The National Law Forum

How Thought Leadership Complements Account-Based Selling Strategies in Law Firms

Competition from non law firm sources, firm consolidation, and the ever present need to do things more cost effectively all present challenges and opportunities for law firms to differentiate themselves. Lawyers riding this wave of change are not only practicing law but understand the law department’s relation to other business units and to the overall company’s operations. Lawyers are slowly moving away from the mindset of solely targeting the General Counsel in business development efforts and are beginning to appreciate that the decision process for retaining outside counsel or legal vendors is often made at different levels within the legal department. This decision making process frequently involves other departments, including procurement, within the company, and attorneys are beginning to adapt their marketing efforts to this change.

With more parties involved in deciding which legal services providers to retain, how can legal marketers help lawyers and law firms reach various decision makers or influencers within a company?

According to Mr. Konstantin Shishkin, Goodwin’s Managing Director of Communications,^[1] where we as legal marketers can make a real difference is in helping our attorney clients figure out the most effective touch points for the various stakeholders at a current or potential client’s organization. And what’s most effective doesn’t need to be terribly complicated – often, it’s simply what’s most helpful. Knowing that is predicated on getting to know your client – at all levels of their organization – exceptionally well. Legal marketers play an important role here. We must encourage these connections and participate in them whenever possible.

The need to identify various decision makers and influencers within a target company or even existing clients has fueled the growth of software designed to track and manage such relationships. In 2015, the worldwide market for CRM (Customer Relationship Management) software was $26.3B in 2015, up 12.3% from $23.4B in 2014.^[2] But according to Ms. Chris Fritsch of ClientsFirst Consulting ^[3] up to 70% of CRM implementations can fail to meet firm’s expectations. Knowledge of a company isn’t automated; it resides in attorney’s heads. The ongoing investment in a CRM system is more than just software purchase, it’s a behavior adjustment which is where legal marketers can play a role. A culture shift needs to develop to memorize and track decision makers and influencers within target organizations. Then an effective strategy can be developed to reach potential decision makers and influencers when they are looking for expertise. Going deep within a company presents opportunities for savvy lawyers to not only provide legal advice but also legal operations advice and one of the most effective ways to reach various individuals within an organization is through thought leadership.

Once firms begin to identify decision makers and influencers, what are the key components of an effective content marketing strategy for law firms?

According to Mr. Shishkin, implementing an effective content marketing strategy begins with changing your mindset. Law firms should take a page out of the consumer brands’ playbook and begin thinking like news organizations to create content that’s engaging, memorable and – above all – helpful to our target audiences.

One example of this approach comes from Goodwin’s recent rebrand. Shishkin says,

We re-launched our website to prioritize thought leadership and client stories, which are now featured prominently on our main landing page. We also launched an internal editorial board that brings together our business development, marketing and communications functions to set the editorial course for Goodwin’s various publishing platforms. Sure, we’re still putting out press releases on important firm developments and new hires, but increasingly we’re prioritizing content that has nothing to do with us and that’s instead focused on bringing new viewpoints and perspectives to the market.

How can content marketing also contribute to other marketing department functions such as:

a. Credentialing attorneys

b. Building quality backlinks to increase their website’s / blog’s SEO

c. Finally getting that prospect to reach out to the firm concerning a legal matter

According to Mr. Shishkin, when designed and implemented properly, a smart content marketing strategy could and should connect all of the marketing department functions. Naturally, great content helps to credential your attorneys and helps with your firm’s thought leadership share of voice on a particular topic. Shishkin says:

An example of content marketing done right is Goodwin’s Big Molecule Watch Blog, which brings together updates and analyses on the ever-developing world of biosimilars. Through a combination of frequent blog posts, substantive thought leadership initiatives like our comprehensive Biosimilars Guide, content sharing with goodwinlaw.com, and an effective social media strategy that has our attorneys engaged in sharing content with the media, clients, prospects and industry influencers, we’ve been able to establish Goodwin as a true biosimilars thought leader, which has helped to generate new client opportunities. The concept of integrated marketing is equally important here. To make a real impact, you have to create rich content that lends itself to multiple delivery platforms, including webinars, videos, social media, individual outreach campaigns, and more. This is where content and integrated marketing meet, and where the truly successful programs take shape.

A topic we frequently write and present on at the National Law Review, is how thought leadership is a core foundation of good law firm website SEO. Three out of 4 consumers seeking an attorney used on-line resources.^[4]Potential clients cannot contact you if they cannot find you. A tenant of good SEO is updating your website frequently with content that target clients will be looking for in an internet search. Frequently updating integrated law firm blogs with new litigation and regulatory developments, helps search engines associate the terminology in your thought leadership with your firm’s and your attorney’s names.

Good internal website linking structure not only enhances your client’s readership experience it is a hallmark of good SEO. (i.e. linking thought leadership and events to author bios, including links on author bios and practice groups pages to events and publication pages, etc.) Another traditional element of good SEO is backlinks. Well done thought leadership gives third parties a good excuse to link to your content and attorney bios. Promoting new thought leadership via social media not only increases visibility but is another source of backlinks to your website. Additionally, partnering with a high page ranked content distributor not only increases the reach of your firm’s thought leadership, if done right also increases traffic to your website, helps build a quality backlink network for your website, and credentials your professionals.

A strong content marketing strategy can be an integral piece of differentiating your firm in the marketplace. A strong SEO-ed website can help decision makers in companies find you when they are looking for your firm’s expertise.

ARTICLE BY Jennifer Schaller of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

^[1] Mr. Shishkin along with Mr. Spencer Baretz, of Baretz + Brunelle will be featured speakers at the upcoming LMA New England Regional Conference, taking place in Boston, MA on November 14 – 15, 2016. In their presentation titled: “Shades of Gray: Navigating the Ambiguous World of Marketing, Communications and Business Development in Law Firms” Mr. Shishkin, as a law firm professional, and Mr. Baretz, as an outside legal communications firm director, will challenge one another on the increasingly unclear world of where marketing, communications, sales and business development converge.

^[2] 2015 Gartner CRM Market Share Analysis Shows Salesforce In The Lead, Growing Faster Than Market, May 28, 2016, Louis Columbus, Forbes.com

^[3] Ms. Fritsch is also moderating a panel at the Legal Marketing Association NE 2016 Conference: The Future of CRM – and the CRM of the Future.

^[4] LexisNexis Releases Findings of Consumer-Focused “Attorney Selection Research Study”.

Cook County, Illinois Increases Minimum Wage

Effective July 1, 2017, employers in Cook County, Illinois, will be required to pay a higher minimum wage that will continue to increase every year thereafter. On October 26, 2016, the Cook County Board voted to gradually increase the minimum wage to $13 per hour by July of 2020. This is similar to the City of Chicago’s minimum wage increase, which gradually raises the minimum wage to $13 per hour by 2019. The new law applies to the all of Cook County, including unincorporated areas. However, home-rule towns can vote to opt out of the increase.

The minimum wage will first increase from $8.25 to $10 per hour on July 1, 2017. It will subsequently increase $1 per year until reaching $13 an hour in 2020. Future annual increases will be tied to the rate of inflation, not to exceed 2.5%. Tipped workers who make $4.95 under Illinois law will not see a wage increase until July 1, 2018, and these wage increases will be tied to the rate of inflation, not to exceed 2.5%.

Employers in Cook County should prepare for payroll increases beginning July 2017 and continuing every year thereafter.

ARTICLE BY Brian P. Paul & R. Whaley of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Developing a Positive Attitude about Business Development

As a busy lawyer, it’s easy to get caught up in your day-to-day office routine and consequently put attention to business development on the back burner. While this might be something to shrug off as no big deal, for many attorneys, this can lead to big issues down the road when looking to make partner or work with your own clients. In order get yourself in a better position for long-term success, it’s critical to start improving your biz dev behaviors.

There are three internal motivators that drive people to improve their existing situation; behavior, attitude and belief. While all of these are important to accomplish a goal or succeed in an endeavor, the most important for business development is always behaviors. Without executing positive behaviors it’s nearly impossible to accomplish anything, let alone something as challenging as developing new business.

It might seem rudimentary to talk about having good behaviors, as you’re not a child being scolded by your parents. After all, you wouldn’t be a licensed attorney if you weren’t able to implement good behaviors to study in law school and pass the bar exam. However, in my experience many attorneys overlook the importance of forming good behaviors when it comes to business development. I accept as the standard definition of behavior “a manner of acting or controlling oneself.” Your behavior directly affects everything that happens in your life, including your income, your relationships, and your ultimate destiny. As you know, your actions have the ability to set you on positive paths while negative ones can cause you to veer off course.

A profound consequence of having negative behaviors and habits takes place subconsciously. Broken self-promises pile up and directly affect your general attitude and belief in yourself. Consider the behavior of putting off attending networking events using the “I’m too busy” excuse. Despite the best intentions, this behavior can all too easily continue indefinitely. The lack of follow-through can have a dramatic impact on your outlook toward business development. On the other hand, exhibiting positive behaviors creates good feelings and opportunities.

However, researching an upcoming event, registering for the event, and logging it on your calendar are all positive behaviors that will propel you forward to accomplishing your goal. Every time you commit to taking action and then actually follow through on that commitment, you’re positively reinforcing winning behaviors. The positive experience creates momentum to continue these behaviors in the future.

To assist you in forming good biz dev behaviors, here are five things you can do to get on the right path:

#1. Start putting business development at the top of your “to-do” list. Mostly it falls to the bottom. To grow a book of business, move all biz dev activities to the top of your weekly “to-do” list.

#2. Create a positive habit of doing one biz dev activity a day. This could be an email to a client or researching a networking event. If you do one thing a day, these will add up to big numbers for you at the end of the year.

#3. Get prepared to go to battle on your biz dev work. One of the main reasons lawyers put off biz dev calls is due to lack of preparation. Build a list of clients, friends and strategic partners that you can call on for meetings. This will help get you in the right frame of mind to actually make the calls.

#4. Schedule 30 minutes a week of uninterrupted biz dev time. Do not pick up the phone and do not respond to emails. Just get a list of solid contacts in front of you and make your calls. This routine should be scheduled early in the day to ensure you’re not interrupted and that the day doesn’t get away from you.

#5. Find a “work-out buddy” for your biz dev activities. This could be your co-worker who is also challenged to focus on biz dev activities or your marketing person at the office. Accountability is key to holding firm on the commitments you make to yourself.

Following good behaviors is the number one reason why some lawyers are more successful in accomplishing their goals than others. Don’t be afraid to start small and build up from there. The small victories add up over time and reinforce the drive to continue good behaviors.

ARTICLE BY Steve Fretzin of Sales Results, Inc.

Cost of Living Adjustments for 2017 from Internal Revenue Service

The Internal Revenue Service has announced the 2017 cost of living adjustments to various limits. The adjusted amounts generally apply for plan years beginning in 2017. Some of the adjusted amounts, however, apply to calendar year 2017.

Employee Benefit Plans
Plan Year	2017	2016
401(k), 403(b), 457 deferral limit	$18,000	$18,000
Catch-up contribution limit (age 50 or older by end of 2016)	$6,000	$6,000
Annual compensation limit	$270,000	$265,000
Annual benefits payable under defined benefit plans	$215,000	$210,000
Annual allocations to accounts in defined contribution plans	$54,000 (but not more than 100% of compensation)	$53,000 (but not more than 100% of compensation)
Highly compensated employee	Compensation more than $120,000 in 2016 plan year	Compensation more than $120,000 in 2015 plan year

Health Savings Accounts
Calendar Year	2017	2016
Maximum contribution Family Self	$6,750 $3,400	$6,750 $3,350
Catch-up contribution (participants who are 55 by end of year)	$1,000	$1,000
Minimum deductible Family Self	$2,600 $1,300	$2,600 $1,300
Maximum out-of-pocket Family Self	$13,100 $6,550	$13,100 $6,550

Social Security
Calendar Year	2017	2016
Taxable wage base	$127,200	$118,500
Maximum earnings without loss of benefit
Under full retirement age	$1,410/mo. ($16,920/yr.)	$1,310/mo. ($15,720/yr.)
Year you reach full retirement age	$3,740/mo. up to mo. of full retirement age ($44,880/yr.)	$3,490/mo. up to mo. of full retirement age ($41,880/yr.)

Social Security Retirement Age
Year of Birth	Retirement Age
Prior to 1938	Age 65
1938	65 and 2 months
1939	65 and 4 months
1940	65 and 6 months
1941	65 and 8 months
1942	65 and 10 months
1943 – 1954	66
1955	66 and 2 months
1956	66 and 4 months
1957	66 and 6 months
1958	66 and 8 months
1959	66 and 10 months
1960 and later	67

ARTICLE BY Jeffrey A. DeVree, Thomas H. Bergh, Larry J. Titley, John D. Arendshorst, Katie K. Wilbur & Kristy L. De Vos of

Varnum LLP

Election Day is Coming – What are Your Obligations as Employer?

With Election Day drawing near, and large voter turnout expected, employers should ensure they are aware of state law requirements related to providing employees with time off. While not all states impose requirements on employers, some impose time off obligations with the possibility of criminal or civil penalties for non-compliance.

Applicable laws vary by state. Some provide for paid time while others do not mandate that such time off be paid. Laws also vary as to the amount of time that must be provided and whether an employer can dictate which hours are taken off, such as at the start or end of the workday. Further, some jurisdictions require postings to advise employees of voting leave rights. Additionally, some jurisdictions also obligate employers to provide time off to employees who serve as election officials or to serve in an elected office.

Accordingly, employers should immediately review existing policies and practices to ensure compliance with applicable laws and be prepared to address requests for time off prior to Election Day.

The following is a sample of state requirements regarding voting time off:

Arizona – Arizona Revised Statute § 16-402 provides that an employee has the right to be absent from work if he or she has fewer than 3 consecutive hours in which to vote between the opening of the polls and the beginning of his or her work shift or between the end of his or her regular work shift and the closing of the polls. An employee may be absent for a length of time at the beginning or end of his or her work shift that, when added to the time difference between work-shift hours and the opening/closing of the polls, totals 3 consecutive hours.

Notice: The employee must apply for leave prior to Election Day.
Hours: The employer may specify the hours.
Paid: Leave is paid.

California – Pursuant to California Election Code § 14000, employees are entitled to an amount of time off to vote that, when added to the voting time otherwise available to him or her outside of working hours, will enable him or her to vote. Employee with sufficient non-working time to vote are not entitled to additional time off to vote.

Notice: Two working days’ advance notice prior to the election is required if, on the third working day prior to the election, the employee knows or has reason to believe he or she will need time off in order to vote.
Hours: Time may be taken only at the beginning or end of the work shift, whichever allows the greatest amount of free time for voting and least time off from work, unless otherwise mutually agreed.
Paid: No more than 2 hours of the time taken off for voting shall be without loss of pay.

Colorado – Colorado Revised Statute §1-7-102 provides that eligible voters are entitled to be absent from work for up to 2 hours for the purpose of voting on Election Day unless the employee has 3 or more non-working hours to vote while the polls are open.

Hours: The employer may specify the hours of absence, but the hours must be at the beginning or end of the work shift, if the employee so requests.
Paid: No more than 2 hours.

Hawaii – Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 11-95, employees who do not have 2 consecutive non-working hours to vote while the polls are open are entitled to take time off up to 2 hours (excluding any lunch or rest periods) to vote, so that the time taken when added to the non-working time totals 2 consecutive hours when the polls are open. Employees cannot be required to reschedule their normal work hours to avoid the needed time off.

Paid: Employees must be paid for time taken during working hours. If any employee fails to vote after taking time off for that purpose, the employer, upon verification of that fact, may make appropriate deductions from the salary or wages of the employee for the period during which the employee is entitled to be absent from employment.
Proof: Presentation of a voter’s receipt to the employer shall constitute proof of voting by the employee.

Maryland – Maryland Election Law Code §10-315 states that every employer in the state must allow employees who claim to be registered voters to be absent from work for up to 2 hours on Election Day to vote if the employee does not have 2 consecutive non-working hours to vote while the polls are open.

Paid: Employees must be paid for the up to 2 hours of absence.
Proof: Employees must provide proof of voting or attempt to vote on a form prescribed by the State Board.

New York – New York Election Law § 3-110 states that an employee is entitled to a sufficient amount of leave time that, when added to his or her available time outside of working hours, will enable him or her to vote. Four hours is considered sufficient time. An employee is excluded from leave if he or she has 4 consecutive hours in which to vote, either between the opening of the polls and the beginning of his or her work shift or the end of his or her work shift and the close of the polls.

Notice: The employee must provide notice of leave at least 2, but not more than 10, days prior to the election.
Hours: The employer may specify the hours. Leave must be given at the beginning or end of the work shift, as the employer may designate, unless otherwise agreed.
Paid: Not more than 2 hours may be without loss of pay.

ARTICLE BY Richard Greenberg & Daniel J. Jacobs of Jackson Lewis P.C.

DOJ, FTC Announce New Antitrust Guidance for Recruiting and Hiring; Criminal Enforcement Possible

Many companies—and the HR professionals and other executives who worked for them—have found out the hard way that business-to-business agreements on compensation and recruiting can violate the antitrust laws and bring huge corporate and personal penalties.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) jointly issued antitrust guidance for anyone who deals with recruiting and compensation. The guidance is written for HR professionals, not antitrust experts. It avoids jargon and applies antitrust basics in plain English. It expands on those basics by providing short and direct answers to real-life questions.

The guidance comes in the wake of several actions in recent years by the federal antitrust agencies against so-called “no-poaching” or “wage-fixing” agreements entered by companies competing for the same talent. It announces that DOJ will prosecute criminally some antitrust violations in this space. While the new guidance is explicitly aimed at HR professionals, senior executives should understand it as well.

The guidance starts with the basics: The antitrust laws establish the rules for a competitive marketplace, including how competitors interact with each other. From an antitrust perspective, firms that compete to recruit or retain employees are competitors, even if they do not compete when selling products or services. Therefore, agreements among employers not to recruit certain employees (no-poaching) or not to compete on various terms of compensation (wage-fixing) can violate the antitrust laws.

To be illegal, these agreements need not be explicit or formal. Evidence of exchanges of information on compensation, recruiting, or similar topics followed by parallel behavior can lead to an inference of agreement. Intent to lower a company’s labor costs is no defense. Also, there is no “non-profit” defense: while they might not compete to sell services, non-profits are considered competitors for the staff they hire.

The potential costs of antitrust violations are huge: fines by the agencies; treble damages for injured actual or potential employees; and intrusive regulation of basic company operations from consent decrees and judgments. In addition, the DOJ used this guidance to announce that it will now prosecute criminally any naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements. According to DOJ, these naked agreements—“separate from or not reasonably necessary to a larger legitimate collaboration between the employers”—harm competition in the same irredeemable way as hardcore price-fixing cartels. So now, any executives involved in such agreements—whether HR professionals or not—face personal consequences, including threats of potential jail time.

Even unsuccessful attempts to reach an anticompetitive agreement on these topics can be illegal in the eyes of the regulators. As the guidance makes clear, so-called “invitations to collude” have been and will continue to be pursued by the FTC as actions that might violate the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Some of these information exchanges and agreements do not automatically violate the antitrust laws and there is nothing in this new guidance that suggests otherwise. If the agreements are reasonably necessary to an actual or potential joint venture or merger, legitimate benchmarking activity, or other collaboration that might help consumers, their net effect on competition would need to be judged. In prior actions, the agencies also have recognized as legitimate certain no-poaching clauses in agreements with consultants and recruiting agencies. Even such common uses as employment or severance agreements might not run afoul of the antitrust law’s prohibitions.

The guidance does not—and really cannot—go into all the detail necessary to determine when any particular effort will pass antitrust muster. It does refer readers to the earlier Health Care Guidelines but those helpful tips relate only to information exchanges. The guidance also provides links to the many prior civil actions taken by the agencies on these types of matters. It is accompanied by a two-sided index card entitled Antitrust Red Flags for Employment Practices that could be part of an effective compliance program.

ARTICLE BY Steven J. Cernak of Schiff Hardin LLP

Down to the Wire: DOL’s “Blacklisting Rule” Enjoined

A federal judge in Texas has blocked implementation of major portions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, the so-called “blacklisting” rule.

Judge Marcia A. Crone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a nationwide preliminary injunction order on Oct. 24 blocking the Oct. 25 implementation date of the DOL rule, along with a related Obama Executive Order, the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (“FAR”) Rule and the DOL’s Guidance regarding the FAR Rule.

Had they gone into effect, the new rules would have imposed significant and stringent reporting and disclosure requirements on contractors bidding on federal projects. Moreover, those disclosures of non-final and non-adjudicated “violations” could have been used to bar contractors from federal projects.

Judge Crone determined that the plaintiffs in this action, the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southeast Texas, had a likelihood of success on the merits of establishing that the new regulations exceeded the authority of the president, the FAR Council and the DOL; were otherwise preempted by other federal labor laws; violated the First Amendment rights of federal contractors through compelled speech; violated contractors’ due process rights; are arbitrary and capricious; and violated the Federal Arbitration Act.

The opinion focuses in large part on the disclosure requirements contained in the president’s Executive Order, the DOL Guidance and the FAR Rule, which Judge Crone found to be “drastic new requirements” which are “a substantial departure from and a significant expansion of prior reporting rules.”

The disclosure requirements, among other things, would require contractors to report all “violations” of 14 separate federal labor and employment statutes; disclosures could then be used to disqualify bidders on federal projects. Judge Crone’s opinion finds fault with the Executive Order, Rule and Guidance for broadly defining “violations” to include non-final decisions or administrative determinations, which have not been preceded by a hearing or made subject to judicial review. Moreover, the “violations” to be reported are not confined to performance of past government contracts.

Judge Crone determined that “[i]n the present case, the Executive Order, FAR Rule, and DOL Guidance arrogate to contracting agencies the authority to require contractors to report for public disclosure mere allegations of labor law violations, and then to disqualify or require contractors to enter into premature labor compliance agreements based on their alleged violations of such laws in order to obtain or retain federal contracts. By these actions, the Executive Branch appears to have departed from Congress’s explicit instructions dictating how violations of the labor law statutes are to be addressed.”

Judge Crone also enjoined enforcement of the portion of the Executive Order and the Rule that provided that contractors and subcontractors who enter into contracts for non-commercial items of more than $1 million must agree not to enter into any mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements with their employees or independent contractors on any matter arising under Title VII, as well as any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment.

Left standing by Judge Crone is the portion of the Executive Order requiring that all covered contractors inform their employees in each paycheck of the number of hours worked, overtime calculations (for non-exempt employees), rates of pay, gross pay, additions or deductions from pay, and whether they have been classified as independent contractors. That requirement in the Executive Order has an effective date of January 1, 2017.

ARTICLE BY Gerald F. Lutkus of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Attend NAWL’s General Counsel Institute – Pathways to Success

Successful people share common characteristics that drive them on their road to success, including keeping a positive mindset and being comfortable taking on new challenges. No matter what your definition of success is, the National Association of Women Lawyers’ Twelfth General Counsel Institute offers a roadmap for getting to where you want to go.

When: November 3-4, 2016

Where: Crowne Plaza Times Square Manhattan, NYC

In today’s ever changing legal landscape, we invite you to advance your career by securing success through agility and creativity. Gain insight into the hottest topics in the law. Acquire knowledge or enhance your proficiency about the most talked about labor and employment matters. Take a deep dive into today’s regulatory and compliance issues. Tap into technology and embrace the challenges and changes that accompany this ever-evolving area of the law.

At GCI 12, you will be asked to think outside the box and blaze your own trail of success by articulating your own vision, laying your own foundation, and growing both personally and professionally. Through powerful stories, substantive legal workshops, and GCI’s unique open exchange of ideas, GCI 12 will empower you to embrace opportunities with agility and creativity and gain leadership skills and business acumen on your pathway to success.

Yelling at Your Smartphone Could Get You Fired!

Michael Schrage at Harvard Business Review warns his readers, “Stop swearing at Siri. Quit cursing Cortana,” arguing such behavior could soon be seen just as destructive to an organization as ridiculing a subordinate. In the 1993 film, Demolition Man, Sylvester Stallone’s character, John Spartan, received multiple tickets from a wall box that overheard him violate the “Verbal Morality Statute” during a conversation with a colleague. [mature ears only please!] Spartan, who had been awoken from his cryogenic sleep, was not aware of the dramatic changes in technology that had taken place while he had been asleep. We see technological change every day, but we may not be ready for the far-reaching implications machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) will have on society and the workplace.

Schrage describes how adaptive bots enable devices to learn from each encounter they have with humans, including negative ones, such as cursing at Siri or slamming a smartphone down when it reports about one restaurant, though the user was searching for a different eating place. Faced with repeated interactions like this, the bot is likely to be adversely affected by the bad behavior, and will fail to perform as intended. As companies leverage more of this technology to enhance worker productivity and customer interactions, employee abuse of bots will frustrate the company’s efforts and investment. That can lead to reduced profits and employee discipline.

Employees are seeing some of this already with the use of telematics in company vehicles. Telematics and related technologies provide employers with a much more detailed view of their employees’ use of company vehicles including location, movement, status and behavior of the vehicle and the employees. That detailed view results from the extensive and real time reports employers receive concerning employees’ use of company vehicles. Employers can see, for example, when their employees are speeding, braking too abruptly, or swerving to strongly. With some applications, employers also can continually record the activity and conversations inside the vehicle, including when vehicle sensors indicate there has been an accident. It is not hard to see that increased use of these technologies can result in more employee discipline, but also make employees drive more carefully.

Just as employers can generate records of nearly all aspects of the use of their vehicles by employees, there surely are records being maintained about the manner in which individuals interact with Siri and similar applications. While those records likely are currently being held and examined by the providers of the technology, that may soon change as organizations want to collect this data for their own purposes. Employers having such information could be significant.

As Mr. Schrage argues, making the most of new AI and machine learning technologies requires that the users of those technologies be good actors. In short, workers will need to be “good” people when interacting with machines that learn, otherwise, it will be more difficult for the machines to perform as intended. Perhaps this will have a positive impact on the bottom line as well as human interactions generally. But it also will raise interesting challenges for human resource professionals as they likely will need to develop and enforce policies designed to improve interactions between human employees and company machines.

We’ll have to see. But in the meantime, be nice to Siri!

ACA Notice Requirements, Big Data Analytics, OSHA Retaliation Final Rule: Employment Law This Week – October 24, 2016 [VIDEO]

ACA Section 1557 Notice Requirements Take Effect

Our top story: The Section 1557 ACA Notice Requirements have taken effect. Section 1557 prohibits providers and insurers from denying health care for discriminatory reasons, including on the basis of gender identity or pregnancy. Beginning last week, covered entities are required to notify the public of their compliance by posting nondiscrimination notices and taglines in multiple languages.

Final Rule on ACA Issued by OSHA

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a final rule for handling retaliation under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for receiving Marketplace financial assistance when purchasing health insurance through an Exchange. The ACA also protects employees from retaliation for raising concerns regarding conduct that they believe violates the consumer protections and health insurance reforms in the ACA. OSHA’s new final rule establishes procedures and timelines for handling these complaints. The ACA’s whistleblower provision provides for a private right of action in a U.S. district court if agencies like OSHA do not issue a final decision within certain time limits.

EEOC Discusses Concerns Over Big Data Analytics

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is fact-finding on “big data.” The EEOC recently held a meeting at which it heard testimony on big data trends and technologies, the benefits and risks of big data analytics, current and potential uses of big data in employment, and how the use of big data may implicate equal employment opportunity laws. Commissioner Charlotte A. Burrows suggested that big data analytics may include errors in the data sets or flawed assumptions causing discriminatory effects. Employers should implement safeguards, such as ensuring that the variables correspond to the representative population and informing candidates when big data analytics will be used in hiring.

Seventh Circuit Vacates Panel Ruling on Sexual Orientation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may consider ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects sexual orientation. On its face, Title VII prohibits discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and courts have been unwilling to go further. In this case, the Seventh Circuit has granted a college professor’s petition for an en banc rehearing and vacated a panel ruling that sexual orientation isn’t covered. Also, an advertising executive who is suing his former agency has asked the Second Circuit to reverse its own precedent holding that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation discrimination. We’re likely to see more precedent-shifting cases like these as courts grapple with changing attitudes towards sexual orientation discrimination.

Tip of the Week

October is Global Diversity Awareness Month, and we’re celebrating by focusing on diversity in our tips this month. Kenneth G. Standard, General Counsel Emeritus and Chair Emeritus of the Diversity & Professional Development Committee, shares some best practices for creating an inclusive environment.

ARTICLE BY George Carroll Whipple, III of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

The National Law Forum

How Thought Leadership Complements Account-Based Selling Strategies in Law Firms

With more parties involved in deciding which legal services providers to retain, how can legal marketers help lawyers and law firms reach various decision makers or influencers within a company?

Once firms begin to identify decision makers and influencers, what are the key components of an effective content marketing strategy for law firms?

How can content marketing also contribute to other marketing department functions such as:

Like this:

Cook County, Illinois Increases Minimum Wage

Like this:

Developing a Positive Attitude about Business Development

Like this:

Cost of Living Adjustments for 2017 from Internal Revenue Service

Employee Benefit Plans

Health Savings Accounts

Social Security

Social Security Retirement Age

Like this:

Election Day is Coming – What are Your Obligations as Employer?

Like this:

DOJ, FTC Announce New Antitrust Guidance for Recruiting and Hiring; Criminal Enforcement Possible

Like this:

Down to the Wire: DOL’s “Blacklisting Rule” Enjoined

Like this:

Attend NAWL’s General Counsel Institute – Pathways to Success

Like this:

Yelling at Your Smartphone Could Get You Fired!

Like this:

ACA Notice Requirements, Big Data Analytics, OSHA Retaliation Final Rule: Employment Law This Week – October 24, 2016 [VIDEO]

Like this:

With more parties involved in deciding which legal services providers to retain, how can legal marketers help lawyers and law firms reach various decision makers or influencers within a company?

Once firms begin to identify decision makers and influencers, what are the key components of an effective content marketing strategy for law firms?

How can content marketing also contribute to other marketing department functions such as:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Employee Benefit Plans

Health Savings Accounts

Social Security

Social Security Retirement Age

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

ACA Section 1557 Notice Requirements Take Effect

Final Rule on ACA Issued by OSHA

EEOC Discusses Concerns Over Big Data Analytics

Seventh Circuit Vacates Panel Ruling on Sexual Orientation

Tip of the Week

Share this:

Like this: