TechLawyerBlog

No Respect, No Respect at All...

While making travel arrangements for Christmas vacation today on Southwest Airlines' web site, I saw a field for "suffix."  The drop-down field revealed numerous options from which to choose, including CPA, RN, CLU, but noticeably absent was "JD." Not to take anything away from nurses, accountants, and financial planners, but why is it that these individuals who's professional designations only require no more than 4 years of education (only 2 in the case of an LPN) and passing a test receive special recognition, while those of us with the Doctorate of Jurisprudence, whose degree requires 4 years of undergraduate study, plus an additional three years of law school, get no separate recognition?  It goes without saying that LL.M., an additional designation indicating master of laws in a particular field of study which takes an additional year of study to obtain, is also absent.  So, this airline recognizes Veterinarians, Dentists, and Pharmacists as being special passengers, but not lawyers?  What's the deal, Southwest?   

Exactly What is Everyone Talking About?

My 13 year old sons and I are training for a half-marathon this January.  For some of our training runs we have used a half-mile walking track in a local park.  Frequently while we are running, a walker will join us on the track for a couple of laps.  Almost always, the walker is walking slowly and talking on a cell phone for the entire time that they are walking.  While they are to be commended on at least being out there exercising (albeit not very vigorously), my real question is, what is it that is so important that these people are talking about about it the entire time of their walk?  And my other question is, how is it that the person on the other end of the conversation has absolutely nothing better to do that they are able to stay on the phone the entire time of this walk?  Is it possible that that person is simultaneously walking and talking on a track someplace else?  I simply do not understand what they have to talk that much about. 

Free Law by Google

Google has announced that it is expanding its Google Scholar service to include case and statutory law.  This is a good thing for the public, giving the general public free access to the laws governing them.  It is also good for us lawyers, giving us an alternative to the premium services offered by Lexis and West.  These premium services offer annotations such as digest entries, as well as treatises, but it will be harder and harder for them to justify their premium price tag charged to lawyers for public domain material.  The bigger question is what effect such free offerings will have on the intermediate services, such as Casemaker, which is offered through state bar associations, including Mississippi.  It remains to be seen what such services really offer when lawyers can get the same materials, and find it with Google search, using Google's database.

No Tweets in the Courtroom

In yet another blow to openness of our courts, a Federal judge has ruled that Twittering (or Tweeting, or whatever the proper verb is) from the courtroom is a form of "broadcast" that is prohibited by Rule 53.  In other words, although our courts are open to the public, and the press is permitted to view and report on the proceedings, in Federal court at least, observers cannot give real-time reports on the development of a trial from their seats in the courtroom.  I can understand prohibiting jurors from sending and receiving Tweets.  But to prohibit the press or other observers in the courtroom from using a non-invasive means of telling the world what is happening in an open trial seems contrary to our value of open courts, and with little reason that I can see.  Certainly the prohibition of broadcast cameras in the courtroom are understandable, as they can change the demeanor of lawyers, witnesses, and judges who may ham it up for the camera, but no such danger exists with respect to tweets, texts, or blog posts.  Rather, these are simply the same medium of transmitting information about trials that have existed for decades - the written word. The only difference is the manner in which the words is recorded (pen and paper vs keyboard) and speed in which the words are delivered. 

Remote Control Software Provided by Mississippi Company

Several weeks ago I wrote about a great new service that my firm is using to provide IT support for its computers via remote control software.  The software that that use is called Bomgar.  Little did I know that Bomgar is the brainchild of Mississippi resident Joel Bomgar, and is headquartered in about 10 miles away from my office in Ridgeland, Mississippi.  As I stated before, the software works great and allows repair tech's to remote in and fix my machine quickly and efficiently.  It even allows them to keep control following a re-boot. This service is a real innovation. It is great to know that this innovation was developed and hosted right here in Mississippi. 

Martindale Hubble following Avvo Lead in Expanded Rating Criteria?

In the past when I have received requests from Martindale Hubble for peer review of lawyers, the rating criteria has simply been "Ethical" or "Not Ethical" (that's the "V" part of their rating), and "A", "B", or "C".  Now MH apparently asks for ratings by practice area (there seem to be hundreds from which to choose) and a rating of 1-5 in 5 different categories.  At the end of the day, MH will still apparently average the ratings and then assign an A,B, or C to the lawyer, although I am not sure how meaningful it will be unless they also disclose the practice area in which each rating was given.  A lawyer may get a CV rating overall, but an AV rating in family law.  If I am hiring a family law lawyer, the family law rating is of much greater significance to me than the overall rating. 

The change in ratings seems to be in response to the client review rating system that Avvo offers, where clients rate their lawyers under a number of criteria, rather than just good, better, best.  MH has also started charging lawyers to post their rating, or at least that is what their email campaign to me has stated.  In order for the public to be able to view a rating, I have to pay them $59.00.  No thanks MH.  I have always considered their rating system to be arbitrary and stacked in favor of larger firms, and largely meaningless to consumers in any event.  Now they have made it even more meaningless by charging for the rating. If someone has an AV rating, they paid to have it posted.  If someone has no rating, I don't know whether they are just cheap like me, or have a low rating that they do not want to pay for the privilege of advertising.  If they post the low ratings for free, but not the high ratings, then consumers can assume unrated lawyers rank higher than average.  On top of that, the ratings will become even more meaningless, or at least confusing, as they are divided into the hundreds of practice areas.  It is no surprise that MH has tried to monetize its ratings system, because its primary business model, that of a really expensive directory for lawyers, is outdated and had been rendered irrelevant by the internet.

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.