Denise Howell is a seasoned appellate and intellectual property litigator based in Los Angeles. Denise writes one of the first and most popular law-related blogs, Bag and Baggage, coined the term "blawg" and helped pioneer podcasting for lawyers. Microcontent obsessed since 2001, she is frequently quoted in the media on legal issues involving intellectual property and technology law. "Sound Policy" is Denise's show at IT Conversations, and it's also what she hopes results from the briefs she submits to court. Email Denise at dhowell@gmail.com.
Dennis Kennedy is a computer lawyer and legal technology expert based in St. Louis, Missouri. An award-winning author, a frequent speaker and a widely-read blogger, he has more than 300 publications on legal, technology and Internet topics, many of which are collected in his e-books. Dennis has been described as someone who knows almost every rock song in existence and, more importantly, how they apply to technology and law. Email Dennis at his gmail address.
Tom Mighell is Senior Counsel and Litigation Technology Support Coordinator at Cowles & Thompson in Dallas. He has published the Internet Legal Research Weekly newsletter since 2000 and blogged about the Internet and legal technology at Inter Alia since August of 2002. With Tom's singing, Ernie on guitar and Dennis' encylopedic knowledge of rock music, we may have the beginnings of a good band, if this whole blog thing doesn't work out. Email Tom at tmighell@swbell.net.
Marty Schwimmer left a partnership in the largest trademark practice in the world and founded Schwimmer Mitchell, a full-service IP micro-boutique in Westchester County, New York, where he represents owners of famous and not yet famous trademarks. He founded The Trademark Blog, the first IP law blog and the one with the most pictures. He is the first to come in and the last to leave in his firm. Email Marty at marty@schwimmerlegal.com.
Ernest Svenson practices law with a mid-sized law firm in New Orleans, specializing in business-related lawsuits. Most of his practice takes place in federal court, especially the Eastern District. He is best known for his weblog Ernie the Attorney, which he started as an experiment. Like many experiments it got out of control. Nevertheless, he continues to practice law and, occasionally,
to seek enlightenment. Email Ernest at esvenson@gmail.com.
About this blog
Between Lawyers provides just-in-time group commentary on the issues
raised when technology, culture and the law intersect. We take you
behind the firewalls and conference room doors to show you how
experienced lawyers deal with these issues and help you prepare for
the new challenges we all face. For more, see our introductory post.
The other side of the professional blogging coin is looking at the business ramification of making money with your blogging. This session will cover the things to consider and that you may regret if you wait to long to address: copyright protection, tax ramifications, managing personal vs. paid-for blogging, your site policies, and blogging ethics.
Here are my top ten legal issues pertinent to this discussion; what are yours?
1. Communications policies (your own, or someone else's which may apply)
2. Intellectual property (your own and third parties')
3. Indirect liability for third party acts
4. Civility
5. Ethics
6. Privacy
7. E-commerce
8. Data ownership, responsibilities
9. Minors
10. Special considerations for regulated businesses/industries
Yet Another Use For Social Media: Narrowing The Defendant List
Blogger co-founder Evan Williams Twitters: "Dear person from law firm who wants to find the right person to threaten to sue at Blogger.com: Nope, not me."
Attorney and Chicago area blogger Mazyar M. Hedayat has drafted and released a blogging policy for the DuPage County Bar Association, "as well as any committee, firm, or bar association thinking of establishing blogs or wikis in order to foster communication with their members or the public." It is a concise nine points in length, and I like every one of them:
#1 know and follow bar association guidelines for conduct, as well as the rules of good legal writing. no need to use Blue Book citations, but be accurate in your posts: others will look to them as a source of information and news, if not actual research.
#2 be mindful of what you write. remember that you have an audience.
#3 identify yourself and write in first person. make it clear that you are not necessarily speaking for the bar association as a whole. be sure to disclose any information necessary to keep your statements from being misleading. use the following disclaimer on your blog or wiki with respect to all posts:
unless indicated to the contrary posts do not reflect the views of the bar association, its members, executives, staff, board, or committees, and are the opinion of the writer
#4 respect copyright and fair use. do not plagiarize. give credit where due by citing to the author of a statement or passage.
#5 do not reveal confidential information that could result in liability to yourself, your committee, other bar association members, or the bar association itself.
#6 do not comment on active cases or client matters by name except with the approval of those referred to in the post.
#7 do not use ethnic slurs, insults, or obscenity. Avoid writing about inflammatory topics solely to pique prurient interests.
#8 always try to add to a discussion constructively and ultimately to add value. do not let your ego get in the way. you are here for the good of the bar association after all.
#9 have fun. a blog or wiki can be loads of fun and a terrific way to share the best of your committee with the world.
Law Underground is: "a non-profit legal information project," which does (and will) aggregate topical information provided by volunteer lawyers and law students.
WisBlawg's Bonnie Shucha reports that LexisNexis is now including a lengthy list of blogs (including this one) in its Newstex database. Yet another example of the paid online legal database companies tying their business models to the location of relevant information that already is online for free. Makes me wonder how long it will take before a well designed, ad-supported free legal search competitor comes in and seriously syphons off subscribers. Google undoubtedly does this already, even though it doesn't (yet) do vertical search.
History in the making and participatory law in action — behold LawClinic.TV. From the press release: "Fordham University School of Law today became the first academic institution to launch a video blog or 'vlog.' The vlog, LawClinic.TV, features one-to-two minute videos of clinical law professors and students sharing their thoughts on clinical law education and written commentary from Fordham’s director of clinical education, Professor Ian Weinstein."
It has been fascinating in the last several years to watch what has unfolded as the world's first online war. The fact that stories can be and are told and read globally by representatives of all of the parties involved — journalists, soldiers, natives to occupation zones — has fundamentally changed the way public opinion develops (and thus, at least to some extent, the way strategic policy is formed).
But for those in the military, as is true of so much they do, their online activities take place in an environment of uncertainty and danger. As the Jacksonville Daily News reports, though use of tools like MySpace is increasingly common, "DoD does not currently have a specific 'blogging' policy." This can leave soldiers like Matt Austin and his family and friends wondering what exactly has led to the curtailing of activities that provide a thin yet powerful lifeline home.
There's an excellent article at APC Magazine, warning businesses who lock down their Internet access that they're in danger of losing employees. But that's not all they're in danger of losing. There's a reason "digital natives" are so reliant on the 'Net they will resort to elaborate and policy-violating workarounds: they get things done there. They knowledge-gather. They connect. They market. They produce. What's at stake for businesses who fail to grok this goes far beyond recruiting and employee retention. I give any such outfit five years of soulless survival, at the outside. (Via Techmeme)
The Yale Law Journal is looking for submissions on topics "both contentious and suitable to thorough and engaging discussion." If you have something in mind you'd better get a move on, the deadline is August 1.
While that bit of information is interesting in its own right, perhaps more interesting is the way I know about it: YLJ went out of its way to thank blawger Sean Sirrine, and ask him once again to help get the word out about the opportunity (which he did). Just another example of blawgs throwing a courtyard bazaar at the ivory tower and fostering a culture of participatory law. I can't think of a more effective way to engage those who might have something intriguing to say.
Paul McNamara at Network Worldthinksthis post by Marquette law professor Eric Goldman, critiquing recent lawsuits against Yahoo!, may be defamatory, because the post says Professor Goldman "think[s] these lawsuits are nothing more than a shakedown for cash," and calls the plaintiffs "extortionists." According to Mr. McNamara, "[Professor Goldman's] words practically scream libel." But, as Mr. McNamara clarifies, a lawyer for the Media Law Resource Center assessed things as follows:
In doing a quick search, I found court decisions holding both ways when dealing with similar accusations of 'extortion,' ... The legal issue would likely be whether the statements were actual imputations of a crime, or were 'rhetorical hyperbole,' essentially a statement of opinion, not of fact. The former could be considered libelous, while the latter could not.
Also notable is an observation from one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Thomas More Marrone, about the amplification role the Web adds to the mix: "It's like a guy standing on a street corner talking to his friends except he's writing it down and disseminating it to hundreds, thousands, millions of people."
The moral, I suppose, is that if you're going to use an online medium to discuss others' potentially wrongful acts (and there's no getting around that a blog or podcast is an attractive place for commenting on disturbing conduct), a little attention to phrasing and characterization can wind up going a long way. (See also thesediscussions of the limited nature of the fair reporting privilege.)
The Wiki-Law concept is pretty cool on all fronts, but among its nicest features is its "Digg-for-law-types" aspect. In other words, users submit articles, readers vote. Those with the most votes and comments get sorted to the front page. Still obviously very much a work in process, but I like the idea.
In a letter and recommendations of yesterday's date, the American Bar Associationurged* President Bush, among other things, to avoid "any future electronic surveillance inside the United States by any U.S. government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et. seq. (FISA)," and "to seek appropriate new amendments or new legislation rather than acting without explicit statutory authorization[.]" The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a concise summary of how and why it believes the administration's domestic electronic surveillance actions have run afoul of "the Fourth Amendment, FISA, the Wiretap Act, [] most likely the Electronic Communications Privacy Act," and the executive power authority granted by the Constitution.
Austin American-Statesman, Judge takes Congress to task in bankruptcy case. Among the interesting aspects of the article is its mention of the role of the blawgosphere in propagating the discussion. Though I came up fairly empty with related — "monroe bankruptcy" — searches in Technorati and Feedster, I did find more from Steve Jakubowski.
Though I think there's the possibility an implied license argument could prevail in the right case(s) involving syndicated material, I don't for a second think it would fly in circumstances where the feed is automatically provided by a third party host, and it communicates applicable Creative Commons license commercial use restrictions. See (or more accurately, listen to) Adam Curry'sDaily Source Code #320. What do you think?
Howard Rheingold at Smart Mobs points to the Peer to Patent Project Blog. According to the site, "Sponsored by IBM, the Community Patent Project seeks to create a peer review system for patents that exploits network technology to enable innovation experts to inform the patent examination procedure."
Here's why I put it in the Law 2.0 category
The Community Patent Project aims to design and pilot an online system for peer review of patents. The Community Patent system will support a network of experts to advise the Patent Office on prior art as well as to assist with patentability determinations. By using social software, such as social reputation, collaborative filtering and information visualization tools, we can apply the “wisdom of the crowd” – or, more accurately the wisdom of the experts – to complex social and scientific problems. This could make it easier to protect the inventor’s investment while safeguarding the marketplace of ideas.
Let's discuss rethinking the role of big law firms, says Dennis, suggesting (via the quoted article) that "for the really tough problems" small and elite is more effective than big and swarmlike. Seems to me this may be missing the Wisdom of the Crowd effect. No, I haven't (yet) read the book, and I heard author James Surowiecki's caveat yesterday on CBS News Sunday Morning about how a "herd mentality" or other influences can skew the results, but as I understand the premise Surowiecki's findings suggest the elite strike force works better when its actions are informed by the big swarm. In the legal context, this could be a firm, or a loosely joined, socially networked grouping coming together with the aid of online or other tools, or both.
The Wired GC reports on recent developments in the "Law 2.0" discussion, which has taken a look at what the current notion of Web 2.0 may mean for the the delivery of legal services and the practice of law. Ideas like open source lawyering, self-service law, virtual law firms and new forms of delivery and billing for services and products all arise in this context.
The Wired GC notes that the Law 2.0 got some recognition, along with similar ideas in other fields, in Dion Hinchcliffe's excellent summary post called "The Web 2.0 Revolution Spawns Offshoots," which references, among other things, the articles that Tom Mighell and I, along with a few other pforward-looking thinkers, helped put together in the recent issue of Law Practice Today.
The money quote from Hinchcliffe's article:
The interrelated, mutually reinforcing concepts in Web 2.0 like true disintermediation, customer self-service, and harnessing collective intelligence, are resonating with many other industries. As it turns out, these industries are in the process of being transformed by technology including the relentless collapse of formal central controls, pervasive Web usage, rapid technological change, and more. These communities seem to be craving a new model for collaboration, relevance, and usefulness. And Web 2.0 seems to give them both a beacon to rally around and a useful set of practices that can then be used for constructive reinvention.
These days there is a lot of hand-wringing about Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that --at least up til recently-- was editable by absolutely anyone. Predictably, this open-source information approach had some weak points. Some people trashed entries which then had to be restored from historical archives, and some people apparently edited entries about themselves to boost their reputation in ways that others regarded as unfair, improper, or misleading. Even the founder of Wikipedia is reported to have engaged in this sort of nefarious ego-editing.
Whether it has problems or not, a lot of intelligent people have started using Wikipedia. Even judges have cited to it in certain cases. Should we be concerned about this?
I spent some time today reading posts on Rob Hyndman's excellent blog and was well-rewarded for my efforts. As sometimes happens in blogging, I also noticed I had been unknowingly echo-blogging some of the same things he's been posting on. I recommend that you take a visit to his blog and subscribe to its feed.
In particular, note well his post called "Community Review of EULAs, which points to EULAscan, a new service that is starting to collect community reviews of End User License Agreements (EULAs).
Even if you don't get that whole wiki thing, put your imagination to the potential benefits of online repositories of comments, tips and pointers about certain types of agreements, legal situations, issues, forms and the like that would provide some helpful basic guidance and education. That's part of the notion of open source lawyering and Rob is one of the lawyers who has blog the most frequently about the open source lawyering concerpt.
On a related note, Tom Mighell pointed out to me a while back a software tool called the EULAlyzer (free personal version available), which will analyze the clickthrough agreements that pop-up in front of you everywhere you turn these days. The EULAlyzer doesn't, at this point, provide a lot of helpful legal analysis (at least in my opinion as someone who reviews these types of agreements), but that's not its purpose - it focuses on highlighting some of the interesting surprises you might find in EULAs these days.
I'm fascinated by how the EULAlyzer suggests a foundation from which a much more interesting legal tool set could be created. Imagine that kind of tool on the web as a service and you will get an idea of some of what people have in mind when they talk about legal apps in a Web 2.0 world.
As many of my friends know, I've been bitten by the Web 2.0 bug lately and done a lot of thinking (but not very much public writing yet) about how Web 2.0 might be applied in and to the delivery of legal services and practice of law. Steve Nipper has also recently raised the question about how to bring Web 2.0 into what is fundamentally a Web 1.0 world.
I think that this is a very important, yet quite esoteric, topic. However, The Wired GC has made an enormous contribution to the discussion with his post called "Web 2.0, Law Style," which definitely makes my "must read" category. It's both a good introduction and a map of the territory and its implications.
I expect to see not only more discussion of the topic (and I invite you to use the comments to this post as one method to do that), but some actual announcements of things that fall into the Web 2.0 category, including at least one of the ideas mentioned in the Wired GC's post in the very near future. In fact, I'm quite sure of it.
The new FindLaw homepages — one geared toward the legal profession and one geared toward everyone else — go live tomorrow but you can preview them now. They're considerably cleaner — less cluttered, more usable. Looks like a most welcome upgrade. Thanks to FindLaw's Scott Kinney for the heads up.
Apple, Creating Video Podcasts on Mac OS X: "The next generation of podcasting has arrived. Now you can create video podcasts and have them posted in the iTunes Podcast Directory for millions to view and download to their iPods." (Via Podcasting News)
Earlier this week, Professor Bainbridge (and others; see the links at the end of the good Professor's post) blogged a conference call to which they were invited, featuring RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman on the Harriet Miers nomination. From Professor Bainbridge: "It was a lot of assurances but not a lot of facts. And facts are what we need." From the Financial Times: "Within minutes, bloggers posted their reaction to the call: most were unpersuaded."
Here's the Supreme Court Watch Podcast from Alliance for Justice, featuring (per its press release) "live blogging [of the Roberts confirmation hearings] to provide response and commentary in real time, as well as daily wrap-up podcasts to provide further in-depth discussion and analysis available to listeners at any time, anywhere."
For those who missed it, Nico Pitney of Think ProgresscapturedSenator Grassley's comments about the nefarious blogosphere and its, in his mind, unfortunate but now unavoidable role in the judicial confirmation process. Good for a laugh. Sez Nico: "Bloggers, always characterizing documents and opining! Why won’t they just stop paying attention and let Senators hold the trite 15-minute hearings they really want?"
Search and analyze the published opinions of Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G Roberts. On July 19, 2005, Judge John G. Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Roberts has helped decide about 120 cases and written 49 published opinions.
I'm all a-tingle about this one because it's a brilliant marketing move if, like askSam, you offer information management tools, and because it fills a gap in access to and searchability of these opinions. To the extent judicial opinions are freely available online, they're generally PDFs or Word documents. As far as I know this is the first time someone has aggregated all the published Roberts opinions and made them freely and easily searchable.
With all due respect (and copious amounts of respect are due) to Doc and Dennis, I am about the last person who can or should be sounding off about the monumentally important issue of who should succeed Justice O'Connor, as I am about as woefully underinformed about our options as a legal professional can be. Off the top of my head, I'll wholeheartedly agree with Dennis that the country would be well served by Judge Posner. The biggest knock I hear on Judge Posner is his age, 66 — a milestone I've considered most youthful and invigorated ever since my dad hit it earlier this year. As Slate says, Posner is "brilliant, unpredictable, and generally viewed as one of the country's leading legal minds." Anyone who has seen fit to embrace blogging within the last eight months is plenty young enough to be appointed in my book. I'll also disagree with Dennis that Dennis himself would not make an excellent candidate. I can think of no one better suited to maximize (or perhaps max out) the Court's technology budget and, in trickle-down manner, RSS-ify the entire textual, audio, and visual output of the country's judicial system — something I think we would all find most welcome. And the present and future Justices Kennedy could work out the whole name multiplicity thing in in short order.
But as I said, I'm not the person to whom you should be listening about the identity and qualifications of the next member of the Court. So maybe the biggest contribution I can make (as is often the case) is to point you to who and what I'm reading in an effort to become better informed on the subject:
I've enjoyed reading the discussion here and elsewhere this week about the uncertain and unpredictable nature of copyright law today and whether and why it matters. (Some links aggregated here.) To answer Marty's earlier question to Dennis, the reason I worry about this stuff is to me it's anotherexample of a problem we've historically created and relatively recently identified, but haven't solved and now threaten to foist upon our kids and grandkids.
Copyright law is like an aging house. Though it may still serve its central purpose of providing a roof overhead for its owners, its infrastructure and plumbing have reached the end of their useful lives, and need to be updated if the whole structure is to remain sound for decades to come. The areas most desperately in need of renovation are:
The scope of copyright. What does and does not need to be protected in today's day and age, and when should protection attach?
The definition of infringement. Where should the focus be, e.g., on copying, or as Ernie Miller suggests, distribution? Certain forms of copying and distribution deserve to be treated differently than others from a policy standpoint, and they should be definitively carved out of the definition.
The requirement of harm. In cases where an activity is technically infringing but actually confers economic benefits on the rights holder and cultural benefits on society, there should be more roadblocks to a legal recovery than are in place today.
How do we know the current copyright structure really needs this remodel? Dennis' post is illustrative, and one could devote many hours (indeed, manyalreadyhave and regularly do) to chronicling similar examples. The cornerstones of "thievery" and "piracy" have been eroded by technology and utility, and by the old fair use standbys of news, commentary, art, education, and science. When your child takes something from a store, you explain why that was wrong and take her back to apologize and return it. When she mods her Xbox so she can back up her games to its hard drive and improve its performance, a similar trip to Redmond is the last thing on your mind. You're too busy considering her prospects and potential.
Who are the general and sub-contractors of this remodel? We all are. Participatory journalism gets a good deal of attention, but with the kind of unprecedented, unmediated, and distributed influence on the lawmaking process becoming possible today, "participatory law" is just as important, if not more so. Conversations like this one can become part of the analysis, and so can ideas generated around Creative Commons, collective licensing, and collaborative editing of scholarly texts. Keep hacking and hammering folks, and just maybe our children will inherit fewer constraints and uncertainties, and a better world.
I'm thinking of sending my Congressman an open letter (to be posted here) suggesting that they engage in a dialog with legal blogs about pending legislation in general and the 'Simon Barsinister' weather bill in particular. Maybe you would consider sending a similar letter to your representatives (and posting the letter on your blog).
Dear Congressman ____:
I am a registered voter. My home and business (a law firm) are located in your District. I also write for two blogs, The Trademark Blog and Between Lawyers.
You may be prepared to agree that the US Congress sometimes passes bad laws. There are of course many explanations, but one is the role of special interests, who are able to both hide in smoke-filled rooms and hide in plain sight. They count on the fact that opponents will not be able to mobilize against them, in time or perhaps ever, simply because information about the pending legislation was not disseminated effectively to the right group (I think, for better or worse, the recent Bankruptcy Bill may possibly be an example of legislation that snuck through in broad daylight).
A problem is that only groups that seem to be motivated to effectively track pending legislation are the special interest groups themselves.
However besides the special interests and the uninterested is a 'general interest' group of unknown size and influence. They would understand nuances and implications and would be prepared to communicate their views to their elected representatives. For want of a better term, they are 'concerned citizens.'
I think that this is a group that mainstream media has failed.
I encourage you, in your special role as 'expert federal legislator,' to consider participating in a somewhat novel communications network for creating a conversation about legislation with concerned citizens: legal blogs.
While you cannot avoid stories about the 'blogosphere' these days, there is less general coverage of blogs written by legal professionals (practitioners, academics, students, paralegals) (I learned what little detail I could about the bankruptcy bill not from the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times, but from lawyer-bloggers).
Legal blogs represent a new type of forum for discussing proposed legislation. It is not a gathering of extremist constituencies, nor is it a 'town hall' meeting of the uninformed. It is a good place to get good feedback from an articulate, broad spectrum of voters.
There is now an opportunity for you as an elected representative to reach out and participate in a conversation about a new odd piece of proposed legislation.
I refer to Senate Bill 786 titled “A bill to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service, and for other purposes.” In short, it prohibits the National Weather Service from disseminating weather information.
A collection of introductory links about the bill can be found here.
It is easy to come to the conclusion that this is a destructive bill intended solely to benefit a for-profit weather information provider that has contributed money to its sponsor. In other words, Washington at its worst.
If the bill is as bad as it seems, and it passes, then that represents one more bit of proof that 'the game is rigged.'
If the bill is not as bad as it seems, then we're interested in learning why it isn't.
But we and our readership can't make an informed opinion yet. May we look to you to 'set us straight'? May we look to your office for commentary, advice and analysis (for the purposes of posting on our website)?
We would also happily advise on setting up your office's RSS feed for legislative information ;-)
Today brings news that a group of bloggers has submitted an amicus brief in the writ proceedings concerning Apple's efforts to discover the sources of certain rumor site stories. As far as I know this is the first time bloggers have banded together to use the legal process to weigh in on a pending legal issue — in addition to blogging about it, of course.
[Update] Thanks to xrlq for pointing out this may be the first case, but (by a few days) not the first time: Bloggers speak up in Apple case
Guest post regarding our Group Annotation thread. Kevin Heller of TechLawAdvisor responds:
You asked whether group annotation of legal cases would be useful. I say let's find out. I've created a wiki at legal.jot.com . where blawgers and others can help annotate legal decisions. I think this would be much more useful than linking to a pdf file of the decision.
It's also pretty easy to do. First, go to any case page and click the drop down menu title "more actions..." and select Edit Page in WYSIWYG (I assume most everyone is familiar with this). From there you will have access to the text to edit and annotate using the MS word like toolbar.
All right Marty, so maybe no one is annotating circuit court decisions, but you can get your U.S. Code, annotated at GovTrack.us -- just sign up to follow a particular piece of legislation pending in Congress, and you'll receive updates whenever the House or Senate takes action, or when anybody in the blogosphere mentions the legislation by name. Can court opinions be far behind?
By the way, I happen to agree with the Scobleizer that while the NYT Annotated site is pretty cool, Memeorandum is a better annotated news site -- it pulls comments from more than one news source, and it's a heckuva lot easier to read.
Check out this 'annotated' version of the NY Times. Would this form of group annotation be a useful manner of presenting, for example, circuit court decisions? Hat tip, Micropersuasion.
Consistent with "Open Principles"[1] I anticipate that by putting my work online and inviting public comment the finished product will be superior to the result from a "closed" drafting process.
Aldo told me he initially decided to work on his thesis online because he and his mentor "had a heck of a time coordinating contact by phone." I think it's a fantastic idea, and if the topic intrigues you (here's somecontext), I'd encourage you to participate. It's great too to see more of this kind of collaborative, distributed approach being tried by those in the legal field.
Denise Howell
Dennis M. Kennedy
Tom Mighell
Marty Schwimmer
Ernest Svenson
