Note I—Commitments and Contingencies

Rental expense, primarily for office premises, amounted to $100.6 million, $103.6 million and $107.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The approximate minimum rental commitments for 2012 and thereafter under non-cancelable leases in effect at December 31, 2011 were as follows (in thousands):


2012	$	94,715
2013		77,661
2014		62,079
2015		49,256
2016		32,845
Thereafter		109,982

	$	426,538

Additionally, as of December 31, 2011, the Company had future purchase commitments of approximately $28 million over the next three years primarily related to telecom service agreements, software licenses and subscriptions, and computer hardware and software maintenance agreements.

On September 10, 2004, Plaintiff Mark Laffitte, on behalf of himself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants. The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers based in California have been misclassified under California law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these employees as exempt employees. On September 18, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying a class with respect to claims for alleged unpaid overtime pay and related statutory penalties but denied certification with respect to claims relating to meal periods and rest time breaks. The Court has stayed the litigation until March 1, 2012. A ruling by the California Supreme Court in a case titled Pellegrino, et al. v. Robert Half International Inc., which, as previously disclosed, the Company does not believe is a material pending legal proceeding, may have a material adverse bearing on the Company's position in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company's financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On February 23, 2011, Plaintiff Isabel Apolinario, on behalf of herself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants. The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers based in California have been misclassified under California law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these employees as exempt employees. The Court has stayed this case until March 1, 2012. A ruling by the California Supreme Court in the Pellegrino case referenced previously in this Note I may have a material adverse bearing on the Company's position in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company's financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in this case, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On September 24, 2007, Plaintiff Van Williamson, on behalf of himself and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming the Company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants. The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and Staffing Managers based in California were not provided meal periods, paid rest periods, and accurate itemized wage statements. It seeks one hour of wages for each employee for each meal and rest period missed during the statutory liability period. It also seeks an unspecified amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code arising from the alleged failure to provide the meal and rest periods and accurate itemized wage statements. The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to the allegations included in the complaint filed by Mark Laffitte described above. This litigation is stayed pending the California Supreme Court's decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court , a case unrelated to the Company. A ruling in the Brinker case and/or the Pellegrino case referenced previously in this Note I may have a material adverse bearing on the Company's position in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding, and accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company's financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the litigation.

On April 23, 2010, Plaintiffs David Opalinski and James McCabe, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated Staffing Managers, filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company and one of its subsidiaries as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers located throughout the U.S. have been misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime on behalf of themselves and the class they purport to represent. Plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount for statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and other damages. On October 6, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' allegations. At this stage, it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss, should a loss occur, from these allegations and, accordingly, no amounts have been provided in the Company's financial statements. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the allegations.

The Company is involved in a number of other lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. While management does not expect any of these other matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flows, litigation is subject to certain inherent uncertainties.

Legal costs associated with the resolution of claims, lawsuits and other contingencies are expensed as incurred.