Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Partnering: The Future of Legal Services Has Arrived
Over 10 years ago, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company adopted a model for the procurement of legal services that is based on strict legal spending rules, including early case assessment measures, consolidation of law firms and service providers handling DuPont work, and implementation of numerous other cost-saving measures. The DuPont model, which is commonly referred to as “partnering,” has become a platform for the efforts of an increasing number of companies to revamp their legal service expectations and implement changes that embrace partnering between in-house and outside attorneys.
Despite the amount of time that partnering has survived and the increasing number of companies adopting a partnering model, most outside counsel still meet the concept of partnering with great skepticism. This skepticism is bred from both an inability to envision the future of the legal services market and the misconception that the sole goal of partnering is to reduce legal bills for corporations at the expense of law firm revenues.
To understand where the legal market is headed, it is helpful to examine why partnering has been so successful. The concept was embraced largely because the role of in-house counsel has changed dramatically. Many in-house attorneys used to act solely as a liaison between the company and outside counsel. Today, in-house attorneys work longer hours, deal with more sophisticated work, and are expected to better manage the “business” of their department, in part, by ensuring that the fees paid to outside counsel are comparable to the value of the achieved results. Of course, these elements do add up to a reduction in legal bills for corporations. However, to conclude that this reduction is the sole purpose of partnering and is always at the expense of reduced revenues for law firms is to view partnering too simplistically.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.