Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

The RED ZONE - Selecting Outside Counsel

By Allan Colman, the Closers Group

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

According to a recent BTI survey conducted in 2006, 61.1% of corporate clients had fired at least one of their primary law firms in the previus 18 months. This represents almost a 10% increase over the previous year. One of the majr reasons for this volume of action is that your long-term clients may no longer be in decisionmaking positions. Buyers of legal services form attitudes often unsuspected by law firms that are based on internal pressures: * GC's positions have become more tenuous; * Shareholdure pressures on corporate value have increased; * New product or service development costs have grown; * Boards of Directors' expectations of in-house counsel and their roles in "preventive law" present even greater challenges; * SOX has created liability for GC's that many do not want to bear, or simply can not bear; and * CEO's are breathing down their necks. So when you are preparing to enter pitch or proposal meetings, or just staying in touch with your clients, find out "what keeps 'em up at night." Ignorance is not bliss - so ask.


Be the first to comment on this post using the section below.

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment


Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration



A Blurry Distinction with a Huge Difference: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Speech

Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is “commercial” speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is “non-commercial” speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity’s consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity’s right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is “non-commercial,” but is available against the company because the print advertisement is “commercial.” The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects “non-commercial” speech, it protects “commercial’ speech in a significantly limited way.


PA Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships

Although same-sex marriages and divorces can now be granted anywhere in the country, there are a few unanswered questions in Pennsylvania regarding how legal relationships between same-sex couples — that are not marriages — should be treated.