Shun Web services, you simply can't control the data?


Use Web services only when you have specific, confidentiality and reliability guaranteeing service level agreements?


Use Web services liberally, but acquaint yourself with the applicable terms of use and make sure clients are amenable?

#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:

#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.

What do you think?

Ron and Ross are on top of their games and you'll get some fascinating insights into the ways law firms are using outsourcing and insourcing. We talk about Law 2.0 on this blog on a regular basis and this podcast will give you some practical ideas about what Law 2.0 might mean and what it might look like.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

Then: consider how a virtual law firm (or a very forward thinking conventional one) might be in the perfect position to leapfrog ahead by eliminating the CRM (customer relationship management) line item from its technology and marketing budgets, and instead adopting a client driven, "vendor relationship management" approach to business development.

As I read the rules, EVERY public communication is an advertisement and any communication that isn't an advertisement is probably a solicitation. That should cover almost every communication between lawyers and the public.

In either case, a shocking number of draconian and micro-managing rules will apply.

I'll let others consider the free speech and other aspects of these rules, but I'd love to see some marketing experts analyze what the actual marketing effectiveness of any communication that satisifes these rules will have. My tentative conclusion is that if an "advertisement" or "solicitation" might in even a limited way be effective, it will violate the rules. If it has even been recommended as an effective form of marketing, it will probably cause you trouble.

This seems to be another in a series of recent regulatory efforts by state bar regulators that seem woefully out of touch with the Internet era.

Should you care? Well, consider this quote from the rules: "A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this state if the lawyer provides or solicits any legal services in this state." Take a quick look at the definition of "computer-accessed communication" in the amended rules and consider how a website or blog located anywhere is likely to be treated by the plain language of these proposed rules.

Once again, we see a concern about a limited problem being turned into wide-ranging regulations that will have enormous unintended consequences and seem designed primarily to protect established, successful practices from new competition.

Are we seeing the last gasp of an attempt to apply 19th century concepts to a 21st century world, or will lawyers be the only group able to roll back the changes the Internet has brought to the rest of the world? I'm betting on the Internet, but I'm quite curious about what others think about these proposed rules and others like them. It might be a good discussion topic for a summer Friday.

Ernie points to a recent (and some might call mind-boggling) ruling of a federal judge that requires the opposing attorneys in a case to settle their latest dispute with a game of "rock, paper, scissors."

Ernie does a nice job of explaining the basis point of our court system and concludes, succinctly, that:

Hell, when a federal judge has to tell the attorneys to use a child's game to resolve their disputes then you know the system is completely broken.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I completely agree with Ernie. This isn't Law 2.0.

Where do we go from here? What client is going to be happy with this kind of ruling and the behavior that leads to it? Will lawyers chuckle at this and similar stories as they reap the unintended consequences of breaking the court system? If lawyers make a joke of these matters, why should we expect others to take us or the court system seriously? Consider Ernie's comments carefully.

More on the underlying story here.

More great insights and ideas from value billing guru Ron Baker will help you in your next discussion about billable hours and may help you make your clients happier. Very interesting comments on the future of pricing approaches for professional services.

The money quote:

He also mentioned the war for talent, and warned that firms that stick to the timesheet method will have a difficult time recruiting young talent. "The young kids should be given the chance to shake things up and ask 'why are we doing this?'" he said. "These kids are knowledge workers and understand the value that they bring. Yet we're treating them like union employees, making them worry about being paid by the hour."