Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ask the Coach
Q: What do you do when, despite having a good relationship with a client, you struggle to reach agreement on such things as rate increases, staffing, etc.
A: First, make sure that you're working on the right problem. “If only the client understood me better, I'm sure we'd have a deal.” This frequently-heard lament reflects the odd notion that more explanation or talking would solve everything. Not so.
Whenever a conflict arises with a prospect or client, stop talking and evaluate the nature of the dispute. Determine whether you have a true disagreement or simply a misunderstanding. Don't rely on the Great Myth of Hidden Harmony, which is that there isn't any conflict, only poor understanding, so we all just need to understand each other better. A true disagreement is a failure to agree that would persist despite the most accurate understanding. If you try to keep explaining through a true disagreement, that's a recipe for a turnoff. Misunderstanding or disagreement? Use these key questions to help tell the difference:
- If I succeeded in explaining myself, would the other person's position change?
- Would they feel satisfied if only I listened but didn't change my mind?
- Would I be satisfied if the other person listened but didn't change his mind?
Q: In the interest of cross-selling, I often have a colleague or two accompany me on initial sales calls. How do you manage or choreograph interaction among three to four people?
A: I call this the “Sand Castle” problem, because you're trying to proceed without a sufficient foundation. You can't extend a relationship to your colleagues that you've not yet established. Sounds obvious, yet many of us try to do just that in the early stages of a sale.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.