Text d Law Firm Kravitz &Bane

Read the text and translate it.

The law firm of Kravitz & Bane had almost three hundred lawyers peacefully coexisting under the same roof in Chicago. Two hundred and eighty-six to be exact, though it was difficult for anyone to keep score because at any given moment there were a dozen or so leaving for a multitude of reasons, and there were always two dozen or so shiny, fresh new recruits trained and polished and just itching for combat. And though it was huge, Kravitz & Bane had failed to play the expansion game as quickly as others, had failed to gobble up weaker firms in other cities, had been slow to raid clients from its competitors, and thus had to suffer the distinction of being only the third-largest firm in Chicago. It had offices in six cities, but, much to the embarrassment of the younger partners, there was no London address on the letterhead.

Though it had mellowed some, Kravitz & Bane was still known as a vicious litigation firm. It had tamer departments for real estate, tax, and antitrust, but its money was made in litigation. When the firm recruited it sought the brightest third-year students with the highest marks in mock trials and debate. It wanted young men (a token female here and there) who could be instantly trained in the slash-and-attack style perfected long ago by Kravitz & Bane litigators.

There was a nice though small unit for plaintiffs’ personal injury work, good stuff from which they took 50 percent and allowed their clients the remainder. There was a sizable section for a white-collar criminal defence, but the white-collar defendant needed a sizable net worth to strap on Kravitz & Bane. Then there were the two largest sections, one for commercial litigation and one for insurance defence. With the exception of the plaintiffs’ work, and as a percentage of gross it was almost insignificant, the firm’s money was earned by billable hours. Two hundred bucks per hour for insurance work; more if the traffic could stand it. Three hundred bucks for criminal defence. Four hundred for a big bank. Even five hundred dollars an hour for a rich corporate client with lazy in-house lawyers who were asleep at the wheel.

Kravitz & Bane printed money by the hour and built a dynasty in Chicago. Its offices were fashionable but not plush. They filled the top floors of, fittingly, the third- tallest building downtown.

Like most large firms, it made so much money it felt obligated to establish a small pro bono section to fulfil its moral responsibility to society. It was quite proud of the fact that it had a full-time pro bono partner, an eccentric do-gooder named E. Garner Goodman, who had a spacious office with two secretaries on the sixty-first floor. He shared a paralegal with a litigation partner. The firm’s gold- embossed brochure made much of the fact that its lawyers were encouraged to pursue pro bono projects. The brochure proclaimed that last year, 1989, Kravitz & Bane lawyers donated almost sixty thousand hours of their precious time to clients who couldn’t pay. Housing project kids, death row inmates, illegal aliens, drug addicts, and, of course, the firm was deeply concerned with the plight of the homeless. The brochure even had a photograph of two young lawyers, jackets off, sleeves rolled up, ties loosened about the neck, sweat in the armpits, eyes filled with compassion, as they performed some menial chore in the midst of a group of minority children in what appeared to be an urban landfill. Lawyers saving society.

Answer these questions.

1. Was Kravitz & Bane a small or a large firm?

2. Where was the firm located?

3. How many lawyers worked there?

4. Why was it only the third-largest firm in Chicago?

5. What departments did it have?

6. What area of law was its money made in?

7. What were its requirements for candidates?

8. How did the firm earn its money?

9. What does the Latin term ‘pro bono’ mean?

10. Why E. Garner Goodman was called a pro bono partner?

11. What were pro bono projects of the firm?

Part 3

Reading tasks

Read the questions and the extract below from a journal article about the partnership structure of law firms.

For each question 1-6, decide which section (A, B, C or D) the question refers to. You will need to use some of these letters more than once. There is an example at the beginning (0).

0 In the USA, attorneys are prohibited from forming law firm partnerships with people who are not practising lawyers. D

1 Some observers believe that the prevailing organizational framework of law practices will ultimately be replaced by something else.

2 Professional associations have established regulations which ensure that law partnerships differ from other commercial partnerships.

3 Increasingly, law firms are adopting behaviour typical of businesses.

4 A partnership structure could interfere with a legal counsel’s obligations to his clients.

5 The US legal system has traditionally favoured the notion of a lawyer’s personal liability for actions taken on behalf of clients.

6 US attorneys may not receive payment for services rendered together with a business associate who is not a lawyer.