Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Development: The Ethical Boundaries
In recent years, business development has meant different things in different segments of the American legal community. To some attorneys, extensive media campaigns and billboards are the preferred method. To others, in the mass tort context for example, the aggressive pursuit of victims and their families has been all too commonplace. Elsewhere, Web sites and computer chat rooms have supplemented or supplanted the traditional firm brochures and client seminars.
In reaction to these trends, a number of jurisdictions have revamped their business development ethics rules in recent years. Unfortunately, the necessarily “one size fits all” approach to explicit rules has led to some curious and counterintuitive results. In states that forbid direct in person contacts with non-clients who aren't lawyers, for example, it may make sense to prevent attorneys from badgering widows and orphans. But these same rules likewise prevent lawyers in such states from telephoning a sophisticated, educated company president.
These factors have led to general uncertainty regarding which client development techniques lawyers are permitted to undertake and where. Such uncertainty is exacerbated by the answers to three questions. First, what's the most important subject in today's law firm that law schools don't teach and bar examiners don't test? Second, what area of legal ethics presents the greatest hodge-podge collection of variations and inconsistencies across state lines? Third, especially for law firms that operate in multiple jurisdictions, what is one of the trickiest ethics issues facing the profession? The answer to all three questions is business development.
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.
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?