At the Section's meeting in Los Angeles in early April, some subjects just kept coming up and judging by attendance, just kept drawing 'em in. We sampled a few:

Sarbanes-Oxley — In a large room, all seats were taken for the program: "Implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Regulations in Your Law Firm or Law Department."

Most of these rules take effect on Aug. 5, 2003. Panelist John Jenkins of Cleveland pointed out that "complying with the regulations is an extremely expensive proposition, $3-4 million a year."

And much more will be expected of audit committees, Jenkins added. Panelist Paul Konney, New York City, noted that "audit committee members should not be getting paid close to what senior management is getting paid." There should be a real gap.

Program moderator Arthur Berner, Houston, said that "more and more board members are getting paid in cash instead of stock."

And when it comes to compliance, of course there will be employees who feel they must blow the whistle. How the whistle can be blown — how things can be disclosed — is very broad, according to panelist Jerry McGrath, Dallas. Sarbanes-Oxley protects the whistleblower, he added: "There's going to have to be a real long look at the basis for an employee's termination."

In another program on the same legislation, panelist David Axelrod, Columbus, Ohio, discussed attorney-client work product. "Once you let the smoke out of the bottle, it's out. Skeletons will eventually find their way out of the closet."

Concerning legal memos, Axelrod added: "When doing them, lawyers should be truthful, but only put ‘just the facts,' with no added judgmental pronouncements or interpretation."

On becoming an in-house counsel — The program was called, "The Wide, Wide World of Business Lawyers." But some of the more pointed comments concerned how it was to be in-house versus in a firm.

Damon Elmore, Atlanta, set up the topic: "When you're going to law school, you don't generally think about being an in-house counsel. You're thinking about being a trial lawyer or something like that."

The audience was mixed (in-house and law firm), and Elmore asked, "Is anyone here who is in-house considering going back into private practice?" No hands were raised. Hmm.

Education at law firms — The program was called, "Marrying Theory and Practice: Law School and Law Firm Training Techniques for Business Transactions." The point was: What if law school doesn't quite prepare a person for the corporate world? Can law firms pick up the slack?

One panelist, Sylvia Chin, New York City, said that she teaches a three-hour course on UCC Article 9 at her firm.

Unfortunately, though, "most of the instruction goes over their head," Chin said. That came out when the students did course evaluations. Part of the problem, Chin added, was that "the associates don't seem to be touching the course materials."

That ol' billable hour — Sure, that is a frequent topic at almost any ABA get-together. Should law firms still bill that way? In a program at the ABA Annual Meeting in Washington last August, the topic was wrestled with again.

The program was called, "A Candid Dialogue about the Unintended Consequences of the Billable Hour and Its Impact on the Profession."

The program chair was Jeffrey Liss, Washington. "The billable hour is not going to go away," he said. However, "a system that ties bonuses only to the number of billable hours is a worst practice." Liss was discussing the effects of the practice on the retention of associates, lifestyle concerns, etc.

Stay tuned for the next meeting blurbs. Or, better yet, go to a meeting yourself! Such a deal.