Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Op Ed: 'Miranda' Rights
I have made it my professional life's work to help women in law firms attain success. And what I have come to realize is that most women who become lawyers and choose to practice within the confines of a law firm fall into two categories. The first is the 'Miranda Hobbs' woman, referring to one of the four Sex and the City characters who has a constant battle with being a partner at a law firm while not allowing herself to take leave of her personal relationships with friends and family (hereinafter referred to as the 'MHs'). The other category is the 'Miranda Priestly' woman who, as most of you know, is the lead character in The Devil Wears Prada (hereinafter referred to as the 'MPs'). Miranda Priestly can best be defined as a woman in charge who doesn't much care about the world outside her office as Editor-in-Chief of the fictitious magazine 'Runway,' and who prides herself on putting the fear of God in anyone with whom she comes in contact. For anyone who has seen the movie version of the best-selling book, could we ever forget Meryl Streep's dismissive tone uttering the words, 'That's all' as her way of telling those in her presence to take their leave?
What I think is that for the most part, women in law have feared being themselves because if they showed their 'feminine side,' they would be perceived as not good enough or smart enough to succeed. I am here to say that's just rubbish.
Let's Take a Step Back
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.