Blog — Around the water cooler

Each week we will pose these three questions to different lawyers in the legal community.

 This week we talk with Linda K. Stevens, who has spent 20 years handling intellectual property and general commercial litigation. She is a partner at Schiff Hardin. 

– What do you find the most interesting about your practice?

In my litigation practice, I have handled many trade secrets and non-compete cases. These cases tend to be more interesting and fun than most commercial disputes: they usually involve allegations of theft and other wrongdoing, and if they are not settled, they get to a hearing very quickly. (If some commercial disputes resemble trench warfare, then the emergency injunction work I do can be considered a high noon shoot-out, and I much prefer the faster pace.)

Also, I get to deal with cutting-edge computer forensics and e-discovery issues, which has been quite interesting.  It is very common for me to be dealing with computer scrubbing and other types of evidence spoliation. 

I have been lucky to develop a dual practice. In addition to my litigation work, I do quite a bit of client counseling in areas related to intellectual property protection, including the drafting and implementation of contracts, policies and procedures, and I provide support to our transactional lawyers in various types of deals involving intellectual property and non-compete agreements.

I acted as outside general counsel for 15 years to a group of small and mid-sized manufacturing companies who were structured a bit like a co-op, operating their independent companies but jointly owning a “corporate office” that held the trademarks and other intellectual property and provided services, such as product development, marketing, and advertising, to the group of owner/licensees. Over the years, I got to know each of the owner/licensees and helped with all aspects of the business that they were building together. That kind of in-depth and long-term involvement with a client and the client’s business is very gratifying. 

– What makes a good lawyer?

Striving to have a happy client. When you try to make the client happy, you naturally do what a good lawyer does – you listen to the client, work to understand what the client wants and needs, and deliver that, as quickly and as cost-efficiently as possible. It’s important, too, for the lawyer to be happy. I don’t believe that a person can achieve excellence, in any field, unless it brings personal satisfaction.  I love what I do, and that helps me to do it well. 

– What is the biggest legal news right now, and what is its impact?

I know that there’s a lot of talk about the pressures facing law firms – to more aggressively go after business, to expand geographically, to raise the profits per partner – but I think that the biggest news is the looming generational shift facing all of our legal institutions and the clients we serve. Now and over the next several years, law firms, governmental agencies, and public interest groups will be losing their most senior lawyers – the baby boomers who most likely have built and controlled those institutions for decades.

The younger lawyers coming up through the ranks view their careers, and the world, very differently. They are already demanding changes and alternatives to the status quo, and they will only become more vocal and more insistent about effecting change as they increase in number and seniority. Many of the new generations’ ideas, approaches, and goals seem inconsistent with the assumptions and structures underlying the practice of law in most workplaces. 

The impact of this culture clash can be seen in all aspects of legal practice. Law firms, for example, are under pressure to reassess, and in some cases redesign, how they function. The legal press is full of articles about alternatives to the billable hour system, lockstep hours’ expectations, and the traditional partnership track. At the same time that younger lawyers are demanding a better quality of life, standard salaries for new lawyers continue to rise – a situation that does not seem to be making anybody very happy. And we still must find room in our days, and our budgets, to invest time in business development and to meet our pro bono commitments.

Meeting the wants and needs of today’s young lawyers within the traditional law firm structure, and within the economic constraints and realities that created that structure in the first place, can be a challenging task. Especially while keeping our primary focus on Mission One – providing outstanding legal services in an efficient manner. Tackling these issues is important, however, and law firms and lawyers everywhere are all going to be better off for having engaged in this dialog and for exercising some flexibility. At Schiff, we have been addressing these issues for some time now, and finding ways to meld the old and the new is both interesting and rewarding.

Blog — Around the water cooler

Each week I will highlight a different case or legal happening, and solicit your thoughts on the impact of it in the legal community.

Edward Chupack, senior counsel at Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, spent 10 years writing on his train commutes, in the early mornings, late in evenings, and on weekends.

  The culmination of his hard work is the book, “Silver: My Own Tale As Written by Me with a Goodly Amount of Murder.” Published in February, it tells the story behind legendary character Long John Silver.

“Much of the time was spent writing one line every several months and then I would go on writing jags,” Chupack said. “When I finished the first draft of the book it was a jumble, and so I wrote and rewrote it until I got it right.”

Why write about John Silver?

“I’m a child of a Holocaust survivor,” he said. “I think that children of Holocaust survivors have a different outlook on life. It’s almost a preoccupation with the concept of evil. And so my book was an attempt to understand why people are attracted to malevolent personalities.

“For example, the main character, John Silver, he is a bad guy but at the same time he’s charismatic, he’s charming, he’s athletic, he’s funny and he’s witty. He’s good at everything he does and he’s better than everybody around him. He tends to have what I would call ‘negative charisma.’”

Society, in general, he said, is often attracted to overwhelming personalities. Some personalities, he said, are so outstanding and so overwhelming that they rapture people.

When his children were young he read “Treasure Island” to them. They were bored with the character Jim Hawkins, but really liked the character of Silver.

He thought, “We know very little about John Silver from ‘Treasure Island.’ We know a little about his history and whose ship he served on. Wouldn’t it be interesting to create a back story and take him from his youth, throughout his youth, and describe how he became John Silver and how he rose to power?”

Chupack said his family made many sacrifices while he wrote this book. When he was writing, he wasn’t spending time with them, which was difficult on everyone, he said. He said he has a couple other books in various writing stages.

“The difficult part of writing is that, especially successful book writers, and just like actors, you get typecast,” he said. “Because this caught the public’s fancy there is some interest in having me write, if not about the son of Silver, than at least a historical novel along the lines of ‘Silver.’”

Blog — Around the water cooler

Each week I will highlight a different case or legal happening, and solicit your thoughts on the impact of it in the legal community. The Loyola University Chicago School of Law received four gifts and donations toward new chairs and educational advancements for the school. They are:

• Bernard J. Beazley, a 1950 graduate of Loyola’s School of Law and a Loyola Board of Trustee member, made a $2 million gift to fund a fully endowed chair in children’s law. In honor of his wife, the new chair will be named the A. Kathleen Beazley Chair in Child Law.
• Three partners at the Chicago law firm of Cooney & Conway and School of Law alumni, John D. Cooney (JD ‘79), Robert J. Cooney Jr. (JD ‘78), and Kevin J. Conway (JD ‘76), donated $1.5 million for the establishment of the new Cooney & Conway Chair in Advocacy at the School of Law, coming in 2009.
• The School of Law’s Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies received a $1.5 million Cy Pres Award in connection with the settlement of a Tennessee state court class action suit involving price fixing claims. Funds from the award will support conferences, academic symposia, and establish new research initiatives at Loyola University Chicago that deal with competition law, consumer protection, and complex litigation.
• The School of Law was honored with a $500,000 gift from law alumna Randy Lamm Berlin (JD ‘91), and her husband, Melvin, to establish the Randy L. and Melvin R. Berlin Clinical Professor of Business Law, which will be filled by Joseph L. Stone, director of Loyola’s Business Law Center Clinic.

Bernard Beazley said he and his wife endowed the chair in children’s law because they raised nine children, and children are an important part of their lives.

He said his wife has “been lingering on the edge of life and death for months” as she battles Alzheimer’s disease and complications from a couple strokes. He wanted to endow the chair in her name since she’s been so involved with children her whole life.

They donated $5 million in 2006, which resulted in the Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy.

“I’ve always felt a sense of obligation to Loyola, and the law school in particular, because of the educational foundation they provided me after I got out of World War II service,” Beazley said. “That educational base was what made it possible for me to engage in corporate law work.”

John D. Cooney, Robert J. Cooney Jr., and Kevin J. Conway of Cooney & Conway all graduated from Loyola’s law school and wanted to support the school that helped them become lawyers.

“We have always felt that Loyola University’s law school has one of the top trial programs in the United States,” said Kevin Conway. “We all have gone through that program and it’s our intention to assist the law school in an effort to become the premier advocacy center in the United States.

“We think it is our duty to help them because they helped us. I also think it is a good thing to help future students become great advocates.”

Blog — Around the water cooler

Each week we will pose these three questions to different lawyers in the legal community.This week we talk with Matt Miller, who has been practicing since 1996. He is a partner at Much Shelist, and describes his practice as litigation and general business counseling.

What do you find the most interesting about your practice?

The clients. I really enjoy working with clients, and getting to know them and their businesses. As lawyers, we have the unique opportunity to meet people involved in all aspects of business and life, and to learn about their lives and their business ventures.

Every day truly is a school day, and that’s because our clients present us with new and interesting challenges all the time. To me, this is what makes the practice interesting — working closely with and getting to know the people behind the names on a case caption or behind the deals, and identifying and solving their problems. I am fortunate to have a diverse practice that spans litigation and general business counseling, and each client that comes to me for advice has their own issues or goals that they need addressed, and it is the clients and the issues they present that make my practice interesting.

What makes a good lawyer?

There is no one size fits all, that’s for sure. There are a lot of good lawyers, with their own unique talents. There are some obvious qualities that all good lawyers share — honesty and integrity of course come to mind. Less obvious but equally important would be passion and vision.

I think a good lawyer has to be passionate about the law and their clients. As lawyers, we work long and hard hours, and if you are passionate about what you are doing, all of that hard work will translate into good work. I think if you observe other lawyers, you will see that the best lawyers are also the most passionate. A good lawyer also needs vision, and what I mean is that a good lawyer should be able to understand the bigger picture for the client. Instead of simply completing the task at hand, a good lawyer thinks and plans ahead, and gains a broader understanding of the client’s goals and expectations. Understanding that the job of a lawyer is not simply about finishing the next brief or putting together the next contract–that is a hallmark of a good lawyer.

What is the biggest legal news right now, and what is its impact?

In my view, the biggest legal news right now would be the mortgage crisis. I don’t think we have seen the full impact from the mortgage problems, but already there are a tremendous number of foreclosures and it is harder for people to obtain home loans and we’ve all read about the high-profile problems faced by some very well-known companies.

As the problems continue to unfold, lawyers will play an important role in litigating the cases that undoubtedly will be filed, in negotiating and documenting deals to avoid further loan defaults and foreclosures, and, I think, in drafting legislation and changing laws to help prevent a similar meltdown from occurring in the future. I don’t think we yet know the full impact of the mortgage crisis, but it will be profound and it likely will change the mortgage industry.

Blog — Around the water cooler

Each week we will be profiling a legal happening or news in the law community.

Levenfeld Pearlstein announced that James D. Brusslan, head of the firm’s environmental law service group, became the only practicing Illinois lawyer to be accredited by the U.S. Green Building Council as a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP).

The LEED Green Building Rating System is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings.

LEED APs are professionals who demonstrate a thorough understanding of green building practices and principles and a familiarity with LEED requirements, resources and processes. (www.gbci.org and www.usgbc.org)

As an environmental lawyer, Brusslan said he sees it as his duty to give his real estate clients the best information and advice possible about environmental requirements, the advantages of having a green building, and the steps to certification, if that is something they are interested in doing. He wanted to be familiar with what appears to be a standard that many of his construction clients are using.

“If you want to be effective with your clients as a lawyer than you have to understand the industry,” he said.

Brusslan took an 80-question test last week, and found out the same day that he passed. He said the environment has always been important to him. Most people do not realize the effect that buildings have on the environment, he said.

According to the U.S. Green Building Council, in the U.S. alone, buildings account for 65 percent of the electricity consumption, 36 percent of energy use, 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, 30 percent of raw materials use, 30 percent of waste output, and 12 percent of potable water consumption.

“I went to law school for the purpose of doing positive things for the environment,” he said. “I do a lot of work defending the environment. I bring citizens’ suits. I counsel our clients to do the right thing. Now that people are understanding the importance of taking environmental measures, it’s great because I’m helping companies to now do positive things.”

Around the water cooler

Each week I will highlight a different case or legal happening, and solicit your thoughts on the impact of it in the legal community.

 This week we will talk about Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-989.pdf)

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it held that the Federal Arbitration Act precludes a federal court from enforcing the parties’ clearly expressed agreement providing for more expansive judicial review of an arbitration award.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on March 25 regarding this case limits the role of the federal courts in reviewing arbitration awards. The Supreme Court rejected the concept that the parties could, by agreement, have a court rule on an arbitration award outside of what’s allowed in the Federal Arbitration Act.

Rod Heard is a partner at Wildman Harrold who handles commercial litigation and arbitration, and teaches arbitration at DePaul University College of Law and Northwestern University School of Law.

Heard said the Supreme Court has preserved the integrity of the Federal Arbitration Act, and ruled that only Congress may decide how arbitration decisions can be reviewed in federal court. The parties involved in arbitration cannot expand that jurisdiction by agreement, he said.

The Federal Arbitration Act provides expedited judicial review to confirm, vacate or modify judicial review. Grounds for vacating an award include where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means, and where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct or exceeding their powers.

“The notion that arbitration somehow had to be perfect was never part of its attraction,” Heard said. “It was a system that afforded an economical and final decision. And if companies had that kind of matter, that bet-the-company kind of case, they would probably prefer litigation, except in an international context when you don’t have a choice.”

The Supreme Court decision will be very good for arbitration, Heard said. Some parties had woven into contracts the right for appellate review to nullify an arbitration decision, but those companies will either have to revise those contracts or at least know that they are not enforceable, he said.

            “It’s a victory for arbitration as a private process,” Heard said. “The courts are not going to second-guess arbitrators about anything else but those decisions that go to the fundamental fairness of the process … Most companies that liked arbitration liked that it was final. Those that didn’t like it will not be affected. [Their matters] will stay in the court system.”

 What is your take on this case? What impact will this have on arbitration?

« Previous Page