Still at the top: 2008 Chicago Lawyer’s eighth annual survey of Illinois’ largest law firms

At Sidley Austin’s annual meeting this past April, following tradition, the firm handed out clocks - nice, beautiful clocks - to 13 partners who had reached 25 years with the firm. With lawyers becoming free agents in the last couple of decades, partners and associates are moving between firms as frequently as baseball players shift from team to team. It perhaps is instructive that the largest of Chicago’s firms have a foundation in longevity.

The three gentlemen on the cover of this issue are the chairs of three of the four largest firms that have jostled back-and-forth at the top of the heap since Chicago Lawyer started running this survey — Kirkland & Ellis is now the largest, and has been since 2006; but in 2004 and 2005, Sidley Austin was on top; and before that, from 2001 to 2003, Mayer Brown was the largest firm in the state. During all those years, and for at least two decades, all three have been with the same firm, and have risen to the top. Dan K. Webb left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1985 to join Winston & Strawn, where he is now chairman of the firm; James D. Holzhauer, chairman of Mayer Brown, has been with his firm since 1988; and Thomas A. Cole, the chair of Sidley Austin’s executive committee, has been at Sidley his entire career, beginning in 1975.

This year’s survey shows, once again, modest growth among those 113 firms that participated — a little over 5 percent. Among the largest firms — the 37 firms with 100 and more lawyers — the growth was about 1.8 percent. Nineteen firms grew, 17 lost members, and one, Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey, stayed the same.

Those firms with 100 or more lawyers in their Chicago offices with the largest percentage increase were Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which increased from 178 lawyers to 198, an 11 percent increase; Swanson, Martin & Bell grew from 91 to 100, a nearly 10 percent increase; and Vedder Price had 9 percent growth, from 199 to 217.

The firms with the greatest decrease were McGuireWoods, which fell from 149 to 131, a 12 percent drop; Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, which lost 16 lawyers from last year’s total of 197, for an 8 percent loss; and DLA Piper, which dropped from 294 to 217, a little under 8 percent.

The top four firms grew this year: Kirkland & Ellis grew by 5 percent; Sidley Austin by 8 percent; Mayer Brown, with all the turmoil of last year, grew by 3 percent; and Winston & Strawn increased by 5 percent. Jenner & Block, the fifth-largest firm, lost six lawyers, from 386 to 380, about 1.5 percent.

The full survey, which lists the number of lawyers in Illinois and worldwide, is available for download and costs $20.00.

Pro Bono: The summer associate life

By Margaret C. Benson
Chicago Volunteer Legal Services

Aaaaahhhhh, the summer associate life.

They celebrate the Cubs from a Wrigleyville rooftop … and help a mom get guardianship over her disabled 18-year old son. They picnic to the sounds of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at Ravinia … and review a licensing agreement for a struggling musician.

They sip champagne and nibble Brie at a senior partner’s swanky party in Lincoln Park … and file an asylum petition for a young man trying to escape certain death by state police in his native country.

Life as a summer associate is a little bit luxury and a little bit reality.

Summer associates have it made. They are paid well, but not worked too hard. Wined and dined, they spend the summer getting a taste of law firm life and business, before heading back to finish that pesky final year of law school. Their ”taste” of business is just that.

For the most part, they spend time in various departments, sampling an assortment of work. One week they may help a litigation partner draft a discovery request, while the next week they review the safe-harbor provision in a security agreement.

And, they sample pro bono. Most firms control, to a certain extent, what type of pro bono their summer associates are allowed to do, offering them a range of projects with certain select pro bono programs. Despite the limitation, the result is still a veritable smorgasbord of opportunities, from working with a team of lawyers on a single, long-term project, to taking on one or two relatively simple, individual cases.

Check out the websites of Chicago’s prestigious law firms — the ones who hire large numbers of summer associates and wine and dine them to distraction. You’ll see that the firm’s pro bono offerings are front and center, along with promises of significant work, significant fun, and, of course, significant salary.

These firms have discovered that pro bono is important to those best and brightest they want to hire. As a result, they make pro bono a centerpiece of their summer associate programs.

Many firms introduce this work to their summer associate class by hosting pro bono breakfasts, luncheons, or receptions, where program staff make formal presentations or simply mingle and talk about the various projects or cases that they offer. The students are encouraged to ask questions and choose their own work from the proffered options.

Some firms have their summers work together on a single group job, such as court observation and statistical gathering for institutional reform projects, or creating manuals and training on legal issues for high school or other general audiences.

Firms that sponsor legal clinics or projects steer their youngsters to that work, too, although never exclusively. Again, it’s all about giving these kids a taste. Pro bono for summer associates benefits all of the players — the firms, the students and the legal service programs.

The programs get work done, in some cases, work that full-time attorneys won’t do. Let’s call it ‘’spade” work — the turning of earth in preparation for future planting. The students get to contribute to work that many of them went to law school to do — save-the-world work.

Once they graduate and have to start repaying their student loans, world-saving loses priority, so these summer jobs take on added importance. And the firms get to evaluate the work of these potentially future employees in a discreet, effective way that doesn’t impact their clients. It’s a win-win-win for all involved.

Thanks to the Public Interest Law Initiative’s (PILI) Graduate Fellowship Program, nearly two-dozen law firms contribute to the summer pro bono scene in another, noteworthy way.

While many firms pay newly hired law graduates a stipend to spend the summer preparing for the bar exam, participating firms pay these students additional money to work for area legal aid and pro bono organizations. These PILI fellows work part-time for five weeks before the bar exam, full-time for the next five weeks, then have a month to relax, travel, and enjoy life before beginning their new careers and, in many cases, not seeing the light of day for several years.

Most PILI fellows love their legal services work and believe that it helped, not hindered their bar exam preparation. The fellowship kept them engaged in interesting, compelling work, and kept them away from friends and colleagues who were freaking out. It also made most of them true converts to pro bono. Although eager to begin their law firm careers, many were reluctant to leave behind the meaningful work they were allowed to handle in their legal aid offices, and took it with them, to complete — pro bono — in their new jobs.

There’s a reason Chicago law firms are offering extensive pro bono opportunities to their summer associates. It’s good for business. And that is good for our profession.

Firm Life

Seven former partners of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell have formed a new law firm, Hinkhouse Williams Walsh, specializing in complex litigation and arbitrations on behalf of the insurance industry. The managing partner of the new firm is Joseph A. Hinkhouse; the other partners are John T. Williams, Patrick T. Walsh, Scott R. Ostericher, Richard O. McDermott, Laura S. McKay, and Sarah H. Dearing.

Lindsay & Rappaport has changed its name to Lindsay, Rappaport & Postel to reflect the elevation of Joseph P. Postel to name partner. David L. Grobart, Yvette Flores, and D. Chad Mihevc have formed Grobart, Flores & Mihevc, in Deerfield.

Cuisinier, Farahvar & Benson, a full-service litigation firm, opened in April at 120 N. LaSalle St.

Thomas C. Cronin, formerly of Cummins & Cronin, has opened a new law firm under the name of Cronin & Co. at 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4800. He will continue to practice commercial, class-action, and personal-injury litigation.

Wessels & Pautsch has changed its name to Wessels, Pautsch & Sherman, to reflect the recognition of senior shareholder James B. Sherman.

Vedder Price has formed a subprime lending and mortgage task force to help clients with investigations and lawsuits that may arise from the contraction of the mortgage and credit markets.

Nixon Peabody has announced the opening of its Shanghai office. It is the firm’s first office in Asia. The firm opened an office in London in 2007.

Ungaretti & Harris has opened an office in Grand Rapids, Mich. The office is managed by Joseph L. Voss.

Nanette R. Elster, a partner at Spence & Elster, has been named director of The Health Law Institute at DePaul University College of Law.

Thomas E. Chomicz, a partner at Quarles & Brady, has been reelected as board chair of St. Xavier University.

Louis G. Apostol, a partner in Apostol & Kowal, and a commissioner to the Illinois Court of Claims, has been elected president of the Hellenic Foundation.

Tara R. Devine, an associate at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, was selected to serve on the Board of Directors for the Illinois Women’s Chamber of Commerce.

Joseph P. Switzer, a partner at Swanson, Martin & Bell, has become a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Lawrence I. Richman, a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, has been elected a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.

Terrence J. Lavin of Lavin Law Offices has been inducted into the International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Jonathan Vegosen, a partner at Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn, has been appointed a director-at-large to the board of the USTA Tennis & Education Foundation.

James D. Brusslan, of counsel at Levenfeld Pearlstein, has become the only practicing Illinois attorney accredited by the U.S. Green Building Council as a LEED AP (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional).

Frederick H. Cohen, a principal at Goldberg Kohn, was appointed to the board of the Public Interest Law Initiative.

Jeffrey M. Dalebroux has been elected to serve a second term on Dykema’s executive board, and Michael C. Borders, the partner in charge of the firm’s Chicago office for the last four years, has been appointed to the executive committee.

Wildman Harrold has appointed Kenneth E. Bedno as chief financial officer. Bedno was previously the firm’s finance director.

> Partners

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has named two new partners in the firm’s Chicago office: David F. Levy, tax, and Patrick J. Nash Jr., corporate restructuring.

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell has appointed partner Jon Biasetti as co-chair of the firm’s insurance practice group. And Daniel Schlessinger, a former managing partner and chair of the Chicago office, has been named to the firm’s executive committee.

McAndrews, Held & Malloy has promoted five attorneys to partner: Oggie Beremski, Merle S. Elliott, Consuelo Garcia Erwin, Christopher M. Scharff, and Philip H. Sheridan. The firm has also elevated five attorneys to its board of directors: Christopher V. Carani, Sandra A. Frantzen, Wilhelm L. Rao, Ronald H. Spuhler, and John A. Wiberg.

Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey has elevated Christopher G. Buenik, construction and personal-injury litigation; Ronitha D. Maharaj, tort litigation; and W. Grant Farrar, construction and personal-injury litigation; to partner.

Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen announced that four attorneys have become partners with the firm: Tamara K. Hackmann (Urbana office); Douglas R. Heise and Michael D. Schag (Edwardsville office); and Drew M. Schilling (Rockford office).

> In-House

Dean A. Frankel has been promoted to vice president and general counsel at Relational Technology Solutions in Rolling Meadows.

To Chicago Investment Group: general counsel and chief regulatory officer Howard J. Rosenburg, from DLA Piper.

> Moves

To Dewey & LeBoeuf: partner Mark R. Goodman, insurance transactional, from Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell.

To Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor: new associate Brett A. Harvey, labor and employment.

To Grippo & Elden: new associate Pei Yuan Chung, commercial litigation.

To Reed Smith: partner Arnold E. Grant, tax, benefits, and wealth planning, from McGuireWoods.

To Holland & Knight: senior counsel Bryan T.D. Jung, financial services and structured finance and securitization, from Foley & Lardner.

To SmithAmundsen: partners Robert E. Lessman, construction; and Joshua E. Hornaday (Waukegan office), family law, from Nadler, Pritikin & Mirabelli.

To Tabet DiVito & Rothstein: partner Christopher D. Liguori, litigation, from Jenner & Block.

To Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart: Thomas E. Deer, shareholder, labor and employment, from Locke Reynolds in Indianapolis; new associate Steven R. Schinderle, benefits; and of counsel Logan A. Hollobaugh, construction law.

To Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney: associates Natacha D. Von Will, commercial, construction, and environmental, from Stone & Moore; and Troy S. Radunsky, commercial, construction, and insurance, from SmithAmundsen.

To McGuireWoods: associates Adrienne L. Walker Porter, tax and employee benefits, from the Center for Conflict Resolution; and Jason S. Greis, health care, from Seyfarth Shaw.

To Loeb & Loeb: partners Jeremy D. Margolis and Robert M. Andalman, litigation, from Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

To Chuhak & Tecson: partner Bruce W. Craig, banking law, creditors’ rights, and commercial real estate, from Banco Popular North America, where he was in-house counsel.

To Schiff Hardin: associate Kathryn McCullough Long, environmental, from Balber Pickard Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, in New York City.

To Anderson, Rasor & Partners: partner Karie J. Valentino, medical malpractice defense, from Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey.

To Drinker Biddle & Reath: counsel Charles D. Katz, tax, from Duane Morris.

To Kirkland & Ellis: partners Bruce L. Gelman, real estate and tax planning; Thomas A. Geraghty, corporate tax; and Joshua P. Hanna, real estate; all are from Mayer Brown.

To Greenberg Traurig: shareholders Miriam G. Bahcall and Steven M. Malina, and associate Beth A. Black, all in litigation, and all are from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; and of counsel Chad D. Striker, corporate and securities.

To Reed Smith: partner Arnold E. Grant, tax, benefits, and wealth planning, from McGuireWoods.

To Perkins Coie: associates Brian A. Audette and Eric E. Walker, both in bankruptcy and workouts, and both from DLA Piper.

To Arnstein & Lehr: partner Justin L. Weisberg and associate W. Matthew Bryant, both in construction, and both from BryceDowney.

To Chapman and Cutler: partner Jeffrey I. Langer, banking, from Dreher Langer & Tomkies (Columbus, Ohio).

To Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen: of counsel William J. Charnock, civil rights and commercial litigation, from the Office of Kanawha County (W. Va.) Prosecuting Attorney, where he was the elected prosecuting attorney; and John P. Heil Jr., complex civil litigation, from the Cook County state’s attorney’s office; and new associates Jesse A. Placher, general tort litigation (Peoria); Christopher T. Polillo, civil litigation (Springfield); Brian M. Smith, civil litigation (Urbana); and Gary C. Pinter, general tort litigation (Edwardsville).

To Handler, Thayer & Duggan: senior counsel Gloria L. Materre, commercial practice, from Materre & Associates; associate Brian P. Tsu, tax, from PricewaterhouseCoopers; and new associates Izabela Czajkowska, tax; and Alexander I. Hock, commercial practice.

To Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal: partner Corinne Pavlis Carr, insurance regulatory, from Duane Morris.

To Shefsky & Froelich: shareholder Mark J. Nora, real estate, from Holland & Knight.

To Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell: partners Robert M. Stephenson, white-collar practice, from Foley & Lardner; and David W. Wirt, bankruptcy, from Winston & Strawn.

To Levin & Schreder: partner William R. Franzen, private client and estate planning, from McDermott Will & Emery; and associate Rick Y. Gelboim, private client practice, from Jenner & Block.

To Stahl Cowen Crowley Addis: associate Jeremy P. Kreger, litigation.

To Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus: shareholder Fredric J. Entin, health care, from Foley & Lardner.

To Leydig, Voit & Mayer: new associates Alice C. Su, patent litigation in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals; and Elias P. Soupos, prosecution of patents in the mechanical, electromechanical, and software arts.

To Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione: scientific advisor Liuchun Yang, chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology arts, from SynChem, Inc., where she was a project coordinator.

To Welsh & Katz: principal Edward J. Chalfie, patent and trademark protection, from Ladas & Parry.

To Karbal, Cohen, Economou, Silk & Dunne: partner Edward Fitzsimmons Dunne, commercial and construction litigation, from Crisham & Kubes.

> Changes

Ralph E. Brown, a Chicago attorney who most recently was a shareholder and of counsel at Schuyler Roche, died in April, at age 79.

Walter Durley Boyle, a Hennepin attorney who was still practicing last year at age 94 as of counsel at Boyle & Bolin, died April 13.

Thomas F. Carmody, presiding judge, 5th Municipal District in Bridgeview, died of an apparent heart attack April 22, at age 56.

Diversity in Practice: Presumption of gender neutrality

By Arin N. Reeves, J.D., Ph.D.
The Athens Group

My daughter, a preschooler and an avid basketball fan, asked me recently why there are no ”girl basketball players” on the Chicago Bulls. After I explained that the NBA had basketball teams with men and the WNBA had basketball teams with women, she asked why the NBA wasn’t called the MNBA because it was only for men.

At an ABA meeting around the same time, I overheard a male law firm partner jokingly ask a female law firm partner who had just spoken on women’s initiatives if he needed a men’s initiative to advocate for his interests. The woman, not so jokingly, retorted that he did indeed have several ”men’s initiatives” advocating for his interest — the executive committee and the overall partnership at his law firm. The National Basketball Association enjoys the privilege of being gender-neutral in name even though half the national population is excluded from any opportunity of participation. Similarly, executive committees in law firms, even if they are comprised of only men, are afforded the neutrality of representing the interests of all the men and women in the firm.

In other words, the power of gender privilege is the power to opt out of having a gender.

Although women have constituted about 50 percent of law school classes for almost two decades, men currently make up 80 to 95 percent of law firm partnerships. Even in firms with above-average (roughly 18 percent) representations of women in partnerships, men are still the overwhelming majority in equity partnership and leadership positions within law firms.

Gender initiatives in law firms signal two implicit realities: We talk about gender when we are talking about women; and, gender initiatives are necessary because gender-neutral initiatives primarily advantage men. If we want to increase gender equity in law firms, should diversity and inclusion efforts work to de-gender women or re-gender men?

Young boys and girls quickly learn that the NBA is not only just for men, it is also the standard by which basketball is objectively measured. The WNBA, by default, becomes a derivative of the NBA, a deviation from the presumed gender-neutral, objective standard of excellence. Women, who excel in the WNBA, by definition, become female basketball stars, while the men in the NBA are simply basketball stars. Female lawyers in law firms just as quickly learn that they are going to be judged by male standards of competence, excellence, and commitment, even though the standards are presented under the neutral banner of ”law firm culture.” Women who excel in law firms become superstar female lawyers or great female partners; their male counterparts simply become superstars or great partners.

I am not suggesting that there cannot be objective standards of competence, excellence, and commitment that are truly gender-neutral. Most law firms, however, have not yet differentiated between the ways in which the predominant male voices have interpreted these concepts from the objective possibilities that these concepts hold.

For example, a study by Debra Meyerson and Joyce Fletcher (Harvard Business Review, 2000) found that ”discrimination against women lingers in common work practices and cultural norms that appear unbiased. Consider how managers have tried to — assimilate women into the workplace by teaching them to act like men — [or] accommodated women through special policies and benefits — [E]ach of those approaches proffers solutions for the symptoms, not the sources, of gender inequity.”

Diversity initiatives that do not challenge the source of inequity — the presumption of gender neutrality in standards created primarily by men — preserve a status quo that cannot lead to inclusion. In this scenario, only women who can most convincingly meet the male standards find that success is attainable, but that success is often attained at the high personal cost of sacrificing personal identity for professional success. Only a few are willing to do this, which is perhaps why, in spite of 15 years of women’s initiatives in law firms, gender diversity has increased only marginally, especially at the partnership levels.

Women’s initiatives only treat the symptoms of inequity, not the source. They sometimes even exacerbate the inequity by focusing solely on issues such as work-life balance, which only partially impact women’s lack of parity in law firms. Treating the source requires that we challenge the gender-neutrality of key success criteria and the models of evaluation by which we determine that success. We have to either call the current standards ”male standards” or we have to reframe the corrective efforts as gender-neutral efforts to change the workplace itself.

Diversity requires us to see women as different than but equal to men — in law, and even in basketball.

Perhaps, the NBA will one day live up to being a truly national association and make the need for the WNBA obsolete. If not, maybe it will consider changing its name to the MNBA so that parents who cannot deliver a world with gender equity to their daughters will at least be able to give better answers to questions about gender inequity.

Closing Argument: The economic side of the practice

By Tyrone C. Fahner
Mayer Brown

Today, whether you practice in a big firm or small firm or are a solo practitioner, the practice of law has changed and will continue to change dramatically. Almost all of the change tests the bond between lawyer and client and is driven by economics.

For example, economic forces make more difficult the recruitment, promotion, and retention of the very best associates and partners. Each law firm hiring cycle brings an announcement that starting salaries for brand-new associates have risen once again. This causes an upward spiral of salaries for each more senior associate class. The financial impact on firm partners is negative unless associate and partner rates are increased in a corresponding fashion.

It does not sit well with clients when law firms and legal publications trumpet the high level of associate salaries, which exceed those of judges of the federal court; and average profits-per-partner of a firm, which often exceed the compensation of a general counsel or many of the clients’ more highly paid managers. The sum of these circumstances does little to strengthen the bond between client and counsel.

On the other side of the equation, general counsels are under immense pressure to reduce the amount of company resources consumed by litigation and related legal expenses. As a result, our clients insist that we manage relationships with them as part of their business, and not simply as a cost of doing business that adversely impacts their bottom line.

The pressure to reduce fees has been felt for several years. The extent to which institutional clients are willing to part ways for discount fee arrangements, even at the expense of the deep knowledge lawyers hold of the company’s business and place within an industry, is relatively new. Many general counsels are seeking to practice law in a new way, altering the traditional relationship between company and counsel. They are looking for firms that will embrace an approach of legal service delivery in a partnership focused on business objectives as well as legal objectives. The success of such an approach depends on law firms and counsel who understand the idea of operating as a single integrated team with in-house counsel.

While most of us like to believe that we are indispensable to the success of our clients, and in some cases we are, in-house counsel will frequently point out that the profession abounds with great lawyers who have successfully tried complex bet-the-farm cases to judges and juries.

In their eyes, the same is true for firms and lawyers who have managed multibillion-dollar mergers and financings.

So, the issue becomes how to distinguish yourself and your firm from any other good law firm. How do you achieve being viewed as a colleague, as part of a team, as a problem-solver, as opposed to a necessary but unwanted expense?

To earn or retain a client you must make clear to them that you fully understand both the business and the place of the company within its given industry.

You must demonstrate the skill to give them necessary representation at the least expense. They will want your best attorneys and transparent and appropriate levels of staffing.

Clients will no longer pay for the training of a firm’s associates (as in second-chairing a deposition or observing and taking notes at a court hearing). Clients will not pay associate rates for paralegal work; and they will not pay paralegal rates if the work may be outsourced. This structure is becoming the norm in big cases requiring extensive discovery and production of electronic and hard copy materials.

Simply put, most clients of any size or business want matters handled as quickly and as well as possible for as little cost as possible. An inability to fulfill this expectation puts important and long-standing profitable client relationships at risk.

One of the ways in which general counsels achieve reduction in their overall legal budget is through convergence of their legal services. This means that companies who may have as many as 40 law firms working for them nationally or worldwide will put out a Request for Proposal to each law firm with the stated intention of reducing the number of law firms in use and the total spend for outside legal services.

The law firms then compete with each other in terms of rates, the provision of free legal education for in-house lawyers, arranging alternative fees, instituting success fees, sharing risks, and similar arrangements. It has become the norm for clients to ask for a detailed analysis of costs, a monthly or quarterly budget, and an explanation when the budget for a project is over or under estimates. Clients do not like surprises, and so, predictability is almost as important as cost.

All of this points to the fact that lawyers and law firms, whether large or small, must sell more than their legal skills as productive partners to financially awake clients. We must be creative and resourceful to obtain and keep clients. The challenge will be to get the right economic balance in the relationship between lawyer and client.

Clifford’s Notes: Too close for comfort

By Robert A. Clifford
Clifford Law Offices

The airline industry is in a lot of trouble. Headlines in major publications across the country report massive flight cancellations, potential corporate mergers, and small airlines shutting down or filing for bankruptcy.

Passengers around the world were affected by the recent action of the Federal Aviation Administration that grounded hundreds of flights due to electrical wiring problems. And just when we thought the issues were being addressed, there comes word that the FAA covered up near-collisions in Dallas, reclassifying air traffic control mistakes instead as pilot errors or non-events. Mistakes made by controllers are required to be immediately reported so they can be entered in an agency database where they are used to identify emerging safety problems and to prevent future mistakes.

By the time this column goes to press, who knows what other calamities will be uncovered in what has been called a ”culture of complacency and cover-up” by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigating agency responsible for protecting whistle-blowers.

In fact, Special Counsel Scott Bloch, from that office, said, ”This culture did not develop on its own. I believe it happened with the complicity of higher management and could not have been possible without the support of leadership in Washington.”

It took two anonymous whistle-blowing federal safety inspectors who accused the FAA of ignoring maintenance and inspection problems at Southwest Airlines.

Aside from the record $10.2 million fine, it tipped off a congressional investigation into the workings of the FAA and, finally, a realization that the FAA simply hasn’t been doing its job.

What a sorry state the FAA is in.

Created by Congress ”to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world,” the FAA’s website talks about being ”accountable” and ”responsive to our customers.” Its customers, though, are not the flying public. They are considered to be the airlines. Criticism has recently surfaced about the FAA being too cozy with the very entities they are to regulate.

And the relationship gets even cozier when one sees the very people regulating the airlines have been executives at the company or lobbyists in the industry, and vice versa. For example, the FAA proudly lists the previous achievements of its top management, a virtual who’s who from the airline industry: FAA Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment comes from American Airlines; FAA Chief Financial Officer held CFO and vice president positions for Pan American World Airways, Tower Air, and Trans World Airlines; FAA Chief Operating Office for Air Traffic Organization held senior management positions for nearly 30 years at United Airlines, and the list goes on.

The coziness has paid off for the airlines, from the multibillion-dollar government bailouts to broad deregulation, not to mention FAA managers ignoring or covering up safety violations. This is an industry that needs more scrutiny, not people turning their heads.

And the FAA isn’t the only governmental entity accused of such incestuousness. The Food and Drug Administration has been cited for its tight relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Late last year, it was reported that the chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission had been flown to various events paid for by toy, appliance, and children’s furniture industries — the very groups his governmental entity was supposed to be regulating.

This has got to stop.

I can understand that people may not want to work forever in a government job, but there has to be some sort of moratorium so that a person can’t leave one job where they are following safety directives and the next day they are issuing directives to the same people they just worked with — not when it involves the safety of the public and tax dollars that pay these salaries. The Senate is now considering a proposal to mandate a two-year cooling-off period for inspectors who leave the FAA to work for the airlines, as part of a funding bill for the agency.

An oversight commission could create ethics guidelines for the government and linked industries so that it enhances the health and safety of Americans. It then can examine the job seekers’ backgrounds as they jump from one ship to another to determine if a potential conflict of interest or compromising of interests could potentially occur, and try to prohibit government officials from regulating their former employees. Also, the investigation continues into alleged cover-ups and the FAA’s overhauling its identification and classification of air traffic controllers’ errors.

These important agencies were created to be watchdogs of the safety and health of the American people. We count on them to do the right thing even, as the FAA claims, ”when no one is looking.”

Travelers will have a chance to express their concerns about the problems in the air industry at a June 24 public meeting at the Marriott Hotel on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, hosted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Although aviation security and safety issues will not be addressed, this Aviation Consumer Forum is meant to help educate air travelers about their rights and responsibilities. It may not be much, but at least it’s a start.

3L and the City: A review of bar reviews

By Maria Vasos
Chicago-Kent College of Law

The academic year is now over and those of us who have graduated are starting the daunting task of preparing for the bar exam. Almost as daunting a task is finding the bar preparation course that meets your needs.

There is a virtual cornucopia of companies that purport to have the ”key” to bar passage, at a variety of price ranges. On May 27 in Chicago, and June 2 in surrounding areas, BarBri, the big kahuna, got underway with its course schedule. It consists of roughly seven weeks of daily lectures in both video and live format. And there are podcast upgrades, essay help, and other perks that you can add to your basic course package.

BarBri books contain subject outlines and practice exams. I am told that the books alone make BarBri worth its $2,500 fee. I hope this proves to be true because I have joined the BarBri masses. In one advertisement, BarBri boasts that 80,000 Illinois lawyers have used it. This is compelling because I learned that the bar exam is scored against the other test-takers.

Say, for example, that a huge percentage of the test-takers marked C as the correct answer for number one, but the examiners had the correct answer as B.

If enough people marked C, then according to the examiners, obviously there is something wrong with that question, so that question would be either thrown out or credit would be given for both answers. Theoretically, if someone could orchestrate a gigantic coup, wherein all of the test-takers would mark C for every question, everyone would be guaranteed to pass and no one would have to stress about it.

Similarly, I was told by a Kaplan PMBR associate that ”Some 70 to 80 percent of students now take the Kaplan PMBR class as practice for that multi-state section.”

Kaplan PMBR, which is now cooperating with LexisNexis, offers a six-day foundational course and a three-day final review course, which flanks BarBri before and after, for a price tag that ranges from $500 (for the three-day course) to $1,100 for the full deal. Nonetheless, I decided not to sign up for Kaplan PMBR.

I have also decided not to sign up for courses by PassYourBar.com, from the Reed Law Group.

However, PassYourBar does seem to have an extraordinarily high bar passage rate. Ninety-seven percent bar passage is the rate for those who have had their one-on-one tutoring and 92 to 93 percent bar passage for those who have had their small class instruction. But, high odds of passage do not come for free. The one-on-one tutoring will set you back about $14,000. A slightly more practical option is the small class instruction, which costs $4,595.

What does seem to be successful — and very reasonably priced — is AdaptiBar, for which I have signed up. AdaptiBar is online, but is different from a review course or tutorial. It is a web-based program that helps you practice skills for MBE test-taking. For example, it will give you a question and four possible answers. It times your answer, as well as gives you feedback on whether or not you got it right and how you can do better in the future.

On the website, the sample is shown: ”Your answer is wrong. The correct answer is D. You answered in 1 minute 13 seconds. If you had spent an additional 24 seconds reviewing the question and answers, then based on your prior performance, your chances of answering the question correctly would have increased by 55 percent.” Finally, it explains the correct answer in detail.

But one of the best features is that the software adapts to what you actually need, hence the name: Adaptibar. If you are answering all of the negligence questions correctly, it will stop asking you those questions and, instead, focus more on your weaker areas, say, strict liability.

Adaptibar focuses on efficiency in studying and efficiency in test-taking. The cost of Adaptibar is less than $400 and they will give you 105 percent of your money back, if you complete the program and don’t pass the first time. Not a bad bang for your buck.

Finally, MicroMash MBE Review seems similar to Adaptibar in that it tests your strengths and weaknesses, but it is a software program that you download instead of an Internet-based program. They also offer topical outlines and test-taking strategies at an additional cost. There are three package levels that range from $500 to $1,000. MicroMash also has a money-back guarantee, but you have to remember to upload all of your MicroMash test results to their website by the Friday immediately following the administration of the bar exam, or you won’t qualify for the guarantee three months down the road when you get your bar results back and find out to your dismay that you actually do need a refund.

All of these courses and programs have their positive and negative aspects. What may work for some, may not work for others. I suggest that you research them all as I have done, (they each have a website and information online), and pick what suits your needs best. Good luck!

Climbing the Ladder: Mastering the chess game

By Shermin Kruse
Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg

”Shermin,” he said, ”I want you to figure out how to win this case, develop the strategy, then come and talk to me about it.”

The words that every young attorney wants to hear. The words that say you have reached that time and place in your career when the partners expect you not only to ”run” the cases day-to-day, but also to develop and participate in making strategy-related decisions.

For me, this has been, without doubt, a very exciting new development, one for which I have been properly trained and groomed since my first day at BFKN, and one that will train me for the next phase of my career: partnership.

Nevertheless, the minute I heard those words the room began to fill with the aroma of nervous energy.

Figure out how to win this case? Weren’t we just starting to get into the discovery phase? Wasn’t it too early to figure out how to win the entire case (versus just the immediately pending motions)? And anyway, how does one win cases? What does it even mean to ”win”? Is there an answer? And if so, just exactly how does he expect me, a mere associate, to figure this out?

Though I had always been trained to step back from the smaller, immediate tasks to understand how they fit into the larger puzzle, now I was being asked to take part in figuring out the shape and color of the puzzle itself; like the difference between being a key piece in a chess game and being the player herself.

Even though the air in his office was insisting on thinning itself out and my stomach was stubbornly turning and twisting itself in knots, the partner’s vote of confidence was an energy rush, and I was not about to let him down. So I have, over the years, developed a process for thinking about my cases as the player whose goal is to be able to utter ”checkmate” with as few moves as possible.

I typically begin by mapping out the case in the form of a Venn diagram. I write out all of the issues and put circles around them. I list the legal elements for each issue in its circle, and then jot down the specific facts that must be shown for my client to win on that issue. Using the position and overlap of the circles, I indicate the relationship between the issues — which relate to one another, which are conditions precedent to another, which are more significant, which comprise smaller sub-issues that feed into larger circles, and so on.

I also rate the issues on the basis of their significance to my overall goals. This process permits me to determine which issues are essential to ensuring victory for the client, which then requires me to determine what ”victory” means for that particular client. (A favorable settlement? Victory on a specific counterclaim? Defeating the other party’s case in chief?)

It also enables me to evaluate my case realistically and to make decisions that are strategically aligned not only with my goals, but also my capabilities.

If there is an important issue with proof elements that look impossible to meet, for instance, I try to think of creative (and ethical) solutions to going around it. I brainstorm for other Venn diagram formulations; research the possibility of rendering the issue irrelevant through a motion, or figure out how to strengthen my position on the other issues that may convince the fact-finder to de-emphasize the weaker issues (or result in a more favorable settlement).

Thanks in large part to the training and trust that I receive from my mentors and colleagues; my Venn diagram is now how I approach every new case.

This is not some foolproof formula to winning all cases.

Nevertheless, it, or any other analytical thought process similar to it, is a worthwhile endeavor.

Indeed, from the first moment I began asking the question, ”How do we win?”, I realized that the mere exercise of figuring it out improved the way I approached every aspect of the case.

So I strongly encourage you to engage in this kind of analysis, even if you are very young or just beginning your career. And, as you do, always remain mindful of the fact that the diagram, your analysis of the case, will and should change quite a lot during the course of the case.

As the facts reveal themselves through discovery, proof elements and requirements narrow through motions that are won or lost, and new issues and possibilities not previously considered begin to present themselves, the entire landscape of the puzzle shifts and molds, and you have to be willing to shift with it.

If you are anything like me, the nervous energy will inspire you, excite you for your cases, make tiresome discovery disputes more bearable, and provide you with a new perspective and more complete understanding of what it really is to litigate.

And frankly, little else is more professionally rewarding than finding yourself saying, with a thoughtful satisfaction and mental smile, ”checkmate!”

Q & A: Victor P. Henderson

Victor P. Henderson

Age: 46

Family: Single father of two boys, Jack, 12, and Spencer, 8.

Education: A 1983 graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and a 1988 graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center. He became a CPA in 1985.

Professional: A commercial trial lawyer at Holland & Knight, who also handles pro bono criminal defense trials. He is also president of The Chicago Bar Association.

1. Why did you become a lawyer?
I think as best I can recall for two reasons. One, my father pushed me toward it. And actually what happened is, I went to Penn Wharton as an undergrad. I knew when I went to Penn that I wanted to become a CPA. Some time during my time at Wharton my father encouraged me to also look at becoming a lawyer. Being the son I was, I was discouraged because my father was pushing it. But I wound up taking the LSAT and I knew I was going to be a CPA.

So I was working for Coopers & Lybrand in Philadelphia and I met this guy who I thought was absolutely brilliant and I will never forget his name, Marty Satinsky. He was a CPA and a lawyer. That cemented my desire to go to law school and I never looked back.

I think it’s a tremendous combination to be both a CPA and a lawyer. It makes me understand the financial side of the business, I think, in a way that people who don’t have a business background aren’t able to, especially with the increasing importance of money and business and the law.

2. What is the strangest thing that ever happened to you as a lawyer?
I do pro bono work with the federal defender program, and we were in a magistrate’s courtroom. I like to dress, so I was very well-dressed and I went and sat in the front row where lawyers normally sit. It was a small courtroom and it was relatively packed. So, I didn’t know who they were at the time, but there were two U.S. marshals, one in particular who was telling me that I needed to get up out of the row for attorneys because I wasn’t allowed to sit there.

Court was in session and the guy was kind of motioning to me quietly that, ”You can’t be here.” The bottom line was, it turned out that whoever it was apparently didn’t think that I was a lawyer and maybe was of the impression that I might have been a drug dealer, because the judge was sentencing some drug dealers. I found it highly offensive. And of course I’m originally from New York, and I was about two seconds away from trying to knock the guy’s head off when a colleague of mine kind of intervened and told me that this particular U.S. marshal was just a jerk.

3. What is the last big deal or case you worked on that you can discuss, and what did it entail?
Within the last couple months I had a huge, significant temporary restraining order that was heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County that affected the health care for tens of thousands of people … The significance of what we do as lawyers and what I do as a lawyer really comes home, because the lives of real people were impacted by this dispute between the client I represented and another large institution …

When you have a case that involves the lives of real people who are following the case in the newspaper, it’s both an honor and a privilege to be involved with something so significant. And, by the same token, it’s very sobering, because you realize that you have to do the best you can do and bring all the resources that you have to bear to persuade the court to rule in your favor.

4. If you could have lunch with anyone, living or dead, who would it be and why?
I guess simultaneously my mother and Jesus.

I lost my mom a few years back, but she was and continues to be my primary inspiration and role model for what a good person is. My mother was kind, had a world-view, considerate, an eternal optimist, a firm believer in God and Jesus, a social worker by training, and believed that our existence here is to try to do well by others, which is, of course, the example Jesus set as a living, breathing human being … It would have to be the two of them so I could try to get more insight, I guess, into how I could continue to maximize my usefulness, as well as successfully maneuver the challenges that we face during our time here.

5. What advice do you have for new lawyers or those wanting to become lawyers?
Work hard, be optimistic, and persevere. Also, remember that Chicago is a small town and that, over time, you will start to encounter your colleagues a second and third time in unforeseen venues. And so, the people that you are nice to, when they can’t do anything for you, will remember that; and the people that you are mean to along the road will remember that as well. So it behooves you to do your best to be honest and be a person of integrity and be straightforward, but not necessarily a saint, per se, because none of us are perfect.

6. What do you like the most and least about being a lawyer?
I think the capacity to succeed is limitless, so, in that sense, the opportunity for me, for example, to try to be like a Judge Pincham, Jim Montgomery, or Bob Clifford is exciting and inspiring. Whether I make it there or not is another issue, but just the fact that there is still so much room to grow is personally and professionally exhilarating and kind of overwhelming and daunting at the same time.

But what I like least about the profession is, I think we’ve become a little too inwardly focused on ourselves and miss far too many opportunities to do well for other people. I don’t think that lawyers engage in enough pro bono work … I think it takes a lot of courage, especially for lawyers in large law firms and other institutions where dollars count, as they should, but I think it takes a lot of courage, foresight, and fortitude to try to do for others besides yourself.

I don’t think that we do enough of it, probably because maybe the people who set the tone in the profession, they focus on the wrong things, so lawyers, therefore, sometimes have this sheep or herd mentality. And we don’t focus on the things that we need to.

7. If you didn’t become a lawyer, what career would you have chosen?
I’d be a single bartender in Jamaica.

—Interviewed by Olivia Clarke

Taking the reins

By Maria Kantzavelos

While some lawyers will hit the links to blow off steam after a long day at the office, or they’ll turn a golf course outing into an opportunity to connect with clients, Yvonne C. Ocrant makes it her practice to saddle up for some quality time with a trusty companion.

A horse enthusiast since she was bitten by the ”horse-love bug” as a 7-year-old, when she first took to the back of a Thoroughbred, Ocrant, a transaction and litigation attorney, makes the commute after almost every workday from the Chicago office of Hinshaw & Culbertson, to a barn in Elgin.

There, the law firm partner leaves her briefcase behind and picks up her bridle.

”My opinion has always been, it’s cheaper than therapy,” Ocrant said recently from outside the stables where she had finished bathing 11-year-old Otis, one of her horses, and where four-year-old Sam, her other Thoroughbred chomped on hay.

”When work gets stressful or a case just wears me down, there’s nothing like coming out to the barn and petting your horse,” Ocrant said. ”Even if I don’t ride — just coming out here, smelling the horses, petting them, even if I’m cleaning something — just being here calms my nerves.

”Whether horses know it or not, they do that to us. They call it a ‘kind eye.’ You look at a horse’s eye — it’s a soothing sense.”

For Ocrant, an avid equestrian who competes in eventing, which includes the three disciplines of dressage, cross-country, and stadium jumping — horseback riding is an outlet like no other.

”People say, ‘Why don’t you just take up a sport or go running to burn off stress?’ If I have quiet time, I’m still running stresses through my head. I can’t let it go. Yoga and running — it just doesn’t clear my head,” Ocrant said. ”But when you’re on a 1,500-pound animal with a brain of its own, you’d better be focused on that horse. I can’t be thinking about work, and the stresses just naturally fall off because I’m focused on him.”

Ocrant’s time with her horses is not only a stress release. Nor is it her hobby, she said.

”A hobby to me is, you can do it one day and then decide not to do it — you put the tennis racket or the golf clubs back in the closet. You don’t have to feed it, it doesn’t need to be warmed-up, it never gets hurt, you can always replace it,” Ocrant said. ”With the horses, you have to dedicate your time, your money, your blood, your sweat to making it safe and fun for you and your horse.

”I know I get a little crazy about it, but it’s a passion.”

At 34, Ocrant has converted that passion into a unique law practice that has taken off in recent years, since she carved out her own niche in the area of equine law.

As Hinshaw’s only equine lawyer — and one of the few lawyers in Illinois who identify themselves as such — Ocrant’s clients include horse owners, breeders, boarding facilities, trainers, farriers, veterinarians, hooved-animal humane societies, non-profit therapeutic riding centers, and agricultural business insurance providers.

As a litigator of equine cases, she deals with such legal issues as personal injury, property damage, breach of contract, and fraud.

Her transaction work in the area includes drafting agreements for equine purchases, sales, and leases, as well as boarding contracts, and trainer commission agreements. She also creates equine activity liability releases and disclaimers for boarding and training facilities, trainers, and other entities associated with activities involving horses.

Ocrant — who also practices in the areas of employment law and title insurance law — joined Hinshaw in 1999, after graduating from DePaul University College of Law.

In 2001 she began to carve out her niche in equine law, which has grown into a lucrative area that makes up about 40 percent of her overall law practice, she said.

”Without it, I’d be looking for more employment-related work or title insurance work,” Ocrant said. ”It’s significant enough now that I would have a big void in my practice if I didn’t have it.

”The equine industry is a $9 billion industry. When you think about an attorney trying to find a niche, well, a $9 billion industry is a pretty good market,” Ocrant said. ”As it turns out, I’ve got enough business in Illinois, but I am licensed in Wisconsin and in the federal courts of Indiana.

”And with Hinshaw having 25 offices, I can represent clients crossing state lines anywhere. Illinois has plenty of equine work, but to have the flexibility to practice in other states is a selling point for me.”

Building momentum

Ocrant acknowledged that her idea to start a Chicago-based practice with horses as its focal point was met with some skepticism when she first mentioned it to her senior colleagues at the firm.

”They had no idea what it meant,” she said. ”They thought I was playing with horses again — that’s about all they understood.”

Nevertheless, Ocrant said, ”they respected the fact that I was trying to start something new. Whether it took off or not, that was my problem. But they were willing to give me a chance.”

« Previous Page — Next Page »