Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Commandments Of CRM
You will find spirited debates in the conference rooms of many law firms about the criticality of employing Client Relationship Management (CRM) processes and technology to better deliver legal services. The promise of CRM is enticing, but it is sometimes misunderstood and under managed.
There are few attorneys that would argue with the fact that the practice of law and serving clients has become more complicated. As clients expand in reaction to global competitive pressures, their legal needs expand. In addition, firms are ruthlessly competing for the most profitable and complex work, which makes winning even more difficult. Clients have choices and, thus, are in a position to make more demands.
Some attorneys have shied away from adopting CRM, especially the technology component, due to the disruption it initially causes in their interactions with their clients and the way they practice law on a daily basis. For some, a legal pad, pen, telephone and a good memory are still the only tools they use. Can you practice law in this matter and avoid embedding CRM systems into servicing your clients? Of course you can. However, you can also get from Boston to Philadelphia by walking, but there are much faster and more efficient ways to get there. While this may be a matter of personal preference to you, when your client is the passenger, you need to be cognizant of what they expect. Otherwise, they may find another travel partner in the form of another firm.
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.