We had over 4900 votes in the “ATL Law Firm Final Four” this weekend. Latham & Watkins and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton emerged as the winners and will now go head to head to determine which is the “coolest” law firm. During commercial breaks in the NCAA basketball final tonight between the University of Memphis and the University of Kansas, come to ATL and vote. Or just vote throughout the day and bill it to “firm development.”
We’ve given Latham a Memphis player’s image. If Memphis wins tonight, it will be the first national champion from outside a major conference since 1990. Since Latham was the only non-New York law firm to make the final four, we think they would sympathize. Cleary got a Kansas player’s image… because they both start with a hard “c” sound. Sports analysis is not our forte at ATL.
The polls close at midnight. Cast your vote here:
There’s been some belly-aching about ATL Law Firm March Madness, but over 2300 people voted, so we shall press on! According to your votes, eight law firms have been chosen to advance. Here are the updated brackets:
Now it’s time again to vote for the “cooler” firm, defining “cool” however you like. We appreciate your definitions via comment. Polls to determine the Final Four, and more information on the Sweet Sixteen match-ups, are available after the jump. Polls close at midnight. Earlier:ATL March April Madness for Law Firms, Round 1: The Sweet Sixteen
We realize we are a bit late on March Madness. Given that all the #1-seeded teams are headed to the Final Four for the first time in NCAA basketball history, we assume your brackets are rubbish and you are open to distraction. Last year, we held a March Madness contest for law schools. UVA Law School came out on top.
This year, we give you ATL March April Madness for Law Firms!!!!
Brackets are based on Vault rankings. We wonder if Vault seeds will be as accurate as those by the NCAA tournament selection committee.
Here’s how the tournament will work. Law firms will advance to the next round based on reader polls, in which we ask you which law firm is “cooler.” You can define that however you choose.
The polls are available after the jump. Polls close at the end of the day!
In honor of both the start of baseball season and April Fool’s Day, log onto Westlaw and type in 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1474. What you will find is a piece from the June 1975 University of Pennsylvania Law Review called The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule. This Aside, presumably written tongue-in-cheek, examines “whether the same types of forces that shaped the development of the common law also generated the Infield Fly Rule.”
The Infield Fly Rule is a baseball rule that prevents infielders from intentionally dropping pop flies with less than two outs and either runners on first and second base or the bases loaded. According to the rule, if a batter hits a pop fly in infield territory, the umpire is supposed to automatically call the batter “out.” Runners are then free to advance at their own risk.
As discussed in the Aside, baseball owners implemented the Infield Fly Rule to combat gamesmanship by infielders, including most famously Columbia Law School graduate Monte Ward, who realized that intentionally dropping pop flies would allow turning single outs into double plays and triple plays. Without adding such a rule, base runners would have no way to know whether to advance or retreat on pop flies until the very last moment.
Over the years, The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule has developed a cult following. The work has been cited 56 times, including by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Wikipedia ranks the Aside as one of the sixteen most “significant” works ever published by Penn Law Review. The author Will Stevens even stepped forward to identify himself after having originally published the piece anonymously.
More discussion, after the jump.
Last season, Barry Bonds, Major League Baseball’s all-time home run king, batted .276 with 28 home runs and 75 runs scored. Bonds also reached base 48 percent of the time—the best in all of baseball.
This season, however, Bonds is unemployed. The San Francisco Giants, his former team, prefer to play journeymen outfielders Dave Roberts and Rajai Davis. The Washington Nationals, meanwhile, seem to prefer outfielder Elijah Dukes, who has nearly as many lifetime arrests (6) as Major League home runs (10). Stranger still, the New York Mets claim to be content beginning the season with Ryan Church, Angel Pagan and Endy Chavez playing their corner outfield positions. Last season, the Church/Pagan/Chavez combo had 438 more at bats than Bonds, yet combined for eight fewer home runs, not to mention a lower combined batting average.
Bonds recently told the media that he is “working out” and “training,” in hopes of playing for some team this season. With recent notification that prosecutors must revise their perjury indictment against him, Bonds for the moment is free from any legal conflicts. In addition, Bonds is relatively healthy, not to mention just 65 hits shy of the 3,000 milestone.
So what’s going on here? Read more, after the jump.
When the Miami Heat and Atlanta Hawks took the floor last Saturday at Phillips Arena, it marked the first commissioner-ordered “do over” in the past 25 years of NBA basketball. As per NBA Commissioner David Stern’s orders, the Phillips Arena scoreboard was re-set to 114-111 and the game clock was turned back to 51 seconds. The teams then proceeded to replay close to the final minute of a December 19 contest that the Hawks seemingly had already won 117-111. Neither team scored in the “do over” time, meaning the Hawks still utlimately won the contest but by three less points. The Heat-Hawks “Do Over”
Commissioner Stern ordered this “do over” on January 11 because of what he considered to be “grossly negligent” conduct by the home-team Atlanta Hawks’ official scorers. With 51 seconds left in the original game, the Hawks’ scorers ruled that Miami Heat center Shaquille O’Neal had committed his sixth foul, meaning that O’Neal was ejected from the game. O’Neal, however, had really only committed five fouls.
Stern scheduled the “do over” for March 7, which was the next time when the Heat were supposed to play in Atlanta. This delay, however, created all kinds of problems. Most notably, the original dispute involved whether O’Neal was wrongly prevented from playing the game’s final 51 seconds. However, even though Stern ruled in favor of the Heat, O’Neal was again unable to play in the “do over” because he had been traded from the Heat to the Phoenix Suns for Shawn Marion and Marcus Banks—both of whom Stern deemed eligible to play. Based on this logic, if the Heat had acquired Kevin Garnett and Lebron James in the intervening period, they too would have been eligible to play.
More do-over discussion, after the jump.
On Friday, February 22, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (“MLBAM”) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (“MLBPA”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 07-1099), seeking to overturn the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the first amendment protects free use of baseball players’ names and statistics in fantasy sports games. MLBAM and the MLBPA both contend that the Eighth Circuit’s ruling fails to properly balance important concerns about state-law publicity rights against first amendment interests.
The original case, C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., emerged from a change in MLBPA policy regarding the licensing of player names to fantasy sports businesses. The district-court plaintiff, C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. (“CBC”), for over ten years had licensed directly from the MLBPA major league baseball player names for use in fantasy sports contests. Then, in 2005, the MLBPA decided not to renew CBC’s license—instead granting an exclusive right to use baseball players’ names to MLBAM “for exploitation via all interactive media.” MLBAM thereafter launched its own fantasy baseball contest on its website MLB.com and refused to grant a sublicense to CBC. This led CBC to file suit.
CBC originally filed suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted it summary judgment, holding that CBC’s fantasy games did not infringe on any state-law publicity rights that belonged to major league baseball players. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on other grounds, finding that while CBC was indeed infringing on major league baseball players’ publicity rights, CBC’s “first amendment rights in offering its fantasy baseball products supersedes the players’ rights of publicity.” The Eighth Circuit based its ruling on three factors: (1) fantasy baseball statistics are already in the public domain; (2) major league baseball players are already “rewarded, and handsomely;” and (3) there is no danger that any consumers would be misled into believing the use of players’ names represents a product endorsement.
Discussion picks up, after the jump.
Until recently, fans were limited in their ability to become involved in the business side of sports. Now, however, three businesses are bringing fans a tad closer: (1) a soon-to-be launched, publicly owned professional football league known as the UFL; (2) a democratically run British soccer club called Ebbsfield United FC; and (3) an Internet-based business that sells future interests in the earnings of minor league baseball players. UFL Public Offering
The story of fan ownership in pro sports inevitably begins with a New York Times article that ran last summer, announcing that financier Bill Hambrecht and Google executive Tim Armstrong were planning to launch a new publicly owned professional football league called the UFL. The UFL is slated to begin play in August 2008 with eight teams, each owned 50 percent by wealthy investors and 50 percent by public shareholders. A date for the initial public offering (“IPO”) is still pending.
The UFL is in the process of choosing its host cities, and it is doing so in an interesting way. With help from an online ticketing partner, prospective customers currently may purchase seating options in thirteen different cities. Whichever eight of these cities sells the most options will land the league’s first franchises.
Column continues, after the jump.
The thirteen commissioners of Miami-Dade County are expected on Thursday to approve a proposal to spend $347 million in taxpayer money to build a new 37,000-seat, retractable roof stadium for the Florida Marlins. This proposal would not only provide a huge subsidy to the team’s much maligned owner, Jeffrey Loria, but it also might violate the Florida Constitution.
According to published reports, the Marlins stadium proposal would require Miami-Dade County to contribute roughly two-thirds of the cost for the new stadium, with the city of Miami contributing roughly 3% ($10 million), and Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria contributing 30% ($155 million). According to Miami Today, Mr. Loria would then be allowed to sell the stadium’s naming rights to a third party, expected to fetch him more than $155 million.
A number of Miami-Dade County residents are unhappy about the idea of publicly funding a new stadium for Mr. Loria, who has never invested much of his own money in the Marlins ball club. Recently, on December 5, 2007, Mr. Loria traded away the Marlins’ two most productive players, Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis — a move that reduced team payroll to less than $25 million, the lowest in Major League Baseball. For purposes of comparison, the New York Yankees projected 2008 payroll is $213 million. The Yankees, incidentally, are privately financing their new stadium.
Read more, after the jump.
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
We currently have a very exciting and rare type of in-house opening in China at one of the world’s leading internet and social media companies. Our client is looking for an IP Transactional / TMT / Licensing attorney with 2 to 6 years experience. The new hire will be based in Shenzhen or Shanghai. Mandarin is not required (deal documentation will be in English) but is preferred. A solid reason to be in China and a commitment to that market is required of course. This new hire will likely be US qualified (but could also be qualified in UK or other jurisdictions) and with experience and training at a top law firm’s IP transactional / TMT practice and could be currently at a law firm or in-house. Qualified candidates currently Asia based, Europe based or US based will be considered. The new hire’s supervisors in this technology transactions in-house team are very well regarded US trained IP transactional lawyers, with substantial experience at Silicon Valley firms. The culture and atmosphere in this in-house group and the company in general is entrepreneurial, team oriented, and the work is cutting edge, even for a cutting edge industry. The upside of being in an important strategic in-house position in this fast growing and world leading internet company is of the “sky is the limit” variety. Its a very exciting place to be in China for a rising IP transactional lawyer in our opinion, for many reasons beyond the basic info we can share here in this ad / post. This is a special A+ opportunity.
If you think most legal technology misses the mark, LexisNexis Firm Manager® wants to change your mind. Read more about it here.
Built with input from hundreds of solo and small-firm attorneys across the country, it’s made for practitioners who’d rather build the firm of their dreams than deal with the hassles of running a business.
· Go Mobile, Stay Connected.
See all your firm’s information, wherever you are, on whatever device you’re using. Access and update client files, enter billing, search & share documents and more. It’s just like you’re in the office, only you’re not.
When Chintan Panchal decided to leave a global BigLaw partnership to start his own firm, he could only hope that he would face the high-quality problem of firm building that many had cautioned him about. Focused on the uncertainty surrounding of a new firm launch, he decided to tackle staffing needs, IT challenges, and financial planning requirements after he had built up his legal practice.
Panchal Associates LLP–a corporate/finance and outside general counsel boutique–was quickly off to a great start. Clients and matters were flying in the door, and Chintan soon had a team of lawyers and staff with a variety of operational needs. To continue building an excellent team and provide them with a competitive benefits package, to expand his physical presence to include a European practice and additional partners, and to scale his operations and IT capabilities to support this growing enterprise brought with it demands of time, money, and expertise. Chintan knew he needed help.
“With the assistance of NexFirm, we have upgraded the capabilities of our firm to meet, and in some cases exceed, the standards we were used to at our former BigLaw firms. Operationally, we can now attract and service clients we didn’t have the bandwidth to support in the past, and continue to build our team with the best and brightest legal talent in the industry,” said Chintan Panchal, adding “It has worked out quite well in our case; NexFirm is an essential partner for us.”
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!