Jozef Imrich, name worthy of Kafka, has his finger on the pulse of any irony of interest and shares his findings to keep you in-the-know with the savviest trend setters and infomaniacs.
''I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.''
A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Tuesday expressed exasperation with federal tax audits of state-legal marijuana dispensaries, urging the U.S. Department of Justice to “fish or cut bait” on pursuing licensed operations.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero said the threat of federal prosecution “is like a hammer over” marijuana businesses’ heads “whenever it comes time to pay their taxes.”
“The Department of Justice at some point ought to make a decision, to either fish or cut bait on the issue,” Lucero said during oral arguments in Feinberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. “And if they’re going to prosecute, then prosecute and bring the whole thing to a head. Or grant immunity and allow the tax operations to operate somewhat more smoothly.”
“It’s always a good time to think about the future, but somehow the beginning of the year seems an especially appropriate time. With the changes afoot in scholarly communication practices, sentiment, and business models, this couldn’t be a better time to consider what the target might look like. What are we all aiming for? For the moment, let’s put business models aside and think about the form and flow of research and discovery. Is the article (pre- or post-publication), book, journal, etc — our current containers — and the byproducts that surround them the best we can do? This month we asked the Chefs: What form might scholarly communications take in the future?
“Practice Innovations” is a quarterly, online newsletter that examines best practices and innovations in law firm information and knowledge management with an eye toward better management strategies in the face of a changing legal environment.
“The results are in: law firms with highly effective competitive intelligence (CI) functions perform better, over time than their peers, according to a study jointly produced by Acritas and The Tilt Institute. Not only do the firms with top ratings enjoy faster revenue increases, their profitability — by virtually any measure — grew up to 53% more than peers with less effective CI functions. The secret to their success: the most effective CI teams are centralized, possess a keen ability to connect the dots, include well-trained CI analysts and, perhaps most critically, spend more time on strategic activities — those that help to shape the direction and future of the firm — than tactical (e.g., preparation for a client lunch or pitch). Last year, The Tilt Institute teamed up with market research leader Acritas to produce a report, The Evolution of Competitive Intelligence in Law Firms, delineating the role and status of competitive intelligence in the world’s largest law firms. At the time, the statistics were a bit grim. Though more than 80% of law firms had resources dedicated to CI, only 52% had a dedicated, formal function. Law firm leaders rated the effectiveness of their CI functions a 6.4 on a scale of 10 (with 10 being highly effective), and common words to describe the CI capabilities included “Basic” and “Reactive.” The bright spots, however, were evident. Law firm leaders were aware of their nascency and ready to change the status quo. More than three-quarters of firms planned to make changes in 2018 to improve their CI function and 1-in-3 specifically planned to add resources…”