Legal News Archives - Page 11 of 16 - The National Law Forum

Ten Years Later : The legacy of September 11

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Morgan O’Rourke of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding moments, none resonates so clearly in my mind as the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Of all the “where were you when?” moments, none resonates so clearly in my mind as the attacks of September 11, 2001. I’m not a sentimental person by any means but even a decade later, I find myself getting choked up when watching or reading reports of that day.

Everyone has a story. I was working in Midtown Manhattan. From my 20th floor office window, I had a view of the towers and watched as they buckled and fell before my eyes. No one in the office said anything. There were no words.

As I made my way to the train that would take me home to Long Island, the city was in shock. The expressions of sorrow, horror, confusion and fear that I saw likely mirrored my own. As I walked, I stared in a daze at the black smoke in the distance until I realized that I had been walking in the middle of the street for blocks with no regard for traffic. But no car horns ever sounded. At the train station, the mood was the same. Even though trains were delayed, no riders complained. Who would dare when you were sharing the platform with downtown workers covered in the dust of collapsed buildings that once dominated the New York skyline?

When I finally made it home, everyone wanted to hear about what I saw, but I didn’t want to talk about it. How do you describe what it’s like to watch a skyscraper full of people fall to the ground?

Thankfully, no one I knew died. I was lucky. Loss was everywhere, however, and when I finally returned to the city after a few days, sagging shoulders and hollow, glassy-eyed stares were all too common. I had to stop reading the newspapers because the reports became too excruciating. It was all I could do to keep from crying.

It’s a cliche to say that the world irrevocably changed on September 11, but it did. In a sense, the world shrank. Terrorism was no longer something that only happened overseas. The fears of the world were our fears now. And with that came the increased need for more and better security. To a certain extent, Americans had always taken their safety for granted, but now this kind of thinking was obsolete. The attacks showed us that all risks were possible and our mitigation plans were going to have to change to reflect this reality. Ten years later, this mindset lives on every time we go to the airport or participate in a disaster preparedness drill. It is a testament to our resiliency that we now find most of these things to be annoying. Evidently, not even terrorists could stop us from complaining.

If there can be anything positive to take away from this tragedy, perhaps it is that September 11 has made us more vigilant to all the risks that are around us and, as a result, organizations and individuals alike have taken great steps to reduce these threats. We still have blindspots, as evidenced by Hurricane Katrina, for instance. But overall, the argument could be made that in some ways we may be safer than we were 10 years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the painful memories of September 11 have vanished, particularly for the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 people who died that day.

But there has been progress. At the World Trade Center site, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum will open this month on the anniversary of the attacks, while the new One World Trade Center steadily climbs to its eventual 1,776-foot height after years of political infighting and financial controversy. Hopefully, these signs of rebirth, coupled with the memory of those we lost, can inspire us to move beyond tragedy and create a new legacy for September 11 — a legacy of a better, safer world.

Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Jon Minners of Vault Inc. regarding the importance of diversity in law firms:

“Diversity is a very critical element of our society,” said Robert J. Grey, Jr.—a partner at law firm Hunton & Williams—during a keynote speech at the 6^th Annual Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Career Fair, held on Friday, July 29, 2011 in Washington, D.C.

In discussing his path to Washington and Lee University School of Law, Grey engaged the audience with a story about his first meeting with the then-dean of the law school. While his story was filled with humor, Grey conveyed an important message: rather than judging a book by its cover, the dean gave Grey the opportunity to fulfill his dream of becoming a lawyer. Grey—who formerly served as president of the American Bar Association—has been an influential voice in the legal profession through his work and his commitments to pro bono and diversity. He was nominated by President Obama to serve as a Board Member of the Legal Services Corporation—a post he now fills—and also currently serves as the Executive Director of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity.

“Recognizing talent and giving it a chance – that’s what diversity is about,” said Grey.

Grey’s speech formed a fitting backdrop for the day as hundreds of minority, female, LGBT candidates and candidates with disabilities gathered at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown D.C. to speak with recruiters and hiring partners from law firms, as well as corporate and government employers. Earlier in the week, candidates and legal employers on the West Coast participated in the career fair at the Westin Bonaventure in downtown Los Angeles.

Vault kicked off the career fair in D.C. by honoring the Top 25 Law Firms for Overall Diversity, Top 3 Law Firms for Diversity for LGBT, Top 3 Law Firms forDiversity for Women and Top 3 Law Firms for Diversity for Minorities. While recognizing that diversity is important throughout all careers, Vault.com‘s Law Firm Diversity Rankings focus on the legal profession. These rankings are the result of a survey taken by close to 16,000 law firm associates throughout the country. This year, and for the third consecutive year, Carlton Fields was ranked the No. 1 Firm for Overall Diversity.

“This represents how far we have come as a nation and an industry,” said Gary Sasso, President and CEO of Carlton Fields, during the award ceremony. “We have a very long-standing tradition of diversity. We like to say we celebrate diversity in all things at all times. It’s in our DNA.”

And it is fast becoming part of the DNA of many organizations who truly see the potential of a more diverse office makeup. During a panel discussion moderated by Vault.com law editor Mary Kate Sheridan, various professionals in the legal industry weighed in on the subject and discussed ways to make sure that diversity is not just an idea, but a part of the everyday practice.

“Diversity wasn’t really something on top of anyone’s discussion list in the 80s,” said Jackie Stone, a partner at the law firm McGuireWoods. “But it is an important discussion today.”

Thomas E. Zutic, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, stated that because of its importance today, “diversity is not about window dressing. It’s not a one time, show off to the client aspect of business.”

Stone added: “Clients are watching very closely. They want to see that diversity continues in terms of who actually gets to do the work.”

Lori L. Garrett, vice president and managing director of the southeast region of theMinority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), said that once you recruit diverse talent, the best way to keep them is to make them feel like they are part of the team. “Mentoring is one of the most important ways anyone can connect to supervisors,” she said. “They understand what it takes to reach the next level, but diverse employees should not just speak to supervisors. They need to create relationships everywhere.”

Zutic also noted that diverse candidates need to make sure they take ownership of their careers by making themselves desirable candidates. “Grades are still important,” he said, noting that students should approach law school as their jobs and perform as well there as they would in their careers. “It’s so basic, but it’s so important,” he said. “We can talk diversity, but in the end, if you are not bringing the right skill set and the right credentials, it’s not going to work.”

Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0 – Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration – Sep 21st NYC

Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0 – Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration- September 21, New York, NY presented by ARK Group :

As clients push for greater value in legal services, the role of law firm marketing is shifting from simply chronicling the firm’s success—to engaging with clients to understand and deliver value. Clients want direct access to a firm’s knowledge assets—both to assess the firm’s expertise and to obtain legal information that will address their basic legal needs—almost as a precursor to determining whether a firm can meet their higher-value needs. The world is changing and law will “normalize” to look more and more like other industries. Fortunately clients are sharing information about themselves in a variety of new and different ways. And legal marketers with insight and gumption will help their firms deliver superior value at the intersection of communication and collaboration.

Ark Group/Managing Partner’s Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0—Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration will provide a unique platform for legal marketers to discuss and better understand the value of content and collaboration in creating a “marketing culture” that can help the firm leverage its intellectual capital effectively.

Discussion topics and focal points of the forum include:

Identifying the link between Marketing and Knowledge Management to energize client development
Actionable business intelligence as a byproduct of Knowledge Management
Social CRM & Web 2.0 Collaboration: Elevating the conversation with clients and prospects
Strategic alignment and cross-functional efforts that contribute to value creation for the client
The role of knowledge in developing and retaining clients: Why fresh content will make your attorneys better business developers
Why lawyers and marketers must demonstrate—through their own engagement—that they are worthy of knowledge sharing
Positioning your CRM platform as the lifeline between the various departmental silos, enabling access and an opportunity (across the organization) to contribute to client data
The integration of law firm functions—such as Marketing, Business Development, Client Relationship Management and Knowledge Management
Assessing client relationship-building initiatives: keys to success and seeds of failure

For More Information and to Register:

This event is held on September 21st at the AMA Executive Conference Center ~ New York, NY. Please click HERE for more information.

Hitting Non-Practicin Entities Where It Hurts

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Robert A. Gutkin and Jeff C. Dodd of Andrews Kurth LLP about the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of substantial sanctions against a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that had a business model of suing numerous companies for nuisance value settlements.

The Federal Circuit Affirms an Award of Substantial Sanctions Against a NPE with a Business Model of Bringing Litigation To Extract Quick Settlements

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009 – 1308 (Fed. Cir., July 29, 2011) (Judges Lourie, Mayer and O’Malley)

In a July 29 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of substantial sanctions against a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that had a business model of suing numerous companies for nuisance value settlements. As the Court succinctly stated:

The record supports the district court’s finding that Eon-Net acted in bad faith by exploiting the high cost to defend complex litigation to extract a nuisance value settlement from Flagstar. At the time that the district court made its exceptional case finding, Eon-Net and its related entities, Millennium and Glory, had filed over 100 lawsuits against a number of diverse defendants alleging infringement of one or more patents from the Patent Portfolio. Each complaint was followed by a “demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost of litigation, a demand to which most defendants apparently have agreed.” Slip Op at 22.

We think that this is a potentially important holding because the Federal Circuit approved an exceptional case for enhanced sanctions based on the business model adopted by some NPE’s—suit followed by quick settlement at lower-than-litigation cost. As we discuss below, the Eon-Net LP case represents the latest in a string of judicial opinions providing defendants with additional ammunition against NPE’s pursuing “objectively baseless” litigation. However, the threat of sanctions may also lead NPE’s to be more difficult in their settlement demands and willingness to offer quick and early settlements.

Background

The case at issue involved three document processing systems patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,683,697 (“the ‘697 Patent”), 7,075,673 (“the ‘673 Patent”), and 7,184,162 (“the ‘162 Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”) owned by Eon-Net LP, a patent holding company formed to enforce various patents. The Patents are part of a larger patent family (“the Patent Portfolio”) originating with a parent patent application filed in 1991. Between 1996 and 2001, Millennium L.P., an Eon-Net related company, filed four lawsuits asserting various claims of the Patent Portfolio. After 2001, Eon-Net hired new outside litigation counsel, and the number of patent cases filed on behalf of Eon-Net and its related entities skyrocketed. By the time the district court in the present matter had issued sanctions against Eon-Net, more than 100 lawsuits had been filed, almost all of which resulted in early settlements or dismissals.

Eon-Net sued Flagstar Bancorp in 2005, alleging infringement of the ‘697 patent. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Flagstar, finding that Eon-Net failed to adequately investigate its claims prior to filing suit, and finding that the claims were baseless. The district court also assessed Rule 11 sanctions in the amount of $141,984.70 against Eon-Net and its attorney.

After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded both the summary judgment and Rule 11 decisions in 2007, Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 249 F. App’x 189 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Eon-Net pursued the case (even adding new claims for infringement). But after receiving an unfavorable Markman decision on claim construction, Eon-Net stipulated to noninfringement. The district court subsequently granted Flagstar’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, finding that Eon-Net pursued baseless claims; the lawsuit was brought for the improper purpose of seeking a nuisance value settlement; Eon-Net destroyed evidence; and, Eon-Net’s litigation tactics were improper. Upon invitation from the district court, Flagstar renewed its prior Rule 11 motion. The district court reinstated in full the $141,984.70 in attorneys fees and costs against Eon-Net and its attorney for violation of Rule 11. The district court also found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and awarded Flagstar $489,150.48 in attorneys fees and costs after Eon-Net continued to litigate the case after remand.

The Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction, and affirmed the judgment of noninfringement to which Eon-Net had stipulated.

In reviewing the district court’s finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285, the Federal Circuit stated:

Indeed, “[l]itigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior may suffice, by themselves, to make a case exceptional under § 285.” Absent litigation misconduct or misconduct in securing the patent, sanctions under § 285 may be imposed against the patentee only if both (1) the patentee brought the litigation in bad faith; and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless (citations omitted). Slip Op at 17.

Eon-Net failed to show that the district court’s findings regarding the accused litigation misconduct were clearly erroneous. Eon-Net also failed to overcome the finding that its infringement allegations could only be supported by baseless claim construction positions.

Certainly Eon-Net’s behavior during the course of the litigation was egregious, as the court described in detail.¹ But that alone would not have warranted our Client Alert, for the behavior giving rise to sanctions in any given case is based on the particular facts of the case. What caught our eye was the Federal Circuit’s condemnation of the business model of filing litigation to obtain a quick return through settlement:

Eon-Net’s case against Flagstar had “indicia of extortion” because it was part of Eon-Net’s history of filing nearly identical patent infringement complaints against a plethora of diverse defendants, where Eon-Net followed each filing with a demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost to defend the litigation. Slip Op at 22.

Meritless cases like this one unnecessarily require the district court to engage in excessive claim construction analysis before it is able to see the lack of merit of the patentee’s infringement allegations…. Thus, those low settlement offers—less than ten percent of the cost that Flagstar expended to defend suit—effectively ensured that Eon-Net’s baseless infringement allegations remained unexposed, allowing Eon-Net to continue to collect additional nuisance value settlements. Slip Op at 23.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and was disturbed by the ability of an NPE, such as Eon-Net, to impose high costs on a company to defend against meritless claims, while at the same time the NPE faces little downside risk other than the loss of future licensing revenue.²

Potential Implications of Eon-Net LP

We stress that the Federal Circuit did not uphold sanctions merely because a NPE sought to enforce its patent rights. Rather, the Federal Circuit was clearly bothered by the ability of an NPE to exploit the “system” to extort nuisance value settlements while facing little downside risk.

Indeed, some NPE’s count on defendants to settle based on the inescapable fact that defense of even a suit on a bad patent is expensive. That cost is built into the architecture of patent litigation. As our colleague David Griffith chronicled in“Patents by the Numbers” in Andrews Kurth’s IP and Technology Developmentsthe median cost of defense in 2009 (as reported by AILPA) was $650,000 if less than one million was at risk, $2.5 million if $1 million to 25 million at risk – $2,500,000. In addition, the median time for an infringement case to get to trial was 2.5 years (2009 data from a report by PwC). While the rate of success was 38% in the 15 most active patent dockets (1995-2009) as reported by PwC (31% for NPE’s) if the patentee survives summary judgment motions and gets to a jury, its odds improve to a 75% win rate (according to the University of Houston Law Center’s patstats). Given these statistics, the temptation for any operating company faced with a lawsuit is to settle and move on with its business if the NPE’s offer of settlement is far less than the cost of defense. NPE’s count on that temptation.

The Federal Circuit stopped short of stating that business models like that of Eon-Net provide the sole basis for finding an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285. However, the language of the decision does suggest that the business model may per se satisfy the “bad faith” element of the two part requirement for finding an exceptional case. This decision seems to be an attempt by the Court to try to level the playing field for patent litigation by increasing the downside risk for a NPE. Moreover, this case follows a string of other cases, including eBay (which held that irreparable harm would not be presumed in a preliminary injunction action even if infringement had been found) and MedImmune (which allows declaratory judgment actions to be brought under less stringent standards than the Federal Circuit had historically applied).

Just as importantly, we are seeing many other trends and techniques that defendants are starting to use to combat vexatious NPE litigation. Some defendants are finding success in obtaining venue transfers from courts thought to be more favorable to NPE litigation; others are using declaratory judgment actions; yet others are pursuing early summary judgments (by some accounts approximately 60% of patent cases are decided on summary judgment and patentee success at the summary judgment stage is only 12%).

Our firm also has had success strategically employing the re-examination to narrow or even eliminate patent claims from weak (or worse patents). Our success is consistent with some compelling statistics. Again our colleague David Griffith reported that the chances that PTO will grant an ex parte/inter partes reexamination application are greater than 90% (based on USPTO statistics as of March 2011). According to an AILPA 2009 report, the median cost of an ex parte reexamination was $10,000; for an inter-partes proceeding the median was $188,000. Moreover, according to USPTO statistics as of March 2011, in most cases claims were cancelled or modified:

ex parte reexamination (third party requested re-exam)	inter partes reexamination
All claims confirmed: 24%	All claims confirmed: 12%
All claims cancelled: 13%	All claims cancelled: 45%
Claims modified: 63%	Claims modified: 43%

The bottom line: defendants in NPE litigation should consider in the calculus of settlement not only litigation cost but also the trends and techniques favoring defendants over NPE’s, especially now that Eon-Net LP may encourage courts to shift the expenses of defense that NPE’s count on encouraging quick settlement—at least in the most abusive cases.

1. The court provided an extensive litany of Eon-Net’s sanctionable behavior throughout the course of the litigation, including: destroying relevant documents prior to the initiation of the lawsuit; flaunting the fact that as a patent enforcement company they did not believe they needed to have a document retention policy; refusing to participate in the claim construction process; lodging incomplete and misleading evidence with the court; submitting declarations contradicting deposition testimony; and, evidencing a general disdain and disrespect for the court process including statements made at a deposition by a party witnesses complaining that his deposition was “an inconvenience and a bother” and that he was “so sick of this stuff by now. I am so sick of this stuff, especially this haggling over stupidities and trivialities which is the name of the game in litigation.” Slip Op at 20.

2. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions, even though it was undisputed that Eon-Net’s counsel did examine portions of Flagstar’s website and reach a conclusion that it worked in a manner that infringed the ‘697 patent. “A reasonable pre-suit investigation, however, also requires counsel to perform an objective evaluation of the claim terms when reading those terms on the accused device.” Slip Op at 26. It was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that Eon-Net’s claim construction position “borders on the illogical” and that “[t]he specification exposes the frivolity of Eon-Net’s claim construction position.” Id.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/fda-issues-draft-guidance-510k-device-modifications-new-emphasis-potential-impact-modificati

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Sylvie A. Durham, Genna Garver and Dmitry G. Ivanov of Greenberg Traurig, LLP about a dismissed a lawsuit brought by noteholders under a New York law indenture

The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by noteholders under a New York law indenture against the co-issuer of the notes and collateral manager for breach of contract because the noteholders failed to comply with the “limitation of suits” provision in the indenture.

The court stated that the allegation of the noteholders that they did not receive proper distribution amounts on the notes constituted an “event of default” under the indenture, and as such “falls squarely within the limitation on suits clause.” However, since the noteholders did not comply with all the contractual prerequisites for bringing a lawsuit set forth in the “limitation of suits” provision of the indenture, the court did not allow them to proceed with breach of contract claims against the co-issuer and collateral manager. However, the court did not dismiss the breach of contract claims against the indenture trustee based on the same “no-action” clause, since compliance with such clause “would require [noteholders] to demand that the [indenture trustee] initiate proceedings against itself to rectify the alleged error.”

A copy of the case can be accessed here.

Affordable Attorney Marketing

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Margaret Grisdela of Legal Expert Connections about Affordable Attorney Marketing.

“I am a new attorney in the Northeast looking for a way to get clients. My practice areas are Bankruptcy and litigation. I understand the fundamentals of building a referral base and SEO and are implementing the same now, but those are long term strategies. What is a starving attorney to do in the meantime? This is where I hope you can help me.”

This is a question that came into my inbox this week, and it’s a good one. “Affordable attorney marketing” is the quest when you open a new law practice, or need to rejuvenate an existing one.

Here are a few ideas that come to mind:

1. Join a lawyer referral network. Many local bar associations offer a referral network. While you won’t get rich, you should start to get a few cases coming in. This can give you visibility in the courts and among your peers.

2. Use LinkedIn to build your network and stay connected. Use the “Share an Update” feature from your LinkedIn home page to post an interesting item every 1-2 weeks. This will keep you “top of mind” with those you know.

3. Test a small Google AdWords campaign. While this can be expensive, it is possible to set daily limits on your ad budget and focus on a small geographic area. Also, be sure to filter out terms that don’t apply to you with the negative keywords feature.

4. Start a blog. Demonstrate your knowledge in bankruptcy, litigaion, and other practice areas with an educational blog. WordPress or Blogger allow you to start a blog quickly and easily. Actually the set up is the easy part. Write at least 1-2 blog posts per week, focusing on practice area keywords and also relating stories to your geo area of coverage. Feed the blog posts through other social medial (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook) using a service like Hootsuite. Select a URL with important keywords to help get online recognition.

5. Consider BNI or similar lead groups. This can help you to meet other professionals and get the word out about your legal services.

Overall, have lots of business cards and network, network, network! Tell everyone you know what you do. Marketing to those you know is your best source of new business fast. Picking a niche for your practice can also help your marketing dollars work smartly.

Embracing Technology of Tomorrow

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Kristyn J. Sornat of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C. on what innovative technology will be available in the next five years or by the end of the decade.

Think of what new platforms have become available for marketing in the past ten years —social media sites (including YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn) and the smartphone/tablet with mobile applications and paid search tools, such as Google AdWords. It makes it hard to imagine what innovative technology will be available in the next five years, let alone by the end of the decade. Plenty of gimmicky technology with a significant “cool” factor will be developed by the year 2020; however, the more important trends to watch involve the transformation of legal marketing staples.

CRMs Will Be Easier to Use

Not only will CRMs be more useful, attorneys will be required to use them! By the year 2020, there will be no more excuses as to why attorneys cannot use their firm’s client relationship management (CRM) system to support business development efforts. The most common complaints I hear about our CRM are the following: “It’s too hard to use;” “The process of entering and maintaining my information is too cumbersome;” or “I don’t have time to learn it.” However, I’ve noticed that since the economic downturn (which necessitates working smarter and harder on business development) it has been a lot easier to get the late adopters on board. However, these users still struggle with the functionality of the product.

Over the past decade, software providers have made great strides in improving the user interface of CRM products, and they have gotten smarter by incorporating it into what attorneys do every day — check email. The leading CRM providers in the legal market now allow attorneys to access their products via their email client. Companies like CRM4Legal developed their product with this in mind while others, such as LexisNexis InterAction (with version 6.0), have finally integrated the majority of their main product functionality into Outlook. This integration will make future CRM versions much easier to use. Over the next decade, these companies will take this trend a step further. Not only will using the product be more intuitive for attorneys, but the amount of information automatically pulled into the system will be greater than ever before. In addition to looking up who at your firm “knows” a client, you’ll be able to see what the client was billed in the last year, what practice groups were utilized, where the growth opportunities are and which of your other non-internal contacts have a connection to the client. There may even be access to “personal” preferences for the client (like music and food), and best of all, attorneys will not have to enter this information into the database themselves. Firms have used portal technology to facilitate bringing information into one place, but CRMs will differ from portals by tapping into third-party resources, such as LinkedIn, Facebook and news sources, to deliver unprecedented, one-step access to information that can be useful in pitching a prospect or servicing a client.

The Demise of Email Marketing

In the year 2020, firms will have shifted their efforts from mass email marketing campaigns to other online distribution channels. The effectiveness of email marketing is already on the decline, and over the next decade email clients will become even stricter about the types of information they allow through their spam filters. Compounding this issue, users are now relying on tools like social media, RSS feeds, blogs, search engines and other resources, rather than email, to find the information they need. Firms will no longer have the luxury of knowing they can inform their clients of emerging legal issues just by sending a monthly newsletter or weekly alert. They will need to find new ways to get this information to clients and prospects, preferably through a myriad of distribution channels. To prepare, firms should concentrate on using search engine optimization (SEO) for their websites (especially on pages that tend to get a majority of visitors from email distributions) and encourage attorneys to use social media to proactively share their articles and experience in specific practice areas.

Also, targeted online advertising, such as on LinkedIn and paid search, can be used to promote practice groups and help supplement the lack of exposure for these groups through email alerts. For example, firms can advertise their healthcare practice group to LinkedIn users in the healthcare industry, who have General Counsel as a title and live within 50 miles of the geographic area to which that practice group targets. Another paid search tool that may be useful is Google Remarketing, which allows firms to target ads to users who’ve previously visited their websites. Through this technology, users that find healthcare articles on a firm’s website through Google would later see an ad for the firm’s healthcare practice as they visit other websites or check their Gmail accounts. Legal alerts will still be written, but firms will rely more heavily on searchable syndication services, such as Martindale.com’s Legal Library or The National Law Review’s searchable database. Firms would be wise to prepare themselves for the inevitable by scaling back now on the amount of information they send to contacts through mass email messages. They should start tracking article clicks, opens and other performance data and use it to eliminate contacts from mailing lists. For example, if a contact only opens healthcare alerts or clicks on healthcare articles, a firm should only send them email distributions having to do with healthcare. In the future, if a firm wants anyone to open their email messages, they will need to condition their recipients to expect relevant information in every distribution.

Design for Mobile First

Mobile devices are everywhere, and they are fast becoming people’s primary access point to the Internet and email. In the past five years, although mobile devices have been a consideration when firms design websites and email messages, it hasn’t been a necessity to design for them first. By 2020, mobile devices (including tablets) will play the role which PCs do today. It’s important that firms start preparing for that shift now by creating a pared-down mobile version of their websites if all the pages of the site are not already mobile-friendly. Firms working on a website redesign should make sure they are giving mobile devices and PCs equal consideration. For example, if there is a search section for articles, more search buckets with dropdown choices should be created so that mobile users will have to rely less on typing in search terms. If Flash is utilized to emphasize important information on the website, there should be an alternative way to get that information across to iPhone users, who cannot view Flash animation. Although designing for mobile may inhibit creativity, it is better for mobile users to be able to see and use a highly functional website than to become frustrated by (or unable to view) a beautifully designed website. Mobile apps (currently a hot topic in legal marketing circles) will also be important, just not the way we think of them today. Many firms that have taken advantage of this new technology have focused on providing information that is already accessible on their websites and in other places. In the future, successful law firm apps will have two purposes: to aid users in things they are doing every day and to provide better service to clients. For example, Latham & Watkins has already realized this trend and released a useful app that allows people to search a glossary of legal, business and financial terms. How will apps help firms better service their clients in the future? They may allow clients to view hours billed and balances due, or search a firm’s attorney experience database based on specific criteria for a new matter. As firms develop ideas for apps, they should keep usability in mind so they don’t end up with an app that clients download out of curiosity, but then fails to entice them to come back again.

Website Overhauls

Websites will be vastly different by the end of the decade —not only will they be designed with mobile devices in mind, but they also may incorporate technology that delivers a different homepage experience to each user based on past visits. For example, tailored article and event feeds might display, based on previous visits to practice group descriptions, attorney bios or the user’s past site searches. Other website areas that will be affected will be attorney bios, practice group descriptions and resource centers. Firms should begin thinking about attorney bios more like social media profiles (maybe even connecting LinkedIn profiles with attorney pages), because the lines between websites and social media will be even more blurred. Video will be as important as text in getting marketing messages across on practice group pages, and firms will use articles and descriptions of experience to show practice group expertise rather than just “say”they have it in a lengthy practice group description. In the resource area of the website, firms will add more information that is useful to visitors. CLE webcasts may be a way to drive users to the website, much as articles do today. However, the trick to adding CLE resources will be figuring out how to give people their credit and comply with ethics rules for each state. Firms need to start preparing for what is to come in marketing technology — by 2020, tactics and processes will have evolved into a connected, mobile machine. To embrace this technology of tomorrow, firms should keep an eye on trends involving CRM systems, email marketing, mobile technology and websites, while maintaining caution from being distracted by a high “cool” factor that may not deliver real value to the firm or its clients.

This article was first published in ILTA’s June 2011 issue of Peer to Peer titled “Law2020TM: One Year In” and is reprinted here with permission. For more information about ILTA, visit their website at www.iltanet.org.

ABA's Second Annual National Institute on Consumer Financial Basics 9/19-9/20, 2011

The National Law Review wants to remind you that the ABA’s Second Annual National Institute on Consumer Financial Basics is taking place on September 19 – 20, 2011 at Boston University Center for Finance Law & Policy, Boston, MA.

Description

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher. And importantly, it provides the framework and structure, to help you come to grips with the Dodd-Frank Act and the issues that Dodd-Frank and its Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will present in your practice.

In the pressure cooker of today’s financial services industry, the breadth and complexity of the issues you are facing will overwhelm any seminar on recent developments. It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Program Focus

This program will explain each of the major sources of regulation of consumer financial products in the context of the regulatory techniques and policies that are the common threads in a complex pattern, including:

Price regulation and federal preemption of state price limitations
Disclosure and transparency affecting consumer understanding and market operation
Regulating the “fairness” of financial institution conduct
Privacy and security of consumer data and ID Theft
Consumer reporting: FCRA & FACTA
Fair lending and fair access to financial services
Remedies: regulators and private plaintiffs

Registration:

Click here to view registration options for this program.

Program Times:

Day One:
Monday, September 19 – 8 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Day Two:
Tuesday, September 20 – 8 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Program Location:

The Boston University Center for Finance, Law & Policy
595 Commonwealth Avenue, 4^th Floor, Boston MA 02215-1704

NAWL's Annual Meeting and Awards Luncheon New York City July 21st

The National Law Review wants to remind you that the National Association of Women Lawyers 2011 Annual Meeting and Awards Luncheon is taking place Wednesday July 20th and Thrusday July 21st in New York City at the Waldorf Astoria.

For a Detailed Schedule Click Here

For a complete list of the 2011 Annual Awardees Click Here

Welcome Networking Night of Giving Click Here

Table Sponsorships and Reservations Click Here

Individual Ticket Pricing & Registration Click Here

Morning Session Ticket Pricing & Registration Click Here

Afternoon Session Ticket Pricing & Registration Click Here

CLE Credit:
Application for accreditation of this program is currently pending in AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, IL, MN, NJ, NY, PA, SC, TX. Speaker attendance is subject to change.

Hotel Information:
Attendees can register for guest rooms at the Waldorf=Astoria. A limited number of rooms are available for the rate of $319 per night . To reserve call 1-800-925-3673 and ask for the Women Lawyers’ Room Block.

Tag: Legal News

Ten Years Later : The legacy of September 11

Like this:

Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession

Like this:

Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0 – Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration – Sep 21st NYC

Strategic Marketing in the Modern Law Firm 2.0 – Value at the Intersection of Communication & Collaboration- September 21, New York, NY presented by ARK Group :