A Texas court Monday set the execution date for Mexican national and Texas prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin for August 5, after the US Supreme Court ruled in March that President George W. Bush did not have the authority to direct state courts to comply with a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) granting new court hearings. The government of Mexico and Medellin's lawyers had requested that the judge hold off on setting an execution date, but Judge Caprice Cosper scheduled the lethal injection after refusing to allow a legal adviser to the Mexican Foreign Secretary to speak before the court.
Medellin, a Mexican national sentenced to death for raping and murdering two teenage girls, had appealed a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals November 2006 ruling that Bush had "exceeded his constitutional authority" by ordering state court rehearings for 51 Mexican nationals, including Medellin, convicted in US courts. The president's February 2005 memorandum instructed the Texas courts to follow a March 2004 ICJ decision that held that Medellin and the other Mexican nationals tried in US courts had been denied their right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to contact the Mexican consulate for legal assistance and that the US was obligated to grant review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences.
Showing posts with label legal news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal news. Show all posts
7.5.08
Tax Payers Challenge $7.4 Billion Prison Bond
The State of California illegally approved issuance of $7.4 billion in "lease-revenue bonds" to build facilities for 53,000 more state and county prisoners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget claims in Superior Court.
Plaintiffs CURB and individual taxpayers claim AB 900, signed into law in 2007, violates the state constitution because it was not approved by voters and is deceptively and illegally described as a revenue bond.
The lawsuit comes as California faces an annual budget deficit of nearly $20 billion. A similar budget deficit led to the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and his replacement by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a defendant in this case.
"Article XVI, Section 1 of the California Constitution requires voter approval for all long-term debts greater than $300,000. However, the state contends that the AB 900 bonds do not require voter approval because they are secured only by 'lease' payments. This lawsuit contends the opposite: namely, that the $7.4 billion in lease-revenue bonds in AB 900 are actual debts that will further impair the credit of the state, and that require voter approval before they can be incurred," the complaint states.
"A revenue bond is backed by the future revenue stream created by a given construction project. For example, a revenue bond allows a cit or the state to build a tool bridge or a convention center and then to repay the debt with user fees generated by the project. ... Prisons, however, do not generate revenue. ... Under the lease-revenue bond transactions at issue here, the state will not receive any funds from the operation of the new prison facilities financed by the bonds, but will instead incur substantial additional costs - in excess of $1.4 billion each year. ...
"In the past, the state itself clearly recognized that bonds used to finance prison construction had to satisfy the constitutional requirement of voter approval. Until 1996, the state routinely used general obligation bonds to finance prisons and submitted proposed prison expansion projects to the voters. However, the last two times that state did so, in 1990 and again in 1996, the voters rejected the prison bonds. The state has not submitted any of its prison expansion plans to the voters since 1996."
Plaintiffs CURB and individual taxpayers claim AB 900, signed into law in 2007, violates the state constitution because it was not approved by voters and is deceptively and illegally described as a revenue bond.
The lawsuit comes as California faces an annual budget deficit of nearly $20 billion. A similar budget deficit led to the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and his replacement by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a defendant in this case.
"Article XVI, Section 1 of the California Constitution requires voter approval for all long-term debts greater than $300,000. However, the state contends that the AB 900 bonds do not require voter approval because they are secured only by 'lease' payments. This lawsuit contends the opposite: namely, that the $7.4 billion in lease-revenue bonds in AB 900 are actual debts that will further impair the credit of the state, and that require voter approval before they can be incurred," the complaint states.
"A revenue bond is backed by the future revenue stream created by a given construction project. For example, a revenue bond allows a cit or the state to build a tool bridge or a convention center and then to repay the debt with user fees generated by the project. ... Prisons, however, do not generate revenue. ... Under the lease-revenue bond transactions at issue here, the state will not receive any funds from the operation of the new prison facilities financed by the bonds, but will instead incur substantial additional costs - in excess of $1.4 billion each year. ...
"In the past, the state itself clearly recognized that bonds used to finance prison construction had to satisfy the constitutional requirement of voter approval. Until 1996, the state routinely used general obligation bonds to finance prisons and submitted proposed prison expansion projects to the voters. However, the last two times that state did so, in 1990 and again in 1996, the voters rejected the prison bonds. The state has not submitted any of its prison expansion plans to the voters since 1996."
31.3.08
The Lateral Partner Power Play
Are law firms spending too much time and money branding the firm? We argue that in the age of the portable professional, strategies for promoting, retaining and attracting lateral partner talent — similar to the investment services model — is the path to long-term success.
How does a firm attract top lateral partners with large portable practices and at the same time retain its rainmakers? The solution is the same for both—demonstrate to potential and existing partners that the firm is focused on their success.
Wall Street clearly gets this. When Goldman Sachs reportedly paid out more than $16.5 billion in bonuses, The New Yorker explained, “talent is the most precious commodity on Wall Street; it’s what they sell, so it’s also what they have to pay for.”
At law firms, like all professional service organizations, talent is everything. But consider the difference in how much firms spend branding the firm versus what they spend branding the powerful business generators that are their individual partners.
Firms with genuine respect for their partners—and clients—never lose sight of the fact that clients hire the lawyers they trust, as opposed to law firms with letterhead they recognize. To this end, firms likely to succeed in today’s fluid market are those that view themselves as “brand marketers” rather than the “brand.”
Think of the way the Coca-Cola Company markets Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, Dasani, or how Apple creates marketing campaigns for iPod, iTunes, and Mac. Just as General Motors bestows a hefty budget to its premier brand, Cadillac, the lateral that has been heavily wooed should expect, upon joining a new firm, to receive marketing dollars devoted to significantly increasing their value during their first year there.
Working with new laterals to develop and implement strategic, sophisticated marketing campaigns enhances their likelihood of success—and sends a clear message to other potential laterals that the firm is dedicated to helping its professionals grow their practices.
Law firms spend millions in branding campaigns in attempts to attract and institutionalize clients. Down the hall, the recruiting department, operating under the assumption that lawyers and their books of business are portable, has little or no marketing support devoted to recruiting partners.
Free agency has created a strong sellers’ market for laterals. Consider that The American Lawyer reported that between October 2005 and October 2006, 2,429 partners changed firms among the AmLaw 200—an average of 12 partners per firm!
This situation exists because clients control the state of play. As long as clients agree, lawyers are free to move as often as they like. To some extent, the legal market has always operated this way. Time and time again, in-house counsel say they hire lawyers not law firms. To avoid this attrition and client instability, firms must recognize where client loyalty lies. The key to obtaining and keeping top clients is keeping their lawyers happy.
When clients say they hire lawyers not firms, we know that practically speaking, what clients really mean is they hire great lawyers who work for “safe” firms. But what makes a firm safe? Safe means a firm with an established reputation for success; a reputation obtained by the results its individual lawyers achieve over time. By devoting marketing dollars to helping laterals solidify and expand their reputations, firms will find that clients come and stay too.
Smart firms should demonstrate to highly sought-after laterals that when they join the firm, an aggressive, sustained, customized marketing campaign will be immediately initiated on their behalf. This is an appealing commitment that’s hard to ignore.
Savvy candidates understand the importance of marketing support, and include marketing expectations in negotiations. They ask questions such as, “how many seminars will you help me produce this year?” And “how will you position my practice in the media?” And, “what will my personal branding budget be?”
Though the acquisition of lateral talent represents a significant investment in time and resources, oddly, many firms fail to engage in much business strategizing at the outset of the recruitment process. Firms frequently do not provide recruiters with enough guidance on the type of candidate likely to add true value to a firm’s current service offering.
In considering potential laterals, firm managers should carefully examine their long-term marketing plans, and identify and select candidates based on these needs. Procter & Gamble would not have purchased Gillette without a strategic marketing plan in place to leverage it. Smart firms ask difficult questions such as: “Where is our practice going, and what talent do we need to make it stronger?” “What will the debt market look like in five years, and who do we need to capitalize on that?” “What business could we get with partner ‘X’ that neither of us can get on our own?”
In an era of free agency, talent is everything. The firms that do the best job of articulating why lateral superstars will fare best with them—and then back up their plans with strategic, focused marketing support, will find they are able to successfully institutionalize the talent they need to attract the clients they want.
How does a firm attract top lateral partners with large portable practices and at the same time retain its rainmakers? The solution is the same for both—demonstrate to potential and existing partners that the firm is focused on their success.
Wall Street clearly gets this. When Goldman Sachs reportedly paid out more than $16.5 billion in bonuses, The New Yorker explained, “talent is the most precious commodity on Wall Street; it’s what they sell, so it’s also what they have to pay for.”
At law firms, like all professional service organizations, talent is everything. But consider the difference in how much firms spend branding the firm versus what they spend branding the powerful business generators that are their individual partners.
Firms with genuine respect for their partners—and clients—never lose sight of the fact that clients hire the lawyers they trust, as opposed to law firms with letterhead they recognize. To this end, firms likely to succeed in today’s fluid market are those that view themselves as “brand marketers” rather than the “brand.”
Think of the way the Coca-Cola Company markets Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, Dasani, or how Apple creates marketing campaigns for iPod, iTunes, and Mac. Just as General Motors bestows a hefty budget to its premier brand, Cadillac, the lateral that has been heavily wooed should expect, upon joining a new firm, to receive marketing dollars devoted to significantly increasing their value during their first year there.
Working with new laterals to develop and implement strategic, sophisticated marketing campaigns enhances their likelihood of success—and sends a clear message to other potential laterals that the firm is dedicated to helping its professionals grow their practices.
Law firms spend millions in branding campaigns in attempts to attract and institutionalize clients. Down the hall, the recruiting department, operating under the assumption that lawyers and their books of business are portable, has little or no marketing support devoted to recruiting partners.
Free agency has created a strong sellers’ market for laterals. Consider that The American Lawyer reported that between October 2005 and October 2006, 2,429 partners changed firms among the AmLaw 200—an average of 12 partners per firm!
This situation exists because clients control the state of play. As long as clients agree, lawyers are free to move as often as they like. To some extent, the legal market has always operated this way. Time and time again, in-house counsel say they hire lawyers not law firms. To avoid this attrition and client instability, firms must recognize where client loyalty lies. The key to obtaining and keeping top clients is keeping their lawyers happy.
When clients say they hire lawyers not firms, we know that practically speaking, what clients really mean is they hire great lawyers who work for “safe” firms. But what makes a firm safe? Safe means a firm with an established reputation for success; a reputation obtained by the results its individual lawyers achieve over time. By devoting marketing dollars to helping laterals solidify and expand their reputations, firms will find that clients come and stay too.
Smart firms should demonstrate to highly sought-after laterals that when they join the firm, an aggressive, sustained, customized marketing campaign will be immediately initiated on their behalf. This is an appealing commitment that’s hard to ignore.
Savvy candidates understand the importance of marketing support, and include marketing expectations in negotiations. They ask questions such as, “how many seminars will you help me produce this year?” And “how will you position my practice in the media?” And, “what will my personal branding budget be?”
Though the acquisition of lateral talent represents a significant investment in time and resources, oddly, many firms fail to engage in much business strategizing at the outset of the recruitment process. Firms frequently do not provide recruiters with enough guidance on the type of candidate likely to add true value to a firm’s current service offering.
In considering potential laterals, firm managers should carefully examine their long-term marketing plans, and identify and select candidates based on these needs. Procter & Gamble would not have purchased Gillette without a strategic marketing plan in place to leverage it. Smart firms ask difficult questions such as: “Where is our practice going, and what talent do we need to make it stronger?” “What will the debt market look like in five years, and who do we need to capitalize on that?” “What business could we get with partner ‘X’ that neither of us can get on our own?”
In an era of free agency, talent is everything. The firms that do the best job of articulating why lateral superstars will fare best with them—and then back up their plans with strategic, focused marketing support, will find they are able to successfully institutionalize the talent they need to attract the clients they want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
