When Lawyers Recommend Wasting Money
Think about whether filing the brief, or opposing the motion, can conceivably do any good.
Think about whether filing the brief, or opposing the motion, can conceivably do any good.
If a reader of average intelligence can't understand what you wrote, you failed.
Legal and operational leaders are gathering May 6–7 in Fort Lauderdale to confront the questions the industry hasn't answered—with a keynote from Amanda Knox setting the tone.
In-house lawyers, your listeners may not remember anything about your issue. Be nice; give them some hints.
This lays the groundwork for all your later days on the job, as in-house columnist Mark Herrmann explains.
How do you cause people to do good work, thus reducing the number of lawsuits against a corporation?
If you want people to care, you have to tell a story, as in-house columnist Mark Herrmann explains.
The new generation of AI-related legal issues are inherently cross-disciplinary, implicating corporate law, intellectual property, data privacy, employment, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
Smart in-house lawyers should start talking about this subject NOW.
What's the one error that people being managed don't notice and many managers don't even realize is a mistake?
In-house columnist Mark Herrmann shares insights obtained from trials he has observed.
Columnist Mark Herrmann explains the distinctions, so you can make an informed choice.
Designed to reduce manual docket work by prioritizing what litigators need most: on-demand full docket summarization that explains the whole case to date, followed by on-demand document summaries for filing triage, and AI-powered natural language searching for faster search and retrieval.
Law school exams may not have predicted much about your future legal career, but at least they made sense.
As an employee, figure out what motivates you; as an employer, figure out what motivates your employees.
A very small number of judges effectively resolve one-third of the nation's federal civil cases.
How can you use the fact that people like to make their own decisions in running a corporate law department?
Why is it that, for many corporate decisions, open debate is considered to be a sin?