Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Project Management has seen an explosion of interest from the legal industry in recent years. It has been touted as the key to efficient legal work and a cure-all for the woes of fixed fees, fee caps, and lawyers who blow budgets. However, I think there has become a disconnect with understanding why legal project management has been beneficial in creating efficiencies, to the point where it isn't understood why it doesn't or won't create efficiencies in certain situations.
Legal Project Management (LPM) consists of conducting legal matters with project management principles; Initiating, Planning, Managing/Monitoring, and Review. Initiating is focused on the opening of the matter and clearing identifying client goals as well as the scope of the matter. Planning focuses on both an initial timeline of work, what work will be done, and who will be doing it. Many lawyers get hung up on the idea that they can't have a plan because you can't see months, if not years, into the future of litigation. However, a plan is meant to be based on the best information available combined with reasonable assumptions, and should be updated and modified as more information is available. Managing/Monitoring is doing the work that was planned and monitoring that the plan is being followed as well as monitoring that the budget is on track. Last, Reviewing takes place at the close of a matter to see how the matter went in regard to how accurate the initial plan was, how closely the budget was followed, how satisfied the client is, and what can be done better next time.
Legal Project Management can be a productive tool, and should be utilized; nothing I write should be construed otherwise. However, the expectations from LPM are often incorrectly pigeon-holed. The main selling point I keep hearing is that LPM makes lawyers more efficient. That isn't exactly true.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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 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.
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?