Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Partners are saddled with one of the most important yet difficult tasks related to managing a team of lawyers: providing constructive feedback. Feedback is a partner's tool to improving performance, efficiency and service quality.
The objective in giving feedback is to enhance performance by supplying information to guide the individual toward the level and quality of work that is expected. The following are seven steps to effective and useful feedback sessions.
Guidelines for Giving Feedback
Partners manage all the dynamic aspects of client matters. They are in constant demand to make decisions; they are forever solving problems, and unfortunately associates' needs often fall to the wayside. It can be a pitfall for a partner to try to provide constructive feedback without allotting the appropriate time and energy. The problems arise when the feedback is given in such a way that it offends or insults the recipient. Feedback should be presented in a manner in which the receiver perceives the comments as useful and beneficial without being judgmental. If given correctly those working with the partner will know where they are and where to go next in terms of expectations and goals. The following are five common mistakes partners make when rushing feedback.
A warm handshake at the conclusion of the feedback session is one way to end on a positive tone. Another is for the partner to say: 'Thanks for talking with me. I feel that this has been a very productive discussion. I know I can count on you in the future. I'm here to help you in any way I can.'
Dr. Sharon M. Abrahams is the Director of Professional Development for the international law firm, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP. Dr. Abrahams has over 20 years of experience in the training and education field; specializing in client relations, marketing, sales, communication and management development training. Her recent book, 100 Plus Pointers for New Lawyers on Adjusting to Your Job, is published by the American Bar Association Career Resource Center. We welcome Dr. Abrahams to our Board of Editors with this issue. She can be reached at [email protected].
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.