Save Online law articles on social network:
Showing posts with label Steven E. Siff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven E. Siff. Show all posts

Revenge of the Serfs


Law Blog notes that McDermott Will & Emery plans to create a feudal system where overlords have their legal fields tended to by lesser-skilled, underpaid, C+ serfs who didn't study that hard in law school. These serfs will toil endlessly for little pay, harboring resentments and remembering personal slights visited upon them by the well-fed, partnership-track ruling class, until roiling class tensions boli over into a bloody October revolution.

Well, I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea:

At a firm retreat in October, the 1,000-lawyer firm decided to create a cadre of staff lawyers outside the partnership track who will be paid less, work less and charge less per hour. Having a flexible separate staff to move from big litigation to big litigation could help McDermott make the best use of its high-priced associates.

The idea is that the new hires -- the firm is looking into starting with a pilot group of 15 -- will be lawyers "with good pedigrees" who have practiced for a few years but don't want to deal with big-firm hours, Mallory said. Instead, they'll put in more like 30 to 40 hours and be paid something like 25 percent less, though an exact pay range hasn't been decided.

"They'll have a status within our structure that's brand-new," Mallory said. "I don't know what we'd call them -- this is a new animal."

These attorneys will probably be housed in a similar fashion to accounting firms, rotating desks with no home base.

The new class of attorneys will probably take some of the more mundane tasks like document review off the plates of more expensive associates on the partnership track.

"The idea isn't that this will be a training ground," he said. "This isn't a path into the firm."

How could a plan like this not work?

Steven Siff, you have been warned.
Read more from this post in Online law articles »

Clash of the Titans


Big legal battle brewing between HMO attorney Harley Tropin and his cast of thousands, on the one hand, and Paul Geller, on the other, over an objection Paul filed in the pending Blue Cross Blue Shield HMO settlement. Paul is objecting to the settlement wiping out his 2005 state court case, which deals with a narrow Florida statute that prescribes how Florida HMOs must pay for non-participating Florida emergency service providers.

Admittedly, I am only getting one side of this story, having only read Paul's 38-page objection. It does not appear from the docket that Harley's team has filed a response yet.

Still, Paul sets out an intriguing, if not compelling case. From his pleadings, he argues that the BCBS settlement wipes out his suit, which is against a entity that is not an actual defendant in Harley's case, and which deals with a narrow Florida statute that was never the subject of Harley's litigation. Further, Paul complains that no remedy is provided to the class for violations of that Florida statute, and no injunctive remedy included to stop the offending conduct from continuing in the future. Still, I doubt Harley simply decided to steamroll over Paul's claim -- there has got to be something more to this.

Judge Moreno has set a case management conference for November 14, where presumably Paul's objection, among others, will be heard.

BCBS's local attorney, Steve Siff, will be crowned a genius if he is able to kill two birds with one stone, as Paul alleges. But query, why not bring Paul in to the deal, modify the settlement to properly account for this claim, and get this wrapped up for all concerned?

Why give Judge Moreno all this tsurris before Thanksgiving?
Read more from this post in Online law articles »
Info recommended by: Webpages of law and Law articles

© Online law articles: Steven E. Siff