Professional conferences pay for themselves

Professionals spend years in school learning their trade.  Then after they enter their profession they are often required by their professional licensing organization to keep current in their field.  Keeping current for lawyers means taking ten to fifteen hours per year of continuing education.  It is often expensive and seemingly unproductive.

It does take time, true.  But to those who would call it unproductive, because it can't be billed to a client, I would say think again.

While taking on my first Fair Labor Standards collective action case more than twelve years ago, I was overwhelmed. Fortunately, the National Employment Lawyers Association was holding an FLSA focused conference that year.  Too bad it was in San Francisco.  That was a long way from my little shared office space in Middletown, Ohio.  It appeared too expensive and risky.  I calculated the benefits I hoped for against the clear monetary expense, and got my airline ticket west.

I met some extraordinary people. Authors of practice guides like Janice Kearns, and nationally known litigators like David Borgen.  I also met a super sharp lawyer from NYC named John Bernstein.  Nearly a year after that meeting, which gave me more than enough info to powerfully settle my case in Ohio's southern district, I got a call from a class action lawyer from New York.  He wanted local counsel in Ohio and Mr. Bernstein referred him to me.

Since that time I have done two more class cases with this lawyer, with settlements in the many million dollar range.

I didn't get those kinds of cases because I was in the fray already.  I got them because I took a chance and went to a national lawyers conference and made some friends.  That trip has paid for itself hundreds of time over and has been an inspiration to me ever since.

The American Bar Association's class action and derivative claim committee had its annual class action institute in Boston this past week.  I went for the great agenda and to meet up with some friends I made at a litigation conference earlier this year.  I was thrilled by the quality of the content, but even better than that, I was fortunate to meet some incredible lawyers who work all over the nation and the world.  We may not talk daily or even monthly, but we now have connections built face to face in a forum that allows for real evaluation.  Your MarHub profile or website copy is like smoke in comparison to the quick and certain impression you can take, or present, talking about the law or judges or sports teams with your potential co, or opposing counsel.

Go to your national professional meetings.  Join the players on the biggest stage you can manage.  They are just like you.  It is likely that you will be welcome into the cast just by virtue of showing up with a good attitude.  These conferences bring all attendees up. Sometimes in ways you don't see coming.  Don't wait. Go to the next one.  Do it.

Offers of Judgment

Rule 68 of the federal rules of civil procedure operates to put plaintiffs suing for damages on a defensive footing.  If a defendant wants to shake a poorly financed plaintiff off their attack, then the defendant will make an offer of judgement.  In an unpaid overtime case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act the offer has to include an amount of damages AND an offer to pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees. This damages plus requirement is a function of the mandatory fee shifting required by the FLSA.

The offer has strict time limits and because it is made by letter from defendant's counsel to plaintiff's counsel with varying terms, it can be confusing in its form.  Offers are enforced using the principles of contract law and they are often effective.

I hate them.

Today finds me working on a motion to certify a class/collective action in an unpaid overtime case in the Federal Southern District Court of Ohio.   The issue is whether the employer's shifting of a seven day workweek, seven, twelve-hour-a-day workweek at that, over two calendar weeks, without paying any overtime, is lawful.  I say no.

Of course the employer says "Sure, it's lawful.  We can designate any period as a workweek.  Haven't you seen the regulations that say workweeks don't have to be the same as calendar weeks or pay periods?" while citing to 29 CFR 778.105.  "Look at the regulations Langendorf," they say.

I have.  I conclude differently.  The regulation that says a workweek is a seven consecutive day period is the period upon which overtime is calculated and each workweek stands alone. 29 CFR 778.104.  My clients work a seven day on, seven day off schedule repeatedly.  The employer calls it a "seven on seven off" schedule.  They don't call it a "three off, four on, three on four off"  schedule.  It's seven on seven off.  If the employees worked Sunday to Saturday, they'd get 44 hours of overtime pay. The way the employer has interpreted the workweek regs, the employees get no overtime at all.  Despite being subjected to a grueling schedule the likes of which the Fair Labor Standards Act was supposed to eliminate, BY ITS OWN TERMS.

The relevant regs have been interpreted in favor of employers, for the most part.  But this misuse, this cheap end around, needs to be changed.  I'm on it.