Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Discussions about cross-selling in law firms remind me of the well-publicized discussions a few years ago in the scientific world about cold fusion. Both represent their respective professions' Holy Grail, but no one has really made much meaningful progress toward either, in part because there are some very real and persistent barriers. More significantly in the case of cross-selling, the problem is self-created. By associating themselves and their value to clients exclusively with their practice specialty, lawyers create and perpetuate a product-centric focus that is the root of the cross-selling problem.
Over the last 10 years, I have attended a number of leadership, management and other seminars pertaining to the direction that law firms must take in order to be successful in the 21st century. What ensued was years of frustration. I never felt like our firm fit into any of the categories of law firms that would prosper in the ever-changing legal environment. We weren't a national, regional or international law firm. We weren't a boutique. Yet each year our firm grew both in size and financially. In 2003, our profits-per-equity-member reached $425,000. We are competitive economically with the large law firms, yet we are having more fun.
By way of Europe and, more specifically, London, a certain brand of "forum" ' the PM Forum ' has arrived in North America. The PM Forum, the world's largest marketing association serving the professional services industry, has launched the PM Forum North America, bringing together professionals from the world of law, accounting, consulting and real estate.
On Oct. 23, the New Jersey tax court issued a decision that most tax experts expect will change the direction state income taxation has been taking for the past decade. The new direction will reopen an opportunity for franchisors and other licensors of intellectual property such as trademarks and patents to avoid paying state income taxes by using intellectual property holding companies based in tax-haven states such as Delaware and Nevada.
Features
A standard plot element of time-travel science fiction is that those journeying to the past must first be sternly warned that anything they do to change the past — stop the car before it plunges over the cliff, warn the wagon train of the bandits lurking ahead, select paper instead of plastic at the checkout line — has unforeseeable consequences that could render the future (and hence, the present) completely unrecognizable. The idea, of course, is that what happens in the past affects the future.
After conducting a study on how the U.S. patent system affects competition and innovation, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has suggested several legislative and judicial reforms to current U.S. patent law that might change the way we litigate patents. If implemented, these reforms could make it easier to challenge the validity of patents and could provide accused infringers with additional defenses to charges of infringement and willful infringement.
Features
The Lemelson patent era may finally be over. In a decision issued on Jan. 23, a Nevada federal court ruled that a number of patents invented by Jerome H. Lemelson were invalid and unenforceable.
Features
Your company is vigorously developing new devices and methods in a promising technical area. The head of the development team calls you, as general counsel, for advice. Two U.S. patents were just issued that may impact a device your company is prepared to market and the method your company uses to make the device. You also have received a letter from your most vigorous competitor — one who has a well-funded technology program and a history of pursuing infringement actions. The letter advises that there is reason to believe that your company is infringing. Your company believes that it has the right to proceed to market, but wants your guidance on what to do.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
One of the common issues facing businessmen and lawyers in the lease financing of complicated equipment such as aircraft, is how to impose an obligation upon the lessee to pay and segregate funds sufficient to assure aircraft maintenance expenses, while preventing these funds from being treated as property of a debtor and cash collateral within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code Section 363 (11 U.S.C. '363). If a lessee is asked in a written lease agreement to deposit, from time to time, contemplated amounts of cash by which to assure the lessor that certain long-term maintenance obligations will be funded and completed, or that rent will be paid, then there is a risk that these deposits might be treated as cash collateral and property of the estate. This subjects the lessor to the risk that the bargained-for cash set-aside funds, might, in a bankruptcy case context, not be available for the purposes for which they were originally intended. This article addresses a risk avoidance approach to that problem.
