Tag: Legal Technology

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

Is Your Smartphone Costing You Thousands Each Month in Billable Time?

Client Logo

Back in the early 2000s, I had a friend who’d recently purchased a new-fangled flip-style mobile phone. Oohing and aahing, I asked if he loved all the things he could do with it. “I can play games on it and check the news, stock prices, sports scores, and weather” he lamented, “but I can’t figure out how to just make a phone call.”

Flash forward a decade to the ubiquity of smartphones, with their sleek design, shiny screens, and bright, colorful icons. Nearly every lawyer, young and old, has one. Newsletters and blog posts extol the smartphone’s positive impact on a lawyer’s productivity. New apps appear in the store almost daily to assist with note taking, dictation, file creation and storage, calendaring, practice management, and time tracking, to name a few. Bar associations and professional organizations host conferences, meetings, and CLEs to offer practical training on making the most of tablets, smartphones and cloud services.

Despite this, when lawyers use their smartphones for the most basic of tasks – talking on the phone – they struggle with capturing and billing that time. Are you one of them? Ask yourself the following questions:

  • Do I spend a lot of billable time on the phone?
    Surveys show that lawyers spend nearly one-quarter of their billable time on the phone, with over 70% percent of that time spent on the desktop phone in their office.
  • Do I use my mobile smartphone for work calls when I’m out of the office?
    If you do, you’re not alone. Lawyers report spending an average of 23 percent of their time working outside the office, during which time over 85 percent make work calls on smartphones.
  • Have I struggled finding good smartphone apps to use for work?
    Although a majority of lawyers responding to the 2012 ABA Legal Technology Survey use their own personal devices for work (making them part of the growing Bring Your Own Device, or BYOD, movement), two-thirds have never downloaded a general business app, while even fewer have tried a legal-specific smartphone app.
  • Have I ever forgotten or been unable to bill my time spent on the phone?
    You’re human and you’re busy, so you’re probably like most lawyers, who estimate that they lose a conservative five billable hours related to phone calls each month. Some of these hours are for forgotten, undocumented, or untimed calls. Others come from time spent reconstructing the call history for billing purposes, an arduous and inaccurate task.

If you answered yes to these questions, then that ubiquitous productivity tool – your smartphone – may make you more productive but still not help your bottom line. At an average hourly billable rate of $250, an office of four lawyers stands to lose nearly $5,000 every month, just on billable phone time.

With numbers like these, it’s never been more important that attorneys have access to timekeeping solutions that make it simple to track billable hours while on the phone. There are many time-trackers on the market, but common complaints about them include:

  • They’re too complex and full of bells and whistles that I will never use” (just like my friend with the fancy new flip phone).
  • “They require the use of a timer, which I often forget to start and stop.”
  • “They don’t capture time on the desktop phone, where I make the majority of my calls.”
  • “There’s too much manual entry required to create detailed records. Postponing the entry does nothing to alleviate the chore of billing reconciliation at the end of the month.”

When evaluating the options, consider these requirements:

  • Choose a solution that’s so simple, compliance is a snap.
    Look for a solution that is compatible with both mobile and desktop phones. From here, you can easily capture the call details and duration as it happens, no matter which device you’re using. In seconds, you can ensure that every minute spent on the phone is billed.
  • Simplify the billing reconciliation process with 24×7 access to the captured call data.
    A worthwhile solution will reclaim the hours previously spent digging through voicemail, paper phone messages, calendar appointments, and mobile call logs to reconstruct billable phone time. The internet is the perfect platform for the billing staff to gain access to captured call data from any browser whenever and wherever needed.
  • Impress your clients with descriptive, auditable billing records.
    Capturing comprehensive call details as they happen will improve your billing accuracy and show your clients exactly what they’re paying for. The more detail you can provide, the more they will trust your records, and the more likely you will be to collect on each invoice. Greater detail will help speed up your billing reconciliation time as well.
  • Minimize training time and increase usage by ensuring that the app is virtually identical on any device.
    If the process of capturing call information is the same on both office and mobile phones, it will quickly become a habit, no matter which device is in use. Consolidating the records generated from every device in a single, intuitive place online will help billing staff easily export and create line items for invoices.

While many time-trackers offer bells and whistles that sound great on paper, their complexity leaves many lawyers feeling like my friend who couldn’t figure out how to make a call on his new flip phone. Focus on simplicity to find a telephone timekeeping solution that you’ll actually use. An app that works automatically on any device will eliminate lost revenue for billable phone time, provide an audit trail for your clients, and allow your lawyers to be both productive and profitable.

Article By:

 of

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.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

Prevailing Antitrust Defendants Recover $367,000 in e-Discovery Costs

Posted yesterday at the National Law Review by Eric S. O’Connor  of  Sheppard Mullin – a recent case out of the Western District of PA – Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., where prevailing antitrust defendants were awarded  by the court $367,000 in e-discovery costs incurred by their vendor. 

Recently, prevailing antitrust defendants were awarded $367,000 in e-discovery costs incurred by their vendor. See Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011). While the Court labeled the facts as “unique” and that its holding was limited, the Court’s opinion is very thorough and the facts may be familiar to many antitrust defendants.

In today’s age where the costs of e-discovery can run several hundred thousand dollars or more and outside vendors are routinely hired to help, this holding can be used as a shield and a sword. During discovery, a party can alert the other side that aggressive discovery requests and a demand for many electronic search terms is a major factor in awarding costs of e-discovery – if the responding party prevails. And, if a party should prevail, the potential for an award of the costs of e-discovery can be an additional bonus and/or leverage for any post-verdict resolution without appeal.

The facts are simple. Plaintiff Specialty Tires America (STA) brought antitrust claims against Hoosier Racing, its tire supplier competitor, and Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. d/b/a World Racing Group, a motorsports racing sanctioning body. STA claimed that a so-called “single tire rule” by various sanctioning bodies like Dirt Motor Sports, as well as the related exclusive supply contracts between some of these sanctioning bodies and Hoosier violated Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and caused STA in excess of $80 million in damages. See Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F. 3d 57, 62-73 (3d Cir. 2010). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants finding that STA had failed to demonstrate antitrust injury, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. at 83-84.

The normal rule that “costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)) creates a “strong presumption” that all costs authorized for payment will be awarded to the prevailing party, so long as the costs are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the general taxation-of-costs statute. As prevailing parties, the defendants each filed a Bill of Costs in which the majority of amounts requested were e-discovery costs. Plaintiff objected arguing that e-discovery costs were not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).


Section 1920(4) allows recovery of “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies … necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). There are two statutory interpretation questions that have divided Courts. First, costs of electronic scanning of documents can be recoverable as “necessary” or unrecoverable as a mere “convenience.”

The other issue takes a few different forms, but focuses on whether the terms “exemplification” and “copying”, which originated in the world of paper, should be limited to physical preparation or rather updated to take into account changing technology and e-discovery. The Court discussed a litany of these cases. Some courts that have applied § 1920(4) to today’s e-discovery demands, have limited exemplification and copying to just the costs for scanning of documents, which is considered merely reproducing paper documents in electronic form, and refused to extend the statute to cover processing records, extracting data, and converting files. Courts are also divided on whether extracting, searching, and storing work by outside vendors are unrecoverable paralegal-like tasks, or whether such costs are recoverable because outside vendors provide highly technical and necessary services in the electronic age and which are not the type of services that paralegals are trained for or are capable of providing.

In this case, because the Court and the parties anticipated that discovery would be in the form of electronically stored information and because plaintiff aggressively pursued e-discovery (e.g., directing 273 discovery requests to one defendant and imposing over 442 search terms), defendants’ use of e-discovery vendors to retrieve and prepare e-discovery documents for production was recoverable as an indispensable part of the discovery process. The Court also found that the vendor’s fees were reasonable, especially because the costs were incurred by defendants when they did not know if they would prevail at trial.

The Court also denied the plaintiff’s request for a Special Master to assess the reasonableness of e-discovery costs incurred by the prevailing defendants as an unnecessary cost and delay.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. 

NLRB A 'Twitter Over Employers' Social Media Policies

Recently posed at the National Law Review by Laura M. Lawless Robertson of Greenberg Traurig, LLP – updates of the National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB’s) recent recent scrutiny of  employer’s social media policies for compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):  

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) recent scrutiny of social media policies for compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has alarmed many employers – including non-union employers. Two recent developments in this area add fuel to an already heated debate over employer actions based on employees’ use of social media.

The first case is Lee Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Arizona Daily Star. The Daily Star newspaper did not have a social media policy, but urged its reporters to use social media, including Twitter, to disseminate information to the public. After deciding that its crime/public safety reporter had gone too far with his unprofessional, sexually inappropriate, and pro-violence tweets, including one in which he called the reporters on a local television station “stupid,” the newspaper’s managing editor admonished him to refrain from engaging in any further social media postings. The reporter was later terminated, after which he filed a charge with the NLRB, contending that his termination violated the NLRA.

The NLRB General Counsel’s Office acknowledged that, “in warning the Charging Party to cease his inappropriate tweets, and then discharging him for continuing to post inappropriate tweets, the Employer made statements that could be interpreted to prohibit activities protected by Section 7 [of the NLRA],” but nevertheless concluded that the newspaper terminated him for violating workplace policies and disregarding its repeated warnings to cease his unprofessional tweets. The General Counsel’s Office concluded that “it would not effectuate the purposes and policies of the [NLRA] to issue a complaint where the statements were directed to a single employee who was lawfully discharged,” and recommended dismissal of the charge.

If employers presumed, based on the Arizona Daily Star outcome, that the NLRB had backed down from its aggressive stance regarding employers’ social media policies, they would be mistaken. On May 9, 2011, the NLRB issued a complaint alleging that Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit social service agency, unlawfully discharged five employees who complained about their working conditions on their Facebook accounts. After one employee questioned how hard the staff worked to help the agency’s clients, several employees chimed in on her Facebook status, defending their job performance and blaming workload and staffing issues for any unmet client needs. After learning about the posts, Hispanics United fired all of the employees who participated in the flame war. The NLRB issued a complaint, alleging that the Facebook dialogue was protected concerted activity under the NLRA – a discussion among coworkers about the terms and conditions of their employment and undertaken for mutual aid and protection. The case is set for a hearing before an administrative law judge on June 22, 2011, absent settlement (which seems to be the trend in these sort of cases).

These two cases illustrate that employers may discipline employees for social media misconduct, such as disclosing confidential and proprietary information, engaging in “textual harassment,” or libeling competitors, but must scrupulously avoid instituting or enforcing social media policies that impinge on employees’ rights to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment, e.g., wages and working conditions. One thing is for certain…we haven’t heard the last of this topic from the NLRB.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

The Six Biggest Mistakes Law Firms Make When They Upgrade Technology

Recent featured blogger at the National Law Review –  Ben M. Schorr of Roland Schorr & Tower – provides some great insights into common mistakes made by lawfirms when upgrading technology.   

As an information services professional I’ve spent the past two decades helping law firms with their technology. Over that time I’ve come to identify 6 major mistakes that they tend to make when they install or upgrade new technology.

#1. They Don’t Have A Goal.

It’s important before you even consider upgrading your technology to ask this question: What problem are we solving? Too many firms forget what business they’re in and run around installing fancy new systems that don’t address any specific needs. Sometimes they’re talked into it by vendors or consultants; sometimes it’s the brainchild of a computer-savvy associate or staff member. Far too often the result is a lot of money spent for new systems and no increase in productivity. If you don’t have a goal, you’ll never reach it. Back home in Indiana folks say “If you don’t know where you’re going, pull over and stop ’cause you’re there.” This is rarely truer than in technology where you are constantly bombarded with possible routes – in the form of cool toys – but unless you have a destination it makes no sense to even start the car.

How can I avoid making this mistake?

Start by identifying the problem. Write it down. Write down the proposed answers. Review the problem (and proposed solutions) with the users and with your information services people (or consultants). Once you have a clearly defined (and agreed upon) problem and solution, set a timetable. Make it realistic. This can be one of the hardest parts of this step because you don’t want to rush things and end up with a hastily implemented, and poorly constructed, solution.  But at the same time you can’t drag your feet too much or the technology will change right out from under you and you may find that your preferred solution has been discontinued in favor of a new and improved (read that “more sophisticated and expensive”) solution.

#2. They Don’t Talk To Their Users.

Too many firms get a great idea for a new technology, throw the switch and roll it out to their users without even much warning to the users that it’s going to happen. As a result there is confusion, resentment, fear and a LOSS of productivity.

How can I avoid making this mistake?

Don’t just impose change from the top down or you’ll end up with users who resent and are intimidated by the new technology. Ask them what they need. Ask how they will use it. Have them compose a “wish list”. Observe their procedures. You’ll find that the users will accept the new systems much faster and easier if they have some input into its selection/creation. If you’re in a large firm consider putting together a users group of various staff members. Try to include at least two members of each category (partners, associates, paralegals, support staff, accounting, etc.) and don’t just pick the ones who know a lot about technology. Oftentimes the most valuable input will come from that partner or secretary who is awkward with the computers. Have them meet each month and ask them to talk about how the technology is (or isn’t) working for them. Have them suggest improvements. It’s important that you listen to their input and let you know that you value their contributions.

#3. They Don’t Do Their Homework (Or Pay The Smartest Kid In Class To Do It For Them).

I often see firms that buy a solution they don’t understand. What is it? How does it work? Why do we need this again? Many times they see a flashy ad or get a presentation from a salesman and sign the papers in the excitement of the moment.   They don’t clearly understand the problem or how this solution solves it.

How can I avoid making this mistake?

Do your research. Visit the Internet sites for the products you’re interested in. Visit the sites of some of their competitors. Read the trade magazines and try to keep a handle on what’s happening in the industry. Talk to the users (see #2) and vendors. Attend demos and seminars. You’ll probably have to start learning about the technology at least 3-4 months before you plan to upgrade or the hill will be too steep to climb. If you can’t (or don’t want to) do the research yourself, find a consultant that you feel comfortable with. Get recommendations from other firms in your area of people they’ve enjoyed working with. Ideally the consultant should be familiar with the solutions you’re interested in, but shouldn’t sell those solutions themselves (that way he has no financial interest in selling you something you don’t need). Never hire a consultant that you don’t trust completely. Your consultant should be able to explain the basics of the relevant technology to you in language you can understand and, most importantly, should be able to clearly explain the expected benefits to you.

#4. They Don’t Document Everything.

At one firm I worked for, I discovered that they had an entire floor of the building wired for network cabling but didn’t have a map or any other documentation about the cabling. All they had was plugs in the walls and loose wires in the computer closet. As you can imagine troubleshooting cabling problems became quite an adventure. It’s far too common to ask what kind of hardware is in use and have firms not know for sure.   Documentation failures go well beyond cabling – system configurations, numbers of licenses, software in use…oftentimes goes unrecorded and when it’s time to troubleshoot or upgrade there is not enough information available to make good decisions or accurately foresee potential problems.

How can I avoid making this mistake?

The solution is easy, but can be tedious. Insist upon complete documentation from your vendors. Maps of cabling. Labels on everything. When you deploy new equipment keep a file that indicates serial numbers and specifications (RAM, hard drive, processor, operating system, etc.). Often you can get that information from the invoice you received for the machine. Keep a list of what software you have in use, how many licenses you own, and what versions you’re running.  Document the date that the system or application was deployed and from where it was purchased. This documentation can make troubleshooting MUCH easier down the road.

#5. They Skimp On Training.

This is a VERY common error. It never fails to surprise me when I see a firm that will spend $50,000 on computer equipment but won’t spend $500 to train the users.

How can I avoid making this mistake?

The most important part of your system is the user – upgrade them! Would you fly an airline that advertises that “All of our pilots have driver’s licenses and we have a copy of “Big Planes for Dummies” in every cockpit!” I doubt it…yet many of you are flying your firms with crucial personnel who haven’t had even 20 minutes worth of training in the products that you depend upon to get your work done. Even long after the installation training can be productive. You may think that your assistant knows the ins & outs of your word processor, but what if a 2-hour class could teach him or her new tricks or secrets to get things done faster? If these new tricks saved them just 12 minutes a day that would be an entire HOUR each week that they’d gain. In a month they’d have recouped all of the time invested in the class, twice over. This goes for executives as well, by the way…

Consider bringing in an outside trainer (or even an inside resource) to do a 1-hour lunchtime training in your conference room.  Try producing an internal e-newsletter with tips and tricks for the products you use (ProLaw, Word, Excel, WordPerfect or whatever).  Encourage your users to have interest and discussions about technology.

Consider creating a “Trick of the Week” award where the person in your firm who submits the best new trick or tip for using your systems wins some prize – maybe a prime parking space in your lot for the week, an extra-long lunch break on Friday or a box of chocolates.

#6. They Don’t Follow-Up.

This comes back to talking to your users. If you don’t look out the window how do you know if you reached your destination? Don’t find out 6 months later that the staff hates the new software or that the new printers don’t work properly.

How can I avoid making this mistake?

After the upgrade is in place you need to contact your users and ask them if they’re happy. Try to be there when they first use it to get their initial reaction. Check in with them again the following day. Check in again the next week…and again weekly or bi-weekly for the next month or two. Look back at your written “goal” from #1 and see if you’ve solved your problem. If you didn’t, figure out why and make adjustments. Users will often forgive you if you find and fix problems quickly they often won’t forgive you if you give them a “solution” that doesn’t work and then leave them to deal with it on their own. Many times you’ll find that the problems are really “pilot error” and can be corrected with more (or better) training. Sometimes the problems will be equipment or software problems and finding them in the first days or weeks can mean the difference between getting your vendor to replace the inadequate product with something more suitable and getting stuck with it for the long term.

Preventing these mistakes takes a little effort but it’s not expensive. What’s expensive is making these mistakes and ending up with a system that you paid considerable money for and that leaves your users frustrated and your productivity down.

Copyright ©2011 Ronald Schorr

Preparing for the Launch of New Generic Top Level Domain Names (gTLDs) in 2011

Recently posted at the National Law Review  by Monica Riva Talley of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. – a great overview of the upcoming changes to domain names by ICANN:

On June 16, 2008 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers announced that it would allow an unlimited number of new gTLDs (generic top level domain names) to populate the web.  Expanding on the current limited offerings of gTDLs (such as .com, .net, .org., .info, and .mobi), these new gTLDs will be comprised of virtually any possible term — including brand names (“.BRAND”), generic names (e.g., .CAR, .HOME), and city names — opening-up the web to an infinite number of naming possibilities.

Although the process has been delayed several times, the current belief is that ICANN will begin accepting applications for these new gTLDs by July or August 2011.  However, it is likely that the start of the application process will be delayed further, as various trademark organizations have raised concerns about the award and dispute resolution process. 

Why Expanding The Number of gTLDs is a Good Idea

ICANN has stated that its aim in creating more gTLDs is to enhance competition and promote choice and innovation.  Of particular note to companies, not only will it now be possible for  them to register brand names as gTLDs, they  will also have control of second level domain names issued under potential new gTLDs, and can sell these second level domain names to third parties.  Thus, this new system could allow not only for enhanced brand promotion and visibility, but also for secure corporate and client networks (used for purposes such as facilitating the provision of services to clients via a dedicated portal) – which could prevent fraudulent practices such as offers of counterfeit products via the Internet.

And Why it Might Not Be

On the down side, increasing the number of top level domain names means more opportunities for cybersquatters, those who register, traffic in, or use domain names with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.  It will  also significantly increase defensive registration and dispute costs.  Many in the trademark community are concerned that this dramatic increase in the number of gTLDs will inevitably cause a considerable burden on trademark owners who will need to carefully consider online strategies.  In particular, not every country makes use of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), making it difficult to address abuses that originate abroad.  Moreover, while the variation of domain name dispute mechanisms available worldwide is considered complex today, in a world with only a handful of gTLDs, it will only get more complex as the domain name platform increases exponentially.  Finally, the high cost of obtaining one of these new domains is thought to exclude many worthwhile non-profit organizations and developing countries, for whom such domains might prove a useful resource.

Cost to Apply for a New gTL

As alluded-to above, the cost to apply for one of these new gTLDs is steep — $185,000, a price that ensures only well-financed organizations operate the domains, and involves a lengthy application process and evaluation. 

Will Someone Else be Able to Register My Trademark as a gTLD?

After the application period closes, ICANN will verify all of the applications for completeness and will then release on its website the list of strings, applicant names, and other application data.  ICANN plans to then implement an objection-based process that will enable trademark owners to demonstrate that a proposed gTLD would infringe their legal rights. In the event that the legal rights objection is successful, the application will not proceed.

At this time, ICANN is not contemplating a system that would notify a trademark owner if a third-party applies to register a trademark that does not belong to them.  ICANN is conducting global public outreach to educate the community on what their responsibilities are, as well as what the formal objection mechanism and timeline is, before the program launches.  ICANN will publish the list of all applications received after the application submission period closes, and will continue to publicize the objection process and deadlines. 

For More Information . ..

General information about ICANN can be found at its website.  A discussion from ICANN regarding the new gTLD program (the dates on this document are no longer correct, because of delays) can be found here. Parties interested in providing input or voicing concerns regarding the plan or the process can attend the next ICANN meeting, scheduled to take place in San Francisco, March 13 – 18, 2011.

© 2011 Sterne Kessler

Social Media Posts by a Third Party: Florida Bar Rules

From Business of Law Guest Blogger at the National Law Review Margaret Grisdela of  Legal Expert Connections – a great quick  overview of those tricky Florida State Bar rules concerning social media:  

Ethics in Blogging was the topic of a presentation I made this morning at the Broward County Bar Association, with co-presenter Alan Anthony Pascal, Esq. of The Florida Bar.

Posts to a lawyer’s social media page by a third party was one of the topics we covered. Below please find some highlights from the Florida Bar Guidelines for Networking Sites, which applies to Florida attorneys as well as lawyers from other states who are soliciting business in Florida.

Third Party Posts

“Although lawyers are responsible for all content that the lawyers post on their own pages, a lawyer is not responsible for information posted on the lawyer’s page by a third party, unless the lawyer prompts the third party to post the information or the lawyer uses the third party to circumvent the lawyer advertising rules.”

Removal of Non-Compliant Information from a Lawyer’s Page

“If a third party posts information on the lawyer’s page about the lawyer’s services that does not comply with the lawyer advertising rules, the lawyer must remove the information from the lawyer’s page.”

Request for Removal of Info on a Page Not Controlled by the Attorney

“If the lawyer becomes aware that a third party has posted information about the lawyer’s services on a page not controlled by the lawyer that does not comply with the lawyer advertising rules, the lawyer should ask the third party to remove the non-complying information. In such a situation, however, the lawyer is not responsible if the third party does not comply with the lawyer’s request.”

Lawyer Social Media Pages are Exempt from Filing

“Finally, the Standing Committee on Advertising is of the opinion that a page on a networking site is sufficiently similar to a website of a lawyer or law firm that pages on networking sites are not required to be filed with The Florida Bar for review.”

Page references in these guidelines can include a LinkedIn profile, a blog comment, Twitter profile, Facebook page, etc.

Read the Florida Bar Guidelines for Networking Sites here.

© Legal Expert Connections, Inc.

 

 

Got Klout? Measuring Your Law Firm Social Media Efforts

Many thanks to our Business of Law guest blogger Kevin Aschenbrenner of Jaffe PR who provided some truly useful information on how law firms can gauge the effectiveness of their social media programs.  Read on….

One of the most frustrating aspects of actively working on law firm social mediaefforts is the feeling that you’re in a vacuum. You often can’t tell if anyone is listening. And, posting, “Do you think I’m awesome?” just won’t cut it.

This is why influence is such a hot topic in social media. Essentially, the more influence you have online the more likely it is that people will not only pay attention to you but also act on what you post. I talk more about influence in this blog post. Go ahead and read it. I’ll wait.

Welcome back. So, influence. It’s a good concept, but it’s a bit of a vicious circle – you need influence to have an impact online but you need to know what your influence is to use it to assess your law firm social media efforts. It makes my head hurt, too.

Or, it used to. Now there’s an online tool that will measure your influence. It’s called Klout (www.klout.com) and it ranks your online influence with a number out of 100. For an example, here’s a link to my Klout Score:http://klout.com/kevinaschenbren. As Klout Scores go, I’m not up there with Brian Solis (85) or Chris Brogan (84), but it’s respectable and, I’m within kissing distance of 50, which is the Klout Score required by a few hotels in Las Vegas in order to qualify for free upgrades (http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=146189).

But I digress. I’ve found Klout very helpful as a sort of diagnostic tool for my social media efforts. It’s not perfect and I quibble with some of the other information you get in your report, but it’s not a bad guidepost.

To find out your Klout Score:

  • Go to www.klout.com and type in your Twitter handle.
     
  • To see your entire report, I suggest creating an account. It’s free and gives you access to additional data and it will also ensure your score is refreshed regularly.
     
  • You can increase the accuracy of your Klout Score by linking your Facebook and LinkedIn accounts.
     
  • Check back periodically to see how your Klout Score is doing.

And, if you really want to have fun with your online influence, check out Empire Avenue (www.empireavenue.com). I’ll leave you to explore that one on your own.

© Copyright 2008-2011, Jaffe PR

One of the most frustrating aspects of actively working on law firm social mediaefforts is the feeling that you’re in a vacuum. You often can’t tell if anyone is listening. And, posting, “Do you think I’m awesome?” just won’t cut it.

This is why influence is such a hot topic in social media. Essentially, the more influence you have online the more likely it is that people will not only pay attention to you but also act on what you post. I talk more about influence in this blog post. Go ahead and read it. I’ll wait.

Welcome back. So, influence. It’s a good concept, but it’s a bit of a vicious circle – you need influence to have an impact online but you need to know what your influence is to use it to assess your law firm social media efforts. It makes my head hurt, too.

Or, it used to. Now there’s an online tool that will measure your influence. It’s called Klout (www.klout.com) and it ranks your online influence with a number out of 100. For an example, here’s a link to my Klout Score:http://klout.com/kevinaschenbren. As Klout Scores go, I’m not up there with Brian Solis (85) or Chris Brogan (84), but it’s respectable and, I’m within kissing distance of 50, which is the Klout Score required by a few hotels in Las Vegas in order to qualify for free upgrades (http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=146189).

But I digress. I’ve found Klout very helpful as a sort of diagnostic tool for my social media efforts. It’s not perfect and I quibble with some of the other information you get in your report, but it’s not a bad guidepost.

To find out your Klout Score:

  • Go to www.klout.com and type in your Twitter handle.
     
  • To see your entire report, I suggest creating an account. It’s free and gives you access to additional data and it will also ensure your score is refreshed regularly.
     
  • You can increase the accuracy of your Klout Score by linking your Facebook and LinkedIn accounts.
     
  • Check back periodically to see how your Klout Score is doing.

And, if you really want to have fun with your online influence, check out Empire Avenue (www.empireavenue.com). I’ll leave you to explore that one on your own.

© Copyright 2008-2011, Jaffe PR

Want your website to get noticed? Break the rules!

From Moiré Marketing Partners, the National Law Review’s Business of Law Guest Bloggers this week, Sean Leenaerts provides some interesting insights on different things to consider for legal websites:

Every time I hear someone in marketing or advertising talk about “best practices” for website design, I roll my eyes.

Now granted, many of the do’s and don’t’s of web design have merit. They’ve been tried, tested and proven to work. And I believe that certain best practices such as ease of navigation, making good use of white space, ensuring that site text is easy to read and building for fast loading times are sarcosanct. But I also believe that best practices are helping to hold marketers back.

The problem I have with best practices is that while they are there to guide everyone in website design, they also cause everyone to look pretty much the same. Adherence to best practices tends to create a formulaic, templated approach to website design. The logos, colors and images on various sites may differ, but they mirror one another in their composition–i.e. logos in the upper left, navigation at the top, copy centered or aligned to the right, vertical scrolling, etc. They’re design conventions that definitely work, but make for few standout websites.

“Okay,” I can hear you saying, “that’s all well and good. But I’m a law/accounting/financial services firm. My site has to be functional, and it should stand out because of my message, not because it looks cool and creative.” All true. But in order to read your message, your site has to be noticed first. While I’m not advocating that professional services firms push the boundaries of convention just for the sake of being different, there are a few rules you can break (or at least bend) in order to make your site stand out from the competition.

Go Horizontal

While usability studies show that most website users prefer to scroll and read text vertically, most of those studies were conducted years ago prior to the ubiquitousness of touch screens, widescreen monitors and many other developments we now take for granted. For touch screens like those on the iPhone/iPad, horizontal navigation is the preferred form of navigation because it’s more ergonomic to move your hand from side to side than up and down. In the case of monitors, screen resolutions have gotten better. We used to design for 1024 x 768 screen resolutions. Now, many screens have resolutions that are 1440 x 900 and they’re much wider, which means that viewers get more real-estate horizontally than they do vertically.

I also think–and this is strictly my opinion–that our brains are better wired to consume information horizontally. Maybe it’s because we’ve been doing it that way offine for so many years. Books are read with a horizontal flip, galleries place paintings and photographs alongside each other, and most of our world is organized horizontally rather than vertically–i.e. our houses are next to each other and we move through the world in a mostly linear fashion.

Chart a New Course

Navigation buttons and links should always be easy to find, but do they always need to be at the top or along the sides of the page? And do they always have to be “buttons”? Unconventional navigation–as long as its easy to find and figure out–has the ability to engage the audience and keep them on your site. A good example of navigation that breaks with traditional design and works well is from the web design firm Hello Goodlooking in Helsinki, Finland:

Here, the navigation buttons are centered on the page and move to the sides when you click on them and open a window. They’re easy to see, easy to understand and make the site simply downright fun to navigate.

Shift Your Perspective

Right-aligned page content is often not seen in a world of centered or left-aligned web pages.  Whenever I come across a page that is aligned uniquely, I have to pause and take a second look. It’s a simple (and safer) way to look unique without having to deviate from other conventions of website design.

Be Bold

Using reversed type, multiple typefaces and unique fonts is generally frowned upon in website design. Yet sites that do all or some of these things tend to grab a lot of attention–and not necessarily for all the wrong reasons. And you don’t have to be a kooky design firm to do it. Morrison Foerster is a law firm whose website is truly unique within the industry. No images, just type–and mostly reversed type, at that. Big, bold headlines. A conversational tone. And don’t even get me started on their careers site, which has to be one of the best in any industry. Most law firms make claims to be different and innovative. MoFo’s website backs it up.

Sometimes breaking with best practices is worthwhile. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the only way to truly stand out. Striving for innovative design and a better way of web browsing has brought about some great changes in the last decade. Being different to be better is a perfect example of when the rules of best practices should be broken.

Copyright © 2011 Moiré Marketing Partners, Inc. All rights reserved.