The comments have presented me with a great opportunity to consider an important issue: is being attractive a curse or a blessing for a woman in the City? First things first, in my view, any woman in the professional world has to overcome the presumption that she won't be able to fully cope in what is essentially a male environment. This means that in order to succeed she has to be more robust, more hardworking and more adaptable than the average man in her position. The challenge obviously gets even harder if she wants to start a family and keep her career.

If a woman is lucky enough to have beauty and brains, then she has to be smart enough to persuade men to accept her femininity while not denying her an opportunity to succeed as a professional. There are men in the legal and business worlds who are respectful and supportive of women, but, in my experience, the majority still have a lot of growing up to do.

As a senior associate at a City firm I attend a fair share of business development events. It is a daunting task for anyone, whether male or female, to walk into a room filled with unfamiliar faces, make contact with a stranger and establish rapport. I have noticed that an attractive woman in this situation tends to come across two types of response from men.

The first is that after the initial visual assessment, they ignore you and continue talking to their male acquaintances because they assume that a good looking woman cannot be a useful business contact. It's great fun to turn this situation around, especially when they realise that you might be more useful to them than they are to you.

The second response begins similarly to the first, then develops into a sleazy chat-up scenario. While looks secure the initial introduction, the benefits are short-lived as the conversation rapidly moves in the wrong direction. It requires great skill on a woman's part to deal with this situation diplomatically but firmly. If you were an employer looking for a lawyer capable of handling difficult negotiations, who would you hire: a man who cannot control his basic instincts, or a woman who can defuse a potential conflict, establish control and allow everyone involved to save face?

I am not in favour of strict political correctness rules - which, in my view, are largely artificial and ineffective. But I do think that women deserve a lot more respect than they are often given. There are many women out there who can successfully compete with men. Yet the numbers of female partners are still disappointingly low. It would be advantageous for law firms to acknowledge this fact and give us an opportunity to prove our worth.

Kate Karakuli (name changed) is a senior associate at a top UK firm. For more from Kate, see Redundancy: a scary prospect, Fighting for survival and Path to partnership.  

Preparing students for the post-recession landscape was the theme of the day at a recent College of Law get-together

Amid continued uncertainty over the long-term viability of the global law firm business model - and suggestions that law schools need to reconsider the way they deliver legal education in response to the market - the York branch of the College of Law held its 20th anniversary celebrations last week. Speakers included the College CEO Nigel Savage and Law Society Vice President Robert Heslett; both of whom reflected on the likely long-term impact of the recession on the future of legal education.

In emphasising the need to prepare students for the new environment emerging in the wake of the economic crisis, Savage drew an analogy with 20/20 cricket: "Here is a sport that has had to adapt to respond to the demands of the market place and in doing so has delivered a new business model and reshaped the experience of attending a cricket match. The legal services market needs to do the same, with lawyers changing to fit the needs of their clients - not vice versa."

Savage also highlighted the importance of law schools and firms maintaining their commitment to diversity despite the reduced number of jobs available after the recent wave of training contract deferrals.

Meanwhile, Heslett (pictured) focused on the forthcoming relaxation of regulations governing the way law firms operate - which will allow external investment and non-lawyers to enter partnership - and how law schools must tailor their approach to fit in with the changes.

"The contrast between 20 years ago and now is stark. And as the boundaries between law and business become increasingly blurred, legal education needs to develop to reflect this," he said.

But it was junior lawyer national executive board member Kevin Poulter who had some of the most forthright things to say on the future of legal education.

"At the moment there are lots of students enrolling at law school who are completely unaware of the reality they will face in the job market at the end of it," he commented, adding that even if students do land a training contract, the chances of securing a job upon qualification are far from certain. Indeed, Clifford Chance and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer recently announced that they are to retain only 70% of trainees from their September intakes.

Poulter continued: "I think law schools have an obligation to be more realistic with students - and at the very least should be tailoring their courses to provide more transferable skills which will give graduates greater flexibility in what is a very competitive job market."

Indeed, many firms have client care teams in place which are specifically focused on protecting and building business from existing clients. These teams are high-profile and frequently backed with significant investment and resources.

However, the way in which firms approach the task varies enormously and the skill with which it is conducted has a major impact on the business result. With that in mind, here is a short best practice checklist to help you consider how your firm measures up in a number of key areas:

Do you really have a comprehensive 'programme' in place?

A programme is much more than simply a client satisfaction survey. It certainly involves a careful analysis of client relationships, but it also embodies such things as embracing change, evolving culturally, embedding change internally and demonstrating it externally.

Is the programme a continual process?

An effective programme needs to be an ongoing part of how the business operates. It cannot simply be turned on and off. You cannot stop looking after your clients. Continuous relationship monitoring is also crucial to evaluating the success of the firm's responses to the issues identified.

Are you measuring or simply monitoring?

Don't underestimate the importance of quantifying clients' evaluation of your services. A warmish comment can very quickly be put in context when the client scores the service five out of 10. Qualitative questions are essential for depth of response, but carefully crafted quantitative questions are the key to evaluating performance across time, as well as to benchmarking, both internally and externally.

Are you really asking the right questions?

A good client management programme must be based on an effective evaluation system and it is vital to ask the right questions

The skill with which questions are used makes a huge difference to the quality of the responses generated. For example, are you measuring satisfaction or commitment? They are very different things, as an apparently satisfied client can easily move their business. And do your questions both stimulate and enable your clients to tell you what they want to?

The questions are crucial. You should also always remember that the experience of giving feedback is an experience of your firm. Are the questions you ask intelligent, thought-provoking and rewarding to consider or simply a task to be completed?

Are you using feedback most effectively?

The way in which feedback is received and then used is very important. All feedback should be welcomed and never taken personally. It should be seen as looking backwards to help the relationship move forwards. And feedback should be seen to provoke a reaction - you need to respond and be seen to respond.

Are you best allocating resources?

With budgets under such pressure, it can be very tempting to cut corners or scale down client development programmes. While a good programme should pay for itself many times over, and thus defend its budget, there are ways to improve the allocation of resources. For example, using external expertise to implement a programme and then running it yourself can control costs and potentially mop up downtime for some members of the firm's staff...

As a final thought, the key to protecting and developing client business is a strong relationship. Relationships transcend the mere transactions of day-to-day client business and depend on people. Businesses don't have relationships with businesses, people have relationships with people and, like personal relationships, business relationships require constant love and attention. Remember, your clients are someone else's targets. Don't risk neglecting them.

Carey Evans is joint managing partner of Relationship Audits & Management.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil case against Stanford and several Stanford International Bank executives in February, so Friday's indictment had long been expected. The new indictment, centres on the now-familiar scheme involving the bank's certificates of deposit, which offered investors huge, double-digit rates of return. The indictment charges Stanford and three other company officials - including Laura Pendergest-Holt, the bank's chief investment officer - with falsely pumping up the value of the bank's investments in presentations and meetings with investors. In reality, the indictment says, about 80% of the bank's investments were in illiquid assets, including more than $1bn (£600m) in loans to Stanford, according to press reports.

Let's break down the lawyers. For Stanford, well-known Texas criminal defence lawyer Dick DeGuerin has been on the case for months. Also, Patton Boggs partner Christina Sarchio has now been retained for both the SEC case and the new criminal case, according to court records. Pendergest-Holt, who before today has been the only person facing criminal charges in the case, has retained a team consisting of Jeffrey Tillotson of Lynn Tillotson Pinker & Cox, Brent Baker of Parsons Behle & Latimer, and Houston-based criminal defence lawyer Dan Cogdell.

The complaint names three other Stanford employees and one Antiguan official, Leroy King. King allegedly accepted bribes from Stanford in exchange for tipping him off to US investigations and conducted sham audits showing positive results for Stanford's bank. Lawyers for those defendants could not be immediately reached.

Let's not forget Thomas Sjoblom, the Proskauer Rose partner who represented Pendergest-Holt when she first testified before the SEC in February. The SEC soon after charged her with lying to investigators, raising questions about whether Sjoblom should have been representing her and Stanford's bank at the same time. The experts were unanimous in saying that Pendergest-Holt should have had her own lawyer; SEC records show Sjoblom emphasised several times during testimony that he was not her personal attorney.

The indictment is likely to increase the focus on Sjoblom, whom Pendergest-Holt has since sued for malpractice.

The indictment does not name Sjoblom, but it mentions only one attorney for the bank, "a lawyer for Stanford International Bank." Sources involved in the case have confirmed the lawyer is Sjoblom, and the description of the lawyer's activities matches descriptions of Sjoblom's that are already in the public record of litigation related to the Stanford case.

According to the indictment, Sjoblom met with SEC lawyers at a restaurant in Houston on 22 January and discussed the case, assuring them that Stanford's bank was "not a criminal enterprise" and that "the assets are all there." A day later, he successfully persuaded SEC attorneys to subpoena Pendergest-Holt and the bank's president for testimony instead of Stanford and his number two man, James Davis, the indictment says. Sjoblom claimed that Stanford and Davis were removed from the bank's day-to-day activities, and that Pendergest-Holt knew the "nuts and bolts" of the business better.

On 24 January, a day later, Sjoblom wrote an email to a bank employee discussing his success in staving off any deposition of Stanford and Davis. In that email, he wrote that Pendergest-Holt would have to prepare hard for her deposition, and in particular that she would have to "get up to speed" on one type of asset the bank held. He sent an email to Pendergest-Holt and others three days later re-emphasising that point. Pendergest-Holt would have "to rise to the occasion," Sjoblom wrote, because "our livelihood depends on it."

Pendergest-Holt allegedly lied to the SEC during that testimony in early February. The next day, Sjoblom withdrew from the case and officially disaffirmed anything he had told the SEC about the company during the investigation. The move won praise from experts who initially said Sjoblom had acted appropriately.

In any case, Tillotson says Pendergest-Holt is "anxious to get going" in defending herself now that the full indictments are finally out.

Stanford, who surrendered on Friday in Virginia, was ordered held in custody over the weekend until a hearing can be held on his detention next week. Davis has not been charged, though the Department of Justice released what is known as a "criminal information" against him. Davis is co-operating with investigators and is expected to plead guilty.

This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily, Legak Week's US sister title. 

A brief history of Legal Aid

In the sixty years since the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee were implemented in the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, the role played by legal aid has expanded hugely - and 2009 will see more than two million people receive funding to help with their legal problems. But the roots of legal aid lie with the Poor Prisoners Defence Act 1903, which put the first statutory system in place for funding private litigation out of the public purse.

In 1930 the Government introduced the principle that criminal legal aid should be granted wherever it was 'in the interests of justice' to do so, a principle which still remains in place today. After the passing of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, the system moved from its original charitable basis, where lawyers provide their services for free, to a system based around securing justice and rights for all.

The legal aid system expanded throughout the second half of the century, being introduced to the county courts in 1956, the magistrates courts for domestic proceedings in 1961 and into the new Family Court in 1972. Legal aid ensured that thousands received representation across landmark cases, including the Marchioness inquest, the Thalidomide compensation cases and, more recently, the Gurkhas' high-profile immigration case.

Present day

Recent years have seen a raft of legislation affecting the provision of both civil and criminal legal aid. From the Access to Justice Act 1999 to the Legal Services Act 2007, the Government has taken a proactive approach to managing legal aid. But these changes have received a mixed reception, with Baroness Helena Kennedy QC referring to 'the present Government's lamentable record on legal aid'.

Much of the criticism surrounds the Government's stance on funding the legal aid system. Recent reforms have been accused of being merely cost-cutting measures. In June, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would be introducing means testing for Crown Court cases. This means that defendants with an disposable income or assets over a certain threshold would have to pay a contribution towards their legal aid costs during the trial. If the trial results in an acquittal, then the payments would be returned, with interest. But concerns have been raised that such an arrangement undermines the fundamental principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

The funding issue was recognised at the LAG conference by Legal Aid Minister Lord Bach (pictured), who noted that while "we want to help as many people as we can... there is no new money for legal aid". This dose of harsh economic reality was echoed by Shadow Secretary of State for Justice Dominic Grieve QC MP, who observed that "turning to the Treasury and asking for more legal aid is something that no party can promise - we all need to live within our means". So for now, at least, it seems that some belt-tightening will be required for those undertaking publically funded work.

There is clearly a huge amount of support for legal aid among the profession as a whole - and this was evident from all the speakers at LAG's conference, which was jointly sponsored by The Law Society, Garden Court North and the Legal Services Commission. Despite the pressures on legal aid practitioners, Geoffrey Bindman spoke for many when he argued that "one of the fundamentals of justice is that there is a level playing field, and that the poor person has the same resources as those ranged against him". Maintaining this level playing field will be the biggest challenges faced by the Government over the coming years.

Thom Dyke will start pupillage at Hardwicke Building from October 2009

I received this statement from the Quality Assurance Agency - the body responsible for granting degree-awarding powers: "BPP College of Professional Studies has taught degree-awarding powers, which cannot be transferred to another organisation. The Privy Council granted BPP the powers to award taught degrees for six years with effect from 1 September 2007. A change of ownership may not, in itself, affect the entitlement to award degrees, provided BPP continues to operate as the entity which has been granted degree-awarding powers, and within the terms of the criteria relating to those powers." (BPP College is not transferring ownership to another organisation, but will continue to be run as a subsidiary of BPP Holdings.) 

To gain an insight into what this news will mean for legal education I talked to the chief executives of the two leading providers of post-academic stage legal education - Nigel Savage of the College of Law and BPP Law School's Peter Crisp.

To listen to the interview with Nigel Savage, click here, while the interview with Peter Crisp can be accessed here. Mike Semple Piggot is the editor of Insite Law magazine and also blogs as Charon QC.

For one thing, it's likely to work as a deterrent for entry into the profession at trainee level, and we're also likely to lose a lot of young talented NQs. While some of these losses are, to an extent, sadly inevitable, if taken too far, might they result in firms cutting off their future oxygen supply?  The abandonment of an entire generation of lawyers is likely to create a gap that the firms would take several years to fill.

For those of us with City legal careers well underway, redundancy is a scary prospect. Not only would it be incredibly tough to find another job, but redundancy would stall the development of our skills and undermine professional confidence. We senior associates are criticised for our high salary expectations and warned that they may make us unemployable. But these expectations are based on real considerations, such as the size of our mortgages, school fees and other living expenses which remain inflexible.

Many of us will have to forgo our dreams about partnership for a long while, if not for good - leaving some casting around for other options. There is always the possibility of setting up your own practice - but it falls into the "I have nothing to lose" category. I know some lawyers who have recently done this and I have great admiration for their bravery and skills, but realistically, very few will be in a position even to contemplate such a move - and even fewer will succeed.

It is certainly true that the legal industry, like many others, is in great need of change. It is also probably true that shrewder law firms will come out of the recession leaner, stronger and better managed. However, the profession must be open about the extent of the casualties brought about by these changes. It must also ensure that it does not end up paying twice for these changes in the long run. In the meantime, I rely on the wisdom of the old proverb: "If you are drowning, you can only rely on yourself to pull you out".

Kate Karakuli (name changed) is a senior associate at a top UK firm. For more from Kate, see Fighting for survival and Path to partnership. 

"Did you ever get the feeling that your inability to secure pupillage may be influenced by the fact that you're foreign?"

With a good degree, a major Inns of Court scholarship and lots of legal work experience, I think I have the CV of a typical aspiring barrister. Despite completing the BVC last year, I still haven't secured a pupillage and haven't had many interviews either. I know it's easy to blame someone else for your own misfortune, but I do begin to wonder whether the path to the Bar is more challenging for those with a foreign background.

The statistics for minority applicants are not very cheerful. According to the Bar Council's website, in 2008 there were 5.2% self-employed barristers of Asian origin, 2.3% of 'Other White' background, and just 0.2% in the Black Caribbean and African categories.

I was the first Russian student in my high school and sixth form college. As far as I am aware, I was also the only Russian on my BVC course. After searching the internet for hours, I only managed to find two Russian barristers in the UK - one in Manchester and one in London.

Advantages and disadvantages of being a foreigner

If it wasn't harder for foreigners, there wouldn't be all these equal opportunities provisions. The Bar's Equality and Diversity Code (Annex E) suggests that chambers need to monitor the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people at different stages of the pupillage selection process, and deal with under-representation using the positive action provisions of the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts.

Foreigners often face a number of obstacles, one of them being a language barrier. If English is not your first language, no matter how fluent you are, studying in the UK is more challenging. So a 2:1 LLB requires more effort, which isn't reflected in the qualification.

A foreign accent is another cause of concern. I don't mind my accent now, which is not strong, but if I had a choice, I'd lose it tomorrow. I have lived in the UK for around eight years; I completed my secondary and higher education here. Often, though, I get the feeling that on seeing my unusual name and hearing my accent, people assume that I am a foreigner who arrived in this country yesterday.

Even though 'received pronunciation' is no longer needed to get ahead, I can't help but wonder whether chambers have a slight bias in that direction. Because speaking skills are so essential for barristers, I worry that people will think I won't be as effective in court and with clients as I have an accent. Perhaps I should take elocution lessons.

There are some positives about being foreign, of course. We have the advantage of being fluent in another language, as well as the broadmindedness you get from living in a different culture. A different way of thinking could offer new and creative solutions to old problems. And a determination to succeed - common among foreigners - is always a plus in a competitive career. Also, the people you meet during work experience and mini-pupillages are more likely to remember you.

The reality

The Bar is a very competitive profession, and we all chose it knowing that our chances of success are very slim. When I hear about the people with first class degrees struggling to secure pupillage, I realise my lack of success is not abnormal.

Oxbridge graduates aside, we are all in a pretty similar boat. If you are an exceptional candidate, you will get noticed. And those two Russians who made it to the Bar means there's still hope for me, I think...

For more from Ekaterina, see her Legal Village blogs on work experience, scholarship interviews, searching for pupillage, the Pupillage Portal and the Bar Vocational Course.

Click here to join the Legal Week Student Facebook group.

Over the summer, Ayeesha Bhutta, a barrister at Field Court Chambers, and Rebecca Vanstone, a pupil at 3 Temple Gardens, will be providing updates about life at the junior Bar on our new student site. So far, though, we haven't been able to recruit a trainee solicitor/junior associate to write for us. If you've something interesting to say that you'd like to share, we'd love to hear from you - get in touch by emailing alex.aldridge@legalweek.com.

We've also had some excellent contributions from lawyers in our Lawyer's Life section - with highlights including a piece about combining law and politics by SJ Berwin partner and shadow solicitor general Jonathan Djanogly, and Denton Wilde Sapte chairman James Dallas's article about his experience of relocating to the Middle East. Again, if you've got a story to tell about your life outside of the office, please get in touch by emailing charlotte.edmond@legalweek.com.

A big chunk of the session, which was chaired by the leading family barrister Nicholas Francis QC, focused on divorce law. I knew about pre-nups. But I must confess I didn't know that there was also something called a post-nuptial or post-marital agreement, which is like a pre-nup, but signed immediately after marriage. Apparently they are gaining ground in the UK. But it isn't exactly very romantic to stop off at your legal advisers on the way back from the airport at the end of your honeymoon in order to safeguard yourself against the consequences of a messy divorce. Guess what? Anecdotal evidence suggests people who sign post-nups often end up getting divorced.

Despite the recent controversy over changes to the tax regime for non-domiciles in the UK, this country still remains an attractive place for rich people to base themselves in - unless, that is, they get divorced, and regard themselves as having generated the lion's share of the family's wealth. This is because of the way family law has been developing in this country, to the point where judges assume that divorcing couples should share their assets equally unless there are grounds to take a different approach. To make matters worse, the Family Division's judges are notorious for their willingness to target assets squirreled away in offshore trusts, as typified by the epic Charman vs Charman divorce battle.

During the debate, Francis suggested that private client lawyers were being negligent if they didn't alert their clients to the divorce risks associated with relocating to new countries for tax purposes. And yet many members of the audience conceded that they did not consider this to be their role. Cue much discussion during drinks after the session about the convergence of private client and family law.

Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto on Thursday (4 June) pulled out of a deal with the state-owned Aluminum Corporation of China (Chinalco), which had offered to pay $19.5bn (£12.2bn) for an 18% interest in Rio and stakes in copper, aluminum and iron mines. Other major Rio shareholders had criticised the transaction as a sweetheart deal for Chinalco, while it also become a lightning rod for political opposition concerned about allowing the Chinese Government such a major role in Australia's mining sector. 

Christopher Stephens, Asia managing partner for Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, says the collapse of the deal, which was announced in February, is "kind of a shock". 

"The Chinese have been very careful in the wake of the Unocal debacle," he says, referring to the failed bid by the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) to buy US oil company Unocal for $18.5bn (£11.5bn) in 2005, which also faced significant political opposition. "It really looked like they got this done."

Stephens thinks the deal's failure, particularly its political overtones, could dampen Chinese companies' enthusiasm for overseas investments and acquisitions, at least in the short term. "There is a risk it will slow down some of the bigger outbound M&A activity that is going on," he says. 

International law firms with China offices have long hoped for the opposite. Whereas they face state-imposed practice restrictions as well as rising competition from cheaper local firms when handling inbound China work, outbound work allows them to work within their comfort zones - US or UK law - and also charge accordingly. Many international firms with smaller China offices are primarily hoping to funnel outbound work to their home markets. 

Chinalco was represented by a group of firms led by Clifford Chance, while Linklaters led Rio's legal team.

Robert Chu, the head of Sullivan & Cromwell's Beijing office, says Chinese companies will probably be more cautious following the Rio deal. "The question Chinese parties might raise in connection with any kind of deal is whether they are is being taken for a ride or being used as a stalking horse."

Indeed, a number of Chinese companies' attempts at outbound acquisitions have seen other bidders conveniently swoop in. At the same time it announced it was scrapping its deal with Chinalco, Rio Tinto entered into a joint venture with competitor BHP Billiton. Likewise, Unocal was swiftly purchased by Chevron after CNOOC walked away from that deal. US appliance maker Whirlpool scooped up rival Maytag after China's Haier bowed out of a 2005 bid. 

But Chu also thinks any one deal's failure is unlikely to deter Chinese interest in overseas acquisitions. "The fact that Chinalco's proposed investment in Rio is not being pursued further should not be cast as a bad omen for outbound transactions from China," argues Chu. "Indeed, it is a development that contributes to the maturation of Chinese enterprises as sophisticated players to be reckoned with on the global M&A scene."

Antony Dapiran (pictured), a partner in the Shanghai arm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, is also optimistic that outbound Chinese transactions will grow, though probably outside politically charged sectors like energy and natural resources. "Those have always been particularly sensitive areas," he says. 

Indeed, the economic downturn in the US and Europe means Chinese investments or acquisitions abroad should generally be far more welcome than in the past, says Stephens, noting the US Government's blessing this week of a preliminary plan for a Chinese company to buy General Motors' Hummer line of sport-utility vehicles. 

"People want capital, they have capital," says Stephens.

By Anthony Lin in Hong Kong.

Are you fighting for survival at your firm?

See if you can relate to a couple of examples. Firstly, there is great concern about the number of jobs available this year at NQ level. There is fierce competition for the few positions available - and a lingering perception among some trainees that not everyone competes fairly. This breeds stress, anxiety and low morale.

Secondly, when there is little work available, the key question for qualified lawyers is that of work distribution policy. In addition to ensuring that tasks are carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective way, senior lawyers also face the challenge of keeping everyone in the department equally busy when delegating work. This inevitably leads to accusations of favouritism and criticism of management skills (in some cases justifiable, in some cases not).

Thirdly, when work-flows decrease, much greater emphasis is placed on business development. And the issue of 'client ownership' inevitably arises when lawyers from one team find themselves competing with another for the same clients.  As I've found out, the principles of collaboration go straight out of the window when one's future is under threat.

When it comes to dealing with these issues, my advice is to make sure you are doing the best you can to optimise your chances. Be proactive in speaking to your managers about the volume and quality of your work; take an active interest in your colleagues' work; catch up with know-how training; consider how to maintain contacts with your existing clients and how you can add value to their businesses; and keep a record of your activities so that you can have a constructive discussion at your next appraisal.

Life may be stressful right now, but this is an excellent opportunity for lawyers to test their survival skills.

Kate Karakuli (name changed) is a senior associate at a top UK firm. For more of Kate's experiences, see Path to Partnership.

On 22 September, Lehman and Barclays (represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Clifford Chance) struck a deal under which Barclays acquired Lehman's US capital markets unit, billions in liabilities, and some of Lehman's real estate in return for about $1.5bn (£961m).

Now Lehman is investigating whether Barclays got a better deal than it should have, according to the New York Times. In court papers filed on Monday (18 May), a new team of Lehman lawyers (this time from Jones Day) argue that Barclays was able to buy Lehman's best US assets for so little - about $250m (£160m) when real estate is taken out - because it agreed to assume various liabilities, including about $2bn (£1.3bn) in bonuses owed to Lehman employees who would likely transfer to Barclays.

But now it appears "that these assumed liabilities were significantly overstated or inaccurate, and, further, that Barclays may not have actually paid these obligations," the filing says. In fact, the amount owed to those employees might have been 'only' $600m-$700m (£384m-£448m) - far less than dealmakers estimated at the time.

As part of the investigation, Lehman is asking Barclays to turn over a host of documents related to the bonus payments and other liabilities. Barclays has not co-operated with those requests, the filing says.

Barclays has hired Jonathan Schiller of Boies Schiller & Flexner as counsel in the matter. Schiller immediately went to work, writing to a Jones Day team that includes partners Robert Gaffey, William Hine, and Jayant Tambe, and not-so-gently informing the team that their own application to represent Lehman listed as a client the Barclays unit at the centre of the Lehman purchase. The Jones Day team was conflicted out, Schiller wrote, and in acting otherwise they were "disregarding the disqualification of their own firm."

Jones Day replied that they had accidentally listed the Barclays unit in question on their application, and have since amended the documents, court records show.

This is not the first possible glitch in the Lehman-Barclays deal. As first reported on Above the Law in October, a Cleary associate accidentally screwed up an Excel spreadsheet that listed contracts that were to change hands in the deal. The error resulted in Barclays assuming nearly 200 contracts it did not want. That has since been corrected.

So did the deal lawyers miss something else, or overvalue the Lehman liabilities? Only time will tell. It should be noted that Barclays has resisted Lehman's discovery requests so far because the court-appointed examiner in the case, Anton Valukas of Jenner & Block, is also looking into the deal as part of his broader investigation of Lehman's collapse.

And according to a filing from Friday (15 May), Valukas is giving a few lucky out-of-work lawyers some work in the case. Specifically, he has asked the court for permission to hire 17 contract lawyers for document review at a cost of $43.50 (£28) per hour.

So the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy - big enough to give work to lawyers across the Am Law spectrum.

This article first appeared on The American Lawyer, Legal Week's US sister title.

Want to be a partner but unsure how to get there?

First, law students and junior lawyers are selected for their academic abilities only, with the focus of their education and training on legal theory and legal skills. Business development or management aspects of legal practice are not explained and no training is provided. As a result, it sometimes comes as a surprise to many juniors that a law firm operates as a business. But that's the reality, and the first hurdle for any firm is to find a client to advise. Only then can they deliver the advice.

It's indisputable that technical skills are very important, but behaving as if they are the be-all and end-all means many juniors are entirely unprepared for the challenges they will face later in their legal careers. What happens is that lawyers who reach the stage of technical competence in their careers (which on average occurs at about the 5 PQE mark) discover that they must reinvent themselves as salespeople in order to be seen as contenders for partnership. Until this point, nobody had explained to me that an ability to bring clients to the firm was the skill that would ultimately determine whether or not I'd make partner. As a result, most senior associates' business development skills are underdeveloped.

The second problem is that the information on partnership opportunities - and criteria for selection - are often a secret carefully guarded by law firms. Therefore, those with partnership ambitions not only face the difficulty of having to hone dormant business development skills, but they also have to contend with a system that fails to disclose what they need to do to make partner. I hear that in some firms, associates are told that they are not ready yet to start a discussion about partnership prospects - and it remains unsaid when the right time will come.

The topic of partnership is a delicate one in the legal profession, but the current information void surely make things harder for everyone.

Kate Karakuli (name changed) is a senior associate at a top UK firm.

He's using Legal OnRamp, a social networking site for lawyers that works much like Facebook and LinkedIn. Carr calls it the FMC Technologies 1st Law Litigation Value Challenge. "We love change. We love challenges," Carr says. "We like doing things differently. Some people call us grenade throwers. Some people call us crazy. But it works."

The process is in its first phase, which will end on 31 May. Carr is asking firms to complete a two-page questionnaire that they can download from the site. Candidates can also ask questions and share their thoughts on an online discussion board.

Some of those firms will advance to a second phase, when they'll talk numbers, such as explaining how much they think certain legal matters should cost. Then two to five firms will move to the third phase, which will be a basic dog-and-pony show, Carr says.

That's when he finds out if he'd like to go out and have a drink with the candidates after work. "They are part of our business team, and they need to be compatible," Carr says.

But any firm that's selected must embrace alternative billing arrangements. FMC uses a program it calls the Alliance Counsel Engagement System, or ACES. It's a risk/reward model in which the company withholds a portion of a law firm's fees. And at the end of a set time period, or the conclusion of the matter, FMC lawyers conduct a performance review. If the firm performed better than average, it receives the amount withheld, plus a bonus. If the company isn't satisfied, the firm doesn't get back the entire amount that was withheld. "We've been doing this for years, and it's been very, very effective," Carr says.

The company is most interested in hiring firms that are willing to work under that model. But Carr says he's willing to consider any alternative billing proposals a firm may have.

Patrick Lamb, a business trial lawyer with the Valorem Law Group in Chicago, has worked for FMC and says Carr is always open to new ideas that save money. "Jeff and his colleagues are data-driven and bottom-line driven," Lamb says. "If there is a way to do it cheaper, I guarantee Jeff will give it due consideration."

The lawyers who have posted comments on the discussion board say they like the fact that FMC is sharing its selection process online. Stephen Rosenberg, a lawyer with The McCormack Firm in Boston, wrote that he and others have always believed that if companies were more open about how they retain outside counsel, they would receive better, and less expensive, legal services.

"The question now," Rosenberg says, "is whether those of us who have always believed companies should do that are willing to walk the walk and compete."

Some lawyers might be afraid of performance-based fee arrangements because it introduces an element of risk, said John Matter, a lawyer in Kentucky who practices commercial litigation. But that risk can be offset by the chance to reap financial rewards for doing good work. "My hat is off to all of you for trying a new approach," Matter says. "It is about time we had some entrepreneurship in our profession."

US-based legal consultant Rees Morrison, said that he wants FMC to analyse the various proposals it gets from law firms and publish a report. Lawyers everywhere will want to see the bigger picture. "You may well be generating the best, most representative view of what law firms in the US currently feel are innovative offerings," Morrison says.

Carr is reluctant to predict how successful the value challenge will be. The worst that can happen is that he ends up hiring the same firms he's used in the past, he says. "It's going to depend on what we see," Carr says. "And what we're hoping is that this will serve as a catalyst for law firms to think differently about the way they do things."

Posted on 18 May by Amy Miller. This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily blog on americanlawyer.com.