Category: Communication Media & Internet

Legal Marketing Q and A

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

Our session in San Diego last weekend yielded some good questions that are worth sharing here, with my answers:

When should I ask for testimonials?

  1. Right after the client is retained
  2. Anytime the client says thank you
  3. Anytime there is a “win” for the client
  4. After the case/matter is handled

Why do I need testimonials, can’t I just tell prospects that my clients love me?

You can do so, but it is far more compelling when someone else talks about their positive experience they had with you or the firm than if you simply say your clients are happy. Third party reviews are far more powerful than if you say it.

People are skeptical; they don’t always believe what individuals and companies say about themselves.

Lastly, people are deathly afraid of making mistakes, if they can see or read about others’ experiences with you or the firm they feel better about making the decision because others have had a positive experience with you and they believe they will have a similar experience!

What are a few major systems I should have in my law firm in regards to managing client experience?

1.     Intake system (what docs clients need to bring in, sign, initial, etc.). If the process is easy and systematized, the prospect will pick up on that and feel more comfortable about hiring you.

2.     Follow up system (If a prospect doesn’t hire you how frequently and persistently do you follow up? When you meet someone at a networking event that can refer you clients, how frequently and persistently do you follow up?) Improves the client experience because they see you follow up and care.

3.     Create a policy and procedure manual (so you are not held hostage by staff or find yourself totally crippled if someone leaves, gets sick or is no longer available). Improves client experience because each time they come in or call, the experience, language used etc. is consistent.

Why does it seem like my prospects only care about price?

If prospects only care about price, that means they believe you or your services are a commodity. And commodities are sold on price. You are most likely trying to be the shiniest apple in the barrel of apples…you must become the orange in the sea of apples so people understand why and how you are different and why paying a premium makes sense.

Article By:

 of

Professional and Personal Aspects of Law Firm Social Media

Correct Consults Logo

I’ve seen it far too many times: law firms are often concerned that any personal posts on their firm’s Social Media platforms may hinder their credibility as a professional legal practitioner.  That simply isn’t the case. In fact, if every post is of a professional nature, it may deter the average Facebook user from interacting with your content. You need a good balance of the two.

social media communication marketing

If you keep your Social Media presence strictly business, you run the risk of scaring away followers – or at the very least losing their attention. We agree with Ken Hardison, Founder and President of the Personal Injury Lawyers Marketing and Management Association (PILMMA), who says that no more than 15 percent of your social content should be self-promotional. “People love to buy, but they don’t love to be sold to,” Hardison says.

More personal posts – such as employee birthdays and anniversaries, new hires, local news, a thoughtful quote, or even pictures that don’t directly relate to law – will show Social Media users a more approachable side of your firm. However, if you never post anything related to your law firm and practice areas, your Social Media platforms wouldn’t be much of a marketing effort.

So, what’s the perfect recipe for Social Media success?

The best way to promote your website, content and firm on Social Media is through your blog. Blogs often provide shareable information or news and thus lend themselves to Social Media sharing. Blogs bridge the gap between useful, shareable information and promoting your law firm. Combine a healthy flow of blog posts with a balanced blend of non-promotional posts and you just may see more users clicking your links and interacting with your Social Media posts.

Why Are Non-Business Posts Beneficial?

Posts that do not directly relate to law and your practice still serve a purpose. They’re not getting people onto your site. They’re not directly getting you cases. However, they are getting attention in the form of Likes, Shares, +1s and retweets – and therefore giving your brand attention. People are getting to know your firm through the content you share, some of which is business-oriented, some of which is more relatable to the average Facebook, Twitter or Google+ user. The goal should be to appear knowledgeable, professional and approachable. This blend of posts does just that.

Both types of posts serve a purpose. Professional posts receive a few likes and drive traffic to the firm’s website, while more personal posts spread the brand to far more Social Media users, increasing brand recognition and page visibility.

Article By:

 of

Picture This: The National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice Wants to Sue Employer for Issuing Social Media Policy with Photo/Video Ban

Michael Best Logohe National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice (the Division) recently recommended that the Board issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing its social media policy without first bargaining with two unions, and for maintaining a social media policy that included unlawful provisions. Although the Division analyzed several social media policy provisions, its criticism of two provisions in particular—a ban on using photo and video of company premises, and restrictions on employees’ use of company logos and trademarks—makes it very difficult for employers to protect their brands while at the same time complying with federal labor laws.

Giant Foods’ social media policy forbade employees from using company logos, trademarks, or graphics without prior approval from the company. The policy also prohibited employees from using photographs or video of the “Company’s premises, processes, operations, or products” without prior approval as well.

The Division concluded that these provisions were unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) should issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing them. As employers are becoming keenly aware, the NLRA safeguards employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity. Such activity includes group discussions and some comments by individual employees that relate to their wages, hours, and other terms conditions of employment.

The Division concluded that banning employees from using company logos or trademarks was unlawful because: (1) employees should be allowed to use logos and trademarks in online communications, including electronic leaflets or pictures of picket signs with the employer’s logo; and (2) those labor-related interests did not raise the concerns that intellectual property laws were passed to protect, such as a business’ interest in guarding its trademarks from being used by competitors selling inferior products.

Additionally the Division concluded that restricting employees from using photo and video of company premises unlawfully prevented them from sharing information about participation in protected concerted activities, such as snapping a picture of a picket line.

Unfortunately, the Board’s expansive view will likely hamper companies’ ability to prevent damage to their brand and reputation.  Not allowing employers to ban the taking of videos and photos on their premises, or restricting the use of company logos/trademarks could lead to public relations nightmares such as the one Subway Foods recently endured after it was revealed that an employee posted a graphic picture on Instagram of his genitalia on a sub, with the tag line “I will be your sandwich artist today.”

Given the prevalence of cell phones with photo and video capabilities, and the ease of uploading photos and videos to the internet, a company that cannot control its employees’ use of those devices on their premises will be one bad employee decision away from public embarrassment.

What else can be gleaned from the Giant Foods Advice Memorandum? That the Board’s General Counsel will continue to prod employers to eliminate blanket bans on certain kinds of employee conduct from their social media policies and replace those bans with provisions that include specific examples of what employee conduct the policy prohibits. The Board and its General Counsel have previously found social media policies that restricted employee use of confidential information and complaints about an employer’s labor practices as unlawful; Giant Foods makes clear that the agency is also scrutinizing other kinds of policy provisions that potentially could infringe on an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activities.

Accordingly, employers should review their policies with counsel so that they can tailor them to restrict employee conduct that will damage the company and its brand, but not be “reasonably” read to restrict employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activities.

Next Time, Buy the CDs, Re: Illegal Music Download

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Following the lead of other courts addressing statutory penalties for illegal music downloading, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a $675,000 fine for downloading and distributing 30 songs.  Sony BMG Music Entertainment  v. Tenenbaum, Case No. 12-2146 (1st Cir., June 25, 2013) (Howard, J.).

For over eight years, Tenenbaum ignored the warnings of his father, his college and the music industry and continued to download and distribute thousands of songs he knew were copyrighted.  In 2007 five record companies sued Tenenbaum under the Copyright Act for statutory damages and injunctive relief.  The record companies only pursued claims for 30 songs, though Tenenbaum admitted at trial he had distributed as many as 5,000 songs.  The trial court held as a matter of law that Tenenbaum had violated the Copyright Act and the jury found his violations were willful.  The jury awarded $22,500 for each of Tenenbaum’s thirty violations (15 percent of the statutory maximum), for a total award of $675,000.  The district court reduced the award to $67,500 finding that the jury’s award violated due process.  The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment holding that the principle of constitutional avoidance required the court to first address the issue of remittitur before determining the due process question.  On remand the district court determined remittitur was inappropriate and that the original $675,000 award comported with due process. Tenenbaum appealed the decision solely on due process grounds.

musical notes

The Court reviewed two questions: what is the correct standard for evaluating the constitutionality of an award of statutory damages under the Copyright Act; and (b) did the $675,000 award violate Tenenbaum’s right to due process?

The 1st Circuit looked to St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, not BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, as the proper standard for reviewing the constitutionality of statutory damages under the Copyright Act, noting that Gore applies to punitive damages and the concerns regarding fair notice to the parties of the range of possible awards were “simply not present in a statutory damages case where the statute itself provides notice of the scope of the potential award.”  Under Williams, a statutory damage award only violates due process “where the penalty prescribed is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.”

The 1st Circuit examined the purpose of the Copyright Act’s statutory damages and Tenenbaum’s behavior to determine if $675,000 metWilliams’ standard for constitutionality.  The 1st Circuit found that in 1999 Congress increased the Copyright Act’s minimum and maximum statutory awards specifically because of new technologies allowing illegal music downloading.  The record companies presented evidence that Tenenbaum’s activities had led to the loss of value of its copyrights and reduced its income and profits—precisely the harm Congress foresaw.  The Court went on to find that Tenenbaum’s conduct was egregious—he pirated thousands of songs for a number of years despite numerous warnings.  The Court held that “much of this behavior was exactly what Congress was trying to deter when it amended the Copyright Act.”  The 1st Circuit rejected Tenenbaum’s argument that the damages award had to be tied to the actual injury he caused, relying on Williams to find that the damages were imposed for a violation of the law and did not need to be proportional to the harm caused by the offender.

Article By:

 of

International Trade Commission Addresses Use of Standard-Essential Patents in Section 337 Investigations

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

The International Trade Commission (ITC) addressed for the first time the issue of whether infringement of a patent that has previously been declared “standard-essential” may form the basis for either a limited exclusion order or cease-and-desist order under a § 337, ruling that nothing in the ITC’s enabling statute prevents issuing an exclusion order, even if the complainant is under an obligation to license the patent.  Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, (U.S. ITC, June 4, 2013) (ITC, per curiam); Commissioner Pinkert, dissenting).

The complainant, Samsung Electronics, held two patents that it had previously declared to be “standard-essential” to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System promulgated by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).  ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights policy required Samsung to offer licenses to such patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.  After licensing negotiations between Samsung and the respondent, Apple, broke down, Samsung filed a complaint at the ITC requesting a limited exclusion order against Apple’s mobile communication products.  After the administrative law judge ruled, on an initial determination (ID), that none of the patents at issue were valid and infringed, the ITC determined to review the ID and sought views from both the parties and the public as to whether Samsung’s declaration of the patents at issue as “standard-essential” should affect either the ITC’s analysis of whether there was a violation of § 337 or what relief should be provided.

In its final determination, the ITC found one of the two patents to be both valid and infringed, and that the proper relief was a limited exclusion and cease-and-desist order directed to the infringing articles.  The ITC first rejected Apple’s argument that the Commission should not investigate an alleged violation of § 337 based on infringement of patents subject to a FRAND undertaking, ruling that under § 337(b)(1), the ITC is required to investigate any alleged violation based upon a complaint under oath, whether or not those patents have been declared standard-essential.  The ITC also rejected Apple’s theory that the Commission “cannot address infringement of standard-essential patents other than in the exceptional scenarios such as where a potential licensee has refused to pay a royalty after a U.S. court has determined that royalty to be FRAND, or where no U.S. court has jurisdiction over the potential licensee in order to set a FRAND rate,” ruling that the remedies provided under § 337 could be imposed in addition to any damages or injunctions available from a district court.

The ITC further determined that Apple had not “properly argued any affirmative defense that would preclude the Commission from finding a violation based on assertion of a declared-essential patent,” such as a breach of contract, promissory estoppel, laches or fraud  The ITC ruled that even if Apple had offered sufficient evidence that the FRAND declaration was a legally enforceable obligation, the patents at issue were actually necessary to practice the standard and that Samsung was required to grant irrevocable licenses under FRAND terms to any party, it still would not have found in Apple’s favor, because the parties’ final offers were sufficiently close to each other that Samsung did not violate its obligation to negotiate in good faith.  Importantly, the ITC found that Samsung was not under any obligation to make an initial offer that was FRAND, because “the SSO intends the final license to be accomplished through negotiation” and “even if it were true that a FRAND agreement that requires Apple to pay Samsung ultimately is not reasonable, the offers that Apple criticizes do not necessarily demonstrate that Samsung has violated its FRAND obligations by failing to negotiate in good faith” (emphasis in original).  Finally, the ITC rejected the theory that whether a patent has been declared standard-essential should be considered when the public interest is analyzed, finding that its consideration of the public interest is limited solely to the four factors listed in § 337(d)(1).

Uncommonly for a Commission opinion, Commissioner Dean Pinkert wrote a dissent arguing that the ITC should not issue an exclusion order based on Samsung’s obligation to license the patents on a FRAND basis, that the evidence indicated Samsung was unwilling to make a FRAND licensing offer with respect to the standard-essential patents and that the absence of a FRAND offer should have a bearing on whether relief under § 337 is in the public interest.  Specifically, Commissioner Pinkert found that it was neither fair nor non-discriminatory for a FRAND-encumbered patent holder to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumbered patents as a condition for licensing the FRAND-encumbered patent.  Commissioner Pinkert also would have found that the statutory language of § 337(d)(1), as well as the legislative history of the statute that “any evidence” of price gouging or monopolistic practices on the part of the complainant would be a proper basis for denying exclusion, suggests that the section should be read broadly.

Practice Note:  The Commission’s rejection of a per se rule barring exclusion orders for patents that have been declared standard-essential is likely to lead to have a number of effects, including increased litigation of standard essential patents at the ITC, counter-suits requesting that a district court rule determine what royalty rate is FRAND and/or requesting that a complainant be enjoined from proceeding before the ITC, presidential review taking on increased importance and potential legislative action to curb the ITC’s jurisdiction.

Article By:

 of

Twitter Best Practices Guide for Attorneys

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

With more than 200 million active users, Twitter is a major social media network attorneys should not ignore. Twitter can be a highly useful marketing tool for attorneys to promote their blogs and other thought leadership content.

Here is a best practices guide for attorneys using Twitter:

Tweet 4x/day or less

Use fewer than 100 characters per Tweet

Add links to Tweets to get higher Retweet rates – Tweets containing links get 86% higher Retweet rates

Make sure the links are clickable by including a space before the URL

Tweet on the weekends – engagement rates are 17% higher then

Engage with followers during “busy hours” of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Include hashtags in your Tweets, but no more than 2 per Tweet – Tweets with hashtags get twice the engagement

Add links to images to increase engagement – Tweets with image links enjoy twice the engagement rate than those without.

Use the word “Retweet” as a call-to-action to prompt your followers to share – Tweets that ask followers to Retweet receive 12x higher Retweet rates

Since Twitter is essentially a micro-blogging site, the same rules apply: create unique, original content that adds value, and your audience will respond.

Article By:

 of

Recent Data Breach Reports: And the Hits Keep on Coming….

Mintz Logo

The ”hits” to data bases, in any event.   Here is a rundown of some of the most recent data breach reports –

Oregon Health & Science University Data Breach Compromises 3,000 Patients’ Records in the Cloud.

Modern Healthcare (subscription may be required) reports that the Oregon Health & Science University announced it is “notifying more than 3,000 of its patients of a breach of their personally identifiable information after their data were placed by OHSU resident physicians on a pair of Google’s cloud-based information-sharing services.” The data breach, which involves “patients’ names, medical record numbers, dates of service, ages, diagnoses and prognoses and their providers’ names” posted to Gmail or Google Drive, was discovered in May by an OHSU faculty member.  According to  Healthcare IT News, this is OHSU’s “fourth big HIPAA breach since 2009 and third big breach just in the past two years, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services.”

Citigroup Reports Breach of Personal Data in Unredacted Court Filings; Settles with Justice Department

American Banker reports that Citigroup recently admitted having failed to safeguard the personal data (including birthdates and Social Security numbers) of approximately 146,000 customers who filed for bankruptcy between 2007 and 2011. Citi apparently failed to fully redact court records placed on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. “The redaction issues primarily resluted from a limitation in the technology Citi had used to redact personally identifiable information in the filings,” Citi said in a statement. “As a result of this limitation in technology, personally identifiable information could be exposed and read if electronic versions of the court records were accessed and downloaded from the courts’ online docket system and if the person downloading the information had the technical knowledge and software to restore the redacted information.”

In a settlement with the Justice Department’s U.S. Trustee Program, Citi has agreed to redact the customer information, notify all affected debtors and third parties, and offer all those affected a year of free credit monitoring.

University of Delaware Reports Cyberattack – 72,000 Records Affected

The University of Delaware is notifying the campus community that it has experienced a cyberattack in which files were taken that included confidential personal information of more than 72,000 current and past employees, including student employees. The confidential personal information includes names, addresses, UD IDs (employee identification numbers) and Social Security numbers.

Stanford University Reports Hack – Investigating Scope

Stanford University has announced that its information technology infrastructure has been breached, “similar to incidents reported in recent months by a range of companies and large organizations in the United States,” according to a Stanford press release. Though the school does not yet “know the scope of the intrusion,” an investigation is underway. “We are not aware of any protected health information, personal financial information or Social Security numbers being compromised, and Stanford does not conduct classified research.”

Japan’s Railway Company Apologizes for Unauthorized “Sharing”

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (registration may be required) that Japan’s national railway system has apologized for sharing its passengers’ travel habits and other personal information with a pre-paid fare card system without user consent, The Wall Street Journal reports. East Japan Railway admitted to selling the data to Suica—one of the pre-paid card businesses. The data included card holders’ ID numbers, ages, genders and where and when passengers got on and off the train. A transportation ministry official, however, said they will not investigate the issue for privacy violations because the railway company “told us that it wasn’t personal information, as it didn’t include names and addresses of users.” The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is looking into the issue and has set up a team to research the matter, the report states.

Article By:

 of

In Largest Known Data Breach Conspiracy, Five Suspects Indicted in New Jersey

DrinkerBiddle

On July 25, 2013, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey announced indictments against five men alleging their participation in a global hacking and data breach scheme in which more than 160 million American and foreign credit card numbers were stolen from corporate victims, including retailers, financial institutions, payment processing firms, an airline, and NASDAQ.  The scheme is the largest of its kind ever prosecuted in the United States.

The Second Superseding Indictment alleges the defendants (four Russian nationals and one Ukrainian national) and other uncharged co-conspirators targeted corporate victims’ networks using “SQL [Structured Query Language] Injection Attacks,” meaning the hackers identified vulnerabilities in their victims’ databases and exploited those weaknesses to penetrate the networks.  Once the defendants had access to the networks, they used malware to create “back doors” to allow them continued access, and used their access to install “sniffers,” programs designed to identify, gather and steal data.

Once the defendants obtained the credit card information, they allegedly sold it to resellers all over the world, who in turn sold the information through online forums or directly to individuals and organizations.  The ultimate purchasers encoded the stolen information on blank cards and used those cards to make purchases or withdraw cash from ATMs.

The defendants allegedly used a number of methods to evade detection.  They used web-hosting services provided by one of the defendants, who unlike traditional internet service providers, did not keep records of users’ activities or share information with law enforcement.  The defendants also communicated through private and encrypted communication channels and tried to meet in person.  They also changed the settings on the victims’ networks in order to disable security mechanisms and used malware to circumvent security software.

Four of the defendants are charged with unauthorized access to computers (18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(i)) and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).  All of the defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit these crimes.

Two of the defendants have been arrested, with one in federal custody and the other awaiting an extradition hearing.  The other three defendants, two of whom have been charged in connection with hacking schemes, remain at large.

This conspiracy is noteworthy for its massive scale, and for the patience the hackers demonstrated in siphoning data from the networks.  The U.S. Attorney “conservatively” estimates more than 160 million credit card numbers were compromised in the attacks, and alleges that the hackers had access to many victims’ computer networks for more than a year.  Many prominent retailers were targets, including convenience store giant 7-Eleven, Inc.; multi-national French retailer Carrefour, S.A.; American department store chain JCPenney, Inc.; New England supermarket chain Hannaford Brothers Co.; and apparel retailer Wet Seal, Inc.  Payment processors were also heavily targeted, including one of the world’s largest credit card processing companies, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., as well as European payment processor Commidea Ltd.; Euronet, Global Payment Systems and Ingenicard US, Inc. The hackers also targeted financial institutions such as Dexia Bank of Belgium, “Bank A” of the United Arab Emirates; the NASDAQ electronic securities exchange; and JetBlue Airways.  Damages are difficult to estimate with precision, but they total several hundred million dollars at least.  Just three of the corporate victims suffered losses totaling more than $300 million.

Article By:

of

Best Practices in Business to Business (B2B) Content Marketing [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

Content provider ContentCrossroads.com recently developed an infographic about best practices for B2B marketers, including the most popular, most profitable and easiest content to develop for B2B marketers looking to gain the attention of prospects:

legal marketing social media internet law firm management

 

Using Google Alerts to Get Topical News Quickly and Improve Your Content

Correct Consults Logo

Time is of the essence when taking someone from prospect to client.

Obtaining quick notice about local accidents and injuries and/or defective products can provide a competitive advantage.

When an accident has just occurred and a victim is deciding whether or not to hire an attorney, you want to be easy to find. If you are aware of accidents or defective products and pharmaceuticals early, you may have the opportunity to get the inside track on a case.

google, exclamation, marketing

Posting alerts and information on your website, blog and Social Media may help your firm be more easily found and give you increased opportunities to get cases.

One tool to identify possible newsworthy topics to post on your site and Social Media platforms is Google Alerts. Every time something new is indexed by Google on your chosen topic, you will receive an e-mail. You can also set Google Alerts to email you a daily or weekly digest that includes either only the best topical matches or everything associated with your selected topic.

There are multiple ways to utilize Google Alerts. You can sign up for your target city/town names, state, etc. for local news. For practice area-targeted news, you can sign up to be alerted for variations of car accidents (and injuries), truck accidents (and injuries, major highways, etc.), train accidents (as well as major train names), hospitals (and hospital injuries, negligence) and drug or product names you wish to target, for example. There are endless possibilities; your usage will depend on what works best for your law firm and schedule. You can even sign up for Alerts on competitors’ names to follow what they are doing. You should set Alerts for your firm and attorneys. Doing this will help you manage your firm’s reputation by alerting you to good and bad news and give you time to respond appropriately.

To develop a list for your Google Alerts entries, ask your attorneys (or have a trusted attorney decide) which topics and locations each person will follow for news or blog information, then sign up for Google Alerts on those topics at http://www.google.com/alerts. When you spread keywords among different people, the time investment is less significant, especially if you schedule a fifteen-minute block each day to read through your alerts.

Article By:

 of