Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Global 100
The Global 100 appears to have found its groove. After the turbulence of the financial crisis, which in 2009 caused the world's 100 highest-grossing law firms to collectively suffer their first-ever fall in aggregate fee income, the group has now settled into a pattern of slow, steady growth. Aside from a slight spike in 2011, when total Global 100 revenue increased 6.8%, top-line growth has for the past five years hovered at around 4%.
This year is no different, with total Global 100 revenue rising 4.5% to $92.7 billion, a sum just shy of the gross domestic product of Ecuador, the world's 63rd-richest country, according to World Bank data. Although a far cry from the double-digit gains routinely achieved by firms before the financial crisis, at current growth rates, Global 100 revenues will still top $100 billion within the next two years.
And these aren't figures skewed by consolidation or the introduction of some new form of megafirm: Eighty-four of the top 100 firms increased their revenue last year. Nor was the growth simply a reflection of firms adding more lawyers. In fact, the total number of attorneys employed by Global 100 firms saw a rare contraction last year, dipping 0.8% to just below 112,000 ' the first drop in overall group head count since 2010 and only the fourth since The American Lawyer (an ALM affiliate of this newsletter) began compiling global financials in 1998. In total, 42 Global 100 firms reduced their head count last year.
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.