Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When Should Law Firms Speak Out On An Issue?
The recent attacks in the Middle East have been a test for law firms, universities, and companies of all sizes around the country, with many brands caught in a communications dilemma they never anticipated. In an era of ESG characterized by heightened awareness of social justice issues, including terrorism, racial injustice, and reproductive rights, the question of whether law firms should take a public stance has become a significant discussion among firm leaders, businesses, and their employees.
While the ability to remain apolitical is the most comfortable of choices, the landscape has evolved in recent years, making it more challenging for firms to stay silent. Employees, clients, and the public want companies and law firms to lead and take a stand. While it is impossible and impractical for law firms to speak out on every issue, often there will be a moral reason that compels businesses to speak up. The question law firms all face is when to speak out and how to position your response.
Should your firm take the lead, drive the conversation, or stay silent on the issue? When is the appropriate time to make a statement? Respond early, and you will quickly find the clients who align with your core values. Comment late in the game, and it could look like you are just jumping in so you aren't left out, playing it safe. Should your statement be all encompassing or address specific parts of the situation? How will you create a message that says enough and one that is authentic? These are all questions to ponder.
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.