Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
LAW FIRM MERGERS - WHO SHOULD CARE?
April 01, 2008
LAW FIRM MERGERS – WHO SHOULD CARE? – We begin a new series on why most underachieving law firm mergers share one fundamental deficiency. Over the next several columns I'll identify a checklist to be used by the negotiating partners and marketing leadership to deal with it.The failure is to work a practicable marketing strategy into the very soul of the merger – before it happens, while it happens and after it happens. Keep in mind that marketing is not just self-promotional activity but the process by which the institution actually defines itself. It is also used by others, such as in recruitment and business development to define the firm externally. Marketing likewise has an immediate impact on internal perceptions.The first of the strategic questions from both firms' marketing leadership shold include:1. Who is going to care about the merger? The answer, of course, is anyone directly affected by it, mainly clients and internal stakeholders. So marketing leadership must provide for direct and well-timed outreach to both constituencies, by phone whenever possible.Stay tuned for more.Allan Colman
LAW FIRM MERGERS – WHO SHOULD CARE? – We begin a new series on why most underachieving law firm mergers share one fundamental deficiency. Over the next several columns I'll identify a checklist to be used by the negotiating partners and marketing leadership to deal with it.The failure is to work a practicable marketing strategy into the very soul of the merger – before it happens, while it happens and after it happens. Keep in mind that marketing is not just self-promotional activity but the process by which the institution actually defines itself. It is also used by others, such as in recruitment and business development to define the firm externally. Marketing likewise has an immediate impact on internal perceptions.The first of the strategic questions from both firms' marketing leadership shold include:1. Who is going to care about the merger? The answer, of course, is anyone directly affected by it, mainly clients and internal stakeholders. So marketing leadership must provide for direct and well-timed outreach to both constituencies, by phone whenever possible.Stay tuned for more.Allan Colman
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.