Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No matter how good a loss prevention program your firm has in place, it is a sad but inevitable fact of life that you will have claims. Your goal as a firm manager, therefore, is not to reduce claims incidence to zero, but rather to have a sound program in place to identify and respond to claims in a manner that minimizes your losses. Here are some thoughts on how to do that from the perspective of a trial lawyer who has spent much of the past 30 years defending law firms against such claims.
How and When Claims Come to Light
Claims can arise in limitless ways. Some red flags that may be signs of trouble brewing include: a client who abruptly leaves the firm, the service of third-party discovery on the firm relating to a matter in which the firm rendered legal services, any request for sanctions against the firm or a client in pending litigation, significant unbilled time or accounts receivable on a client matter, or a letter from a client complaining about his or her legal bills. Also, any time the firm is asked to litigate a matter arising out of the firm's own transactional work, loss prevention counsel should be asked to review the situation and be alert to any potential conflicts between the firm and the client.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.