TechLawyerBlog

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. 

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!