Law Journal Newsletters

An ALM Website

The Red Zone

2013 - BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IS RARELY SIMPLE OR EASY

By Allan Colman, CEO the Closers Group

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article

2013 - BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IS RARELY SIMPLE OR EASY

Growth in a free market is there to be gained. Firms can always find ways to use growth as a powerful marketing asset. But for firms that finally recognize the need to pursue legal business development, two questions need to be asked: First, how can your firm exploit the current marketplace? And second, what long term strategic and pragmatic business development lessons can you learn, firm size not withstanting, from the modified knowledge that has driven legal services purchasing during the past 4-5 years?

Business development is rarely simple or easy. But marketplace fluctuations raise problems for clients as well as for law firms. Those who prepared contingency plans, or learned from the past 4 years, are now prospering. They are the "it" as in Hide and Seek's "tag, you're it." They are out from behind the trees and actively pursuing new business. And 2013 will be no exception for 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

From Our Blogs

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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