Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For a firm to be successful, its leaders must create the circumstances for “1,000 flowers to bloom.” As corny as this may sound, that is what great law-firm leaders do. More literally, it means providing the training and support necessary so that each lawyer thrives, delivering excellent client work and contributing positively to the firm's culture. Whether the law-firm leader is the managing partner, practice group chair, or a lawyer who manages others as part of a project, he or she needs to be able to get great results. The viability of the firm depends on it.
To achieve great results, a leader must transform a group of independent lawyers who, left to their own inclinations, will usually work in their own individual silos, into a team that focuses on common client goals, leveraging each others' strengths to surmount the intricacies and nuances of complex legal matters. It is essential that a firm provide cost-effective superior intellectual horsepower, because failure to do so relegates the firm to mediocrity and a future of competing to be the lowest-cost provider of commodity services. Thus, it's not just that clients pay more attention to fees; it's the fact that winning business requires that the firm deliver superior distinguishable results efficiently.
To achieve great results, a leader must transform a group of independent lawyers who, left to their own inclinations, will usually work in their own individual silos, into a team that focuses on common client goals.
Getting superior results, unfortunately, is not as simple as merely assigning tasks to the various team members. It requires leaders to cultivate collaboration among the smart, independent thinkers who are typically quite skeptical and often lack the desire to work on teams. It requires lawyers to lead with aplomb, which means building trust, harnessing diverse ways of thinking and problem-solving, achieving commitment to goals, milestones, deadlines and so forth, embracing accountability in a manner that promotes learning over blame, and focusing on client goals. The visual representation of this model — The Arudia Collaborative Approach — also highlights a key aspect of collaboration: that a group of lawyers transforms itself into a true team. For a visual representation of this model, please see below. Also critical is the need to maintain teamwork by continual attention to each step. The danger is that a failure at any one step erodes the ability to achieve success at other steps.
When I counsel lawyers in my workshops, I offer the following tools:
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?