Category: Communication Media & Internet

What Clients Want from Your Law Firm’s Website

Correct Consults Logo

When a client comes to your office, they are expecting to meet a lawyer they can trust who respects them and will represent their case well. The same guiding principle applies to what prospective clients want from your law firm’s website: a trusted resource that will provide information and guide them to a lawyer they can trust. There are several ways you can be responsive to client needs on your law firm’s site.

Descriptions of Legal Proceedings

Your prospective clients will likely have many questions about the events that are going to take place surrounding their case. How many times can they expect to meet with you or a partner attorney? How many court hearings will they need to attend? Is there any background work required on their part? What sort of emotions might they experience as their case reaches a trial? You could provide a resource webpage, or even a thorough blog post, on your site that walks clients through the process and provides answers to their concerns.

Clear Explanations of Laws

Your legal training and expertise gives you have the ability to understand complex rulings and, using your strong relational skills, you also have the ability to explain the details of those rulings in layman’s terms. Your law firm’s blog is an excellent place to write about recently passed laws or judicial rulings. Particularly, if a law will directly affect your client base, you should consider devoting the time to explain the information to your site visitors.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

As you have practiced law you have more than likely encountered the same questions, or type of questions, from your clients. Questions such as: Do I have a case? What is a personal injury? How much will my attorney fee be? How much can I get in my settlement? Consider creating a section on your site to address these most frequently asked questions in a FAQ section. Your firm will be seen as a legal authority and will simultaneously build trust with potential clients.

Practical Tools and Resources

In a world of smartphones and apps, Web users crave information that is interactive and engaging. Think about a complicated question or process you could streamline and create an effective tool to guide your clients through the nuances. Personal injury lawyers may choose to include an interactive questionnaire for clients to determine the severity of their injuries. A family lawyer may feature a child support cost calculator on their site. Be creative and find a quality marketing team of designers and programmers to bring your vision to life.

Introduce Your Firm’s Attorneys

An often overlooked, but necessary element of any law firm site is the attorney bio pages. Your clients will instantly get a sense of your attorneys when they meet face to face in your office, but what about beforehand? That first impression almost always happens online. It is important to make a good impression. Consider including bits of personal information to show that your attorneys are well rounded individuals or, better still, include a professional video highlighting each of your partners. Remember to be engaging; your clients want to know they can trust you. In the 21st century, building trust oftentimes begins online.

Article By:

 of

Your Face is for Sale! The 4 Most Interesting Things About the Proposed Update to Facebook’s Governing Documents

Mintz Logo

If you use Facebook (and you likely do, if only to play some game that apparently involves crushing large amounts of candy), then you received an email last week informing you that Facebook is proposing changes to its Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.  The proposed changes are largely in response to the $20 million settlement, approved last month by a federal judge, of a class action brought against Facebook in response to its use of user names and photos in “Sponsored Stories”.

facebook on office wall

In January 2011, Facebook implemented the Sponsored Stories advertising mechanism, which turned user “likes” into product endorsements.  The claim argued that Facebook did not adequately inform its users that profile photos and user names would be used by advertisers to recommend products and services.  The claim also argued that Facebook inappropriately did not give users the ability to opt out of the Sponsored Stories advertising feature and allowed the use of the likeness and photos of minors who, the claimants argued, should have automatically been opted out of the program.  Arriving just days after the approval of the settlement, the proposed changes include an interesting mix of responses and clarifications.  These are the most noteworthy:

Your face is for sale.  Under the approved settlement, Facebook agreed to pay $20 million and give its users greater “control” over the use of information by advertisers.  Facebook did not, however, agree to let its users opt out of allowing advertisers to use information entirely.  Under the revised Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, each user gives Facebook permission to use his or her name, profile picture, content and information in connection with commercial, sponsored or related content.  Facebook further clarifies that this means that businesses or other entities will pay Facebook for the ability to display user names and profile pictures.

  • Kids, be sure to ask your parents’ permission.  By using Facebook, each user under the age of 18 represents that at least one parent or guardian has agreed to Facebook’s terms, including the use of the minor’s name, profile picture, content and information by advertisers, on that minor’s behalf.
  • Your profile photo is fair game for facial recognition scanning.  Facebook scans and compares pictures in which you are tagged so that when your friends post more photos of you, it can suggest that they tag you.  The updated Data Use Policy makes it clear that your profile photo will be scanned for this purpose as well.
  • There’s a renewed emphasis on mobile phone data.  The updated policies make it clear that Facebook and, in certain cases, third-party integrated applications, will have access to a broad array of mobile data.  This includes the use of friend lists by third party mobile applications to advertise mobile applications used by an individual’s friends.  Whereas Facebook encountered substantial difficulty in implementing Sponsored Stories and similar advertising mechanisms, Facebook’s program of allowing mobile applications to market themselves as “Suggested Apps”has been a bright spot for the company’s bottom line.  Moreover, Facebook has signed on to an agreement with California Attorney General Kamala Harris that mobile applications constitute “online services” and, as such, are governed by the same disclosure and transparency regulations applicable to websites.  The clarifications related to mobile devices and applications suggest that Facebook intends to further develop the use of mobile data as a revenue stream without risking the same type of legal action.

Facebook’s proposed revisions remain open for public comment.   While the proposed revisions are unlikely to stoke the kind of furor that past changes have inspired, they remain an interesting display of the developing give-and-take between consumers and online service providers who provide a “free” service in exchange for the right to use and monetize personal data.

Article By:

 of

WildTangent Files its Supreme Court Certiorari Petition in Patent Infringement Case – Part 1

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

In September of 2009, Ultramercial, Inc. sued WildTangent, Inc., Hulu and YouTube in the Central District of California for alleged patent infringement of U.S. 7,346,545 (the ’545 patent).  The ’545 patent claims trading advertisement viewing for access to content over the Internet.  The Abstract of the ’545 patent reads:

The present invention is directed to a method and system for distributing or obtaining products covered by intellectual property over a telecommunications network whereby a consumer may, rather paying for the products, choose to receive such products after viewing and/or interacting with an interposed sponsor’s or advertiser’s message, wherein the interposed sponsor or advertiser may pay the owner or assignee of the underlying intellectual property associated with the product through an intermediary such as a facilitator.

Claim 1 of the ’545 patent is more detailed:

1. A method for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator, said method comprising the steps of:

a first step of receiving, from a content provider, media products that are covered by intellectual-property rights protection and are available for purchase, wherein each said media product being comprised of at least one of text data, music data, and video data;

a second step of selecting a sponsor message to be associated with the media product, said sponsor message being selected from a plurality of sponsor messages, said second step including accessing an activity log to verify that the total number of times which the sponsor message has been previously presented is less than the number of transaction cycles contracted by the sponsor of the sponsor message;

a third step of providing the media product for sale at an Internet website;

a fourth step of restricting general public access to said media product;

a fifth step of offering to a consumer access to the media product without charge to the consumer on the precondition that the consumer views the sponsor message;

a sixth step of receiving from the consumer a request to view the sponsor message, wherein the consumer submits said request in response to being offered access to the media product;

a seventh step of, in response to receiving the request from the consumer, facilitating the display of a sponsor message to the consumer;

an eighth step of, if the sponsor message is not an interactive message, allowing said consumer access to said media product after said step of facilitating the display of said sponsor message;

a ninth step of, if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query;

a tenth step of recording the transaction event to the activity log, said tenth step including updating the total number of times the sponsor message has been presented; and

an eleventh step of receiving payment from the sponsor of the sponsor message displayed.

As you can see, there are 11 method steps recited in Claim 1, so it is a very detailed claim and it cannot be summarized in a sentence or two.

The history of the case is not easy to summarize either.  In short, the District Court found that the subject matter of the patent was not patent eligible and dismissed the district court action before interpreting the claims.  In 2011, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court decision, but the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision in 2012 based on its recent opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus.  And in June of 2013 the Federal Circuit again reversed the District Court decision, leading to WildTangent’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed last week.

WildTangent’s cert petition is attached.  I will be discussing the petition and the ongoing patent eligibility battle in more detail in future posts.

Article By:

 of

 

Tips for Measuring Content Marketing Results [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

We saw the Brandpoint infographic below posted on the MarketingProfs.com website and thought it was a good representation of how you can tell if your content marketing efforts – blogs, social media posts, videos, articles, etc. – are working for your practice.

After all, if you are spending time and/or money on content marketing, you really do want to know if it’s working, right? See below on how to measure the effectiveness of your content marketing in terms of awareness, consideration and conversion:

ABA Survey Says Lawyers Getting Clients Via Social Media

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

A hat tip to my friend Larry Bodine, editor-in-chief of Lawyers.com, who reports on findings from the newly published2013 ABA Technology Survey in his LawMarketing Blog today as follows:

27% of US law firms now have blogs, up from 22% last year, 15% in 2011, and 14% in 2010. Only 9% of lawyers maintain a personal, professional blog outside the firm. Solo attorneys are the most likely to have a professional blog, as are those between the ages of 40-49.

59% of those surveyed indicated their firms maintain a presence in a social network such as LinkedIn or Facebook, up from 55% last year, 42% in 2011, and 17% in 2010. Of those firms with a presence, the breakout of channels can be seen in the chart below. LinkedIn and Facebook are the most used, but legal-vertical network use remains low.

Individually, 81% of attorneys report using social networks for professional purposes, up from 78% last year, 65% in 2011, and 56% in 2010. LinkedIn usage is nearly universal (98%), with Facebook usage actually falling from 38% in 2012 to 33% this year.

19% of law firms now use Twitter, up from 13% in 2012. Individual Twitter usage by attorneys reached 14%, up from 11% last year. Twitter usage is more common in solo and small firms.

How effective is maintaining a presence in social media? When those utilizing any type of social media/networking were asked if they ever had a client retain their legal services directly or via referral as a result of their use, 19% indicated “yes” (compared to 17% last year and 12% in 2011). Solo and small law firms reported better results than larger firms.

Article By:

of

What Does The Word “Natural” Mean, Anyway?

Mintz Logot’s 2 o’clock in the afternoon, you need a snack – maybe a granola bar, but which one? Does the package that boasts it is “100% Natural” win out over the one that is only “All Natural”?  Would you even consider one that is merely “Natural”? Well, don’t expect the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to help you decide anytime soon – they have left it up to the courts to grapple with.

Lawsuits against food companies alleging consumer fraud based on deceptive labeling have increased in the last few years.  Many of these lawsuits have been brought in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, causing that court to be known as the “Food Court” (no, not the one at the mall).  One common bone of contention is the use of the word “natural” in food labeling.  “Natural” remains undefined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after a failed attempt to do so in 1991.  It reaffirmed its informal policy for use of the word “natural” on food labeling claims:

The agency will maintain its current policy . . . not to restrict the use of the term “natural” except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors as provided in [21 CFR] §101.22.  Additionally, the agency will maintain its policy . . . regarding the use of “natural,” as meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.  Further, at this time the agency will continue to distinguish between natural and artificial flavors as outlined in §101.22. See more here.

A typical claim in a lawsuit will contend that the use of the word “natural,” whether as “100% Natural,” “All Natural,” or something similar, is misleading if the product contains or was processed with a compound perceived by plaintiffs to be artificial or synthetic.  The problem in these lawsuits is that the term is undefined, and even FDA says that it is difficult to define a food product that is natural because it has likely been processed and is no longer a “product of the earth.”  This leaves fertile ground for plaintiff’s class action attorneys to bring claims against food companies for any use of the word.

Article By:

 of

Does My Email Communication Constitute a Binding Agreement?

GT Law

In an era where the prevalence of email exchanges in the business arena is almost commonplace, clients and attorneys should be aware that a form of identification which could constitute their signature in an email, attesting to the substance of a negotiated settlement, may be considered a binding and enforceable stipulation of settlement under CPLR 2104.  Last month, a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, held, in Forcelli v. Gelco Corporation, 27584/08, that an agent for a vehicle insurer who sent an email message to plaintiff’s counsel, with her name entered at the bottom of the email, summing up the settlement terms in an automobile accident case, constituted “a writing subscribed by [client] or his attorney” as required under the statute.

The Forcelli case was brought by Mr. Forcelli and his wife for injuries Mr. Forcelli allegedly suffered in connection with a three-car accident on the Saw Mill River Parkway.  One of the cars was driven by the defendant Mitchell Maller who was driving a car owned by defendant Gelco Corporation.  In January 2011, Gelco and Maller (the “Gelco Defendants”) moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims.  In March 2011, the Gelco Defendants met with plaintiffs and their counsel for mediation.  Ms. Brenda Greene, a claims adjuster with the insurer of the Gelco Defendants’ vehicle, was also present and she informed Plaintiffs that she had authority to settle the case on behalf of her insured.  Although the mediation did not result in an immediate settlement, the parties continued their discussions and on May 3, 2011, Ms. Greene orally offered to settle the case for $230,000.  Plaintiffs’ counsel orally accepted the offer on behalf of the Plaintiffs.  Ms. Greene then sent an email message to Plaintiffs’ counsel memorializing the terms of the settlement.  On May 4, 2011, Plaintiffs signed a release in exchange for receiving the $230,000.  A few days later, on May 10, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an order granting the Gelco Defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against them.  After the Court’s decision, the Gelco Defendants took the position that there was no settlement finalized under CPLR 2104.  Plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement agreement as set forth in Ms. Greene’s email message.

Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Sandra Sgroi stated that “given the now widespread use of email as a form of written communication in both personal and business affairs, it would be unreasonable to conclude that email messages are incapable of conforming to the criteria of CPLR 2104 simply because they cannot be physically signed in a traditional fashion.”  Specifically, Judge Sgroi noted that the agent ended the email with the expression “Thanks Brenda Greene,” which “indicates that the author purposefully added her name to this particular email message rather than a situation where the sender’s email software has been programmed to automatically generate the name of the email sender….”  Judge Sgroi noted that Ms. Greene’s email message set forth the material terms of the settlement agreement and contained an expression of mutual assent.  Importantly, the settlement was not conditioned on any further occurrence and the record clearly demonstrated that Ms. Greene had apparent authority to settle the case on behalf of the insured.

Judge Sgroi cited to both First and Third Department decisions where those Courts came to the same conclusion.  In Williamson v. Delsener, 59 A.D.3d 291 (2009), the Appellate Division, First Department held that “emails exchanged between counsel, which contained their printed names at the end, constitute signed writings (CPLR 2104) within the meaning of the statute of frauds and entitle plaintiff to judgment.”  The First Department noted that the email communications evidenced that Delsener was aware of and consented to the settlement and there was no indication in the record that counsel was without authority to enter into the settlement.

Likewise, in Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v. 2615 East 17 Street Realty LLC, 80 A.D.3d 476 (2011), which involved payment of a commission under a brokerage agreement, the First Department found that although the defendant did not sign the brokerage agreement sent by the plaintiff, there were several email communications, supported by other documentary evidence, which contained the terms of the brokerage agreement.  The Court stated that “an email sent by a party, under which the sending party’s name is typed, can constitute a writing for the purposes of the statute of frauds.”  The email agreement set forth all relevant terms of the agreement and thus “constituted a meeting of the minds.”

The Appellate Division, Third Department, held in Brighton Investment, LTD. v. Ronen Har-ZVI, 88 A.D.3d 1220 (2011) that “an exchange of emails may constitute an enforceable contract, even if a party subsequently fails to sign implementing documents, when the communications are sufficiently clear and concrete to establish such an intent.”  (internal citations omitted.)

While the law in this area is plainly evolving, clients and attorneys should be careful when setting forth terms of a settlement or conducting any sort of negotiations via email.  One simple suggestion that may reduce the risk that emails with typed signatures (or even a signature block) at the bottom may unintentionally create a binding agreement is to include in the email a form of disclaimer that the email is for negotiation purposes only and does not constitute or give rise to a binding legal agreement.  We certainly have not heard the last word on this subject.  It will be up to the Court of Appeals to render a decision that will hopefully give some degree of finality to the issue of whether name identification on an email constitutes the type of signature required for a binding settlement under CPLR 2104.

Article By:

 of

How Your Practice Can Benefit From Twitter [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

Twitter has released the results of a survey conducted by global research firm Market Probe International on how small businesses can benefit from having a presence on Twitter. The survey was split among U.S. and UK adults who currently follow small businesses on Twitter and found that these followers are much more likely to make a purchase from businesses they follow as well as recommend them to others.

Followers also have an emotional connection with the businesses they follow, and use Twitter as a way to provide their feedback and share information. This infographic from Twitter details the key takeaways from the survey:

social media twitter computing technology

Search Engine Optimization (SEO): The Connection Between Being Found Online and Being Worth Finding

avvo

According to a Legal Marketing Survey Report conducted by Avvo and Lexblog, the #1 legal marketing subject solo and small firm lawyers are interested in learning more about is search engine optimization (or “SEO”, in internet parlance).  Not how to build an online referral network, stay in better touch with existing clients using online tools or manage their online reputations, but SEO: a series of tools and tactics that attempt to ensure that a firm’s website is near the top of the search results when a potential client searches online for terms relevant to that firm’s practice.

This level of interest is not without reason.  The practice of law is competitive, and lawyers are competitive.  So there is little surprise that, say, a “Boston DUI Lawyer” would want to do whatever necessary to be at the top of the page whenever some poor unfortunate who has had a late-night run in with the BPD turns to Google or Bing looking for legal help.  But SEO is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to client development online, and it helps to know what SEO can – and most likely cannot – do.

SEO’s Little Secret, and an Aside on SEM

Any busy practitioner has no doubt run across SEO consultants.  For a fee, these folks offer to help make lawyers and law firms more competitive when it comes to the web; i.e., likelier to rise higher in the search results.  It’s important to not confuse SEO experts with “SEM” consultants (although many times the same consultants sell both services).  Pitches along the lines of “get on the top of Google search results – guaranteed!” are based on SEM.  The technique has its place, but must be recognized for what it is:  Search Engine Marketing.  SEM consultants make their guarantee because they will buy ads on Google on a firm’s behalf.  That firm then appears – as an advertisement, not an organic result – on the top of whatever search results ads were bought for.  While it’s a surefire way to get noticed, it can also be very expensive, and requires at least as much thought and analysis as any other marketing campaign.

Unlike SEM, SEO involves making “fixes” to a site – and sometimes off-site strategies – rather than purchasing advertisements.  It’s important to think of SEO consulting as having two aspects:  A technical aspect, and a magical aspect.  There are many straightforward technical things that websites must have in place in order to put their best foot forward with the search engines.  Platforms – be they directories like Avvo and LinkedIn, social networks like Facebook or Twitter, or blogging services like WordPress and Typepad – have already taken care of this work, and those using these services benefit from the fact that their profiles or blogs will already be optimized for the search engines.  However, many lawyer and law firm websites fail on this count, and would absolutely benefit from this technical form of SEO help.

The “magical” side of SEO, however, involves the use of other techniques (examples include keyword stuffing and comment spam) in an attempt to take an otherwise search engine-friendly website and make it even more eye-catching to the Googles and Bings of the world.  Over the years, these tactics have yielded enough short-term successes and alignments of marketing spend with dumb luck to keep this side of the business alive.  But consider: Google tweaks its search algorithm over 500 times a year.  And it is a model of opacity when it comes to providing a peek under the hood at how its algorithm works.  Attempting to outwit Google takes a mix of wild guessing, cargo-cultism and blind faith.

And websites do sometimes get lucky, for a while, by frolicking in the magical end of the SEO pool. But they do not fool or outsmart the search engines for long.  Google and Bing are constantly optimizing for – and throwing billions of dollars and thousands of uber-bright minds against – a goal of returning the most relevant search results.  Period.  Assuming a lawyer’s site has already got its technical SEO house in order, the best technique to do better in the rankings is to give the engines what they want:  better, more relevant content.  And the good news is that this is exactly what potential clients want as well.

Standing Out Once You’re Found

This should be a perfect alignment: Potential clients are looking for in-depth information about lawyers and legal problems, and the search engines strive to surface such content.  So why are so many lawyer websites replete with stiffly-worded bios and empty platitudes about the law and legal practice?  Why is there so little substance and personality to be found?

The legal marketplace is competitive, and competence is only the price of admission.  Lawyers and firms that not only want to be found online, but to be selected online, must do more than cite their impressive credentials and wait for the phone to ring.  Here are some high-level starters:

  • Claim online real estate.  Lawyers must let clients find out about them, in depth, wherever they might be looking – directories, social media, etc.  And all of those places can link back to a law firm website.
  •  Lead with passion.  No firm should be satisfied with a by-the-book, resume-format website.  Lawyers who succeed talk about why they love the law, how they make a difference for their clients, what makes them different from all of the other lawyers out there.
  • Write and connect.  Enough with the dry case summaries or (god forbid) lists of local accidents designed for “keyword optimization” purposes. The best material online is crisp, relevant pieces that potential clients or referral sources will want to read or share.

There’s no disputing the superficial appeal of “magical” SEO solutions. But, ultimately, what the search engines are optimized to find – AND what potential clients want to read – is deeply relevant, authentic and differentiated content.  Firms that relentlessly focus on providing that kind of value will be the winners online.

Article By:

 of

How Your Practice Can Benefit From Twitter [INFOGRAPHIC]

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

Twitter has released the results of a survey conducted by global research firm Market Probe International on how small businesses can benefit from having a presence on Twitter. The survey was split among U.S. and UK adults who currently follow small businesses on Twitter and found that these followers are much more likely to make a purchase from businesses they follow as well as recommend them to others.

Followers also have an emotional connection with the businesses they follow, and use Twitter as a way to provide their feedback and share information. This infographic from Twitter details the key takeaways from the survey:

social media twitter computing technology