Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
I started conducting etiquette-training sessions in the mid 90s. The typical program focused on good manners and business protocol. Fast-forward to the new millennium and I am discussing etiquette topics that were unknown a decade ago, like appropriate use of cell phones, PDAs and electronic mail. Interesting thing about etiquette: It constantly changes to keep up with society, technology and new business philosophies. Who would have thought or accepted the notion of 'business casual' anytime other than on 90-degree summer days? Or that a named partner would be called by his or her first name?
Unfortunately, along with dressing down our attire and our diminished show of respect for station or attained status, we have also lost our common courtesies and basic levels of good etiquette. Look around your firm and observe. I challenge you to spend time listening and watching how the partners, associates and staff interact with each other. To help you in your observations, look for the following types of etiquette circumstances.
A Major Issue
Now that you have observed the need for some etiquette training, here are some other items you can place in your arsenal to help convince management that this should be offered. First is increased exposure from articles published in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and similar publications identifying etiquette as a major issue in the business world. As Generation Y is entering the work force and the Boomers are moving out, there is a marked difference in the level of sophistication of business interactions. Second, and the most important reason to offer an etiquette tune- up, is when you receive feedback from others about the poor manners of one of your partners, associates or staff members. Simple acts like welcoming clients, offering a seat or pronouncing a difficult name correctly can warm a client's heart. On the other hand, when partners read Blackberrys during meetings, take cell phone calls or otherwise show a lack of respect for the clients' time, it can be deadly to the relationship.
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.