Canadian law firms hold their own when it comes to making money

Canada’s homegrown law firms, the ones who have not been absorbed by the global behemoths and who still have most of their lawyers in Canada, are holding their own in international law firm rankings.
 
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt comes in 77th on Legal Week’s “Global 100: By Revenue” list, boasting some $550 million in billings. Blake, Cassels & Graydon follows in 89th spot, generating about $425 million. By way of comparison, U.S.-based Latham & Watkins ranks first in revenues with $2.65 billion.

Firms from the U.S. and U.K. dominate the list, but otherwise only two firms from China, one from Australia and a South Korean firm rank ahead of the Canadians.
 
On the partner profits front, three Canadian firms rank in the Top 100. Again, Osler is the top Canadian entity, standing 70th with average partner profit of $1.045 million; Blakes is 77th, coming in at $985,000; and Fasken Martineau stands 98th at $795,000. U.S.-based Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz leads the list with partners taking home $6.6 million on average.
 
Border Ladner Gervais has the most lawyers of any homegrown Canadian firm. The firm’s 745 lawyers put it at 80th on the Top 100. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin’s 682 lawyers garner the 88th spot. Denton’s, with 6,568 lawyers, is the world’s largest law firm by headcount.

Financial Post

Go to Source

Morning Agenda: Looser Tongues in Silicon Valley, Law Firms Lagging on Diversity

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Don’t have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »

Need to connect your Home Delivery subscription to NYTimes.com?
Link your subscription »

Log in with Facebook

Log in with Google

or

In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information »

Forgot password?

Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Go to Source

IFLR1000 Ranks Cahill as Top Tier Firm in Financial and Corporate Law

Date: 10/17/16

IFLR1000 – The Guide to the World’s Leading Financial Law Firms has ranked Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP as a ‘Top Tier’ law firm nationally for financial and corporate law in its 2017 edition, including the only Tier 1 ranking in high yield debt for the seventh consecutive year, based in part on analysis that Cahill ‘has robust banking and debt capital markets practices, and is the only firm in the US to garner a tier one ranking for its high yield debt practice.’

Eleven Cahill corporate partners have also been ranked as leading lawyers in the new edition, The IFLR 1000 list is issued by Euromoney Institutional Investor. A description of the selection methodology can be found at: http://www.iflr1000.com/Home/OurResearch.

External Link:IFLR1000 – The Guide to the World’s Leading Financial Law Firms

Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP published this content on 17 October 2016 and is solely responsible for the information contained herein.
Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 17 October 2016 19:33:08 UTC.


Go to Source

Pune: Law & order failure is biggest hindrance to growth in the district

Written by Partha Sarathi Biswas
| Pune |
Published:October 18, 2016 1:57 am


Talegaon-Chakan, Talegaon-Chakan belt, Pune Law, MCCIA, NCP, sharad pawar, latest news, latest pune news, BJP leader murder, Pune news Industrial belt of Talegaon

PUNE IS often referred to as the Detroit of East because of the strong presence of the automobile and auto-ancillary industries in Pune. Concentrated along the Talegaon-Chakan industrial belt, these firms have not only brought in a major transformation of the area but also helped in putting the district’s name on the global map. However, along with job generation, industrialisation has also given rise to the dark underbelly of crime, which has been targeting the industries in the area.

Talegaon-Chakan —with its semi-urban and semi-rural background—has thrown up many challenges that other industrial areas like Hinjewadi, Ranjangaon or Baramati has not. With almost all political parties active in the area over the years, this itself, has given rise to local leaders who turn to industries to fill their pockets. Contracts related to head loaders, employment of temporary staff, security guards and transportation are the easiest methods to generate assured and fast cash for the local leaders. Muscle power always came into picture when such contracts were to be given by the industries. Also, common are cases of vandalism when companies do not adhere to ‘requests’.

Such was the seriousness of the issue some years ago that the NCP chief, Sharad Pawar, had conveyed a special meeting of the industries, the police and the local leaders to resolve the issue. The meeting had seen the appointment of a special commission, headed by a senior police officer of the rank of IG. The other commission members included representatives of the industries and other stake holders. Pawar had even asked the local political leaders to ensure the industrial peace is not disturbed in the area. However, due to lack of constant follow-up, the commission had failed to take off the way it had to.

Unlike Hinjewadi, majority of the industries in the Chakan-Talegaon areas are small and medium enterprises. Around 7,000 such companies rub shoulders with 100-odd bigger companies in the area. Geographically, the area is also one of the largest in the district and constant policing is impossible. The appointment of private security guards-like those being employed in Hinjewadi –has not been possible being economically non-viable.

On problems pertaining to the area, Anant Sardeshmukh, director-general of the Mahratta Chamber of Commerce Industries and Agriculture (MCCIA), said there has been a demand from the industries to have a separate police unit for the area. “Such a force will be able to help in preserving the law and order of the area,” he said. Sardeshmukh said the police should take all necessary steps to infuse confidence among the industries in this belt. “Otherwise, the current atmosphere is not conducive for the growth of the industry,” he said.

Go to Source

UK firms could face £122bn in data breach fines in 2018

UK businesses could face up to £122bn in penalties for data breaches when new EU legislation comes into effect in 2018, the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) has warned.

According to a UK government 2015 information security breaches survey, 90% of large organisations and 74% of SMEs reported a security breach, leading to an estimated total of £1.4bn in regulatory fines.

In 2018, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will introduce fines for groups of companies of to €20m or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is greater – far exceeding the current maximum of £500,000. 

This means that if data breaches remain at 2015 levels, the fines paid to the European regulator could see a near 90-fold increase, from £1.4bn in 2015 to £122bn, the PCI SSC calculated, based on the maximum fine of 4% of global turnover.

For large UK organisations, this could see regulatory fines for data breaches soar to £70bn, more than a 130-fold increase, rising to an average of £11m per organisation. Regulatory fines for SMEs could see a 57-fold increase, rising to £52bn, averaging £13,000 per SME.

Regulatory fines are only part of the downside for companies, the PCI SSC said, with reputational damage, business disruption and revenue loss also having a significant impact on firms suffering a data breach.

The PCI SSC, which works in partnership with organisations to develop and enhance payment and data security standards, is urging firms to act now to prevent, detect and respond to cyber attacks that can lead to breaches of payment data and other personal data.  

“The new EU legislation will be an absolute game-changer for both large organisations and SMEs as the regulator will be able to impose a stratospheric rise in penalties for security breaches, and it remains to be seen whether businesses facing these fines will be able to shoulder the costs,” said Jeremy King, international director at PCI SSC.

“Companies, both large and small, need to act now and start putting in place robust standards and procedures to counter the cyber security threat, or face the prospect of paying astronomical costs in regulatory fines and reputational harm to their brand.”

However, the PCI SSC calculations do not take into account the GDPR’s two-tier approach to sanctions which also allow for fines of up to €10m or 2% of global annual turnover, whichever is greater, for breaches considered less serious.

“The two-tier approach for fines simply reflects what EU policy-makers see as top issues versus medium concerns,” said Eduardo Ustaran, European head of privacy and cyber security at law firm Hogan Lovells.

“But in any event, the jump from the current level of fines is absolutely exponential. We are talking of moving from a few hundred thousand euros to potentially hundreds of millions.”

Key areas for companies to watch out for, said Ustaran, are the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, the data subjects’ rights and the conditions for lawful international data transfers. Large-scale risk to people’s privacy is likely to be a major factor in deciding who to fine and how much, he said.

“It is anybody’s guess whether the UK government will use a similar formula in the post-Brexit privacy legislation, but the UK information commissioner has certainly not been shy of issuing large fines,” said Ustaran.

In October 2016, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) hit TalkTalk with a record £400,000 fine for the cyber attack in 2015 that exposed the personal details of more than 150,000 customers.

The new information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, said the telecoms provider had failed to apply “the most basic cyber security measures”, leaving its database vulnerable to an SQL injection attack after failing to apply a fix for a software bug that had been available for more than three years.

In her first public speech since taking the role, Denham warned that although the ICO had powers to issue fines of up to £500,000, this could rise to 4% of a business’ global turnover in line with the GDPR.

She also warned that the ICO expected to see organisations taking responsibility for their actions, despite the pace of technological change, saying it is up to individual businesses to understand the risks they are creating for others, and to mitigate them.

Denham said it was “extremely likely” that the GDPR would be live before the UK left the EU. “The GDPR is already in force – it is just that member states are not obligated to apply it until 25 May 2018,” she said.

Denham said all UK companies that wanted to do business in the EU would have to comply with the GDPR. She said the major shift in the law was about giving consumers control over their data, which tied in with building trust and was also part of the ICO’s philosophy.

“In a global economy, we need consistency of law and standards,” she said. “The GDPR is a strong law and, once we are out of Europe, we will still need to be deemed adequate or essentially equivalent. When the UK leaves the EU, which is likely to be 2019 or later, a new data protection law will need to be in force.”

Denham said the ICO was discussing with ministers and senior officials in government what future UK data protection law should look like. “The aim is a progressive regulatory regime that stands up to scrutiny, that doesn’t leave the UK open to having rocks thrown at it by other regimes,” she said. “And that has consistency and adequacy with Europe.”

Go to Source

Leading New York Law Firms Lag in Including Women and Minorities

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Don’t have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »

Need to connect your Home Delivery subscription to NYTimes.com?
Link your subscription »

Log in with Facebook

Log in with Google

or

In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com. More information »

Forgot password?

Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Go to Source

Bob Dylan’s Words, Enshrined In The Nation’s Case Law

5272511

Bob Dylan can claim many titles — poet, lyricist, artist — now, Nobel laureate.

He also might be styled a jurist.

The wrasping, disheveled, mysteriously enigmatic soloist is far and away the most-cited musician in judicial opinions, according to a 2011 study by Alex Long called “The Freewheelin’ Judiciary: A Bob Dylan Anthology.” Long, then a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, notes Dylan had been quoted twice in opinions at the U.S. Supreme Court, and is cited dozens of times annually in the federal courts.

Dylan’s first appearance on the Supreme Court record came by way of a dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts in 2008 in Spirit Communications Co. v. APCC Services. Breaking from a five-justice majority, Roberts argued that collections firms used by payphone operators did not have standing to sue a long-distance carrier to collect compensation for so-called “coinless calls” because they could not benefit from the judgement which would ensue. For a person or entity to have standing, their injury must be redressable, as, to the chief’s thinking, was not the case here. He pithily summarized the crux of his argument with a line from Dylan’s 1965 track “Like A Rolling Stone”: “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”

“Bob Dylan captured the whole notion behind standing,” Roberts said of his Dylan citation earlier this year, according to Adam Liptak at The New York Times. “In that case, the party didn’t have anything at stake in the case and had nothing to lose, and the case should have been thrown out on that basis.”

Dylan again appeared in a dissent, this time from the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in 2010. “The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty,” he wrote of the majority’s refusal to take up certain questions in the case because of the rapid pace of technological change. (RELATED: The New Republic Was Certain Bob Dylan Wouldn’t Win The Nobel Prize)

In some instances Dylan citations haven’t merely lent piquancy to an otherwise dry matter of law. In California, one might argue the courts have created something of a “Dylan standard” when assessing whether to permit expert testimony during a trial. The state courts have determined that expert testimony during trial is not necessary where the question may be resolved by common knowledge. The issue was addressed in Jorgensen v. Beach ‘N’ Bay Realty, Inc.:

The correct rule on the necessity of expert testimony has been summarized by Bob Dylan: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” The California courts, although in harmony, express the rule somewhat less colorfully and hold expert testimony is not required where a question is “resolvable by common knowledge.”

“Since then, courts in California have cited these lyrics for the same proposition on numerous occasions to the point that the language from Jorgensen is almost boilerplate on the subject of the necessity of expert testimony,” Long wrote. He also notes Dylan’s weatherman has been invoked by judges with respect to obvious conclusions or the probability of future events. Subterranean Homesick Blues, the song from which the line comes, is the most commonly cited Dylan song according to his tally.

Esteem for Dylan among federal jurists may reflect a generational shift. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a opera devotee who joined the high court in 1972, preferred to quote Gilbert and Sullivan.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to [email protected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Go to Source

Firms pay in full on just half of tribunal claims


A third of people who win tribunals do not see the money awarded by employment tribunals

Frances O’Grady, the TUC’s leader, says the government has to come down hard on employers who avoid paying compensation awarded by tribunals.
Frances O’Grady, the TUC’s leader, says the government has to come down hard on employers who avoid paying compensation awarded by tribunals.
Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

Employment tribunals are supposed to be a recourse to justice, yet thousands of workers who win their claims never receive a penny of compensation. The government says it is committed to tackling the problem and forcing culpable employers to pay up. But new data reveals that its attempts fall woefully short, with the vast majority of unpaid claimants receiving no help at all.

Grahame Healiss, 27, is one of a growing number of claimants let down by the system. He was sacked from his job at a call centre in Liverpool after complaining about his girlfriend being sexually harassed by a team leader. “It was a really disturbing time, seeing the most important person in my life being subjected to such blatant abuse,” Healiss recalls. “I had to do something.”

The couple took their case to tribunal and were awarded damages of £40,000. Yet eight months on, no money has been paid. Their employer, M&R Marketing, went into liquidation before the final hearing and dodged its liability. This is a common ruse.

According to government data, more than a third of successful claimants never receive any of their compensation, and less than half are paid in full. “For some people, it’s worse than if they’d never taken the case in the first place,” says Emma Satyamurti, a partner at law firm Leigh Day. “It compounds the sense of injustice.”

Lydia Stone, 31, has all but given up receiving any of the £28,000 she was awarded three years ago for being unfairly sacked from an ice-cream parlour, Tom & Erin’s in Weymouth. Stone lost her job when she told her employer she was pregnant. “The next morning I had a letter from the owner saying my employment was over,” she says. Stone took her case to an employment tribunal and received an unequivocal judgment: “The claimant was unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of her sex,” it says. Again, though, her former employer liquidated the company and transferred its assets to a sister company called Tom & Erin’s Gift Shop. It matters little that the new company is registered at the same address and sells the same products. “The shop is still there: it’s open for business and selling ice cream. It just seems so wrong that they can get away with it,” says Stone.

A spokesperson for the government’s Insolvency Service admits there could be hundreds of cases like this every week. The problem is that it is hard, not to mention costly, to prove that companies are deliberately going bust to avoid paying awards.

“Even if it’s obvious what a company has done, the costs involved in trying to challenge it outweigh the benefit,” says David Carter of The Sheriff’s Office, a debt collection firm. Carter says the transfer of assets between companies is something his firm encounters often, yet their hands are tied to do anything about it. “The government needs to tighten up the law.”

The problem could be addressed by denying public contracts to the offending businesses, disqualifying directors, and allowing employment tribunals to enforce payment directly. Earlier this year the government introduced fines for employers who don’t pay up, but very little has changed. Figures seen by the Observer reveal that in the five months since the penalty system has been in place it has helped in 11 cases, bringing in £55,000 in unpaid awards. According to TUC figures, that equates to just 1% of cases where successful claimants have not been paid.

“It’s going to take some time for the system to bed in,” said a spokesperson for the Department for Business. “But early signs are encouraging.”

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady says urgent change is needed: “Too many employees who win cases don’t get the money they’re owed. The government must take tough action on employers who refuse to pay up.”

Go to Source

Dads' rights: the rise of firms for fathers going through divorce

Many men feel they get a raw deal from the family court system when it comes to custody and access to their children. But are specialist lawyers the answer?

Father and children
‘In many cases, judges still consider a woman the more natural caretaker.’
Photograph: Echo/Getty Images/Cultura RF

Andrew Jones was shocked when his wife started a child custody battle in 2014. The couple had separated five months earlier after, he says, he caught her in a series of extramarital affairs. They had agreed on an informal settlement: he moved from their 2,700 sq ft home into a mobile home, paid her $500 a month in child support and could spend equal time with their five- and three-year-old kids. When he received the letter with a court date, Jones was not hopeful.

“I felt like I wasn’t going to have a life,” says the 46-year-old who works as an HVAC technician. “I heard so many horror stories of divorce and how pretty much women get all your paycheques and you have no way to live.”

Jones (his last name was changed to protect the identity of his children) represented himself in court while his wife hired an attorney who he says is “well-known” in their North Carolina county for “getting women anything and everything they want in court”. The attorney, he says “kind of gives you the feeling that she hates men. That all men are dogs and men don’t want to be in their child’s lives.”

Jones nervously told the judge all he wanted was equal time with his kids. The following month, he received a letter from the court saying he owed $1,300 a month in child support – a payment that would be big stretch on his wage of $26 an hour. He had already cleared out his savings to pay off his and his wife’s combined debts, so to keep up with payments Jones sold his truck, $4,000 worth of tools, and stopped eating out or having a social life. But the money wasn’t even the worst part: he was only allowed to see his kids eight days out of the month.

“When you have kids it changes your life,” he says. “You can’t go without them and [when you do] it wears you down emotionally and physically.”

In family law, tales of fathers who pay exorbitant child support and rarely get to see their kids are commonplace. Recently, firms that specialize in men’s divorce have popped up all over America to capitalize on so-called gender-based discrimination in courts. While many family law firms have seen a drop in divorce filings, these niche attorneys claim business is thriving.

Yet their very existence if controversial. Critics claim any good lawyer is equipped to handle a man’s divorce and that instead of pushing for greater equality under the law, these firms perpetuate sexist stereotypes about women.

While family laws are gender neutral, there’s no doubt that judges and lawyers interpret them based on certain beliefs. In many cases, judges still consider a woman the more natural caretaker, a stubborn holdover from the decades in which mothers only worked at home.

According to recent census data, 82% of mothers have primary custody of their children and 53% collect child support, compared with 29% of men. The numbers certainly suggest the need for men’s divorce attorneys, but they lack important context: less than 5% of child support cases are actually settled in court, which means most parents decide themselves that the mother should be the primary caregiver. After all, a Pew survey shows married women spend twice as much time with their kids than their husbands do.

But Joseph Cordell, founder of the largest men’s divorce-focused firm in America, says the stereotypes of mothers as nurturers and men as providers leads to systemic discrimination against fathers.

“As a society we’ve made progress regarding gender in a number of areas,” he says. “But the dark corner of the room when it comes to civil rights, I can tell you, is dads’ rights in family courts.”

The most common issues, he says, are that men rarely get equal access to their children and are often victims of false abuse allegations. Cordell estimates that 85% of temporary restraining order requests during divorces are mere “tactics”. Margaret Ryznar, an associate law professor at Indiana University, says her research shows a minority of women seek protective orders during divorce and that since domestic abuse is a he-said, she-said crime it’s often impossible to prove “who’s lying and who’s not”.

Kirby Ingles, who lives in Missouri, says he experienced bias during the 2009 custody battle for his five-year-old son. His attorney, who did not specialize in men’s divorce, told him that the court judge would “most likely lean towards [your ex-wife’s] side because the child is five or six years old so needs their mother”. Ingles wanted more custody and joint decision-making but was told this is how judges usually rule. “They didn’t really want to do the work and put up a fight and do any digging in the case,” he says.

Ingle’s wife got primary custody, but he has hired a men’s divorce lawyer to renegotiate his child support payments after being hit with a decrease in his salary. He says his new advocate is “more sincere and compassionate to his needs” than a regular family law lawyer and is more equipped to deal with specific issues that affect him such as father alienation.

But not all experts think men’s divorce specialists provide added value. Ryznar thinks regular family law attorneys are equipped to handle any case and that the niche men’s firms are largely a marketing ploy to “drum up business”.

Many also see an underlying sexism in firms that specialize in father’s rights, a flagpole issue of the misogynistic men’s rights movement. Ryznar says that while stay-at-home moms are less common these days, working women still do most of the domestic work, which has a negative impact on their salaries. “Courts take into account and compensate [mothers] for the fact that [they] took hits to their career to take care of kids,” she says. “These men’s divorce firms perpetuate the stereotype of a woman who’s just after her husband’s money. That is not true in many real cases.”

But Cordell, who is a supporter of the men’s rights movement, finds these arguments absurd. He views the treatment of men in divorces as a civil rights issue, equating their struggle for equality with that of black people fighting against racism and segregation in the south. “To suggest to me that guys asking for fairness in family court are guilty of some sort of anti-feminist position or sexism is beyond response,” he says. “It’s an insult to guys.”

Of course, some men’s rights attorneys hold less extreme views. Anne Mitchell, who opened one of the first fathers’ rights practices in the 1990s, is anti- “angry men’s organizations” but says the stereotype that most men want to dodge child support is also not true.

“Overwhelmingly guys [are] not looking for custody or to screw their exes,” she says. “They’re just looking to be more involved in their children’s lives than the typical still default schedule: every other weekend and one day during the week.” Mitchell, who no longer sees clients, strove to give fathers a reality check about which legal battles were worth fighting.

“As a society we have really come to demonize men. There’s just definitely a faction that believes all boys have the potential to grow up as rapists and are angry,” she says. “Without the right coaching … [men] show up at courts looking angry and that feeds right into the bias.” Mitchell always tried to keep dads out of court, preferring to settle matters in counseling – a strategy she said most firms focused on billable hours unfortunately avoid.

There’s no doubt Jones, the man struggling to afford child support, was in a better situation before stepping foot in a courtroom. About a year and a half after his initial appearance, he returned to court with a lawyer to argue for more visitation rights. He was unsuccessful – his ex-wife’s lawyer argued that he was an unfit father because he “whoops” his kids’ butts with a belt to discipline them, which he admits is true, and is often on call for work.

But without regular access to his kids, Jones says his life has deteriorated. His ex wouldn’t let him talk to their kids on the phone and he stopped getting notified by their school about report cards and field trips.

Jones began lashing out at colleagues, and was written up so many times by management that he was fired. His new gig pays less – $22 an hour – and as a result he’s more than $5,000 behind on his child support payments and $2,200 behind in rent. Now when Jones sees his kids, he can’t even afford the $10 to take them to their favorite place, a bounce house with inflatable slides.

“I’m home alone and have no money to go nowhere,” he says. “I can’t … even get my kids something. I don’t wish this for nobody. I feel like a homeless guy with a job.”

Go to Source