Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Culture Code for Law Firms
As law firms continue to grapple with issues around the future of work, the back and forth regarding return to office and the quiet consideration of long-term hybrid or remote work models, "We must maintain our firm culture!" is the battle cry being sounded in partially occupied offices and on Zoom calls everywhere.
From creative, PR-friendly endeavors like Greenberg Traurig's leaders' #vanlife trip for firm office visits last spring to virtual happy hours to well-intentioned, morale-boosting ice cream socials, many firms have made a valiant attempt to maintain firm culture in the brave new world in which we find ourselves. While much has been studied and written about corporate culture, and about law firm culture in particular, Daniel Coyle's pre-pandemic (2018) book, "The Culture Code," provides valuable guidance for law firm leaders that is particularly meaningful in today's environment.
In "The Culture Code," Coyle highlights successful organizations ranging from a large global retailer to a winning professional sports franchise and other organizations large and small and posits that culture is not something that is pre-destined or accidental. Rather, it is something that exists and evolves in organizations where particular skill sets are present and cultivated. Based on his research and consulting work, Coyle concludes that leaders can build a successful culture when they:
- Build safety;
- Share vulnerability; and
- Establish purpose.
None of these are inherently easy in law firms.
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.