It has everything from attorney dopplegangers to hysterical satirical stories about attorney life.  If you are sitting around your office bored because you wont have another project until that partner gets around to getting back to you, you should check it out to fill the time.  I know I am …

Cooley Godward’s Boston-office managing partner, John M. Hession, and Lester J. Fagan, the head of Cooley Godward’s business and technology group, had a ready explanation for this turn of event.  Unfortunately, they only speak in Euphemish.  Thankfully, Miss P speaks Euphemish, and is happy to translate the explanation to plain English:

According to MLW, Fagen stated that, “one can anticipate decreased transaction volume in 2009. We think that it’s extremely important for the organization be rightsized.”  ”Rightsizing,” Fagen explained, means “[having] appropriate staffing for the anticipated workflow.”

Translation: partners anticipate that there will be less transactional work in 2009, so it is extremely important for the health of profits per partner that the organization be relieved of the salaries of some number of associates.  Rightsizing means decreasing staffing until you anticipate that the workflow will just ever so slightly overwork those who are left.

Fagan went on to say, ”[A]re we certain that 2009 is not going to produce good results? Absolutely not. But we’re doing the prudent thing, for the benefit of virtually everybody in the organization.”

Translation: Are the Cooley Godward partners certain that 2009 is not going to produce good results?  Absolutely not.  But we’re doing the prudent thing for our own pocket books, for the benefit of virtually every partner in the organization.

Ashley Kanigher, a spokeswoman for Cooley Godward, even chimed in.  According to MLW, Ms. Kanigher says that you can’t look just to the connection between layoffs and profits (Question: so she’s recognizing but dismissing the connection between layoffs and profits?).   To Ms. Kanigher, its all about workload.  ”Hypothetically, if you kept everyone on board, you would have had attorneys sitting around with nothing to do…Part of it is making sure that the people who are there are busy, engaged, they’re active, they’re learning. That’s an important priority for the firm.”

Translation: If we didn’t fire people, you would have had attorneys who would not be over-worked … Part of it is making sure that the people who are there are overworked, stressed, they’re a little sleep deprived, they’re learning to review documents.  That is an important priority for the firm.”

Personally, this explanation makes total sense to Miss P.  If she’s not being over worked, stressed and a little sleep deprived by her job, she is miserable.  Thanks, Cooley Godward, for your very heartfelt explanation.  It certainly makes laid off associates feel much better about not having a job.

 

To me, this is clear as day and night.  ”Not so,” said Mr. P.  So, fellow readers, I pose to you that we put these two trademarks through the Polaroid factors and see whether there truly is a likelihood of confusion:

1. The strength of the mark;

The When Pigs Fly trademark is actually a stronger mark than the No Pudge mark.  Flying Pigs has absolutely nothing to with bread or the When Pigs Fly products, so it would qualify for the highest level of protection as an arbitrary and fanciful mark.  In contrast, “No Pudge” is a suggestive mark, because it indirectly describes the product – a treat that wont cause you to get pudgy, and therefore it is not as strong (though still pretty strong).  This factor weighs in favor of When Pigs Fly.

2. The degree of similarity of the two marks;

Here is where you’ll need to weigh in.  I think that though these are both cartoon drawings of pigs, they look nothing alike, and the No Pudge pig always seems to appear with the name No Pudge beneath him. Also, the When Pigs Fly pig is flying away, and the No Pudge pig is wearing a tape measure.  However, as Mr. P pointed out, they both have slanty-eye smiles, and when you aren’t scrutinizing them side by side, they are similar enough that he didn’t know if they were from the same company. This factor is a toss up.

3. The proximity of the goods or services;

Both products can be found within the same geographic location.  In fact, they can even purchased in some of the same local supermarkets, though one is located in the baking goods aisle, and the other in the bread section.  This factor weighs in favor of No-Pudge.

4. The likelihood that the senior user will bridge the gap;

 No-Pudge seems to be inclined to stick just to brownie mixes, but according to the When Pigs Fly’s website, they make a low-carb bread.  Arguably, this particular type of bread would could cause the most confusion as a “No-Pudge” bread.  Toss up.  

5. Actual confusion;

The only evidence of actual confusion that I have to present is Mr. P’s confusion.  However, I would fervently argue that he was more easily confused than the average consumer of bread and brownie goods.  Toss up.

6. Good faith usage of the mark;

There is absolutely no evidence that When Pigs Fly is not using the mark in good faith.  When Pigs Fly wins this factor.

7. The quality of the junior user’s product;

Mr. P and I sampled the junior user’s product this weekend, and I can bear witness to the fact that it is a product of excellent quality (and, I would argue, better quality than the senior user’s product.  Those brownies are okay, but this bread is Dee-lish).  This factor definitely weighs in favor of When Pigs Fly.

8. The sophistication of buyers.

The sophistication of consumers of bread and brownies is arguably pretty low, so this weighs in No Pudge’s favor.  

Having now gone through the factors, I still think When Pigs Fly is in the clear.  If you agree with Mr. P, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter (just don’t tell No Pudge please!).

Here’s the deets, from the BBA’s website:

February Social Event:LAWYERS ROCK

Come to the next New Lawyers’ Section social event at the Revolution Rock Bar. Enjoy the sound of great rock music, show your moves on the giant dance floor, and catch up with old friends over some cocktails.

Admission is free, appetizers are provided [!!!!] and the cash bar has a great drink selection.

Just a reminder that you’ll need to sign up at the BBA’s website (and you’ll need to register if you haven’t done so yet).  If you have recently been laid off, you can pre-game this event by attending the BBA’s other program of the day, “Layoff Survival Skills for Laywers.”  For more information about this event, go here.

 Now go buy some flowers and give them to your sweetheart, especially if she was just laid off yesterday.  And don’t forget the Perrier Jouet (and if you were just laid off, a bottle of Prosecco will do fine).

Jennifer and John Davis, from Dracut, were excited expectant parents who had picked a hospital where they preferred to have their baby, just like many excited expecting parents do.  Unfortunately, the hospital they picked, Mount Auburn, was not exactly near where they lived.  So as babies tend to do, the Davis’ baby decided it was time to come at a rather inconvenient time, just before rush hour.  Rather than head straight to the hospital, the Davis couple first took their other child to school, (at a time when her contractions were 5 minutes apart), and then headed to the hospital, getting caught in rush hour traffic on Route 2 in the process.  

So here is the first debatable decision they made: rather than go to the much closer local hospital, the Davis’ decided to drive past rush hour traffic in the breakdown lane.  The first two troopers they encountered let them pass, but the third, Trooper Michael Galluccio, wouldn’t.  Here is the second debatable decision they made: Trooper Galluccio offered (twice) to call them an ambulance, but they refused, and asked to continue driving in the breakdown lane.  

Let’s be clear though that Trooper Galluccio was no saint either:  he asked Mrs. Davis “what’s under the jacket,” and motioned for her to unzip it to prove that she was pregnant.  The Trooper then made the couple wait when he went and wrote them a citation for $100 for driving in the breakdown lane.  

According to today’s Boston Herald, the Davis’ are now off the hook for the ticket.  After the couple got a clerk magistrate to throw out the ticket, the state police appealed the decision.  According to the article, when the Globe got wind of it and contacted the state police, they dropped their appeal, saying that it didn’t “serve the interest of justice.”  

Arguably, its more like it didn’t “serve the interest of publicity.”  

I find the whole administration of this case troubling.  First, the Trooper was clearly out of line, and arguably risked a major lawsuit against the state police by his actions.  What if Mrs. Davis was closer to having the baby than she was?  What if her delay caused her to have to have the baby right there on Route 2 (Route 2 = too gross to birth a baby.  Maybe she could have set up a little area in the privacy of the abandoned Faces building??).  

However, I don’t think that just letting the Davis’ go without addressing their own contributions to the situation is the answer either.  The Davis’ clearly made some poor decisions, and what precedent does it set for the next round of expectant parent who get caught in traffic while in labor?  It is not entirely unforeseeable that it could happen, and that they could think “well I heard about that story in the paper about the couple who drove in the breakdown lane” and so follow their example, and then end up causing an accident by driving into someone who was legitimately using the breakdown lane when their car broke down.  Over the top law school style hypothetical?  I don’t think so, but maybe you disagree.  How would you have handled this case?

I just remembered how many people were laid off yesterday.  Time for another drink.

1. Holland and Knight:

243 total layoffs

70 lawyers, 173 support staff

2. DLA Piper:

180 total layoffs

80 lawyers, 100 support staff

3. Epstein Becker:

53 total layoffs

23 lawyers, 30 support staff

4. Dechert:

19 attorneys

And for the sake of completeness:

5. Nixon Peabody (earlier this week):

20 attorneys, 36 staff.

Does your head hurt yet?

If you are reading this because you don’t have a job this morning, my heart goes out to you.  It may be comforting to reflect on the fact that you are not alone, and this was not performance based.  On the other hand, it may be stressful to reflect on that fact, because it also means that you have a ton of competition out there.  

Do you remember when you graduated from college and you couldn’t find a job so you took an “unpaid internship” to fill your resume until you did? The only real difference between then and now is that college doesn’t pay severance.

If you are looking for Miss P, you can probably find her today in a bar drinking straight through until tomorrow.  

If you have any information about how the Boston offices were specifically affected by these layoffs, or have any information about the severance packages, please send me an email or post in the comments.

For a recap of the carnage and the official GP statement, see Above the law.  Otherwise, if you have more information about how many people were affected in the Boston office, or what the severance package looks like, please shoot me an email or post in the comments.

I’ll update when I have more information.