Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Coming to terms with retirement is difficult and, like most things, is even harder if you are a law firm partner. As soon as you begin to think about throttling things back a tad, your clients demand a quicker response time and your partners want you to bring in more business. At the same time, what seemed just a short time ago to be a distant respite is now looming over you and you may not even know what to do or if you can even afford to do it. Moreover, even if you do not want to retire, your partnership agreement may have a mandatory retirement provision that takes away your choice.
Typical Mandatory Retirement Provisions
Today most law firm partnership agreements contain a mandatory retirement provision, which sets an arbitrary date by which a partner must retire as a partner from the firm. Proponents of such a provision argue that it benefits a partnership by having a partner cease working and collecting compensation at a time when it is likely that the partner is less productive. Detractors of mandatory retirement claim this provision can prematurely end productive careers and harm partners who, as a result of their senior status, may not be as mobile as other partners.
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?