Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When working with law firms, the first question that we always get asked is: 'How do we increase our business?' In our experience in working with firms, we have found that they are willing to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in marketing, spend countless hours trying to identify new opportunities, and are always looking for an edge or new strategy to develop more business. We have found that most firms overlook the fact that the most cost-effective and easiest way to develop more business is to utilize the assets they already possess ' by cross-marketing and cross-selling within their own firm.
Meet Nicole Quigley, Assistant Director of Media, Public Relations and Communication with Crowell & Moring LLP.
According to a 2006 benchmarking survey by Chicago-based Hubbard One, a Thomson Elite company, 51% of the survey respondents said that they respond to more than 10 proposals a month, often with minimal advance notice. Some indicated close to 30 per month. As the demand increases and marketing is more involved in the business development process, 62% of marketers have indicated they are not satisfied with their current proposal process.
Features
The BTI Consulting Group's brand new research with law firm marketing leaders reveals three powerful shifts in the world of legal marketing:<ul>1. Marketing spending per attorney climbs more than 20%;</ul><ul>2. Marketing staffs expand by nearly 15%; and</ul><ul>3. Business development takes center stage as a key objective.</ul>
Although most law firms use massive deployments of traditional security solutions to lock down their office systems, networks, and all of their stored content, most of them still struggle with the massive loads of shared electronic documents that flood their corporate network, the Internet, the e-mail system and all of their portable storage devices.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Juries don't always believe what people say, but they do tend to believe what is on paper. The difference that thorough e-mail review and analysis can make in the outcome of litigation is dramatic, and attorneys cannot risk overlooking key evidence that can make or break a client's case.
Part One of this article discussed state insolvency statutes and how liquidation remains a state regulator's remedy of last resort. The conclusion discusses the liquidator's broad powers; automatic stay of other proceedings; distribution plans; issues pertaining to claims; distribution and priorities; drop down; set-offs; and claims by third parties.
Salt Lake City's Kirton & McConkie faced a critical communications issue. With 87 attorneys and additional support staff all using e-mail as a primary method to communicate with internal staff, clients, investigators and others essential to our cases, e-mail is the most important record for all types of data. We were using a backup product to perform a full database backup on the weekends, and incremental backups during the week on our Exchange server; however, the tape backup software didn't allow us to easily search and retrieve e-mail messages and attachments. Additionally, the need for large mailboxes (sometimes as big as 2 or 3 gigabytes), as well as increased e-mail activity, had caused our Exchange database to grow to an unmanageable 120 GB. We couldn't reduce e-mail service, as partners and staff relied on e-mail as the primary communications tool to handle cases. But, the risk of losing pertinent information was oppressive, and managing e-mail data and maintaining seamless access to archived information became a mission-critical task for IT services.
In the December 2005 issue of this publication, this author reviewed the Seventh Circuit's decision in <i>United Air Lines, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.</i>, 416 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2005) (<i>'United I'</i>). In that decision, the Seventh Circuit was asked to determine whether a transaction involving land at the San Francisco airport that was denominated as a lease in the agreement would be treated as a lease for bankruptcy purposes. The Seventh Circuit held that it would look at the substance of the transaction and beyond the form and labels imposed by the parties' documentation.
