Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
4 Pitfalls To Avoid In Legal Operations (and How to Deal With Them)
For legal stakeholders seeking to take their existing legal operations programs to the next level or start new programs from scratch, there are a few all-too-easy traps that can stunt growth, cost political capital and cause headaches. Having a strategic plan, budget and critical executive buy-in is not enough to avoid these four common issues:
1. Thinking Too Narrowly About Sourcing the Right Labor In the Right Place At the Right Price
It takes an ecosystem of skills to have a successful legal function, which ideally includes operational experts, technical specialists, data analysts, project managers and, of course, lawyers. Unbundling legal business services from the practice of law is now a standard practice for running a law department, so matching resources with the appropriate work is now table stakes for avoiding overspending on legal services; using a mix of internal employees, alternative legal service providers, law firms and other providers, domestically and offshore, is central to getting this right. Legal operations teams, including leadership, should have multidisciplinary backgrounds and leadership experience outside of legal departments in order to bring new perspectives, scrutiny into current practices and fresh ideas about alternative ways of delivering results.
What to do? Legal departments can seek benchmarking help from service providers on operational models that work and what options exist among peer firms. Each organization will rightfully take a different risk posture toward legal work, but available options include internal or external nearshoring, offshoring and the hybrid models that grew, thrived and matured well before the pandemic sped up the need for legal departments to develop and execute their right-sourcing strategies.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.