What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
Foley & Lardner seeks approval to open an office in Shanghai
Foley & Lardner, LLP, has applied to the Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China for approval to set up a representative office in Shanghai.
If approved, the firm will concentrate on its nationally recognized intellectual property and dispute resolution practice. It is likely to provide the firm with an advantage over other U.S. law firms which have also recently opened representative offices in China.
The Shanghai presence will enable Foley & Lardner to serve the firm's U.S., Asian, and European clients in areas such as life sciences, manufacturing, automotive, and high-technology.
IP expert Catherine Sun, who has joined Foley & Lardner's China office as a partner, will head the firm's Asia practice. Prior to joining Foley & Lardner, Sun led Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP's IP practice in China.
The Shanghai office will be Foley & Lardner's second Asian unit, having established one in Tokyo in 2003.
Edmister, who is a Harvard Law School graduate, will join the firm's Tokyo office. He has worked on large deals in Japan, including handling global equity offerings. Edmister also has wide-ranging experience in M&A, joint ventures, and private equity. Prior to this appointment, he was with Sullivan & Cromwell for eight years, five of which were spent in Tokyo.
The appointment reflects Milbank's position in the capital markets in Japan. The 140-year-old firm has had offices in Asia for 30 years with nearly 40 lawyers who are qualified to practice both New York and English law.
Milbank is headquartered in New York and has offices in other cities, including Washington, DC, and London. It provides legal solutions to a diverse clientele including multinational enterprises, governments, and individuals. Transactional and litigation services offered by the firm include corporate finance and acquisition finance, proxy battles, intellectual property, and white collar crime.
Sidley Austin currently has five offices in the Asia Pacific region. These are in Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Singapore. The Sydney office will be the firm's 16th global office.
Hot Pants!! Daniel come to Judgment?
Attorney Roy L. Pearson, Jr., is demanding his neighborhood drycleaner pay $65 million as compensation for his misplaced pants. And no, the pants in question are not diamond-studded!
The story: Pearson, now an administrative judge, asked his neighborhood drycleaner, Custom Cleaners, to alter the size of his pants in 2005 and paid $10.50 for its service. But when he went to pick them up, the pants were missing. The Judge saw red and demanded $1,150 for a new suit. But, later as anger spread, Pearson turned down three more offers from the dry cleaner to settle for $3,000, for $4,600, and for $12,000. At the time, the drycleaner also had two signs posted: "Satisfaction Guaranteed," and "Same Day Service." Pearson got neither. Therefore, he claimed, these are fraudulent and thus amounted to "negligence and a scam." Finally, he SUED the drycleaner with a whale of a lawsuit comprising of 2,000 pages, 1,000 hours of labor in 24 months for $65 million.
Pearson's case is based on the District's consumer protection law which provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. And his calculator started seeing figures escalate beyond capacity. Pearson multiplied 12 violations over 1,200 days, and its value by three defendants. He added another $15,000 to enable him rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another drycleaner. He also added some more for mental agony and harassment. The bill equaled $65,462,500. Impressive! Even an earlier brush with Pearson in 2002 cost drycleaner another $150 for another misplaced pant. Pearson continued to use its services, though asked then, not to. In the meantime, DC Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz has reprimanded Pearson about his "take-no-prisoners tactics." But, Pearson continues relentlessly.
LawCrossing has the most listings of any job board I have used. It's actually a great site. The website had a lot of detail. It’s nice that you don't have to go through a recruiter if you don't want to. You can actually contact the law firm directly for the positions listed. LawCrossing had a ton of great features.