Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Whether they like it or not, lawyers interact with data every day. While there is no need for them to seek advanced degrees in data science or statistics, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to provide adequate representation without being skilled in the uses of data. Having some awareness of the importance of data and occasionally using it to strategic advantage in a legal matter or in a legal business context — what I would call basic data literacy — will soon be insufficient. They will need to become data competent to stay competitive and relevant.
In nearly every other industry and profession — finance and banking, insurance, retail and healthcare, to name just a few — the data-driven mindset has taken root and yielded abundant fruit. Law firms need only look at their own clients to confirm this. Many companies routinely analyze and manipulate data across multiple business functions to quantify variables like risk, the likelihood of certain outcomes, the predicted cost of complex projects, and the efficiency of specific practices and teams. Why not law firms?
In fact, that's a question law firm clients are asking with increasing frequency. When clients are facing a lawsuit or considering legal action, they know they need to manage risk in an objective and defensible way. More GCs are demanding data-based insights that can substantiate strategic direction on pending legal matters. They are even looking for data in pitch decks and RFPs, because they know data-driven lawyering will give them a clearer and more substantive understanding of their options as they pursue the details of specific matters. By and large, however, law firms are falling short. When you read the comments of exceptional lawyers who have been recognized for creative, data-driven work, a common theme is how corporate clients are frustrated with outside counsel's failure to adapt to today's data-centric business environment.
To be fair, some firms have also begun to recognize the importance of data, investing in technologies such as legal analytics, machine learning and natural language processing to deepen their insight into litigation data and guide legal strategy, and to help them understand and optimize internal processes and workflows. These are good steps. But data competency is not just about purchasing tools, and even firms that invest in advanced technology are not always successful in getting their lawyers to use it to its fullest potential, if at all. The degree to which firms and lawyers are comfortable and skilled with data still varies tremendously from one organization to another, and even within individual firms.
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 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?