10/7/09

Social Networking Policies - What Does Your Law Firm Have To Say?

According to the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics survey on what companies are doing with social networking compliance, there are over 50% of companies that either do not have a social networking policy for their employees to follow, or do not know if they do. After running across a couple of law firm client alerts on this very topic, I thought I’d take a quick look and build an ad hoc bibliography on what attorneys at major law firms are saying lately on this topic. [Big thanks to MyCorporateResource.com for helping track down a few of these]

What are the best practices for companies in creating and implementing policies regarding their own and their employees' use of social networking sites and Internet forums?
In light of the clear and significant increase in both the number of employees using social networking sites and the amount of time spent by employees on such sites, employers must consider whether a policy on such conduct is appropriate. The content, application, and tone of a social networking or related policy, of course, will differ depending on the employer and its preferred approach to human resources/employee relations issues. Additionally, as with any policy, an employer should only adopt a social networking or related policy if it is prepared to police and enforce the policy, and do so consistently among all employees.
Employees might make that assumption if the employer does not have any policy addressing Internet use generally or social media use in particular, or if a general Internet policy permits incidental non-business use of the employer’s Internet access. An employer can defeat the assumption without blocking access to social media sites by specifically informing employees in a policy that use of the employer’s electronic resources to access social media sites for non-business purposes is prohibited.

The Internet is an invaluable tool for companies but also can work against them. Employees use blogs and social networking sites and engage in other Internet-related activities to vent frustrations to the public detriment of employers. Employees who post information may raise copyright or trademark infringement issues and even put their employers at risk.
Entities who have not yet adopted a social media policy need to realize that many of their employees are already using social media, possibly at work, and in ways that intersect with their professional life. Some companies have tried to rein in social media use. Others have accepted the inevitability of social media in the workplace and are guiding the interactions with carefully developed policies. Some entities will go further, encouraging certain employees to become Web 2.0 representatives of the company. It should always be clear to employees when they may identify themselves as representatives of the company. When participation is at the behest of the company, the employee must understand and learn to distinguish between communications that are the employee’s own and those that are official communications from the company. The employee then must clarify that distinction in public communications.

McDermott Will & Emery (9/09) - Heard on the Tweet (CFO Magazine)
David Cifrino was cited in a September 2009 CFO Magazine story about companies that use the Twitter social networking site for communication. He urged the creation of effective policies that clearly state who has authority to speak on behalf of companies, particularly publicly held ones that are subject to Regulation FD’s requirements about disclosing material, non-public information. Mr. Cifrino suggested that, given the potential liability of disclosure problems, companies should only use Twitter if there is a compelling business reason for doing so.

Protect your organization from Fair Labor Standards Act claims and lawsuits from non-exempt employees by implementing wage and hour policies and practices that conform with federal and state wage and hour laws. Moreover, in this down economy, learn about what your organization can do to prevent non-exempt employees from working overtime.
The surging popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and others creates a host of legal issues for employers. Many employers have already adopted policies governing social networking by employees on company computers, on company time. But what are the risks arising from an employee's social networking activities after hours?
[I]n addition to the invasion of privacy and Stored Communications Act claims at issue in the Pietrylo case, employers should also be aware of other potential legal concerns that could arise in the context of social media in the workplace, including state “off-duty conduct” statutes, federal anti-discrimination laws, and trade secret laws.
[E]mployers should consider crafting internal policies to define the types of off-duty conduct that will not be tolerated – provided the employer is prepared to fairly and consistently enforce such policies. By having the right policies in place, and seeking counsel prior to taking the employment action, many employers can help protect themselves against liability for taking action against an employee based on off-duty conduct. Such foresight and planning is needed in the age of Facebook and other social networking sites when employers too often become aware of conduct unbecoming of their employees.

Organizations need to get on top of this trend now, rather than waiting for circumstances to force the issue. As with all new technologies, communications via Web 2.0 systems like social networking sites will be used by your organization, will be recognized by the courts, will be subject to regulation and will be sought in discovery. The best strategy for any organization is to proactively adapt to this evolution and invest in the proverbial “ounce of prevention.”
Whether to prevent employees from engaging in inappropriate activity or to use social media as part of a wider marketing strategy, the most important thing is to make the organization's intentions and expectations clear, according to the article. Stephens said social media policies bleed into other issues as well, including personal use of practice-owned computers and intellectual property protections. Rules covering these aspects also should be updated to reference social networking. It's probably a good idea to send notices to everyone on staff explaining the rule revisions, he said. How policies are enforced likely will reflect the established practice culture.
Stephens suggests that a first step is to "assess the company's culture, because the company has to decide what its core values are," and whether it wants to encourage employees' use of social networking sites. Next, "understand that there is only a certain amount of control that a company has over its own endorsed social media applications, and especially away from the workplace," he said. Then, assuming the company has one, "convert your existing policy to cover these social networking applications," Stephens suggested. "Many companies have already addressed electronic communications, specifically e-mails, and likely have already addressed Internet use at work."
In these challenging economic times, public companies should be applauded for their creative efforts to sell products and services through the social media. In undertaking such efforts, however, companies should consider two critical areas: Is it time to update our internal corporate policies? Do our policies take into account the potential uses of social media? Is it time to retrain our employees? Our employee training already covers appropriate inbound communication, but should we implement additional employee training regarding outbound digital communications?

Debevoise & Plimpton (4/21/09) - Tweeting, blogging and social networking (TheDeal.com)
A comprehensive set of disclosure policies will need to address these issues and a host of others, including issues that will arise in connection with securities offerings and the risk that employee or third-party communications could be deemed to have been made by or on behalf of the company. In the face of these challenges, companies should consider whether the time has come to adopt or update policies regarding the use of emerging Internet-enabled communications channels as part of their investor relations strategies.
In light of the potential risks and pitfalls associated with monitoring applicant or employee blogs and social networking sites, employers should initially consider whether the benefits of information derived from these sources are worth the potential liability, advises Perkins Coie labor and employment lawyers Vickie Wallen and Brian Flock.

Bookmark and Share

10/6/09

The Evolution of AFAs: Client Side

Previously on 3 Geeks we discussed how Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs) might evolve on the law firm side of things. This post explores a possible evolution for how AFAs might evolve on the client side. Whereas law firms will need to insure profitability as they embrace AFAs, clients will need to solve the value-to-price equation - so the evolution is a path to that end. 1 – Understand Costs. Right now clients are struggling to embrace AFAs. Their stated goal (generally) is managing costs. Before they can manage costs effectively, they will first need to understand them. Most clients I talk to and hear about are trying to jump to #2 on our list before they do #1. Utilizing my usual car analogy, this would be equivalent to an effort to lower the total cost of ownership per mile of a car by haggling on the sales price. Yes - a lower sales price will be helpful but it doesn’t tell you the cost per mile or how the sales price impacts the per mile cost. Haggling over hourly rates (which is where most AFA discussions end up) will not tell you what the fee per matter will be which is a better level to manage costs. Of course firms and clients have some historical billing information, but this information was not captured or structured with a ‘fee per type of matter’ approach in mind. Therefore this knowledge has limited value in establishing a baseline to understand costs on a per-matter basis. This means in-house counsel will need to start now at viewing costs on this fee-per-matter basis and shift their mindset so that they begin to understand their costs at that level. 2 – Manage Costs. Once in-house counsel understand costs at a matter level, they can then actually begin to effectively manage them. Now they will be able to compare fee-against-fee at this matter level. This will empower in-house counsel to do more effective price shopping. My prediction is that this liberation will bring on more competitive pricing by law firms as an obvious response. We will likely see more creative AFAs at this stage as well. A potential dark side of this liberation will be swinging the pendulum too far – resulting in measurable impacts on the value side of things. Like any other market, given a chance buyers will be tempted and encouraged to price shop to the lowest provider. This brings us to Stage 3 in our evolution – Focusing on Value. 3 – Manage to Value. As this market evolution matures, buyers will become more sophisticated and move to a value-to-price approach. Although it seems obvious (until you live with the consequences) selecting the low-price provider isn’t always the best option. But with pressures on controlling costs there are many incentives for buyers to go with the low-price provider. This is especially the case for in-house counsel. For the majority of these folks, the financial consequences of low-value service hit the bottom line of someone else’s budget. Settlements and judgments, for the most part, do not come off the General Counsel’s budget. Instead they come off a business unit’s numbers. So once the consequences of low value-to-price AFAs become apparent, reason will kick in and drive the fee decisions to more balanced ground. At this point, in-house counsel will be in a position to solve the value-to-price equation. AFAs for in-house counsel are quite a challenge. There has been no fee-level market for clients to use in determining price-to-value. For now hourly rates are market driven so price comparisons and costs controls are focused there. However, as many have opined, this hourly rate approach is not the best method for managing costs. As clients come to grips with matter-level fees, they can then move through an evolution to better manage costs and ultimately drive value. Although everyone talks like they can jump right to #3, I think we’ll see some market education drive people through this type of evolution before they reach value billing nirvana.

Bookmark and Share

10/2/09

Do You Call Them "Clever People" or "Loose Cannons"?

My good friend Emily directed me to a fascinating Forbes.com article called "The Odd Clever People Every Organization Needs." As I was reading it, I was thinking that the type of person the authors were describing either fit me or were describing Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory." As I was reading this from my laptop while seated on my designated corner of my couch, I thought it was absurd that I was even making this connection. Then my second thought was "oh no... I hope my 'clever' outshines my 'odd' to those that I work with."
In the article the authors have an excellent definition of the clever people we need in our organizations:
Clever people are highly talented individuals who have the potential to create disproportionate amounts of value from the resources that an organization makes available to them.
I like this definition!! I'm going to put it on a shirt (maybe a series of 3 shirts with 9 words on each, with a superhero logo on the front and the saying on the back, then wear them over a three day period of time.)
However, apparently clever people like this are also difficult to work with. Really?? Here are some qualities they point to as being difficult:
--They know their worth (their skills are not easily replicated). --They ask difficult questions. --They are organizationally savvy. --They are not impressed by corporate hierarchy. --They expect instant access to decision makers. --They are well connected outside of their organizations. --Their passion is for what they do, not for who they work for. --Even if you lead them well, they won't thank you.
Well, "thank you very much" for pointing out these flaws. And, did you notice that I said "thank you"? I think that disproves some of these points right off the bat.
I've actually seen organizations treat 'clever' people two distinct ways. In most situations, they are identified as 'loose cannons' and need to be monitored carefully so as they do not destroy something important. Many times this type of reaction is caused by a manager that doesn't want someone they supervise to "outshine" them. This type of approach usually ends with the clever person leaving to take an opportunity elsewhere. Not to worry, though... the manager will remain to drive away the next clever person that comes along.
The second approach, and the one that the Forbes article suggests, is to be the "benevolent guardian." Giving them just enough freedom to allow them to be creative, with the structure needed to keep them on task. I've had to do this with some of the brilliant Techies with whom I've worked. Tell them what the goals are, allow them to come up with their own ideas on how to achieve those goals, then monitor them from time to time to make sure they keep on task. Clever people can become distracted by something 'cool' that can take them off on a tangent. If you do not monitor them as they are progressing on your task, you could end up with something truly fascinating, and completely worthless to the task you assigned them.
The tenor of the Forbes article sounds like they are discussing young workers. However, 'clever' people can be any age. I've worked with people in their 70's that are creative 'outside the box' type thinkers who have the same issues as 20 year-old creative 'outside the box' thinkers. Hopefully, as these creative thinkers get more experience, they can self-regulate their need to follow those tangents and stay on task.
Clever people also do not have to be geeks, although they do seem to filter toward the geeky side of things. In fact, you can probably look at a roster of people in your different Practice Groups, or Administrative departments and quickly identify those 'clever' people in the bunch. They are generally the ones you go to when you have to have something now, and don't have time to go through the normal channels in order to get it. They may not be the best people to manage, but they sure are nice to have around when all you other ideas don't seem to be working.

Bookmark and Share
 

© 2011, All Rights Reserved.