Easy Tweeting – A Few Suggested Applications to Simplify Twitter

From the Business of Law Section of the National Law Review -by  Tom Ciesielka of TC Public Relations   suggests some applications that help streamline Twitter use for busy attorneys – read on:

For all those lawyers out there on Twitter, I’d like to suggest a few programs to simplify your Twitterverse.

TweetBeep

This web-based application enables users to set up a search for any keyword or phrase on Twitter, and receive hourly updates via email when any tweets include that keyword, phrase or hashtag. TweetBeep is an easy tool for tracking talk on Twitter about your firm, website, events or services. By monitoring the conversation about your firm, you can make sure you are managing your reputation and engaging with people who are interested in you – people who can become potential clients. You can also use TweetBeep as an application to measure the impact and engagement level of various cases, or track the reactions to your firm’s announcements or legal victories. It can also be a valuable tool for industry research if you monitor industry-specific terms (such as “intellectual property”) or even a competitor’s name. 

Tweet All About It

Sometimes it takes too much time to think about what to tweet (and we all know time is money). Tweet All About It makes it easy as “highlight” and “right click.” This downloadable program allows you tweet pieces of text from websites viewed on Firefox or Internet Explorer by highlighting the text, right clicking and selecting “Tweet All About It.” The text will automatically be tweeted from your Twitter username, and you will have saved time, energy & potentially, money.

Monitter

Anyone, even those without Twitter accounts, can go on the Monitter website and search and track keywords being using on Twitter (somewhat similar to TweetBeep). Users enter words into the search box and instantly see relevant tweets streaming in real-time. They can also send tweets or retweet to their accounts directly from the Monitter interface. You can download the widget for your website to keep track of what people are saying on Twitter about you or your firm.  It also can help you identify social media influencers for a certain legal topic or in a specific conversation and it allows you to quickly respond to or join those conversations.

This posting is republished with permission from the Chicago Lawyer Magazine Blog “Around the Watercooler” located at:  http://h20cooler.wordpress.com/2010/

Copyright © 2010 TC Public Relations 

Practice Descriptions and SEO: Distinguish Your Firm from the Competition

Originally posted on the National Law Review and in the LMA Virginia newsletter and contributed by Lauren Hum of Hunton & Williams LLP – some quick tips for SEOing practice descriptions on law firm’s websites: 

Differentiating your firm’s legal services from those of another firm is one of the basic tenants of legal marketing. Many firms offer the same general legal practices that directly compete with other firms for the top spots in legal rankings and search engine results. Fortunately, search engines are predictable creatures that use objective measurements to determine in what order websites are ranked. Below are a few suggestions on how to craft the most effective practice description in order to maximize search engine visibility.

Long-tail Keywords. Each practice has key phrases, usually names of specific laws or regulations, that are unique to that particular practice. It is important to identify these industry-specific keywords and include them in an appropriate place within the practice description. Using long-tailed keywords, such as “EU data protection directive,” will have the added benefit of generating traffic from visitors who have in-depth knowledge about the specific industry as opposed to more generic keywords, such as “climate change,” that will cast a wide and rather ambiguous net.

Keyword Variation. Some practices, like international arbitration, have standardized names that are used universally by almost all firms who offer that practice area. Other practices have different names that describe the same general practice area. For example, a practice may be called “Business Restructuring & Reorganization” at one firm and “Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Creditors’ Rights” at another. Even if there might be slight distinctions in their niche expertise, they are generally targeting the same sector of the legal community. Although the name of the practice should remain consistent throughout the description, not including other commonly searched alternative forms of the practice within the text will limit your reach.

Inbound Links. One of most powerful ways to raise a practice area’s search engine rank is to increase the number of inbound links to the practice description. The more links that lead to your content, the more weight search engines will give to the ranking, and the more traffic will be directed to your practice area description. There are many opportunities to place a link to a practice description on your current material, including blogs, client alerts, and other related practices.

Intelligent Design. Search engines use header, sub header, bullet, and boldface tags to determine the content of a webpage. Using these elements to structure practice area descriptions will not only make your content more comprehensible to search engines, but also present your information more effectively to website visitors.

Consider the Medium. Practice descriptions used for the website should not be the same length as practice descriptions used in proposals and other print materials. By using a practice area description that spans several pages, you are inadvertently sabotaging its chances of appearing in search results. Search engines use complex algorithms that calculate the frequency of keywords divided by the overall length of the content and thus long practice descriptions will dilute the keywords you use to categorize your law practice.

While incorporating any one of these elements into your practice’s website description will be beneficial, it is critical to keep in mind that effective SEO is dependent upon multiple components that work in unison to produce the desired effect. Furthermore, many of these recommendations can be extrapolated to attorney biographies, as they are another opportunity to distinguish your firm from the competition.

DISCLAIMER. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Hunton & Williams LLP.

Originally published in the Summer 2010 issue of LMA Practice Marketing Newsletter Copyright 2010 Legal Marketing Association –The Virginias Chapter.

Authored By Lauren Hum:

Lauren Hum is a Marketing Technology Specialist at Hunton & Williams LLP and lives in Richmond, Virginia. Ms. Hum is a Communications & Technology committee member for the Legal Marketing Association’s Virginia Chapter and a board member for the William & Mary Richmond Alumni Chapter.

Law2020™ The Future Starts Now

The National Law Review is a proud supporter of the ILTA (International Legal Technology Association) and their upcoming 2010 Strategic Unity Conference in Las Vegas August 22-26.  National Law Review guest blogger John Alber of the ILTA and Strategic Technology Partner of  Bryan Cave LLP examines the epic changes going on in the law profession.

Law2020™ The Future Starts Now

We approach temporal landmarks — the turn of a millennium, a century or sometimes even a decade — rather as we approach a precipice like the Grand Canyon, feeling both exhilaration and dread. At the turn of the millennium, we encountered both extremes. These were the end-times, according to some; and the future was about to begin, according to others.

For the law business in the coming decade, this sort of geologic comparison seems especially appropriate. Taking it perhaps a bit too far, the preceding decade was, at least until its waning 18 months, a high plain indeed. That decade marked unprecedented revenue and profit growth, the latter driven by annual price increases that for some firms reached double digits. The year 2007 was, for many in the AmLaw 200, the best year on record.

We all know what happened next. The mortgage crisis hit in 2008, then the credit markets collapsed, and global equities began a months-long decline. The Great Recession rose up like a storm cloud and everything changed, perhaps forever.

Exhilaration or Dread?

Until the recession turns, not much is certain. The law business is as stressed as it has been at any time in the last 50 years. But what will come of that stress? Should we be exhilarated, or full of dread?

Commentators such as Richard Susskind believe the coming decade will be one of dramatic change:

When the storm lifts, the terrain is going to look wildly different . . . Those who think the techniques they must adopt to survive over the next few months will be irrelevant to the future are fundamentally mistaken. They are with us for life.

Implicit in such pronouncements is a certain kind of mortal dread: Some firms will fail. Only those that adapt will succeed. Susskind’s last book did not leave his conclusion implicit, by the way. It was titled The End of Lawyers. Point taken.

At the other end of the spectrum are those curmudgeons, including, apparently, a number of law firms, who think that we have experienced a disruption, not a major shift, and that everything will soon be just peachy again. In a recent Altman Weil survey, for example, 75 percent of corporate chief legal officers (CLOs) reported that, in spite of unprecedented pressure for change, law firms had “little or no interest” in changing the traditional law firm model. Implicit in that position is the assumption that, given enough time, the industry will get back up on its high plain of profitability and continue happily onward.

So, which will it be — exhilaration or dread? What will the coming decade bring? We will begin to answer that question in this article by comparing the legal industry’s current position with that of another industry — the newspaper business. A decade ago, it too stood on a precipice. What happened next is a lesson in the costs of complacency in the face of a rapidly changing marketplace.

Following that object lesson, we will begin addressing the questions that relate to a rapidly changing marketplace. How can we manage profound change and do so not only to cope with the stresses it imposes, but to positively thrive in the coming decade? What skills for lawyers and professional staff will be imperative for the firms that will emerge as leaders? What technologies will be paramount? What will the law firm of 2020 look like and how will it differ from the firm of today? In coming months and years, we will explore these and other critical questions as part of the ILTA’s Law2020 initiative. But before we look forward, let us first look back, in the spirit of Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Stop the Presses

John Morton, an observer of the newspaper industry, wrote this in the American Journalism Review in October 1994:

Newspapers are renowned, and sometimes vilified, for their high profits. Even during recessions, when the profits of many other businesses fall sharply or disappear, newspapers usually still post more-than-respectable earnings.

The 1990s bore out that prediction. Newspapers and media companies the world over seemed to manufacture cash. Perhaps foremost among those, at least in the eyes of the investing public, was the Washington Post Company. Warren Buffet, recognizing the cash potential of the media business, first began investing in The Washington Post in the ‘70s. By the mid-‘90s, it had become one of the best in a long series of spectacular Buffet investments, one he often proclaimed a stellar choice.

Newspaper and media company shareholders, board members and executives had every reason to be optimistic as the new millennium approached. The euphoria was bolstered by a history of revenue growth and increasing returns that few other industries could match. What possibly could go wrong?

The first decade of the new century killed that euphoria. Advertising revenue, by far the main source of revenue for newspaper and media companies, peaked in 2000. But as the new decade progressed, those revenues began to oscillate, and then they crashed. By 2009, newspaper advertising revenues had fallen, in real dollars, to 1965 levels, as illustrated in the chart below (source: Columbia Journalism Review).

The cause for this decline was twofold. Changing demographics undercut circulation, as younger and more suburban consumers migrated from print to online media. But the key factor undoing print media was the migration of classified advertising to online outlets. As much as 80 percent of a newspaper’s ad revenue comes from classifieds — new and used car ads, real estate ads, employment ads, and the like. Advertisers in most of those areas have now shifted the bulk of their advertising dollars online. Between 2000 and 2009, nearly 70 percent of classified advertising shifted to online outlets. A good example is auto advertising. The following chart from MarketingCharts.com illustrates the problem. eBay now dominates automotive advertising, and other major sites siphon off still more print advertising revenue.

As a consequence of these steep declines in circulation and ad revenue, the newspaper industry has become an ongoing tale of woe, of death by the proverbial 10,000 cuts. Newsrooms have been double- and triple-decimated, major dailies have perished the world over, and even flagships such as the New York Times have suffered the indignities of the changing marketplace. The shape of a centuries-old industry has shifted dramatically in the blink of a decade.

It is interesting to note that even in the midst of all this woe there were hopeful moments and those who, with almost all evidence to the contrary, seized on that hope. The first waves of staff and other expense cuts in the industry did indeed restore some papers to profitability. But the detrimental impact on editorial content of all those cuts merely exacerbated long term declines in readership.

The Rise of the Realists

The newspaper industry in particular and traditional media in general suffered greatly over the last decade, but there were winners. Some media companies anticipated the coming shift in demand among readers, the fall of circulations and the flight of advertisers. Those few exhibited great flexibility and agility in shifting their businesses into areas such as cable and online outlets where demand was growing. These companies made realistic assessments of market conditions. They sought ways to syndicate content across media formats, and invested in new outlets, even entire new lines of business. Epitomizing such forward-looking businesses are companies like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which now has stakes in all forms of broadcasting, cable and satellite TV, new media outlets, as well as a small remaining stake in newspapers. Many of the top media companies have moved almost entirely out of the traditional newspaper business.

It is also worth noting the impact of entirely new lines of business on the habits of news consumers and advertising cash flows. What media company has grown the most over the last decade? Google. It is the world’s largest “content mediator” (note well, the term is not “publisher”). Its ability to connect content with consumers enabled it to generate nearly $23 billion in advertising revenue in 2009, an amount roughly equal to the combined newspaper advertising revenue for the top 100 media companies in the world.

All Along the Watchtower

Many signposts in the legal industry point to a coming transformation of significant magnitude, perhaps even one as deep and dramatic as that which befell the newspaper industry. Principal evidence of such change is the pivotal shift of attitudes among the people who are responsible for hiring and paying law firms. In a recent LexisNexis survey, 58 percent of corporate counsel believe that law firms are too profitable.

*Source: http://blog.larrybodine.com/2009/12/articles/current-affairs/58-of-corporate-counsel-say-that-law-firms-are-too-profitable/

That “too profitable” message is not, on its face, terribly nuanced. However, a broader look at the marketplace adds a gloss. Many law department lawyers and CLOs say that they are happy to see firms profit from their activities. But they want firms to maintain or increase profits through innovation and changing the value proposition for their services, not through regular price increases. This reality has prompted one leading law industry consultant, Hildebrandt Baker Robbins, to observe:

The fact is that the extraordinary prosperity of the legal market in the 1998-2007 period was largely driven by one factor — the ability of firms to raise their rates 6-8 percent every year. If, as we believe, the era of such easy year-on-year rate increases is over, then the implications for the economics and structure of law firms are quite serious. (Source: 2010 Client Advisory)

So, large and regular price increases may be a thing of the past. However, what may become the central impetus for a shake up in the legal industry is both deeper and broader than “mere” price resistance. There is emerging now a powerful formalization and organization (using “organize” in the sense it might be used by, say, a union) of the discontent now widespread among clients. That formal response is a collective and highly structured initiative called the Value Challenge, which is engendered by the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) — “the world’s largest organization serving the professional and business interests of attorneys who practice in the legal departments of corporations, associations and other private-sector organizations around the globe.”

Firms Under the Microscope

The ACC’s Value Challenge is founded on the premise that year after year of price increases with no increased innovation and efficiency has severed the connection between the value of legal services delivered by most law firms and the price of those services. The Value Challenge is an effort to restore balance between value and cost.

As part of the initiative, the ACC has also kicked off a project of key performance measures. Its Value Index, launched in October 2009, endeavors to compare law firms based on simple post-work assessments by in-house counsel. Participants rate the firms from 1 to 5 with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent — and then indicate whether they would use the firm again. There is a spot for comments, and respondents can choose whether to keep their name and information anonymous. By the end of 2009, the ACC had collected 1,800 evaluations of 600 different law firms. Consumer Reports for law firms has arrived.

The Value Challenge initiative has been accompanied by a number of vocal pronouncements by leading CLOs concerning the need for law firms to change their ways. These CLOs and others are also putting their money where their mouths are. Recent surveys have noted a significant uptick in the number of fee arrangements based on something other than the billable hour. (Sources: Altman Weil, Inc. Report to Legal Management, January 2010; Altman Weil, Inc. 2010 Billing Rates Survey). And some companies have gone still further. For example, in late 2009, Levi Strauss & Co. allocated all of its legal work (except IP work) to a single firm for a flat monthly fee, and other companies are following suit by outsourcing entire legal functions to single firms.

Both as a consequence of the Value Challenge and of the underlying dissatisfaction that necessitated it, the legal market has over the last year and a half seen a significant shift in buying habits. A number of surveys now show a sharp rise in demand for non-hours-based fee structures. (Sources: Altman Weil, Inc. Report to Legal Management, January 2010; Altman Weil, Inc. 2010 Billing Rates Survey). A recent ACC survey reports that four out of five in-house lawyers expressed a desire to increase their spending on alternative fee arrangements (AFAs). Companies have also accelerated already-established trends toward reducing the number of law firms approved to provide services and toward introducing purchasing disciplines (such as RFPs) into the buying process. Law departments have also considerably elevated pressure on rates over the last year, with the result that rate increases have slowed considerably.

Law firm responses to these signals of marketplace change have been very . . . um . . . newspaper-like. They include radical reductions in force at all levels within law firms as well as other aggressive cost-cutting measures. These bar charts from Hildebrandt Baker Robbins capturing metrics from over 100 leading law firms illustrate the extent of those cost-cutting efforts and, at least for the year 2009, the immediate beneficial impact of those cuts on profitability.

What law firms have not done in response to the very clear messages emerging from their customer base is engage in widespread or radical innovation. There are pockets of innovation, and some new business models are emerging. Indeed, these may become the seeds of success for the firms that will thrive over the next decade. But what is striking is how pervasive passivity is as a response to such challenges — passivity remarkably similar to that exhibited by newspapers facing the eradication of their business model.

The Client’s the Thing

Those media companies that survived and even thrived through the first decade of this century did so as a consequence of extraordinary attention to both the preferences and needs of their customers. You could argue that the shift in preferences in the newspaper industry was easy to miss because no one understood new media and its emerging users, but in the law business we have customers who are in no way subtle about expressing their preferences. The ACC Value Challenge is tantamount to clients grabbing us by our lapels, shaking us and saying, “Pay attention to us!” It is hard to imagine that in the wake of such ardent lapel grabbing the law business will simply resume its old path.

It is a very safe prediction to say that those firms that thrive through the next decade will pay extraordinary attention to clients’ preferences and needs. Now, most lawyers will respond to such a pronouncement by saying something like, “I already pay attention to my clients’ needs. That’s what I do every day.” And that is doubtless true for most lawyers. But it misses the point of the Value Challenge. Our clients are telling us that we charge too much for the value of the services we deliver. They are asking us, quite pointedly, to rethink how we structure, price and manage our services.

The firms that will thrive over the next decade are beginning to understand that request and move in that direction. For example, some firms are restructuring the delivery of e-discovery services in order to completely revise existing price and effectiveness models. These firms understand that fulfilling client needs means more than just returning phone calls. It can mean changing your business.

Institutional Agility and Flexibility

The media companies now dominating the media marketplace did not lie back and wait to see what others were doing. Most were extremely aggressive in expanding into online, cable and other new markets both by means of acquisitions and through original creations. They showed great agility in acting on opportunities and great flexibility, especially in terms of how they viewed their core businesses. Those whose view of themselves was defined by what they had always done and who therefore could not adapt with flexibility and agility are now gone, or nearly so.

The “horizontal” structure that characterizes law firms can often be an advantage. Individual lawyers themselves can sometimes act with great flexibility and agility. But the challenge to “rethink how we structure, price and manage our services” is an institutional one, the meeting of which will require institutional agility and flexibility. Abundant business school case studies examine how various corporate businesses responded to marketplace challenges with agility and flexibility. It’s safe to say that there are not so many studies concerning law firms.

The horizontal structure that proves such an advantage in some circumstances does not lend itself to rapid movements in new directions. Perhaps by 2020, there will be some inspiring and instructional case studies of the firms that have managed to overcome the limitations of horizontal structures and answer the new demands of this decade’s legal marketplace. Of course, there will likely be case studies of the firms that failed to overcome such limitations.

Process Improvement and Quality Assurance

The newspaper industry and the law business both have elements of the guild about them. Apprenticeship features strongly in their professional development cultures — whether it is the cub reporter becoming a journeyman journalist or the associate becoming a partner, learning is most often accomplished in very small group settings and through close interpersonal relationships. That is an advantage in both settings, and part of the charm of each.

Those guild-like working relationships continue into the main of legal practice. Most legal projects have been and continue to be managed through small teams that interact without a lot of what lawyers like to call “corporate” hierarchy. In the environment of the last several decades, such relatively informal working relationships have functioned well. The billable hour certainly adds some cushion to such a work environment, which has been fairly tolerant of inefficiencies.

All that changes significantly as legal projects increase in scale and especially when they must be done for a fixed price or in a manner that otherwise shifts considerable risk to the law firm. Inefficiencies become expensive in such a setting. Couple that with increasing demands by clients that firms be able to not just budget but to schedule as well, and law firm work begins to look much more like work in mainstream industry.

The ACC’s President, Fred Krebs, is fond of pointing out that many law firm clients have taken project management, process control and quality assurance to a high art. Can you imagine, he asks, building a transport airplane or a skyscraper using the management and pricing approaches of law firms? It is a rhetorical question, though the follow-up question is not: Why can’t law firms adopt the very same controls that their clients use?

Adoption of client business management techniques has increased in the legal industry. Some firms are very sophisticated in how they manage, for example, advanced technologies. Law firms now regularly appear in rankings of the top IT organizations in the world. And you can bet that those organizations have taken, say, project management to an advanced state, at least within the IT organization.

By 2020, however, we will see a number of firms that have thrown open the doors to their project management offices and applied the techniques that have let them manage IT so well to their own legal services. Indeed, we might expect IT executives to exert leadership influences outside of their traditional domains. They know valuable things. Law firm economics are now shifting so as to provide incentives for recognizing and fully utilizing such skills.

Incentives are also increasing toward the use of process control and quality assurance. We have already seen at least one U.S. firm adopt elements of the Six Sigma discipline. (Source: Value Practice: Use of Tailored Six Sigma Methodologies at Seyfarth Shaw). By 2020, we can expect to see much more of that.

Expanding the Service Platform

As the decade continues and some law firms adopt staffing, project management, process control and quality assurance innovations from mainstream industry, we might expect them to expand their service offerings beyond traditional legal services. Indeed, we have already seen some of this as firms reposition IT services and, more recently, e-discovery services as stand-alone service organizations.

We have already seen and can expect to see more of the “cost center” phenomenon that was especially evident in industry through the 1970s and 1980s. Back then, many businesses sought to convert cost centers within their companies into revenue generating entities. Most efforts folded under their own weight because companies underestimated the resource and financial commitments necessary to turn an internal service organization into one that stands on its own.

But then there were the exceptions. Foremost among those is what used to be known as Andersen Consulting and is now known as Accenture. It grew out of an internal IT consulting service and, after splitting with Arthur Andersen and Company in 1989, has grown to become one of the largest consulting organizations in the world.

By 2020, we may well see a significant percentage of law firm revenues coming from nontraditional realms such as IT consulting, strategic consulting, e-discovery and due diligence services as well as other areas. Indeed, some firms are already very active in these areas.

By the time of the split, Andersen Consulting’s per partner profitability far outstripped that of Andersen proper. Indeed, that was a factor in the split (as well as the liability that arose from Andersen’s audit activities). We see some firm e-discovery consulting arms already moving toward extraordinary profitability while, at the same time, radically lowering the cost of e-discovery and otherwise much improving service levels for clients. This is also true in other areas, such as legislative consulting.

Firms that manage to create such entities either within or alongside their organizations will be in a much better position to endure an environment of increased downward pressure on rates. Indeed, over the next decade, one might predict the demise of firms that, like some since-lapsed newspapers, could not diversify their revenue sources. Those perished papers clawed ever deeper into expenses trying to maintain historic levels of profitability, without ever touching their 100-year-old business model. It is not at all difficult to imagine a similar picture in our industry.

The Telescope and the Crystal Ball

We can go much further than we have here in raising our hand to our forehead and squinting at the horizon in an attempt to identify productive paths to the future. ILTA’s Law2020 initiative will continue this effort, but we can also be hopeful that through the proven “power of the crowd” that is inherent in ILTA’s peer-to-peer model, Law2020 will bring to the task both a “telescope” of foreseeable events and a crystal ball to portend the future. The content in this issue of Peer to Peer will amplify these explorations in various ways. And the Law2020 sessions at ILTA’s annual conference in August will continue the effort. But expect much more in the years to come. Whether standing on a precipice or climbing out of a valley, we will look with clear vision at the path that lies ahead.

This article was orignially published in the June issue of Peer-to-Peer , the quarterly magazine of ILTA, and is republished here with permission.

——————————————————————————–
Endnotes

[1] Note how limiting the term “reader” is. Newspapers cultivate “readership,” which brings to mind a paper spread out on the kitchen table, an image that has become — almost — an anachronism.

[2] See for example, these articles by CLOs: Drive Better Alignment in Legal Services
Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Cisco Systems, Inc. (April 2008); Value-Based Staffing Practices: Focus on Communications Skills and Tools At AmerisourceBergen Corporation, John Chou, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, AmerisourceBergen Corporation (March 2010);Yes, ‘Small Law’ Can: Alternative Fee/Value-Based Arrangements at Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
Ken Grady, General Counsel and Secretary for Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (January 2010); Achieving Alignment Inside and Out: Portfolio of Legal Services on Flat Fee and Disciplined Internal Planning Process, Christopher Reynolds, Group Vice President and General Counsel for Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (September 2009); Creating Value By Selecting Strategic Practice Area Providers – Practices at GE Canada, Bruce Futterer, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, General Electric Canada (July 2009); ACC Value Challenge: The Driving Force Behind Value and Change, Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary for FMC, Technologies (February 2009); ACC’s Value Challenge: Re-Connecting Legal Costs to their Value, Laura Stein, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for The Clorox Company and ACC 2008 Board Chair, (October 2008)
© 2010 International Legal Technology Association

Authored by:

John Alber is the Strategic Technology Partner at Bryan Cave LLP. John leads the firm’s award-winning client technology group, which develops innovative web-based, client-facing decision support, training and client communication tools. The group has also become widely known for developing leading-edge internal decision support, knowledge management and client intelligence systems for Bryan Cave.  John has written and spoken widely on legal technology subjects and received a number of technology awards, both in the legal field and in information technology generally. Among other awards, he was named American Lawyer Media’s first ever ‘Champion of Technology’ in 2004, and recognized as one of the ‘Top 25 CTOs’ by Infoworld in 2007. John can be reached at:  314-259-2144 / www.BryanCave.com

Are You Calling, E-mailing or Texting Employees While They Drive? You May Want to Reconsider.

National Law Review Guest Blogger David Carr discusses the every day issue of communicating with employees while they’re driving with a colorful fact pattern.  

A recent court decision involving particularly bizarre circumstances may signal a warning of importance to employers about not so bizarre business practices.  Prudent employers will take heed. 

At first blush, the case of Buchanan v. Vowell appears to have no bearing on any significant employment law issue.  Jerry Buchanan, the plaintiff, brought suit as a pedestrian who was hit by a car operated by the defendant, Candice Vowell.  However, Buchanan also sued Candice Vowell’s mother, Shannon Vowell.  (Other facts involve the Vowells’ consumption of alcohol and Shannon Vowell’s employment with Brad’s Gold Club.)  The key facts generated the question of whether Shannon Vowell possessed liability for the unfortunate accident that occurred when Candice Vowell struck Buchanan with her vehicle after leaving Brad’s Gold Club.  Brad’s Gold Club also found itself a defendant in the resulting lawsuit.  However, the importance of this case arises not from the potential liability of Brad’s Gold Club.  Presumably, most employers know about the dangers of serving alcohol to an employee and the attendant liability that arises if an intoxicated employee leaves an employer party or event and injures someone.  If this proposition constituted all the case stood for, no novel issue exists. 

Instead, what makes this case important and novel is the question of the liability of Shannon Vowell.  The issue in question revolves around whether Shannon Vowell possessed liability for the injuries suffered by virtue of Candice Vowell’s striking Buchanan with her car.  How could liability exist? 

It turns out Shannon and Candice Vowell consumed alcohol together at Brad’s Gold Club and Shannon Vowell determined that, upon leaving, rather than call a cab or have Candice Vowell ride as a passenger in Shannon Vowell’s car, the two would traverse the streets of Indianapolis in two vehicles with Candice Vowell leading and Shannon Vowell following.  At the time of the accident, Shannon Vowell was following Candice Vowell in a separate vehicle, and was engaging Candice Vowell in a conversation on a cell phone.  Under these facts, could Shannon Vowell be found liable?   

Buchanan alleged that, at the time of the accident, Shannon Vowell knew Candice Vowell was operating her vehicle while intoxicated and knew, or should have known, that talking on her cell phone would further impair or distract Candice Vowell, making her even more dangerous to other persons using the streets.  Buchanan further alleged that Shannon Vowell “negligently made the affirmative, conscious effort to call Candice Vowell, distracting her from maintaining a proper lookout.” 

In determining Shannon Vowell’s liability, the court looked at the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324(a) which provides “one who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third party or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise a reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise  reasonable care increases the risk of such harm or (b) he has undertaken a duty to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.” 

The trial court chose to dismiss Shannon Vowell as a defendant.  The Court of Appeals reversed and found that Shannon Vowell had acted in a negligent fashion by communicating with Candice Vowell on her cell phone when she knew that Candice Vowell was driving a car.  The Court concluded that Shannon Vowell, as an individual, may have breached her duty of reasonable care “by calling and distracting a person she knew was operating a vehicle . . . .” 

Perhaps you now see the potential significance of this case.  One suspects that every day supervisors call, e-mail or even text “mobile” employees in the act of driving.  It certainly appears an avenue now opens for employers to be liable for any action that occurs while the employee attempts to drive and text or talk via cell phone with the employer.  While such a ruling would require an extension of the precise holding of Buchanan v. Vowell due to the added element of consumption of alcohol, it does not appear to be a difficult stretch.  Wise employers will consider this case and set specific standards and protocols for when employees should and should not use their cell phones and text in the course of operating a company vehicle or carrying out company duties.

© 2003-2010, Ice Miller LLP

About the Author:

David J. Carr is a partner in the Labor and Employment Law practice group of Ice Miller LLP, focusing his practice in the areas of litigation of employment contracts involving trade secrets, confidential information and covenants against competition, complex wage and hour law issues, employment discrimination, and personnel policies. Mr. Carr is a veteran labor negotiator and has handled numerous labor arbitrations, union avoidance and other collective bargaining matters in both the public and private sectors. He also has substantial experience representing employers in wrongful discharge lawsuits and employment discrimination investigations, including sexual harassment situations.

  • 317-236-5840
  • david.carr@icemiller.com
  • www.icemiller.com

    • Outgoing ABA President Carolyn Lamm Discusses Next Steps to Achieving a More Diverse Legal Profession

    The Business of Law Guest Blogger this week at the National Law Review is Vera Djordjevich of Vault Inc. with an interview of outgoing ABA President Carolyn Lamm Discussing the  Next Steps to Achieving a More Diverse Legal Profession. 

     On July 30, 2010, Vault and the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) held their 5th Annual Legal Diversity Career Fair at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C. More than 1,000 law students and lateral associates registered for the event, where hiring partners and recruiters from some 30 law firms, government agencies and corporate law departments were on hand to meet with candidates, review their resumes, offer advice and answer questions.

    The event kicked off with a special breakfast where Brian Dalton, Vault’s managing editor, unveiled the company’s 2011 Law Firm Diversity Rankings, the result of Vault’s annual Law Firm Associate Survey. Vault also honored the Top 20 law firms—led by this year’s overall winner, Carlton Fields—who were the most highly rated by their own associates for their commitment to hiring, retaining and promoting diverse attorneys.

    The event’s lunch featured Carolyn Lamm, outgoing president of the American Bar Association and a partner at White & Case, as the keynote speaker. Recently named one of “Washington’s Most Influential Women Lawyers” by The National Law Journal, Ms. Lamm has, during her tenure as ABA president, established a Presidential Commission on Diversity as well as a Commission on the Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Profession and Legal Needs. On August 10, 2010, Ms. Lamm turns over the helm to President-Elect Stephen Zack, a partner at Boies, Schiller and Flexner and the first Hispanic American to serve as ABA president. 

    Before her address, Ms. Lamm sat down with me to discuss the state of diversity in law firms, highlight some of the ABA’s goals and initiatives, and forecast what a truly diverse profession will look like.

    VAULT:  How would you characterize the state of diversity in the legal profession today? 

    In a word: evolving. In 2009, the ABA conducted an extensive national assessment of the state of diversity in the legal profession, including hearings held around the United States—with practitioners, academics, corporate counsel—whose results were synthesized into a report, “Diversity in the Legal Profession: The Next Steps.” We found that, although our profession today is more diverse and inclusive, and has made significant advances, many obstacles to free and equal professional success remain. For example:

    • While women make up just over half of the U.S. population and half of the entering classes in law schools, they represent one third of the lawyer population, about 18 percent of law firm equity partners and 20 to 25 percent of the judiciary.  
    • Racial and ethnic minorities make up approximately one third of the U.S. population, but they represent only 10 percent of the lawyer population, less than 16 percent of judges and 6 percent of equity partners.

    These numbers do not nearly reflect the diverse range of talent in our profession. Our lack of diversity runs counter to the promise of fairness and equality that is our profession’s bedrock, depriving the community of a bench that reflects the community and of legal advice that is a product of diverse views.

    VAULT:  What are the principal challenges to increasing diversity at law firms?

    First, through what are known as “pipeline programs,” we need to get more racial and ethnic minorities into law school. We must do all we can to encourage young people of all backgrounds that a career in the law can be fulfilling, and that we welcome them to the profession. Through educational and scholarship programs, we must make it easier for qualified people of diverse backgrounds to pursue legal careers.

    Then, once people enter the profession, we must work on retention. An ABA report from the Commission on Women in the Profession, titled “Visible Invisibility: Women of Color in Law Firms,” revealed startling realities about the experiences of women of color, including anecdotal evidence that nearly half of women of color have been subjected to demeaning comments or other types of harassment while working at a private law firm (compared with only 2 percent of white men reporting the same experiences). A substantial number also report being passed over for desirable work assignments, being excluded from networking opportunities, and having received at least one unfair performance evaluation. These and other disparities allow us to better understand why women of color have a nearly 100 percent attrition rate from law firms at the end of eight years.

    Another challenge facing law firms—especially those that have been addressing diversity issues for a while now—is to evolve from the traditional idea of diversity to understand and embrace inclusion. Diversity basically speaks to the numbers: proactively doing things to increase the numbers of diverse persons in the firm. While that is absolutely essential, it’s not enough. We now must focus on building inclusive work environments that demonstrate that we value diverse perspectives and understand how they benefit the organization overall.

    VAULT:  Has the current state of the economy further exacerbated these difficulties? 

    Yes. The ABA’s “The Next Steps” report found that the “recession is drying up monies for diversity initiatives and creating downsizing and cutbacks that may disproportionately and negatively affect lawyer diversity—thereby undoing the gains of past decades.”

    The American Lawyer’s annual report on diversity confirmed the anecdotes that have been voiced throughout the legal community. Its 2010 Diversity Scorecard reported that for the first time in 10 years the proportion of lawyers of color has decreased, based on a survey of the country’s 200 largest firms. While big firms lost 6 percent of their attorneys between 2008 and 2009, they lost 9 percent of their minority lawyers. Some experts fear that this could be the start of a new downward trend, given a climate of slower law firm hiring, fewer African-American and  Mexican-American law students, and law firm layoffs.

    VAULT:  Where are you seeing the most improvements?

    Both the quantity and quality of pipeline diversity programs have improved in recent years. The ABA, in collaboration with the Law School Admission Council, has an online Pipeline Diversity Directory. In the past year, the number of entries in the directory has almost doubled and it now includes over 400 programs across the country that work to improve diversity in the educational pipeline to our profession, such as the judicial clerkship program.

    Collaboration is another area of noted improvement. More firms, bar associations, law schools, corporate law departments and other groups are pooling their resources and building partnerships to address diversity and inclusion. 

    VAULT:  Tell us about some of the ABA’s diversity initiatives and goals.

    Nearly all entities throughout the ABA work to foster greater diversity in the legal profession. The ABA’s Center for Racial and Ethnic Diversity is a centralized resource for many of these activities. Within the Diversity Center, there are three groups that each addresses a distinct area:  

    In addition, the Commission on Women in the Profession works to secure the full and equal participation of women in the ABA, the legal profession and the justice system. The Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law addresses disability-related public policy, disability law, and the professional needs of lawyers and law students with disabilities. The Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity seeks to secure for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons full and equal access to and participation in the ABA, the legal profession and the justice system.

    This year I appointed a Presidential Commission on Diversity, which produced the “Next Steps” monograph. The report gives recommendations for next steps to increase diversity in the different sectors of the legal profession, recognizing the different challenges within each one: law firms and corporations, the judiciary and government, law schools and the academy, and bar associations. The commission is working with the ABA’s existing efforts to provide practical resources and guidance for women lawyers, lawyers of color, disabled lawyers, and lawyers of differing sexual orientations and gender identities to help pierce the glass ceiling. Central to the commission’s efforts is a series of distance-learning CLE programs to help diverse lawyers advance their legal careers. The programs are available on the ABA website as podcasts.

    VAULT:  What do you think about the reporting of diversity metrics and rankings, such as the Vault/MCCA Diversity Survey and Vault’s Diversity Rankings, as a means of encouraging law firms to step up their commitment to hiring, retaining and promoting diverse attorneys?

    It can be an effective tool if it is used properly and in conjunction with other tools and incentives, and if it is transparently done. If reporting on diversity metrics or rankings is used only to prod and push law firms to engage in diversity  efforts, those efforts will not be sustainable. But we must know the statistics in order to know where we are and where to devote resources in order to move forward. If we can help more firms understand the value diversity brings to every aspect of their operations, metrics and rankings will become a welcome opportunity to showcase how well they are doing with hiring, retention and promotion of diverse attorneys.

    VAULT:  How do diversity-focused events like this career fair help advance diversity objectives?

    So much of hiring involves networking and word-of-mouth referrals—hardly just help wanted ads. In such a difficult job market, it is great to bring excellent candidates together with organizations that want to hire from diverse candidate pools. It’s important for employees and employers to get out there, network and explore career options—face to face whenever possible. Events such as these are especially useful when employers are hiring out of a regular recruiting schedule. But even if such leads don’t lead directly to job placements, they form the basis of career exploration and ideas that can, and do, produce results.

    VAULT:  What will success look like? 

    A diverse profession that reflects our community. A diverse legal profession is more just, productive and intelligent, because diversity often leads to better questions, analyses, processes and solutions. We are committed to see a Supreme Court that reflects our population and a profession in which each lawyer, no matter what their gender, racial or ethnic background, sexual orientation or disability, has the opportunity to achieve all they are capable of.

    The only way we will see success is if our profession is a true reflection of our communities—even if it’s one person in one position at a time.

    © 2010 Vault.com Inc.

    About the Author:

    Senior Law Editor, Vault.com

    Vera Djordjevich is senior law editor at Vault.com, where one of her areas of focus is diversity in the legal profession. She oversees the research and publication of information about law firm diversity initiatives and metrics for the Vault/MCCA Law Firm Diversity Database. She also edits Vault.com’s content related to law practice in the UK and co-authors Vault’s law blog, which provides career news, advice and intelligence to the legal community.   publicity@vault.com 212-366-4212 www.vault.com

    What are the Possible Legal Implications of the Passage of California’s Proposition 19?

    The National Law Review’s featured blogger Donna Bader discusses the legal implications of legalizing marijuana in California.  

    As the November election approaches in California, the proponents and opponents of Proposition 19 are preparing for battle.  Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is an initiative to legalize certain marijuana-related activities. It purports to do the following:

    • Allow people 21 years of age or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use;
    • Permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana; 
    • Prohibit people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, and smoking it while minors are present or providing it to anyone under 21; and
    • Maintain current prohibitions against driving a vehicle while impaired.

    (See http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/ for the text of Proposition 19.)

    The findings in the initiative make fascinating reading because the initiative acknowledges that laws criminalizing cannabis have failed, millions are using it, and the percentage of citizens using it is double that of the percentage of citizens using in the Netherlands, which allows the sale of cannabis.  In essence, criminalization has had no effect on usage.  The findings also note that cannabis has fewer side effects than alcohol or cigarettes, California wastes millions in trying to enforce laws against it, and its illegality has spawned an illegal drug trade that makes over a $15 billion in California a year.  It does not ignore the fact that that money in the form of taxes and permits could then go to the cities, counties, and states.

    While the initiative addressing the implementation of a “legal regulatory framework,” certain activities are left to the cities.  For instance, if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, then buying and selling – not possessing and consuming – would remain illegal.  If the city decides it is willing to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis, then it must implement “a strictly controlled legal system” to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution and sales, including relating how much cannabis can be bought and sold.  It would also allow the California Legislature to adopt a “statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.”  The initiative proposes a number of activities that a local government may regulate.  Finally, it permits amendment either by a subsequent initiative or statute “but only to further the purposes of the Act.”

    The supporters of Proposition 19 seem to fall into two general camps:  The first camp includes those who would like to use cannabis and see it be available to others, possibly because they believe it to be harmless, no different than alcohol (with less damage to the body), and that the criminalizing it has not worked.  The second camp is composed of individuals who do not use cannabis and are generally not in favor of its use, but they too recognize the war on drugs and failed, and given the critical financial condition of our State, would welcome a thriving business that would put money into government coffers.

    Two major questions arise from passage of Proposition 19.  The first question is what will the federal government do?  Possession of marijuana is still illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.  The Obama Administration has seemingly turned a blind eye to prosecuting the little guy, but passage of Proposition 19 will dramatically increase the commercial and business opportunities to produce and sell marijuana.  The bigger the business, the more attention it will receive from the DEA.  Because the proposition covers commercial production and sale, the federal government may intervene and attempt to enjoin enactment of the measure.

    The second question is how will passage of Proposition 19 affect other areas  of law.  Here are just a few areas that could be affected:

    • Counties and cities will have to scramble to make decisions on where they stand and how they want to regulate cannabis under the law.
    • The impact on interstate commerce because one can easily imagine what will happen if legal marijuana is purchased here and then brought over the border into a state that forbids it.
    • Dealing with taxing authorities.
    • Attorney ethical concerns in advising a client about activities that are still considered illegal under federal law.
    • Land use issues and restrictions.
    • Anti-discrimination laws.
    • Employment laws, particularly in the areas of drug-testing and wrongful termination.
    •  Landlord-issues, including a revisions of leases and rental agreements to cover marijuana use, both personally and commercially.
    • Criminal convictions and the effect of Proposition 19 on pending criminal cases.
    • Insurance law, particularly homeowners and health insurance.
    • Impact on federal funding in specific areas touched by Proposition 19.

    If the criminalization of marijuana has provided full-time for certain lawyers, then certainly the passage of Proposition 19 will present new and different opportunities for other lawyers as everyone tries to resolve the issues raised by its implementation.

    © 2010 Donna Bader 

    Donna Bader is a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law in Laguna Beach, California. For over thirty years, she has specialized in handling civil writs and appeals, and has written more than 350 appellate briefs. Donna is the former editor in chief of several legal publications, including Plaintiff, The Advocate, The Forum, and The Gavel. She is the author of Rutter’s Civil Litigation Guide, California Summary Judgment and Related Termination Motions. Donna is also a frequent lecturer and contributing writer for various legal organizations. Donna’s blog, AnAppealtoReason.com, is written for California trial attorneys and advises them on how they can protect their appeals at the trial court level.  949-494-7455 / www.AnAppealtoReason.com

    For Health Care / HR Professionals ASHHRA's 46th Annual Conference & Expo Sept. 25-28 in Tampa, FL

    For Health Care – HR Professionals – the National Law Review wants to remind you that the Advanced Registration Discount date in August 25th  for the 46th Annual ASHHRA Conference in Tampa, FL.  The  conference runs from September 25th – 28th.  For more info:    http://dld.bz/rBN8

    National Association of Women Lawyers® Issues Statement Regarding Appointment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan

    Chicago, August 5, 2010 — The National Association of Women Lawyers® (NAWL) applauds President Obama’s appointment of Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan following the Senate’s confirmation on Thursday.  NAWL’s Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees previously found Solicitor General Elena Kagan “well-qualified” for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  Committee Co-Chair, Patricia Lee Refo, in testimony submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the confirmation, stated:

    “The Committee is confident that General Kagan will approach cases and controversies with a mind that is open to all perspectives and with an appreciation of the professional and societal difficulties encountered by women and minorities.”

    NAWL President Dorian Denburg says, “Solicitor General Kagan’s intellect is second to none, her judgment superb, and her perspective a judicious mix of scholarship and common sense.  For all of these reasons, NAWL is confident she will be an effective Supreme Court Justice.  With Kagan’s confirmation, progress is being made on the longstanding disparity in the representation of women on our highest court. While we must continue our efforts to eliminate persistent barriers that hinder the retention and promotion of women attorneys, today is a very good day and everyone should stop and take notice.”

    NAWL’s Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court Nominees reviews and evaluates the qualifications of each Presidential nominee to the United States Supreme Court with an emphasis on laws and decisions regarding women’s rights or that have a special impact on women. Members of the Committee are appointed by the President of NAWL and include a distinguished array of law professors, appellate practitioners and lawyers concentrating in litigation, with diverse backgrounds from around the country and who work in a variety of professional settings.

    Copyright ®, 2010 National Association of Women Lawyers

    The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) is the leading national voluntary organization devoted to the interests of women lawyers and women’s rights. Founded over 100 years ago, NAWL has historically served as an educational forum and an active voice for the concerns of women in the legal profession.  www.NAWL.org

    Companies with in-house marketing departments handle a growing variety of projects these days. At some point, though, the workload often becomes overbearing. So, when is a good time to consider an outside firm to outsource work to?

    When corporate budgets are tight, and time and resources are limited – that’s really the perfect time to contract work out. Here’s why:

    1. MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION PLANS – An agency will help develop sophisticated marketing and communication plans for businesses that define and promote sales and marketing opportunities for the company, increasing ROI. Plans provide reports that map out results. They take into account an important aspect that is most often overlooked in companies — strategic marketing — and plan for the implementation and integration of marketing tactics.

    2. TARGET AUDIENCE – Agencies can help enhance the definition of a company’s target audience because they look at businesses from an outside perspective. While a company may know an audience already through a metric such as sales reports, an agency can go in-depth to research and define not only who they are, but also how better to target them with results that work, creating a higher ROI.

    3. NETWORKED IN THE COMMUNITY – Most likely, a local agency will be well-networked in the community, an added benefit for their clients. Agencies should be familiar with local news and media, for public relations and advertising purposes, and know what tactics work best for each part of your communication strategy. They also work with a variety of community vendors, which leads to the next point…

    4. PRICING AND RESOURCES – Outside agencies may be able to negotiate better pricing on service and materials (such as stock photos and printing services) than in-house marketing departments. They have established relationships with a wide array of vendors which allows for price shopping and high quality.

    5. CREATIVITY can be greater when a company’s marketing team works in tandem with an agency. In fact, most companies believe that the quality of work is much better. In-house marketing departments can often get too comfortable with products – losing their creative appeal. Outside agencies will have a fresh outlook and new ideas. They can also act as a catalyst for change by offering a different perspective on a myriad of issues.

    6. WORK HIRED UNDER CONTRACT will be accompanied by a legally-binding agreement ensuring that roles and responsibilities are defined, ideas are well-crafted, and costs are calculated in the appropriate areas – which can be difficult for internal departments to determine.

    © 2010 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

    From Guest Blogger Laura Powers of Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. Laura Powers is a marketing strategist with a history of developing award-winning campaigns that create continuity of brand, Web, print and promotion. Laura understands how design and image components fit within comprehensive marketing programs – building brands and their affinities. Laura regularly manages a broad range of marketing and promotion collateral including interactive websites, annual reports, company catalogs, product and service brochures, capabilities, brand identity and correlating pieces, ongoing quarterly newsletters and e-marketing newsletters. 215-340-0480 www.furiarubel.com

    The National Law Review is proud to be a media sponsor of the 3rd Annual Automotive Product Liability Conference in Chicago Sept. 22-23

    The National Law Review is proud to be a media sponsor of the 3rd Annual Automotive Product Liability Conference in Chicago Sept. 22-23 – Sutton Place Hotel http://www.americanconference.com/Automotive.htm  Entering priority service code NLR1795 on the registration form entitles you to a $400 discount.  Kathy & Jennifer will be there from the National Law Review.