Susan Hackett, the CEO and CLO of Legal Executive Leadership, summarizes the conclusion of the article:

The article concludes:

So the real trick for a firm isn’t offering discounts on rates, but hitting the reset button: Figuring out what its distinguishing values are, what it does best, and what it can do profitably. “Too many law firms expanded into areas of practice because there were gluts of work in those areas of practice”—like financial services or environmental law—”even if they weren’t necessarily the best provider.”

Lombard & Geliebter has adopted this philosophy since its formation.  We are a boutique firm that focuses on our core competencies, namely, intellectual property.  Additionally, we leverage the latest technology to reduce costs and expenses  for us and our clients. By doing so, we can reduce the time spent on client matters and the time spent on administrative tasks.  Similarly, we encourage our clients to accept most documents digitally.  This reduces the costs associated with copying and printing large documents and reduces client’s expenses for postage.  It is also an environmentally sound practice.  Indeed, some our our clients save thousands of dollars per year by foregoing receipt of non-essential documents by mail.

Lombard & Geliebter prides itself on working with clients to achieve their goals – whether those goals relate to their IP portfolios  or trying to reduce their outside legal costs.

We agree with Ms. Dunn:  The question corporate clients should ask is not “How much of a discount am I getting?”  Rather, the question should be: “Am I getting an excellent value for my money?”

Lombard & Geliebter offers its clients an excellent value for the money.

If you have any questions, you may contact us here.

Congratulations, Matt, on your second article for the site!

“As usual you are the absolute best.  You have such a keen understanding of things.”

K.J.,  New York, NY

[i]f you service your customers the way our interaction went,  I’m sure you are quite successful!

M.T., Stow, OH

Accepted on November 19, 2012, the Protocol will become effective on Mexico on February 19, 2013.

Such take-back programs exist; however, most existing programs are run and paid for by local or other government agencies.

Supporters of the ordinance argue that the industry that profits from the sales of these products should have the financial responsibility for proper management and disposal.  In other words, this law does not really enact new programs.  Rather, it shifts the burden of these programs from taxpayers to the pharmaceutical companies.

The pharma industry counters that the law is unconstitutional.   PhRMA’s general counsel, James Spears, asserts, ““They are telling a company in New Jersey that you have to come in and design and implement and pay for a municipal service in California.  This program is one where the cost is shifted to companies and individuals who are not located in Alameda County and who won’t be served by it.”

Mr. Spears said it would be best left to sanitation departments and law enforcement agencies, which must be involved if narcotics, like pain pills, were to be transported.

Alameda’s ordinance is based in part on on the system in British Columbia and two other Canadian provinces.

This should be an interesting case to watch.  On balance, we suspect the ordinance will ultimately be upheld.  From our perspective, there is really nothing unconstitutional about the law.   If a company based in New Jersey can sell its products in Alameda county there is really no hardship is operated a disposal program there.

The original complaint may be found here.

Today’s timeline shows a sample timeline for a Section 66(A) (Madrid Protocol) application:

For the full-sized version of the flowchart, please click here.  We hope this information is useful.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Today’s timeline shows a sample timeline for a Section 44(e) (Paris Convention) application:

For the full-sized version of the flowchart, please click here.  We hope this information is useful.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Today’s timeline shows a sample timeline for a Section 44(d) (Paris Convention priority) application:

For the full-sized version of the flowchart, please click here.  We hope this information is useful.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Today’s timeline shows a sample timeline for a Section 1(a) use-based application:

For the full-sized version of the flowchart, please click here.  We hope this information is useful.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.