Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Closing in the RED ZONE - How Outside Counsel are Selected
April 24, 2007
During the past 20 years, I've had the good fortune of sitting in with in-house counsel as they discuss their outside firms and the selection process for new ones. As you read the following quotes, do an honest assessment of whether you and your firm meet any of the categories. And if so, make sure you use the suggested tactics to solve the problem.1. “Law firms are dumb about what companies really want. I am shocked at how cocky and not-in-tune they are.” SOLVE THE PROBLEM by holding a pre-meeting or phone conversation with your contact.2. “I am going to start hiring plaintiff attorneys who are successful versus large companies like ours; they are winners.” SOLVE THE PROBLEM by decoding hidden decision making cues that might even come from the CEO.3. “Our law firms are spoiled and dull – I want to shake things up.” SOLVE THE PROBLEM by concentrating on efforts to enhance your retention.4. “I want people who win, whether selling our products or beating our competitors in court.” from a CEO. SOLVE THE PROBLEM by using the selection process to demonstrate what additional value you bring to them, even from the discussions during the selection process.Enter your comments below or through [email protected].
During the past 20 years, I've had the good fortune of sitting in with in-house counsel as they discuss their outside firms and the selection process for new ones. As you read the following quotes, do an honest assessment of whether you and your firm meet any of the categories. And if so, make sure you use the suggested tactics to solve the problem.1. “Law firms are dumb about what companies really want. I am shocked at how cocky and not-in-tune they are.” SOLVE THE PROBLEM by holding a pre-meeting or phone conversation with your contact.2. “I am going to start hiring plaintiff attorneys who are successful versus large companies like ours; they are winners.” SOLVE THE PROBLEM by decoding hidden decision making cues that might even come from the CEO.3. “Our law firms are spoiled and dull – I want to shake things up.” SOLVE THE PROBLEM by concentrating on efforts to enhance your retention.4. “I want people who win, whether selling our products or beating our competitors in court.” from a CEO. SOLVE THE PROBLEM by using the selection process to demonstrate what additional value you bring to them, even from the discussions during the selection process.Enter your comments below or through [email protected].
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.