Twitter: Little Statements with Big Consequences for Companies

McBrayer

Twitter is under attack. In recent months, accounts belonging to media giants CBS, BBC, and NPR have all been temporarily taken over by hackers. The Associated Press is the most recent victim. On April 23, 2013, a false statement about explosions at the White House and the President being injured sent shock waves through the Twitter-sphere. The real surprise is the effect the single tweet had in the real world: the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped so sharply moments after the frightening tweet that $136 billion in market value was wiped out. While the hacking of these massive media outlets make headlines, everyday businesses are not safe from the threat, either. In February of this year, a hacker changed the @BurgerKing feed to resemble that of McDonald’s, putting the McDonald’s logo in place of Burger King’s. The hackers posted offensive claims about company employees and practices. If accounts belonging to well-established companies like these are vulnerable, so is yours. If a tweet can have a profound impact on the nation’s stock market, imagine what an ill-contrived tweet could do to your business.

Business owners may have the knee-jerk reaction to delete their Twitter account, but despite the recent blemishes to its security, Twitter remains one of the most important social media sites out there. Just recently, the Securities Exchange Commission made clear that companies could use social media like Twitter when announcing key information in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure. Twitter is not just a marketing or PR tool—Twitter is business. And you should never turn your back on existing business. So instead of hanging up your hashtags, consider some steps that can make your Twitter account safer.

Limit Access

Not every employee should have access to the company’s Twitter account. In fact, hardly anyone should, except a few designated employees like the marketing director or business owner. While those with access may never do anything harmful to the account, the more people who have the log-in information, the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.

Create a strong password

I know, you already have too many passwords to remember. But a creative password is your best defense against someone seeking to break into your account. Employers should, at minimum, have unique passwords for their most commonly used media sites; please do not use the same word for your Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter account. Once a hacker figures it out, they have control of your entire social media presence.

When creating a password, avoid using anything that would be too common. “Password,” “1234,” or the business’s name should never be the only thing standing between you and a hacker. The longer the password, the better. Use a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols.

Article By:

 of

Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 15-17 September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Resort, Spa, Las Vegas, NV

The National Law Review is  pleased to announce the Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 is taking place on the 15 through 17 of  September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Las Vegas, NV.

A Unique Event

The future of litigation will bring new matters, increased competition and a strong need for budget maximization. Employment, IP, product liability, commercial and securities litigation continue to become more complex and therefore more costly. As a Chief Litigation Officer, one of the main challenges is to stay within budget, and tactics such as eDiscovery and specialized outside counsel certainly compound this challenge.

Executives that can find solutions and best practices to work through these challenges will stand out amid a mounting sea of litigation counsel. By employing alternative billing structures, one can allow for fair and accurate budgeting in hopes of maximizing resources, which will help contribute to a successful trial. Skillful planning, organizing and managing of cases is absolutely necessary to stay on top of your game during the trial or deciding on alternative dispute resolution. Enhancing outside counsel relationships through effective communication can greatly increase your odds and assist in dealing with a building case load.

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit provides a unique forum for service providers to gain access to the leading in-house counsel across the nation. Over three days, service providers will meet and interact with the heads of litigation from the country’s leading organizations through a number of one-on-one business meetings and many networking activities. In addition, service providers will attend strategic conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by these heads of litigation. Within the luxurious settings of The Red Rock Casino, Resort & Spa, this networking event presents a unique opportunity to develop meaningful and valuable business relations.

marcus evans will seek CLE accreditation in those states requested by registrants which have continuing education requirements. CLE credit hour information will be displayed on the certificate of attendance, which is provided to the attendees after the event has run and once each State has confirmed approval. marcus evans certifies that this activity has been approved for CLE credits by the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Pennsylvania.

Our executive delegation is selected according to the following criteria:

  • Scope of Responsibility
  • Budget
  • Sign-off Authority
  • Company Revenue
  • Interest in Purchasing Products and Services

Delegates will include decision makers with the job titles of General Counsel Litigation, Assistant General Counsel Litigation, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Chief Litigation Officer, Vice President, Litigation and Senior Litigation Counsel with ultimate responsibility for litigation within their corporations.
Six Reasons Why You Should Attend the Summit:

  • Attend innovative summit sessions that outline tools to maximize the profitability of your company or organization
  • Network with an executive, focused group of your peers to discuss and debate differentiated strategies and develop future business contacts
  • Meet with leading Solution Providers to gain solutions to your most pressing business challenges
  • Maximize your time spent at the event by pre-selecting Keynote presentations, summit sessions, one-on-one meetings and networking activities through the Secured Summit Web site and scheduling software
  • Extensive opportunities for informal peer networking throughout the weekend through day and evening leisure activities
  • Documentation of presentations and information presented at the Summit via the interactive Web site


Delegate Package 

  • Pre-event Secured Web site access for scheduling
  • Executive Summit Program
  • 8-10 one-on-one business meetings with Solution Provider executives
  • Post-event Web site access for documentation and information on next event
  • Two nights accommodation at the Resort
  • All meals, receptions & special events
  • Participation in the Summit networking activities


For information on attending as a Delegate, please contact:
Marketing Manager
E: 
webenquiries@marcusevansbb.com
T: 246 627 3761

Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 15-17 September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Resort, Spa, Las Vegas, NV

The National Law Review is  pleased to announce the Chief Litigation Officer Summit Fall 2011 is taking place on the 15 through 17 of  September 2011, Red Rock Casino, Las Vegas, NV.

A Unique Event

The future of litigation will bring new matters, increased competition and a strong need for budget maximization. Employment, IP, product liability, commercial and securities litigation continue to become more complex and therefore more costly. As a Chief Litigation Officer, one of the main challenges is to stay within budget, and tactics such as eDiscovery and specialized outside counsel certainly compound this challenge.

Executives that can find solutions and best practices to work through these challenges will stand out amid a mounting sea of litigation counsel. By employing alternative billing structures, one can allow for fair and accurate budgeting in hopes of maximizing resources, which will help contribute to a successful trial. Skillful planning, organizing and managing of cases is absolutely necessary to stay on top of your game during the trial or deciding on alternative dispute resolution. Enhancing outside counsel relationships through effective communication can greatly increase your odds and assist in dealing with a building case load.

The Chief Litigation Officer Summit provides a unique forum for service providers to gain access to the leading in-house counsel across the nation. Over three days, service providers will meet and interact with the heads of litigation from the country’s leading organizations through a number of one-on-one business meetings and many networking activities. In addition, service providers will attend strategic conference sessions and keynote presentations delivered by these heads of litigation. Within the luxurious settings of The Red Rock Casino, Resort & Spa, this networking event presents a unique opportunity to develop meaningful and valuable business relations.

marcus evans will seek CLE accreditation in those states requested by registrants which have continuing education requirements. CLE credit hour information will be displayed on the certificate of attendance, which is provided to the attendees after the event has run and once each State has confirmed approval. marcus evans certifies that this activity has been approved for CLE credits by the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Pennsylvania.

Our executive delegation is selected according to the following criteria:

  • Scope of Responsibility
  • Budget
  • Sign-off Authority
  • Company Revenue
  • Interest in Purchasing Products and Services

Delegates will include decision makers with the job titles of General Counsel Litigation, Assistant General Counsel Litigation, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Chief Litigation Officer, Vice President, Litigation and Senior Litigation Counsel with ultimate responsibility for litigation within their corporations.
Six Reasons Why You Should Attend the Summit:

  • Attend innovative summit sessions that outline tools to maximize the profitability of your company or organization
  • Network with an executive, focused group of your peers to discuss and debate differentiated strategies and develop future business contacts
  • Meet with leading Solution Providers to gain solutions to your most pressing business challenges
  • Maximize your time spent at the event by pre-selecting Keynote presentations, summit sessions, one-on-one meetings and networking activities through the Secured Summit Web site and scheduling software
  • Extensive opportunities for informal peer networking throughout the weekend through day and evening leisure activities
  • Documentation of presentations and information presented at the Summit via the interactive Web site


Delegate Package 

  • Pre-event Secured Web site access for scheduling
  • Executive Summit Program
  • 8-10 one-on-one business meetings with Solution Provider executives
  • Post-event Web site access for documentation and information on next event
  • Two nights accommodation at the Resort
  • All meals, receptions & special events
  • Participation in the Summit networking activities


For information on attending as a Delegate, please contact:
Marketing Manager
E: 
webenquiries@marcusevansbb.com
T: 246 627 3761

Recent NLRB Memo Identifies “Hot Topic” Cases for 2012

Recently an article appeared in the National Law Review by Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding Hot Topic cases:

 

The NLRB recently circulated a memorandum asking all Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge and Residential Officers to begin tracking what the Agency has defined as “Hot Topic” Cases.  The categories include:

– Cessation of Dues Check-Off;

– Information Requests for Financial Records;

– Post Arbitration Deferral;

– Social Media; and

– Use of Employer e-Mail.

The memorandum provides insight into the types of issues likely to grab the NLRB’s attention in 2012.  The memorandum can be accessed here.

Status Update: Fired – Social media is a great way to market a company. It is also a great way to get fired from one.

Recently featured in the National Law Review an article by Emily Holbrook of Risk Management Magazine about Social Media:

Time Line: Status Update — Fired Social media is a great way to market a

company. It is also a great way to get fired from one.

Facebook recently reached a milestone: 750 million active users worldwide. With people spending more than 700 billion minutes per month on the social network, it’s no wonder many users get themselves in trouble for what they post. For example, a juror in the UK was dismissed after she disclosed sensitive case information on her Facebook profile, asking her friends to participate in a poll to help her decide “which way to go” with the verdict. But repercussions from other comments on social media sites have been much worse.

Many employees have been terminated over certain comments or pictures, and the National Labor Relations Board says it has been receiving an increased number of social media cases as this new mode of communication continues to grow in popularity and users continue to post with reckless abandon.

June 2008

20-year-old James Brennan was fired from his job at a store in central London after posting a derogatory statement about his employers. He believed his comment was visible only to his friends, but a colleague printed off the remark and showed it to his boss. Brennan claimed that what he wrote was private and done on his own time. Nonetheless, he was fired on the spot.

November 2008

Virgin Atlantic canned 13 flight attendants after they criticized the airline’s flight safety standards and described passengers as “chavs” (a derogatory term used in the UK referring to aggressive, arrogant, lower-class young adults) on Facebook. Management at Virgin Atlantic fired the 13 individuals due to their “totally inappropriate behavior” that “brought the company into disrepute.”

April 2009

An unnamed employee of Nationale Suisse, an international insurance company, lost her job after supervisors realized she was using Facebook after calling in sick because she was suffering from a migraine and needed to lie in a dark, quiet room. The woman claimed she was not using her computer, but instead accessing the site from her iPhone. The company said it lost trust in the employee while the woman accused the company of setting up fictitious “friends” to spy on her account activity.

August 2009

Georgia public school teacher Ashley Payne was given a “resignation or suspension” ultimatum after her supervisors saw that her Facebook profile included a photo of her taken during her European vacation that showed her clutching a glass of wine in each hand. Along with the photo, one of her status updates contained an expletive (though she was merely referring to the official name given a local bingo night). Payne sued the school, making hers one of several lawsuits filed within the past few years involving teachers who feel they were unfairly dismissed because of the contents of their Facebook pages.

April 2010

Tania Dickinson, a ministry employee in Auckland, New Zealand, was fired over a Facebook comment in which she described herself as a “very expensive paperweight” who is “highly competent in the art of time wastage, blame-shifting and stationary [sic] theft.” The Employment Relations Authority refused to uphold a complaint from Dickinson that she was unfairly dismissed.

June 2010

24-year-old Andrew Kurtz worked as a “Pittsburgh Pierogi” mascot for the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball franchise, a job that entailed racing around the field between innings and greeting fans. Kurtz was also a diehard Pirates fan and when he found out team president Frank Coonelly decided to keep general manager Neal Huntington and manager John Russell on for another season, he took to Facebook, stating “Coonelly extended the contracts of Russell and Huntington through the 2011 season. That means a 19-straight losing streak. Way to go Pirates.” He was immediately fired.

February 2011

Dawnmarie Souza, an employee of American Medical Response, a Connecticut ambulance service, took to Facebook to criticize her supervisor and other coworkers. Soon after, she was terminated from her position. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) promptly brought the wrongful termination complaint before an administrative court, arguing that the company’s social media policy was too broad and that Souza’s termination violated the National Labor Relations Act, which keeps employers from penalizing employees for talking about unionization or working conditions. A settlement was reached in which Souza did not return to work but the company changed its social media policy.

September 2011

In October 2010, five employees of the minority advocacy group Hispanics United of Buffalo were fired for complaining about working hours at their nonprofit employer. The five decided to fight back, taking their case to the NLRB. There, administrative law judge Arnold Amchan, in a first-of-its-kind decision, ruled that after-hours Facebook wall complaints about being over-worked constituted legitimate “concerted activity” within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. He ordered the organization to reinstate the five employees along with back pay.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor.

Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 Tips for Conducting an Internal Investigation

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Catherine Salmen Wright of  Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding conducting an internal investigation:

The recent news involving Penn State highlights how high the stakes can be when conducting an internal investigation. In fact, Penn State has hired former FBI director Louis Freeh to lead its internal investigation into alleged criminal conduct by a former employee. But while most employers do not face circumstances this challenging, the reality is that employers are presented with circumstances on a regular basis that must be investigated effectively to avoid significant legal liability.

Of course, this begs the question of when an employer needs to investigate. The simplest answer is when the employer has knowledge of misconduct. Misconduct can include a breach of an employer policy, violation of a drug or alcohol policy, theft or other criminal activity, or even misuse of company property. Employers should not, however, too narrowly construe what constitutes “knowledge,” which can include formal and informal complaints, information obtained during exit interviews, anonymous tips and third-party information.

Employers should also keep in mind that an internal investigation may become your defense in any subsequent litigation and therefore may be subject to significant scrutiny by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s lawyer and possibly a jury. For example, in a sexual harassment lawsuit, the employer’s investigation is what typically shows that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior. Another defense used by employers in wrongful termination lawsuits is the “honest belief” rule. Specifically, if the employer can show that it reasonably relied on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made, it can potentially avoid liability over a challenged decision. The investigation does not need to be perfect, but the employer must make a reasonably informed decision before taking an adverse employment action.

As a result, conducting an effective internal investigation is critically important. Every investigation comes with a unique set of facts and challenges, but the following 10 principles serve as a guide for conducting an effective investigation.

1. Determine the objectives and strategy for the investigation.

At the outset, employers must establish the objectives of the investigation. Questions that should be addressed include:

  • Are you trying to develop a complete record to justify a decision?
  • Are you attempting to avoid litigation?
  • What are your legal obligations?
  • Do you need an attorney involved?

Evaluating the answers to these questions will allow you to tailor your investigation.

2. Maintain confidentiality.

A guiding principle in any investigation is confidentiality, which employers should maintain to the extent possible. However, don’t promise what you can’t deliver. Absolute confidentiality when employees will be interviewed is virtually impossible. Also, employers need to be vigilant when it comes to thoroughness and promptness. For example, if you had to answer questions one year later in a deposition, can you give a reasonable explanation of why it took the amount of time it did to complete the investigation?

3. Determine if immediate actions need to take place to protect the workforce.

Based on what you know at the time the investigation begins, you may need to take immediate steps to protect the complaining party, alleged victim or the workforce in general. For example, an accused harasser may be put on a paid or unpaid leave, supervisory responsibilities could be changed or an employee could be temporarily transferred pending an investigation, but in no case should an employer penalize the alleged victim.

4. Review company policies.

Take an inventory of employer policies that may impact the investigation process. For example, a collective bargaining agreement may provide an employee the right to have a representative present at any interview.

5. Conduct a preliminary search of available records.

This includes reviewing personnel files and any documents relating to the misconduct. Act quickly to retrieve what electronic information is still available, including emails and text messages.

6. Select the appropriate personnel to conduct the investigation.

Investigators should be unbiased and unprejudiced — and perceived as such. Good investigators are skilled at setting people at ease and drawing out reticent witnesses in order to collect facts. They also need knowledge of company policies and procedures, the ability to maintain confidentiality and a level of authority consistent with the significance of the matter being investigated.

7. Control the interview process.

Obtaining detailed statements from interviews with the complaining party and the accused are a critical part of any investigation. Documentation should include the facts, not legal conclusions, or your interpretations and assumptions. Give witnesses ground rules: No conclusion has been reached, no reprisal will be taken, and no discussions about the interview are allowed with anyone.

8. Communicate throughout the process.

Many employers launch an investigation, only to fail to keep the complainant reasonably informed during the process. Unfortunately, this results in the complaining party believing their complaint was ignored, which may prompt them to involve an attorney.

9. Close the investigation properly.

Having invested the time and cost associated with the investigation, protect your investment by properly closing out the investigation. Make a decision, communicate the decision and document the process.

10. Ensure against retaliation.

Employees who make complaints may be legally protected from experiencing an adverse employment action. This includes complaints involving discrimination, harassment, safety violations, wage and hour violations and more. Do ensure against retaliation by continuing to monitor the situation.


As seen in the December 9th issue of Business Lexington.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Mostly Dead Comments on Irrational Exuberance: the Shortcomings of Legal Education.

Posted in the National Law Review on November 28th an article by attorney Kendall M. Gray of Andrews Kurth LLP regarding legal education and the pursuit of the legal career:

 

This one goes out to all the law students or think you wanna be law students.

It has been a long time since last we met. Long time, no posts. I wasn’t completely dead. I was just in trial. So like Westley, a/k/a, the Dread Pirate Roberts in the Princess Bride (a/k/a the greatest movie ever made) I was only mostly dead.

You can doubtless imagine my surprise when I awoke from my mostly dead state on Sunday morning and saw an article on the shortcomings of legal education on the front page of my New York Times. The article detailed how new lawyers graduate from law school not knowing the first thing about how to lawyer. Their firms then have to teach them that pesky lawyering part that the law schools left out.

The article quotes a client:

“The fundamental issue is that law schools are producing people who are not capable of being counselors,” says Jeffrey W. Carr, the general counsel of FMC Technologies, a Houston company that makes oil drilling equipment. “They are lawyers in the sense that they have law degrees, but they aren’t ready to be a provider of services.”

Firms try to fill in the skills that the law school left out, but in this environment, clients don’t want to pay for that.

Is there anything to be done? Does it have to be this way? After the break, a comment from a crusty old Baylor lawyer about why it ain’t necessarily so.

So, young man (or woman). You think you want to be a lawyer. How did you make that decision and how are you going to decide to proceed?

Did you have some Atticus Finch moment? Have you watched every episode of Law and Order? Is this a fire in your belly? Is this just a way to make a living? Have you shown any indication that you would be any good at this?

Well assuming you have a good reason to pursue a legal education, I encourage you to read the New York Times article by David Segal. He describes the type of problems in legal education that you will encounter if you go about letting someone else chart your path in the conventional way.

  • With your stellar (or not-so-stellar) undergraduate grades in hand, you will prepare for the LSAT and get the highest score possible.
  • You will apply to all the “best” law schools and try to get into the “best” school possible.
  • (Note well the “quote” marks because those will come back to bite you later)
  • Government financed lenders will line up to lend you $150,000 in debt to finance that education.
  • (Think of those as law school junk bonds that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy)
  • You will attend the “best” school on your non-dischargeable junk bond financing, confident that you will dominate moot court and law review.
  • You confidently anticipate graduating summa cum laude and becoming the Young Don (or Donna) of a large firm.
  • All of your classmates share that same confidence.
  • Most of you are wrong.
  • All of you will graduate knowing more about legal theory or “The Rule in Shelly’s Case” than how to incorporate a small business or handle a divorce or write a brief.
  • Those few, those happy few, who land the plumb job will get sufficient training from their firms to safely permit them to be alone in a room with a client and the client’s problems.
  • But the “ninety-nine percent” will have non-dischargeable junk bonds and lack many of the experiences or marketable skills necessary to pay those back.

What the article describes is is the irrational way to pursue a legal education–borrowing money from a very persistent loan shark to purchase a lottery ticket in hopes of paying it back. Irrational exuberance.

The article is accurate so far as it goes. But it does not go nearly far enough. It gave me the impression that this is a racket from which no lemming can escape. It focuses too much on gloom and doom and acts as if law students are pawns in a game where they have no control.

But there is a different path.

If you want to be a lawyer, and a good one, nobody is forcing you into that kind of bargain. You can take responsibility for your own outcomes and professional development. If you do, your path will be roughly similar to my own path.

  • Entry to the profession is still regulated by states. Start by deciding where you want to live and work, then learn about the schools in that state.
  • Some schools reward teaching rather than publishing law review articles on legal theory and social science.Baylor, where I come from, is one of them. I’m sure it is not the only one, even if it is not one of the “best” schools.
  • At schools like Baylor, unlike the “best” schools, they teach you to do stuff–how to pass the bar, how to handle a lawsuit, how to take a deposition, how to try a case.
  • At schools like Baylor, unlike the “best” schools, you can get paid to go to school. I started on a half scholarship and by the end I was paying nothing.
  • But no matter which school you go to, don’t let school stand in the way of your education.
  • You control whether you actually learn what you need to learn.
  • Work in a legal clinic.
  • Work part time as a grunt in a small law office.
  • Work for free.
  • WORK.
  • And when you get into a firm, big small or indifferent, you control your training and development.
  • Learn at every opportunity from lawyers who know how to do stuff, whether or not you are inside a class room.

I did these things and got the best (no quotes) education I could have gotten. I “knew things” upon graduation that you can’t buy with non-dischargeable junk bonds at the “best” schools. And I didn’t have $150,000 in junk bonds to pay off.

Sure, I might not have been hired by an AmLaw 200 Firm. I might have been stuck handling people’s problems or practicing outside New York.

Like Abraham Lincoln or Leon Jaworski.

Just a thought.

But if you’re thinking about going to law school, now is as good of a time as any to start thinking for yourself.

© 2011 Andrews Kurth LLP

National Federation of Paralegal Associations, Inc. Annual Conference

The National Law Review would like to remind you of National Federation of Paralegal Associations, Inc. 2011 Annual Conference on October 13-16, 2011 in Bloomington, MN:

2011 Convention

2011 Convention postcard art Metrodome with skyline

Online registration closes Friday, Sept. 30th

Walk-up registrations accepted at the door.

Hotel Information

Hilton Minneapolis St. Paul Airport (use group code NFP)
Single or Double Occupancy:  $159.00 per night

Education Sessions

This year we will be holding 24 seminars plus the Student Workshop. There will also be a cooking class offered on Wednesday featuring Hilton Chef Eric Gideon Baker.  There is limited space for the Chef’s class and it is expected to fill up quickly so sign up early! The convention brochure (PDF) has details for all of these educational opportunities.  All sessions other than F and X are approved for 1.25 hours of CLE credit each.

Casual Up! for Breast Cancer

Casual Up! logo

Support the National Breast Cancer Foundation and Casual Up!
Friday, October 14, 2011

We all know someone or have heard of someone affected by breast cancer. One of the ways NFPA can help fight this disease is by using the privileges we have at our Annual Convention to make an impact in the fight against breast cancer. Friday, October 14th will be casual day to help raise money for breast cancer awareness and funding for mammograms for those in need. It’s simple, fun, and a great way for attendees to become involved in something that saves thousands of lives.

What do you wear on Friday, October 14th to support the National Breast Cancer Foundation and Casual Up? The dress code for donors (minimum donation $5) on this particular day will be relaxed. Be creative and inspire your friends or regions to get involved in a good cause. You can wear jeans, a pink T-Shirt or a pink ball-cap. You can even wear pink socks. The point is to be creative and help increase awareness of breast cancer.

You can also purchase Casual Up T-Shirts for $20 each…must be ordered by August 30, 2011. Shirts are designed by NFPA and available in unisex adult sizes.

Keynote Speaker

Judge Meyer

Honorable Helen Meyer
Minnesota Supreme Court Judge

Judge Helen Meyer earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work at the University of Minnesota. She earned her J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law and then worked for 20 years as a civil trial lawyer and mediator. She co-founded Pritzker & Meyer in 1987 and established Meyer and Associates in 1996.

Judge Meyer is certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the Minnesota State Bar Association, is a past board member of the Minnesota State Board of Legal Certification and the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association, and has held leadership positions with the Minnesota State Bar Association and Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers.

Judge Meyer served for three and one-half years on Governor Ventura’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission, assisting him in the appointment of over 60 trial court judges and 5 appellate level judges. She was appointed by Governor Ventura as an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in June of 2002. Judge Meyer took the oath of office on August 5, 2002.

Pro Bono Conference

The 2011 Pro Bono Conference will be held on Friday, October 14, 2011, in conjunction with NFPA’s Annual Convention in Bloomington, MN.  The Conference will include presentations by paralegals working on pro bono projects across the country, as well as information on how to start or enhance your association’s pro bono efforts. Guest speakers include Erika Applebaum who is the Executive Director of the Innocence Project of Minnesota and Eric Cooperstein, chair of the Minnesota State Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct Committee. There will be 1.25 hours of Continuing Legal Education available for Mr. Cooperstein’s presentation – Real-Life Ethical Predicaments for Pro Bono Coordinators and Volunteers.

Registration will be held in conjunction with registration for the Annual Convention. No charge for NFPA members!

Click here for the Pro Bono Conference details.

Leadership Workshops

3:45 to 5:30 PM Friday

Topics include:

  • Strategic Planning in Tough Economic Times – presented by Debra Hindin-King
  • Use of Technology for Local Associations – presented by Jessica Swedenhjelm, RP; Dana Murphy-Love, CAE; Kim Walker

National Federation of Paralegal Associations, Inc. Annual Conference

The National Law Review would like to remind you of National Federation of Paralegal Associations, Inc. 2011 Annual Conference on October 13-16, 2011 in Bloomington, MN:

2011 Convention

2011 Convention postcard art Metrodome with skyline

Online registration closes Friday, Sept. 30th

Walk-up registrations accepted at the door.

Hotel Information

Hilton Minneapolis St. Paul Airport (use group code NFP)
Single or Double Occupancy:  $159.00 per night

Education Sessions

This year we will be holding 24 seminars plus the Student Workshop. There will also be a cooking class offered on Wednesday featuring Hilton Chef Eric Gideon Baker.  There is limited space for the Chef’s class and it is expected to fill up quickly so sign up early! The convention brochure (PDF) has details for all of these educational opportunities.  All sessions other than F and X are approved for 1.25 hours of CLE credit each.

Casual Up! for Breast Cancer

Casual Up! logo

Support the National Breast Cancer Foundation and Casual Up!
Friday, October 14, 2011

We all know someone or have heard of someone affected by breast cancer. One of the ways NFPA can help fight this disease is by using the privileges we have at our Annual Convention to make an impact in the fight against breast cancer. Friday, October 14th will be casual day to help raise money for breast cancer awareness and funding for mammograms for those in need. It’s simple, fun, and a great way for attendees to become involved in something that saves thousands of lives.

What do you wear on Friday, October 14th to support the National Breast Cancer Foundation and Casual Up? The dress code for donors (minimum donation $5) on this particular day will be relaxed. Be creative and inspire your friends or regions to get involved in a good cause. You can wear jeans, a pink T-Shirt or a pink ball-cap. You can even wear pink socks. The point is to be creative and help increase awareness of breast cancer.

You can also purchase Casual Up T-Shirts for $20 each…must be ordered by August 30, 2011. Shirts are designed by NFPA and available in unisex adult sizes.

Keynote Speaker

Judge Meyer

Honorable Helen Meyer
Minnesota Supreme Court Judge

Judge Helen Meyer earned her Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work at the University of Minnesota. She earned her J.D. from William Mitchell College of Law and then worked for 20 years as a civil trial lawyer and mediator. She co-founded Pritzker & Meyer in 1987 and established Meyer and Associates in 1996.

Judge Meyer is certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the Minnesota State Bar Association, is a past board member of the Minnesota State Board of Legal Certification and the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association, and has held leadership positions with the Minnesota State Bar Association and Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers.

Judge Meyer served for three and one-half years on Governor Ventura’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission, assisting him in the appointment of over 60 trial court judges and 5 appellate level judges. She was appointed by Governor Ventura as an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in June of 2002. Judge Meyer took the oath of office on August 5, 2002.

Pro Bono Conference

The 2011 Pro Bono Conference will be held on Friday, October 14, 2011, in conjunction with NFPA’s Annual Convention in Bloomington, MN.  The Conference will include presentations by paralegals working on pro bono projects across the country, as well as information on how to start or enhance your association’s pro bono efforts. Guest speakers include Erika Applebaum who is the Executive Director of the Innocence Project of Minnesota and Eric Cooperstein, chair of the Minnesota State Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct Committee. There will be 1.25 hours of Continuing Legal Education available for Mr. Cooperstein’s presentation – Real-Life Ethical Predicaments for Pro Bono Coordinators and Volunteers.

Registration will be held in conjunction with registration for the Annual Convention. No charge for NFPA members!

Click here for the Pro Bono Conference details.

Leadership Workshops

3:45 to 5:30 PM Friday

Topics include:

  • Strategic Planning in Tough Economic Times – presented by Debra Hindin-King
  • Use of Technology for Local Associations – presented by Jessica Swedenhjelm, RP; Dana Murphy-Love, CAE; Kim Walker

Mind the Gap: Reducing the Sponsorship Gap Between Men and Women in the Workplace

Recently posted in the National Law Review an interesting  article by Brande Stellings of Catalyst Inc. regarding how a mentor differs from a sponsor and compensation that women face and the gaps in career advancement and compensation that women face

While recently moderating a panel on mentors and sponsors in the workplace, I was struck when one of the panelists, a seasoned, extremely accomplished General Counsel at a prestigious institution, mused aloud that she had had many sponsors in retrospect, but did not know there was a name for it.

This is not surprising.  Everyone knows what a mentor is.  But not everyone knows how a mentor differs from a sponsor.  And recent Catalyst researchindicates it is this critical difference that helps explain the gaps in career advancement and compensation that women face right out of the gate, as well as over time, in comparison to their male peers.  

Statistics regarding women’s advancement in the legal profession are well-known.  The National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) annual survey of women in AmLaw 200 law firms shows that women’s representation in the equity partner ranks has plateaued at the 15-16% range in the five years since NAWL began the survey.  The MCCA survey of women general counsels in the Fortune500 fares a bit better, with women clocking in just under 19%.  These numbers are not dissimilar to women in US business generally. The annual Catalyst census of women’s representation of Fortune 500 Board directors and executive officers has also stalled out in the 14-15% range.

How do we move off this plateau and get closer to gender parity in our top leadership positions?

For years, many have looked to mentoring as a solution.   Yet, for all the time and resources invested in mentoring, it has not yielded dramatic results. Indeed, Catalyst research has revealed a paradox. According to Catalyst’s landmark study of high-potential MBA graduates, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement, more women than men reported having mentors, but mentoring provided a much bigger pay-off for men than women.  For example, mentoring was a statistically significant predictor of promotion for men but not for women.   We also found that men with mentors made more than women with mentors in their first post-MBA job – to the tune of $9260.

Why is it that men reap much bigger rewards from mentoring than women in terms of promotion and compensation?

Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement found that although more women than men have mentors, women’s mentors have less clout.  In other words, men are more likely to be mentored by CEOs or other senior executives who are in a position to act on behalf of their protégés.  These powerful mentors act as sponsors.  A sponsor is someone with power and rank and significant influence on decision-making processes.  A sponsor can ensure that a high-performing woman’s work is noticed, that she is put on key projects or client engagements, and advocate for her promotion.

Take the example of a woman partner who is now a leader in her firm and in the profession.  When she first came up for partner at her firm, she and her supporters assumed she would make partner. When she did not, her supporters rallied around her, engaged the support of other partners, including, critically, a member of the partner election committee, and she made partner the following year.

In the example above, note that the most important work of the lawyer’s sponsors was done behind closed doors.  As a sponsor stated in our latest report:

A lot of decisions…are made when you’re not in the room, so you need somebody who can…advocate for you and can bring up the important things of why you should advance. You need somebody or people at that table…speaking for you….I can’t think of a person who rose without a sponsor or significant sponsors.

Catalyst research regarding differences between women and men’s mentors in the high-potential MBA population corresponds to the findings in Catalyst’sWomen of Color in US Law Firms research report.  Of all the groups of lawyers Catalyst surveyed, women of color were the most likely to say they had a mentor, and white men were the least likely to say they had a mentor.  The difference emerges in terms of access to influential mentors.  Women of color were leastlikely to feel their mentors were influential.

Sponsorship does not replace mentoring, by any means.  Mentoring is still necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own.   Good advice without the opportunity to put that advice into action will take one only so far.  As Catalyst research demonstrates, women get a lot of advice, but are not getting ahead.

To learn more about the latest research on sponsorship, and hear from women leaders in the business and legal world, join me at the Seventh Annual National Association of Women Lawyers General Counsel Institute on November 3, 2011 for a panel discussion, Beyond Mentoring: Career Advancement Strategies.  For more information on NAWL’s General Counsel Institute and to register, visit NAWL’s website.

© 2011 Catalyst Inc.