|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
Who would own all the boiler plate that is reused? Can the client that paid for
the work claim it when it may have been sold to many other clients?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't bet the ranch on considering a lawyer or a a law
firm as an employee under common
law of agency.
The Supreme Court stepped into this fray in
1989. The Supreme Court adopted the third approach-an employment relationship
was to be determined by applying agency law principles. The court enumerated
several factors that are relevant in determining whether the hired party is an
employee under the general common law of agency. These factors include the skill
required for creating the work; the amount of control the hiring party has over
the hired party; where the work is performed; the method of payment of the hired
party; and the source of the hired party's tools, office space, and other
instrumentalities of doing the job. The court also considered whether the hiring
party has the right to assign additional projects, whether the work is part of
the hiring party's regular business, whether employee benefits are extended to
the hiring party, and the tax treatment of the hired party.
I
looked it up before considering it likely wasn't at issue in this case. These
factors appear to weigh against treating outside counsel as employees.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
