A quick heads up: I’m about to try to move this blog to a new home. I’m keeping the Legal Value Theory moniker but moving the blog itself to my new website at agileattorney.com. The new site is also powered by WordPress and their transfer tools are pretty good, but there’s always a chance of something getting lost in the shuffle. If you have any trouble accessing the blog or any permalinks, please let me know. I’ll also be adding a bunch of new content soon (I’ve been focused on getting the new site up and running and have neglected the blog itself), so stay tuned! ... (Keep reading)
The Agile Attorney Blog
It seems like far too long since I’ve revisited the Grand Unified Theory of Legal Value™ that inspired me to start this blog in the first place. I got a nice reminder, however, from an Inc. Magazine article this month titled The Two Keys to Profit. (unfortunately it appears to be print-only). The article is a quick one-pager, but it is loaded with important truths that Lawyers should embrace, starting with, Companies that want consistent high profit should do two things: Emphasize better products or services over lower prices, and focus on growing the top line rather than obsess about cost cutting. This squares nicely with my assertion that Cost ... (Keep reading)
I feel like like I’ve been reviewing a lot of painfully one-sided contract clauses lately, so I was pleasantly surprised when I came across this little beauty. Indemnification is something everyone looks for, especially for IP, so it always baffles me when I wind up going round and round with opposing counsel trying to make indemnifications flow both ways: You cover me for the things you bring to the relationship, and I’ll cover you for the things I bring. Why is this so hard? I could quibble with a few of the word choices below, but overall it is a comprehensive yet simple and balanced indemnification clause. So I thought ... (Keep reading)
I’m pleased to announce that Legal Hackers, LLC has officially abandoned its USPTO application to register the term “Legal Hackers” for federal trademark protection. As I said before (more than once), I think the term “Legal Hackers” is simply too descriptive to have it controlled by a single person or entity—particularly under the authority of federal trademark law. Aside from the technical trademark argument, however, I think it is misguided strategy to attempt to cultivate a community of legal hackers but then erect a barrier to entry into that community. ... (Keep reading)
First off I want to say how much I appreciate everyone who has weighed in on this debate, both for making their perspective known and also for keeping things civil and above board (at least as far as I can tell). This being the internet—and also, ultimately, a legal dispute—I suppose I’d be deluding myself by thinking that the collegiality can last forever, but I’m still hopeful. I will certainly continue to give it my best shot and expect to be called out if I miss the mark. For those who haven’t been following this closely (and let’s face it, it isn’t exactly “Who Shot J.R.”): A couple of weeks ... (Keep reading)
I’m not sure when exactly I started thinking of myself as a legal hacker. I certainly have been rejecting much of the conventional wisdom around law practice since I became a lawyer, and I’ve tried more than a few “hacks” in my day to improve my own legal workflows (some successful, some not). Legal Hackers LLC can tell you exactly when it first used the term “legal hackers”: April 1, 2012 (the date on their federal trademark application). As I said in my previous post, Legal Hackers LLC’s Phil Weiss has been instrumental in establishing the idea of legal hacking as an organized movement rather than a dispersed set of ... (Keep reading)
This is going to be the first of (at least) two posts I plan to make on this topic. As the title says, I am first and foremost calling for a healthy and open debate. I will set out the reasons for my own position on this matter in a later post. For now, I want to give background on why I am calling for this debate at all. The term “Legal Hackers” is currently pending trademark registration with the USPTO. It was Published for Opposition on September 16, which means that there is a 30-day window from that date for anyone who believes they will be harmed by the ... (Keep reading)
We lawyers are accustomed to borrowing from the worlds of other professionals. We share much with consultants and accountants, maybe a little less with doctors or architects, but they’re all smart folks with fancy educations like ours, and we glean things every now and again that improve our own practices. I recently stumbled across a brilliant little book about a professional service that I frankly can’t stop gushing about. It captures the journey from the strictures of learning and training and theory to the development of the professional’s self and style, as necessitated by her more complete understanding of, and empathy for, her client. ... (Keep reading)
I think Net Neutrality is an important enough issue that I’m giving up a little blog space to support it. Please check the link below if you want your voice heard as well! Cable companies want to slow down and break! your favorite sites, for profit. To fight back, let’s cover the web with symbolic “loading” icons, to remind everyone what an Internet without net neutrality would look like, and drive record numbers of emails and calls to lawmakers. via Battle For The Net. ... (Keep reading)
I heard the following story from a friend this week, and it struck me as representative of a common frustration with lawyers (in this case outside counsel). ... (Keep reading)
Page [tcb_pagination_current_page] of [tcb_pagination_total_pages]