The ABA Journal reports that a partner at Husch Blackwell in Madison, Wisconsin, has left the law firm after receiving a reprimand for allegedly punching a bar manager and driving while intoxicated.

The firm announced that Jeffrey McIntyre had withdrawn from the firm in wake of the state supreme court’s reprimand. “Obviously, our firm does not condone or tolerate his behavior,” the firm said in a statement.

The reprimand cites an incident that happened in the early-morning hours of Christmas 2017, in which a manager of a bar in Madison told police that McIntyre was with two women who were not happy that the bar was closing. The manager said the situation escalated, with McIntyre punching him in the nose.

McIntyre also pleaded guilty to a driving while intoxicated charge in 2018.

Read the ABA Journal‘s article.

Former federal prosecutor Roscoe C. Howard Jr. has been named the new managing partner of Barnes & Thornburg’s Washington, D.C., office where he has practiced since 2015, effective July 1. Howard, who will oversee the office’s strategic growth and management, succeeds Karen McGee, who will retire on July 31. He is the firm’s first African- American office managing partner.

Howard served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 2001-2004, by appointment of President George W. Bush. As Washington, D.C.’s chief federal prosecutor, he was responsible for the handling of all serious local crimes, as well as all federal offenses in the nation’s capital. Howard previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office, and he also had subsequent stints as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, as well as twice serving in the former Office of Independent Counsel.

Inn a release, the firm said Howard joined Barnes & Thornburg in 2015 and focuses his practice on white collar criminal matters, complex litigation, and corporate compliance and ethics issues. Last year, Howard was appointed by the U.S. Department of Commerce to serve as the Special Compliance Coordinator for Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China, and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (collectively, ZTE).

Above the Law reports that Baker McKenzie has eliminated 46 staff positions — all in the London office in professional and business roles — and another 33 jobs are still at risk as part of a firm-wide assessment.

The firm’s review covers 97 positions.

“Eighteen employees in those positions resigned, and 46 have been eliminated so far (15 were identified as redundant, while there remain 31 cut altogether),” writes Above the Law senior editor Kathryn Rubino.

Read the Above the Law article.

The relationship between Microsoft Corp. and Integreon Inc. has grown dramatically since the software giant took a chance on the nascent alternative legal service industry a decade ago, but there’s disagreement about whether such a model will take off widely enough to truly disrupt law firms, reports Bloomberg Law.

“What started in 2009 as a seven-member group of Integreon lawyers and paralegals in North Dakota handling small, English-language procurement contracts for Microsoft has expanded to a team of more than 80 based in offices across the continents who review 20,000 contracts a year in 15 languages,” writes Bloomberg’s Roy Strom.

It’s still an open question whether enough corporate clients will push the envelope far enough to dramatically alter law firms’ business outlook, adds Strom.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Google announced a “site diversity change,” creating a window of opportunity for smaller law firms that have struggled to claim space on the first page of search engine results, according to Bruce Vincent of Muse Communications.

“This is not particularly good news for many law firms that have dominated the first page of results for certain topics,” he writes. “However, it presents a welcome scenario for smaller firm websites that contain solid information but never seem to be able to climb above the second or third page of search results.”

He explains that firms will need to provide quality information and good search engine optimization to be able to take advantage of Google’s change.

Read the article.

A former partner at Jones Day’s Silicon Valley office who accused the law firm of forcing her out after she raised concerns about its “boys’ club” culture has dropped her lawsuit in exchange for a return of capital she put into the firm, reports Bloomberg Law.

“Wendy Moore’s suit claimed the firm’s leadership retaliated against her after she voiced misgivings about its culture, pay transparency, and treatment of female attorneys,” writes Bloomberg’s Mike Leonard. “The complaint described Jones Day as a ‘fraternity’ where women are marginalized and objectified while male lawyers attend business meetings at strip clubs and sporting events.”

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Failed law firm Sedgwick asked a California bankruptcy judge to approve a nearly $1.6 million claw-back settlement with 45 former partners who received equity payouts as the San Francisco-based firm slowly failed throughout 2017, reports Bloomberg Law.

The firm also said there may be viable breach of fiduciary duty claims against other ex-partners who are not part of the proposed settlement, according to Bloomberg’s Roy Strom.

“The partial compromise comes more than eight months after Sedgwick filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and a year-and-a-half after the 85-year-old firm ceased operations. The firm said confirmation of the deal could lead to the end of its bankruptcy case,” Strom writes.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Lowenstein Sandler announced that three professionals have joined the firm’s senior management team. Victor Barkalov has joined the firm as its chief innovation & information officer (CIIO), Kevin Iredell is the firm’s new chief marketing officer (CMO), and Mikhail Makarovsky is the firm’s first director of pricing & profitability.

In a release, the firm said Victor Barkalov’s newly expanded role of CIIO was created to increase synergies between knowledge management and IT. He will oversee Lowenstein’s technology, data security, knowledge management, and legal research strategy and execution, in addition to driving innovation throughout the firm’s practices and offices.

Barkalov joins the firm from Jackson Lewis P.C., where he was CIO & chief digital officer. He holds an M.B.A. from Columbia Business School and a B.S. in Information Systems, Mathematics, and Operations from New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business.

The firm said Kevin Iredell brings to the role of CMO a background in marketing, communications, branding, business development, operations, and public relations.

Formerly the director of business development at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Iredell previously developed and led the marketing research and measurement group of Greentarget, a national public relations firm. For nine years, he was vice president of legal intelligence & marketing at ALM Media Properties, LLC. Iredell has a B.A. in economics from Villanova University and is an active speaker and board member of the Legal Marketing Association, where he has served as an executive board member for the Northeast Region and member-at-large on the International Board of Directors.

The firm said Mikhail Makarovsky joined the firm earlier this spring as director of pricing & profitability, partnering with firm leadership, practice group leaders, and the business development team to design and implement strategies aimed at ensuring the effective and profitable delivery of legal services to clients through creative pricing partnerships, process improvement, and legal project management.

Makarovsky has more than 15 years of experience in pricing, business management, and billing for law firms, working to develop efficient pricing proposals, collaborate with clients, and create appropriate and competitive rates and fixed-fee scenarios for RFP submissions and other prospective client outreach. He previously served as director of pricing at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. An accredited legal pricing professional (ALPP), Makarovsky is a member of the True Value Partnering Institute’s Pricing and Client Value in the Legal Industry cohort.

A new book by Andrea S. Kramer and Alton B. Harris takes a look at the notion about “mean girls,” “queen bees,” and women’s competitiveness with each other in office settings.

Amy Boardman Hunt of Muse Communications interviews Kramer about “It’s Not You, It’s the Workplace: Women’s Conflict at Work and the Bias that Built It,” and the conclusion that there is no empirical evidence that women have more intense or frequent conflicts in working with other women than men do in working with other men or that women and men do in working together.

“The enduring notion that women are mean to—or hostile or antagonistic or competitive with—other women, can be explained, in part, by the fact that women often hold other women to higher interpersonal behavioral standards than men do,” Kramer, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery,  says in the interview.

Read the article.

By Josh Taylor, Smokeball

Insufficient data security practices lead to devastating consequences for small law firms. Breaches can inflict irreversible damage to a firm’s reputation, finances and client relationships. So why aren’t they taking cybersecurity seriously?

A recent American Bar Association survey uncovered this lack of concern, finding that only 42% of firms took action to increase digital security measures last year. Of these, 27% did so to better protect client or contract data. While lawyers spend their time looking out for clients’ risks and liabilities, the data suggests this diligence doesn’t extend to internal matters.

Exactis’ 2018 data leak shows how small business security lapses balloon into a much larger crisis. This breach exposed the personal information of over 230 million people and 110 million businesses, demonstrating that even smaller-scale businesses store massive amounts of sensitive data and face a constant threat as their data pool grows.

While small law firms may not have a long roster of big-name clients, they store a significant amount of personal details and business information. Clients trust them to protect sensitive business information like proprietary data, financial details and confidential deals. Leaks and breaches have severe ramifications, causing clients to walk out, IT headaches, financial worries and regulatory violations.

An accident or technical error may have created the breach, but innocent causes don’t render firms immune from serious business consequences. Each law office is responsible for preventing and quickly responding to leaks or attacks. Technical aspects of cybersecurity may overwhelm some small firms, but improving data protection and online safety practices doesn’t have to be complicated. Law firms bolstering digital security can start by keeping in mind a few simple tips:

Make Security People Powered

Small law firms don’t often face the organized cyber threats that plague larger organizations. Their risks tend to lie within the firm itself, stemming from workers that lack the technological savvy to sidestep malicious schemes. Ransomware and phishing scams rely on human error, and untrained employees open the door for them to poach important private records.

Implementing regular training for all employees assists organizations in avoiding personnel-caused breaches. This way, staff stay updated on how best to protect themselves and the firm from nefarious email schemes and other tactics cybercriminals use to siphon off personal data. Additionally, law offices should cultivate channels for quick information distribution to allow employees to respond quickly during data leaks. Training programs may increase costs and responsibilities up front, but pay off later on by warding off detrimental security issues.

Invest In Updated Tech

The phrase “small law office” doesn’t typically conjure up images of futuristic operations and state-of-the-art technology. But more than hurting firms’ reputations, this digital sluggishness produces security risks. Offices running on inconsistent operating systems, outdated software and unsecured Wi-Fi networks take on a higher vulnerability. Fortunately, these technology issues are easily fixed. Scheduling regular hardware and software updates and frequently changing the internet password helps fortify firms’ defenses.

Though it may seem obvious, it’s worth noting the large role passwords play in ensuring smaller firms’ security. One weak link opens the floodgates to your entire database of client information. Keep login information for sensitive data on a need-to-know basis, and consider using a password manager for all employees. Frequently changing passwords, though a small step, provides another line of protection against cyber threats.

Reduce In-Office Risks

Traditional, lock-and-key security is an easy concept to grasp, but digital security is a hazier concept. Fortunately for firms not familiar with technology-driven data protection, the two share some common ground.

Some believe that on-site servers make data safer, but this is a misconception. Seeing storage equipment physically in the office may be reassuring, but centralizing this information just compounds the risk. For example, burglars breaking into a small law firm could then take much more than basic office hardware. Backing up and housing data in the cloud lowers this hazard for organizations, removing important data from the risks inherent in physical spaces.

Another seemingly innocuous practice that poses security issues is carelessness with paper documents. More firms are adopting digital document software, but paper remains popular at many small firms. These documents also expose confidential information if left in plain view or accidentally included in social media photos. Just like with digital risks, reminding employees of security best practices helps suppress future issues.

Just like any business entrusted with sensitive data, law firms must commit to shielding themselves and clients from data breaches. Leaks at small offices quickly expand into a big problem. As data storage demands continue growing, firms can introduce simple technology and security improvements that protect client information and preserve their reputation.

A few Biglaw firms raised starting salaries for first-year associates to $190,000 last June, but a study by the National Association for Law Placement reveals that most firms held to a more modest course on starting salaries in 2018.

Above the Law reports on the NALP study, which found that only 29.3 percent of reported first-year associate salaries hit the $190,000 mark. Smaller firms and firms with head counts between 501 and 700 didn’t budge and reported flat associate salary growth in 2018, writes Above the Law senior editor Kathryn Rubino.

Most of the top first-year salaries were at firms in the major markets.

Read the Above the Law article.

Jones Day is objecting to the use of pseudonyms for four of the six plaintiffs who have sued the Biglaw firm for allegedly discriminating against female partners and associates in compensation.

Above the Law reports that the firm told the judge hearing some of the cases that “the court’s approval of the pseudonyms itself impugns Jones Day’s reputation by implying, without basis in evidence, that Jones Day would improperly retaliate against the Jane Does if their identities were made public.”

The firm’s motion said that “pseudonyms prevent the public—including clients, potential clients, lateral recruits, and law students—from fully evaluating the Does’ allegations and credibility.”

Read the Above the Law article.

Proposals to allow the use of trade names in law firm advertising drew a big response to proposals by the State Bar of Texas to change ad rules, writes Bruce Vincent in a blog post for Muse Communications.

Response to the ad proposal and other possible revisions led the State Bar of Texas’ Committee on Rules and Referenda to scrap the original proposal and issue a new one based on the committee’s work and public comments.

“Several attorneys supported the idea of using trade names but most people who weighed in say it is a bad idea,” Vincent writes. “Those in favor typically argued that they were put at a competitive disadvantage by not being allowed to use trade names. Those on the other side often went to great lengths to explain why they think trade names will hurt the profession.”

The Bar also drew responses on the “specialist” label in advertising and on the requirement to have lawyer websites preapproved by the Bar — for a fee.

Read the article.

Attorneys argued for more than three hours Tuesday over whether a judge should approve the $2.2 billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit over SCE&G’s failed nuclear plant construction project and the nine electric rate hikes that paid for it, reports the Durham Herald Sun.

The main point of contention was whether the 13 law firms that fought SCE&G for months before negotiating the settlement should earn $64 million in fees — money that could otherwise add to the cash refunds and rate credits going to the Cayce-based utility’s customers, writes the herald Sun‘s Avery G. Wilks.

A lawyer for the 13 law firms told the judge they took a tremendous risk in suing SCE&G. Facing long odds and high-powered defense lawyers, they spent 15 months, 26,000 hours and $865,000 building their case with star witnesses and crucial documents, he said.

Read the Herald Sun article.

Bloomberg Law reports that two women among a group of female associates accusing Morrison & Foerster LLP of pregnancy discrimination must replead some or all of their claims, a federal judge ruled.

One of the plaintiffs was too late with her claims under federal and District of Columbia law, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said. And another plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to support her argument that a release she signed was unduly influenced by the dire economic situation caused by her termination, the court said.

The women are part of a proposed nationwide class action filed in April 2018.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

Bloomberg Law reports that the former chair of Dentons government contracts practice group claims that the firm owes her more than $390,000, but the firm has fired back, saying she owes the firm almost $2 million in client fees.

Jessica Abrahams, now at Drinker Biddle & Reath, claims Dentons breached a contract that guaranteed she’d have the funds in her capital account returned to her if she left the firm.

Dentons responded in a statement that when Abrahams left, “Dentons was owed more than $1.8 million from her clients and those fees and costs largely remain outstanding today.”

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

By Greg Hoover

What value does an in-house legal department bring to the company? We are the lawyers that know our clients best. We understand the business at a fundamental level and understand how the legal environment affects operations. Often, we also serve as the buyer of outside legal services, ensuring that the company receives value for money. To outside counsel, we are something of a professional client; one that makes our living hiring other lawyers, managing the attorneys so selected, and expressing the wishes of the company. The tools and resources we use to get our jobs done are, for the most part, invisible to our clients so long as we remain the primary gatekeeper.

Just as technology has introduced a number of new tools to make us more efficient, new models like online freelance attorney marketplaces have opened up a world of opportunity, which in some cases can give the tried and true firm model a run for its money.

When to Stick with Status Quo Firm Relationships

Most in-house legal departments do not rely on a single attorney or firm to provide all of their outside services. After all, it is highly unlikely that the best attorneys in each jurisdiction and practice area needed by the company work for the same firm. Instead, we assemble a team of lawyers from our contacts. This generally yields better results for our client in terms of cost, effectiveness, and conflicts management. After all, the best employment discrimination litigator in the city is probably not the best patent attorney.

In some cases, sticking with this status quo model of retaining outside help is the prudent route to take. Those instances include:

1. If you, as the in-house lawyer, are unable to manage the freelance attorney. Some in-house lawyers are skilled managers of attorneys and support staff; some are not. Managing outside counsel, whether a firm or a freelancer, is a skill that some in-house lawyers never pick up. If you would rather not review the pleadings and just trust the relationship partner to get it right, then maybe hiring a freelancer isn’t for you. On the other hand, if you will be reviewing the work before anything is set in stone, and you track deadlines and know how to set expectations, then managing a freelancer will come naturally to you.

2. When defining the scope of a complex engagement presents a challenge, breaking out the Rolodex of known firm attorneys makes sense. In these cases, an issue comes up and the initial goal of the general counsel is simply to mitigate damage. The in-house department may not know enough about the issue to even frame the issue and define a successful outcome for the company. However, most of us are capable of doing a little research and at least getting a general idea of the type of attorney to hire and making a first pass at issue-spotting a fact pattern. If you can do that much, you can probably frame the issue sufficiently to at least get a memo from a freelance attorney outlining next steps. Then you can make the decision to parse out another piece of the case to a freelancer, expand the scope of your original freelancer, or, when necessary, hire a firm for a more full-scope representation.

When and How to Use Online Freelance Attorneys

Before we get into the when and how of using freelance attorneys, let’s pause and consider whether this new contract attorney model is really different than the tried-and-true firm model. Aren’t freelance attorneys signed to projects for specific matters really just outside counsel in all but the name? What separates the senior associate at Dewey, Cheetam, and Howe, LLP from the contract attorney available for hire on a freelance network? Or, perhaps the more pertinent question is: what separates the contract attorney Dewey, Cheetam, and Howe would have hired from the one available on one of these online marketplaces? The pool of attorneys interested in working as contract attorneys used to vary significantly by location and practice area. There are large pools of SEC attorneys in New York City; not so many in Minneapolis. With the advent of the internet and some relatively recent ethics opinions, most attorneys can now work as contract attorneys in most locations. The pool of contract attorneys available to the big firm in another city is now available to the in-house lawyer via the internet.

For smaller in-house legal teams, hiring and managing contract attorneys through online freelance marketplaces provides speed, control and affordability that cannot be achieved hiring outside counsel at a law firm. For example, many law firm malpractice policies require that a partner be assigned to a case, even if all of the work will be done by an associate who is perfectly competent to do the work. This not only adds time for the partner to review the work, but also the overhead to pay for the partner’s time. Suddenly, a 2-hour task becomes a 4-billable-hour exercise, when the in-house counsel would have probably been satisfied with the first draft! To compound matters, without a preexisting relationship, in-house counsel usually do not get to select the associate or associates assigned to their matter. This means that they will get whomever is available, even if another associate could have done the task for less money. If the firm is especially busy or the work is in a niche area of the law, the law firm is likely to hire contract attorneys anyway, and add their markup. All of this adds up to a bigger bill and less control for the client.

However, unlike the execution of a project with a contract attorney, which depends less on the direct involvement of the hiring in-house counsel, the freelance attorney model requires involvement and supervision from in-house counsel. Online platforms help by automating communication flows, and more sophisticated ones like LAWCLERK have the ability to create “Teams” of subject matter experts like a virtual Rolodex. Another benefit is the flexibility to scale up and down as projects ebb and flow.

Getting started is easy. Although each online freelance marketplace will vary slightly, I’m most familiar with LAWCLERK so this process is based on my own experience.

1. Scope the Project: To begin, define the project and deliverable that you want from a contract attorney. Remember, the contract attorney doesn’t know more about the case than you tell them. For example, let’s say you represent a Nevada corporation that does business nationwide. You learn that a company in Georgia is soliciting your customers with the assistance of one of your former employees. The employee signed a nondisclosure agreement when he began working for you, but it is not clear if it is enforceable across the country or even applicable in this situation. You want a memo on the causes of action that may be available to you in Nevada or Georgia.

2. Set a Price and Post It: Now that you know what you want to receive, it is time to decide a price. Understand that freelance attorneys are running their own firms and have overhead expenses and downtime like every firm. They aren’t paralegals receiving a salary whether they’re working or not or receiving benefits from a benevolent third party. The freelancer might not have hard office expenses or staff, but there are things like office equipment, insurance, and bar memberships to pay for. Those are real costs and must be compensated for. An under-priced research memo might be the most expensive advice you ever get. Price the work in line with what you know the project will take to complete. Once you develop a relationship with a few contract attorneys, you can poll them in advance regarding pricing.

When posting a project, the posting attorney sets a fixed price for the delivery of the project and a due date. Contract attorneys hired through the platform agree to perform the work described for a fixed fee only, so there are no surprise bills for the hiring attorney. Then, the money is deposited with the online platform provider and the project is posted. Attorneys with expertise in the relevant area of the law receive an alert informing them that a project matching their interests is available. They are then directed to the platform to submit their name and a short message expressing their interest. After the application period expires, the posting attorney selects the contract attorney they think will best accomplish the task and ask them to clear conflicts. After reviewing the relevant rules of professional conduct and the parties, the contract attorney accepts the case and receives access to the case documents uploaded to the platform.

3. Completion of the Project and Payment: Once the project is accepted, the attorneys can message each other through a portal within the platform. When the project is completed, the contract attorney will send the deliverable to the hiring attorney through the portal. The hiring attorney will then have 96 hours to approve or reject the deliverable and can be unilaterally extended for another 96 hours if needed. If the hiring attorney does nothing, the project is automatically approved at the expiration of the review period. A day or two after the deliverable is approved, the contract attorney is paid. No invoices to review, no check requests to write, no W-9 to chase. Under current law, the corporation does not need to issue a 1099-MISC to the contract attorney, as they are paid through a third-party payment platform. If the contract attorney exceeds the threshold to require tax documents (presently $20,000 per year), then the payment platform is responsible for that filing.

4. Managing Disputes: By now, you’re probably wondering what happens when you aren’t satisfied with the contract attorney’s work. With LAWCLERK, the platform will hold the funds pending resolution and serve as the arbitrator of the issue. This provides a degree of expediency and detached judgment often not available in disputes with outside firms.

5. Rinse and Repeat: Once you have received the deliverable and the contract attorney is paid, you can create another post for the next steps, be it a demand letter, pleading, or more research. You can direct a project to particular contract attorney before posting it to the community writ large. Another convenient feature of the platform is the ability to form teams with which you can build a rapport and direct work when you need someone who understands your preferences in a way that is only learned through repeat work.

I am not here to advocate replacing your entire outside counsel network with freelance attorneys. I am suggesting that it is a good substitute for matters which are well-defined and which might be handled more cost effectively outside the traditional law firm model. After all, the job of a general counsel is to ensure the legal needs of the corporation are met, and it is incumbent upon each of us to be good stewards of the shareholders’ money.

About the Author: Greg Hoover is the in-house counsel to a small division of a Fortune 100 company. His work focuses on general business law, government contracts, international sales of goods, and export controls.

Chambers and Partners, a research and analytics firm for the legal profession, published its Chambers USA 2019 rankings of the top lawyers and law firms across the United States.

In a release, the company said the Chambers USA 2019 guide provides insight into the U.S. legal market based on its researchers’ interviews with industry thought leaders and consumers of legal service, including general counsel and other clients. Chambers uses a team of 200+ research analysts who speak 23 languages and cover 200 jurisdictions, the company said.

A lawyer or law firm must demonstrate sustained excellence in order to receive and maintain a ranking by Chambers USA, which has been ranking practitioners and firms in the United States since 2000, and in a number of other international guides since 1990.

“A ranking in Chambers is a significant achievement for a lawyer or law firm and we are excited to share this year’s guide to help purchasers of legal services make informed decisions about the top lawyers and law firms across key areas of the law,” said Toby Eccleshall, editor of Chambers USA.

New to Chambers USA 2019

— Capital Markets tables – Chambers now ranks firms based on their work with both issuers and underwriters in debt and equity offerings.

— New nationwide Cannabis Law category – Recognizes firms and practitioners assisting on all manner of transactional and operational challenges facing clients in the ever-expanding U.S. cannabis industry.

— New city-wide and regional tables in California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, as Chambers USA delves deeper into local markets, with enhanced and expanded statewide and nationwide coverage, as well as an expanded list of up-and-coming attorneys.

Chambers USA 2019 ranks more than 6,000 law firms and 18,000 lawyers and includes nearly 900 ranking tables across all U.S. states as well as nationwide. Chambers USA covers all 50 U.S. states and also includes regional rankings in a number of states, including New York, California, Pennsylvania and Missouri. In each state, leading law firms are ranked in at least four areas of law: Corporate/Commercial, Labor & Employment, Litigation, and Real Estate, with more than 50 different practice areas/sectors covered overall on a state and national level. State-level rankings are based upon the location in which a firm or lawyer practices regardless of client or deal/case location.

Chambers USA ranking decisions are made collaboratively by research analysts and U.S. deputy editors. Rankings are also determined through an assessment of work identified on a firm’s submission, along with external feedback on the firm’s service and an emphasis on opinions provided by clients.

More information can be found on the Chambers and Partners methodology web page.

Gina DelChiaro has joined Akerman LLP as the firm’s director of pro bono initiatives. She joins Akerman from Lawyers Alliance for New York (Lawyers Alliance), a provider of legal services for nonprofit organizations and social enterprises, where she served as corporate engagement counsel.

The firm said DelChiaro brings nearly 15 years of experience spearheading pro bono efforts alongside legal organizations and other law firms. While at Lawyers Alliance, she led effective corporate outreach strategies that resulted in the attraction and retention of 1,800 pro bono volunteer lawyers who counseled nonprofits in the areas of corporate governance, tax, real estate and transactional issues critical to their operations. DelChiaro organized a national network of pro bono providers, serving nonprofits in 15 cities around the United States. Under her helm, these efforts led to the advancing in the field of business law pro bono nationwide.

Prior to Lawyers Alliance, DelChiaro was a senior staff attorney at Human Rights First, where she helped coordinate pro bono representation of asylum-seekers and immigrants with law firms. Upon graduating law school, she spent six years in private practice, representing clients in a variety of capital markets, securities, complex commercial litigation and pro bono matters. DelChiaro is a longtime member of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services.

Bill Boyce, a justice on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston for 11 years, has joined Alexander Dubose & Jefferson in the firm’s Houston office.

In addition to his experience on the bench, he practiced law for 18 years as an associate and partner at Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

While in private practice he argued more than 60 cases in appellate courts throughout Texas and across the country, including the United States Supreme Court.  He has been board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Appellate Law since 1994 and has served on the board’s appellate exam drafting committee.  He has been selected as Appellate Judge of the Year by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists.

Read more about Boyce.