Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The legal industry is one of the largest consumers of paper; and Best, Best & Krieger was no exception. Using paper and manual filing systems to store case documents is both tedious and costly. Effectively managing, sharing and securing information can help corporate legal departments and individual law firms reduce administrative costs, protect case records and improve levels of customer service. Improperly managed, case information creates unnecessary risks, and is a huge drain on productivity as employees are forced to sift through an ever-increasing number of documents to (hopefully) locate the critical information they need to do their jobs.
Going Paperless
Recent catastrophic fires, floods and other disasters have forced the legal industry to re-evaluate its continued reliance on paper and manual filing systems to store case documents. Faced with the risk of losing vital case files and the inefficiencies and cost of handling and storing paper, many firms (including BB&K) have mandated using less paper and finding better ways to create, share and archive their electronic information. In the quest to implement a 'paperless office,' one of the greatest challenges to eliminating paper and streamlining document-based processes is the fact that simply scanning paper to create a digital file is not enough. Files must be converted to an electronic format that makes the information stored within useful and accessible. Moreover, there are two incompatible dominant electronic document formats in wide business use ' Microsoft Office and Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF). Microsoft Office provides millions of office professionals with a rich environment for document creation and collaborative authoring. However, the editable Microsoft Word file format is not well suited for sharing and storage of electronic documents. The PDF format has been widely accepted as the open standard for image file support by business and government organizations, including almost every court in the country. PDF files are compact and easy to e-mail, universally viewable, and print just as they would from the source application. While the PDF file format ensures the future compatibility of your case data, it is not always possible to work with PDF files without special software. Be aware ' all PDF creation software is not created equal.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.