Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
All marketing directors have experienced it. They receive an e-mail that describes a terrific deal closed or case “just” won by an attorney at the firm. The attorney requests a press release and a full-blown public relations push to all media outlets, local and national, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. But curiously, nowhere in the e-mail does the attorney mention when the big case or deal happened. As it turns out, it is because it happened more than a month ago and, since the client did its own press release immediately after the fact, every media outlet known to man covered it then. So how can a marketing director say no, without actually saying it? The dilemma is that you cannot send the release to the media again, weeks after the fact, but you don't want to tell the attorney that he or she has no options either. So here are some suggestions of how to make the most of old news.
Before anything is done, the attorney needs to get permission from the client to do any PR on behalf of the firm. In many cases, PR was not done initially because the client preferred to handle it themselves and did not want their outside counsel trying to initiate PR efforts on their own. Once the client has granted permission, it is ok to write a press release from the firm but it cannot go out to the media who already covered the story. Instead, tell the attorney that you can post the release on the firm's Web site and send it over the Jaffe Legal News Service as well, which goes to more than 600 reporters and editors and is a free service. That way the release is able to be archived and searched and available to visitors to the firm's Web site. And don't forget to add the deal or case to the attorney's bio on the firm's Web site as well.
As for actually writing the release, assuming the client has granted permission, next it needs to be determined whether or not the client issued its own press release on the matter. If they did, the entire process becomes a lot easier. The language is already there and is approved; all the firm needs to do is put it on the firm letterhead, add in a quote from the attorney, and change the content to highlight the firm's role.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?