Feed on

When we think about air quality and the statutes meant to defend it, we usually think of protection for the environment. For example, most power plants and industries that burn fossil fuels emit (among other pollutants) sulfur dioxide, the key component in the creation of acid rain. This rain has the power to destroy forests and kill entire lakes full of fish. Others may also think about the health effects humans may face from these air pollutants, such as breathing in lead. However, most people do not think about our nation’s athletes, or those who exercise regularly. The fact is these people are the most at risk individuals.

Example of pollution

To understand this better, it is necessary to have some background on what the Clean Air Act (CAA) regulates. The CAA mandates that there be National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six designated air pollutants. The pollutants are: Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides, and Lead. Inhaling or ingesting any one of those pollutants is harmful. The EPA has also instituted other policies to ensure the regulation of greenhouse gases like CO2, as well as other emissions from cars and other mobile sources as well.

Sporting events are a huge producer of greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants that can affect the health of fans and players. An estimation of carbon emissions for a single Giants/Jets game shows that each game produces 1,232,332 pounds of CO2 emissions (based on number of parking spots, total miles driven, and controlling for mile distance and mpg). This is a staggering amount, and the NFL, as well as other sports leagues, has an interest in controlling these emissions. The NFL for example, makes its money on the health of its players. If the players cannot play, people will not attend games, buy merchandise, etc.

These types of emissions are particularly troubling for sports franchises because air pollutants affect athletes far more easily than an average person who does not exercise regularly. A 2004 review of pollution studies by University of Brisbane, Australia found that even low exposure to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions for an athlete could have the same effects as high-level exposures of carbon emissions to non-athletes.

The EPA has seen the need for these teams to become more sustainable and have less of a carbon footprint. Two years ago, they launched the online Green Sports Resource Directory, which provides a list of the benefits of sports franchises going “Green,” as well as strategies and technologies helpful in the pursuit of a more sustainable business model. These technologies help reduce operational costs, waste management and disposal costs, as well as conserving resources like water. It is important for professional sports teams to undertake these initiatives in order to better care for their player’s longevity and health. It is nonetheless an interesting nexus between sports law and environmental law. A question to think about is: how can sports and entertainment law evolve to help implement environmental policies for the health and wellbeing of the players?

Reading Readings:

A Catfish

Relativity Media, LLC (“Relativity”), a California- based global media company is engaged in various aspects of the entertainment industry including the production of television and films, music, sports, digital media and fashion. Television shows such as MTV’s wildly popular Catfish, a program that tells the stories of couples whose “fishy” relationships begin online, and films such as The Social Network and The Fighter have given Relativity some decent recognition in the past few years. Despite the fact that Relativity has produced, distributed or structured financing for over 200 motion pictures and has generated over $17 billion in worldwide box-office revenue, the company found itself in financial turmoil this past summer facing multiple lawsuits after falling behind on its financial obligations.

Relativity and certain subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on June 30, 2015 becoming one of Hollywood’s biggest bankruptcies ever. Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is a “Reorganization” of debt, in which a debtor must file a petition with the bankruptcy court including schedules of assets and liabilities, income and expenditures, executory contracts and leases, and a statement of their financial affairs. By filing for bankruptcy protection, Relativity is able to suspend collection activities, restructure its finances and formulate a court supervised re-payment plan to pay back its debts. In many instances the debtor’s assets including current contracts are auctioned and sold off to pay the business’ creditors.

With the auction on the sale of Relativity assets right around the corner, various companies including Viacom have filed objections to the proposed assumption and assignment of their ongoing contracts with Relativity. MTV’s objection to the sale indicates that each of their personal service agreements prohibits the debtors from assigning the contracts to another party without their consent; a clause that would generally be unenforceable in bankruptcy, unless the personal services in the contract are shown to be unique. MTV claims that several of their contracts with Relativity including one involving the show Catfish are for personal services that are unique to the creative production services offered by Relativity. Thus, MTV claims that such contracts cannot be assumed by just anyone who wins the bidding war.

It will be up to the bankruptcy judge to decide whether Relativity’s production services to MTV were unique and specialized personal services, rendering the agreements un-assignable without MTV’s consent. If resolved in MTV’s favor, this would place constraints on bidders seeking to acquire Relativity’s contracts from the bankruptcy estate. Bidders may be required to show the necessary industry expertise to assume the contracts with MTV. Despite Relativity’s hopes for smooth sailing towards a bankruptcy discharge, MTV seems to show no mercy in their fight to protect their own production standards.

Related Reading:


Last month, adidas filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Forever 21. Adidas has yet again filed another lawsuit, this time against Sketchers USA. Adidas claims the Sketchers has been producing knock-offs, including a sneaker similar to its classic Stan Smith. The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court in Portland, Oregon, where the Germany-based company’s American headquarters are located.

In the complaint dated September 14, 2015, adidas America, Inc, adidas AG and adidas International Marketing B.V. collectively demand a trial by jury against Delaware corporation, Sketchers USA alleges and seeks relief for federal trademark and trade dress infringement, federal unfair competition, federal trademark and trade dress dilution, state trademark dilution with respect to the three-stripe mark, unfair and deceptive trade practices, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition and breach of contract.

The complaint provides several images of Sketchers USA shoe designs that Adidas claims are examples of confusingly similar or identical imitations of the iconic Adidas three-strip mark, Adidas’s famous Stan Smith trade dress and the Supernova Mark.

In 1995, adidas filed a lawsuit against Sketchers USA for featuring parallel strips on the side of the upper of the “Karl Kani” footwear by Sketchers. In the agreement “Sketchers acknowledged that adidas is the exclusive owner of the Three-Stripe Mark and “agree[d] not to use the THREE STRIPE DESIGN or any mark confusingly similar thereto to the extent that any form of that mark is entitled to prosecution under state or federal law.” After this agreement, Sketchers offered several more designs that were strikingly similar and subsequent agreements in in 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2013 were entered and settled for Sketchers to cease sales of the above-mentioned shoes.

Adidas has also claimed that “Sketchers clearly intents the Stan Smith Knock-Off to be a confusingly similar imitation of adidas’s STAN SMITH Trade Dress, as Sketcher’s website has been directing consumers who search for adidas “STAN SMITH” on Sketcher’s website.”

In additional to a trial by jury, adidas wants Sketchers to be enjoined both preliminarily and permanently from using the Three-Stripe Mark, Stand Smith Trade Dress, Supernova Mark, cease the offering for sale, marketing, promoting and selling, impoundment and destruction any items that bear the adidas trademark and trade dress, any profit derived from the sale of those same products, and seeks attorneys’ fees, punitive damages and an award for prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary awards.

Related Reading:

Exposure is everything in Hollywood, however, being exposed is never a good thing. It now looks like Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (Sony) is prepared to say sorry to some of its [former] employees whose personal information was compromised in the massive November 2014 data breach carried out by the North Korean hacker group, Guardians of Peace. According to a filing earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Sony and the former employees have reached an agreement “in principle” to settle all of the claims of the punitive class action against Sony.


Initially, multiple plaintiffs filed complaints against Sony, alleging that Sony failed to implement the necessary safeguards to prevent cyber attacks. Plaintiffs pointed to a 2011 attack on Sony’s PlayStation Network that breached millions of accounts, as an example of Sony’s dearth of cyber security. These lawsuits were consolidated into a single case and on March 2, 2015, Michael Corona, who worked for Sony from 2004 to 2007, and eight other named individuals filed a class action against Sony. Mr. Corona stated in the original complaint that he now spends $700 a year on identity theft protection and believes this cost to him will be uncapped.

Back in June of this year Sony filed a motion to dismiss the case, which failed. U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner allowed most of the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed. A class certification was scheduled for September 14, 2015, however the proposed settlement was reached prior to the date. Plaintiffs will have until October 19, 2015 to motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

Related Reading:

  • Corona v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., No. 14-CV-09600 RGK EX, 2015 WL 3916744 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015).
  • In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
  • Jonathan Stempel,  Sony Fails to Dismiss Lawsuit over “Interview’ Data Hacking, 30 WL J. Emp. 12 (2015).
  • Valerie B. Barnhart, Employee Data Privacy Issues: Risk and Responsibility in Cyberincidents, 22 WL J. Class Action 2 (2015).
  • Ted Johnson, Sony Reaches Settlement in Hacking Lawsuit, Variety (Sept. 2, 2015, 4:02pm), http://variety.com/2015/film/news/sony-hack-lawsuit-settlement-1201584589/.
  • Ryan Faughnder, Sony Pictures reaches settlement in hacking lawsuit, L.A. Times (Sept. 2, 2015, 5:36pm), http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sony-hack-studio-reaches-agreement-to-settle-with-plaintiffs-20150902-story.html.
  • Jessica Karmasek, Sony Pictures, former employees reach tentative settlement over data breach, Legal Newsline (Sept. 8, 2015, 2:08pm), http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510 637199-sony-pictures-former-employees-reach-tentative-settlement-over-data-breach.


A Game of Basketball

Fantasy Football has a long history of creating interactions with its fans, and has played a major role in bringing fans, both young and old, together as they go about their life long dreams of creating a championship dream. Having started out of a New York hotel room, to gaining traction within the technological age of computers, Fantasy Football has broadened the world of Football to many. That being said, one must ask, “Is Fantasy Football the practical fantasy sport?” Some people believe that other sports can provide the same thrill that Fantasy Football provides, however, sports like Baseball, Hockey, or Major League Soccer, either have a season that performs 5 out of 7 days a week over the course of 6 months, or lack the nationwide publicity that enhance the enjoyment of fantasy sports. Nevertheless, there is one sport that has the chance to perform just as well as Fantasy Football, and that is Basketball.

Basketball is an up and coming sport that can alter the way fantasy sports interact with fans not only in the United States, but throughout the world. The NBA has a strong connection to numerous places such as, Canada, England, Spain, and even Africa. The NBA fan-base surpasses that of the NFL, and this is evident through the NBA’s program “Basketball without Borders”.  Furthermore, the stars in the sport such as LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Stephen Curry, are athletes known worldwide. Thus Fantasy Basketball would be the next ideal fantasy sport, because of the popularity of the sport worldwide, and the famous athletes that are in the sport.

Although Fantasy Basketball may have a strong following of people, the next question then concerns the legality of it. Fantasy sports in general have significant legal hazards that could occur, but Fantasy Basketball would have several risks. Some of them include questions concerning what states could participate in Fantasy Basketball, whether or not minors could participate in leagues for money, and what type of relationship they could have with fantasy league developers such as FanDuel, or Draft Kings.  These legal issues, however, could be handled if the NBA were to follow the same standards as the NFL, where there have been limited to no legal issues.

With the NBA’s popularity and the formula already established with the NFL and Fantasy Football, the only problem that remains is whether or not the length of the season would hinder the amount fans wish to participate in Fantasy Basketball. To handle this issue the NBA could host “Fantasy Basketball Weekends” or make the point system high scoring to enhance the entertainment value.  The NBA is primed to take advantage of the stage that Fantasy Football has provided. Considering the fact that the NBA has world-wide fan base, superstar athletes, and the ability to follow a successful standard established by another sport, offers the NBA has the ultimate opportunity to become the next successful fantasy sport.


Related Reading:

Feta’s Fight

Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary works, art, symbols, and names and images used in commerce. Intellectual property may be legally protected by patent, copyright, or trademark. Interest in geographical indications, a type of legal tool to protect intellectual property, is growing.

A geographical indication is defined in Article 22.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights as “…indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member [of the World Trade Organization], or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.” Goods that have a specific geographical origin often possess qualities or a reputation due to that place of origin.


Geographical indications are typically seen on agricultural products. More specifically, an appellation of origin is a special kind of geographical indication used on products that are exclusive to that geographical environment in which the products are produced. For example, Proscuitto di Parma (a personal favorite) is a type of product protected as an appellation of origin. For the product to be labeled with the Parma name, it must be produced from pigs exclusively in the province of Parma located in the Emilia-Romagna region of central northern Italy. Each step of production, the breeding of the pigs, their diets, and final packaging is closely monitored and sealed by the Istituto Parma Qualita.

Unfortunately, obtaining an appellation of origin for a product is difficult, such is the story of feta. Feta cheese often invokes images of Greece, but it is produced and sold in many countries. In the 1980s, Greece passed several laws to protect the feta name and control its production. In attempt to control production, the laws stated milk used to produce the cheese must specifically be from sheep and goats that range freely in the Greek mountains and its island coasts. In 1996, the European Commission issued a regulation acknowledging Greece’s right to its feta appellation of origin. European countries were granted a five-year grace period to change the name of cheeses designated as feta but were not produced in Greece. Since, the European Commission’s regulation has been challenged twice, but issued a final rule in Greece’s favor in 2005. Reluctantly, many imitation cheeses produced in Europe Union have been labeled “salad cheese” or “Greek-style cheese.” Unfortunately, outside of the European Union, countries are not bound by this regulation and may still use the term feta.

Related Reading:

POST WRITTEN BY: Sharleen Bailon (Executive Articles Editors ’16), J.D. Pace Law School

netNeutrality 4 dummies

For the public, the ideal situation is free and fast access to the Internet. On the opposite end, the big Internet Service Providers (hereinafter ISP), such as Comcast and Verizon, would prefer to charge everyone for everything connected to Internet services they provide. One example is charging for speed and accessibility. If you are a big company with the ability to pay for faster speed, then you can reach more users. Commission Document Verizon v. FCC, No. 11-1355 (D.C. Cir.), Federal Communications Commission (February 7, 2013), Conversely, the start-up sole proprietor would be limited to what he or she could afford. Id.

The government believed that ISPs would implement additional costs to their users. But the problems the public could encounter are not limited to increasing or additional costs. Essentially, ISPs could pick and choose which ads or websites users could access and which ones they would block. Daniel J. Wityk, Like A Good Neighbor A State Farm Solution to the Fcc’s Net Neutrality Limbo, 78 Brook. L. Rev. 1587, 1616 (2013)

In Hart v. Comcast of Alameda, the plaintiff’s complaint stated that Comcast’s “Internet management practices with respect to “peer to peer” (“P2P”) file sharing applications are unlawful, and unfairly discriminate against P2P applications.” No. C076350 PJH, 2008 WL 2610787, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2008).

The Internet’s potential of raking in more profits for ISPs at the expense of the free flow of information allows “FCC to crack the Tittle II whip…[because] the ISP’s [are] acting like greedy petulant children”. Tom Bradley, Net Neutrality Didn’t Have To Come to This, Forbes (March 24, 2015). Thus, in 2010 the FCC submitted, for approval, new rules protecting net neutrality and by December 2010, the rule was finalized. In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Indus. Practices, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 17905 (2010) (hereinafter Open Internet). In this rule, “internet service providers could not block websites or impose limits on users.” The White House, Net Neutrality, President Obama’s Plan for a Free and Open Internet, (last visited March 25, 2014). Unfortunately, this rule was struck down.

Verizon was not happy with the FCC’s new rule and challenged it in court. Andrew Zajac and Todd Shields, Verizon Wins Net Neutrality Court Ruling Against FCC, Bloomberg (January 14, 2014). In Verizon v. F.C.C., Verizon argued that FCC lacked statutory authority in implementing Open Internet. 740 F.3d 623, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The D.C Circuit ruled for Verizon because Verizon and other ISPs are not considered “common carriers.” Verizon, 740 F.3d at 642. In the statute, the common carrier that provides basic services category is the only category FCC could monitor and regulate regarding discriminatory and blocking practices. Id.

The statutory authority in question is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which gave FCC the power to regulate some, but not all, communication services. Verizon, 740 F.3d at 628. To determine what could be regulated, the Act divides these services into two categories: telecommunications carriers (basic services) information-service providers (enhanced services) Id. at 630. The public disagreed with the D.C. Circuits decision and used the Internet as a platform to reverse that outcome.

Fast-forward to February 2015, the F.C.C. approved the new Net Neutrality proposal and it is waiting to get published in the Federal Register making it official. Mike Snider et. al., What is net neutrality and what does it mean for me?, USA Today (February 24, 2015), But the big ISPs will not let it pass without a fight.

Related Reading: 

Mouse against Mau5

By: Nikki Crewe (J.D. candidate 16′)

Two prominent figures are going head to head in a Trademark dispute over their respective logos. Joel Zimmerman, an EDM artist known as Deadmau5, versus Walt Disney. Zimmerman is not only famous for his music, but also for the extremely recognizable helmet he wears during performances.1024px-Deadmau5_-_Rock_in_Rio_Madrid_2012_-_01 This “mau5-head” represents a mouse with a small cranium, a large white wide-set smile, two white eyes and two large ears. Zimmerman’s attorney points out that he has been using the mau5-head for about a decade worldwide and acquired Trademark registration of it in 30 countries. However, when Zimmerman applied to register the mau5-head in the United States, Disney opposed the registration claiming consumer confusion between the mau5-head and their own Mickey Mouse cartoon head insignia, which would cause damage to their sales since both marks would be in similar goods markets.

It’s important to note that registration of a trademark allows the holder to use their marks in the stream of commerce and protect against other business from using the owner’s mark. Potential trademarks are published every Tuesday in the Trademark Official Gazette which the United States Patent and Trademark Office supplies an online database and a PDF version. A person has 30 days to either (1) file an opposition to the trademark with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); or (2) request an extension of time to file a notice of opposition if believed that damage will occur to the person opposing by this new registration.

Zimmerman took to Twitter making comments such as “lawyer up Mickey” and shooting back a cease and desist letter relating to a separate allegation of copyright infringement on Disney’s part.

The trouble here is, trademark protection, unlike copyright or patent protection, can last for however long as it is in use (provided proper forms are filled out over the years), meaning protection may virtually never expire. If Disney properly asserts their claims of potential damage and show surveys and other evidence of consumer confusion, then Disney may be able to have a sort of monopoly over any similarly styled mice heads.

If this litigation continues on in court without a settlement, we will know the answer to the question: Does the differing of sizing and colors of a mouse’s features really matter?

Related Materials:

Ryan Reed, Mouse Trap: Deadmau5 Preparing for Legal Battle With Disney, Rolling Stone (Sept. 3, 2014) http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/mouse-trap-deadmau5-preparing-for-legal-battle-with-disney-20140903.

United States Patent and Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs (last visited March 25, 2015).

Eriq Gardner, In Defense of Disney’s Opposition to the Deadmau5 Trademark, Billboard (Sept. 3, 2014, 3:56PM) http://www.billboard.com/articles/6236698/deadmau5-trademark-disney-defense.

Stevo, Deadmau5 Sends Letter To Disney On Copyright Infringement, EDM Sauce (Sept. 4th, 2014) http://www.edmsauce.com/2014/09/04/deadmau5-sends-letter-disney-proving-broke-copyright-laws/.

Blurred Lines blurs the lines

By: Adam Blaier (New-Media-Editor 16′)

Blurred_Lines_–_Robin_Thicke_single_coverWhat might have been your favorite song of 2013-2014 was recently held to be infringing on what might have been your Grandparents favorite song of the 70s. A United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California, John A. Kronstadt, and eight jurors ruled that ‘Blurred Lines,’ the smash hit by Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams,  infringed on Marvin Gaye’s song ‘Gotta Give it Up.’  If you need to compare the two songs, click here and listen for yourself. 17 U.S.C. §102 (2015) sets out that  “[c]opyright protection subsists, …, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 

It is also important to note the elements needed to prove infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 106 which are: (1) the Plaintiff must allege and prove ownership of a valid copyright (usually done by registering); and  (2)the Plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated one of the exclusive rights reserved to the copyright owner under section 106.  (The Plaintiff should also show that the defendant in fact obtained the protected expression of the copyright holder, and used that expression in the defendants work). 

Interestingly enough, the lawsuit started in 2013 when Thicke and Pharrell filed a lawsuit against the Gaye family, and tried to stop the accusations of infringement before they could get off of the ground. Thicke & Pharrell were ordered to pay Gaye’s children  $7.3 million, which is a combination of $4 million in damages and $3.3 million from the profits of the song. Thicke & Pharrell argued that they only took “feel” of Gaye’s record, while the song in its entirety was created in their hearts & minds. They further argued the Gaye family only owns the compositional elements of the record. The Gaye family hired musicologists who successfully articulated the similarities between the two songs. It seems like he did a good job playing on the jurors’ heartstrings portraying Thicke and Pharrell as music thieves. Robin Thicke didn’t do himself any favors during this trial. It came to light that he was intoxicated in the studio during this record, and Pharrell was the mastermind behind the song. In a GQ article, Thicke claimed that Gaye’s song ‘Gotta Give it Up’ was one of his favorite songs (which the defense cited).

The outcome of this case could lead to a very slippery slope in the music industry. This case seems to slightly blur the lines of copyright protection. If not overturned, the precedent set might bring an avalanche of litigation from older artists and their estates, who made a huge impact on their genre. In my opinion, the judge stretched the limit of what “original works of authorship” means by deciding a few chords that were similar, is enough to have infringement. However, if Thick and Pharell simply asked for a license, or permission from the copyright holder (Gaye’s family) this could have been resolved a long time ago.


related readings:

Eriq Gardner, Blurred Lines’ jury orders Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams to pay $7.4 million, The Hollywood Reporter (March 11, 2015, 4:04 pm)

In Court, You decide: Does ‘Blurred Linessound like ‘Got to Give It Up?, FoxNews.com (March 11, 2015)

17 U.S.C. §102 (2015) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

KORY GROW Robin Thicke, Pharrell Lose Multi-Million Dollar ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawsuit, Rollingstone.com (March 10, 2015)

STELIOS PHILI,  Robin Thicke on That Banned Video, Collaborating with 2 Chainz and Kendrick Lamar, and His New Film, GQ.com, (MAY 07, 2013, 1:20 AM)


By: Adam Blaier (New-Media-Editor 16′)


As the SEALs, IPSO, and PIPSELF get ready to host some of the best in the music & entertainment industry this week, and the IVY Sports Symposium approaches next Friday, I have some wisdom to share for the younger/less experienced students. Some people say, it’s not what you know; it’s who you know. Others believe “book smarts” is the end all be all. I would like to share my opinion.

I think it is a combination of both and depends on what field you plan to go into. You should do your best to keep up-to-date with the latest news in the area you wish to practice in. That can be accomplished through social media; apps like ‘Flipboard’ (my favorite news gathering app), or simply reading a blog/news outlet. I would put an equal weight on the ‘who you know’ aspect. After being accepted into the Manhattan Sports Business Academy this summer, I saw what the power of networking & relationship building can truly accomplish. I met so many amazing people in the sports & entertainment industry, and learning from them was an honor (shout out to Ben Sturner, Dave Oestreicher, and Lorne Segall).

The biggest barrier to networking is fear. People are scared to hear the word “no,” or that someone won’t have time for them. Being a somewhat introverted person, I had to conquer my fear of being rejected a long time ago if I wanted to succeed. A lot of people have told me I could not do something, including getting into law school. You need to put that fear aside and be comfortable with yourself. I love sports and, for me, talking to an executive of a Fortune 500 sports company was easy because I was confident. That ties into the ‘smarts’ part. I was confident because I keep informed with sports, entertainment, and I.P. law as much as possible. It is obviously important to read the news in general, but when trying to engage in a conversation about I.P./sports/Ent’t law, my knowledge of the Arab-Israeli conflict won’t help me much.

Networking is a great way to find future employment, and build relationships. I emailed over ten lawyers asking them for an informational interview, and only 1 replied. The gentleman who did reply happened to be the GOAT of I.P. litigation at one of the biggest firms in New York City. He gave me great advice, and I hope to build on that relationship.

As we prepare to have these great speakers come to Pace Law School, here are a few suggestions for people who will eventually try to seek employment in the guests companies. Wear a suit or business attire. Do not ask for an internship during the event. Make business cards, exchange them, and send a follow-up email the next day. Make sure you engage in the conversation, ask questions, and make a statement. Do not let them forget who you are. That way, when you send the email, and any future email, they will remember you. I remember speaking with Eugene Lee, Esq. for a few minutes when he came to visit Pace last year. I met him again in the summer with MSBA, and he remembered who I was. It is a nice feeling, and I know I have a positive relationship to build on going forward.

So to those who say it’s not what you know; it’s who you know, and the others who say ‘book smarts’ is the only way, I politely disagree and say they are both important, you just need to utilize them the right way.

Older Posts »