Message from the Chair
hope this newsletter finds you happily enjoying Fall and the ubiquitous Pumpkin
Spice flavor in just about everything. I
know I get excited for my first sip of the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte; last
year my first sip was at Charles DeGaulle Airport in Paris and this year won’t
be as much fun (most likely the Starbucks across the street from my office in
Brentwood), but it does signal the beginning of Fall (along with football!).
also brings me close to the end of my year as Chair of this amazing
Network. It has been my honor, alongside
your Leadership Team, to bring you programming and resources that assist you in
your daily in-house practice. To use a
football analogy, I am just the quarterback of the team, and a quarterback
can’t win a game by herself. So, please
allow me this point of personal privilege to thank the amazing team that made
me look semi-competent this year:
Chittenden: As Vice-Chair, Kristen has been the person
behind our Legal Quick Hits every month.
She has worked with our great sponsor, Meritas, to line up topics that
are timely and informative. Kristen is
already planning her year as Chair of SLD and I know she’ll do a fantastic job!
Zade: Gulam pulled double duty this year as both
the Secretary and the main co-chair of Programs, and served on the Annual
Meeting Advisory committee. He was also
the emcee of last year’s Hob Nob and did a fantastic job! As he moves into his new role at Vice-Chair,
I know he will work closely with Kristen to provide the great programming and
resources SLD members need and expect.
Cline: Amy worked with Gulam to plan the Annual
Meeting programs, helped me with the Quarterly Newsletter, and was a featured
speaker at the ACC Mid-Year meeting.
Campbell: As our Membership Chair, Brian worked with me
to reach out to new and potential members.
He has also been working with ACC leadership to plan the programming for
ACC Xchange 2019.
Beidner: Elyse has been the Docket/Top Ten Chair for
several years, and works with our members who want to become published authors
in The Docket. We’ve had a great slate
of Docket articles written by SLD members this year, and also added new Top
Tens to our network resources.
Lindsay: Jacquie is our On-Line Learning Chair and has
done an incredible job planning webcasts and roundtables on hot topics. She puts a great deal of time and effort into
all that she does, and keeps up with the details so I don’t need to!
Fanaroff: SLD has the most active eGroup of any of the
networks, and Sheri pours her heart into reading the posts, finding active
thread topics that Jacquie turns into webcasts/roundtables or Kristen turns
into LQHs, and lets me know each month of the ‘orphan’ questions that need an
Bortnyk: Through Stephanie’s work as Chapter Relations
Chair, over 10 ACC Chapters have SLD groups. This is a great way to meet other
SLD members in your geographic area. Her
enthusiasm for this project is contagious!
addition to our incredible Leadership Team, I’ve been blessed to work with some
outstanding staff at ACC. My sincerest
thanks to Irene Meroka, Keilon “KJ” Forest, LaToya Tapscott, Laura Cox, Maria
Volpe-Viles, Rachel Okolski, and Victor Morales (who is now ‘one of us’ at Dish
TV). I also could not have gotten
through the year without my sounding board of former SLD Chairs: Jeff Wheeler, Maryrose Delahunty, and Nicolle
but actually first in my heart, are all of you, our amazing SLD members. You have been so active this year with ideas
for programs, interaction on the eGroup board, and emails and phone calls of
thanks and encouragement. Knowing that
you appreciate the efforts of the Leadership Team to provide you with a great
Network experience makes being Chair a very humbling and satisfying experience.
hope to see all of you at Annual Meeting, which will be here before we know
it. Have a wonderful, blessed Fall, and
we’ll ‘see you soon’.
[ Return to Top
Annual Meeting Update
Annual Meeting is October 21-24 in Austin, Texas and is always a great time for
CLE, networking, and catching up with friends! SLD is sponsoring the following sessions:
Session 106: Insurance
Basics and the Interplay between Insurance Requirements/Coverage and Indemnity
Obligations in Vendor Contracts
Session 201: Crisis Response – How to Avoid Complete
Chaos in the Midst of a Meltdown
Session 307: Small
Law Department Metrics, Best Practices and Growing Pains in a Legal Department
Session 402: Creating and Implementing an Effective Cyber
Security Table Top Exercise
Session 903: Advanced Contracting Workshop
Meeting isn’t all about education—and SLD is at the forefront with networking
opportunities! Our Annual Hobnob is on
Sunday, October 21 (see below), and Meritas will host a party on Tuesday,
October 23 at 7:30 pm. Check the SLD
website for more information. If you
aren’t already registered, why are you waiting? Click here for details and
[ Return to Top
Nob will be held on October 21 from 7:30-10:30 p.m. at Punchbowl Social in
Austin, Texas. There will be lots of
food, drink, karaoke, bowling, billiards, and other fun activities.
You should have already received your
invitation; if not, contact Sherie Edwards at firstname.lastname@example.org.
[ Return to Top
September 12, 2018 at 2 p.m. ET: Webcast--Trade Secret Case from A-Z:
Exploring the Stages of a Trade Secrets Case Through Hypotheticals, with Mindy Morton
and Robert Sloss of Procopie, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP (a Meritas
September 13, 2018 at 3 p.m. ET: LQH—Defending Your Company from the Effects
of the Trade War,
presented by Brian F. Walsh of Barnes and Richardson (a Meritas firm).
September 18, 2018 at 2 p.m. ET: Roundtable--Getting a Seat at the Table
October 22, 2018 at 12:30 CT: Annual SLD Business Lunch and Meeting in
ICYMI: SLD had some great LQH
presentations the past few months! Past
LQH (webcasts also) are archived on the SLD webpage. Here are the links to the LQH from June, July
June: The Pros and Cons of PTO http://webcasts.acc.com/detail.php?id=631476&go=1&_ga=2.98590238.1211066824.1535402924-809512549.1532981801(LQH)
July: Thoughts on Commercial Arbitration
August: Attorney-Client Privilege and
Work Product Protection http://webcasts.acc.com/detail.php?id=160278&go=1&_ga=2.132249102.1211066824.1535402924-809512549.1532981801 (LQH, recording available soon)
[ Return to Top
the temperatures start to cool, it’s natural to gravitate towards warm drinks
like (yes, I’m excited) Pumpkin Spice Lattes!
Did you know that coffee is good for you? Coffee is being studied for its health
impact on diseases such as Parkinson’s, Type 2 diabetes, and liver
disease. Just watch out for the sweet
drinks: they can pack a bunch of sugar
into a small cup. Here is a link to a
helpful article in Eat This, Not That. There are several Pinterest boards with
alternative ways to order your favorite coffee drink and make it a bit
healthier (and drive your barista crazy in the process). My favorite substitution is almond milk and a
half pump of the ‘sweet stuff’. But I always get the whipped cream!
[ Return to Top
SLD Contributions to The Docket
Are you a subject matter expert? Then why not share
your expertise with your fellow SLD members? ACC staffers make it easy
to be an
author. For more information, please
Beidner email@example.com. Join these SLD members who had articles
the June 2018 and July/August2018 issues of the ACC Docket:
Whitnie Wiley, Voices: Another Birdie Flies
Jeffrey W. Wheeler, Voices: Care and Feeding
Gregory Stern, Tech Toolbox: Sharing the Right Data
Voices, Succeeding at Failure
Voices, Work-Life Imbalance
Tech Toolbox, Invest in Your Career by Becoming More Tech SavvyElizabeth
Ann Colombo, The Work-Life Balance Paradox
[ Return to Top
From our Sponsor
The following article is provided by Meritas
Seeking Shelter: Contractual Considerations for Minimizing the
Effects of a Trade War
By Brian F. Walsh
of Barnes, Richardson & Colburn LLP and Gerald L. Jenkins of Goldberg Kohn
We are in a period of historic disruption and
unpredictability in international trade. Significant additional tariffs and retaliatory tariffs have been put
into place in recent months and daily news reports regularly bring word of
significant developments that may result in further additional duty liability
and further disruption to supply chains. This paper recaps the current state of play regarding the duties in
place, as well as those in the pipeline, and suggests contractual mechanisms to
cope with the increased risk and to allocate costs in a clear and expected way.
Duties on Steel and Aluminum
On February 16th, the U.S. Department of Commerce
issued reports in two investigations it conducted pursuant to section 232 of
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, finding that imports of
aluminum and steel posed a threat to domestic industry
and, by extension, national security. https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/02/secretary-ross-releases-steel-and-aluminum-232-reports-coordination
On March 8th, the President issued Proclamations announcing tariffs of 25% on
imports of steel, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states/ and 10% on imports of aluminum. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-aluminum-united-states/ These duties are currently in place and have
been assessed since March 23rd. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summary/232-tariffs-aluminum-and-steel
On March 19th Commerce published a Federal
Register notice, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-19/pdf/2018-05761.pdf
, containing an interim final rule setting forth the procedure for requesting
exemptions from the 232 duties. To date,
more than twenty thousand exemption requests have been filed. Only a small percentage have been granted.
Duties – Lists 1, 2 and 3
On March 22nd, the Office of the United
States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a report under Section 301 of the
Trade Act of 1974 regarding Chinese intellectual property and data transfer
policies. The report recommended, among
other actions, assessment of a 25% tariff on products likely to benefit from
Chinese intellectual property policies. On June 20th, USTR published the list (List 1) of articles to
be subject to 25% duties on imports valued at $34 billion, together with a
second list of articles (List 2) valued at $16 billion on which 25% duties are
also being considered, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-06-20/pdf/2018-13248.pdf. Duties of 25% went into effect on the
articles covered by List 1 on July 6th, https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/entry-summary/section-301-trade-remedies-be-assessed-certain-products-china-effective-july-6-2018. Duties on this list went into effect List 2
went into effect on August 23, 2018. On
July 17th USTR published a 3rd list (List 3) covering
$200 billion in imports upon which a 10% duty would potentially be
assessed. On August 1, 2018, the
President requested that the USTR consider increasing the proposed duties on
List 3 articles from 10% to 25%. The
agency is currently accepting comments and testimony on List 3. Publicly, the President has threatened
additional duties on the rest of the $505 billion of goods that the U.S.
imports from China.
On July 11th, USTR published a notice
providing a procedure for the filing of requests for exclusion from the 25%
duties which went into effect on July 6th. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/FRN%20exclusion%20process.pdf
Requests must be filed prior to October 9th and, if granted, will be
retroactive to July 6th.
on Auto Imports
Under the same authority used to authorize the current
assessment of additional duties on imports of steel and aluminum, Commerce is
currently investigating the effects on national security of imports of
automobiles, including SUV’s, vans and light trucks and automotive parts. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/30/2018-11708/notice-of-request-for-public-comments-and-public-hearing-on-section-232-national-security. Should Commerce find sufficient negative
effects on National Security, as it found in the case of aluminum and steel,
the President will have broad authority to “adjust” such imports - presumably
through the assessment of additional duties.
Commerce’s findings in this investigation are due to be finalized by mid-February
Duties on Large Residential Washing Machines and Imported Solar Cells and
On January 22, 2018, the USTR announced that the
President had approved the USTR’s recommendations to impose safeguard tariffs
on imported residential washing machines and solar cells and modules because of
findings by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) that imports
of such products had increased dramatically and that such imports were a cause
of serious injury to the concerned domestic industries. As a result, Tariff-rate quotas were imposed on imports of
washers and parts of washers, and additional duties were imposed on imports of
solar cells and modules. The tariff rate
quotas applicable to washers and parts provide for additional duties as high as
50% during year 1, 45% during year 2 and 40% during year three depending upon
level of imports. Additional duties of
30% are being imposed on imports of solar cells and modules during the current,
first year of relief, with additional duties staged downward by 5% per year to
reach 15% in year four.
Duties Imposed by Trading Partners
In response to the imposition of 232 duties by the
U.S., China, Canada, the EU, India, Mexico and Turkey are now imposing
retaliatory duties. The duties being
imposed vary by HTS classification, though most are in the 10%-25% range. Of note, however, Turkey is currently
assessing duties as high as 40%, while the EU has provided for the assessment
of duties on US goods up to 50% should the US 232 duties remain in place until
In addition to assessing retaliatory duties on US
goods in response to the imposition of 232 duties by the US, China is currently
assessing retaliatory duties of 25% on a wide range of US products in response
to the 301 duties which went into effect July 6th. Additional lists of US products have been
prepared by China for the assessment of retaliatory duties should 301 duties be
assessed by the US beyond those put into place on July 6th.
The renegotiation of the NAFTA continues, and the
future status and configuration of the Agreement the Agreement has not been
completely resolved. As such, there
remains at least the outside possibility that preferential treatment at some
point will be affected for some or all trade with Canada and/or Mexico. In addition, the administration has expressed
interest in re-examining all Free Trade Agreements to which the United States
is a party while exploring new arrangements, particularly bi-lateral
arrangements, with partners with whom no Agreements are currently in place.
When faced with a dramatic increase in duty costs
can result from the circumstances described above, the initial question
should be asked is – “are we correctly within the scope of the increased
duties?” The 232 and 301 duties discussed above, for
instance, are assessed based upon classification under the Harmonized
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In recent months, many importers
come to realize that the HTSUS classifications they have been using are
incorrect – or at least should be re-examined given the much higher duty
which such classifications now carry with them. It is not an uncommon
occurrence for a Customs lawyer to review the classification
of a product assumed to be subject to 232 or 301 duties only to find
the goods were classified properly, they would not be subject to such
duties. Past incorrect classification of
imported goods, however, raises its own problems, including the
assessment of penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592. If making a change in
classification, the effect of incorrect
classification over the course of the past years should be kept in mind
as the possibility of filing a prior disclosure pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
(c)(4) to protect the company from the assessment of penalties beyond
on any underpayments of duties.
Product and sourcing alterations should also be
considered. Is it possible to change the
nature of the imported product in a commercially useful way to change
classification of the product to a provision which is not subject to additional
duties? Can sourcing be changed, for
instance in the case of 301 duties, to an origin other than China? Given the current stakes, both questions must
be addressed with great care. Classification and origin determinations must be supported by solid
legal analysis and care must be taken to verify origin in situations where
additional processing is undertaken in third countries incorporating content
from China as it is foreseeable that origin verifications and transshipment
investigations will ensue in coming months.
Also to be considered is the use of Temporary
Importation Bond entries, Foreign Trade Zones or Drawback claims. Each of these possibilities must be
considered individually with knowledge of type of duty liability being faced
and the circumstances of the importer. Customs, for instance, has taken the position that 232 duties may not be
subject to drawback claims while 301 duties may be subject to such claims. Further, use of any of these mechanisms is
subject to further restriction if shipments involve NAFTA partners. Accordingly, use of any of these mechanisms
should be considered on a case by case basis.
The imposition (and possible withdrawal and possible
re-imposition ) of Section 232/301 tariffs and retaliatory tariffs; more
focused treaty negotiations; the possibility of other protective steps (e.g., a decision by another country to
make its raw materials unavailable to American companies); and the shortages
and delivery delays that could crop up increases everyone's risk and makes
contracts involving supply and distribution chains more complex and more
risky. Unfortunately, a contract between
participants in a chain seldom eliminate such risks. Someone in the chain must still bear those
risks, but contracts between chain participants will determine which link in
the chain will bear the cost.
An organization’s contracts can be divided into two
groups—contracts that have already been signed and contracts that are now being
negotiated (or will be negotiated in the future). Obviously, the strategies for the contracts
that have already been signed are more limited (no opportunity to simply walk
away), but there are a number of steps that can be taken:
Review each contract to determine how new tariffs,
costs and possible benefits will be allocated among the parties to the
contract. Possible provisions include:
terms. For example,
DAP (Incoterms 2010) imposes tariffs imposed by the destination country on the
buyer, whereas DDP (Incoterms 2010) imposes those tariffs on the seller. Now that tariffs have become larger and
broader in scope, these provisions are becoming relatively more important.
b. Pricing provisions. Is the price fixed? Is it a formula price? If it is a
formula price, does the formula include adjustments for increased tariffs? If the formula is based on one or more
indices, how do the indicies treat tariffs? Is the price cost-plus? If it is cost-plus, can tariffs be passed
through as an additional cost? Is there
a "not-to-exceed" clause?
c. Delivery schedules. The tariffs and the reactions to them
will cause numerous delays,
shortages and dislocations. In the
relevant contract, is time of the essence? Who is responsible for
delays, shortages and dislocations? Is the vendor liable for
damages based on shipments delayed or never made?
d. Liability limitations. Many contracts limit the seller’s liability
to the contract prices for the items that just shipped. As a technical matter, if a seller refuses to
ship a product because it is not willing to absorb a tariff, it may be able to
argue that it has no liability for its refusal to ship. Similarly, a buyer may not have any liability
if it chooses not to purchase.
e. Liquidated damages provisions. Such a provision can be costly to a customer
or vendor if it chooses not to purchase or ship.
f. Termination provisions/evergreen clauses. If a buyer or seller determines that it is
the one responsible for tariffs or other costs, it may be able to terminate at
no penalty or at a modest penalty. A
special emphasis should be placed on evergreen clauses. They often allow a party to terminate early
but only if some relatively strict timing rules are met. Sometimes, missing a thirty-day deadline can
cause to contract to extend for one or more years.
g. Force majeure clauses. A force majeure clause often allows a party
that is confronted with an unforeseen adverse event to stop performing until the
event has ended. Because force majeure
clauses are not generally written with tariffs like the Section 232/301 tariffs
in mind, frequently it will not be clear whether the clause can be invoked or
Because many force
majeure clauses only apply to unforeseeable events, it may be necessary to
determine when a tariff or other cost became foreseeable. When Trump first talked about them?
When he actually imposed them? When
another country announced its response? For example, did China's retaliatory
tariffs on soybeans become foreseeable when they were announced or at some
earlier date (e.g., when Trump announced his tariffs)?
h. Hardship clause. If there is one,
is it applicable to tariffs?
i. Insolvency clauses. Though not common, sometimes a party’s own insolvency can allows it to
excuse its own failure to perform. Imposition of a new 25% tariff on a
significant portion of an organization’s raw materials could immediately render
ii. “Change in
or “change is tax rates” or “changes in conditions” or “change in work” or “change in scope” clauses. A clause that allows a vendor to
pass through costs based on certain changes might allow the vendor to pass a
tariff onto its customer or might allow a customer to insist that a vendor to
lower its prices to compensate the customer for its increased costs.
i. "Flow down” clauses. “Flow down” clauses
generally subject subcontractors (and possibly vendors) to contractual provisions to which the prime contractor is
subject. Such clauses could allow the prime contractor to imposes costs
incurred by it onto its subcontractors and vendors.
j. Taxes. Because tariffs can be considered
tax provisions, any provision that allocates taxes among the parties may
effectively allocate tariffs.
k. Impossibility (or impracticability). This is a
doctrine that could allow a party to avoid responsibility for tariff and
l. Frustration of purpose. This is a
second doctrine that could allow a party to avoid responsibility for tariff and
- Based on that review, determine the risks and
prioritize the contracts based on the level of risk each presents.
- Develop strategies for each contract, focusing on the
ones that present the greatest risk.
- Because some relief provisions can have short
deadlines, conduct the review quickly.
For the contracts that are currently being negotiated,
there are other approaches:
- Review provisions in future contracts from a more
"tariff-aware" point of view.
a. Tariffs and possibly other risks should be explicitly
addressed. A number of provisions and concepts in existing agreements depend on the fact
that the new tariffs are of a size and scope that made them unanticipated or
unforeseeable by both parties. That gave a party the ability to argue
force majeure, hardship, impossibility (or impracticability) and frustration of
purpose. Now that the tariffs are generally known, such arguments are no
longer possible, certainly not for the U.S. tariffs themselves and possibly for
reasonable countermeasures (e.g., retaliatory tariffs, decisions not to
In addition, pricing and
other provisions that have been considered sufficiently clear in the past (e.g.,
relying on the word "taxes" to cover tariffs, relying on "change
in the law" to cover tariffs) need to be tightened given the increased
likelihood of tariffs and the possible size of such tariffs.
Finally, current treaty
negotiations could lead to reduced tariffs and fewer subsidies. Either could have a dramatic impact on the
benefits or burdens of a contract depending on how the price formula
b. Shorter term agreements should be considered. The
imposition of the new tariffs, the possibility of eliminating old ones and the
possibility of reduced or eliminated subsidies have increased uncertainly in
general, which could lead to delays, strikes, shortages, windfalls, price
gouging, punitive actions by a number of governments. In such
circumstances, the risks of a long-term contract may begin to outweigh the
c. Delivery schedules and impact of shortfalls. More
attention needs to be paid to delivery schedules and how shortfalls will be
d. RFPs and government contracts. It is
likely that issuers of RFPs and governmental entities (probably including the
federal government) will attempt to insulate themselves from the impact of the
new tariffs, as well as any number of responses that other countries may choose
to implement. That will put the bidder in the unenviable position of
choosing between accepting the risks or proposing changes that could render its
bid noncompliant and causing it to be rejected ab initio.
and vendors to the prime contractor should watch out for "flow down"
clauses that would subject them to the same risks.
e. Formula pricing.Most pricing formulas have long
since covered inflation, foreign exchange risks, and raw materials costs.
A few have covered tariffs and customs risks, but by no means all. Before
agreeing to a pricing formula, it should be evaluated based on tariff risks,
including likely responses to new tariffs and the possible outcomes of current
f. Liability limitations, indemnifications, disclaimers,
liquidated damages. Each of these provisions should be read in view of the new tariffs, possible
responses by other countries, on-going negotiations, etc. to ensure that they
continue to meet the contracting parties' expectations in terms of risk and
g. Shipping terms. Getting the wrong set of letters
on shipping terms can now cost a purchaser or seller up to an additional
25%. It may be time to give everyone in the organization a refresher
course on those terms and perhaps to only allow certain terms to be accepted
with the GC's or CFO's approval.
h. Focus on not getting "caught in the middle." Everyone up
and down the supply and distribution chain will want to avoid tariff and
related risks. For everyone except the ones at either end of the chain,
one way to manage that risk is to try to make sure that an organization
requires its customers to take the same risk that its vendors require it to
take. No one wants to the entity that accepts the risk but fails to pass
i. Counterparties' risk management and creditworthiness. The new
tariffs, possible responses and on-going discussions will claim some
victims. The best contract in the world will not help if the other party
to the contract files for bankruptcy and cannot meet its obligations. The
best counterparty may be the one that is sophisticated and resilient rather
than the one that is the easiest to push around. That might mean that
price will be less favorable and that the counterparty will not be willing to
accept as much risk, but that may be superior to entering into an agreement
with an entity that may not have the ability or net worth to survive expected
- Consider hedging, profit sharing and other market-based
solutions. It may not be possible
to convince all of an organization's counterparties to assume all of the
risk. For some commodities, it may be possible to establish an
exchange-based or other hedge to impose the risk on someone who is being
paid to take that risk. Alternatively, it may be possible to share a
risk that no single organization is willing to take on its own among
multiple parties in a chain.
- Know when to walk away. The cost of a single bad contract can sometimes
undo the benefits of dozens of good ones. This is more common when
something is disruptive enough to cause established norms to become
invalid. Until the impact of the new tariffs settles down, avoiding
bad contracts should be a priority for anyone who is asked to help manage
risk (most everybody today).
- Understand the counterparty's concerns and point of
view as everyone in the supply and distribution chains try to establish a
the longer term, consider changing specifications to avoid the tariffs
(e.g., things that are plentiful in the U.S., changing from steel (25%) to
All countries of origin except Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea are
subject to 232 duties on steel. All
countries of origin except Argentina and Australia are subject to 232 duties on
aluminum. Argentina, Brazil and South
Korea are subject to 232 absolute quotas for steel and Argentina is subject to
232 absolute quotas for aluminum.
This tariff rate quota provides for a two-tiered duty rate level. As an example, during the first year the
duties are in effect the201 rate will be 20% up to the level of imports of 1.2
million units of finished washers. All
subsequent imports of finished washers will be subject to a 50% 201 rate. Year 2 and 3 will also be subject to
bifurcated rates though the actual percentages differ.
[ Return to Top
MICRO-NETWORK with your fellow SLD members!
Blogging not your thing? Try meeting up with a few
local SLD members to discuss issues frustrating your department. The smaller
environment might foster an opportunity to have more candid conversation about
great successes or obstacles you are experiencing. Please contact Stephanie.Bortnyk@FalconJet.com
to find out if anyone is currently meeting in your area or how you can initiate
a lunch near you.
[ Return to Top
On the SLD Webpage
The SLD webpage is a treasure trove of resources curated for
you, the Small Law Department practitioner. On the webpage you’ll find information about
recent eGroup threads (if you have a question about how to do something,
chances are someone else has the same question and other members have sage
advice to share), upcoming SLD Legal Quick Hits, and resources developed by and
for the SLD committee. This is also
where you will find links to archived resources such as Legal Quick Hits and
Virtual Roundtables so that you can view them at a place and time convenient to
you. If you can’t find what you’re
looking for, let us know. That might
lead to a new resource for all of us! You
can find the webpage here: https://www.acc.com/committees/sldc/index.cfm.
[ Return to Top
All About You
Have you recently been promoted or changed jobs? Have you been honored by a professional or
civic organization? Do you have a blog
that other members would find interesting? Then let us know about it—this is your time to be in the spotlight! Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,
or firstname.lastname@example.org so we can share your news with other
[ Return to Top
Have an Idea?
Let us know what topics you’d like to see in our
webcasts, Quick Hits and resources, tell us how we’re doing, and let us know if
YOU want to become more active on the Committee. Email email@example.com; we want
to hear from you!
[ Return to Top