Fall 2006 | Volume 24 Number 2 F all 2006 Educating Artists V olume 24 Number 2 Also: Duke Faculty on the Hill From the Dean Dear Alumni and Friends, University’s Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medal, awarded annually for outstanding commitment to service. This summer, four Duke law faculty members were Graduates Candace Carroll ’74 and Len Simon ’73 called to testify before Congressional committees. have used their talents and resources in support Professor Neil Vidmar appeared before the Senate of civil liberties, women’s rights, and public inter- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, est causes; their recent leadership gift to Duke’s to address legislation on medical malpractice suits. Financial Aid Initiative helps Duke continue to attract Professor Madeline Morris testified before the Senate the best students, regardless of their ability to pay, Foreign Relations Committee regarding ratification of and gives them greater flexibility to pursue public the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaty. Professor James Cox interest careers. Other alumni profiled in this issue offered his views on proposed reforms for the conduct who are using their Duke Law education to make a of securities class action litigation to the House difference include Judge Curtis Collier ’74, Chris Kay Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee ’78, Michael Dockterman ’78, Andrea Nelson Meigs on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government ’94, and Judge Gerald Tjoflat ’57. Sponsored Enterprises. Professor Scott Silliman, I want to thank all alumni, friends, and faculty executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and who contributed so generously to the Law School in National Security, was on Capitol Hill three times in the past year. -
The Law Firm Lifecycle: Why Some Firms Fail the Law Firm Lifecycle: Why Some Firms Fail
The Law Firm Lifecycle: Why Some Firms Fail The Law Firm Lifecycle: Why Some Firms Fail Summary Law firms are just like any other organization, sometimes achieving great success, and other times going defunct. This article goes over the latter firms. Dewey & LeBoeuf was once a thriving The reasons vary, but financial difficulty is a international law firm with 1,000 attorneys, common denominator, although that difficulty offices in 26 locations, profits of one million has different underlying causes. Some dollars per partner, and clients that included firms fail because of fraud, misfeasance or Walt Disney and eBay. But the firm fell apart, mismanagement. Others go under because declaring bankruptcy and dissolving in 2012 they can't survive an economic downturn or amidst scandal and bleak finances. The firm's adapt to changing business practices. Partner top leaders are currently on trial in New York and client migration (especially when they for grand larceny and other charges stemming become toxic) can also lead to dissolution, as from alleged efforts to "cook the books" and can infighting among firm power players or conceal financial troubles. a firm's inability to find the right firm or firms to merge with in order to compete in a legal Click here for recent updates about the Dewey market increasingly dominated by full-service & LeBoeuf trial on JD Journal. "BigLaw" firms. Of course, most law firm dissolutions are complex and involve more Dewey is not alone. Other large firms and than one cause. countless small firms have also collapsed in recent decades, although most did not Misfeasance and Scandal engage in bad dealings or alleged criminal activity. -
USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 275 of 572
Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 537-1 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 89 USCA Case #18-7004 Document #1732051 Filed: 05/21/2018 Page 275 of 572 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiffs' Exhibit ) DL, et al., on behalf 1 ) of themselves and all others Civ. No. 05-1437 (RCL) ) similarly situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 05-1437 (RCL) ) v. ) ) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ) et al., ) Defendants. ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF BRUCE J. TERRIS 1. I am a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (hereafter “Terris, Pravlik & Millian” or “TPM”). Since 2005, the firm has served as lead counsel in this class action. 2. I offer this affidavit in support of plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of Litigation Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses, filed contemporaneously with this affidavit. In that motion, plaintiffs request fees and expenses for work up to and including June 22, 2016, and have separated that work into two periods: Period 1 and Period 2. 3. Period 1 refers to work performed through November 16, 2011, the date of the Court’s decision after the first trial (ECF No. 294). On April 30, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Motion for an Award of Litigation Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Related Expenses (ECF No. 325), requesting payment for work performed during Period 1. That motion was fully briefed. On reply, plaintiffs made certain concessions in response to the arguments of defendants (“the District”) and therefore requested a smaller award than they had requested in their initial motion.