Thursday, June 6, 2013

15 Kinds of Insurance You May Not Need - DailyFinance

see - 15 Kinds of Insurance You May Not Need - DailyFinance


Insurance is not so popular in the PHL unlike in developed countries  like the USA. Nonetheless, the article below will still appeal to Filipino citizens.


"x x x.

I don't mean to make light of insurance, though. Many forms of it are quite critical. If you own a home, you'd better insure it, lest a fire or some other catastrophe destroy it. Cars need to be insured, too, as does our health. For many of us, life insurance, disability insurance, and long-term care insurance also make a lot of sense. But think twice before opting for the following protections:

1. Life insurance. Keep in mind that life insurance is designed to protect an income stream. If you have children or any other people who depend on the income you provide, then it's a smart purchase. But if you're single with no dependents, you probably don't need it. It's generally silly to buy it for children, too, as no one is depending on their income. And when you buy life insurance, term life is usually a better buy than whole life. It covers you for as long as needed, such as until your children grow up. Whole life costs more and adds an "investment" element that you can improve upon on your own, through other, less-costly investments.

2. Accidental-death insurance. If you're worried about dying prematurely, look into term life insurance, which will kick in whether you die by accident or disease. This insurance is costly, especially considering that deaths from accidents are very unlikely.

3. Mortgage life insurance. If you want to ensure that your mortgage will be paid off if you pass away, consider buying or boosting your regular life insurance. It will cost less, and the money will help your survivors pay for other expenses as well.

4. Private mortgage insurance. This is typically required if you buy a home with a down payment that's less than 20% of the home's value. If you can pull together a 20% down payment, do so to avoid this. If you can't, look into alternatives, such as opting to pay a slightly higher interest rate on your mortgage, or using an "80-10-10" strategy, where you take out a regular mortgage for 80% of the home's value, pay 10% down, and also take out a smaller loan for 10% of the home's value. If you're currently paying PMI, monitor your growing equity in your home and be sure to have it removed once your outstanding loan falls below the 80% mark.

5. Flood insurance. If you live in a region susceptible to flooding, then by all means buy this coverage. But if you don't, save your dollars.

6. Credit card loss-prevention insurance.Instead of forking over as much as $180 per year for this, relax, knowing that by law, your losses due to theft are capped at $50 per card.
7. Credit card insurance. This insurance is designed to pay down your credit card debt if you can't do so. But it's likely to only make minimum required payments, and the company will be trying to avoid doing even that. It's much more effective to just pay down your debt on your own, and to keep it under control.

8. Involuntary-unemployment insurance.With our economy still sputtering, this might appeal to many, as it's designed to make minimum payments on your credit card or auto-loan debt if you lose your job. But the money you spend on this could be better spent simply paying down your debt -- and funding an emergency fund. Most of us should maintain such a fund, with enough moola to cover three to six months (or more) of our expenses. Park the money in CDs or money market funds, or some other easily accessible place.

9. Cancer insurance. If cancer or some other disease strikes you, your existing health-care coverage is likely to cover most medical expenses related to cancer. Read up on the details of your coverage before buying any additional disease-specific insurance. Consider it only if the price is right and it covers more than your current policy.

10. Vehicle-collision insurance. This covers the cost of repairing your car if it's in an accident. If your car is old and you can handle buying a new (or used) car should you have to, you may not want to pay for this coverage.

11. Rental-car insurance. This can seem like a handy add-on to your car-insurance policy, but pause a moment to do some math. If it costs you, say, $50 per year, and you end up needing it for five days over a 10-year span, then you will have spent $500 for something that might really cost you just a fraction of that. You'd do far better to just put $50 in an envelope each year, earmarked for rental expenses.

12. Rental-car damage insurance. The rental agency will explain why this is a smart purchase, but do your homework before arriving at the agency. Your regular car-insurance policy might already cover this cost, and some credit cards might cover it as well.

13. Flight insurance. Dying in a plane crash is extremely unlikely. If you're concerned about premature death, look into term life insurance. If you already have a policy, it may well already be covering you against this remote risk.

14. Extended warranties. In many cases, it's worth resisting the salesperson's recommendation to buy these. Most appliances and electronics will not give you trouble, and if you pay to repair those that do, it may still cost you less than buying lots of extended warranties. Consider it only for big-ticket items, where fixing or replacing would be a major hardship.

15. Identity-theft insurance. Identity theft is a real concern these days, but you still might not need this. Your credit card might offer some identity-theft protection features -- call its customer-service number and ask. You can also monitor your own credit record by requesting copies of your credit report from the three major reporting agencies. By law you're entitled to one free review each year.

x x x,"

Recent Republic Acts | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - Republic Acts | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

CATEGORY ARCHIVES: REPUBLIC ACTS

Republic Act No. 10593

Approved on May 29, 2013: An Act amending certain sections of Republic Act No. 8048, entitled “An Act providing for the regulation of the cutting of coconut trees, its replenishment, providing penalties therefor, and for other purposes”.Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10592

Approved on May 29, 2013: An Act amending articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10591

Approved on May 29, 2013: An Act providing for a comprehensive law on firearms and ammunition and providing penalties for violations thereof.Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10590

Approved on May 22, 2013: An Act amending Republic Act No. 9189, entitled “An Act Providing for a System of Overseas Absentee Voting by qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes”. Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10586

Approved on May 27, 2013: An Act penalizing persons driving under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs, and similar substances, and for other purposes. Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10589

Approved on May 27, 2013: An Act declaring December of every year as “Anti-Corruption Month” in the entire country. Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10588

Approved on May 27, 2013: An Act institutionalizing the conduct of the Palarong Pambansa and appropriating funds therefor. Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10587

Approved on May 27, 2013: An Act regulating the practice of environmental planning, repealing for the purpose Presidential Decree Numbered One Thousand Three Hundred and Eight, entitled “Law Regulating the Environmental Planning Profession in the Philippines”, and for other purposes.Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10575

Approved on May 24, 2013: An Act strengthening the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and providing funds therefor. Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

Republic Act No. 10574

Approved on May 24, 2013: An Act allowing the infusion of foreign equity in the capital of rural banks, amending Republic Act No. 7353, otherwise known as “The Rural Bank Act of 1992″, as amended, and for other purposes. Continue reading →
Posted in Legislature, Republic Acts | Comments Off

BIR responds to complaints on new OR regulations | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - BIR responds to complaints on new OR regulations | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines


"x x x.

The full implementation of Revenue Regulation No. 18-2012 requiring the issuance and used of new sets of receipts on July 1, 2013, shall proceed as scheduled. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Kim S. Jacinto-Henares said, “The complaints against the new regulations are without any basis since the tax agency had issued Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 18-2012 last year and published the same in the January 3, 2013 issue of the Manila Bulletin informing everyone that existing receipts will expire on June 30, 2013. We believe that six months is enough preparation for everyone to comply with such requirement.”
RR No. 18-2012, published on January 3, 2013, provides among others that taxpayers must apply for the printing of their new receipts at least 60 days, or April 30, before the expiry of their old receipts on June 30, 2013 and start issuing the same on July 1, 2013.
Commissioner Henares added, “the BIR issued Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 12-2013 on May 2, 2013, to provide for penalties since very few taxpayers were complying with the said regulations.”
The BIR said that taxpayers who apply for authority to print receipts beyond April 30, 2012, shall pay a penalty of P1,000.00. However, those who apply for said authority beyond June 30, 2013 and/or on or before June 30, 2103, but failed to use the new sets of receipts starting July 1, 2013, shall pay the maximum penalty (of P50,000) as provided for in Section 264 of the Tax Code.
The tax agency gave the following rationale for the issuance of the regulations: 1) The BIR’s discovery of businesses registered with the tax agency that are not really engaged in any business except to sell invoices thereby defrauding the government of billions in tax revenues. These businesses sell their invoices to entities, which are either engaged in smuggling and/or purchasing goods without receipts. When BIR looked for these companies, mostly Small and Medium Enterprises, they cannot be found; 2) The BIR’s finding that a lot of invoices that were printed in the ‘70s are still being used and the need to clean these up by providing an expiry period; and 3) The issuances are aimed at reforming the process of accrediting printers to address complaints against some BIR personnel engaged in the printing business who make it difficult for taxpayers to register and/or secure authority to print unless they get to print the receipts of said taxpayers. The regulations disqualify printers with relatives working in the BIR.
x x x."

The Top 10 Tips for a Cost-Effective Legal Department - Practice Tips, Services & Events - In House

see - The Top 10 Tips for a Cost-Effective Legal Department - Practice Tips, Services & Events - In House


This US article is relevant reading for PHL in-house lawyers.


"x x x.

Here are the top ten tips for a cost-effective legal department:
  1. Perform more legal work in-house. A reliable tool to trim the financial fat is to have in-house staff roll up their shirt sleeves a little further up and do the work outside counsel currently manage. Unless you're in the throes of serious litigation or specialized matters, CEB recommends your spending habits hover around 40 percent outside spend/60 percent inside spend. If you want,contract it.
  2. Use non-lawyer professionals more often. Changing protocols can be tricky, but if you currently have a system that makes attorneys perform routine and administrative tasks, you might be wasting time and in turn, money. Streamline processes like contracts by giving more responsibility to non-attorney professionals.
  3. Invest in legal operations capabilities. A legal operations manager oversees budgeting, technology selection, vendor management, and career development. Investing in a talented one can save you big in the long-run.
  4. Invest selectively in legal technologies. Matter management and e-billing technologies are apparently helpful, according to CEB's analysis. Document management solutions, not so much. Use what works, shed what doesn't.
  5. Unbundle legal services. It's becoming popular to pick apart the law firm service bundle on administrative matters. Consider going à la carte on other activities, like M&A due diligence, legal research, and patent filing.
  6. Focus on litigation matter budgeting and oversight. As the largest area of the in-house legal budget, it's crucial to budget for litigation costs and give them close oversight. A surprising number of companies never bother to set a strict budget.
  7. Use smaller law firms more often. Generally, the size of a law firm mirrors its hourly rates. A mid-size or small firm with quality counsel can lighten your wallet without short-changing expertise or quality.
  8. Reduce the number of law firms. Concentrate your costs to your top ten legal work suppliers -- it'll pay off.
  9. Be judicious with alternative fee arrangements. More than having analternative fee arrangement, carefully review how your legal department monitors and administers fee arrangements.
  10. Self-assess -- constantly. Revisit your routine periodically, benchmark your budgets, and slash when needed. Don't get complacent! x x x."

April 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

see - April 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG


"x x x.

Here are selected April 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on civil law:
Civil Code
Contract; Rescission; effect. Rescission entails a mutual restitution of benefits received. An injured party who has chosen rescission is also entitled to the payment of damages. Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. v. Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA); G.R. No. 188633. April 10, 2013
Obligation; Extinguishment of obligations; consignation; when tender of payment not necessary; judicial in character; difference between consignation and tender of payment. Under Article 1256 of the Civil Code, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due, without need of prior tender of payment, when the creditor is absent or unknown, or when he is incapacitated to receive the payment at the time it is due, or when two or more persons claim the same right to collect, or when the title to the obligation has been lost.
Consignation is necessarily judicial. Article 1258 of the Civil Code specifically provides that consignation shall be made by depositing the thing or things due at the disposal of judicialauthority. The said provision clearly precludes consignation in venues other than the courts.
Elsewhere, what may be made is a valid tender of payment, but not consignation. The two, however, must be distinguished.
Tender of payment must be distinguished from consignation. Tender is the antecedent of consignation, that is, an act preparatory to the consignation, which is the principal, and from which are derived the immediate consequences which the debtor desires or seeks to obtain. Tender of payment may be extrajudicial, while consignation is necessarily judicial, and the priority of the first is the attempt to make a private settlement before proceeding to the solemnities of consignation. (8 Manresa 325).
Sps. Cacayorin v. Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.; G.R. No. 171298. April 15, 2013
Property; Ejectment; only issue is who is entitled to physical possession; forcible entry; prior physical possession is vital; judgment conclusive between the parties and their successors-in-interest; effects if prevailing party is a usufructuary; usufruct; death of usufructuary extinguishes usufruct. Ejectment cases – forcible entry and unlawful detainer – are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party’s title to the property is questionable. Thus, “an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property.”
Indeed, possession in ejectment cases “means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.” In a forcible entry case, “prior physical possession is the primary consideration[.]” “A party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.” “[T]he party in peaceable, quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence, or terror.”
The judgment in an ejectment case is conclusive between the parties and their successors-in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action; hence, it is enforceable by or against the heirs of the deceased. This judgment entitles the winning party to: (a) the restitution of the premises, (b) the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, and (c) attorney’s fees and costs.
[T]he right to the usufruct is now rendered moot by the death of Wilfredo since death extinguishes a usufruct under Article 603(1) of the Civil Code. This development deprives the heirs of the usufructuary the right to retain or to reacquire possession of the property even if the ejectment judgment directs its restitution.
Thus, what actually survives under the circumstances is the award of damages, by way of compensation. Rivera-Calingasan v. Rivera; G.R. No. 171555. April 17, 2013
Property; Public property; public plaza forms part of the public dominion; cannot be the object of appropriation, lease, any other contractual undertaking; void contracts.  A pPublic plaza is for public use and therefore forms part of the public dominion. Accordingly, it cannot be the object of appropriation either by the State or by private persons. Nor can it be the subject of lease or any other contractual undertaking. In Villanueva v. Castañeda, Jr., citing Espiritu v. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, the Court pronounced that:
x x x Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties.
In this relation, Article 1409(1) of the Civil Code provides that a contract whose purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy is considered void and as such, creates no rights or obligations or any juridical relations. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayurin; G.R. No. 191667. April 17, 2013
Special Laws
Foreclosure of Mortgage pursuant to P.D. No. 385; when its purpose is served; when hearing is necessary before issuance of writ of possession; foreclosure of mortgage under Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil Procedure; when issuance of writ of possession is not ministerial. Indeed, while the Court had already declared in Philippine National Bank v. Adil that once the property of a debtor is foreclosed and sold to a GFI, it would be mandatory for the court to place the GFI in the possession and control of the property—pursuant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 385 (Requiring Government Financial Institutions to Foreclose Mandatorily All Loans with Arrearages, Including Interest and Charges Amounting to at Least Twenty (20%) of the Total Outstanding Obligation) — this rule should not be construed as absolute or without exception.
The evident purpose underlying P.D. 385 is sufficiently served by allowing foreclosure proceedings initiated by GFIs to continue until a judgment therein becomes final and executory, without a restraining order, temporary or permanent injunction against it being issued. But if a parcel of land is occupied by a party other than the judgment debtor, the proper procedure is for the court to order a hearing to determine the nature of said adverse possession before it issues a writ of possession. This is because a third party, who is not privy to the debtor, is protected by the law. Such third party may be ejected from the premises only after he has been given an opportunity to be heard, to comply with the time honored principle of due process.
In the same vein, under Section 33 of Rule 39 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, the possession of a mortgaged property may be awarded to a purchaser in the extrajudicial foreclosure, unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely vis-à-vis the judgment debtor.
The obligation of a court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale ceases to be ministerial, once it appears that there is a third party who is in possession of the property and is claiming a right adverse to that of the debtor/mortgagor. The Supreme Court explained in Philippine National Bank v. Austria that the foregoing doctrinal pronouncements are not without support in substantive law:
x x x. Notably, the Civil Code protects the actual possessor of a property, to wit:
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
Under the aforequoted provision, one who claims to be the owner of a property possessed by another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term “judicial process” could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reivindicatory action, in which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated.
Royal Savings Bank v. Asia, et al.; G.R. No. 183658. April 10, 2013
Family Code; Declaration of Presumptive Death; judgment is immediately final and executory; proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari filed in the Court of Appeals; decision of Court of Appeals reviewable by the Supreme Court via certiorari under Rule 45. It is improper to avail of an ordinary appeal as a vehicle for questioning a trial court’s decision in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.
As explained in Republic v. Tango, the remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not an ordinary appeal, but a petition for certiorari, to wit:
 By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court’s judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be sure, even if the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then file a petition for review oncertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.
When the OSG filed its notice of appeal under Rule 42, it availed itself of the wrong remedy. As a result, the running of the period for filing of a Petition for Certiorari continued to run and was not tolled. Upon lapse of that period, the Decision of the RTC could no longer be questioned. Republic of the Philippines v. Narceda; G.R. No. 182760. April 10, 2013.
x x x."

JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court upholds Maryland warrantless DNA collection

see - JURIST - Paper Chase: Supreme Court upholds Maryland warrantless DNA collection


This new US SC decision re: DNA tests of persons arrested (not yet convicted) will someday be made a main reference by the PHL SC when the same issue reaches it. Read the article below.



"x x x.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Monday in Maryland v. King [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that police may collect DNA samples from individuals arrested and charged with serious crimes. The respondent in the case, Alonzo King, challenged the validity of Maryland's DNA Collection Act [text, PDF] after state officials used his DNA to implicate him in a later crime. In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the majority found that the warrantless DNA collection does not violate arrestees' Fourth Amendment [text] rights. Kennedy wrote:
In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent’s expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The ruling reverses the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, which had beentemporarily stayed [JURIST reports] by Chief Justice John Roberts last July.

Kennedy's majority opinion was joined by the chief justice and by Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Scalia criticized the court's comparison of DNA collection to other techniques, such as fingerprinting: "The Court's assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State's custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court's comparison of Maryland's DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today’s opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work."

x x x."

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Why law schools should train business developers | International Business Development

see - Why law schools should train business developers | International Business Development


In the PHL, FEU and La Salle have long ago adopted a Law-Business program that earns for the law student a JD degree with an MBA component. In the US, there is a trend to revised law schools curricula along this line.


"x x x.

A new law school curriculum: The hybrid lawyer/business developer
The legal profession today faces an existential crisis requiring informed action.  The circumstances which many law school graduates find themselves in is a result of that crisis.  How the legal profession got here – is less relevant to how it gets out of the crisis.  And to get out of the crisis – law firms need to become more commercially astute not only about how they provide legal services, but also about how they generate new revenue.  Indeed, without revenue – discussion of how to create efficiencies in the delivery of services are irrelevant.  As well, law schools need to change with the times and offer a curriculum reflective of what the market needs while maintaining a commitment to academic rigor.
Law schools, therefore, should adopt a teaching programme aimed at creating a new generation of hybrid lawyers/business developers.  The combination of these abilities would provide the legal profession with a highly sophisticated, institutional sales force capable of generating new revenue at the highest levels of corporations, governments and other prospective clients – throughout the world.   In fact, this is a discipline sophisticated enough to warrant formal acknowledgement and study both within the legal academy and within the practicing profession.
Importantly, this discipline might generate support and assuage concerns among some law school academicians concerned about turning law schools into trade schools.  As well, there is precedent for this sort of academic program in law schools.  Harvard University, for example, offers a joint degree in both law and public policy (JD/MPP).  Indeed, Harvard Law School recently outlined a “bridge seminar for the Harvard joint degree program in law and government—(which) aims to teach students to give advice on issues that have both legal and policy dimensions but also to understand the stakes for the institutions involved.”  At Fordham Law School, Dr. Silvia Hodges already teaches a course on legal marketing.  Therefore, why not take it much further and train new hybrid practitioners who work as specialists in the genuine fusion of a lawyer and business developer?
A law school curriculum proposing to train hybrid lawyers/business developers would include, but not be limited to, the following core skills:
The traditional curriculum:
  • A comprehensive knowledge of law gained from studying the core curriculum currently offered in law schools.
Complimented by a legal business development curriculum, including:
  • How to comprehensively understand the domestic and global commercial context in which law firms operate.
  • How to identify saleable services from within often complex legal practice areas.
  • How to carefully match and integrate closely – law firm services – with the commercial needs of prospective clients.
  • How to identify where law firms will secure new revenue from advancing the commercial objectives of clients.
  • How to perform sophisticated market research sufficient to generate a substantial pipeline of new clients in both domestic and international markets.
  • How to most effectively initiate, manage and drive forward the entire business development process from the identification of ideal potential new clients to securing new client engagements.
  • How to create legal transactions around those ideal commercial opportunities you’ve already identified while working in concert with subject matter practitioners and prospective clients.
  • How to write semi-scholarly content on topics of highly specific relevance to ideal potential clients, for strategic dissemination on and off digital platforms.
  • Comprehensive selling skills training, arming new graduates with an ability to successfully identify and persuasively communicate vital messages to audiences ranging from CEO’s of global corporations to the heads of foreign sovereign governments.
Why institutionalization of the Lawyer/Business Developer would help everyone
  • Law schools would win by offering highly relevant training for a new generation of sophisticated hybrid lawyer/business developers within a new legal services landscape, while continuing to remain relevant and solvent.
  • Law students would win as they would have greater career options relevant to the changing legal profession — as well as more return on investment for the substantial sums they pay to attend law school.
  • Law firms would win as they would find themselves with the opportunity to employ those trained specifically in the most sophisticated methods of business development that would institutionalize practices devoted to generating revenue – the area where law firms most need reform.
x x x."