TU NO ESTAS SOLO EN ESTE MUNDO. YOU ARE NOT ALONE SI TE HA GUSTADO UN ARTICULO, COMPARTELO

Saturday, March 08, 2008

The Lobbyist Effect

The Lobbyist Effect

Lavoie_Covers_Lobbying.jpg

Representatives of scientific interests may not be representative

BY ALEX LAVOIE AND RICHARD KELLEY

The art of lobbying is under reexamination. In recent months campaign reform issues, congressional ethics scandals, and criminal lobbyists like Jack Abramoff have brought a practice with which most Americans are unfamiliar to the forefront of the public eye. The goal of lobbying is to convince the government in a legal manner to adopt policies supported by a particular interest group. Scientific lobbying in particular is a rising star among many prominent lobbying firms and the groups they represent. Scientists rely on lobbying to gain funding for important studies and support for laws that aid their cause. In fact, biological research and health policy lobbyists, who serve as middlemen between scientific experts and legislators, may do more to shape federal health policies than any other group. Though the lobbying process is an important way to educate Congress about scientific issues and engage in dialogue about national priorities, lobbyists may not always fairly represent the needs and desires of the country.

What's going on in Congress?

Over the past decade, the power of lobbyists has been on the rise. Over $2 billion a year is spent by special interests ranging from oil companies to orchestras. From 1999 to 2004, the amount spent on federal lobbying increased by 40 percent and the number of federal lobbyists has grown from 16,000 in 2000 to over 35,000 in 2005. This means that last year there were about 65 lobbyists for every one member of Congress.

Lobbying in science is no exception. Medical industries have designated lobbyists for nurses, cancer research, AIDS, stem cell research, and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Almost any scientific field one can imagine has someone fighting for them on Capitol Hill. In an interview with the HPR, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), a nurse herself before running for Congress, stated her belief that this increase in lobbying is for good reason: "Lobbying can have a positive impact in persuading Congress to provide additional funding for research." While most would agree that the goals of scientific interest groups are important, questions remain about which research gets funded and at what expense.

Doctor's Orders

Perhaps the most publicized special interest in science is the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America employs a large lobbying staff, makes generous political contributions, and filters enormous funds into public advertising campaigns. As of 2004, the pharmaceutical industry employed 1,291 lobbyists in Washington, DC, more than any other industry. In 2002, Bristol-Myers Squibb, a major innovator in cancer drugs and other medications, donated over $1.5 million dollars of pharmaceutical industry money to political candidates. With so much money changing hands, it is no surprise that accusations arise that such companies influence policies at the expense of consumers. In recent years the pharmaceutical industry has lobbied for the prescription drug benefit law that barred negotiations of drug prices that might have lowered prices, and spent $128 million in 2004 to advocate for tax breaks. Pharmaceutical interests have also recently lobbied to weaken FDA enforcement and strengthen patent protections.

It is the stem cell research lobby that has arguably caused the greatest controversy. The federal government budgeted $38 million this year for embryonic stem cell research, and an even greater amount to adult and animal stem cell research. This, however, was a decrease Continued from Page 9

in funding from previous years, indicative perhaps of strong convictions against embryonic stem cell research within the Bush administration. Dale Carleson, chief communications officer for the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, said in an interview with that HPR that "a change in federal policy severely limits stem cell research," giving scientists a strong incentive to try to influence the policy-making process. Carleson's California Institute of Regenerative Medicine is the state government agency responsible for managing the three billion dollar investment in stem cell research, a result of Proposition 71, passed by the California Legislature in 2004 after heavy lobbying from interest groups. Government funding is, according to Carleson, "essential, especially to basic and preclinical research. Between the government and private foundations, most of them devoted to a specific disease, that's the life blood of stem cell research." Without funding from the government, stem cell research would suffer greatly, and without information and encouragement from lobbyists, the government might never support research in the first place.

Voice of the People?

The great costs of engaging professional lobbyists are prohibitive to many non-profit or low-profit interests who want to express their voice in Congress. Consequently, the lobbying industry skews representation of the public interest towards those industries that can pay. Capps agreed with this assessment, saying that, "unfortunately, [the lobbying] process can be abused when certain lobbyists… are given exclusive access to elected officials and their staffs while other stakeholders, such as unpaid citizen activists, are excluded." Additionally, most powerful lobbying groups contribute large amounts of money to Political Action Committees, a practice that many organizations simply cannot afford.

Even for members of Congress who wish to remain fair, the lobbyist landscape in Washington is difficult to navigate. Not only is it difficult for members to resist the temptation of financially supportive interest groups, but members must also balance national interest against that of their own constituents. Speaking to the HPR, former Senator David Durenberger (R-Minn.), described this lobbying dilemma: "It is often difficult to sort out the national interest from the constituent interest, the latter usually not being as well-informed or as `invested' as I need to be as a policy-maker." And with lobbyists giving congressmen much of their scientific information, unbiased advice is hard to come by.

Lobbying is and will continue to be a major force in disseminating crucial information from the scientific community to members of Congress. While this role cannot be underestimated in the legislative process, the privatization of the process comes at the cost of fairly representing the true views of society. While the system is imperfect, the tradeoff may be necessary one for the continued success of medicine and biological research in the United States.

Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 11:16AM by Registered CommenterHPR | CommentsPost a Comme
 
MORE INFORMATION:
 
 
Opinen, escriban  y ganen premios.
Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RESPONSABILIDAD
SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL  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
 
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación   y asesorías  en Responsabilidad social empresarial y LOBBY  eficaz a nivel internacional y están disponibles para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

'Venezuela: Agreement Reached in Santo Domingo'

'Venezuela: Agreement Reached in Santo Domingo'
by Luis Carlos Díaz

Editor's Note: Kira Kariakin and Laura Vidal contributed to this article.

The gathering of Latin American presidents from the Rio Summit, which took place in the capital city of the Dominican Republic, has become one of the most impactful meetings for the integration of the continent.  The previous agenda was not followed because three countries were in conflict. Instead of important discussions regarding energy and petroleum, cooperation and poverty and other issues typical of these meetings, the eyes and voices of the continent was in charge of stopping the escalation of a regional conflict with an unpredictable end.

The three countries, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela had three political and military actions during the week and with three presidents with different personalities and objectives.  What was once a single republic between 1819 and 1831 and founded by Simón Bolívar is now divided into three, and with territories in a more cultural, rather than administrative sense.

The debate in Santo Domingo was long, filled with emotion, and conducted well by the leaders of the region in attendance.  The primary topic, which took precedence over any other topic on each president's agenda: peace is needed in Colombia in order to construct peace in South America.

Ecuador reclaimed its sovereignty.  Colombia reclaimed its right to defend its people from insurgent, armed and narcotrafficking groups that have been attacking them for decades.  And Venezuela is counting on negogiating the release of those kidnapped by the FARC through political means, and not through arms, as well as an end to an internal war that has not been resolved for 60 years in Colombia. That is why Chávez felt attacked by the assasination of the guerrilla leader Raúl Reyes, who acted as negotiator for these deals.

Santo Domingo served as a stage to present positions and create compromises for governability and unite forces for the construction of peace in the region. The blogosphere also served as a stage for Venezuelan bloggers to express their thoughts on the brewing conflict.

The prospect of war with neighboring Colombia was not very appealing and  Liberal Venezolano [es] writes:

Venezuela no está en condiciones, ni militares ni económicas, para enfrentar un conflicto bélico con Colombia, ni con nadie más si a ver vamos. Con una economía que no es capaz, bajo el peso del yugo socialista chavecista, de proveerse internamente de manera decente, no hace falta ser un genio para concluir que una confrontación bélica, incluso de escala moderada, sería catastrófica para Venezuela y más bien podría causar la caída del propio Chávez, derribado por quienes hasta ahora han sido sus mejores aliados: los más pobres, quienes están descontentos ya de por sí con la situación económica actual.



Venezuela is in no position, neither in militarily, nor economically, to face a bellicose conflict with Colombia, not even with anyone else.  With an incapable economy, under the weight of the Chavista socialist yoke, it doesn't take a genius to conlude that a confrontation, even a moderate one, would be catastrophic for Venezuela and could even cause the fall of Chávez himself, caused by those who have been his strongest supporters: the poorest, who are discontent already with the current economic situation.



Slave to the PC [es] agrees:

Hugo Rafael no quiero tu guerra, primero y ante todo porque no es mía, este país que tanto amo llamado Venezuela no ha sido atacado por nadie, ni violada su soberanía, nuestro líderes no han sufrido atentado alguno y nuestra independencia como nación autónoma sigue intacta, por lo tanto no tengo razón alguna para participar en un enfrentamiento armado donde no se han medido las consecuencias para el continente, los pueblos afectados directamente y sus modos de vida. ¿Cuál es el empeño de inmiscuirse en asuntos colombianos constantemente?, ¿Qué se busca con los insultos hacia el presidente colombiano Álvaro Uribe?,¿Cuál es la hipocresía de andar hablando de violaciones de soberanía, cuando Venezuela y Ecuador son oasis para los guerrilleros colombianos?, ¿Qué se persigue con un estado de guerra en nuestro país?, la situación es critica mis querido amigos, estamos a las puertas de un conflicto que costaría muy caro a los países implicados, sensatez es el
 nombre del juego.



Hugo Rafael, I don't want your war, first and above all, because it is not my war.  This country called Venezuela, which I love, was not attacked by anybody or its sovereignty was violated. Our leaders did not suffer an attack and our indpedence as autonomous nation remains intact. Because of that I have no reason to participate in armed conflict in which the consequences for the continent, the people direcly affected and their lifestyle have not been measured.   What is the insistence in constantly meddling in the affairs of Colombia?  What do you hope to acheive with the insults towards the Colombian president Álvaro Uribe?  What is the hypocrisy when speaking about violations of sovereignty, when Venezuela and Ecuador are an oasis for the Colombian guerrillas?  Why are you seeking a state of war in our country? The situation is critical, my dear friends, we are close to a conflict that will be very costly for the countries involved.  Common sense is the name of the game.




Rom Rod [es] does not understand the support for the FARC by the Venezuelan government.

Pero siguen en pie preguntas que parece que nadie en nuestro gobierno quiere responder. El para que es la movilización militar. Que es lo que realmente se pretende con ella. El por que si nuestro gobierno está claramente apoyando a un grupo con tenebrosos antecedentes como las FARC, pasando por encima del pueblo colombiano que eligió a Uribe...Me parece algo sencillamente siniestro apoyar a un grupo insurgente de otro país simplemente porque no me gusta su gobierno.



The questions remain, which no one in our government want to respond.  What is the reason for the military mobilization? What is really accomplished with it?  Our government is clearly supporting a group like the FARC, with a sinister record, overstepping the Colombian people tht elected Uribe...It is sinister to support an insurgent group from another country simply because one doesn't like their government.



Explíkme [es] wonders about how the relations between the two countries might be affected.

Nuestro gobierno no tiene idea del daño político, democrático, comercial y económico que nos está ocasionando, Venezuela tiene un alto número de Colombianos residentes que contribuyen a nuestro desarrollo, además de todo el intercambio comercial a través de convenios y el que se hace en la frontera, que ya ha empezado a paralizarse y que le puede costar al aparato productivo binacional una gran pérdida que puede llegar a ser irrecuperable.



Our government has no idea of the political, democratic, commerical and economic damage that they are causing.  Venezuela has a large number of Colombian residents that contribute to our evelopment, and above all, the commercial exchange through agreements and what takes place on the border has begun to stop and it could cost the bi-national productive apparatus a large economic lost, which could be irretrievable.




Other bloggers think that the Venezuelan government should be concentrating on other things, such as internal issues.  Manuel Miranda writes [es]:

Hugo Chávez y sus seguidores andan agitando los tambores de la guerra con Colombia, cuando la verdadera guerra es interna, el implacable enemigo se llama inflación y el gobierno está perdiendo todas las batallas en este frente desde que tengo uso de la memoria...El Banco Central de Venezuela publicó ayer el IPC del mes de febrero (la medida preferida de inflación del BCV), el cual vino 2,3% más alto que en enero y ya acumula una variación de 5,8% en lo que va de año. Por estas mismas fechas el año pasado, la inflación acumulada era de 3,4%; lo cual es un mal augurio para la fantasiosa meta inflacionaria del gobierno... La verdadera guerra es contra la inflación... Y la estamos perdiendo



Hugo Chávez and his followers are banging the drums of war with Colomba, when the real war is internal.  The relentless enemy is called inflation and the government is losing all of the battles on this front, and it has been this way as far back as I can remember...Yesterday, the Central Bank of Venezuela published the IPC for the month of February (the preferred measure of inflation from the CBV) and it was 2.3% higher than January and already has risen 5.8% since the beginning of the year.  This time, last year, the inflation was at 3.4%, which is a bad sign for the fantasy goal of inflation of the government.... The real war is against inflation ... and we are losing.



Finally, some bloggers like Carla Mariela of ICARO [es] wanted to send messages to the people of the three countries involved in this tension. 



Amigo colombiano, ecuatoriano y venezolano:
Vamos a demostrar que los lazos que unen a nuestros pueblos de Ecuador, Colombia y Venezuela son más fuertes que los egos de nuestros gobernantes.
Vamos a demostrar que condenamos el terrorismo y respetamos la soberanía
Vamos a demostrar que ningún gobierno nos va obligar a dispararle a un hermano de nuestros países.
Vamos a demostrar que somos más, muchos más los que no concebimos a Latinoamérica en guerra
Vamos a demostrar que pese a la historia, no estamos condenados a ella
Vamos a demostrar que nuestras diferencias son nuestro valor, que nuestra diversidad es nuestra riqueza
Vamos a demostrar que hoy germina una generación que anhela crecer en paz
"Pasa la voz, pasa la bola"
Sugerimos que si quieres multiplicar el poder de este mensaje, puedes copiarlo en tu blog, reenviarlo por Facebook y a través de mensajes de correo electrónico



Colombian, Ecuadoran and Venezuelan Friends:
Let's show that the bonds that unite the people of Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela are stronger than the egos of our leaders.
Let's show that we condemn terrorism and respect sovereignty
Let's show that no government will force us to shoot another countryman of our countries.
Let's show that we are more, many more of us that don't imagine a Latin America in war
Let's show that in spite of history, we are not condemned to it
Let's show that our differences are valuable, and that our diversity is our treasure
Let's show that today a generation blooms, that longs to grow up in peace
"Pass the ball, pass your voice"
We suggest that if you wish to multiply the power of this message, copy it in your blog, forward it on at Facebbok, and through emails.






You may view the latest post at
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/08/venezuela-agreement-reached-in-santo-domingo/

Opinen, escriban  y ganen premios.
Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RESPONSABILIDAD
SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL  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
 
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación   y asesorías  en Responsabilidad social empresarial y LOBBY  eficaz a nivel internacional y están disponibles para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

'Brazil: Colombia, Equador, Venezuela and the besieged Latin America'

'Brazil: Colombia, Equador, Venezuela and the besieged Latin America'
by Daniel Duende

There was a lot of talk about the 'Border Crisis in Latin America' on the Brazilian blogosphere in the last few days. Brazilian people suffer from an endemic form of 'know-it-all syndrom' and, thus, many of us were talking -- a lot -- and taking sides about the impending conflict. Fortunately the whole issue came, apparently, to a reasonable solution. But many of us, know-it-all as we are, think that's not the whole point. Some say that Chavez should be expelled or 'neutralized' somehow for being 'dangerous' to the peace on Latin America. Others say that the US and Uribe, their Colombian host, are the real villains of the Latin soap opera. Among the radical speeches and the media echoing, we could find some very reasonable voices in the Brazilian blogosphere shedding some welcome light on the entire matter.

Andre Deak blogs about an article he wrote to Agência Brasil[PT] back in 2006, about the US military bases at Ecuador and Colombia, titled "Geopolitics of the Siege", and makes some considerations[PT]...:
"A maior base norte-americana na América Latina, a base de Manta, fica no país governado por Rafael Correa. Presidente que publicamente é contra a política dos EUA para a região, e disse que não renovará o acordo para manter essa base."
"The biggest North-American military base in Latin America, the Manta base, stands in the country ruled by Rafael Correa. The president that publicly stood against the US policy for the region, and declared that he will not renew the treaty to keep that base."
... and quotations in his blog post about the conflict and it's unspoken background:
" 'A partir de 2002, Colin Powell garantiu uma verba adicional de 731 milhões de dólares para financiar a participação do Equador, Bolívia e Peru no Plano Colômbia. O papel do Equador era central, principalmente porque os Estados Unidos utilizavam a estrutura da Base de Manta, com capacidade de controlar o espaço aéreo da região Amazônica, do Canal do Panamá e da América Central. A eleição do presidente Rafael Correa interrompeu o apoio do Equador ao Plano Colômbia, já que uma de suas principais medidas foi anunciar que não renovaria o acordo com os Estados Unidos para o controle da Base de Manta', conta Maria Luisa Mendonça.

[...]

Outra leitura interessante vem do Beto Almeida, no texto Colômbia: Israel sul-americano?: o assassinato de 'Raul Reyes, conhecido por sua característica de exímio negociador político, também deve ser entendido como um alerta ao governo de Sarkosy para que não se meta em negociações que contrariem a linha estadunidense de militarização da região amazônica'."
 " 'Since 2002, Colin Powell has guaranteed an additional funding of 731 million US Dollars to pay for the participation of Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru on the Plan Colombia. Ecuador played a central role, mainly because the United States used the resources of the Manta Base, capable of controling the entire Amazon, Panama channel and the Central America's airspace. The election of the president Rafael Correa interrupted the Ecuador support to the Plan Colombia, once one of [the president's] first measures was to announce that the treaty that gave to the US the control of Manta Base was not to be renewed', says Maria Luisa Mendonça. [...] Another interesting view [on the situation] comes from Beto Almeida, in his text Colombia: South-American Israel?: 'the murder of Raul Reyes, known for his caracteristic of being a great political negotiator, may be understood as an alert to the Sarkozy government, that it shouldn't meddle with negotiations that are contrary to the US line of
 action of militarizing the Amazon region'."
João Vergilio writes, in an article[PT] sent by Luis Nassif to the blog Projeto.br[PT], about the connection between this crisis and the hipocrisy surrounding War on Drugs and the drug traffic issue:
"Insisto: enquanto não pusermos sobre a mesa a questão do narcotráfico, todas as discussões ficam sem lastro. É em torno do tráfico e da política antidrogas americana que todas as questões desse conflito estão articuladas. Sem essa insana War on Drugs patrocinada pelos EUA, não haveria as Farc, nem Uribe. E Chávez não passaria de um reformador social um pouco voluntarista e desastrado."
"I insist: until we don't agree on discussing the drug traffic issue, all the other debates become meaningless and unrooted. All the issues on this conflict are wrapped around the drug traffic and the US anti-drugs policy. If it weren't for the insane War on Drugs sponsored by the US, there would be no FARC or Uribe. And Chavez would be nothing more than a somewhat blunderous and a-little-too-willful social reformer."
In the same article, Hugo Albuquerque is rather pessimistic about the motivations and the resolution of the conflict, and calls our atention to the possible US plans for Colombia in the near future:
"Não creio que a situação acaba por aí.

A Colômbia, que dos anos de 90 pra cá se tornou o cavalo de tróia dos EUA na região, fez essa ação para intimidar a Venezuela, não o Equador.

Isso é o indicativo de que se os EUA tentarem algo contra a Venezuela isso se dará via Colômbia do mesmo modo que o Iraque foi usado nos anos 80 para combater o Irã."
"I don't believe the situation is really over. Colombia, that in the nineties became the 'trojan horse' of the US in the region, took this line of action to intimidate Venezuela, not Ecuador. That is indicative that if the US will try anything against Venezuela, that would be made using Colombia as a proxy in the same way the Iraq was used [by the US] in the eighties to fight against Iran."
Pedro Doria considers the complexity of the situation and of the world, and stands in a certain neutrality, criticizing both sides with almost the same severity[PT]:
"Enquanto o mundo anda mais complicado do que jamais foi, esquerda e direita abraçam velhos conceitos. Não importa a evidente violência com que agem as Farc, tampouco o fato de que a sociedade colombiana está exausta delas. Se é uma guerrilha, ainda mais com discurso de esquerda, há de ser bom. Não é. São só golpistas assassinos, torturadores. Uma gente que prende outras por anos a fio. Já passamos desta fase na América Latina. Seria bizarro o suficiente se não houvesse pelo mundo gente à direita que jura combater um comunismo inexistente e que, além de se embaralhar na bandeira religiosa, age com um anti-cientificismo grosseiro."
"As the world becomes more complex than ever before, left and right embrace old concepts. It's doesn't matter how evidently violent are the FARCs, or how tired have the Colombian society grown of them. If it's a guerrilla and, better yet, a guerilla with a leftist speech, then it must be good. It's not. They're only scheming murderers and torturers. People that kidnap and imprision others for many years long. We're all over this phase in Latin America. That would already be bizarre enough, if there wasn't in this world so many people at the right that swear to God they're fighting a communism that doesn't exist, entangling themselves into religious flags and acting with a gross anti-scientificism."
Considering that there are no easy, maniqueistic, answers in these times, Doria stands against illegality and power abuse and, thus, views both sides with suspicion:
"Não é difícil ter problemas com Uribe e com Chávez ao mesmo tempo. Basta não achar que qualquer ilegalidade é justificada para combater o outro lado."
"It's not that hard to have qualms about Chaves and Uribe at the same time. It's just a matter of not thinking that any illegal measure is justified to fight against the other side."
This is, indeed, a very complex world living very complex times. Although many are still pursuing and repeating easy answers and shallow judgements about the situation, it's becoming clear that we must make a deep reflection before saying anything or taking sides. There is a lot of misinformation trickling along the unnending lines of political lies and media supported babble. I think Andre Deak says it all when he closes his above quoted post remarking that...:
"O momento não pode ser lido apenas pelo que contam os jornais. A primeira vítima desse conflito, como em todos, é a verdade."
"This moment can't be read only by what the newspapers are saying. The first victim of this conflict, like in any other, is the truth."
What should we do when we can't be sure about what is happening around us? Maybe the solution is listening to as many voices as possible, be it thunderous and loud like the voices of governments and big media outlets or whispered like the voices of common people, and try to make out who, and why, is trying to fool us. This is as close to the truth we can get. That is why Global Voices Online exists. We're listening. Are you?

You may view the latest post at
http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/08/brazil-colombia-equador-venezuela-and-the-besieged-latin-america/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinen, escriban  y ganen premios.
Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RESPONSABILIDAD
SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL  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
 
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación   y asesorías  en Responsabilidad social empresarial y LOBBY  eficaz a nivel internacional y están disponibles para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Are Law Libraries Becoming Obsolete?

FROM LEGAL WATCH BLOG

Are Law Libraries Becoming Obsolete?

Are law firm libraries going the way of the dinosaur (or the typewriter)? Perhaps not just yet.  As  the Birmingham Business Journal describes, with the proliferation of electronic research, law firms are downsizing their libraries -- but they're not eliminating them entirely.

According to the article, law libraries will always serve a purpose. As attorney Mark Ayers explains, many times books are more efficient for legal research than a computer.  Moreover, not every legal document is available online, so libraries may have access to documents that can't be found on the computer.

But the library also serves other non-research related purposes.  Another lawyer quoted in the article, John Bolus says:

[t]echnology makes research more convenient, but it also takes attorneys out of a library atmosphere where they can focus solely on reading case law, rather than at a desk where they may have other distractions, such as a telephone or e-mail.

And believe it or not, some potential hires and clients are still impressed by the presence of a handsome, well-stocked law library.

Is your firm's library becoming an endangered species? 

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on March 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The British (IPOs) Are Coming

The British are coming, the British are coming -- or at least, the British IPOs are coming. Today's New York Times Dealbook reports that Lyceum Capital, a private equity house, is preparing itself for the changes implemented by Britain's Legal Services Act, which, among other things, will allow law firms to sell themselves to private equity or other investors beginning in 2011. Lyceum has hired a high profile team of advisers and created a 255 million pound ($512.17 million) fund for potential investment targets.

Currently, professional ethics rules don't allow for non-lawyers to hold interests in law firms. So it will be interesting to watch the impact of deregulation of the legal services in Britain on the U.S. firms that have set up outposts in London. Will British IPOs, like the British Redcoats, arrive on U.S. shores sooner than we think?

For previous coverage of law firm IPOs, see posts here, here and here.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on March 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Can Female Lawyers Go Home Again?

They say that you can't go home again, but a few female lawyers are proving otherwise. As this story, "Law Firms Opening Up to the Idea of Attorney Re-Entry" reports, some women who left their firms to raise children are now discovering that they can return to the fold, even after as much as a decade of absence.

Shari Solomon, now an associate at Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen is one example. She left her firm in 1995 following the birth of her third child. Ten years later, when she felt ready to re-enter the work force, she contacted a Wolf Block partner with whom she'd kept in touch, which eventually resulted in an offer to return to the firm. 

Still, how common is it for law firms to welcome female lawyers after they've been gone for a while? My guess is that these reunions are fairly infrequent and somewhat ad hoc. Indeed, the article mentions just one firm -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom -- that has institutionalized a revolving door option for women. Skadden's Sidebar program allows lawyers to take a leave of absence for up to three years and return to the firm thereafter. All of the other programs mentioned discussed leave time of six months which, while generous, hardly qualifies as extended time off (especially where women pop back in for meetings and conference calls during their leave).

In addition, it's not clear whether most women actually want to leave their firm for extended periods, or simply prefer more flexibility that would enable them to balance work and family. According to this post at the ABA Journal news site, a recent study by the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers found that 86 percent of women are interested in flexible and part time arrangements. So it's not clear how many women would avail themselves of a formal re-entry program even if firms were to offer it. In short, even if women could go home (to their firms) again, it's not clear how many women want to leave their firms for home in the first place.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on March 7, 2008 at 04:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)


Opinen, escriban  y ganen premios.
Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RESPONSABILIDAD
SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL  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
 
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación   y asesorías  en Responsabilidad social empresarial y LOBBY  eficaz a nivel internacional y están disponibles para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile