Social Media Archives - Page 7 of 19 - The National Law Forum

Gone, But Not Forgotten – A Deactivated Facebook Account Can Be Discoverable

Courts have long grappled with social media in a legal context. The struggle to understand social media issues — and to craft coherent applicable legal policy — renders Crowe v. Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC amusing to show how the less-than-honest actions of an employee-plaintiff can make these difficult legal questions fairly simple for a court.

In May of 2014, Brannon Crowe sued Marquette Transportation, his employer, for an injury to his knee that he claimed to have suffered in an accident at work. Interestingly, however, Crowe allegedly sent a co-worker a message on Facebook which stated that he received the injury during a fishing trip, and not at work. When confronted with the message to the co-worker by opposing counsel during a deposition, Crowe stated the account the message was sent from was Brannon “CroWe,” and it couldn’t be his because he didn’t have a capital “W” in his last name.

At the deposition, Crowe also said that he no longer had an account after the previous October, and his response to a discovery request for the contents of his account was that, in addition to such a request being vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, he didn’t presently have a Facebook account. The court ordered Crowe to provide the contents of his account for the court to review in camera to determine if the contents of the account should indeed be discoverable. Later, however, Crowe’s counsel submitted to the court 4,000 pages of Facebook account information from the Brannon CroWe account, with an interesting wrinkle – the records of the account indicate that the account was deactivated – not deleted – four days after the discovery request for the account’s contents.

The court was understandably unamused, and suggested that the in camera review of 4,000 pages of Facebook account information would be a waste of time since this account information should have been produced earlier in response to Marquette’s request. The contradiction with Crowe’s testimony alone was enough to render the account information discoverable. Rather than review the documents fully in camera, the court ordered Crowe to turn over every single page of the Facebook account history to Marquette, as well as any login information for any Facebook accounts Crowe had at that time or in the past, and Crowe was ordered to consent to any authorization for Marquette to subpoena his Facebook information.

In effect, Crowe made the contents of the account discoverable through his attempts to keep it from being discovered, and that made the court’s decision on the issue clear. Luckily for Crowe, he only deactivated the account rather than deleted it, since he had a duty to preserve evidence in litigation. Spoliation of evidence is the negligent or intentional destruction or alteration of evidence that may be required in a lawsuit. Even though the evidence doesn’t look good for Crowe in the present case, had he deleted the account entirely, he would have been subject to the spoliation inference, which is a negative evidentiary inference in favor of the opposing party. A showing that a party has destroyed relevant evidence can lead to punitive sanctions against him as well.

Social media provides an abundant resource of data about a litigant, and both employers and employees alike should be a wary of even private messages sent to others in that context. When employees raise issues against employers in a legal setting, their interactions with coworkers on social media may be discoverable. This case also raises questions about how far those involved in legal proceedings can or should go to protect themselves with regard to their social media accounts. As courts become increasingly comfortable with the legal implications of social media and technology, issues such as evidence spoliation through deactivation and deletion will become more and more prominent as a trap for the unwary.

ARTICLE BY Brittany Blackburn Koch of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Three Steps to Leverage LinkedIn for Your Law Firm

I have yet to find an attorney who could not benefit from having their profile on LinkedIn. It’s the number one online network for white-collar professionals.

Whether you want to connect with non-competing attorneys, non-legal professionals, or potential clients, the demographics on LinkedIn speak for themselves:

The average age range of a LinkedIn user is 30 to 49
44% of LinkedIn users report an annual income of more than $100,000
50% of members have a college degree
28% have a graduate degree

LinkedIn members are highly educated and affluent. Is this a demographic you would like to reach? For most attorneys, the answer is obvious.

The first step to using LinkedIn is to create a comprehensive profile. Use your entire bio in your profile and be sure to include your keywords in it. In other words, use the exact keywords that you believe prospects or potential referral sources would use to find an attorney with your skill sets.

For example, if you are a business attorney in Omaha it might sound like this:

“John Doe is a Omaha business attorney who works with small business owners and CEOs of mid-sized companies to create comprehensive operating agreements, buy-sell agreements and employment agreements. His Omaha business clients appreciate the fact that John is an attorney who has a strong business background, having owned and operated two different companies, including a high tech company with 25 employees.”

Next, go to the See Who You Already Know on LinkedIn page and import your email contact list. This makes it super simple to connect with people you already know who are also on LinkedIn. In addition, based on your contacts, LinkedIn will suggest relevant contacts for you to connect with on the site.

Then search LinkedIn Groups and join those where your clients and prospects are. Create content — blog posts, free reports, articles, etc. — that will attract their attention. You can also start your own group and invite contacts to join.

The key to utilizing LinkedIn effectively is to be involved and be consistent. You need to commit to investing at least 30-45 minutes every week to log in, post an update or a link to your blog, reach out to your contacts, answer any questions that are sent to you, and make yourself visible. Simply setting up a profile on LinkedIn will not lead to more referrals any more than a having a business card will automatically get you new business.

ARTICLE BY Stephen Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute

LinkedIn For Lawyers: The Publishing Tool

There is no question that LinkedIn is a powerful networking tool that can potentially turn online connections into real-world clients. That won’t happen overnight, however, and those efforts will only thrive with proper care, maintenance and pruning.

Writing Your LinkedIn Profile

Most likely you already have a basic profile, but one of the biggest obstacles lawyers face is distinguishing themselves online. Bios sound the same from one attorney to the next, and, while they might showcase a long list of achievements, they often don’t say much about the person and how he or she is a problem solver. It’s important to remember that your profile is your front door to the world. Spruce it up, and lay out the welcome mat.

Need some tips when writing your LinkedIn profile? To reach influencers, gain a following and develop a reputation as someone “in the know,” use actionable language, and try to be more lively and specific. Identifying clearly how you provide a solution will make it infinitely easier for potential clients to understand what you do and why you are the perfect fit for their job. If you think revising your online profile will easily drop to the bottom of your “to do” list, schedule it on your calendar.

Blogging on LinkedIn

With a progressive profile in place, you’re now ready to harness the power of LinkedIn. In addition to providing opportunities for connecting with colleagues, friends, and potential prospects; joining groups; and posting, LinkedIn has recently unveiled a new publishing platform. It was designed to provide users with a sophisticated, yet easy-to-use, blogging tool. For those who work at law firms that do not have blogging resources, or if you want to prove the viability of a blog before adding it to your law firm website, using LinkedIn publishing is a good option.

To help you use the blogging platform, LinkedIn provides a built-in template that comes up when you click on the orange “Publish a post” icon at your home screen. From there, it is easy to add a photo, draft an engaging headline, drop in the text and click Publish.

Blog posting through LinkedIn allows you to share quality content on a regular basis with a built-in audience and group of followers. You can share posts with specific groups or individual connections. Another bonus of the LinkedIn blogging tool is that the pages encourage two-way conversation and discussion. Each post is equipped with social-sharing buttons, so it’s easy for other users to share, like, repost and retweet across all social networking platforms. Unlike cumbersome email campaigns or formal alerts, you can easily point and click your way to becoming a thought-leader on specific topic. And, the tool catalogs all your posts in one area for easy reference.

LinkedIn Blogging Best Practices

Successful bloggers publish at least twice a month, and more frequently to accommodate new developments or interesting news. Content should be relevant, entertaining, engaging and brief. It should include a call to action. If at all possible, it should tell a story. But most importantly, you should write about topics that affect your clients and help to position you as a valuable resource.

In fact, according to Bloomberg’s Big Law Business Report, there seems to be a sea change among in-house counsel about how to handle client development. Fancy dinners and tickets to sporting events might be nice, but it’s also important to show that you have your finger on the pulse of the market and are watching (and can report on) trends. Blogging ticks this box.

It is also important to note that, as lawyers become more and more proficient on LinkedIn, they also need to be aware of the various state bar rules. While the ABA has not yet published comprehensive guidelines on social media usage, some state bars have, including New York.

In fact, in March 2015, the New York County Lawyers Association Professional Ethics Committee released an opinion recommending that attorneys in New York with LinkedIn profiles that include information about their practice areas, skills, endorsements or recommendations – essentially, anything more than the straightforward biographical information in their profiles – should now include attorney advertising statements at the end of the “Summary” section of their LinkedIn profiles, similar to “Attorney Advertising – Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.”

While this doesn’t mean that LinkedIn should be abandoned as a powerful networking tool, it just will require that attorneys periodically monitor and review the content of their LinkedIn profiles for accuracy and compliance with bar guidelines.

The Confluence of Content and Social Media

Lawyers and legal marketers seem to have an ever-growing number of marketing tools and tactics at their disposal. Technology has provided us with a number of new avenues to reach our desired audiences, but just using these channels is not enough. They have to be leveraged strategically.

Lawyers should take the time to populate their LinkedIn profiles with quality information that positively reflects their personal brands. They should also make it a habit to continually update their profiles to capture recent successes, promotions, organizational affiliations, pro bono activities and published articles. Finally, with the LinkedIn publishing tool, lawyers can maximize the benefits of the social network by crafting and distributing relevant thought leadership materials to a targeted audience of engaged professionals.

ARTICLE BY

Kathy O’Brien

Jaffe

Reference Searches Through Social Media Do Not Create FCRA Claims

In their recruitment efforts, many employers will utilize social media to find suitable candidates for job openings. And, often employers will use the social media tools available to perform reference checks and/or verify a candidate’s employment history, experience and education history. Recently in California, a group of individuals challenged these social media background searches by suing the professional social media website, LinkedIn Corporation, because the information gleaned about these persons allegedly violated their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

In Sweet v. LinkedIn Corp., Tracee Sweet, one of the named plaintiffs for the class, alleged she had applied for a position through LinkedIn. Sweet claimed the potential employer advised she had been hired following a telephone interview. A week after, the potential employer rescinded the offer and this decision was based on the employer’s review of Sweet’s references through LinkedIn.

The employer had used the Reference Searches function on LinkedIn, which allows employers to find people with whom an applicant may have worked previously. According to the class plaintiffs, this search engine allows employers to “[g]et the real story on any candidate” and to “[f]ind references who can give real, honest feedback” about job candidates. The Reference Searches function produces two types of information for paid subscribers: (1) the name and list of the search target’s current and former employers; and (2) a list of other LinkedIn members who are in the same professional network of the search initiator and “who may have worked at the same company during the same time period as the search target.” The Referencence Searches then produces results which include for each possible reference, “the name of the employer in common between the reference and the job applicant, and the reference’s position and years employed at that common employer.”

According to the complaint, each member of the class had a similar experience as Sweet. Each plaintiff believed that LinkedIn’s Reference Searches function caused them to lose employment opportunities in violation of the FCRA. The U.S. District Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims and dismissed the action. The court explained that FCRA did not apply to the social media site and, instead, only to “consumer reporting agencies” that provide “consumer reports.”

Under the FCRA, a “consumer report” is:

[A]ny written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part of the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for . . . . (B) employment purposes.

The district court stated that the publication of the plaintiffs’ employment histories were not consumer reports because that information came solely from LinkedIn’s transactions or experiences with the plaintiffs as members of the social media website. In other words, the information that was subsequently shared to a third-party occurred solely as a result of the plaintiffs’ voluntary provision of such information. As a result, that information is excluded from the protections of the FCRA. As the district court noted, the subsequent information sharing is precisely the reason why consumers such as the plaintiffs provide such information to LinkedIn.

Additionally, the district court found that LinkedIn was not a consumer reporting agency, as defined under the FCRA. The court explained that LinkedIn did not become a consumer reporting agency “solely because it conveys, with the consumer’s consent, information about the consumer to a third party to provide a specific product or service that the consumer has requested.”

Finally, the district court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the list of names and information about the references included in the Reference Searches bear on the “character, general reputation, mode of living” and other relevant characteristics of the consumers who are the subjects of these searches. Instead, the court found that the results from Reference Searches are those in the search initiator’s network and not in the target’s network. Therefore, the results only communicate whether the search initiator (not the target) have the characteristics protected under the FCRA (e.g., character, general reputation, mode of living).

Written by Tina A. Syring of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Crowdfunding? Really? Crowdfunding Rule under the JOBS Act

Count me a Luddite when it comes to social media in general, and more specifically, the supposed potential for crowdfunding and raising capital for start-ups and small businesses. My skepticism about crowdfunding admittedly has its roots in the resistance to public solicitation of non-public offerings that 20 years in state securities regulation embedded in me. Publicly solicited “private placements” before the advent of Rule 506(c) were all but certainly fraudulent. But, times (and exemptions) change.

Now, the word on the street is that the SEC has dragged its feet too long on promulgating its Congressionally mandated rule on crowdfunding under the JOBS Act, so the Republican House is going to take matters into its own hands and legislate a more rational crowdfunding exemption than the provision in the JOBS Act and proposed rule, without the need for SEC action. I can’t wait to see that hummer!

Since the subject of allowing crowdfunding for investments first arose in the initial rumblings that preceded the JOBS Act, there have been literally hundreds of articles, blogs and other commentaries tooting crowdfunding as the panacea for raising capital for start-ups and small businesses with the result that all sorts of new jobs would be created (a claim based more in hyperbole than empirical evidence.) Jobs? Perhaps some, but enough to make a national economic difference? Really? There has been at least one University of Colorado law review article on comparable legislation in Great Britain, and I have assisted a former securities law student of mine at the James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, in preparing her own article on crowdfunding that includes a review of British as well as other European capital raising crowdfunding regimes.

Most of these articles on crowdfunding appear to have been written by people who hope to profit providing services to general public crowdfunding principals once it’s lawful. A good share of them have been observations and opinions written by lawyers who regularly critique federal and state regulations, proposals and market developments. To one extent or another, the articles focus on Congress versus the SEC, or the needs for capital raising versus securities regulations.

These proselytizers and commentators have all but ignored what is truly the other side of the investment equation—the investors. I’m not talking about fraudsters. That dirty element will worm its way into whatever system is finally implemented, to one extent or another. I’m focusing here on the people who send their money to hopeful, legal crowdfunding issuers.

If the proponents of investment crowdfunding can run the “start-up businesses create jobs” pennant up the rhetorical flagpole, it’s only fair to allow me to hoist the “most start-up enterprises fail within five years” banner up right along next to it.

The unfortunate reality is that start-up businesses make horrible investments. Few of them survive at all, let alone turn a profit any time soon, let alone provide a return to investors. Investing in start-ups is like hunting ducks with a rifle, and few investors have enough “bullets” to fire.

Entrepreneurs are eternally enthusiastic, energetic and optimistic. They have to be. For many years, the dreamers (and their counsel) urged Congress and the SEC that “if only the ban on public solicitation and advertising were lifted, we could all fund our private placements.” Now that that cat is out of the bag with Rule 506(c), at least for accredited investors, the chant has shifted (predictably) to, “if only we could use crowdfunding to publicly solicit and advertise to reach non-accredited investors.”

If a start-up entrepreneur—I’ll call him “Fred”—is ready to turn to looking for funding from strangers, I think it fair to draw an inference or three about what has happened to date. First, Fred is tapped out on his own funds. Second, the bank has said or would say “no” to a loan, based on Fred’s lack of collateral or some other deficiency. Third, anyone Fred knows (and he may not know anyone) who might invest in his business—those people and businesses with whom he has a “pre-existing business or personal relationship”—have either invested as much as they are going to, or have found ways to be “on vacation in the Australian outback and hard to reach” when Fred has come calling for money the first time or for more later.

At this point, many entrepreneurs would keep working until they had saved up enough money of their own, or grew to qualify for that bank loan. A lot of business owners I’ve encountered have no interest in selling equity in their businesses to investors. But there are certainly those who are willing to do so. Whatever, at this point, “Fred” has now gone through all his own cash. His business and personal profile are insufficient to qualify for a bank loan, even if government subsidized. In other words, the professional lenders won’t touch him. Further, anyone who knows him and/or his business who might invest have either done so or won’t. With investment crowdfunding, Congress and several state legislatures and regulators have made the public policy decision to let Fred now turn to perfect strangers, the general public. So, the smallest, riskiest, least sophisticated, most poorly funded, most likely to fail business owners can turn now to the general public for investments when all the professionals and close-in people, those in the best position to know Fred and evaluate his company’s investment potential, have said “no” or “no more.”

To me, this is a public policy that makes no sense. If Congress wants to promote investment in start-ups and small businesses to create jobs, let them direct the Small Business Administration to ease their guarantee standards for SBA loans. Oh, we can’t do that because the SBA would go broke guaranteeing bad loans, thus requiring more federal funding? What’s wrong with this picture?

“Investing” in start-ups is akin to a parent “lending” money to her 24 year old. Good luck ever seeing that money again! At least she’ll get a Mother’s Day card. The non-investment crowdfunding successes to date have usually involved donors getting a sample product, a discount, or a souvenir tee shirt, baseball cap or the like in exchange for their donation. Perhaps Congress should take a hint from these crowdfunding success stories in fashioning its investment crowdfunding legislation, and mandate that investment crowdfunders distribute a commemorative sweatshirt along with their securities. That would at least give the investors something tangible to remember their investment by, and would create jobs by increasing demand for commemorative sweatshirts! Oh, wait, those are made in Malaysia.

ARTICLE BY

Philip A Feigin

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Authority Marketing and Thought Leadership for Law Firms with John McDougall of McDougall Interactive [PODCAST]

Listen as we speak with John McDougall, McDougall Interactive, on authority marketing and thought leadership for law firms.

Nicole Minnis: Hi everyone. I’m Nicole Minnis with the National Law Review. I’m here today with John McDougall, the President of McDougall Interactive and author of legalmarketingreview.com. Today, we’re going to be talking about authority marketing and thought leadership for law firms.

Welcome, John.

John McDougall: Welcome. Thanks for having me.

Nicole: Thank you. Do you want to go ahead and get started with a little bit of background about McDougall Interactive and what your team is doing?

John: McDougall Interactive is in Danvers, Massachusetts. I started in ’95 at my father’s ad agency doing Internet Marketing. I was actually a media planner before that in ’94 at the agency.

Ever since ’95, I’ve been doing all digital marketing, and now we work with a lot of law firms in different areas, both business to consumer and B2B.

Nicole: It sounds like you have a lot of wonderful expertise that you can draw from while we’re talking today, so I’m looking forward to getting a little bit of insight myself.

John, tell me, what is authority marketing and why is it important to law firms?

John: Authority marketing isn’t a really popular term yet and we’re trying to change that, because thought leadership is quite well known and people, in particular law firms, like to build up their reputation as leaders in certain practice areas by blogging on certain topics.

Authority marketing is taking that idea of building up your thought leadership in a systematic way, so that you can eventually turn your blog and your content into ebooks that become a printed book. Then as an author you get more media engagements, more speaking engagements. It all ties together in a way that also Google will appreciate.

That’s one of the real reasons, as an SEO company, again back from ’95, when we were saying “content is king.” Even in ’95, we used to say that.

We’ve been trying for all these years to get our customers really on board with building up content. It’s often quite hard to do that. What we realized is sometimes people are thought leaders and experts but they don’t have time to write.

Sometimes we do interviews to get their content out there, but the idea is that Google is going to pick up on that. The more you blog and have good content, your SEO rankings will go significantly up.

Authority marketing has good things about just your offline marketing and thought leadership, but it’s really good for Google Organic SEO.

Nicole: Do you recommend that lawyers use more news story content type things, or would they write on evergreen topics, like the estate planning of a $20 million estate? Do you think it’s more of a mix, or that they should focus on one or the other?

John: It’s probably a mix, but what we have seen when people do just news content is that it’s a little maybe boring or flat. Because if you’re just regurgitating news that other people are all talking about, there is only so much thought leadership in that.

Certainly, if there is a breaking issue, like for myself when Google Penguin happens, and different Google updates, I need to be leading the charge and blogging about those topics as they’re happening, to be a thought leader.

It’s not that news is a bad thing, but we have seen some people so overly focused on just news content that it falls short of answering the customer’s questions. So that evergreen content that you talk about and the struggles that people have with various issues — we can find those struggles by looking at the Google keyword tool, and looking at the monthly search volume of the way people are searching.

We can use social media listening tools to figure in your topically related communities what are people concerned with, what are they sharing on LinkedIn groups and Google+ communities. If you can take that content, and as you said, make more evergreen content that’s going to be heavily searched on, then it’s going to prove the test of time and keep ranking.

Google is going to rank that a little better in a long term trajectory, because the news isn’t just over with, this is content that Google will keep bringing back into the search engines, so that keeps a steady stream of visitors to your site year round, as opposed to just news content.

So a bit of a mix is good, but we’re a bit more fans of the evergreen and thought leader content.

Nicole: That makes sense, and just to try to get in front of the readers, with the news worthy things, but also searching for the useful content is what people are normally doing.

Is there a magic number for how often you compile blog posts to create an ebook? Is there a magic number, or a magic date or time? Do you do it four times a year? Or, is there not really a formula for what works for compiling everything?

John: In terms of content volume, once a week is sort of industry standard, that if you’re not blogging once a week, it’s a little bit weak. It really goes up from there to — it really depends on the organization. Mashable is doing maybe hundreds a day of blog posts, or certainly a hundred ish. [laughs] I don’t know the exact number, but I was just talking with one of my guys here who was quoting their editorial calendar and how much they’re producing.

The sites that have the most traffic on the Internet tend to be the sites that have the most content. There is not an exact correlation, because of content quality. If you pumped out 10,000 articles a year, and your quality was crap, then a site with 300 articles might outrank you, because Google is aware of the quality.

Again, I think a blog post a week is a good healthy start. Two, three a week is a little more serious. A blog a day, you’re going to start to get more significant SEO traffic.

Then you can turn that content — maybe at least a couple of times a year, if you have an ebook — that’s great. Hub Spot says that if you have 30 ebooks or more, you’ll have — I forget, I think it’s a 7x increase in leads.

It does depend on your industry, et cetera, but a couple of ebooks a year at least to have a top of the funnel call-to-action. A blog post a week at minimum. Maybe a video a month.

Then, certain times of day — that’s all going to be dependent on your audience. If you’re targeting kids that get home from school at two or three in the afternoon, then you might want to publish just before that, that type of thing, versus a different industry that’s targeting night owls. The time of day is probably depending on your actual audience.

Nicole: We’re doing this right now, but tell me, John, how can lawyers use podcasting to generate more leads and improve their SEO?

John: One of the keys to SEO as we’ve discussed is having more content, but a lot of people aren’t naturally writers. Maybe it’s somewhere between 10 percent of the population.

I was actually at the HubSpot Inbound conference this fall. They had the stats on that. I don’t remember exactly what they were, but basically not everyone is a writer. That’s why blogs often fail, because people hear someone like myself say, “Hey, you’ve got to blog every week.”

The people on the staff say, “Geez, we don’t really have any writers here.” But you think they would be able to publish content because they’re thought leaders. What we realized is there are a lot of experts at law firms that might not be comfortable writing, but they love to talk. Or certainly a fair amount of attorneys like to chat, and they’re really engaging and full of ideas and energy.

We like to bottle that up by interviewing them. Because you ask them to write, they’re busy, and they’re concerned potentially with the billable hour, of course. We all have to make money.

It’s so easy to get a great piece of content in even 15 minutes by asking three questions. Every three questions become about 1,500 to 1,800 words. So every question may be around 500 words if you answer fairly lengthily. So you’re able to, in a 15 minute conversation, get a very long blog post. The average blog post is maybe 500 to 700 words or so.

When people are thinking to write one, that’s what they shoot for. But you can get, again, 1,500 to 1,800 words in 15 minutes. That’s a lot of content. Now what you’re going to do is you’re going to transcribe the text. After this podcast is over, we use CastingWords in New York and some other places. You pay $1 to $1.50 a minute.

You put that text up on the blog post under — we use sound cloud, but that’s just one player. You put the audio file that you can click and listen to the podcast in the blog post itself, then under it, you put the transcribed text. Because you’re picking keywords as the topics before you write the titles of the post and pick the interview questions, it’s a very search-engine-friendly strategy.

You just title the name of the post in WordPress, or whatever you’re using, and that becomes the URL, then you can put that search-engine-keyword-friendly title in the heading, in the title tag. Google is going to read all that nice rich text of Q&A content, and it’s going to pop up in the search engines.

Now, you wouldn’t want to only use podcasting for your blog necessarily. We do that with a lot of our customers. We also like them to either pay us to write or for them to write a little bit of regular prose as well, but it’s an awesome way to get regular, consistent content.

Again, say once a week, if you do an hour of podcasting a month in four 15 minute interviews with three questions each, you’re going to have an easily-generated one blog post a week.

Nicole: How about making the leap to video? How important is a video strategy for SEO?

John: YouTube is the second largest search engine in the world. There was a guy from — it was Distilled, recently that said, “If you don’t have a video and YouTube strategy in 2014, you’re just simply not doing SEO.” [laughs] It’s that important.

Google, they own YouTube. Again, it’s the second largest search engine in the world above Bing, Yahoo, et cetera. Yet, you still have to pick keywords for your YouTube videos.

We do a similar routine with the podcasting where we ask our attorneys to answer basically one question. “What to do if you get pulled over for drunk driving”, for a DUI lawyer, or something along those lines.

When they answer that one question, and that question is something people actually search for, because we’re looking again at the keyword research and the forum social listening to see how people — what are the common questions.

Because we know that that’s an actively looked-for topic, then you’re going to pop up both in YouTube if you upload the video with the right keywords in the title, in the description, et cetera. You can also put in the transcript into the close caption area.

We do the same routine with the podcasting as with the video. We put the YouTube video up in the blog post using the embed code from YouTube. The video shows up, and you can play it right in the blog post, but under that, you put in the transcription of the conversation. Usually those are like one or two minutes long. Maybe three minutes.

You don’t want to kill people with “too long”. Those are going to be maybe 300 words or so. But again, you’re popping up now both in YouTube and your blog because you have the YouTube video in a blog post. You’re getting that extended benefit beyond YouTube of your blog’s ability to rank for the conversation that’s in the video.

Nicole: Those are all really great thoughts. I’m actually personally excited about implementing a podcasting and video strategy for our company.

Thank you so much, John, for joining us today, and talking to us about authority marketing and thought leadership for law firms.

John: Absolutely. Great talking to you.

Nicole: It’s great talking to you, too. I will see you on our next post when we talk about content marketing for law firms another time. Thank you so much.

John: Sounds good.

ARTICLE BY

Nicole Cudiamat Minnis

The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

The Year in Social Media: Four Big Developments from 2014

As social networking has become entrenched as a tool for doing business and not just a pastime of our social lives, employers, government agencies, and even academia have taken big steps in 2014 to define how social media can and cannot, or should and should not, be used. Below is a summary of some of the big developments in social media in the workplace this year.

The EEOC Turns Its Attention to Social Media

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has turned its attention toward social networking, meeting in March to gather information about social media use in the workplace. To no surprise, the EEOC recognized that although using social media sites such as LinkedIn could be a “valuable tool” for identifying employment candidates, relying on personal information found on social networks, such as age, race, gender, or ethnicity, to make employment decisions is prohibited.

More controversially, the EEOC expressed concern that employers’ efforts to access so-called “private” social media communications in the discovery phase of discrimination lawsuits might have a “chilling effect” on employees filing discrimination cases. However, it is unclear how the EEOC might prevent employers from getting this information if it is relevant to a plaintiff’s claims. It remains to be seen what steps the EEOC might take to address this “chilling effect.”

The NLRB Continues to Refine Its Position on Social Media Policies

The National Labor Relations Board has spent the past few years attacking social media policies as overbroad, but perhaps a shift in that policy is at hand. This summer, an NLRB administrative law judge upheld a social media policy that discouraged employees from posting information on social networks about the company or their jobs that might create morale problems. The ALJ held that the policy did not prohibit job-related posts, but merely called on employees to be civil in their social media posts to avoid morale problems. The ALJ’s finding is at odds with recent NLRB decisions, which have gone much further to limit any policies that might affect employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. While it is unclear whether this holding is an outlier or a shift in the NLRB’s approach, it brings with it some hope that the NLRB may be moving toward a more pro-employer stance.

States Continue to Limit Employers’ Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

State governments also are getting involved with social media regulation. In April, Wisconsin became the newest state to pass legislation aimed at protecting employees’ social media accounts, passing the Social Media Protection Act. The Act bars employers, schools, and landlords from requiring their employees, students, and tenants to produce their social media passwords. Significantly, the Act does not ban them from viewing social media posts that are publicly accessible.

Wisconsin was not alone in enacting legislation to protect social media passwords this year, as Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee enacted similar laws during 2014 and 12 other states did so in previous years. While not every state has passed such legislation, it is clear that state governments increasingly will not tolerate employers asking employees or applicants for access to their private social networking accounts. Employers should be mindful of their state laws before seeking social media information that might be protected.

Academia is Drawing Its Own Conclusions Regarding Social Media in the Workplace

Federal and state governments are not the only institutions weighing the implications of social media in the workplace. University researchers also are studying employers’ stances on social media – a North Carolina State University study concluded that applicants tend to have a lower opinion of employers that looked at their social media profiles before making a hiring decision, and a Carnegie Mellon University study concluded that employers risked claims of discrimination by reviewing applicants’ social media profiles, based on employers being more likely to screen out candidates based on their personal information such as ethnicity.

While these studies weigh against employers searching applicants’ social media before making hiring decisions, there is certainly logic to the contrary, as employers are entitled to view publicly-accessible information about their applicants, and thorough employers will want to learn as much as they can to do their due diligence in making important hiring decisions.

Laws, best practices, and public opinion regarding social media in the workplace will continue to evolve in 2015. Employers would be wise to look at the most recent developments before making any major decisions affecting their social media policies and practices.

ARTICLE BY

Douglas M. Oldham

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Social Media Marketing for Lawyers: What It Can Do for You, How to Do It Right

Many attorneys I talk with want to know if social media will deliver real value for the investment in time and effort that it takes to develop and implement a social media marketing program.

Here is what I tell them:

Social media will help you build trust, but it will not make a “bad” reputation better. Social media is a meritocracy – if you’re good, people will know it. Conversely, a bad experience will also get talked about. Building trust is crucial for attorneys, and social media helps you build trust by providing a robust platform for sharing your particular insights and knowledge. Once people trust that, they will use you and recommend you to others.

Social media will get you leads, but it will not turn them into paying clients. People who follow you on Twitter, are a fan of you on Facebook or interact with you in any way on a social network have indicated an interest in what you have to say. These are leads. To capitalize on them and turn them into paying clients, however, requires effort on your part in following up.

Social media will give you visibility, but it will not replace a good client experience. Social media is a 365/24/7 world, allowing you to engage with prospects at any time, and they with you. You must be vigilant about responding to posts and questions the same way you would in responding to a prospect that calls or emails you. Every point of contact is an opportunity to make a great impression.

Social media is the fastest way to build your sphere of influence, but it won’t happen overnight. Your sphere of influence is defined as how many people know (1) who you are, (2) who you help, and (3) why you are different. If you only have 20 people who know enough about you to send you the right referrals, then you are severely limited in how much you will be able to grow your practice. Social media is a long-term play, and you need to commit to spending the time and money (either yours or hiring someone else) to achieve success.

ARTICLE BY

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

NLRB Shows Some Restraint in its Protection of Employee Social Media Communications: Employee Termination Arising From “Egregious” and “Insubordinate” Facebook Posts Was Legal Under the NLRA

In the wake of the NLRB’s aggressive crackdown on social media policies, many employers have asked: “Is there any limit to what employees can post on social media about their employers?” It appears that there is. Just last week, a former employee of the Richmond District Neighborhood Teen Center in San Francisco learned this the hard way when the Board dismissed his complaint that the Center violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act after it pulled a rehire offer after it discovered that he particpated in an inappropriate Facebook exchange.

During the 2011-2012 school year, Ian Callaghan and Kenya Moore both worked for the Center’s afterschool program—Callaghan as a teen activity leader and Moore as the teen center program leader. In May 2012, the Center held a staff meeting during which it solicited and received both positive and negative feedback from its staff, including Callaghan and Moore. In July 2012, Callaghan and Moore received letters inviting them to return to the Center for the 2012-2013 school year; this time both as activity leaders.

The following month, Callaghan and Moore communicated over Facebook about (i) refusing to obtain permission before organizing youth activities (“ordering sh*t, having crazy events at the Beacon all the time. I don’t want to ask permission…”; “Let’s do some cool sh*t and let them figure out the money”; “field trips all the time to wherever the f#@! we want!”), (ii) disregarding specific school district rules (“play music loud”; “teach the kids how to graffiti up the walls…”), (iii) undermining leadership (“we’ll take advantage”), (iv) neglecting their duties (“I ain’t go[]never be there”), and (v) jeopardizing the safety of participating youth and the program overall (“they start loosn kids I aint helpin”; “Let’s f#@! it up”). When the Center’s administration became aware of the postings, it revoked the offers to rehire, and Callaghan filed a charge with the Board.

Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, including complaining to one another about the terms and conditions of their employment. In that vein, an employer may not take adverse action against employees for exercising their Section 7 rights without violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. That said, employees can take it too far and lose the protection of Section 7 when their conduct is particularly egregious or of such a character as to render the employees unfit for further service.

Here, although Callaghan and Moore previously had engaged in protected activity during the May 2012 staff meeting when they offered negative feedback about the Center, and although neither Callaghan nor Moore had ever engaged in any acts of insubordination, the Board held that they lost the Act’s protection because “[t]he magnitude and detail of insubordinate acts advocated in the [Facebook] posts reasonably gave [the Center] concern that Callaghan and Moore would act on their plans, a risk a reasonable employer would refuse to take.”

Several years ago, the Richmond District Neighborhood Center decision may have been a foregone conclusion. But in light of the current Board’s aggressive approach to Section 7 protections, the decision provides employers with reassurance that Section 7 has retained at least some outer bounds. The decision provides some guidance for defining “insubordination” in social media policies, for example, to include communications pervaded by detailed plans to jeopardize the employer’s very existence, violate legally enforceable employer policies, or neglect job duties.

For a full discussion of the Board’s recent approach to social media policies, see George Patterson’s September 3, 2014 posting “NLRB Continues Aggressive Crackdown on Social Media Polices.”

ARTICLE BY

Erin Cornell Horton

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Like this:

Like this:

Writing Your LinkedIn Profile

Blogging on LinkedIn

LinkedIn Blogging Best Practices

The Confluence of Content and Social Media

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

The EEOC Turns Its Attention to Social Media

The NLRB Continues to Refine Its Position on Social Media Policies

States Continue to Limit Employers’ Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

Academia is Drawing Its Own Conclusions Regarding Social Media in the Workplace

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: