Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Client Speak: Trading Places
Marketing abounds with buzzwords and bromides ' and dangerous ones at that. When, for example, we sling catch-phrases like 'partnering,' or pontificate about how important it is to 'understand the client's business,' it becomes way too easy to talk a lot of sanctified talk without ever really walking the proverbial walk.
In prior MLF columns, we've attempted to put some meat on these rhetorical bones by offering practical examples of what lawyers actually do when they partner with their clients as well as what it specifically means to understand the client's business. In practice, the two concepts are interrelated. In order to partner with clients and develop new business, you must understand the marketplace trends that drive their strategies. You must understand the liabilities both in and out of court that keep corporate executives awake at night. And so forth '
But let's drill down a little deeper. Lawyers operate in two very different worlds. One is the law firm, with its flat structure and unique owner/ operator dynamics. The other is the law department, which exists within a hierarchal corporate structure, and where the politics, if also Byzantine, are fundamentally different. So, to partner with clients and develop new business, understand those politics. Understand the internal responsibilities that the person to whom you are selling must constantly shoulder. Understand how you might actually help that person become a hero in his or her own world. In other words, change priorities altogether, from yours to theirs.
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.