Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

Eastern Population of Gopher Tortoise Eligible for Endangered Species Act Protection

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article about The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has released its listing decision for the eastern population of gopher tortoise by Ivan T. Sumner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has released its listing decision for the eastern population of gopher tortoise. The USFWS has determined that listing the eastern population of the tortoise as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is warranted, however, it is precluded from doing so at this time due to higher priority actions and a lack of sufficient funds to commence proposed rule development. The western population is already listed as Threatened and will continue to be protected under the ESA. In the interim period of time the USFWS  will place the eastern population of the tortoise on its candidate species list until sufficient funding is available to initiate a proposed listing rule. The USFWS did not provide any time estimate on that front. Candidate species do not receive any statutory protection under the ESA. The gopher tortoise in Florida is still protected under Florida laws and policies implemented  by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Entrepreneur’s Guide to Litigation – Blog Series: Discovery

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by  Joseph D. Brydges of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP regarding the Discovery is a pre-trial phase of litigation.

 

Discovery is a pre-trial phase of litigation during which a party to a lawsuit seeks to “discover” information from the opposing party. Discovery is meant to facilitate the truth-finding function of the courts and, as such, parties to a lawsuit have an automatic right to discovery. From a strategic standpoint, discovery is used to gather and preserve evidence in support or defense of the claims made in the complaint. Further, discovery often helps parties narrow the focus of the litigation in preparation for trial and, in some cases, may lead to a pre-trial settlement. Discovery is an extremely important phase of litigation because the evidence gathered during discovery will serve as the foundation of a motion for summary judgment and/or strategy at trial.

Discovery proceedings are typically governed by state statutes in state court and by the federal rules of civil procedure in federal court. Generally, the scope of discovery permitted under these rules is very broad. Discoverable information may include any material which is reasonably calculated to produce evidence that may later be admitted at trial. However, certain information, including information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product of an opposing party, is generally protected from discovery. During the discovery period, parties may serve discovery requests upon one another. These discovery requests are made through one of several available discovery mechanisms including interrogatories, requests for admission, document requests and depositions.

Interrogatories are written discovery requests often utilized to obtain basic information such as names and dates. Any party served with written interrogatories must answer the questions contained therein in writing and under oath. Similarly, requests for admission consist of written statements directed towards an opposing party for the purpose of having the opposing party “admit” or “deny” the statements. Often, these statements seek to establish undisputed facts, authenticate documents and pin an opposing party to a particular position. Document requests are an important component of discovery in which a party may be required to make any relevant and nonprivileged documents available for inspection by the opposing party. Document production will be covered in greater detail in the following section entitled “Document Production.”

The lynchpin of discovery proceedings is the deposition. Depositions are used to obtain the out-of-court testimony of a witness with knowledge relevant to the litigation. They allow a party to discover any relevant information known to a witness and are often the only method of discovery available with regard to obtaining information from witnesses that are not a party to the litigation. During a deposition, the witness is questioned under oath and must answer the questions asked truthfully to the extent that the answer would not lead to the disclosure of privileged information. The rules governing depositions also allow for the deposition of an organization or corporation where a party is unable to identify the particular witness within the organization that may have knowledge of the information sought. In that instance, a party may identify the information sought and the organization will be required to designate a representative to testify on its behalf.

A party served with a discovery request must respond to the request within the specified time period or object to the requested discovery and state reasons for its objection. If, for some reason, a party refuses to respond to a discovery request, the party serving the request may move the court to compel a response. It is within the court’s power to compel a response to a discovery request and impose penalties on a party refusing to comply with a discovery request.

Click Below for previous posts from the Entrepreneur’s Guide to Litigation Blog Series:

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Supreme Court Affirms Clear and Convincing Standard of Patent Invalidity Proof

Posted on July 26, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by Jeremiah Armstrong and Paul Devinsky of  McDermott Will & Emery regarding the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision to  unanimously reject Microsoft’s plea to modify the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof required to invalidate a patent.

Delivering what is likely the final blow to its battle against a $240 million infringement judgment, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously rejected Microsoft’s plea to modify the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof required to invalidate a patent. Microsoft v. i4i, Case No. 09-1504 (Supr. Ct., June 9, 2011) (Justice Sotomayor) (Justices Breyer and Thomas, concurring).

The appeal stems from a 2009 jury verdict that certain versions of Microsoft Word were found to infringe plaintiff i4i’s patent related to editing and formatting XML documents. Microsoft challenged the validity of the patent, based on the §102(b) on-sale bar, citing i4i’s sales of a software product called S4 more than a year before applying for the asserted patent. The S4 product was never presented to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiner.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit squarely rejected Microsoft’s argument that the jury should have been instructed to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof to the issue of patent invalidity. The Federal Circuitalso rejected Microsoft’s request to reduce the willful damages award, partially due to Microsoft’s failure to file a pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

History

Microsoft petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to consider whether an accused infringer that challenges patent validity based on prior art not considered by the USPTO during prosecution must overcome the 35 U.S.C. §282 presumption of validity by “clear and concurring evidence” or whether some lower standard of proof will suffice (see IP Update, Vol. 13, No. 12).

The “clear and concurring” standard of proof has been used by Federal Circuit since its pronouncement in the seminal 1984 case, American Hoist & Derrick v. Sowa & Sons. Prior to the 1982 establishment of the Federal Circuit, most of the regional courts of appeal applied the less differential “preponderance” standard to the issue. However, the Federal Circuit, in setting its rule, took note of the “the deference that is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have properly done its job.”

Microsoft, in its certiorari petition, was supported for review of the Federal Circuit standard of proof by 11 amici representing major corporations, law professors and trade associations. Most of the amici faulted the deference given to the USPTO examiners who have limited time and resources for the examination of any particular application, who examine applications on a strictly ex parte basis and who only infrequently consider non-patent prior art publication or prior products. The amici also note that juries already tend to give undue deference to the decision of the USPTO in issuing a patent, especially in cases where the technology is complex.

Microsoft and the amici characterized the Federal Circuit rule as inflexible and another “bright line” test, a characterization that has resulted in the reversal of several Federal Circuit rulings in recent history, including the KSR obviousness case; a case in which the Supreme Court, in dicta, noted that the rational for showing deference to the USPTO was “much diminished” where the prior art in issue was not before the examiner.

Supreme Court Decision

In its analysis, the Supreme Court considered whether §282 established the standard of proof for invalidity as requiring clear and convincing evidence given the statutory language that a “patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity … rest[s] on the party asserting such invalidity.” While §282 does not explicitly state an invalidity standard, the Supreme Court explained that the language used when the statute was enacted in 1952 was synonymous with the clear and convincing evidence standard that was part of the recognized common law, as described by Justice Cardozo in Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc. Accordingly, the Supreme Court deferred to the opinion of Judge Rich, a primary author of the 1952 Patent Act, in American Hoist & Derrick, where he wrote that under §282 the “burden is constant and never changes and is to convince the court of invalidity by clear evidence.”

The Supreme Court said this strict invalidity standard always applies, even when evidence before the fact-finder was not previously available to the USPTO during the examination process: “[H]ad Congress intended to drop the heightened standard of proof where the evidence before the jury varied from that before the PTO—and thus to take the unusual and impractical step of enacting a variable standard of proof that must itself be adjudicated in each case —we assume it would have said so expressly.”

However the Supreme Court did suggest the use of tailored jury instructions: “When warranted, the jury may be instructed to consider that it has heard evidence that the PTO had no opportunity to evaluate before granting the patent” and “may be instructed to evaluate whether the evidence before it is materially new, and if so, to consider that fact when determining whether an invalidity defense has been proved by clear and convincing evidence.”

Notably, the Supreme Court recognized that new evidence not considered by the USPTO during examination—like the S4 software product in issue here—may “carry more weight” at trial (i.e., “the challenger’s burden to persuade the jury of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence may be easier to sustain”) and, citing its earlier KSR decision, conceded that where prior art was not before the USPTO, “the rational underlying the presumption—that the PTO, in its expertise, has approved the claim—seems much diminished.” As the Supreme Court explained, “if the PTO did not have all of the material facts before it, its considerable judgment may lose considerable force. And, concomitantly, the challenger’s burden to persuade the jury of its invalidity defense by clear and convincing evidence may be easier to sustain.”

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

ALJ Upholds OIG’s Eight-Year Exclusion of Company Owner

Posted recently in the National Law Review an article by Meghan C. O’Connor of von Briesen & Roper, S.C. regarding OIG’s use of its exclusionary authority against individuals:

 

In yet another example of the OIG’s use of its exclusionary authority against individuals, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the OIG’s exclusion ofMichael D. Dinkel, the owner and President of a diagnostic imaging company. Dinkel has been excluded from participation in all Federal health care programs for a period of eight years.

The OIG has the authority to exclude individuals and entities from Federal health care programs for presenting or causing to be presented claims for items or services that the individual or entity knows or should know where not provided as claimed, or are otherwise false or fraudulent.

According to the OIG’s press release, Dinkel and his company, Drew Medical, Inc., submitted approximately 9,500 false claims worth $1.6 million to theMedicare and Medicaid programs for services related to venography, a radiology procedure. The OIG found that no venography services had actually been performed. Instead, claims were submitted to Medicare and Medicaid for a corresponding procedural code for MRI and CT procedures with contrast. Prior to Dinkel’s exclusion, a $1,147,564 civil False Claims Act settlement had been entered into with Dinkel and his company.

The ALJ found that Dinkel had a duty “to understand Medicare and Medicaid billing requirements and apply them scrupulously to the claims that he caused to be presented.” Furthermore, Dinkel’s failure to ensure his company properly claimed reimbursement “constituted reckless indifference to the propriety of the claims he cause to be presented.”

The ALJ’s full decision is available by request from the OIG.

©2011 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

D.C. Circuit Invalidates SEC's Proxy Access Rules

Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by John D. Tishler  and Evan Mendelsohn of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP regarding the  United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision invalidating the SEC’s proxy access rules adopted in August 2010:

July 22, in Business Roundtable v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 10-1305 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision invalidating the SEC’s proxy access rules adopted in August 2010 with the intention that they be effective for the 2011 proxy season (see our blog here). The Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed the lawsuit in September 2010 challenging the SEC’s adoption of proxy access rules and separately requesting for the SEC to stay implementation of the rules pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The SEC granted the request for stay in October 2010 and issuers were relieved of the burdens of proxy access for the 2011 proxy season. (See our blog posts here and here.)

The Court found that the Commission “neglected its statutory responsibility to determine the likely economic consequences of Rule 14a-11 and to connect those consequences to efficiency, competition, and capital formation.” The Court also criticized the SEC’s reliance on empirical data that purported to demonstrate that proxy access would improve board performance and increase shareholder value by facilitating the election of dissident nominees, pointing out numerous studies submitted in the rule comment process that reached the opposite result.

The SEC’s proxy access rules also included an amendment to Rule 14a-8 that would authorize stockholder proposals to establish a procedure for stockholders to nominate directors. The SEC stayed implementation of the changes to Rule 14a-8 at the same time it stayed implementation of Rule 14a-11; however, the changes to Rule 14a-8 were not affected by the Court’s decision.

The SEC will now need to decide whether to propose new regulations for proxy access and whether to permit Rule 14a-8 to go effective.  However the SEC decides to proceed, it seems unlikely that public companies will face mandatory proxy access for the 2012 proxy season. 

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Affordable Attorney Marketing

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Margaret Grisdela of Legal Expert Connections about Affordable Attorney Marketing. 

“I am a new attorney in the Northeast looking for a way to get clients. My practice areas are Bankruptcy and litigation. I understand the fundamentals of building a referral base and SEO and are implementing the same now, but those are long term strategies. What is a starving attorney to do in the meantime? This is where I hope you can help me.”

This is a question that came into my inbox this week, and it’s a good one. “Affordable attorney marketing” is the quest when you open a new law practice, or need to rejuvenate an existing one.

Here are a few ideas that come to mind:

1. Join a lawyer referral network. Many local bar associations offer a referral network. While you won’t get rich, you should start to get a few cases coming in. This can give you visibility in the courts and among your peers.

2. Use LinkedIn to build your network and stay connected. Use the “Share an Update” feature from your LinkedIn home page to post an interesting item every 1-2 weeks. This will keep you “top of mind” with those you know.

3. Test a small Google AdWords campaign. While this can be expensive, it is possible to set daily limits on your ad budget and focus on a small geographic area. Also, be sure to filter out terms that don’t apply to you with the negative keywords feature.

4. Start a blog. Demonstrate your knowledge in bankruptcy, litigaion, and other practice areas with an educational blog. WordPress or Blogger allow you to start a blog quickly and easily. Actually the set up is the easy part. Write at least 1-2 blog posts per week, focusing on practice area keywords and also relating stories to your geo area of coverage. Feed the blog posts through other social medial (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook) using a service like Hootsuite. Select a URL with important keywords to help get online recognition.

5. Consider BNI or similar lead groups. This can help you to meet other professionals and get the word out about your legal services.

Overall, have lots of business cards and network, network, network! Tell everyone you know what you do. Marketing to those you know is your best source of new business fast. Picking a niche for your practice can also help your marketing dollars work smartly.

© Legal Expert Connections, Inc. 

California's Green Chemistry Rulemaking Renewed

Published in the National Law Review on July 21, 2011 an article by Gene Livingston of  Greenberg Traurig, LLP about  California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control’s announcement of the new target date for new draft regulations to implement California’s Green Chemistry Law.

The new Director of California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control, Debbie Raphael, announced that mid-October is the new target date for new draft regulations to implement California’s Green Chemistry Law. The law called for regulations to be in place by January 1, 2011. However, universal opposition last year to the previously proposed regulations rendered that date impossible. Raphael, demonstrating political acumen, has the support of the legislative authors of the law to take the time needed “to get it right.”

Raphael promised to meet with stakeholders between now and mid-October to inform the rulemaking process, and after the draft regulations are released to seek comments from the Green Ribbon Science Panel at its November 14-15, 2011 meeting on the scientific aspects of the draft regulations. Then, the Director and her staff will produce regulations to launch the formal rulemaking proceeding.

Raphael laid out the principles that will guide the development of the regulations. They have to be “practical, meaningful, and legally defensible.” Those principles are easily embraced by political leaders, business interests, and environmentalists. There is something for everyone. The challenge will be getting consensus on what is practical but still meaningful with numerous aspects of the regulations, starting, for example, with selecting chemicals of concern, prioritizing the products containing chemicals of concern, describing the life cycle factors to assess existing chemicals and products and their possible alternatives, and imposing regulatory mandates, ranging from labels to bans of products.

The resolution of these aspects and others in the regulations will determine whether the green chemistry program sinks of its own weight, stifles innovation, drives up the cost of products, eliminates products in the California market, or becomes a model for other states, stimulates innovation, expands sustainable product development, results in fewer toxic products, and less toxic waste.

The green chemistry regulations can affect every manufacturer selling products in California as well as their suppliers, distributors, and retailers. They need to be aware of the rulemaking activities occurring in California during the next six months, a time period that will be critical as DTSC seeks to write regulations that are indeed practical, meaningful, and legally defensible.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

LMA Virginias Chapter – Continuing Marketing Education Conference 10-14-11

The National Law Review is pleased to announce The Continuing Marketing Education program presented by the Legal Marketing Association Virginias Chapter will take place October 14, 2011 University of Richmond’s Jepson Alumni Center, 101 College Road
Richmond, VA 23229.

Client Service needs, new trends in business development, marketing communications, and how to set yourself apart from the pack are all topics included in The Continuing Marketing Education program presented by the Legal Marketing Association Virginias Chapter. This is the first local, full-day program developed for legal marketing professionals. attorneys, students and other industry professionals to be presented in the Richmond area.

We have created a unique program designed to provide a comprehensive look into today’s legal marketing issues as well as provide an outlook into what to expect in the future. Our goal is to have in-depth discussions on key topics as the next phase in continuing members’ education. Sessions will focus on a hands-on approach showing attendees “how to get it done” and leaving them with ideas to take back with them to jump-start their next initiative.

LMA Continuing Marketing Education Conference

Client Service needs, new trends in business development, marketing communications, and how to set yourself apart from the pack are all topics included in The Continuing Marketing Education program presented by the Legal Marketing Association Virginias Chapter. This is the first local, full-day program developed for legal marketing professionals. attorneys, students and other industry professionals to be presented in the Richmond area.

We have created a unique program designed to provide a comprehensive look into today’s legal marketing issues as well as provide an outlook into what to expect in the future. Our goal is to have in-depth discussions on key topics as the next phase in continuing members’ education. Sessions will focus on a hands-on approach showing attendees “how to get it done” and leaving them with ideas to take back with them to jump-start their next initiative.

Embracing Technology of Tomorrow

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Kristyn J. Sornat of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.  on what innovative technology will be available in the next five years or by the end of the decade. 

 

Think of what new platforms have become available for marketing in the past ten years —social media sites (including YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn) and the smartphone/tablet with mobile applications and paid search tools, such as Google AdWords. It makes it hard to imagine what innovative technology will be available in the next five years, let alone by the end of the decade. Plenty of gimmicky technology with a significant “cool” factor will be developed by the year 2020; however, the more important trends to watch involve the transformation of legal marketing staples.

CRMs Will Be Easier to Use

Not only will CRMs be more useful, attorneys will be required to use them! By the year 2020, there will be no more excuses as to why attorneys cannot use their firm’s client relationship management (CRM) system to support business development efforts. The most common complaints I hear about our CRM are the following: “It’s too hard to use;” “The process of entering and maintaining my information is too cumbersome;” or “I don’t have time to learn it.” However, I’ve noticed that since the economic downturn (which necessitates working smarter and harder on business development) it has been a lot easier to get the late adopters on board. However, these users still struggle with the functionality of the product.

Over the past decade, software providers have made great strides in improving the user interface of CRM products, and they have gotten smarter by incorporating it into what attorneys do every day — check email. The leading CRM providers in the legal market now allow attorneys to access their products via their email client. Companies like CRM4Legal developed their product with this in mind while others, such as LexisNexis InterAction (with version 6.0), have finally integrated the majority of their main product functionality into Outlook. This integration will make future CRM versions much easier to use. Over the next decade, these companies will take this trend a step further. Not only will using the product be more intuitive for attorneys, but the amount of information automatically pulled into the system will be greater than ever before. In addition to looking up who at your firm “knows” a client, you’ll be able to see what the client was billed in the last year, what practice groups were utilized, where the growth opportunities are and which of your other non-internal contacts have a connection to the client. There may even be access to “personal” preferences for the client (like music and food), and best of all, attorneys will not have to enter this information into the database themselves. Firms have used portal technology to facilitate bringing information into one place, but CRMs will differ from portals by tapping into third-party resources, such as LinkedIn, Facebook and news sources, to deliver unprecedented, one-step access to information that can be useful in pitching a prospect or servicing a client.

The Demise of Email Marketing

In the year 2020, firms will have shifted their efforts from mass email marketing campaigns to other online distribution channels. The effectiveness of email marketing is already on the decline, and over the next decade email clients will become even stricter about the types of information they allow through their spam filters. Compounding this issue, users are now relying on tools like social media, RSS feeds, blogs, search engines and other resources, rather than email, to find the information they need. Firms will no longer have the luxury of knowing they can inform their clients of emerging legal issues just by sending a monthly newsletter or weekly alert. They will need to find new ways to get this information to clients and prospects, preferably through a myriad of distribution channels. To prepare, firms should concentrate on using search engine optimization (SEO) for their websites (especially on pages that tend to get a majority of visitors from email distributions) and encourage attorneys to use social media to proactively share their articles and experience in specific practice areas.

Also, targeted online advertising, such as on LinkedIn and paid search, can be used to promote practice groups and help supplement the lack of exposure for these groups through email alerts. For example, firms can advertise their healthcare practice group to LinkedIn users in the healthcare industry, who have General Counsel as a title and live within 50 miles of the geographic area to which that practice group targets. Another paid search tool that may be useful is Google Remarketing, which allows firms to target ads to users who’ve previously visited their websites. Through this technology, users that find healthcare articles on a firm’s website through Google would later see an ad for the firm’s healthcare practice as they visit other websites or check their Gmail accounts. Legal alerts will still be written, but firms will rely more heavily on searchable syndication services, such as Martindale.com’s Legal Library or The National Law Review’s searchable database. Firms would be wise to prepare themselves for the inevitable by scaling back now on the amount of information they send to contacts through mass email messages. They should start tracking article clicks, opens and other performance data and use it to eliminate contacts from mailing lists. For example, if a contact only opens healthcare alerts or clicks on healthcare articles, a firm should only send them email distributions having to do with healthcare. In the future, if a firm wants anyone to open their email messages, they will need to condition their recipients to expect relevant information in every distribution.

Design for Mobile First

Mobile devices are everywhere, and they are fast becoming people’s primary access point to the Internet and email. In the past five years, although mobile devices have been a consideration when firms design websites and email messages, it hasn’t been a necessity to design for them first. By 2020, mobile devices (including tablets) will play the role which PCs do today. It’s important that firms start preparing for that shift now by creating a pared-down mobile version of their websites if all the pages of the site are not already mobile-friendly. Firms working on a website redesign should make sure they are giving mobile devices and PCs equal consideration. For example, if there is a search section for articles, more search buckets with dropdown choices should be created so that mobile users will have to rely less on typing in search terms. If Flash is utilized to emphasize important information on the website, there should be an alternative way to get that information across to iPhone users, who cannot view Flash animation. Although designing for mobile may inhibit creativity, it is better for mobile users to be able to see and use a highly functional website than to become frustrated by (or unable to view) a beautifully designed website. Mobile apps (currently a hot topic in legal marketing circles) will also be important, just not the way we think of them today. Many firms that have taken advantage of this new technology have focused on providing information that is already accessible on their websites and in other places. In the future, successful law firm apps will have two purposes: to aid users in things they are doing every day and to provide better service to clients. For example, Latham & Watkins has already realized this trend and released a useful app that allows people to search a glossary of legal, business and financial terms. How will apps help firms better service their clients in the future? They may allow clients to view hours billed and balances due, or search a firm’s attorney experience database based on specific criteria for a new matter. As firms develop ideas for apps, they should keep usability in mind so they don’t end up with an app that clients download out of curiosity, but then fails to entice them to come back again.

Website Overhauls

Websites will be vastly different by the end of the decade —not only will they be designed with mobile devices in mind, but they also may incorporate technology that delivers a different homepage experience to each user based on past visits. For example, tailored article and event feeds might display, based on previous visits to practice group descriptions, attorney bios or the user’s past site searches. Other website areas that will be affected will be attorney bios, practice group descriptions and resource centers. Firms should begin thinking about attorney bios more like social media profiles (maybe even connecting LinkedIn profiles with attorney pages), because the lines between websites and social media will be even more blurred. Video will be as important as text in getting marketing messages across on practice group pages, and firms will use articles and descriptions of experience to show practice group expertise rather than just “say”they have it in a lengthy practice group description. In the resource area of the website, firms will add more information that is useful to visitors. CLE webcasts may be a way to drive users to the website, much as articles do today. However, the trick to adding CLE resources will be figuring out how to give people their credit and comply with ethics rules for each state. Firms need to start preparing for what is to come in marketing technology — by 2020, tactics and processes will have evolved into a connected, mobile machine. To embrace this technology of tomorrow, firms should keep an eye on trends involving CRM systems, email marketing, mobile technology and websites, while maintaining caution from being distracted by a high “cool” factor that may not deliver real value to the firm or its clients.

This article was first published in ILTA’s June 2011 issue of Peer to Peer titled “Law2020TM: One Year In” and is reprinted here with permission. For more information about ILTA, visit their website at www.iltanet.org.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

ABA's Second Annual National Institute on Consumer Financial Basics 9/19-9/20, 2011

The National Law Review wants to remind you that the ABA’s Second Annual National Institute on Consumer Financial Basics is taking place on September 19 – 20, 2011 at Boston University Center for Finance Law & Policy, Boston, MA.


Description

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher. And importantly, it provides the framework and structure, to help you come to grips with the Dodd-Frank Act and the issues that Dodd-Frank and its Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will present in your practice.

In the pressure cooker of today’s financial services industry, the breadth and complexity of the issues you are facing will overwhelm any seminar on recent developments. It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

 Program Focus

This program will explain each of the major sources of regulation of consumer financial products in the context of the regulatory techniques and policies that are the common threads in a complex pattern, including: 

  • Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
  • Disclosure and transparency affecting consumer understanding and market operation
  • Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
  • Privacy and security of consumer data and ID Theft
  • Consumer reporting: FCRA & FACTA
  • Fair lending and fair access to financial services
  • Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs

 


Registration:

Click here to view registration options for this program. 

Program Times:

Day One:
Monday, September 19 – 8 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Day Two:
Tuesday, September 20 – 8 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.


Program Location:  

The Boston University Center for Finance, Law & Policy
595 Commonwealth Avenue, 4th Floor, Boston MA 02215-1704