Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Outsourcing Is No Longer a Four Letter Word
With 70% of law firms outsourcing a portion of their back office and 45% considering outsourcing some middle office functions, it is clear that outsourcing is on the rise in law firms. This is because, when executed correctly, it can be an excellent management tool to increase service levels, broaden talent and manage costs.
There are still some firms that are reluctant to embrace the financial and operational benefits of outsourcing; these firms may have anecdotal evidence of an outsourcing engagement gone wrong or executed incorrectly. These anecdotes should not be dismissed and every firm considering outsourcing needs to carefully weigh the needs of their firm culture against the demands of a rapidly changing marketplace. However, when outsourcing situations are structured properly ' attuned to your firm's needs with the “right” vendor ' it creates a win-win-win situation for the firm, the vendor and most importantly, the employees.
My company, Mattern & Associates, are unbiased consultants for the back and middle office functions of law firms. We assist firms in improving their in-house situations, and also assist them with making the decision to outsource, and running the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. We have worked with firms that outsourced in-house processes very successfully and have seen others where the process did not go as well as it should have, primarily because the focus was on immediate savings and poor decision making.
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.