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].
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?