Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Why Your Associates (And Partners) Need Help Branding
Since the changes in the legal economy in 2008, distinguishing oneself from other lawyers is critical to getting a job, work from colleagues, and more clients. This is true for both partners and associates. It's not enough to be smart and hardworking. A lawyer must be known for what he or she does, and must be able to sell him or herself.
Junior partners and associates often have difficulty selling their services. They got A's in law school, they had no trouble passing the bar, and they work at prestigious firms. They tell themselves, “That should be enough, right?” Wrong. They are competing with literally thousands of lawyers who did just as well and who now are in the same boat. To help these lawyers develop business, you need to help them get comfortable talking about themselves and their services. If a lawyer cannot comfortably talk about what he or she does, colleagues, the community, and current and prospective clients won't necessarily understand which problems a particular lawyer is able to solve.
To successfully sell his or her services, a lawyer needs a personal brand ' and this is not a hokey marketing gimmick. Rather, a powerful personal brand will deliver remarkable results by providing a compelling and unambiguous rendition of the lawyer's strengths, inspiring confidence and drawing the best opportunities to the lawyer. A meaningful brand articulates why, how, and what the lawyer does, distinguishes the lawyer from his or her peers, and succinctly describes the value that the lawyer contributes given the opportunity.
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.