During the Cold War, the “Fulda Gap”—a strategic intersection of West and East Germany—was the theorized location of a massive (and potentially apocalyptic) battle between the United States and its NATO allies, and the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Both world powers had imposing armies of tanks, tactical nuclear weapons and countless troops poised to clash in what many predicted would be the start of World War III. The notion of that type of warfare, in today’s world of drone strikes and special operations forces, is an anachronism.
The world of high-stakes litigation has not quite caught up to the conceptual changes in warfare, but it should—and we believe it will. While the classic legal “superpowers,” with their clout and unlimited resources, are still the common choice for most larger companies and wealthy clients, increasingly, smaller, more agile law firms, with their more reasonable fee structures and their ability to adapt quickly to any situation, have proven to be equally formidable and worthy adversaries, especially in cases that threaten the very existence of the company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
