Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i> Law Firm CI:</i></b> Inspiring Change
“Only half of companies actually use the competitive intelligence [CI] they collect,” headlined a Harvard Business Review article by CI gurus Benjamin Gilad and Leonard M. Fuld, published earlier this year. According to the authors, four primary factors accounted for at least some of the reasons why certain companies are more successful than others:
- The Analyst has “sign-off” authority over major decisions;
- Management is open to perspectives varying from internal consensus;
- The Analyst's report called for proactive, rather than reactive action; and
- The Analyst is involved in product launches.
Though the study drew on responses from more than 20 industries, the findings corroborate with more than a decade of my experience delivering CI to law firms. In short, not enough law firms are using CI to improve their decision-making, and perhaps these findings help to explain why.
Where Law Firm CI Falls Short
First, it is nearly impossible to find a CI analyst who takes part in executive decisions at a law firm, whether as a “sign-off” authority or influencer in practice management (the equivalent of a traditional company's product development function). Historically, the competitive intelligence function within a law firm was an adjunct or “special ops” team designated, often on an ad-hoc basis, to work on special projects. Many CI teams grew out of (or are still housed within) the library. They often take direction from parties ranging from firm leadership to business development professionals to individual attorneys.
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.