Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hiring CMOs From Outside The Legal Industry
Law firms are increasingly looking beyond the legal industry to hire Chief Marketing Officers and other management level officers who have broad experience in the corporate sector. The problem is that no matter how talented a person, if they cannot successfully assimilate into a law firm culture it will never work. Firms must examine their hiring process more so than ever to be sure that the candidates they evaluate will actually be able to succeed in the legal industry. Personality testing is increasingly being used to screen candidates to make sure they can successfully make the transition before the job is offered to them.
Turnover of Chief Marketing Officers is happening at a remarkable pace. The reasons are many ' from the inability of the individual to further effect change with the firm, to declining loyalty. One increasingly prevalent, but often unmentioned, reason is a poor selection process that does not consider cultural integration into the firm. Firms seeking lateral partners do not hesitate to run cultural inventories to make sure the firm and the candidate(s) will mesh. However, when it comes to choosing a new CMO or senior level management position, cultural integration is not given the same consideration. Although many firms invest considerable resources to train employees in interviewing techniques, these techniques do not assess certain personality attributes. As a result, many of the CMOs hired are inappropriate because they are either unable to fit into a particular firm culture or they do not have the specific personality traits needed for that particular position.
Part of the Process
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.