Most GCs Find Jobs Rewarding
Here's a twist: Lawyers who like their jobs. Sheri Qualters reports in The National Law Journal on a new Association of Corporate Counsel survey that finds 85 percent of chief legal officers find their careers to be rewarding. But their job satisfaction was not without its downside. Qualters writes:
While 59 percent of CLOs and general counsel revealed that increased monitoring by law enforcement and regulators had only a modest influence on their career satisfaction, 30.6 percent said it would make a 'considerable impact' on their future decisions, such as looking for a new CLO job or retiring.
Survey respondents also reported strained relationships with outside auditors, with only 16 percent noting improvements over the past few years, 25 percent characterizing interactions as more difficult and 59 percent responding that the relationship was unchanged.
ACC President Frederick J. Krebs attributes these strained relationships to changes in how GC and outside auditors perceive their roles and boundaries. "Although employed or engaged by the same company, and sharing a common interest in appropriate financial disclosure as required by securities laws, outside auditors and in-house lawyers bring different perspectives to their roles and each must meet different legal and regulatory requirements that apply to their respective missions in the audit process," Krebs said.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Podcast: The Case for the Federal Shield Law
John McCain's endorsement this week of a federal shield law for journalists has given renewed momentum to the Free Flow of Information Act pending in Congress (S 2035). At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice has renewed its offensive against the bill with the launch of a special section of its Web site devoted to its opposition and an op-ed in USA Today by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. The debate takes on greater urgency as former USA Today reporter Toni Locy awaits word from a federal appeals court on whether she will be forced to pay contempt fines of $5,000 a day for protecting her sources.
We discuss the journalists' privilege and the need for a federal shield law in this week's episode of the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer. Joining my co-host J. Craig Williams and me as guests on the program are three experts in constitutional and media law:
- Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer and executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor and former dean at the University of Chicago Law School
- Joel Kurtzberg, a partner with the firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP who frequently represents reporters and news organizations
In the program, we discuss the federal bill, high-profile cases involving reporters, states' efforts to enact their own shield laws, and the rights of journalists and bloggers. The program can be streamed or downloaded from this page.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Site Makes It So Easy to Sue
Michael Arrington at TechCrunch calls it a "Shangri-La for ambulance chasers." Peter Lattman at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog describes it as a "reverse Martindale Hubbell -- it's a client directory for lawyers." Davit Lat at Above the Law says it is "like Match.com for lawyers and litigants." Kevin O'Keefe at Real Lawyers Have Blogs views it as "crazies running free of asylums." Luke Gilman at The Blawgraphy labels it "a hairball generator." Eric Turkewitz at New York Personal Injury Law Blog says it might be "the worst lawyer idea ever."
The object of these bloggers' comments is SueEasy.com, a new Web site whose own description of itself is "instant legal bliss." The idea behind the site is to "simplify the lawsuit process" by helping consumers find "the best in legal help with the least amount of hassles." Potential litigants use the site to post their grievances and complaints and then wait for responses to roll in from attorneys competing to represent them. The site also allows users to search for lawsuits and class actions -- real or envisioned -- and join in with other litigants.
The site had been slated to launch in the fall, as TechCrunch reported in October, but it officially went live only recently. When TechCrunch asked the reason for the delay, the company responded that "it took us a while to come up with a complete Class Action case repository where affected people can ... be in touch with Class Action lawyers in real time."
Overlawyered blogger Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy, told LegalNewsline.com, that consumers should be concerned about the site's quality control. "If this were a dating service," Olson said, "you'd have to wonder -- whichever side of the dating you were on -- what kind of dunce are they going to bring me?" Eric Turkewitz is even more blunt in stating his concern: "This one has the potential for some serious damage in a unique way to both client and attorney in personal injury cases."
Sphere: Related ContentPosted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM | Permalink |
Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RSE DE LA ONU
www.Consultajuridicachile.blogspot.com
www.lobbyingchile.blogspot.com
www.el-observatorio-politico.blogspot.com
www.biocombustibles.blogspot.com
Renato Sánchez 3586
teléfono: 5839786
e-mail rogofe47@mi.cl
Santiago-Chile
No comments:
Post a Comment