Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Media & Communications Corner: <b>Outsource Those Nagging Attorney Biographies</b>
It is time to rewrite your attorney biographies. Send the e-mail, make the calls, reschedule appointments, beg for replies, threaten, and throw up your hands in frustration. Nothing works, right? Inevitably, you will receive incomplete information at the twelfth hour and be left scrambling to put something together for the Web site. Meanwhile, all other marketing initiatives come to a screeching halt, or are given a cursory glance, as time, resources and money are focused on producing biographies. There has to be an easier way. Well, there is, just read on.
When it comes to writing new biographies or updating existing ones, the truth is, most marketing executives cringe at the thought. The beleaguered marketing staff does all that it can to collect information, but this effort takes valuable time away from regular business development tasks, essentially crippling the in-house marketing department.
Where in-house marketing departments often stumble is not in practice or approach, but in sheer numbers. Say your firm has 300 lawyers and a marketing staff of six (not unreasonable numbers). That means that there is one marketing staff member for every 50 attorneys. Conservatively, it may take 3 hours to write one biography (scheduling, interviewing, writing, editing, etc.). That translates into 150 hours, or nearly four weeks, for one person. Multiply that by six and your firm has now spent 22.5 weeks (or a little less than half a year) writing the firm's biographies.
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.