Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Are Your Business Development Resolutions Already Falling Flat? Re-Engage by Prioritizing Your Internal Network
The clock strikes midnight. Auld Lang Syne is heard as champagne flutes are clinked. Ambitious New Year's resolutions are shared between friends. From the "I'm going to finally lose those dreaded 10 pounds" to "enforced screen-free family dinners," commitments are made by many for a more fulfilling, healthier new year.
For attorneys, these resolutions go beyond the personal and include professional goals and aspirations. Inevitably these resolutions center around prospective client-targeting efforts, branding goals, or client retention and growth priorities — in a nutshell, business development. Plans are carefully built in support of these business development goals that typically center around an external audience. While growth opportunities outside of an attorneys office or firm are vast and deep, many attorneys fail to appreciate the value of focusing on their internal audience — collaboration and branding opportunities with their colleagues. When done right, an internal business development focus can not only result in an increase in revenue for a firm and a stronger brand and reputation individually, these efforts can also spur momentum in discrete externally facing business development goals by making them more focused, impactful, and most importantly, fruitful.
As we mark the close of the first full month of 2024 and you sheepishly think back to those idle business development resolutions, I challenge you to look back at your goals and identify tactics in utilizing your internal firm network and resources to propel your business development priorities forward.
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.