Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Professional Development University</b> Leadership, Legacy and Self Determination: A PD Exercise for the New Year
I have been fortunate to work with or for a Congressman, numerous Chief Justices, trial and appellate judges, university professors and deans, committee chairs, school principals, corporate executives and other leaders without formal titles. Many of them were trained as lawyers and we worked in partnership. But, while most of the corporate and public sector professions constantly have an eye on leadership development, law firm management has only recently started to give adequate attention to strategies that build the leadership capabilities of individuals and teams.
There are reams of scholarly advice and millions of consulting dollars spent on leadership thinking and development. From the halls of the Harvard Business School, to bar sponsored seminars, to offices of in-house counsel, to law-firm conference rooms, there is a constant search for signs of leadership that will guide the legal profession to higher standards of client service and civility, lower costs and higher profitability, strategic advantage, and survival in a volatile global economy. Whether you adapt Jack Welch's GE model, Lawrence Summers' standard at Harvard, one of Steven Covey's Seven Habits “Begin with the end in mind,” or a less prominent role model, you possess the ultimate power to control your leadership destiny and legacy. Leadership development requires active engagement, introspection, dialogue and courage to listen and learn.
I suggest, for the purpose of this brief column, that law firm leaders begin with the end in mind. Once we know where we want to go as leaders, then we can begin to chart a course that may lead us and others to that legacy destination or to one that exceeds our expectations and takes us into uncharted territory.
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.