Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Motivating Attorneys to Accomplish Firm Objectives
Among the more recent trends, it would appear that first-generation law firms are becoming increasingly aware of the need to develop an effective method of motivating their partners. Generally, these firms were established approximately 30 to 40 years ago by individuals who are still reasonably active in the daily affairs of the practice. As a rule, the founding partners were capable of attracting — as well as producing — client work. Their success resulted in additional work that required the recruitment of more lawyers and enabled the firm to expand. Typically, the individual attorneys were bright and competent, and for the most part recruited to produce the work that was being generated by the founding partners. Over a period of time, however, it became evident that many of these second-tier attorneys were unable or unwilling to: 1) personalize their relationships with certain of the firm's key clients that were brought to the firm by the founding partners; or 2) attract new business to the firm and challenge the founders for leadership of the firm.
It was also becoming apparent that the founding partners had bonded the firm to certain important clients by dint of their personality and skill. The founders' influence was particularly evident in relationships with the firm's entrepreneurial business-type and wealthy individual clients. Additionally, over a period of time, additional lawyers were employed to produce the work and meet the firm's growing needs.
As the founding partners reached their early- to mid-60s, some decided to reduce their participation in the practice, others joined their clients in business operations, and some accepted judicial or political appointments. While the founding partners were reducing their active involvement in the firm, the second-tier partners were invariably becoming the “new” first-tier partners. Although these partners had matured, many of them had not developed the requisite business-getting skills, or for that matter had the personalities or breadth and depth of expertise in the law to retain the business from the hard-driving entrepreneurial type clients that had been attracted to the firm by the founders.
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?