Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This is certainly convenient, because it lets all employees who need materials in their inboxes keep working, wherever they may be, without being tethered to a particular office and or cabinet full of paper files.
But despite the convenience of working online, wouldn't it be nice to have the luxury of an old-fashioned secretary to clean up your firm's inboxes? Someone would maintain the traditional files, store all messages arranged by client, subject and date. When something is needed, whether because a question arose about what a contract requires, a request is received to produce documents in e-discovery, or a copy of the latest or final draft of a contract is needed, it would be a simple matter of asking the secretary to assemble messages from that neatly sorted file. (Sophisticated document-management systems purport to create this result, but they are as good only as the documents that make it into the system. For reasons discussed in this article, many documents and e-mail messages might never make it there.) When all business correspondence took place on paper, in a 9-to-5 work world, that system made perfect sense.
Unfortunately, that world (and its secretaries) hasn't existed for many years. Not only do most of us not have a secretary tidying up our e-mail inbox each evening, but we also have many alternative inboxes for our business correspondence. For work, a busy executive may have an office e-mail account, a Blackberry for around-the-clock access and an online mail account (such as through Gmail, Hotmail or Yahoo!) for convenience when traveling. He or she probably also has a personal account for non-business e-mail, like jokes, that must be kept out of the firm's accounts. Going through 'the file' has become an exercise not only in finding the appropriate messages and attachments, but in simply identifying all places and accounts where 'the file' might exist. Indeed, multiple accounts often are created by employees to bypass the hassles of security measures and record-retention policies diligently created by IT departments who often diligently enforce these polices and whose employees read and apply the information in publications like this one. (My IT staff would call those hassles 'necessary inconveniences' to comply with the rules that lawyers perpetrate.) If the most convenient e-mail device ' typically the Blackberry ' is supplied by the employee herself, or by a third party, then the IT department might not know about all the accounts on which it is used, much less be able to monitor them, or apply the firm's retention or other policies.
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.