Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When Being a Star Rainmaker Is Not Enough
Robert is a well-respected successful rainmaker at his firm. Katie, also a partner, has been with the firm for many years and is known for delivering stellar client service and having deep knowledge and expertise in her practice area, though she does not bring in business.
In meetings, Robert tends to dominate conversations and take up most of the "air space," rarely asking for or considering the input of others, including Katie. Because Katie is more reserved and reflective, she takes more time than Robert to think things through before forming her opinion so she becomes resentful when Robert does not solicit her input or give her time to share her opinion before making a decision and moving onto something else. This especially bothers Katie since she is typically the one with the most knowledge on the matter at hand so she feels like he confidently makes decisions without fully understanding or addressing the question before him. Katie becomes turned off by his behavior because she feels like he constantly steamrolls over her, never considering or valuing her input.
Robert appears to be clueless about the negative impact he has on her. After becoming so frustrated by his behavior, Katie ultimately leaves her firm to work in-house for one of the firm's clients. Though the firm was disappointed to see Katie leave, they were glad that at least she was going to work for a client, thinking that this would actually turn into a plus for the firm. Little did firm leadership know that Katie was so alienated by Robert that she decided not to send any more work from the in-house client to Robert or the firm. Instead, she sends the work to other attorneys who she feels respect and appreciate her.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?