Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

WHAT DID NOT WORK II.

By Allan Colman, Managing Director, the Closers Group: acolman@closersgroup.com

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

WHAT DID NOT WORK II.

This is the second in a series of comments on why in-house counsel rejected law firm business development efforts. Attorneys marketing must consider a wider range of sales considerations than typically brought to the table. Following are more examples of what I have heard counsel discuss law firm marketing presentations:

1. Make sure everyone on your team sits facing the inside counsel. Don't insult them by looking out the window or keeping your back to someone.

2. If you buy a table for a dinner as requested by in-house counsel, do not make the mistake of not showing up or sending the wrong people to the event. Filling seats is not what counsel had in mind when they invited you to attend a fund raising event for their favorite charity.

3. Make sure you know how many people the client will have present for your legal services presentation and don't overload the table. Bringing a swarm of attorneys to a sales pitch will raise numerous concerns in the in-house counsels' minds including, "If they bring this many to a meeting, how many are going to be billing me if I retain them?"

Comments

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

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMMERCIAL LEASING LAW & STRATEGY

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.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STRATEGIST

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.

Tweets