Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
WHAT DID NOT WORK
WHAT DID NOT WORK -1. Offering to handle and manage what inside counsel already have the skills to manage.2. Relying on good results but not working on the relationship.3. Offensive humorous comments.Conducting comprehensive research on your clients and prospects, both as individuals and on their companies is one of the single most important components to successfully closing a new engagement. Yet it is one of the major reasons in-house counsel do not retain firms. Sure, winning a major piece of litigation, completing an acquisition, settling a strike are all positives. But if you ignore continuing to build the client relationship, you will face “I just won a major victory for my client. Why hasn't she called me?” So do your homework. If you do have services which can replace those currently being conducted by in-house counsel, offer to do so only if you have previously learned that they want to contract them out. Don't independently offer to handle and manage what they can already do.The third failure may occur when a completely innocent humorous comment is made by a colleague during a pitch or presentation meeting. You must know who will be in the room from the in-house group and learn enough about their backgrounds to avoid the problem. This is one of those areas where you may not get the work and never be told why.In the next blog column, we'll discuss additional foibles committed by attorneys when trying to win more business. Allan Colman [email protected].
WHAT DID NOT WORK -1. Offering to handle and manage what inside counsel already have the skills to manage.2. Relying on good results but not working on the relationship.3. Offensive humorous comments.Conducting comprehensive research on your clients and prospects, both as individuals and on their companies is one of the single most important components to successfully closing a new engagement. Yet it is one of the major reasons in-house counsel do not retain firms. Sure, winning a major piece of litigation, completing an acquisition, settling a strike are all positives. But if you ignore continuing to build the client relationship, you will face “I just won a major victory for my client. Why hasn't she called me?” So do your homework. If you do have services which can replace those currently being conducted by in-house counsel, offer to do so only if you have previously learned that they want to contract them out. Don't independently offer to handle and manage what they can already do.The third failure may occur when a completely innocent humorous comment is made by a colleague during a pitch or presentation meeting. You must know who will be in the room from the in-house group and learn enough about their backgrounds to avoid the problem. This is one of those areas where you may not get the work and never be told why.In the next blog column, we'll discuss additional foibles committed by attorneys when trying to win more business. Allan Colman [email protected].
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.