United Continental Swipes New General Counsel From Sara Lee

Brett Hart has traded all-he-could eat cheesecake to fly the friendly skies as the top lawyer for the world's largest air carrier.

United Continental Holdings, Inc., announced late Wednesday that it has named Sara Lee Corporation's top lawyer as its new general counsel. Hart's first day on the job will be Dec. 15.

Hart replaces Thomas Sabatino Jr., who announced his plans to parachute out of the position on the same day that the Oct. 1 merger was finalized. Sabatino had been selected to head the merged airlines' legal department, but a spokesperson told CorpCounsel.com at the time that he'd simply opted not to move forward with the company.

Hart will be responsible for managing United Continental's legal affairs across the globe — and will report to CEO Jeff Smisek.

"Brett's experience, leadership skills and legal expertise are great assets to our senior management team," Smisek said in a statement announcing Hart's hire. "He will play a key role as we integrate United and Continental and build the world's leading carrier," he said.

Hart joined Sara Lee in 2003 as assistant general counsel, but he had been in the general counsel role for just over a year. He told Corporate Counsel sibling publication The National Law Journal in an interview earlier this year that he hoped not to leave anytime soon. ChicacoBusiness.com reported that Hart departs Sara Lee in anticipation of a management shake-up following the resignation of CEO Brenda Barnes. Barnes suffered a stroke this year.

A Michigan native, Hart earned his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1994 and joined Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. After a two-year stint as special assistant to the general counsel for the U.S. Treasury, he returned to Sonnenschein and made partner.

Sabatino, 51, previously a lawyer at Deerfield, Ill.-based Baxter International, joined United in March from Schering Plough. That was not long before Chicago-based UAL Corp. chose to merge with Houston-based Continental Airlines.

When he resigned, Sabatino was the second general counsel to leave United in less than a year. Paul Lovejoy resigned in November 2009 "for personal reasons," a company spokesperson said at the time.

Shannon Green can be contacted at sgreen@alm.com.

Also See: United's General Counsel Resigns Just Ahead of Merger (from CC)

Also See: Nothin' But Blue Sky: United Airlines' New Top Lawyer Is Flying High (from CC)

Also See: Top Lawyer 'Ceases' to Ride the Friendly Skies (from CC)

Also See: Sara Lee General Counsel Brett Hart: 'It's Delicious' (from NLJ)

Also See: Click Here for More In-House People News

Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

View the original article here

Report Touts Drug Courts' Low Cost, High Success in Curbing Recidivism

The content you requested requires a subscription. If you are a registered Law.com user, please sign in below.

If you are not a Law.com subscriber, you may register for free. To start, click here.

View the original article here

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly Win Against Generic Pharma Companies

The content you requested requires a subscription. If you are a registered Law.com user, please sign in below.

If you are not a Law.com subscriber, you may register for free. To start, click here.

View the original article here

Wilmer's New Partners -- Color Them Pink

It's just the start of the season for new partner announcements, but I'm willing to gamble. My bet is that Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr will win the contest for elevating the highest percentage and number of women equity partners in The Am Law 100 for the coming year.

Of the 11 newly promoted partners (their elevation will be effective as of January 2011) at the one-tier partnership firm, eight are women. That means women make up a whopping 73 percent of the new partners. (Currently, the firm has 24 percent women partners, and 9 percent diverse partners.)

 "It wasn't conscious," says Wilmer's co-managing partner William Perlstein (pictured right). "There was no decision to increase the number of women partners." He adds that the firm "really didn't realize what percentage of women would be up. . .we start with a reasonably large number of candidates, and the [partnership selection] committee does a careful review."

Perlstein makes it sound almost routine (maybe that's just in keeping with the decorous ways of an old-line firm), but I keep pressing him to spill the secret behind Wilmer's success with the ladies.

Perlstein insists he's not sure, but he does point out that the firm has a number of part-time partners. (There are 13 partners working part-time: ten women and three men.) In fact, he says, one of the new partners is a part-timer. "Part-time partners have worked well here," he notes, adding that the firm has had a thriving part-time policy since the 1990s.

But Perlstein also insists that the firm's part-time policy is "just part of the piece."

He might be down-playing part-time at Wilmer, because the firm's idea of a reduced schedule doesn't seem that relaxing. "Generally they work 75-80 percent of the full-time schedule," Perlstein says. (Two thousand hours is usually the norm.) "You've got to be available all the time to the client. . . . They work quite hard, but less than full-time."

Jennifer Berrent, one of the new partners, says there's another reason women tend to stay at Wilmer: Culture. A single mother with a 4-year old son, Berrent says even senior partners have their priorities right. "The head of the department told me that there will be conflicts between home and work, and that home should take priority," she says.

Despite the availability of part-time work, Berrent opted to stay full-time. "We have a clear hours expectation here--2,000 hours, and that feels okay to me." More important, she says, is the freedom she has to work from home or on a telecommuting basis. "I don't feel I'm fighting the system here," she says about her irregular schedule. "Unless women craft their own systems, they don't feel empowered."

So Wilmer's secret to success with women boils down to a solid history of part-time work (if billing 1,600 hours fits your idea of a reduced schedule), giving lawyers true flexibility, and that intangible thing call culture. Simple, right?

View the original article here

Florida chief justice says foreclosure hearings must be open

Reacting to reports of barriers to attending foreclosures hearings, Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady issued a memorandum Wednesday directing all judicial circuit chief judges to ensure public access.

The American Civil Liberties Union, news media groups and other parties complained Monday that judges, bailiffs and other court officers are turning away the public and media with excuses such as foreclosure hearings are only for attorneys.

"The people of Florida are entitled to know what takes place in the courts of this state," Canady said in a response to Sam Morley, general counsel for the Florida Press Association. "No crisis justifies the administrative suspension of the strong legal presumption that state court proceedings are open to the public."

Canady instructed the state’s 20 chief judges to examine current practices and remind judges and court staffers that visitors and callers must be given correct information about attending foreclosure hearings.

ACLU attorney Larry Schwartztol said the directive reflects how seriously Canady takes the state’s commitment to open courts. Canady also reminded judges that the goal of clearing 62 percent of the massive foreclosure backlog with the funds provided during the 2010 legislative session was a goal, not a quota.

"There is no reason why the 62 percent goal should interfere with a judge’s ability to adjudicate each case fairly on its merits," he said.

His comment was an affirmation of the position taken Oct. 28 by John F. Laurent, chair of the state Trial Court Budget Commission. The 62 percent goal was based on funding 62 percent of the original request.

In the grips of a foreclosure rate that has stretched courts over the past two years, critics charge judges have taken shortcuts to expedite cases.

Adolfo Pesquera can be reached at (954) 347-2616.

Subscribe to Daily Business Review

View the original article here

Democrats Plan Votes on Controversial Nominees, Senator Says

President Barack Obama's nominees for the federal judiciary have stalled for months in part because of heated disagreement over a handful of nominees. Now, Senate Democrats are looking at forcing votes on four of them.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said today that Democrats could move soon to end debate on the nominees. He said that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was lining up support this morning for what’s known as a cloture petition — the necessary paperwork before holding a vote to end debate.

“He’s lining up the signatures,” Whitehouse said after a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Such a petition requires 16 signatures.

Whitehouse is a vocal supporter of one of the nominees who have drawn fire: John McConnell Jr., a Motley Rice partner who’s been nominated for federal district court in Rhode Island. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposing McConnell’s nomination, citing his work as a plaintiffs’ lawyer on lead paint litigation and other cases.

The other three nominees whom Reid is trying to force votes on, Whitehouse said, are Goodwin Liu for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Edward Chen for the Northern District of California and Louis Butler for the Western District of Wisconsin. Republicans have targeted all three because of what they call the nominees’ extreme views, while the nominees’ home-state senators and other supporters argue they’re being treated unfairly.

A fifth nominee whom Republicans oppose, Judge Robert Chatigny for the 2nd Circuit, is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A committee vote is planned for Thursday.

Though senators have many other priorities during their “lame duck” session, Whitehouse said he thinks there is time to consider the stalled nominees. Otherwise, he said, “there’d be no point getting the signatures” for the cloture petition.

Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on a nominee or a bill, unless senators agree to waive a vote entirely. Democrats control 59 Senate seats until January.

On Monday, conservatives sent a letter to Reid asking him not to force votes on any nominees between the midterm elections and the start of the next Congress. “Any ‘lame-duck’ confirmations would be a gross abuse of Congressional authority in a last gasp attempt to perpetuate an agenda that the American people have already rejected,” the letter says.

UPDATE (3:43 p.m.): A group of circuit and district court judges from the 9th Circuit sent a letter this week to Senate leaders asking for quicker action on nominees. The signatories include 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.

"In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission," the letter (PDF) says. "While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges."

Subscribe to The National Law Journal

View the original article here

Bombing Suspect Found Guilty of Just One Conspiracy Count

In a stunning verdict, a federal jury in the Southern District last night acquitted accused embassy bomber Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani on all but one of 285 counts in the twin bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998.

Clearing the Tanzanian native of four conspiracies and the murder of 224 people in the near-simultaneous bombings of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on Aug. 7, 1998, the jury in Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's courtroom shocked prosecutors and defense lawyers alike with its verdict.

But the prosecution nonetheless succeeded in tying Mr. Ghailani to the bombings. The lone guilty verdict was declared on Count 5, a conspiracy to destroy buildings and property of the United States by means of an explosive. The jury answered a follow-up question in the affirmative, finding that Mr. Ghailani's conduct in Count 5 "directly or proximately caused death to a person other than a co-conspirator."

Mr. Ghailani, 36, faces a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison and a maximum of life when he is sentenced on Jan. 25.

The diminutive Mr. Ghailani, dressed in a white shirt and tie, had entered the courtroom in handcuffs with his trademark shy smile. Minutes later, he was wiping his hand across his face in relief and hugging and shaking hands with the defense team led by Peter Quijano, Michael Bachrach, Steve Zissou and Anna Sideris.

The prosecution team of Southern District Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Farbiarz, Harry Chernoff, Nicholas Lewin and Sean Buckley congratulated the defense team and also took handshakes from U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

Mr. Ghailani is the first former Guantánamo detainee to be moved into the civilian justice system and tried on terrorism charges, and his long route to the Southern District and several pretrial rulings may have helped shape the verdict reached yesterday.

Mr. Ghailani allegedly worked with al-Qaida's East African cell that was acting on Osama bin Laden's instructions to kill Americans anywhere in the world. More specifically, prosecutors charged, he bought the truck and the gas tanks used in the Tanzanian explosion.

The day before the bombings, they argued to the jury, Mr. Ghailani fled Kenya on a flight to Karachi, Pakistan. But prosecutors were not allowed to argue to the jury their claim that Mr. Ghailani worked directly for Mr. bin Laden until his capture in 2004.

Once captured, Mr. Ghailani was taken to a secret CIA site and questioned by agents using what the government called "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the defense calls "torture."

Because of the taint on any information derived from Mr. Ghailani during the interrogation, the government vowed not to use his statements against him at trial unless the defense put them in issue.

But the prosecution plowed ahead in its attempt to use one piece of information gleaned from the CIA interrogation—the identity and location of Hussein Abebe, a Tanzanian who claims he sold Mr. Ghailani the explosives used in the bombing in Dar es Salaam.

Prosecutors were dealt a major blow pretrial when Judge Kaplan ruled that Mr. Abebe, their only direct witness who could tie Mr. Ghailani to the bombings, could not testify. Facing a serious delay in a trial they had been teeing up for over a year, the government eschewed an appeal of that ruling and decided to complete jury selection and move on.

The prosecution worked with what it had, and on Monday, it appeared to spectators and the defense, that as many as 11 jurors were ready to vote to convict, as one juror sent a note to the judge saying she had made up her mind and was being attacked for her convictions by her fellow jurors.

Yesterday's result was clearly a surprise to a defense that had argued their client was nothing more than a dupe running errands for a conspiracy he never joined and knew nothing about. Mr. Quijano slumped in his chair as the verdict was about to be read, but he bolted upright when the first "not guilty" was pronounced on the initial conspiracy count—the conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals.

Still the prosecution got their conviction in a trial that has been closely monitored by all sides in the debate over whether accused terrorists should be tried by military commission or in Article III courts.

Judge Kaplan addressed the jury briefly before dismissal, praising them for proving that "American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, even this one."

Outside the courthouse, Mr. Quijano lauded the jury for delivering its verdict in the shadow of the World Trade Center. He added that the defense still believes Mr. Ghailani is innocent of all charges, and it plans to appeal.

Four men were convicted in the Southern District in 2001 in the embassy bombing conspiracy and they are serving life sentences.

@|Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

View the original article here