An article appeared on the Lexology legal news service in the past week that riled me a little – not least because it mentions my name and (in my view) misrepresents something that I wrote a few months ago. For those who may be unfamiliar with Lexology, it is a service that aggregates content from legal and attorney firms, and other service providers, creating a searchable archive and delivering tailored email bulletins to subscribers. It is free to subscribe and read, but the firms that provide all the content pay handsomely for the privilege of being aggregated and distributed. In other words, it is not so much a ‘news’ service for readers as it is a marketing service for the contributing firms. Most of the content is originally published on the firms’ web sites, from which it is automatically picked up (‘ingested’) by Lexology.
While many of the articles appearing on the Lexology site are useful and informative – e.g. reports of the latest legal developments in various jurisdictions served by the contributing firms – some are pure marketing. The piece that has so irked me falls, in my opinion, into the latter category.
Never let it be said, then, that James & Wells has not extracted maximum value from the piece, which bears all the hallmarks of having been written not by Wells and Luxton themselves, but rather by a marketing professional. It takes the classic public relations form of ostensibly objective reporting, interspersed with quoted and paraphrased comments from Wells and Luxton in support of the article’s main theses, which are that:
there has been an ‘exodus of senior patent attorneys from formerly private firms’ because of ‘corporatisation’, and the acquisition and merger strategies of the listed holding companies IPH Limited and QANTM IP Limited (ASX:QIP);
as a result, those firms are losing the benefit of these senior practitioners’ experience, and they are ‘being replaced by younger people with a lot less experience’ who are ‘missing out on the mentorship they need at that point in their career’;
this may lead to junior attorneys feeling ‘overworked and stressed’;
practitioners in ‘corporatised’ firms may lack the autonomy and discretion to keep clients ‘at the forefront’ and to build strong relationships ‘based on trust and respect’; and
established firms now owned within corporate groups are no longer able to guarantee clients that ‘whoever you engaged in that organisation would be able to deliver’.
Overall, the tenor of the article is simply that ‘corporatised firms = bad’ whereas ‘traditional privately held, partnership type models (like James & Wells) = good’. Perhaps it feels plausible that this might be so, and doubtless there are people around who will attest, anecdotally, to some experience that supports the argument.
I am just not persuaded that it is true, or that having firms going around claiming that it is are doing the Australasian profession any favours.
Categories: Casino News |
Published by: paynplaycasinos.bet
02/06/2021
The chilled universe of Kassu Casino has opened its doors to the Swedish market. Offering a Welcome Bonus of 200 Welcome...
Categories: Casino News |
Published by: paynplaycasinos.bet
22/05/2021
We are extremely happy to announce that Kassu Casino will be soon available in Sweden. Players can...
The good news is that after letting things get a little out-of-hand over summer (when, presumably, many staff were on annual leave), IP Australia now appears to be bringing the situation back under control. Average pendency (i.e. the delay between filing and grant) peaked at 68 days for innovation patents granted in March, before falling to 52 days in April. In both March and April, the number of patents granted exceeded the number of new applications filed, and the number of pending applications fell from a peak of 1229 in February to 879 at the end of April. While this is still much higher than historical levels of about 100-150 innovation patent applications pending at any given time, it is clear that IP Australia has allocated additional resources, and has ramped-up handling of new innovation patent applications to the point where it is now once again processing them faster than they are being filed.
Up until March, it looked as though delays could continue to grow. It now seems likely that average pendency will be back below a month by July. This is, of course, barring any further surge in demand that outstrips processing capacity – which could certainly happen, given that the final date for filing new innovation patent applications before the phase-out begins is 25 August 2021, and a last-minute rush might be expected. But, for now at least, it looks like IP Australia has the situation in hand.
Categories: Casino News |
Published by: paynplaycasinos.bet
30/04/2021
Under the agreement, ComeOn will launch Playtech’s content across its entire brand portfolio, which includes ComeOn!,...
Categories: Casino News |
Published by: paynplaycasinos.bet
30/04/2021
The parliament of the German state of Nordrhein-Westfalen has approved Germany’s Gambling State Treaty, Der Glücksspielneuregulierungstaatsverag...
Finding the right cannabidiol (CBD) product can be difficult. The CBD industry is constantly growing, and new manufacturers open up online shops on a...
Categories: Casino News |
Published by: paynplaycasinos.bet
25/04/2021
The robots of Casoola Casino are making their way to Swedish territory, utilizing the best technology, offering a...
Understanding different types of inventory stockpiles better can lead to supply chain improvement opportunities. Maintaining stock of goods is a cost for the company, while at the same time, this stock is required to create “value”. Stocks and the flow of goods are two highly interdependent variables. Hence, proper inventory management results in higher quality […]
Categories: Casino News |
Published by: paynplaycasinos.bet
05/04/2021
As the leading Pay N Play Casinos review site, the PayNPlayCasinos.bet have added numerous new Pay...