Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The times they are a changin'. Or at least that's what the old song says. And in the back offices of many law firms, it's true. In the last 10 years the outsourcing tidal wave that dramatically changed the way corporate America was organized has washed into the administrative areas of law firms from San Francisco to London. Pick up a magazine or trade publication aimed at the legal community and it is hard not to find a story that details how outsourcing is the new wave of the future that will fundamentally change the way that law firms provide services to their clients and partners.
But is this so? Will law firms really change the way they do business? What types of functions can be successfully outsourced and what are the critical processes a firm must go through to validate that outsourcing is indeed the solution to their problems? And, while we are in the analysis mode, is there an alternative to outsourcing that provides many of the benefits of outsourcing but in an environment that more closely aligns with a law firm's culture?
This article explores these and other critical questions and analysis that a law firm's management should consider before committing to any outsourcing effort.
Outsourcing, no matter what some vendors and consultants say, is not new. Law firms have been outsourcing certain functions for years, if not decades. It started with the external messengers that most law firms employed in the 1970s. A few forward-thinking outside messenger services that handled overflow from law firms began to place their employees on the premises of law firms. By placing messengers on site these firms provided improved service to their customers and gave themselves a leg up on the competition. By the beginning of the 1980s, law firms were not only outsourcing their external messengers they were outsourcing their internal ones as well. Food service workers and reprographic employees soon followed. Today, few of the Am Law 100 firms have these types of employees on their direct payrolls. Most of these categories of employees are supplied to law firms by a few national vendors. These vendors provide the law firms with qualified employees, management expertise, promotional opportunities (to the outsourced workers) and replacement workers for sick or vacationing staff at a cost that law firms generally cannot match.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.