Category: Communication Media & Internet

New Poll Underscores Growing Support for National Data Privacy Legislation

Over half of all Americans would support a federal data privacy law, according to a recent poll from Politico and Morning Consult. The poll found that 56 percent of registered voters would either strongly or somewhat support a proposal to “make it illegal for social media companies to use personal data to recommend content via algorithms.” Democrats were most likely to support the proposal at 62 percent, compared to 54 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents. Still, the numbers may show that bipartisan action is possible.

The poll is indicative of American’s increasing data privacy awareness and concerns. Colorado, Virginia, and California all passed or updated data privacy laws within the last year, and nearly every state is considering similar legislation. Additionally, Congress held several high-profile hearings last year soliciting testimony from several tech industry leaders and whistleblower Frances Haugen. In the private sector, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come out in favor of a national data privacy standard similar to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Politico and Morning Consult released the poll results days after Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) accepted a 24,000-signature petition calling for Congress to pass a federal data protection law. Senator Wyden, who recently introduced his own data privacy proposal called the “Mind Your Own Business Act,” said it was “past time” for Congress to act.

He may be right: U.S./EU data flows have been on borrowed time since 2020. The GDPR prohibits data flows from the EU to countries with inadequate data protection laws, including the United States. The U.S. Privacy Shield regulations allowed the United States to circumvent the rule, but an EU court invalidated the agreement in 2020, and data flows between the US and the EU have been in legal limbo ever since. Eventually, Congress and the EU will need to address the situation and a federal data protection law would be a long-term solution.

This post was authored by C. Blair Robinson, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Blair is not yet admitted to practice law. Click here to read more about the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Robinson & Cole LLP.

For more data privacy and cybersecurity news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

WEBSITE LAYOUT PASSES MUSTER: Court Enforces Cruise Line’s TCPA and Arbitration Disclosures Over Objection

Those of you who attended Lead Generation World heard me discuss the big trend from back in 2020 in which Courts were refusing to enforce online disclosures owing to perceived problems with website layout.

Things like “below the button” disclosures and distracting visual elements were often described as defeating a manifestation of assent to disclosure terms in that unfortunate line of cases.

Well, 2022 has brought a couple of cases that have determined website disclosures to be just fine. Yesterday I reported on a big win by Efinancial, and today we have a nice victory by a cruise ship company.

In Barney v. Grand Caribbean Cruises, Inc., CASE NO. 21-CV-61560-RAR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8263 (S.D. Fl. January 17, 2022) the Defendant moved to enforce an arbitration provision on its website arguing that the Plaintiff had agreed to the terms and conditions by submitting a sweepstakes entry form.

Predictably, the Plaintiff argued that the disclosures were not enforceable because the website layout was insufficient–specifically that the font was too small and the terms excessively lengthy.

The Court was not impressed.

Noting that the disclosure was plainly readable and above the button–and it required a check box–the Court simply refused to heed the Plaintiff’s argument that he didn’t know he was agreeing to consent and arbitration. Here’s the analysis:

First, in terms of placement, the Website does not tuck away its statement regarding the Terms & Conditions in an obscure corner of the page where a user is unlikely to encounter it. Rather, the statement is located directly between the contact information fields and the “Submit Entry” button. The user is required to check the box indicating assent to the Terms & Conditions before any information is submitted. Id. ¶ 14. Thus, it is impossible that a user would miss seeing the statement regarding the Terms & Conditions or—at the very least—the checkbox indicating assent to them. Second, rather than merely informing the user that the Terms & Conditions exist, the statement directs the user to the precise location where the Terms & Conditions can be accessed—namely, at the “bottom of the page.” Finally, and most significantly, the user is required to check an acknowledgement box to accept the Terms & Conditions before any information is submitted through the Website—an affirmative act indicating [*14] assent. The checkbox accompanies the statement, which specifically includes language indicating that the user “agree[s] to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.” Thus, there is an explicit textual notice that checking the box will act as a manifestation of an intent to be bound. A reasonable user confronting a statement that “I consent to receive e-mail, SMS/Text messages, and calls about offers and deals from an automatic dialing system and/or pre-recorded voice technology” and “confirm that I am over age 25 [and] agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions that are hyperlinked at the bottom of the page” would understand that he or she is assenting to the linked terms, including those pertaining to mandatory arbitration. And the record shows that Plaintiff indeed checked the box before clicking “Submit Entry.” Connolly Decl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff’s objections to the design of the Website hold no water. Plaintiff assails the statement regarding the Website’s Terms & Conditions as “lengthy” with “extremely small font that blends into the background.” Resp. at 9. But as seen in the screenshot of the Website on the day of Plaintiff’s visit, the statement’s text is clearly legible [*15] and not overly long. Indeed, it is roughly the same size and color as the text indicating the fields for “First Name,” “Last Name,” “Email,” and “Phone Number.” Plaintiff also objects to the placement of the link to the Terms & Conditions at the bottom of the page. Id. at 10. But, as discussed supra, that is precisely where the statement directed the user to view them.

As you can see the Court found the layout to be perfectly appropriate and was particularly moved by the presence of the opt in check box. Although many cases have recently enforced disclosures WITHOUT checkboxes, they do remain favored by the Courts.

I think Barney represents a case of a pretty clearly enforceable provision. The above-the-button text coupled with the radial button and the clear articulation of the terms being accepted made this an easy case for the court.

I will note that the TCPA consent is connected to the terms and conditions lingo–I don’t love that since the TCPA disclosure should be “separately signed”. But the agreement by the consumer that they are over 25 is a nice touch–helps to protect against claims that minors are supplying consent illegally.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles about TCPA litigation, visit the NLR Litigation section.

What Should Your COVID-19 Vaccination/Test Policy Contain?

Every employer who employs at least 100 employees is anxiously awaiting the decision from the United States Supreme Court on OSHA’s Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). One thing that cannot be avoided is having a policy in place/ready to go given that the January 10, 2022 enforcement date from OSHA is here.

Specifically, the ETS requires employers to have a written policy on COVID-19 vaccinations. Employers are able to decide whether to have a policy that mandates vaccinations for employees. Such a policy must address the following:

  1. The requirements to be vaccinated against COVID-19,
  2. Exclusions for medical reasons/accommodations based on disabilities and/or religious beliefs,
  3. Information required to be submitted regarding the employee’s vaccination status and how to provide the information to the employer,
  4. Paid time for vaccination purposes (up to four hours of leave for each dose that is not deducted from the employee’s leave bank) and sick leave for the vaccine’s side effects of up to 2 days (which can be deducted from the employee’s leave bank, if leave is available),
  5. Obligations to notify the employer of a positive test result and removal COVID-19 positive employees from the workplace, and
  6. Discipline for failure to comply with the policy.

For employers who choose not to mandate vaccines, they still have to have a policy that provides for the information above but allows employees to choose to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering. Notably, of course, the weekly testing obligation for those who are not vaccinated is not in effect until February 9, 2022. However, if the ETS survives Supreme Court scrutiny (oral arguments were held last Friday, January 7, 2021), employees who report to the workplace weekly must submit to testing once every 7 days or within 7 days of reporting to the workplace if they do not work in person weekly.

The policy should inform employees of the testing obligation and that employees cannot both self-administer and self-read a test unless at least one step is observed by the employer or an authorized telehealth proctor.

With no guarantee as to how and when the Supreme Court will rule and given these enforcement dates, it is past time for employers to be developing their policies, collecting vaccination information, and informing employees who are not fully vaccinated, that they will be required to wear face coverings (and that weekly testing will begin in February).

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Article By Carrie Hoffman of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more articles on vaccination, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19: Cameras in The Courtroom: Public Access to Appellate Proceedings Post-COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

While federal and state appellate courts have historically been cautious about allowing cameras in the courtroom, the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed courts toward live audiovisual broadcasting to preserve public access to proceedings. Appellate courts’ new practices for virtual arguments and live audiovisual broadcasting1 present expanded opportunities for client engagement in the appellate process.

HISTORY OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

The founders did not countenance secret justice, believing that the operations of the courts were “matters of utmost public concern.”2

In the early years of the federal judiciary, Supreme Court justices lived this value when they rode circuit—traveling the country and hearing appeals in different courts. This allowed the public to view courtroom proceedings, showing the ways in which the new government, and its appellate judges, could serve their needs.3 Since circuit riding ended, however, both federal and state judiciaries have lagged in ensuring public access to court proceedings.

Only in 1980 did the Supreme Court first recognize a constitutional right to courtroom access. In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,4  a criminal defendant on trial for murder asked that the courtroom doors be closed to the public, and the judge granted that request.5 A local newspaper sued, raising the issue of whether the public had a right to access the trial court’s proceedings.6 The Supreme Court said yes: The press and the public have a First Amendment right to access criminal trials.7 

The public may have the right to attend criminal trials, but the Fourth Circuit is the only federal court to hold that the public has a constitutional right to attend appellate court proceedings.8 The Ninth Circuit and Seventh Circuit, the only two other federal courts to address the issue, stopped short of finding a constitutional right, instead concluding that there is a presumption of public access to appellate proceedings.9 Among the states, about half have general and presumptive “open court” constitutional provisions or statutes.10 Only six states have specifically addressed the issue of public access to appellate proceedings — Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Mexico, and Rhode Island each have rules of appellate procedure that call for public access to appellate court proceedings.11 The Florida Supreme Court recognizes a “presumption of openness [that] continues through the appellate review process.”12 The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that it agrees with other courts’ recognition of a public policy towards public access to appellate proceedings.13

Even among appellate courts that recognize or practice public access, however, there has been disagreement as to whether that access should include live audiovisual broadcasting.

APPELLATE COURTS’ CONCERNS ABOUT CAMERAS

Until recently, many, if not most, litigators, judges, and scholars opposed allowing cameras in the courtroom.14 They worried that lawyers and judges would grandstand in the presence of cameras, becoming more dramatic, argumentative, or long-winded knowing that their image was being broadcast on television.15 Other lawyers and judges might feel self-conscious and limit their arguments or their questions.16 Justice Kennedy expressed concern that allowing audiovisual broadcasting in the Supreme Court would encourage lawyers and justices to engage in sound bites rather than make legal arguments.17

Another concern has been that cameras would create a “circus” atmosphere and undermine the seriousness of or politicize the matter before the court.18 The American Bar Association in 1937 drafted a model rule for state bar associations that admonishes judges:

Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum. The taking of photographs in the courtroom, during sessions of the court or recesses between sessions, and the broadcasting of court proceedings, degrade the court and create misconceptions with respect thereto in the mind of the public and should not be permitted.19

This rule—or, more accurately, ban—was adopted by all federal jurisdictions and all but three states.20

Incremental change began in the 1980s. After demonstrations urging the Supreme Court to permit cameras in the courtroom and a letter from C-SPAN offering to help make that a reality, Chief Justice Rehnquist formed an ad hoc committee in 1988 to study the issue.21 From 1990 to the mid-2010s, federal circuit and state supreme courts began to explore the idea of cameras in the courtroom. A pilot program began in 1991 in which the Second and Ninth Circuits televised appellate arguments.22 While the program did not result in the Judicial Conference mandating cameras in all courtrooms, the Ninth Circuit was permitted to continue using cameras.23 State supreme courts followed similar test-and-see approaches. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, spent six months testing audiovisual broadcasting before formally approving oral arguments to be broadcast live on the Pennsylvania Cable Network.24

Nonetheless, many courts remained cautious about allowing cameras in the courtroom. For example, the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics prohibit live audiovisual broadcasting of proceedings unless authorized by the presiding judge.25 Such authorization requires obtaining advance consent from the attorneys who would be recorded and establishing a plan to ensure that the live broadcasting will not detract from the “dignity of the court proceedings.”26 The Fourth Circuit, despite having expressly recognized the public’s right to access appellate proceedings, refused to permit cameras in its courtrooms, instead opting to broadcast only audio of oral arguments.27

Such hesitancy has largely evaporated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE RISE OF LIVE BROADCAST VIRTUAL ORAL ARGUMENTS DURING THE PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic pushed judicial proceedings, including appellate proceedings, onto virtual platforms. This encouraged appellate courts to consider their commitments to open access and adjust accordingly. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, instituted live audio broadcasting.28State supreme courts took this opportunity to bring cameras into the courtroom.

Now, nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, 38 out of the 50 state supreme courts are offering live audiovisual broadcasting of oral arguments:

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Washington

West Virginia

Of the states that have adopted a live audiovisual broadcasting system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on court access, public engagement has greatly increased. For example, hundreds of viewers logged on to the Hawaii Supreme Court’s first-ever live audiovisual broadcast oral argument regarding a water rights case.29 Will a return to in-person arguments prompt retrenchment, or is the genie now out of the bottle? We cannot know for sure, but fear of the unknown and dark predictions of grandstanding have lost much of their power in the debate over cameras in the appellate courtroom.

HOW PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, VIRTUAL ORAL ARGUMENTS HELP CLIENTS

Live audiovisual access to appellate proceedings promotes public access and transparency. No audience has a bigger stake in these proceedings than the clients that are a party to them. Here are just a few ways they benefit from audiovisual access:

  • Attorneys can share recordings of or links to live audiovisual broadcasts with clients that are new to appeals, so they can learn what to expect of the proceedings.
  • Clients no longer have to travel to watch oral argument, saving them significant money and time.
  • Clients can view the work of counsel they are interested in hiring, the approach of opposing counsel, and the ways in which appellate judges and justices engage with attorneys, all of which audio recordings and written transcripts only imperfectly reveal.

Clients should, therefore, welcome this development and encourage its continuation.

1 This client alert uses the term “live audiovisual broadcasting” to describe both live television broadcasts and livestreaming of video as well as audio content via the Internet.

2 Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839, 98 S. Ct. 1535 (1978); see also JOHN ADAMS, A DISSERTATION ON THE CANON AND THE FEUDAL LAW, NO. 3 (1765), https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-01-02-0052-0006 (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022) (“[L]iberty must at all hazards be supported. . . . And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right from the frame of their nature, to knowledge . . . of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust is insidiously betray[ed], or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority, that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys and trustees. And the preservation of the means of knowledge, among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public, than all the property of all the rich men in the country.”).

3 David R. Stras, Why Supreme Court Justices Should Ride Circuit Again, 91 MINN. L. REV. 1710, 1716–17 (2007).

4 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814 (1980).

5 Id. at 559–60.

6 Id. at 562–63.

7 Id. at 580.

8 United States v. Moussaoui, 65 F. App’x 881, 890 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he First Amendment guarantees a right of access by the public to oral arguments in the appellate proceedings of this court. Such hearings have historically been open to the public, and the very considerations that counsel in favor of openness of criminal trial support a similar degree of openness in appellate proceedings.”).

9 United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885, 892 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing a “strong public policy in favor of public access to judicial proceedings” to explain why it heard nearly all of the issues on appeal in open court); In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75–76 (7th Cir. 1992) (“Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records. . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat; this requires rigorous justification. . . . Public argument is the norm even, perhaps especially, when the case is about the right to suppress publication of information.”).

10 ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 13; COLO. CONST. ART. II, § 6; CONN. CONST. ART. I, § 10; DEL. CONST. ART. I, § 9; FLA. CONST. ART. I, § 21; IDAHO CONST. ART. I, § 18; IND. CONST. ART. I, § 12; KY. CONST. § 14; LA. CONST. ART. 1 § 22; MISS. CONST. ART. III, § 24; MONT. CONST. ART. II, § 16; NEB. CONST. ART. I, § 13; N.C. CONST. ART. I, § 18; N.D. CONST. ART. I, § 9; OHIO CONST. ART. I, § 16; OKLA. CONST. ART. II, § 6; OR. CONST. ART. I, § 10; PA. CONST. ART. I, § 11; S.D. CONST. ART. VI, § 20; TENN. CONST. ART. I, § 17; TEX. CONST. ART. I, § 13; UTAH CONST. ART. I, § 11; WA. CONST. ART. I, § 10; W.VA. CONST. ART. III, § 17; WYO. CONST. ART. I, § 8; IOWA CODE § 602.1601 (2018).

11Conn. R. App. P. § 70-9; M.R. App. P. 12B(e); Miss. Sup. Ct. Op. R. 20.02(c); N.M. R. App. P. 12-322; R.I. Sup. Ct. R. 22(b).

12Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988).

13Whitehead v. Comm’n on Jud. Discipline, 111 Nev. 70, 119–21 (Nev. 1995) (citing In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d at 75, and Barron, 531 So. 2d at 118,, in justifying its decision to refuse to seal its review of charges of judicial misconduct).

14 Nancy S. Marder, The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom, 44 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1489, 1514–17 (2012).

15 Id. at 1514.

16 Id. at 1515.

17 Id. at 1514–15.

18 Id. at 1517.

19 ABA CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, CANON 35 (1937); see also Richard B. Kielbowicz, The Story behind the Adoption of the Ban on Courtroom Cameras, 63 JUDICATURE 14, 14 (1979).

20 Kielbowicz, 63 JUDICATURE at 14.

21 Lysette Romero Córdova, Will SCOTUS Continue to Livestream Oral Arguments and are Cameras Next? Let’s Hope So., AM. BAR ASS’N (Aug. 24, 2021), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/appellate_issue….

22 History of Cameras in Courts, U.S. Cts., https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/ca… (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

23 Id.

24 Amy Worden, Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Allow Cable TV Cameras, PHILA. INQUIRER (Aug. 15, 2011), https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/breaking/20110815_Pa__Supreme_Court….

25 Ala. Canons Jud. Ethics 3.A(7); 3.A(7B), https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/can3.pdf (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

26 Id.

27 Electronic Device Policy, U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fourth Cir., https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/visiting-the-court/electronic… (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

28 U.S. Sup. Ct. Audio Broad., https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the First Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiq_Kg0zEPrjMFK_s-KP5_g (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Second Cir. Audio Broad., https://ww2.ca2.uscourts.gov/court.html (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Third Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLSXp4JMYiFc7BHD_ln3d-w (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fourth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fifth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022) (audio broadcast links posted weekly); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Sixth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/live-arguments (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Seventh Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWvXsHlWdsIJHy3R_znCUsA (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Eighth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/ (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022) (audio broadcast public access telephone numbers posted weekly); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Tenth Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/c/theuscourtofappealsforthe10thcircuit (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Eleventh Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/live-streaming-oral-arguments (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Dist. of Columbia Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20Calenda… (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022); U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. Audio Broad., https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC78NfBf28AQe3x7-SbbMC2A (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022). The Ninth Circuit is the only federal appellate court to date to offer audiovisual broadcasting. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Ninth Cir. Audiovisual Broad., https://www.youtube.com/c/9thCircuit (last accessed Jan. 3, 2022).

29 Madison Adler & Allie Reed, All U.S. Appeals Courts Embrace Argument Streaming Due to Covid, BLOOMBERG (Aug. 4, 2020), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/all-u-s-appeals-c….

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Article By Robert B. Mitchell and Monica A. Romero of K&L Gates

For more articles on COVID-19 in the courtroom, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

2022 Legal Marketing Trends for Law Firm Success

Lawyers get into law to practice, not to focus on administrative tasks or marketing. However, running a law firm is much more than practicing law – it’s running a business. If law firms want to stay in business, they need to put effort into keeping abreast with legal marketing trends to attract new clients and keep the firm growing and profitable.

According to recent research, 57 percent of clients look for a lawyer on their own, and many use the internet to search for firms. In addition, 66 percent of solo lawyers do their own marketing, while 46 percent of law firms have a budget for marketing.

The global market size of the legal services industry is projected to grow over $900 billion by 2025, so it’s primed for innovation and evolution. Law firms need to stay current on legal trends and invest in marketing to be part of this massive industry growth.

Here are the top legal marketing trends for 2022:

  1. Setting SMART Goals

  2. Creating a Brand

  3. Running an SEO Campaign

  4. Embrace Content Marketing

  5. Explore Video Marketing

  6. Focus on the Right Social Media Platforms

  7. Post Reviews from Clients

  8. Showcase Case Studies

  9. Create an Email Marketing Campaign

  10. Use Automation to Track Legal Marketing Trends

  1. Setting SMART Goals

No strategy is worthwhile without goals. SMART goals are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound goals that ensure marketing results match their intent. Setting goals allows marketers to see what’s working and what isn’t to refine and reconsider the strategy.

For example, a goal to “generate new clients” doesn’t fit the SMART goals framework. Instead, the goal should be to increase the number of client leads generated per month from 15 to 30 as a result of the newsletter. This should be achieved in six months.

Each goal should be aligned with a purpose, or what the law firm is hoping to achieve. Here are some examples of general marketing goals:

  • Brand awareness

  • Lead generation

  • Client acquisition

  • Increased customer value

  1. Creating a Brand

Branding isn’t limited to retail corporations – law firms need a brand, too. A brand helps a law firm attract the right type of client and grow.

Creating a brand is a long process, but it starts with thinking about the mission and vision of the firm, the core values of the firm, and the unique value proposition (what separates the law firm from its competitors?).

  1. Running an SEO Campaign

Search engine optimization (SEO) is vital to any marketing plan in 2022. Competition is fiercer than ever, so law firms need to stand out and gain a ranking on the first page of the search engine results to drive traffic to the firm website.

Law firms should use tactics like content marketing, strong keyword research, optimized images, intuitive website structure, and a fast and secure web hosting platform to improve SEO.

  1. Embrace Content Marketing

Content marketing is essential for a law firm from both an SEO and a general marketing perspective. Valuable content turns a law firm into a thought leader in the industry or practice area, bringing clients back when they need a solution to a problem.

It’s important for firms to create in-depth, original content that addresses common questions for the target audience. A good place for firms to start is with a legal blog that addresses topics such as frequently asked questions from clients.

  1. Explore Video Marketing

Video marketing is sweeping the marketing world, and it has plenty of value for law firms. Consumers are more likely to listen to a message in video format than written format since people like to skim. Using a video gets the message across and serves to humanize the law firm’s brand.

Videos come in many shapes and forms, including animated explainer videos that break down complex legalese, spokesperson videos with a partner answering frequently asked questions, and client testimonials to showcase how the firm helps people. These videos can be used on the firm’s website, emails, or social media accounts like YouTube and Facebook.

  1. Focus on the Right Social Media Platforms

Plenty of law firms use social media platforms, but not all are created equal. It can be challenging to maintain accounts on every social media platform, so it’s best for law firms to select the platforms that have the most prospective clientele.

Once law firms focus on the ideal social media platforms, they can observe how clients and other law firms interact and increase engagement with followers. Over time, the presence on social media will grow.

  1. Post Reviews from Clients

Client reviews go a long way in helping law firms attract new clients and earn a higher search engine ranking. If a law firm doesn’t have a lot of reviews, it’s important to prompt clients to leave a review on social media, Google, or the website.

If getting reviews is a challenge, law firms can create incentives for staff to ask for reviews and how it can impact the firm. The firm can also offer incentives to clients. Keep in mind that video reviews or testimonials can go a long way in increasing credibility for a firm.

  1. Showcase Case Studies

Case studies are in-depth and demonstrate expertise and success for clients. Law firms should have a page with current, comprehensive case studies that highlight successful case outcomes. If it’s well organized, clients can find case studies that are similar to their case and gain more confidence in selecting a firm.

  1. Create an Email Marketing Campaign

Despite social media and other communications, email marketing is an incredible outbound marketing technique that’s still important in 2022. Nearly 60 percent of marketers say that email delivers the highest ROI, no matter the industry.

Sending out targeted, value-packed emails can help a law firm build credibility, convert new leads, and attract new and repeat customers. Once the email list is built, law firms can segment the list according to the stage of the customer journey, location, practice area, and more to create highly targeted email messaging.

  1. Use Automation to Manage Legal Marketing Trends

The legal industry is traditional, but legal practice management software is the way modern firms get ahead. Legal management software, like PracticePanther, helps law firms in a variety of lucrative business operations including streamlining billing and invoicing managing client communications and tracking time. With the burden of marketing tasks, having legal practice management software allows law firms to automate many day-to-day tasks, freeing time to focus on marketing efforts. It also offers automation for some marketing efforts, such as custom tags to track lead sources or assigning marketing tasks through workflows to ensure you’re never missing a lead.

© Copyright 2022 PracticePanther

Article By PracticePanther

For more articles on legal marketing, visit the NLR Law Office Management.

In-House Counsel’s Role in Bridging the Generation ‘We’ Gap

A new generation of tech savvy, social justice-focused and environmentally aware employee stakeholders are creating recruitment, retention and other employment challenges. Unlike their predecessors, the “Generation We” cohort of employees (which loosely encompasses Gens Y and Z and even the new “Alphas”) tend to view employment as experimental rather than a long-term commitment. Managing employees with a transactional approach to work and who demand purpose-driven employment creates significant human capital risk. Corporate counsel can play a key role in managing and mitigating that risk, not only in response to the growing ESG disclosure and regulation trends, but as part of the need to design future-proof legal frameworks for the workplace.

The Framework for Generation-Conscious Policies

Good compliance practice begins with a forward-looking framework for employment policies. The pandemic has razed traditional office life and if the prediction that 37% of office desks will remain empty in 2022 comes true, the technology supporting remote work and the policies governing it are mission critical. Generation We embraces technology as a life tool, not just a work tool.  The primacy of technology requires a second look at policies that regulate it. Examples of leading-edge policies include those addressing AI infrastructure in the workplace (as applied to, for example, applicant tracking systems) and policies addressing anti-bias in technology. Social media and communication policies also demand a generationally-aware review.  These policies, which are needed for brand protection and communication consistency, may need modernization in light of the platforms Generation We inhabit. One of legal’s (many) jobs is to construct that compliance framework. This may mean more than an annual review of human resources policies which is tough enough in this frenetic environment. But that policy review should include second look at all employment policies to ensure they are generationally adept, consistent with technology changes, and meet what the new workforce demands.

Who Participates and How

The Zoom room may have been new at the pandemic’s inception, but is mundane now. In-person teams have been displaced by fully remote or hybrid collaboration and a host of legal issues the virtual world creates. Some employment policies may not account for virtual world inclusiveness or rules of engagement. Microaggressions could be amplified in the virtual environment as employees who feel left out may lack the typical platforms to make those feeling known – resulting in the public broadcast of employment disputes or job abandonment. It is hard to pick up on social cues from an inch square web-box. It may even be harder to identify when someone feels sidelined because of gender, race or other underrepresented status. Legal should play a role in championing people on the sidelines. This means empowering managers to shut down grandstanders who grab the virtual floor. It also means taking note of those who don’t virtually raise their hands, and ensuring that all employees are heard. Rules of engagement regarding the use of video (all on? all off?) and the discouragement of side-chats and other digital unpleasantness not only express inclusiveness but role models best practices. Generation We demands inclusiveness in their work and personal lives; they are unforgiving of employers who lack sensitivity to these issues and are quick to publicize their contrary views.

Learning, not Training

Mandatory training may not speak to socially aware employees who reject stereotypical gender roles and labels and embrace racial justice. Employers cannot legally abandon statutorily-mandated training, but they can modernize it. Structured meetings with a core educational focus is meaningful because it imparts information and drives behavior. Counsel should consider helping their human resource partners to update traditional training to reflect learning about unconscious bias. Similarly, new subjects like mindfulness, wellness, mental health issues and how the workplace impacts people might also be included in learning tools.  Are the corporation’s core messages embedded in the training or is it is an off-the-shelf program lacking relevance to the business? Training is an important part of counsel’s compliance obligations but incorporating the corporation’s core mission into that programming in a customized way is an effective learning tool. Corporate counsel plays a key role in driving change in these learning systems and these changes could positively mitigate human capital and business risk.

Performance with Purpose

Corporate counsel’s role is becoming less transactional (get the deal done) and more transformational (recruiting and retaining the workforce and implementing the ceaseless legal developments that have altered how we work). Performance in this context may be more than returning value to shareholders or a fulfilling a non-profit’s philanthropic aim. Performance may instead encompass achieving a group aim.  The Great Resignation anecdotally informs us that Generation We is in search of meaning and personal growth, and not always money (though they are keenly interested in equitable compensation). Purpose-driven organizations can lead to a sense of community.  Because community is important to this generation, the identification and amplification of the corporate mission becomes even more important. A recently released Goldman Sachs Asset management report concludes that a growing percentage of youngers workers are already planning to retire earlier than their predecessors. If that movement is real, retaining the next generation of workers becomes even more important.

Generation We is driving the primacy of the employee stakeholder and underlies the addition of the “E” to ESG. This generation fearlessly exercises their workplace voice and are quick to abandon work when a business cannot articulate or veers off a cohesive a mission. Counsel can play a key role in bridging the intergenerational divide. That role and its impact begins with the compliance framework being built in a manner that adapts to the ever-growing expectations of the next generation of the workforce.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Article By Jennifer B. Rubin of Mintz

For more articles on Generation We, visit the NLR labor section.

Life and Death of Technology: 2022

Everything has a life cycle.

Bacteria, insects, people, civilizations, galaxies – all are born, live and pass into eternity eventually. So it goes with technologies. Some, like wheels and levers, simply evolve in an impressive millennia-long cycle. Others, like jet packs, never seem to find the popularity we expect. And many, like 8-track tapes, shine brightly (or not so brightly) for a moment and fade into obscurity.

I like to dedicate a column to this topic each year to remind us how fleeting the spotlight can be. Obsolescence is built into all of our tech, just as limited existence is the essential nature of people.

For example, classic Blackberry devices will finally die this year. Remember the “Crackberry?” – a device so addictive and omnipresent that President Obama refused to part with his Blackberry despite the security risk. Blackberry had 80 Million users in 2012. Not so much anymore.

If you still have a Blackberry phone and it is not using Android software, the company will stop supporting your product today. CNN reports that “BlackBerry (BB) has been mostly out of the phone business since 2016, but over the years it continued to license its brand to phone manufacturers.” A 5G Blackberry Android-driven device from OnwardMotion is listed as “arriving in 2021,” so we shall see if it ever arrives. The original has passed away.

When Google/Alphabet hyped its “Moonshot” factory, one of the most publicized efforts was called Loon. The Loon project involved floating giant balloons above the earth to beam internet to areas where connectivity was most difficult to achieve. Loon was started in 2012, launched its first public tests in 2013, and in 2020 began commercial deployment in Africa through Telkom Kenya. Last year Alphabet shut the doors on Loon, unable to find a sustainable and cost-effective business model. Alphabet also closed its business called Makani, which provided wind power from giant kites. This is a bad year for business models dependent on floating objects in the air.

In 2012, Indian executives launched Hike as an Indian answer to Facebook’s WhatsApp, and Hike was valued at $1.4 billion by 2016 with nearly 70 million users. Unfortunately, where Chinese technologists successfully operate WeChat as a local WhatsApp alternative, Hike disappeared from circulation with no formal explanation. WhatsApp has now solidified its near monopoly in India.

Apple killed its original Homepod this year, unable to compete with Amazon Echo and Google nest, although you can still buy a Homepod mini. LG stopped making mobile phones this year. Microsoft killed Windows 10X and Minecraft Earth. Microsoft also killed Skype for business last year. I remember a Microsoft partner saying that when Microsoft wants to enter a new market, it chooses an ally, eliminates all the other blips on their radar screen until only the ally is left, and then kills that blip too. Skype may be a good example of this strategy as it has been pushed aside to make space for Microsoft Teams, soon to be dominating the world of corporate remote video calls (if not dominant there already).

All-in-all this is not a significant list considering the upheavals in the world over the past two years. Aside from Blackberry, which keeps limping on as a brand despite the death of its original proprietary operating system, no epoch-defining technology slid from this mortal coil in 2021. So where do we go from here?

The Metaverse was famously introduced into our lives last year. Will we see the first commercial glimpses of it in 2022? Mark Zuckerberg telegraphed his intended business direction when Facebook bought Oculus Rift, producer of immersive three-dimensional world-building technology. Zuckerberg clearly hoped to drive his herd into a more addictive, all-encompassing space as soon as possible. But now, with Facebook’s flagship products serving an aging and decreasing population, with regulators/Congress prepared to slap down any attempt to buy sexy social media rivals that appeal to younger audiences, and with a dismal company track record of developing its own social media successor products, opening the Metaverse becomes a dire urgency for Facebook. I expect we will see some access portals to this new world in the coming year.

The Washington Post suggests that both Apple and Google may offer their own metaverse access portals this year. It will be interesting if these companies try to isolate their own technology in to separate sandboxes, or if they make a play for interoperability that will allow small companies to create content that can be played on every device. The Post speculates that a workplace metaverse may emerge soon: “As for the rest of us, our first steps into the metaverse will probably be for our jobs. The pandemic is pushing companies toward virtual reality for onboarding, training and meetings. As consumer tech catches up, though, the metaverse will seep out of the workplace and into our everyday lives — but don’t get too excited.” There is likely much road to be laid between here and there.

Apple’s AirTags have been around for a while, but their applications are increasing.  Some of these applications are problematic. For example, car theft and stalking have been made much simpler with a tiny effective tracking device. The New York Times reports “In recent months, people have posted on TikTok, Reddit and Twitter about finding AirTags on their cars and in their belongings. There is growing concern that the devices may be abetting a new form of stalking, which privacy groups predicted could happen when Apple introduced the devices in April.” The tags are dropped in purses and bags, stuck on cars, and placed in clothing pockets of third parties. Apple has tried to address these issues by notifying iPhone holders of an unknown tracking device nearby. So, for better or worse, 2022 could be the year of Tile and AirTags.

Better drones, household robots, and a new generation of virtual reality glasses could all make an impact on our technology lives in the upcoming year. Robot technology keeps improving, but until they develop a light touch with opposable thumbs, I don’t expect household usage to explode. This also may be the year of the Smart Mirror that can raise your beauty and fashion game while you check out the results. The Capstone Smart Mirror will also look up directions while you get dressed for your date, tell you how late you are, and psych you up with your favorite music.

Apparently every year is the year of crypto and blockchain if you listen to the hype masters – and those who have financial interest in bringing more money to the technology. They have started running very expensive sports ads to drive more gullible investors into this essentially unregulated market. NFTs may turn out to become more than just speculative investments (like nearly every crypto trend), but I won’t hold my breath for it to happen.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

 

Article By Theodore F. Claypoole  of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

For more articles on cybersecurity, visit the NLRCommunications, Media & Internet section.

Two Recent Developments Promise to Shed Light on Accrual of BIPA Claims

In the aftermath of two recent appellate court decisions addressing when claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or the “Act”) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.) accrue, it appears likely that the Illinois Supreme Court will need to provide clarity on this critical question. First, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, found in Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, et al.  that claims under sections 15(a) and (b) of the Act accrue with each and every capture and use of a plaintiff’s biometric identifier or information. Second, in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to directly address the issue of when a claim under BIPA accrues, and instead has certified the question for review by the Illinois Supreme Court. While the holding in Watson provides some clarity as to when certain BIPA claims accrue, it leaves open critical questions regarding how to calculate: (i) the number of BIPA violations; and (ii) monetary damages under the Act.

The Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, et al. Decision

Plaintiff Brandon Watson sued Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, Lincoln Park Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC, and South Loop Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) in March 2019, alleging that the Defendants violated BIPA by scanning the fingers or hands of their respective employees, including plaintiff, for timekeeping purposes. Plaintiff alleged that the scanning violated sections 15(a) and (b) of the Act, which place both restrictions and affirmative obligations on private entities related to biometric identifiers (such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retinal scans and facial geometry) and biometric information (e.g., information based on biometric identifiers to the extent used to identify an individual):

  • Private entities in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying the information.  740 ILCS 14/15(a).
  • Private entities which collect, capture, purchase, receive or otherwise obtain biometrics must first inform the subject of that fact in writing, as well as the specific purpose and length of time for which the information will be retained, and must obtain a written release executed by the subject.  740 ILCS 14/15(b).

Plaintiff alleged that he began working for at least one of the Defendants in December 2012. Because the Act contains no provision as to when claims accrue or the applicable limitations period, Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims accrued on the first day the Defendants allegedly collected his biometric information and Plaintiff’s claims were thus time-barred. In response, Plaintiff argued that his suit was not time-barred because his claims accrued with each alleged capture of his biometric information that Defendants obtained without providing notice and obtaining consent. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding  that Plaintiff’s claims accrued with the initial scan of his finger or hand  in December 2012. Thereafter, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s Rule 304(a) motion for an interlocutory appeal.

The Appellate Court reversed and remanded, finding that a claim under the Act accrues after “each and every capture and use of plaintiff’s fingerprint or hand scan.” In reaching this result the Appellate Court analyzed the plain language of the Act and the legislative history of the Act, and accepted as true that the Defendants captured Plaintiff’s biometric information twice per day when he clocked in and out of work.

The Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. Decision

Plaintiff Latrina Cothron sued White Castle System, Inc. (“White Castle”) alleging that White Castle violated BIPA when it required plaintiff to scan her finger in order to access work computers. Moreover, plaintiff alleged that White Castle disclosed the scans of her fingers to its third-party vendor as part of process to authenticate the finger scan and ultimately grant access to the work computers. Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserted claims under sections 15(b) and (d) of the Act. In addition to the obligations of section 15(b), outlined above, section 15(d) prohibits a private entity from disclosing, redisclosing or otherwise disseminating biometric information without consent.  740 ILCS 14/15(d).

White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the suit was untimely since plaintiff’s claims accrued in 2008 when BIPA was enacted. The trial court denied White Castle’s motion, but certified its order for immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit. In turn, the Seventh Circuit examined the arguments of both parties and ultimately concluded that the question of when a claim accrues under BIPA is a novel question which has not yet been addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court. As a result, the Seventh Circuit stayed proceedings in the Cothron matter and certified the question of when claims accrue under BIPA to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Rulings’ Impact on Your Business

It is likely that it will take a ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court to provide further clarity on when claims under the Act accrue. In the interim, the Watson decision will obviously impact early BIPA case evaluations. It also, however, raises at least two unrelated issues that will likely be the subject of debate and litigation going forward.

First, Watson was based on the allegations in the complaint, without the benefit of discovery and additional information regarding the operation of the finger/hand scanning device(s) utilized by the Defendants.  Key to the decision is the Watson court’s conclusion that every use of the scanning device(s) results in the capture of Plaintiff’s biometric information, and the Court’s description of that capture as resulting in a permanent record. While that statement is likely based on allegations made in the complaint, it is possible, or even probable, that it is not factually accurate. Although variations exist, the scanning technology used in many biometric timekeeping devices creates only a single permanent record — from the very first scan of the individual’s finger or hand. Commonly, the later scans do not collect or store information, but only exist fleetingly as comparisons of the permanent, initial scan data. As a result, the applicability of the Watson decision may vary based on the actual operation of the scanning devices at issue in any single case.

Second, in response to Defendants’ concerns about the “ruinous” monetary damage awards that may result from the ruling in Watson, the Appellate Court went out of its way to note “that damages are discretionary[,] not mandatory” under BIPA. In so holding, the Appellate Court found that Section 20 of BIPA provides a list of possible damages, but notes that list constitutes what a “prevailing party may recover.” 740 ILCS 14/20 (emphasis added). The Appellate Court’s decision to highlight the discretionary nature of an award of monetary damages under BIPA stands in stark contrast to the position often taken by the plaintiffs’ bar. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ bar consistently asserts that the right to recover liquidated damages under BIPA is absolute given the Illinois Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp. However, the Rosenbach decision merely found that once a plaintiff meets the basic statutory requirement of being “aggrieved,” he or she is merely “entitled to seek recovery” under Section 20. The Watson Court’s emphasis that monetary damages are discretionary under BIPA is likely to open new lines of discovery and argument regarding the calculation of damages, if any, sustained by a particular BIPA plaintiff and whether or not those damages justify the imposition of discretionary liquidated damages set forth in the Act.

Ultimately, every business should perform a critical analysis as to any business practice that potentially concerns biometrics (including employee timekeeping, identification procedures or security protocols). The failure to fully comply with BIPA, even when such a failure results in no actual injury to an individual, may lead to significant liability. Vedder Price attorneys are at the forefront in defending BIPA claims and counseling clients on BIPA-related policy and disclosure language.

© 2022 Vedder Price
For more articles on BIPA, visit the NLR section Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Legal News Roundup December 2021: Firm Inclusion & Diversity Efforts, Hiring & More

Happy new year! Read on for the latest law firm hiring, pro bono and innovation news:

Ropes and Gray announced the opening of their 12th location in Los Angeles in 2022, which will focus initially on the healthcare and equity & asset management industries. Attorneys Howard Glazer, Torrey McClary, Ranee Adipat and Leslie Thornton will assist in opening the new office, as they look to expand their reach in the Southern California market.

Ropes and Gray also added Brandon Howald to their new Los Angeles team. Mr. Howald brings 22 years of private equity experience to the practice.

“Opening an office in Los Angeles is a really exciting move for Ropes & Gray. Southern California is a market where we have been active for many years. We already have a robust and growing roster of clients in a region with a vibrant private equity and asset management business, as well as strong California health care, life sciences, M&A, and technology practices. We have been very strategic in establishing a presence where our clients needed us, from Asia to London to Chicago to the West Coast. That same vision propels us into Los Angeles—and Howard Glazer, Torrey McClary and Brandon Howald have the industry expertise, entrepreneurial drive and Southern California roots to help lead us,” said Ropes & Gray’s chair, Julie Jones.

“We are opening in Los Angeles with a powerful platform: a roster of market leading clients, established partners with deep ties to Los Angeles like Brandon Howald, Howard Glazer, Torrey McClary and our powerful global network—all with the high bar of excellence clients come to expect from Ropes & Gray,” said the firm’s managing partner, David Djaha.

Real estate and general practice attorney Carmen I. Pagan has joined Romer Debbas LLP as Partner and the head of their Agency Lending Practice. Ms. Pagan specializes in commercial lending issues, senior and student housing through Freddie Mac Seller/Servicer and Capital Markets Execution programs, cross-collateralization loans and more.

Recently, Hofstra University School of Law, named alumna Ms. Pagan asan “Outstanding Woman in Law”  which acknowledges women who made inspiring contributions to the legal profession. Ms. Pagan is committed to the advancement of women’s issues in the workplace and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

McDermott Will & Emery announced three new additions to their Intellectual Property practice. The new additions are:

“McDermott continues to make incredible strides toward advancing our remarkable IP practice into an industry powerhouse. Simon and Jason bring significant life sciences patent litigation strength to our bench in New York, and Mac’s experience with Japanese technology and life science companies is unmatched. These three bring a lot of fire with them, and they will be incredible additions to our global IP team,” said William Gaede, Chair of McDermott’s Global IP practice.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton announced the addition of Ms. Lauren Strickroth as a partner in their Orange County office. Ms. Strickroth specializes in fiduciary litigation, business disputes, private wealth disputes and litigation involving estates and trusts matters. Ms. Strickroth also serves as general counsel for private businesses.

“Sheppard Mullin’s private wealth and fiduciary litigation team constitutes one of the premier practices in the U.S. We are confident Lauren will help expand our impressive record of success in the courtroom that has kept us at the top echelon of this niche field of trial attorneys throughout the U.S. and worldwide,” said Private Wealth and Fiduciary Litigation Practice Group Leader Adam Streisand.

“Over the last few years, our Private Wealth and Fiduciary Litigation practice has grown and their ongoing involvement in some of the most high-profile estate disputes is a testament to their outstanding reputation and expertise. We’re thrilled that Lauren is joining us,” said Sheppard Mullin’s vice chairman Jon Newby.

Legal Industry Awards and Recognition

Who’s Who Legal – Environment named Lynn L. Bergeson  as a leading legal practitioner in North America for the 17th time. Further, she was named a top lawyer in chemicals, manufacturing, nanotechnology, and pharmaceuticals industry groups by Super Lawyers for the 15th time. Ms. Bergeson, an experienced attorney in environmental, chemical, and nanotechnological law, is presently a Managing Partner at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., as well as President of The Acta Group , Bergeson & Campbell’s scientific and regulatory consulting arm.

As noted in the recognition by Who’s Who Legal, “Lynn Bergeson is renowned as ‘an excellent lawyer, particularly in chemical matters’. Her in-depth knowledge of risk assessment and liability management receives further applause.”

Simultaneously, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  received National and Metropolitan Tier 1 rankings for Environmental Law and Environmental Litigation in U.S. News and World Report’s 2022 Best Law Firms. As of this recognition, the firm has held these rankings for a full decade.

Chicago Lawyer Magazine named Antonio M. Romanucci, Founding Partner at Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, their 2021 Person of the Year. The award is given to honor a notable newsmaker, trendsetter or legal leader in the preceding year. Mr. Romanucci, a long-time civil rights lawyer, most notably represented the family of George Floyd in the civil lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis and four police officers.

“There is no question that this honor is a capstone for my career as a trial attorney,” said Mr. Romanucci. “It’s so hard to believe how far my life has come since my days as a Cook County Public Defender to now one of the founding partners at a nearly 25-year-old Romanucci & Blandin. It’s a testament to the will and fortitude my law partner, Stephan Blandin, and I have always had to make sure the client comes first.”

“The banner headline for Antonio Romanucci this year is the historic $27 million settlement the George Floyd legal team secured,” said John McNally, Managing Editor at Chicago Lawyer Magazine. “It’s a major dollar figure for a case that struck nerves – many that continued to be frayed to this very day – throughout the United States. But where one could be despondent, Romanucci is hopeful. He has to be, otherwise what’s the point? So in addition to his heavy workload at Romanucci & Blandin, he’s barnstorming the country speaking to lawyers, law students and others who can make a difference in the quest for justice.”

Henry Talavera, a Shareholder at Polsinelli PC, received a Lifetime Achievement Award as part of Texas Lawyer’s 2021 Texas Legal Excellence Awards. A member of the firm’s Dallas office and the vice chair of the Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Practice, Mr. Talavera is well-experienced in the fields of employment law and tax law, and has represented clients before the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Brian Bullard, Managing Partner of Polsinelli’s Dallas office, notes the significance of this award: “For the last eight years at Polsinelli and throughout his career, Henry has played a vital role in the legal community, not only providing needed counsel to his wide range of clients but serving as an advocate for diversity in the profession and beyond. This Lifetime Achievement honor recognizes just how vital his contributions have been for the past three decades, and all of us at Polsinelli look forward to witnessing and supporting his continued accomplishments going forward.”

Firm Inclusion & Diversity Efforts

Much joined the Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA), which aims to use the law as a vehicle for change to help oppressed and underserved communities. Much previously represented the LFAA in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court about an issue involving Jim Crow measures used to disenfranchise Black jurors.

“We’re proud to join the nearly 300 Alliance firms working together to address systemic racism in the law. It’s our privilege and our responsibility to continue working for the rights of marginalized people,” said Steve Blonder, who led the recent work with LFAA and also serves as chair of the firm’s social responsibility initiative,  Much Community.

The LFAA works to create systemic change and racial equity in the law.

Kimya S.P. Johnson joined Jackson Lewis as its new chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer (CDEIO) and principal. She will work with firm leadership, key stakeholders, and practice group leaders to expand, manage and oversee firmwide DEI initiatives and lead a team to execute a comprehensive, strategic DEI plan.

Ms. Johnson will also serve as a member of Jackson Lewis’ Corporate Diversity Counseling group, advising companies on diversity assessments and action plans.  She has over 20 years of experience as an employment attorney, and supports employers in their efforts to provide legally-compliant, effective and organizationally-integrative DEI plans. Ms. Johnson previously served as the chair of the Diversity & Inclusion practice group at Ogletree Deakins.

“With Kimya at the helm of our strategic DEI efforts, we will strengthen our inclusive culture that values the contributions of every employee and continues to emphasize the importance of having a workforce that reflects the various communities in which we work,” said Firm Chair Kevin G. Lauri. “In addition, I believe all within Jackson Lewis and beyond will recognize we are intentional and committed to doing what it takes to move our leadership, our firm, and our profession forward in this vital area. We are thrilled to add Kimya to the team.”

“Fostering DEI is a critical component of Jackson Lewis’ culture, and the CDEIO role will collaborate with all departments and functions to advance DEI as a firm value,” said Firm Managing Principal Samantha Hoffman. “Kimya has a track record of creating meaningful enhancements for law firms. She is known as an innovator and has already contributed excellent ideas to build on the success of our DEI strategy. We are so pleased to have her on board.”

Before her career as an attorney, Ms. Johnson worked as a public elementary school teacher in South Bronx, New York and served as campaign manager for a candidate for U.S. Congress.

Dinsmore received Best in Class for diversity in the legal profession by Crain’s Cleveland Business in its issue recognizing seven “notable businesses championing diversity and inclusion.”

“Everyone has a customer in the business world, and the customer population is becoming more diverse,” partner Richik Sarkar told Crain’s. “Look around your company. If everyone seems the same, especially in leadership, you’ll have a problem serving your customer, and if you don’t take steps to understand your customers, you’ll face failure sooner rather than later.”

Dinsmore previously earned the Mansfield Rule 4.0 Certification Plus for the 2021 iteration of the diverse leadership hiring initiative. The firm also partnered with Procter & Gamble and the Ohio Innocence Project at Cincinnati Law to create a fellowship for a diverse recent law school graduate to gain experience in civil rights litigation and policy-making.

The firm’s Pre-Law Minority Program also helps students of color at four Kentucky universities.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

Article By Hanna Taylor, Chandler Ford and Rachel Popa

of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
For more articles on legal marketing, visit the NLRLaw Office Management section.