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.
As more and better communication and collaboration functions move to the Web (under non-negotiated, vendor-centric terms of use), what are our obligations as both tech- and ethics-savvy lawyers? I for one am not about to give up Gmail. So, what's the best practice?
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?
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."
I was listening yesterday to the terrific CalacanisCast interview with Dan Albritton of iminlikewithyou.com, and was struck yet again by the way indicia of reputation, trustworthiness, and credibility are shifting and quantifying. I'm not sure what tomorrow's AV rating will look like, but I suspect it will be less subjective, more egalitarian, and more task-oriented.
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.
It was recorded a while back, but I wanted to recommend the excellent discussion on legal technology and outsourcing you will find on the podcast featuring Ron Friedmann and Ross Kodner that's part of the Coast to Coast podcast series. It's called "Legal Technology: A Doubled-edged Sword?"
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.
This might sound a bit acronym-soupy and cryptic, but the proverbial lightbulb is over my head at the moment, and I think it will have more impact if you attempt to understand why yourself rather than having me explain. So first, please listen to the current episode of the Gillmor Gang:
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.
A new website called The Robing Room allows attorneys (and litigants) to make assessments about federal judges. There is no secure verification process, and the assessments are anonymous. So there is definitely some opportunity for mischief that would undermine the credibility of this rating service. Still, it will be interesting to see if the site catches on with lawyers and what effect it will have if it does.
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)
Corporate blogging aficionista Debbie Weil is poised to unleash her Corporate Blogging Book on August 3. In the meantime she's offering freebies to tease and entice &mdash the complete first chapter, called "Top 20 Questions About Corporate Blogging," and, if you preorder at Amazon, the book's chart highlights — which you can check out at the book's site.
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.
There is a growing discussion of the relevance of our current court system and the ways lawyers want to use it in the Internet era. More accurately, there is a concern about whether the system continues to be workable.
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 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."
There's a slew of law related RSS feeds — for press releases and news articles related to "Deals," "People," "Prosecutions," "Lawsuits," "Awards/Rankings," and "Announcements" — at LawFuel.com.
A colleague recently asked me what concrete steps I thought an organization could take to help ensure the concepts underlying a blogging policy are actually understood and implemented. Bearing in mind I am so not an employment lawyer, I did have a few thoughts.
Blog. I suspect that companies pursuing their own blogging initiatives in addition to implementing policies intended to cover unsanctioned employee blogs will run into fewer problems with employee mistakes or misunderstandings. This is because the management and culture throughout the organization is bound to better grasp the process and related security and compliance issues. IMO, the best "training" occurs by example and widespread use.
Breathe. As I've pontificated here before, there's a pretty good case to be made that blogs and their ilk are
actually the least risky form of corporate communication. If a company adequately gets across the reasons it expects certain employee conduct with regard to external communications, confidential
information, and technology use, blogs, etc. are at least as "safe" as email and the phone; in fact, because people are more likely to understand up front these technologies are designed to accomplish wide and persistent information distribution, people are more likely to approach their use with caution and respect.
Mix. Organizations need to make sure their P.R./marketing and legal arms are communicating about how employees should be relaying work related information to third parties or the world at large, and they need to have an open-eyed appreciation of all the ways people might be or are using technology to do so. Brace yourself: P.R. and legal goals just might compete. Management needs to understand those conflicts and decide what resolution best fits what they're trying to accomplish (and what the law insists they accomplish).
Tom Collins, in his excellent More Partner Income blog, describes a phenomenon that I've seen for a long time, yet have found difficult to explain to people. In fact, I often feel that people do not believe me when I talk about this. It is somewhat counter-intuitive.
As Tom explains, lawyers in mid-sized firms (and also in more larger firms than people might expect) are consistently working annd billing more hours than associates. There is no "leverage" and in many mid-sized firms the partner/associate ratio is 1:1 (or less).
What has happened, especially since the notion of minimum billable hours got applied to partners, is that partners hoard work and do not delegate it to associates. The reasons are pretty clear - if your compensation and review is based on making your own quota of billable hours as a partner, then, even though you are defeating the basic economic purpose of having a firm and using leverage with associates, you will make sure that you have sufficient work to make your own billables quota first. In firms that use "billed" or "collected" hours as a measure, the tendency to hoard is even greater.
Tom's post does an excellent job of describing the phenomenon and explaining the many negative consequences that flow from it. Tom's suggestion of a more rational compensation scheme for mid-sized firms is mandatory reading, especially if you are a parther (or a partner-to-be) in a mid-sized firm.
My own take on this is that the work-hoarding partner phenomenon is one of the most insidiously destructive forces at work in law firms today. If you ask senior associates and young partners why they have left firms, it is rare not to hear some variation on this theme.
I applaud Tom for asking the questions and proposing a starting point for finding a solution.
The money quote:
The firm gets a bonus out of the new approach. The firm gains a farm team out of which the future partners and leaders of the firm will come.
It should concern us that Tom has to remind us of the basic truths he notes in his post. More firms, however, should be concerned that the farm team has already left the ranch.
Our co-blogger Dennis Kennedy is quoted today in the New York Times: Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply. Dennis' interesting, and I'm sure far more nuanced, discussion with reporter Anna Bahney was distilled down to a truth about modern attitudes toward personal values and employment — "It's like, 'This is who I am. Consequences are what they are. I'll go work for someone who doesn't have a problem with it.'" Just as she missed the chance to round out her piece with more of Dennis' well-considered insights on this topic, the reporter missed the opportunity to tell the more accurate, important, and complicated story. Specifically, Ms. Bahney took the approach that the issue of individuals, their blogs, and their employers, is one of youth culture vs. Killjoy Lawyer III and co. E.g.:
[T]he line between what is public and what is private is increasingly fuzzy for young people comfortable with broadcasting nearly every aspect of their lives on the Web, posting pictures of their grandmother at graduation next to one of them eating whipped cream off a woman's belly. For them, shifting from a like-minded audience of peers to an intergenerational, hierarchical workplace can be jarring.
(Emphasis added.) While I appreciate the clever juxtaposition, and the point that there undeniably is a generation gap between the online mores of under-thirty-somethings and their elders, to suggest that boundary blurring of this sort is an issue unique to the young is to ignore at least the last six years of Web-enabled communications. And to note almost in passing that "some bloggers" say "[a] blog and a job don't necessarily have to clash," is to ignore at least three years worth (and counting) of seismic shift in corporate attitudes toward communications with the outside world. Yes, it's a slow change. But to suggest the change isn't happening — "No Bloggers Need Apply" — misses the boat, and here, I fear, resulted in an alarmist headline and a story that attempted to paint the varied picture of today's business attitudes and relationships with a two-color palette.
I recommend reading the whole interview because it clearly points to the future and may suggest to many lawyers that the future will arrive much more quickly than they anticipate.
The money quote:
9. What advantages and disadvantages do legal blogs have when compared to law reviews and other traditional forms of scholarship?
The advantages are obvious: speed, availability, and topicality. I don’t see real disadvantages.
I grow weary of the stereotypical myth-riddled responses of the power people in many major law firms giving excuse after excuse as to why keeping women engaged is next to impossible. I do not believe it and neither should you. This challenge will be met by some firms who will gain enormous competitive advantage.
A Reason for Lawyers to Podcast Their Oral Arguments?
An interesting post from Rees Morrison talks about clients who want to hear recordings of lawyers in action before deciding which lawyer to hire as a trial lawyer.
It does make sense. If you are hiring a lawyer for his or her advocacy skills, wouldn't you ideally like to hear (or see) some examples of the lawyer in action? Event planners routinely ask for samples from prospective speakers.
Might a podcast be a way to create that kind of "sample of work" for prospective clients?
The Korea Times reports on efforts in South Korea to use blogs or other Internet tools as an alternative to physical appearances in courts.
The money quote:
"Korean courts are now experimenting whether they could operate court trials and hearings just through Internet postings, saving everybody the trouble of actually entering the courtroom," the Korea Times reports. "The Seoul Administration Court recently designated one of its court units,which rules on labor-management relations and industrial accidents,to develop a prototype model for Internet-based trial models by the end of this month. Although the court has not yet decided on a detailed framework, it plans to allow the parties in lawsuits to submit their list of evidence, legal documents and other data on Weblogs or Internet message boards to be operated by the court."
There's been a lot of discussion in recent days on the latest round of associate salary increases at large US law firms, Bruce MacEwen does a nice job of summarizing the issues here.
The Wired GC stirs the pot with a couple of must-read observations, but here's the money quote:
(We of course know it’s not about price-fixing.)
Hmmm, there's that one hyphenated word.
I remember an earlier round of associate salary increases back in the dot-com era when I was on my firm's hiring committee. As we considered, all the issues you read about in the discussion of the economics of these issues and the need to raise salaries to attract new lawyers, a good number of my friends in small law firms kept using that hyphenated word - "price-fixing." I never bought their arguments.
The category of this post is called "Provocations." Here comes the provocation and we'll see what discussion we get.
In recent months, I've noticed a ratcheting up of the "protections" of the legal profession from within - stories about lowering the rates of bar exam passage, decisions that law firms can't use certain types of advertising (pit bull ads anyone?), other efforts on preventing "unauthorized practice of law," and and now law firms all over the country raising starting salaries by same amounts in all but unison.
Is the legal profession begging for outside (governmental) investigation, intervention and antitrust regulation?
I'm just raising the question to see what people think, not necesarily as a reflection of my own opinion.
Thanks to the Wired GC for asking some tough question. I highly recommend his post.
Here's a provocative topic for a Friday afternoon from a fascinating article in today's ABA Journal eReport. Terry Carter's "No Time for a Round-up" covers a recent Kansas case where a court censured a lawyer for, among other things, rounding 45 minute blocks of time to one hour.
The article then goes into detail about what might and might not be permitted in the rounding of time to the nearest billing increment. Read it yourself. I'll simply note that some of the examples referred to specific questionable practices that looked suspicious on their faces.
The most interesting comments are from a law professor who suggests than ANY rounding should be prohibited. In other words, time entries would become 5 minutes, 24 seconds, rather than .1 hour. The technology, she suggests, is available to do this. This might give new meaning to "being on the clock." Before long, embedding chips directly into lawyers' brains might make timekeeping even more accurate.
If this article makes you think about alternative billing models, Tom Mighell and I wrote a couple of columns about resources on this topic here and here.
I know that I'm only an honorary member of the Between Lawyers group, but I can no longer sit idly by waiting until the rest of them, including Ernie, get around to posting about Ernie's big announcement.
As the proverbial ""fly on the wall" to the Between Lawyers conversations, I can tell you that these bloggers definitely leave their best material on their back-channel email discussion list and this topic is no exception. On the other hand, they could be secret agents the way they kept Ernie's announcement secret from the public over the last few weeks.
Once again, I see them having a lot of conversations that just do not make it to the blog, but by the time they decide who is going to announce Ernie's move to solo practice and what that post should say, it will be 2007. Since I'm more the impatient and impulsive type, I finally decided that I had to jump in and make a post. Ernie's so darn modest that he'll never get around to posting this news.
Now that I have the podium again, though, I'll make a few remarks based on my observations as a mostly-slient member of the back-channel email list. It's fascinating what I see.
On the Between Lawyers back-channel list, someone will raise a topic in an email and ask whether it's something they "might" blog about. Then the following happens:
Denise seems to always reply: "Blog it!" Five minutes later, she'll send another email saying that she's already blogged about it, giving it some context, some appropriate links and one of her clever titles. It seems like she's saying "blog it!" as an assignment to herself.
Dennis seems to always say that he had already been thinking about blogging about the topic and expects to post something about it "soon." Then, any time between later that day and two weeks later, the topic will surface in paragraph twelve of a post that initially seems to be on a completely different topic, but you gradually realize puts the topic in a larger context and draws some practical lessons.
Ernie seems to always want to "mull over" what he might say about the topic. Like Dennis, he might or might not write about the topic, but, if he does, he ends up treating the topic in a thoughtful, philosophical way, making a larger point about the topic and its larger implications.
Marty seems to always fire back two or three responses that are either hilarious or perfect for posting to the blog. He also often seem to mention that there are already decided cases on the topic. He insists that he needs to polish his responses and find a suitable picture before he can turn his remarks into a blog post. He then finds something that the Bush administration has done that day that incenses him and he forgets to make the post.
Tom seems to always give the caveat that "he's just a litigator who is not as familiar with the topic as the rest of you." He then offers a concise, spot-on summary of the issue and may post about it and add several perfectly-chosen links to resources that will help people learn more about it.
It's a fascinating interplay to watch. I've often felt that a law school that cared about its students would be smart to swoop in and hire all five of these people, give them tenure and turn them loose to teach students. That's probably why I'm not in charge of hiring professors at a law school.
It's a pleasure to get to look in on what they do, but I do wish that they wouldn't leave so much good material on the cutting room floor.
On behalf of the whole group at Between Lawyers, including Lawyer X, congratulations and bon voyage to Ernie on his new adventure. And, you might want to update that bio in the left-hand column over there, Ernie.
Farmshoring has a catchy ring to it. According to Wikipedia, "Where offshoring is the relocation of business labor to foreign nations, farmshoring is the relocation of business labor to small rural American towns."
I've heard the terms "homesourcing" and "insourcing" to refer to outsourcing work, including legal work, to the US Midwest and other "non-coastal parts of the US. It's an idea that starting to get a lot of discussion and some traction, including in the discussion of Law 2.0. One more piece of "the world is flat" conversation and a new meme to watch..
Also included is a new article from Johnson called "The Life of Law Online" that I highly recommend to anyone who wants to think about where law is headed in an increasingly online world.
The new article ends with this paragraph:
Our geographical, sovereign law may be well suited for regulating physical things and protecting us from real world threats. It will undoubtedly persist in its own appropriate environmental niche. But, even in that context, we would do better to treat it as an organism, rather than a mechanism — viewing it as a complex whole, disallowing efforts to redesign it from outside, discrediting efforts to analyze it by reductionist means. In any event, we must recognize that our current legal organism, transplanted online, will not prosper. As we interact globally over the Internet, we create a new non–local citizenry, a netizenry, occupying many different kinds of online spaces that both need and can create rules of their own. The new global metabolism will produce new forms of social order that use fundamentally different forms of repair, goal setting and legitimation. Our old meta–meta–story of citizen consent to a social contract empowering a territorially local government just won’t work in this new context. But new repair mechanisms, new complex systems, new forms of social order will arise. These will involve voluntary navigation and filters, not voting. They will demand and receive deference from local legal regimes, because they will be better than any current legal systems at creating social order online. Long live the new legal organisms of the net.
A profound and fascinating article. Johnson's writings have been a big influence on my thinking for many years and he is one of the giants in both the legal aspects of technology and the use of technology by lawyers. I'm thrilled to learn that Johnson will be speaking at ABA TECHSHOW 2006, where I hope to meet him and say thank you in person.
Do you write a blog that falls somewhere along the broad continuum between "personal" and "business?" If you sometimes write about personal things on your business blog, or business things on your personal blog, or you're not sure you can cubby-hole whatever it is you do into one category or ther other, the answer is "yes." In that case, you should go take the BlogHersurvey on Blogging Naked at Work. (Po Bronson would approve.) I for one am interested to see what sort of mores, norms, and expectations are developing, and this is a great way to begin to get a handle on it. All genders welcome.
Let me say this as simply as possible: Ron Baker's post called "Attorneys Aren't Knowledge Workers" must be read and discussed by all lawyers. No excuses - read it.
destinationCRM.com, A New Platform Could Power Up Corporate Blogging; iUpload has a product that "integrates with Salesforce.com and NetSuite, and includes an editorial approval option, compliance reporting, and additional security, according to the company."
Jeremy Pepper, Going for that 25 Percent: "Were those comments from Alaska Airlines? Were those comments from Tello employees or its PR firm? I don't know - but the IP addresses (while they can be spoofed) usually don't lie."
When I met Tony Colleluori last year, I was reminded that it is far too easy these days to forget that many lawyers entered the legal profession because they see it as a caring profession,
Tony's post on That Lawyer Dude today about the death of one of his criminal defense lawyer friends demonstrates that sense of caring and concern that is often seen inside the legal profession, but, unfortunately, not so well known outside the profession.
In part, Tony writes:
I am older and wiser now. I am sitting at my desk and I am still working, but in part that is about the need to mourn an old friend. In part it is also to not let his death be in vain, but to serve as a warning to the Novices and experienced alike that what we do should never become who we are. That our duty to our clients ends at the beginning of our duty to our families and our God. That we can offer those whom we fight for, only ourselves, and if we allow ourselves to become nothing, then what can we offer those that need us?
It's a sad story, a cautionary story, and a touching story - one that will make you feel Tony's loss and show you the power of blogging, even lawyer blogging, to carry emotion, feeling and a sense of connection. Please read.
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.
It's often a very useful exercise to stand in someone else's shoes and see things through their eyes.
For lawyers, one exercise is to try to see things from the point of view of your clients. When it comes to legal technology, I usually refer to this approach as "client-driven technology."
Michael Kraft and Robert Enholm have written a great new article called "GC Tech Wish List for 2006" that will give lawyers some ideas about how legal technology looks from the corporate counsel's side of the table.
I had a similar experience recently to the one Ernie talked about in his post today about Martindale-Hubbell. I received the same type of rating letter as Ernie did. In my case, I found that I recognized only a few names in the three-page list and I simply did not know enough about them or their practices to rank them. So, like Ernie, I threw the letter away.
However, even though I kind of like helping with the rankings, I think that not evaluating lawyers I don't know enough about is much better than guessing about ratings or giving people low grades because I nothing about them. As Ernie mentioned, the ranking system is a little obscure and I'm not sure that what it would mean if someone got that "X" rating on ethics.
The ratings always have had a bit of mystery about them and, for many years, you weren't allowed to use your ranking in your marketing materials, not that putting a little "av" in your materials would mean that much to most people.
I've actually used the Internet version of Martindale Hubbell for many years. In most cases, I'm simply looking for the address, phone number or email address of a lawyer whose name I already know.
I've found two negatives in my use of Martindale.com.
First, it really is not a complete list of all lawyers and firms. Often, it seems, solo and small firm lawyers simply are not in the database and lawyers in corporate legal departments are especially hard to find (perhaps this is done intentionally to keep them from being bombarded with resumes). If lawyers are in the database, the amount of information that is available will vary, depending on the type of (paid) listing they have.
For example, I just checked, because I didn't know for sure, whether I am included in the online directory. It turns out that I am. Compare Ernie's listing to mine and you will see that Ernie's firm probably pays for a higher level of listing, because there is much more information about him than there is about me.
Just now, for example, I checked Marty's listing (Marty, you've never mentioned that you went to Harvard), Denise's listing (Berkeley law school - I assumed one of the Southern California schools), and Tom's listing (OK, I knew the Texas undergrad degree, but wasn't sure about UT as well for law school). I would not have guessed Ernie's law school correctly. Memo to the Between Lawyers group: maybe we need to learn a few more details about each other. I also noted that Lawyer X is not listed in the directory.
Which brings me to my second observation: I've found that, invariably, once you get into the Martindale-Hubbell directory, you get distracted and spend time looking up friends, old classmates and the like.
So, over the years, I found that I preferred the West Lawyer Digest (now part of FindLaw) to the Martindale Hubbell database. However, in many instances, I ended up using both.
These days, I tend to do the quick Google search, but even there the results can be unsatisfying, especially if you are looking for a lawyer with a common name or, more likely, the lawyer's firm has done a poor job in managing its Google rankings. And then there's the all-to-common problem of law firms making it way too difficult to find mailing addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of their lawyers. (Memo to law firms: the danger of losing potential business is much higher when you hide lawyers' email addresses than any potential danger of increasing the the amount of spam you might get by making the email addresses readily available).
All of which leads to the reason for this post, which is that you will definitely want to read the Wired GC's post called "Law 2.0 Through the Martindale-Hubbell Telescope" in connection with Ernie's post, my post and any comments on them. The Wired GC has a fascinating take on this issue and I highly recommend his post.
It's also intriguing to think about these issues in terms of Web 2.0 applications. Imagine using the Martindale database in connection with the Google Maps API to map lawyers with "av" ratings (or matching other criteria) in your geographic area. Or, how about using the Rollyo search engine tool to create mini-search engine that searches only from a limited set of legal directories?
There's a cautionary tale well worth your consideration in The Wired GC's post and it will help all of us who are trying to determine what Web 2.0 applied to law (or Law 2.0) will look like.
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.
Like AKMA and Dennis (and probably everyone who posts with any degree of regularity — and my regularity is anything but), I too get asked about time, time, time, all the time. No one has time. I'm certainly no exception.
Which is why I thought it was pretty funny when Sandra Rosenzweig, the California Lawyer's technology editor, included me in her send recently to "the ten most efficient people I know." (Sandra, we need to see about getting you out more often.) She's doing a story on time management and wanted tips. When I got a little time, I sent her some. Here they are:
Pick the 1 or 2 devices you like best and consolidate your
activities on them. If you can manage most aspects of your life with
one or maybe two devices, you can do almost anything from almost
anywhere and make efficient use of downtime. In my case they're a
cell phone and a PowerBook. You could get away with a laptop alone,
using Skype or Gizmo to handle the phone part, but WiFi penetration
isn't yet ubiquitous and cheap enough to make that work well, and I
spend too much time in the car to make the laptop my only means of
audio communication. Key to this is getting a phone that is both full
featured and easy enough to use that the features don't just languish.
Aside from its traditional function, the features I use the most on
my phone are email and the camera. With this system, I've never felt
the need for a Blackberry or a Treo.
Get a Gmail account. If it makes sense, get several. Eliminating time once spent searching for and/or attempting to organize email is
enormously helpful.
Try making all online communications (e.g., writing and responding
to emails, blogging) a secondary priority, turning to them only when
the day's "offline" communication tasks (meetings, calls, errands) are
complete. Most online communications are meant to be asynchronous
(i.e., unlike offline communications, the participants need not
participate simultaneously). Take advantage. (Can you tell I'm not a
big IM-er? This is why.)
Make your errands come to you rather than vice versa. E.g., four
words that will change your life (if they have not already done so):
home delivery dry cleaning.
Read The Support Economy, then
do your best to help it along (both in the services you use and in
those you may provide).
So that's how I find the occasional two minutes to blog. Tiny investment, immediate dividends. Speaking of which, thanks Sandra, for getting that bloggers who contribute to such pieces are genetically hardwired not to wait for the print production schedule to run its course before posting their bit; that's what the next two spare minutes are for.
I recommend that you read the whole article and the accompanying survey results, but let me highlight two things that struck me about what Brenda described as the "upbeat" results, at least if you are not an associate, of this survey:
1. "Firm leaders still aren't spending much time getting feedback from their clients. Forty-eight percent said they had met with five or fewer of their 20 top-billing clients in the last 12 months to discuss the firm's performance. Six percent said they hadn't met with any."
2. 99% of the responding firms plan to increase billing rates for 2006. "Billing rates will continue to go up. Fifty-three percent of respondents expect to increase billing rates by 5 percent or less; 46 percent anticipate raising them by more than 5 percent."
Food for thought: the combination of these two factors in most, if not all, other businesses would be a recipe for disaster.
Of course, there's much more information to consider in the article and survey results, but I think I might have gotten your attention with the two quotes I highlighted, eh?
The Budget Rent-a-Car opinion by Judge Posner, reversing the decision to award attorneys' fees to a defendant who had to deal with a frivolous appeal, is getting a lot of discussion over at PointofLaw.com, and deservedly so. Posner apparently thought that the defense attorneys $4,000 fee for a 4 page brief was excessive. Gail Heriot's point is that "that's what litigation costs," suggesting that Judge Posner was wrong. I'm not sure if he's wrong, but I agree with Gail that litigation is 'frighteningly expensive' and many judges aren't willing to do what is necessary to address the problem.
Litigation is expensive because the legal system, pretty much at all levels, is inefficient. Judges are in a unique position to streamline the process and force efficiency into the system, but, as a whole, the judiciary has not really done that. Denying excessive attorney fee requests is not going to do much to create the necessary momentum.
I like Judge Posner. I think he is efficient and his decisions are sensible. But he's an appellate judge, and they don't really have much influence over the inefficiencies in our legal system (remember not many cases go to trial, and of that number only a percentage get appealed). We need to re-examine the kind of people we appoint/elect to our trial courts. Trial judges control cases from the moment they get filed until the moment they settle (which 90% of them do) or get resolved by trial or summary judgment. What kind of trial judges should we be looking for? I favor fidgety, impatient people who don't like to waste time. Like Judge Judy, for example.
You think I'm kidding about the Judge Judy thing, don't you?
The Online Guide to Mediation blog has a post with a great collection of resources about the future of the practice of law, with an emphasis on alernative dispute resolution.
I also keep a small collection of links to resource on the future of the practice of law here.
Denise Howell
Dennis M. Kennedy
Tom Mighell
Marty Schwimmer
Ernest Svenson
