The number one mistake an employee can make is to sign an employment contract without seeking legal counsel beforehand.  Often the employee fails to ask for contract terms that will protect what he brings to a new job.  For example, if an employee brings his customers with him to a new job, he must have the employment contract exclude these customers from being considered the new employer’s customers.  Otherwise, when the employee leaves the company and tries to take those customers with him, the company has a claim that those customers are no longer his to take.  The cost of litigating over this dispute will be far greater than the cost of seeking legal counsel to review the employment agreement before signing it.

Dallas Emploement Lawyer

Q. I have an employment contract that states it is for a one (1) year term.  Does that mean the company must employ me for one year?

Not necessarily.  The contract may provide that the company may terminate the agreement for any reason after providing an employee 30 days notice.  In such a case, the employee only has a 30 day term contract, not a one (1) year contract.

Q. I have a contract that states the company will   “consider” me for bonus payments.  Does this mean it is obligated to pay me the bonus payments?

No. Such language only obligates the company to consider you for possible payment.  The company can simply state they considered you and decided not to pay you any bonus payments.  More specific language is needed to guarantee an employee will receive bonus payments.

The nation's largest court system is in the midst of a painful budget crisis that has shut down courtrooms and disrupted everything from divorce and custody proceedings to traffic ticket disputes.

The Los Angeles court system has already closed 17 courtrooms and another 50 will be shut down come September unless something is done to find more money. The judge who presides over the system predicts chaos and an unprecedented logjam of civil and family law cases in the worst-case scenario.

The crisis results from the financially troubled state's decision to slash $393 million from state trial courts in the budget this year. The state also decided to close all California courthouses on the third Wednesday of every month.

What has emerged is a hobbled court system that is struggling to serve the public.

Custody hearings, divorce proceedings, small-claims disputes, juvenile dependency matters and civil lawsuits have been delayed amid the courtroom shutdowns in Los Angeles. Drivers who choose to fight traffic tickets now have to wait up to nine months to get a trial started.

Complex civil lawsuits, those typically involving feuding businesses, could really feel the hit. It now takes an average of 16 months for such cases to get resolved, but court officials expect the cuts to bog down these civil matters to the point that they take an average of four years to finish.

The law firm Paul Weiss has hired a prominent Justice Department prosecutor in an effort to build a Washington practice that defends corporations accused of trying to gain business overseas through bribes.

Paul Weiss announced on Friday it had hired Mark F. Mendelsohn, deputy chief of the fraud section in the Justice Department's criminal division, who was the architect of an ambitious program to target foreign bribery.

Mendelsohn was the top catch for Washington law firms looking to continue to participate in the thriving Foreign Corrupt Practice Act business. The Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission have been filing aggressive cases in recent years against such companies as Halliburton, BAE Systems and Daimler, reaching settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a case that pits nondiscrimination policies against freedom of religion, the Supreme Court is grappling with whether universities and colleges can deny official recognition to Christian student groups that refuse to let non-Christians and gays join.

The high court was to hear arguments Monday from the Christian Legal Society at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The Christian group said its constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association were violated when it was denied recognition as a student group by the San Francisco-based school.

The group has made this argument at several universities around the nation with mixed results. The high court's decision could set a national standard for universities and colleges to follow when Christian and other groups that want to exclude certain people apply for money and recognition from the school.

Hastings said it turned the Christian Legal Society down because all recognized campus groups, which are eligible for financing and other benefits, may not exclude people due to religious belief, sexual orientation and other reasons.

It's been called a groundbreaking law, but a measure approved in Nebraska last week that changes the rationale for abortion bans probably won't go into effect anytime soon — if ever.

Instead, abortion opponents are hoping it will become the most important case on abortion to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory. Even they acknowledge the ban on abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy won't see the light of day unless the high court rules that it is constitutional.

Mary Spaulding Balch, legislative director for National Right to Life, said a court injunction will likely prevent the implementation of the law. The measure passed last week by Nebraska's nonpartisan Legislature and signed into law by Republican Gov. Dave Heineman is scheduled to take effect in October.

Lower courts have no precedent to support the law, which bases the new restrictions on the assertion that fetuses feel pain.