Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Getting to Zero
Of all the areas that our company reviews with law firms, the question of how to manage paper records ' both onsite and off ' is probably the greatest hurdle faced by many of our clients. For most areas of back-office operations not running optimally, firms can outsource or hire a new manager and typically solve the problem. This is not the case for paper records.
The drafting of a firmwide, long-term strategic plan for your records is much more difficult, especially in the offsite records contract area. Having contracts in place that will allow you to destroy stored files and overcome previously, poorly negotiated contracts in a cost-effective manner is a challenge, to say the least. This issue, coupled with the cultural hurdle to reduce on-site paper files and migrate to a digital world, are substantial to overcome. Add in the industry-wide fear held by attorneys to destroy paper documents, and the hurdles become even more considerable.
Three facets must be in place to drive your offsite storage costs to zero:
- Offsite storage contract(s) that will allow you to destroy records in a cost-effective manner;
- A process that allows you to digitize your onsite records; and
- A Records Retention Policy that is adhered to and lays out the retention guidelines for paper and electronic records.
Can it be done? Absolutely. Can it be done cost-effectively? Absolutely, as long as you have a plan, the management and the contracts to support it.
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.