Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

The RED ZONE - Selecting Outside Firms

By Allan Colman, Managing Director, the Closers Group:

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

SELECTION in the Red Zone is the fourth and final criterion a law firm team needs to identify when pursuing a client. Just what concerns and experiences will be influencing final selection? The previous three are: HIDDEN DECISION MAKING RELATIONSHIPS AND RETENTION PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS. Just because an in-house counsel recently moved from a competing law firm, do not assume he/she would retain them. Firms should compete in situations in which they might otherwise assume that the competition has an insurmountable advantage. Or if a potential competitor will be sitting in on your meeting, you should elevate the level of candor in your relationship with the buyer by simply asking the buyer how he or she would like you to handle confidential information - invite more substantive discussion. This shows you want to get down to business, talk strategy and not merely promote yourself and your firm.

And by doing so you have raised the buyer's expectation that even this meeting will produce value irrespective of which firm is eventually hired. This value is also conducive to closing. It is the decisive moment. Firms attempting to sell their services are well advised to make the most of it.

allan colman.


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



Office vs. Retail Leasing: Practical Considerations for the Retail Tenant

Experienced retail tenants are generally well versed in commonly negotiated retail provisions such as those pertaining to exclusive use rights, opening and operating co-tenancies, "go-dark" rights and percentage rent. This article discusses some of the material differences between common leasing concepts addressed in both retail and office leases.


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.