Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>From the Second Annual MLF 50:</b></i> Two Standout Firms Focus on Client-Centric Marketing
Two firms from the MLF 50 are standouts in the area of client-centric marketing activities and for different reasons. The first, Winston & Strawn, led by Director of Business Development and Marketing Partner Barbara C. Sessions, embarked on an overall visibility campaign with an overarching theme on client-focused service and they did this via their Web site. Web sites are for the most part pictorial and editorial depictions of how law firms perceive themselves. Most sites are almost unbearable to read, difficult to navigate and, for the most part, merely overblown puff pieces. It would seem that there is no real process or planning that goes into the creation of the site, with the appropriate attention to harnessing the energy of the firm and, more importantly, understanding the audience. Winston & Strawn had a plan and a process to create a Web site that addresses those concerns.
No less outstanding in harnessing client-centric based marketing is the firm of Holland & Hart. In 2006, the marketing department, led by Director of Marketing Mark Beese (or as he refers to himself the 'Marketing Guy') engaged in several new initiatives; each of them intimately involving the firm's clients, with the goal of deepening Holland & Hart's relationship with current clients and attracting new ones. The firm's advertising campaign has evolved to highlight innovative and successful clients as part of the Holland & Hart trademark western wilderness.
Winston & Strawn
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.