TechLawyerBlog

Update on Olympus Support

Although Olympus was no help in resolving my issue with my DS-5000 directly, my vendor, Lunis at KnowBrainer quickly responded to my email requests and got the issue escalated to a support person with Olympus.  We tried a couple of his suggestions via email, then he remote accessed my machine and solved the problem in about 10 minutes (apparently a windows service critical to the Olympus software was not loading).  I am back loving my DS-5000, although I would prefer to have direct access to tech support without going through my vendor. I especially appreciate Lunis, who has always supported his products after sale, and operates the best speech recognition listserv on the web. 

IPhone Application for Remote Typepad Blog Posts

I recently downloaded an app for posting to Typepad blogs over the iPhone. This post is from this app. It also has the ability to post photos as I also have done in this test post. This app works great. Very easy to set up and use.

Beware the Olympus Non-Support Policy

For several years I have been a big fan of the Olympus digital voice recorders.  I started using a DS-4000 about 5 years ago, and purchased a DS-5000 last year.  I recently lost it and did not hesitate to purchase another one.  Recently my software has developed some problems where it will not see the device.  If I re-install the software, it works perfectly, until, that is, I have to shut my computer down and reboot, after which time it will not see my device.  In other words, if I want to use this product, I have to uninstall and reinstall the software every day.  Olympus has a policy that its professional products are supported by local vendors.  Mine had experienced the problem himself, and offered the solution that I upgrade the software to the latest version, which I did.  Same problem.  So, I followed the instructions in the manual, which say: "If your dealer cannot fix your problem, please call our technical support hotline," which i did.  I was told very politely that they could not offer any help; I must go through my dealer.  When I told her that my dealer did not have a clue what to do next, she said she was sorry, but she could not help.  I have emailed my vendor to see if he can get any better answer from Olympus.  Otherwise, my solution now is to return the unit (I have a 30 day return guarantee feature on my AmEx card) and to purchase the comparable Phillips recorder, after I first confirm that they will actually provide support for the unit.  These are great products, very accurate with voice recognition software, but if I can't get it off the device and into my computer, it does not do me much good, and Olympus is no help.  

Big Surprise! Facebook Use At Office Reduces Productivity.

A recent study concludes that employees that use Facebook while at work are 1.5% less efficient.  Another study shows that students who regularly use Facebook make lower grades.  The only thing remotely surprising about this study is that the productivity from this outright time theft by employees is not greater than 1.5%.  In the study, 87% admitted that they had no legitimate work-related reason for using Facebook.  77% of respondents acknowledged that they accessed Facebook from work, with 33 confessing that they used Facebook exclusively at work. 

Lawyers May Face Discipline or Even Criminal Charges for use of Online Referral Service

The Connecticut Office of Disciplinary Council has filed with the Statewide Grievance Committee a recommendation that 5 lawyers that participated in the www.totalbankruptcy.com web site for territories in Connecticut be charged with violation of Rule 7.2 for paying a fee for leads, and Rule 8.4 for engaging in felonious conduct.  A copy of the Memorandum is Here 

Total Bankruptcy operates a consumer based web site that gives consumers information and the opportunity to seek a consultation from an attorney in their local area.  Despite some legal nuances about how the participating attorneys are charged, essentially, according to the memo, they pay a fee of approximately $65.00 for every consumer who requests a consultation with the lawyer for their given territory.  The lawyer can then presumably follow up with the prospect on a timely basis.  While it is clear that such a scheme is the payment of something of value in exchange for a referral, for that matter, so is Google AdWords.  Although AdWords usually costs considerably less per click, AdWords also does not perform the extremely valuable service of pre-screening clickers the way that total bankruptcy does, so the higher cost can possibly be justified by the value added. Those who click adwords are more often than not, web surfing, and are not likely to stay on your site long or make any contact, yet you pay for their surfing, while those that volunteer contact information in the total bankruptcy scheme have generally self-screened themselves before giving up their information and requesting a consult.  What seems to have the General Counsel's office worked up was not so much the fact that payment was made for clicks, but rather that the recipient of the clicks was exclusive to a territory.  That same concern was raised by other bars that have rendered opinions on similar advertising schemes.  The memo, as well as the bar complaints apparently filed in 47 jurisdictions should serve as a warning to lawyers before jumping into marketing driven by new computer technology. The so-called Web 2.0 is interactive with potential consumers, which is exactly what TotalBankruptcy seeks to capitalize on for the benefit of participating lawyers, and presumably consumer's benefit as well.  Yet ethics rules designed to prohibit runners or pay-for-referral schemes written decades before Al Gore ever invented the internet still apply. Those on the cutting edge will necessarily be the test cases to determine how those old rules apply to new technologies.  Unfortunately for these 5 Connecticut lawyers, they may have discovered where the edge of one of those lines lies, at least in Connecticut.  While I sympathize, I do not agree with some that have suggested that we should all be outraged that they are being charged with wrongdoing at all.  These lawyers knew the ethics rules, and alarm bells should have gone off when they were presented with an exclusive pay-per-contact marketing system.  They knew the risk of what they were doing and they did it anyway.  I do hope that they prevail, because I think that this is different than the pay-for-referral schemes Rule 7.2 was designed to prohibit, but I am not outraged that they are being charged. 

Metadata Included in Public Records under Freedom of Informtion Reques

The Supreme Court of Arizona has determined that there is no separation or  distinction between a public document and the metadata underlying that document.  It is interesting that the various state bars that have and are wrestling with this issue with respect to lawyer's use of metadata in lawyer to lawyer communications, have, for the most part, created an artificial distinction between the metadata and the face of the document.  A majority of jurisdictions looking at the issue have said that, while the sending lawyer must take reasonable precautions not to transmit client confidences through metadata, it is unethical for a receiving lawyer to look at the metadata.  It seems to me that this position is against the trend of the rest of the non-legal world, where the observation of metadata is permitted and even expected.  Indeed the lawyer receiving discovery containing metadata is probably under a duty to look at the metadata, yet when they receive the same metadata outside of the discovery context they are forbidden from looking.  I can't help but wonder if the distinction for lawyers isn't driven out of a desire to protect lawyers from the result of their failure to take reasonable precautions not to transmit metadata. 

Lexis a Bargain?

I posted yesterday about Lexis and West's policies causing them to loose most of the solo and small-firm market (which, at least in Mississippi and I suspect nationally, comprises the vast majority of the bar).  One exception to this is the excellent limited account deal offered by the Jenkins Law Library which solos can join for $150 per year. This membership offers access to Fastcase and 20 minutes of LEXIS a day.  With one of these accounts, if you are judicious with your planning, you can research briefs and memos, and Shepardize your cases,in daily 20 minute blocks. What a bargain! 

Check Email Early & Often?

A recent firm memo from Quinn Emanuel has been circulating through the blog-sphere that criticizes an associate for not checking his email frequently enough.  The partner in charge of a project sent an email around 7:30 pm to the associate asking that a fax be sent to the client.  The associate apparently left the office after that time without having checked his email.  The partner used the opportunity as a "teaching moment" for the firm's associates to remain constantly available, 24/7, and check email early and often.  Presumably this means they should have their emails and blackberry's set to alert them every time a message arrives.  My question is, with studies consistently showing that such interruptions measurably decrease efficiency, why do clients tolerate such policies.  Presumably whenever a lawyer is working on client A's work, and billing client A, the work is subject to frequent and uncontrolled interruptions from clients C,D, and E, and every firm associate and partner from firm announcements, the latest joke or you-tube video, or teaching moment memos.  No doubt lawyers in such environments will also bill .10 hours for each such client interruption email, probably without a corresponding .10 reduction from client A's work. 

I do not bill much hourly, but regardless of whether hourly or flat fee, I and my client are both rewarded by working as efficiently as I can, and constant interruptions significantly decrease that efficiency.  My client suffers because constant interruptions reduce the quality of my work, and increase the likelihood of mistakes.  Quality of life issues aside, clients should be reluctant to embrace such 24/7 policies because of quality of work product and increased likelihood of over-billing.  It is my policy to check email only once per day.  Clients are told not to assume that I have received their email unless I respond to it, and if something is important, use the telephone. 

Squandered Opportunity for Legal Research Providers

Carolyn Elefant's recent post is exactly right in her analysis of the big online research providers' lost opportunity to serve the small firm market.  Instead of giving small-firm lawyers reasonably priced offerings of local case law, West and Lexis continue to offer over-priced access to their databases of public domain material.  As a result, they have given the small-firm market to new services.  In Mississippi the provider of choice to small firms is Casemaker, a service that is provided free as a bar membership benefit.  Back when I first started practice on my own around 11 years ago, I was able to subscribe to Lexis' local state databases for around $60/month.  This included the "locate" command that would pull up any case by cite, as well as Shepard's.  But then Lexis began a systematic price increase of $5.00 to $10.00 each year, while simultaneously reducing coverage.  They removed Shepard's and Locate from the included service, and at the time that I dropped the service, were charging $85.00/ month.  I got a promotional email recently that was offering the same service for the limited time special price of $125.00 per month.  At $70 per month under the original plan, I would have been a customer for life.  But at these prices, I think I will stick to the free Casemaker service.

They did the same thing with Martindale Hubble.  Like the yellow page directories and newspapers, since they are publishing an outdated and largely irrelevant directory, what have they done with their listing prices?  Raised them dramatically, of course, which reduces advertisers.  Then they send a bill for your rating.  Services like Avvo will continue to marginalize MH, and serve the interests of small firms better because Lexis left a big vacuum in that area of unmet need.

AT&T Wireless Update

Several months ago I posted about my experience with AT&T Wireless' internet card Several months ago I posted about my experience with AT&T Wireless' internet card and the supposedly free access at AT&T Hotspots.  From day 1, I was never able to log onto one of these Hotspots, despite confirmation from tech support that I should be able to do so.  When I last left the issue with AT&T support, they were looking into it, and later did contact me and asked me to try it at my local Starbucks where I was supposed to have access.  Despite getting a connection error message, I was finally able to connect at this local Starbucks, so I thought that the issue was resolved.  The following day, I tried  the Starbucks in the next city, only to find that I did not have access there using my AT&T wireless card at this location.  Since the card worked at my local shop, I ultimately decided that it was not worth my time to deal with the issue any more.  Yesterday I visited my local Starbucks and again attempted to log on using my AT&T account, only to learn I had no wi-fi access using this method.  If I call support it will consume hours of troubleshooting that I am not inclined to waist again.  The solution that I have suggested to AT&T is that they simply give me an AT&T wifi account number that will give me the access I am supposed to have, and that I am paying for, with my wireless card, but they have so far been unwilling to solve the problem in this simple manner, opting instead to request that I spend hours and hours of troubleshooting at my local Starbucks yet again.  No thanks AT&T.  For anyone considering this service, I advise looking elsewhere if local wi-fi is also an important feature.  This service has never worked for me, and what's worse, AT&T does not seem to care.