Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Listening to the Client: Where Do We Stand?
Bottom Line
An unwillingness to engage in these conversations is, at best, irrational and, at worst, fatal.- “We use firm X more than the firm you are representing because they put their associates more front and center.”
- “We are planning to shift [a significant amount] of our work to a different firm because the partner that would be assigned to do the work [by the relationship partner] does not have positive chemistry with our team.”“We will have $400k of new patent work next year, but we will not give that work to [primary lawyer] because he is so busy, we are worried about his health. We are concerned that the additional work might give him a heart attack.” (I will never forget an interview about 20 years ago with one of a firm's most significant clients. The general counsel had great things to say about the lawyers, but then said: “But if they don't get more [expletive] fax machines, we will fire the firm ….” [Yes, the firm added fax machines.])
- “I use firm X more than [the firm I was representing] for private equity deals because they get it done with one partner and an associate or two, not a team of five or six.”
- “We would give them more work if they would just make an effort to develop a budget at the beginning of new matters.”
- Finally, my favorite comment that I have heard many times at the end of an interview: “Thanks for visiting, I can't believe more firms don't do this.”
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.