Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone


  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

Our last column explored the disconnect between how in-house and outside counsel view the work of the latter. The reader will recall that in a recent survey, 62% of law firms gave themselves an "A" for overall performance during the past 3 years. Only 19% of in-house counsel scored them that high.

There are a few possible explanations.

1. The in-house sector radically changed its value proposition in the year or so separating the surveys.

2. Radically different samples between the previous surveys may have been polled. Even if true, it is cold comfort to law firms that they can never know which of these two radiclly different "priority sectors" of their current clients or prospects represents.

3. In-house counsel change their fundamental priorities as their own moods dictate or, more probably, as internal pressures and external business conditions change, I'll bet on this explanation being the best one. If I'm not right in every instance, I'll be right often enough.

4. Conclusion: law firm sellers must somehow shift with their clients and prospects. It's a formidable challenge, really.


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.