JD Scoop

Over the last few days we've seen a number of newsworthy filings and decisions in the Hot Docs pages of JD Supra, covering topics as diverse as our contributors. Here are a few:

US SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CHALLENGE TO VOTING LAW:
Yesterday's United States Supreme Court decision, which struck down a challenge to a voter ID law in Indiana. In a 6-3 opinion, the majority said the state interests “are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute,” and the burden imposed on voters was “minimal and justified.” JD Supra contributor EPIC had submitted an amicus brief detailing problems with the law. "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system." Justice Souter seemed to agree, as he wrote in dissent, “this statute imposes a disproportionate burden upon those without” government-issued photo IDs.

PETITION TO CANCEL FACEBOOK'S TRADEMARK:
A petition before the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel the FACEBOOK trademark presently attributed to Facebook, Inc. The petition alleges that Think Computer Corporation, which posted the document on JD Supra, has been using "FACEBOOK," "FACE BOOK," "UNIVERSAL FACE BOOK," and "FACENET" as trademarks since as early as September 19, 2003 "in association with on-line information services featuring information regarding, and in the nature of, collegiate life, classifieds, virtual communities and social networking."

CHALLENGE TO GOVERNMENT EXCLUSION OF POST-1968 RESIDENTS FROM BEACHES:
A first amended complaint challenging Nevada's Incline Village General Improvement District's  exclusion of some District resident's access to a District  owned beach, allegedly in collusion with the developers of Incline Village pursuant to a 1968 "sweetheart deal." Submitted by attorney Steven Kroll, who has filed the suit on his own behalf (and clearly took note of Jordan Furlong's Tips for writing document summaries for the JD Supra Hot Docs pages).

USDOL AGENT ORANGE CLAIM ISSUED FOR THE DEATH OF A US FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE
JD Supra contributor James R. Linehan shares this decision - which, he states, is the "only documented OWCP claim issued by the USDOL for the death of a US federal civilian employee due to Agent Orange."  According to James, after argument in this case, the "United States finally conceded and admitted that the claimant was indeed exposed to Agent Orange as a federal civilian employee in Vietnam and died as result of exposures to Agency Orange. Following the government's admission of liability, an internal U.S. Government Accountability Office document report (GAO-05-371) revealed that the current Administration is well aware of these past toxic exposures of American civilian employees but continues to deny their existence or liability for same."

We are pleased to announce (for those of you who may have missed it) that The New York Times covered JD Supra and our contributors in an article entitled "Lawyers Open Their File Cabinets for a Web Resource" in the Business section of yesterday's paper.

The article featured a great picture of JD Supra contributor Mitchell Matorin, as well as comments about the site and its benefits from Mitchell, Marc Stern, and Elena Garella. It brought lots of new visitors to the site, many of whom joined our growing community of contributors, sharing court filings, decisions, and articles on diverse subjects of use to all of us. (Keep an eye out for an upcoming roundup of new contributors and documents). 

As the Times article noted, JD Supra:

• helps people who want more background on a legal issue, or who would like to find and contact lawyers with expertise in a particular area;
  
• provides a resource of lawyers (who can search the database for work by other legal professionals involved in similar cases).

And, not surprisingly, yesterday many more visitors searched the JD Supra documents and profiles for information about the law and the people behind it. Not surprisingly, the contributors who have shared the most documents received the most exposure.

We are keenly aware that JD Supra is only as good as the lawyers who participate and the content they share. The many visitors who emailed us over the past 48 hours, clearly found the site useful and the content compelling.

For example, a company seeking a class action firm to file suit relating to the mortgage crises wrote:

"Thanks for setting up this service. It will certainly help all who need access to legal expertise and opinions"

Another, who was seeking an attorney for advice on changing his estate plan wrote:

"I want to find an attorney with a specialty in estate planning, but one I can first research on your database. Thank you."

And yet another wrote:

"This is very close to the best thing that can be done for the public and for clients and lawyers in the US."

So, from the entire team at JD Supra, please accept our most sincere THANK YOU to all of you who have crafted such professional profiles and shared your high quality work!

Jason "The Content Librarian" Eiseman recently called attention to a March Newsweek piece speculating on the future of user generated content, titled Revenge of the Experts. As Jason so succinctly puts it:

The gist of the article is that the current trend of user-generated content is on the way out in favor of a renewed interest in expert-vetted content.

The report has generated discussion (read some of it here at Lost Remote). Jason disagrees with the thesis; a point of view he expresses in no uncertain terms.

It is frankly difficult to agree with a piece of journalism that declares "The expert is back" (did the expert ever really go away?) but we are always pleased to see conversation around the topic of user generated content.

Filtering (vetting) matters; we imagine few people would argue with that. (How truly useful to most of us is an unconstrained fire hydrant of raw information?) Luckily, innovations over the years - layer upon layer upon layer - have provided Internet users with outstanding alternatives to the kind of filtering once done solely by news editors in an "old media" world. We suspect there's no going back - and that there is room for everyone.

Filtering is, among other things, a way of determining value. There are many ways to make that determination - expertise, authority, popularity, and peer review are just a few taking center stage online today.

At JD Supra, our particular brand of user generated content is valuable because it is the work of experts - lawyers and other members of the legal community. The content in our directory arrives online with the credibility of having been generated by professionals who are, in essence, already vetted. (Look at their case decisions and professional and academic credentials for more on this.) And every piece of work is attributed to its credible source - court filings, briefs, articles, and alerts are linked to professional profiles, and vice versa.

The value of the work is obvious - which makes the value of sharing it obvious, too.

JD Supra founding contributor, Havkins, Rosefeld, Ritzert & Varriale, recently opened a new office in White Plains, New York. They wanted everyone to know about it, and, especially, to get the word out about the partner leading their new office - Tara Fappiano.  Sure, they issued a press release. But HRRV didn't stop there. They also created a JD Supra profile for Tara, listing the new office location, and posting documents (an article and decision) that demonstrate Tara's experience and success in her practice area of insurance defense for construction accidents. 

Smart. Long after the buzz generated by the press release dies down,Tara's JD Supra profile and her growing record of documents will continue to announce the existence of HRRV's White Plains office.

Congratulations to HRRV and to Tara Fappiano on their new office and their marketing savvy.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Internet users have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the disclosure of their identities when surfing the web. (This from a case in which JD Supra contributors EFF and EPIC jointly filed an amicus brief.)

The Court based its decision on the state Constitution - which the New Jersey courts have interpreted to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution - and the factual finding that "Internet users today enjoy relatively complete IP address anonymity when surfing the web." (Read the entire decision here.)

Interestingly, the Court also noted that "if one day new software allowed individuals to type IP addresses into a 'reverse directory' and identify the name of a user . . . today's ruling might need to be reexamined." 

Is the Court saying that companies can eliminate the right to privacy recognized by this decision simply by finding ways to violate it? This seems a bit circular to me. What are your thoughts?

We've been thinking lately about this question posed by Anita Campbell of Small Business Trends: when did online marketing become so complex?

To simplify matters, Ms. Campbell experiments with an explanation of online marketing that relies on a series of concentric circles - the high priority options are in the middle, lowest priority on the outer edges. (Forgive the easy jest, but for a moment it occurred to us that anyone already confused by this topic might just see something akin to Dante's Inferno. And we don't want that, now do we?)

We think that the circles make sense from the point of view of many businesses. (Website at bullseye; that's where most of their online efforts start.) But what seems more important is the point of view of the consumer.

And from the consumer's point of view, things aren't especially concentric.

How does a prospective client piece together an online picture of your business? If they don't know your web address (or maybe even if they do), they search. It may be a search of your firm's name, an attorney's name, or even of a subject relevant to your practice. And, the search may even be started on one of the websites listed in Anita's outer circles.

Consider a page, or the first few pages, of search results. (For example, use the results generated by a query on your firm's name.) For one thing, there's nothing circular about the listings. For another, your website might be included in the early results (might not be), but we're betting that not everyone goes to it first.

What else is included in those results? If you've been casting a wide net online - participating in a number of places - it's likely that some of Ms. Campbell's outer-circle marketing options also appear on the early pages. Depending on the search term and other factors, possibly even above your website. That makes them high priority opportunities.

Think like a consumer. It's another way to begin to understand the online marketing options available to you. Do you have a compelling presence in all the places your prospective clients might find or in which they might go looking? If your website is your most valued online marketing asset, the center of your efforts, what do you do to make them want to visit your website when they get to these places, and do you make it easy for them to get there?

We're grateful to Carolyn Elefant at MyShingle for including us in her post on the subject - a thoughtful take on it all, with legal marketing in mind.

Ms. Elefant uses the term "landing point" and this seems right. The nature of the web today is such that your site is actually just one of several landing points for people looking for information about you or the subjects in which you specialize. (Luckily, you have the ability to cover yourself by participating in many of them, even connecting them to each other, and to your own website.)

If what happens during the course of online discovery can be described using a series of circles, that's fine - but the seekers determine what goes into each circle depending on where they land first and click next; they will only end up at your virtual door if there are compelling paths from each of their landing points to lead them there. 

Here's a roundup of some of the newest members of the legal community to join JD Supra. We're pleased to say, they continue to add to the  wonderful diversity of our group:

Nina Kallen - "a civil litigator in Massachusetts since 1994. She has particular knowledge on insurance coverage issues, and represents claimants, insureds, and insurers in disputes over motor vehicle, homeowners', and general liability insurance policies. She also represents parties in personal injury lawsuits. In addition, as "the lawyer's lawyer" she drafts briefs for other attorneys on a subcontract basis."

Studio legale Tedioli - a law firm "located in Mantova (Italy), offering services for matters including debt collection, bankruptcy proceedings and liquidations, contract law, and international purchase law."

Roberts & Roberts - "a civil law firm in Bell County, Texas.  The firm's clients include municipalities, financial institutions, title companies, builders, developers, property management companies, and a wide range of professionals, as well as many other leading businesses in the local economy."

Douglas Lytle - "a member of Duckor Spradling Metzger & Wynne’s commercial litigation practice group in San Diego, California. Doug’s practice emphasizes litigation involving claims of fraud, unfair competition, trademark and service mark infringement, false advertising, defamation, misappropriation of trade secrets, and related claims, as well as disputes arising from the purchase and sale of real property."

Robert Kraft of Kraft & Associates - a Dallas, Texas Personal Injury, Social Security Disability, and Immigration law firm.

Charron Favell Anctil LLP - "a well-established labor relations and employment law firm in British Columbia, Canada. The firm is known for providing practical legal advice in the areas of labor relations, employment law and human rights. "

Recent filings from two important cases in which the EFF is involved are now available on JD Supra:

1) EFF's suit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice demanding information about telecommunications companies' efforts to get off the hook for their role in the government's illegal electronic surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. EFF's suit sought the immediate disclosure of the agencies' telecom lobbying records, including any documents concerning briefings, discussions, or other contacts officials have had with representatives of telecommunications companies or members of Congress. On April 4, 2008, the Court granted EFF's request for an order requiring the defendants to produce the records sought, which is available here, along with the other filings in the case.

2) Universal Music Group's suit against an eBay seller based on claims of copyright infringement. EFF and the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP are representing Troy Augusto, whose online auctions included sales of promotional CDs distributed by Universal. Universal claims that CDs marked as "promotional use only" remain the property of Universal and thus can never be resold.  Augusto's position is that the copyright law's "first sale" doctrine makes it clear that the owner of a CD is entitled to resell it without the permission of the copyright holder, and further, that Universal violated section 512(f) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (see Answer & Counterclaim).  Last week, EFF and Keker & Van Nest filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, available here.

Marketing guru Seth Godin asks in a recent blog post: Who answers the phone?

Godin's point? That with marketing, we're willing to prioritize considerable time and money on a new logo, a television ad (even a website!) - and yet often when it comes to the inbound telephone call, the prospect calling you:

the lowest-paid, least-respected, highest-turnover jobs in the organization now do the most important marketing work.

("The new rules mean that the most valuable marketing event is almost always an inbound phone call.")

The new rules.

The new rules also mean that you have an online presence, whether you've created one or not. Imagine: someone in your referral network mentions your name at a meeting or over dinner. What will that new prospect, that potential client, find when they follow up and Google you? You should be asking yourself this question. You should know the answer.

If someone goes online to put together a picture of you, what will they find? And have you done enough to influence the results?

For example, your website. It probably cost a lot to produce, but are you now doing anything to promote it - more importantly, to optimize it? Have you made the site easy to find? Is it listed anywhere? (Simple: the more high quality links, the better.)

What about all of the marketing collateral (newsletters and articles) you've spent enormous amounts of money producing in order to demonstrate your expertise? Any of it online? If not, why not? If yes, in how many places?

Do you have a professional profile? What does it say and include? Does it link to your website?

Can a prospect piece together a good portrait of you online - something substantive, demonstrating expertise and a level of quality? You should know the answer to this question, because in all likelihood they're trying to do exactly that - right now.

Books on JD Supra?

Yes. One of our newest contributors, James B. Atwood, Jr.,  has generously shared a 214-page Death Penalty Defense Motion Book. What is it, exactly? A compilation of documents filed in connection with the defense of a capital case, including:

• jury instructions
  
• motions and memoranda of law relating to:
  
  • discovery
    
  • disclosure of claims
  • introduction of evidence and testimony
    
  • burdens of proof
  • requests for funds, and
    
  • preventing the imposition of the death penalty.

What a terrific resource for capital defense lawyers, or anyone with an interest in this area of the law. Our sincere thanks to James Atwood for sharing this valuable resource on JD Supra.

Two recent posts by Kevin O'Keefe at Lexblog caught our attention. (You should be reading Kevin daily if you're not already: real lawyers not only have blogs, they also read 'em.)

The first responds to the perceived difficulty of generating good (marketing) content. A  case for blogs, the post included the following points which especially resonate with our thinking here at JD Supra:

• Lawyers like the immediacy of seeing content on [the] net. They see something they want to share with clients, prospective clients, bloggers, and reporters and it's up in a day - or even immediately.
• [The] viral marketing bounce of blogs motivates lawyers. Content found on Google. Calls from reporters. Requests to speak at conferences. Content automatically syndicated to third party publications...

Kevin's other post is a response to the notion, paraphrased here, that the only reason for an online presence (blog, website, whatever) is to achieve high rankings in Google. Incorrect, says Kevin - and we agree with him.

The various networking and publishing tools available online today are indeed highly effective (for referrals, exposure, networking, marketing, promotion - you name it), but  they mean nothing if not backed up by quality work.  To whit:

Rise above the pack. Be the lawyer you want to be in the area of law for which you have a passion... Establish a reputation that's not fleeting. It can be done via online networking through effective blogging - not by just being at the top of Google.

Strong arguments not only for blogging but also for posting your daily work - briefs, articles, and the rest - online.  If a good blog post takes less than half an hour to write, consider how long it takes to upload a document already created during the course of your work, that shows in clear terms your expertise and quality level. Mere minutes.

One blog post won't establish your reputation; blogging for the sake of blogging won't establish your reputation, either. But over time, if you use the online tools available to you - use them for all they are worth (and that's a lot!) - you can effectively extend your brand, your reputation, online.

We're with Kevin. Start a blog. But also let your daily work speak for itself. When next you go looking for new marketing content, start with the documents already at your disposal. Build a professional profile and get them online.

In other words: Give Content. Get Noticed.

JD Supra contributor Scott Riddle recently shared this decision by Judge Thomas Agresti of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the Scoop section of JD Supra.  And the document certainly is Scoop-worthy.

In his decision, Judge Agresti ruled that the U.S. Trustee has the standing and power to investigate a creditor (in this case, Countrywide) - and not only regarding the specifics of the particular bankrupt debtor, but also the creditor's policies and procedures relating to bankruptcy claims. Though I am not a bankruptcy expert, this decision appears to be the first of its kind, and quite provocative.

Here is what  Brian McCaffrey of Leffler, Marcus & McCaffrey, LLC had to say about it:

This is the tip of the iceberg. It is ironic, and, personally pleasing, that the constituencies that shoved this amendment to the bankruptcy code down the throat of a compliant and complicit Congress are now squealing because the Courts are appropriately saying that fraud by anyone, whether creditor or debtor, is an issue of national concern. The Trustee not only has the authority to investigate Countrywide, but the obligation to look for assets of the bankruptcy estate - which may well include a claim against Countrywide for predatory lending practices. 

And bankruptcy attorney Marc Stern's reaction:

It's about time the U.S. Trustee's office did what it was intended to do - oversee the bankruptcy system and investigate fraud by not only debtors, but creditors, as well - who are some of the worst perpetrators. Most debtors do not have the resources to pursue these kinds of claims. Until now, the U.S. Trustee's office was basically a super-collection agency working for creditors. I am glad the judge did his job.

What are your thoughts about this decision? We'd love to hear them.

 At JD Supra we like the term content marketing. It describes one key service of our user-generated legal research directory. Lawyers and members of the legal community share their content in order to build the directory (briefs, articles, decisions, filings) - and as a result they're able to market themselves to anyone using the directory by calling attention to one of the most compelling pieces of marketing material available to them, their product, their expertise, the written evidence of their daily work.

But, there's more to it. You - not just your legal documents - are part of the story. Undoubtedly you've seen it written in other ways in the marketing books and on blogs ("You are your own brand!"). At JD Supra, think of it like this: via your professional profile, you are your first piece of content in content marketing. (Consider that the profile is not just available to visitors at JDSupra.com; often it is also what people see when they, to borrow a phrase, "Google" you.)

Meaning? Take full advantage of your JD Supra profile. Make it human, tell a story, stand out in the crowd. Definitely include your academic and professional accreditations, your employment history, your publications, your professional successes - referrals and prospective clients will want to see all of this information - but also use the page to paint the whole picture. Describe how you make a difference, how you made a difference. Don't just give your title; explain your role. (And if you are part of a large firm with a single presence on JD Supra, stand up and create your very own profile.)

There is no single way to do this. Quoted from active JD Supra profiles, here are a few varied examples of the kind of extra language we think makes a difference:

"Some of my cases involve representing petitioners and aliens where the CIS has denied (or revoked its approval of) a petition, and who are advised by the agency that 'there is no appeal from this decision.' It has been my pleasure to prove them wrong on several occasions."
- Edward Reisman

"A law firm founded by six Muslim women, they realized, was likely a first in the nation, and indeed, their investigation confirmed their suspicions. Carrying this banner and their passion for the law, the partners understood that they were paving a new path for future Muslim women, providing society an example ... and giving hope to a community ..."
- Amal Law Group

"Hagan’s research continues to fuse crime and justice issues, examining the projection of human rights advocacy in an era characterized by the increasing perpetration of war crimes. His current work on Darfur argues that criminology has too long neglected crimes against humanity and genocide, 'the crime of crimes.'"
- John Hagan

How are you telling your story?

JD Supra contributors were busy sharing their insightful newsletters and articles last month.  Here's a roundup of some of the most popular recent posts:

• Patent Happenings, the monthly newsletter of Latimer, Mayberry & Matthews IP Law LLP, providing in-depth analysis of judicial, legislative, and administrative developments in patent law. (April 1, 2008, issue is available here.)
  
• Monthly articles from Lane Powell PC covering breaking developments in the firm's diverse practice areas including insurance, environmental law, taxation, health, finance & banking, construction law, labor & employment, and a host of other subjects.
• Immigration Law Alerts - regular alerts, advisories, and updates, from the Mintz Levin Immigration Group.
• SecuritiesBrief Spring 2008 - one of the many securities updates and intellectual property law articles (including InBrief and others) published by Lang Michener LLP. 
• An article on the Writer's Guild Strike discussing the resolution and its legal implications, by Troy Gould entertainment law attorney, Jonathan Handel.
•  MoFo Tax Talk, a timely new publication from Morrison & Foerster.
  

The old, million dollar question has been: 'Where do you find your clients?"
 
But a simple rephrasing can make all the difference to understanding the current power of online technologies available to all of us.

The new question, what you should be asking: "Where do your clients find you?"

It is a mind shift at the core of what is so powerful today about legal content marketing in an online environment. You don't always find your clients; more often they find you.

What are you doing about that? Maybe that's the real question.

When you consider that more than a quarter of all Americans turn to the Internet to find information about legal matters (comScore Study, 2006), you begin to see the meaning in JD Supra's tagline: "Give Content. Get Noticed."

JD Supra has been open to the public for just over a month. In that time visitors have been directed to our growing database of legal documents and professional profiles for a variety of reasons. A quick scan of external searches that brought people to JD Supra (the queries coming to us but originating elsewhere, at sites like Google and Yahoo!) shows that in March, 2008, people spent significant time online looking for information on, among things

- estate planning,
- naturalization,
- privacy,
- real estate,
- taxes,
- legal definitions,

and so on. (Check back: in future we will break it down even further, with lists of some of the most popular external and internal searches.)

If you're not already doing so, you should be participating in this.