Image [cc] rgmcfadden

[Guest Post from Jan Rivers, Competitive Intelligence Liaison]


This afternoon, I was sitting here, working away and listening to Erroll Garner, when an email alert blipped up in the corner of my computer screen. It was from a Bloomberg rep.

Hmmmm…..

Now, my firm doesn’t subscribe to Bloomberg, but we’ve looked at it off and on and we keep up-to-date with its latest developments. The rep’s name was one I didn’t recognize, but that’s not surprising given the frequency with which they seem to change (at least for our area).

I was being invited to an all-day Knowledge Forum being held in my city next month. “Cool!”, I thought. “Sounds interesting. Maybe it’s a way they’re promoting the changes they’ve just made to the Bloomberg Legal platform.” Strangely, the email didn’t say much about the Forum, though, but contained a link to the full invitation.

OK, so that was sort of irritating. Why make people go through additional steps to read something that could have/ should have been presented in the body of the email itself?

I was surprised when I clicked on the invitation link, to find that the resulting web page also had minimal information. It also, disconcertingly, referred to “financial professionals.” Multiple times. Oh, dear…..

Here, my jadedness started kicking in, along with a growing sense of déja vu. Bad habit, I know, and I’m trying to be better about that, but let’s just say that it’s hard to conquer.  I clicked on the link to the full agenda. Again, why not have the agenda as part of the invitation page instead of as a separate .pdf?

My jadedness was rewarded. The agenda was filled with topics like mortgage analytics, managing interest rates, fixed income electronic trading, etc

Sigh…..

One of the mantras of marketing is “target your communication.” Indeed…..Sorry, Bloomberg, but I’m not a “financial professional.” I’m a law librarian.

In the scheme of things, this faux pas is minor, but when a person receives hundreds of emails, she’d really like to receive ones from vendors which are actually relevant to what she does.

Suffice it to say, I will not be attending this one-day Knowledge Forum, but I would like to throw the idea out there for them to do similar ones for law librarians. Why not? As Bloomberg becomes a major player in the legal market, I would expect them to host law librarian forums and other similar events like their Big Two rivals do.  So, how about it, Bloomberg?  Will your next email invitation be targeted to me?

Image [CC] Gerard Van der Leun

I thought I’d try something different and have a philosophical post to start off the week. Bear with me as I step off my usual path of law firm administrative issues, and discuss some esoteric business management and human interaction issues for minute or two.

Google’s informal motto is the simple phrase of “Don’t Be Evil.” I like that phrase, but really… what it means to one person may not be what it means to another. I thought that Matt Rossoff’s article in the Business Insider last week did a good job of defining what Google means when it says “Don’t Be Evil,” and that is that it will not be evil to its users. Rossoff goes on to explain that Google’s executives can be cutthroat and downright evil to its competitors and those that try to game its search results, but that none of those actions should cause those who use Google as a search tool to suffer as a result.

That got me thinking of a few things I’ve been taught over the years, and how I’ve applied them to the way I do business as a law librarian; as someone who works in a law firm; as a member of a professional association; as a neighbor; as a father, and; generally as a human being. Perhaps the biggest lesson I learned as a college student was an off-hand remark that a Political Science Professor made in a class right after we had a State Representative give a speech. I probably don’t remember the exact wording, but the comment went something like this:

Those people that you think are diametrically opposed to your ideals are probably not as different from you as you think… and those people you think are your allies, are probably not as close to you as you think, either.

He was talking about politics, of course, but that has stuck with me for twenty years now, and I often think of it when I’m having battles (personal or professional) with others. Regardless of how set in stone the other person is, I do attempt to try to see things from their perspective and find the themes that we both share. It doesn’t mean that the other person reciprocates (usually they won’t), but at least I can argue the point of what ideals we share and attempt to draw a path forward based on our commonalities rather than sit and scream or pout about our differences.

Although there are people out there that are psychopaths — I didn’t always believe that, but many life lessons have proved that there are simply highly functional crazy people in every profession/neighborhood/family — these folks are usually rare, or are well-known and people attempt to stay away from them or discredit them eventually. As a general rule, I found that most of the people I work with, those I consider my professional peers, friends, etc. are people that also have a motto similar to Google’s “Don’t Be Evil.” Most of them have positive outlooks, want to succeed, and help others succeed.

That doesn’t mean that good people always act good, however. Just as Google defines “Evil” in its own way, it is surprising sometimes to watch good people do bad things because they think that the results of their actions justify the means in which they accomplish their goals. If your ideas are good, but your tactics are “evil,” then your results tend to be tainted. What’s worse is that those people you just ran roughshod over tend to never want to work with you again. You may not realize it, but even those that are your allies understand what you did, and may justify it by saying something like “Well, he’s a jerk, but at least he’s my jerk.” That’s like having a fighting dog and justifying it by saying “well, he’s never bitten one of my kids… yet.” You just never know when that dog (or that person) will turn on you.

So, I go off to face another week and attempt to follow the philosophy of “people are usually good,” that “those who disagree with me aren’t enemies,” and that hopefully at the end of the week I can look back and said “hey, I wasn’t evil this week — but, I dealt successfully with a few people that were!!” So, good luck this week, and remember… “Don’t Be Evil!”

I’ve been thinking all day about what the Bloomberg acquisition of BNA will eventually mean in the legal publishing world. I first thought of what it would mean to Westlaw and Lexis, and whether Bloomberg Law would now truly bring some competition to the duopoly we’ve all come to accept (and loathe.) However, what really kept popping into my mind was another vendor, CCH… actually CCH’s parent, Wolters Kluwer. In a way, Bloomberg is becoming what CCH “should have become” years ago but never got its act together to be a true competitor. Wolter Kluwer had all the pieces to be competitive, but persisted in the business model of being a holding company for all of these pieces rather than integrating them into a single platform. Sure, the whole IntelliConnect platform was supposed to work toward integration, but it never really recovered after its initial stumbling out of the gate (although, they have given a lot of effort to rectify that blunder over the past couple of years.)

With Bloomberg now having all cases/statutes/regs plus Dockets, a citator system, and now quality secondary resources, it “should” become a major player in the market. Whether or not it can break into that market is still yet to be determined. WestlawNext and Lexis Advance are still relatively new products, and the whole WestlawNext launch fiasco is finally seeming to settle down (although statistics on the adoption of WLN by current Westlaw subscribers is still a little iffy, in my opinion.)

The biggest mistake that Bloomberg can make right now is assuming that they can be competitive simply because they are not Westlaw or Lexis. They bombed at that approach with the whole BLAW launch a few years ago (along with that awful interface.) Bloomberg better come in with some serious pricing deals for firms willing to take them on. Bloomberg needs to get “in the door” of these firms and be on the desktop, laptop, and or iPadtop of attorneys, paralegals and librarians. Right now, Bloomberg needs to learn to speak the language of those in charge of buying law firm research products… “price sells!”

The second biggest mistake that Bloomberg could make is screwing with existing BNA contracts and access points. If they want to see customers bolt for BNA’s competitors, simply tell them that they’ll have to move off of the current platform and onto Bloomberg’s black-and-orange platform. Now is the time to lure customers into the whole Bloomberg Law platform (now improved with BNA!!) It is not the time to bring in ultimatums of move over or lose access.

Although many of us are sad to see an employee-owned organization like BNA go away and merge into the one-employee owned Bloomberg product, I think this may eventually fill all those empty spots that Bloomberg currently has in content, and even make the BNA materials better over time. At least we can be happy that Thomson Reuters or Reed Elsevier didn’t get their hands on BNA.

After a little thinking, I think this acquisition will turn out okay and will finally give Wexis some real competition in the legal publishing and financial news market. I’ve been harping that Bloomberg was too narrowly focused (mainly at big law firms in Manhattan). Now, they step out of NYC and try to take over the (legal publishing) world!

I also received a Q&A Sheet from Bloomberg about their acquisition of BNA and what it means for customers of both products.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATED TO BLOOMBERG’S ACQUISITION OF BNA
1. What was announced today?

Bloomberg and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA) today announced that they have entered into an agreement under which Bloomberg will acquire all 25,116,830 outstanding shares of BNA for $39.50 per share in cash for a total purchase price of approximately $990 million. The boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved this transaction, which is expected to close later in 2011.

2. Why did Bloomberg acquire BNA?

Bloomberg does not make acquisitions very often – we have a strong bias toward organic growth. But the availability of a leading firm such as BNA – who shares so closely our mission and approach – was a rare strategic opportunity.
Together, Bloomberg and BNA will be a unique combination of premium content, deep subject matter expertise, proprietary data and world-class technological capabilities to provide distinctive products and solutions for professionals and decision makers in law, government, business and finance.
This acquisition would immediately strengthen Bloomberg’s offerings in the legal information market by complementing Bloomberg Law – the only legal research system that fully integrates primary research, dockets, company information and proprietary news – with BNA’s trusted legal, tax and regulatory content.
The acquisition would significantly grow Bloomberg’s presence in the Washington, DC area through its multiple operating units, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg Law and BNA — which would work together to provide unparalleled coverage and analysis of U.S. policy and regulatory issues for customers.
BNA will benefit from Bloomberg’s technology and data expertise as well as the significant analytical and news reporting resources of the company, including Bloomberg Briefs, Bloomberg Industries and Bloomberg News, among others.

3. What are Bloomberg’s plans for the company?

Bloomberg has tremendous respect for the legacy of BNA, its employees and management team. Following the transaction, it is our intention that BNA would retain its name and remain a stand-alone subsidiary within the Bloomberg family, operating from its current location under existing management. Bloomberg will honor existing contracts and relationships.

4. Do you anticipate any layoffs at Bloomberg or BNA as a result of this acquisition?

We do not anticipate any layoffs at Bloomberg or BNA as a result of this transaction in the short-term. We anticipate gradual, modest consolidation over an extended period to be achieved largely through natural attrition.

5. What does this mean for Bloomberg and BNA customers?

Until the transaction is completed, customers will receive the same products and services they are accustomed to. After the transaction is completed, we will provide more information on how the Bloomberg-BNA combination will benefit customers and affect our combined product offering.

6. How many acquisitions has Bloomberg made in its history?

Previous acquisitions include Businessweek and New Energy Finance in 2009. Bloomberg has also made a few significantly smaller acquisitions.

7. Is this transaction evidence of a newly acquisitive posture at Bloomberg?

No. Going forward, we expect almost all of our growth to be organic. However, when this rare strategic opportunity presented itself, we were enthusiastic to acquire a leading franchise.

8. To what extent was Mike Bloomberg involved in the decision to buy BNA?

Mike Bloomberg reviewed and supported this transaction in accordance with his agreement with New York City that allows him to maintain the type of involvement that is consistent with his being the majority shareholder of Bloomberg.

9. How will BNA and Bloomberg be integrated?

BNA’s culture is at the core of its success, and a significant reason the company is a great fit with Bloomberg. Going forward, Bloomberg will respect and maintain many of the unique attributes that have enabled BNA to build its leading position. At the same time, this is an attractive transaction because of the potential for the combined entity to be greater than the sum of its parts, so we expect Bloomberg and BNA employees to work together over time to produce innovative products and services for our customers.

10. What is required to close the transaction?

The Bloomberg-BNA combination is a two-step transaction. The first step is a tender for all of the outstanding shares of BNA at a price of $39.50 per share in cash.
The acquisition is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the merger agreement, including a condition that at least a majority of the outstanding BNA Class A Shares are tendered, that the waiting period under the U.S. Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, has expired or been terminated and other customary conditions.
The second step is a merger. If the offer is successful, Bloomberg will acquire any remaining shares of BNA common stock through the merger of a company created for the purpose of this transaction with and into BNA with BNA continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bloomberg.
If Bloomberg acquires at least 90% of the outstanding Class A Shares in the tender offer, it will be able to effect the merger under the short-form merger provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law immediately following closing of the Offer.
If Bloomberg doesn’t achieve 90% ownership through the tender offer, Bloomberg would still own sufficient Class A Shares, without the vote of any other holders of Class A Shares, to satisfy the stockholder approval requirement to approve the Merger. In that case, the Merger will close following the mailing of the requisite information statement to BNA stockholders.

11. When is the transaction expected to close?

Bloomberg anticipates that the transaction will close later in 2011, subject to regulatory approvals and successful completion of the Offer and Merger.

12. Are there potential anti-trust concerns? What if any regulators are involved?

The offer may not close unless pre-merger notification and report forms have been filed with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission and certain waiting period requirements have been satisfied.

13. How confident are Bloomberg and BNA the transaction will go through?

Bloomberg expects that the offer will be successful and that the Merger will be consummated in a reasonable period of time thereafter. Bloomberg believes it is paying a premium for the shares of BNA and believes the BNA stockholders will determine to sell their shares and support the transaction.
Background

14. What is BNA?

BNA was founded in 1929 and has become a trusted information source for labor, tax, and regulatory lawyers as well as for other accounting, government, and academic professionals. BNA’s portfolio of approximately 250 subscription-based information products includes category leaders such as Daily Labor Report, Daily Tax Report, Labor & Employment Law Library, and Tax Management Portfolios. The Company counts amongst its customers the250 largest law firms, 98% of the top 100 accounting firms, 97% of Fortune 500 companies, and a substantial number of large and mid-sized law firms. In law firms alone, BNA serves over 5,500 firms with an estimated 205,000 attorneys. BNA reported revenue of $331 million in 2010. BNA is completely employee-owned, and is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, where most of its 1,465 employees are located.

15. What is Bloomberg?

Bloomberg, a leading global business and financial news provider, gives influential decision makers a critical edge by connecting them to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas. The company’s strength–delivering data, news and analytics through innovative technology, quickly and accurately- -is at the core of the Bloomberg Professional service, which provides real time financial information to more than 300,000 subscribers globally. Bloomberg’s enterprise solutions build on the company’s core strength, leveraging technology to allow customers to access, integrate, distribute and manage data and information across organizations more efficiently and effectively. Through Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Government and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the company provides data, news and analytics to decision makers in industries beyond finance. And Bloomberg News, delivered through the Bloomberg Professional service, television, radio, mobile, the Internet and two magazines, Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets, covers the world with more than 2,300 news and multimedia professionals at 146 bureaus in 72 countries. Headquartered in New York, Bloomberg employs more than 13,600 people in 185 locations around the world.
The Offer has not yet commenced, and this communication is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, an offer to purchase or a solicitation of an offer to sell shares of the common stock of BNA. On the commencement date of the Offer, a tender offer statement on Schedule TO, including an offer to purchase, a letter of transmittal and related documents, will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The offer to purchase shares of BNA’s common stock will only be made pursuant to the offer to purchase, the letter of transmittal and related documents filed with such Schedule TO. INVESTORS AND BNA STOCKHOLDERS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO CAREFULLY READ THE TENDER OFFER STATEMENT (INCLUDING THE OFFER TO PURCHASE, THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND THE RELATED TENDER OFFER DOCUMENTS) AND THE RELATED SOLICITATION/RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The tender offer statement will be filed with the SEC by Brass Acquisition Corp. and Bloomberg, and the solicitation/recommendation statement will be filed with the SEC by BNA. Investors and BNA stockholders may obtain a free copy of the tender offer statement, the solicitation/recommendation statement and other documents (when available) filed with the SEC at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The tender offer statement and other documents filed by Brass Acquisition Corp. or Bloomberg may also be obtained free of charge by directing a request by mail to MacKenzie Partners, Inc. at 105 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by calling toll-free at +1 800-322-2885 or by email to tenderoffer@mackenziepartners.com.

Well, we always hear rumors around the time of AALL that someone is buying BNA (usually Westlaw or Lexis), however, it seems that Bloomberg was the one to actually pull the trigger on this acquisition. I just received this press release on the purchase. (More of my personal comments to come…)

SEE: Q&A about Bloomberg/BNA Acquisition

Bloomberg Enters Agreement to Acquire BNA
Combination Propels Bloomberg’s Expansion into Legal Information Market
and Enhances BNA through Bloomberg’s Data and Technology Expertise
Acquisition Increases Bloomberg’s Presence in Washington Market
NEW YORK and ARLINGTON, Va. – Bloomberg and BNA today announced that they have entered into an agreement for Bloomberg to acquire all of the outstanding shares of BNA for $39.50 per share in a cash tender offer followed by a merger for a total purchase price of approximately $990 million.  The transaction is expected to close in 2011. 
BNA, which is wholly owned by current and former employees, provides important legal, tax and regulatory research and analysis and would become a stand-alone subsidiary of Bloomberg. 
Together, Bloomberg and BNA would form a unique combination of premium content, deep subject matter expertise, proprietary data and world class technological capabilities to provide distinctive products and solutions for professionals and decision makers in law, government, business and finance.
This acquisition would immediately strengthen Bloomberg’s offerings in the legal information market by complementing Bloomberg Law — the only legal research system that fully integrates primary research, dockets, company information and proprietary news — with BNA’s trusted legal, tax and regulatory content.  
In addition, the combination would enhance Bloomberg’s coverage and analysis of tax and accounting, labor and employment, healthcare, intellectual property, and telecommunications issues. 
The acquisition would significantly grow Bloomberg’s presence in the Washington, DC area through its multiple operating units, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg Law and BNA — which would work together to provide unparalleled coverage and analysis of U.S. policy and regulatory issues for customers.    
“BNA’s employees have built a superior franchise and we are enthusiastic about a Bloomberg-BNA combination that will deliver more premium content to our professional audiences,” said Dan Doctoroff, CEO and President of Bloomberg.  “BNA research and analysis will make Bloomberg’s products even more valuable, and BNA would benefit from our data and technology expertise.”
“For more than eight decades, we have provided our subscribers with quality products that allow them to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently,” said Paul N. Wojcik, Chairman and CEO of BNA. “We believe this is the start of a new day, where we will join forces with Bloomberg to extend our premium content to an expanded audience.”
“Bloomberg and BNA share many of the same values, including a commitment to deliver high-quality content to customers, employing highly skilled and experienced workers and offering superior customer service,” said Peter Grauer, Chairman of Bloomberg.  “We look forward to welcoming them to the Bloomberg family.”
The tender offer is expected to commence by September 8, 2011.  The acquisition is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the merger agreement, including a condition that at least a majority of the outstanding BNA Class A Shares are tendered, that the waiting period under the U.S. Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, has expired or been terminated and other customary conditions.  If the tender offer is completed, untendered shares of BNA are expected to be converted in the subsequent merger into the right to receive the same US$39.50 per share price paid in the tender offer.
The Offer has not yet commenced, and this communication is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, an offer to purchase or a solicitation of an offer to sell shares of the common stock of BNA. On the commencement date of the Offer, a tender offer statement on Schedule TO, including an offer to purchase, a letter of transmittal and related documents, will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The offer to purchase shares of BNA’s common stock will only be made pursuant to the offer to purchase, the letter of transmittal and related documents filed with such Schedule TO. INVESTORS AND BNA STOCKHOLDERS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO CAREFULLY READ THE TENDER OFFER STATEMENT (INCLUDING THE OFFER TO PURCHASE, THE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND THE RELATED TENDER OFFER DOCUMENTS) AND THE RELATED SOLICITATION/RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The tender offer statement will be filed with the SEC by Brass Acquisition Corp. and Bloomberg, and the solicitation/recommendation statement will be filed with the SEC by BNA.  Investors and BNA stockholders may obtain a free copy of the tender offer statement, the solicitation/recommendation statement and other documents (when available) filed with the SEC at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.  The tender offer statement and other documents filed by Brass Acquisition Corp. or Bloomberg may also be obtained free of charge by directing a request by mail to MacKenzie Partners, Inc. at 105 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by calling toll-free at +1 800-322-2885 or by email to tenderoffer@mackenziepartners.com.
More information about the transaction is attached to this email and available on Bloomberg and BNA’s websites at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/about/pressroom/
http://www.bna.com
About Bloomberg
Bloomberg, a leader in global business and financial information and news, gives influential decision makers a critical edge by connecting them to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas. The company’s strength – delivering data, news and analytics through innovative technology, quickly and accurately – is at the core of the Bloomberg Professional service, which provides real time financial information to more than 300,000 subscribers globally. Bloomberg’s enterprise solutions build on the company’s core strength, using technology to allow customers to access, integrate, distribute and manage data and information across organizations more efficiently and effectively. Through Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Government and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the company provides data, news and analytics to decision makers in industries beyond finance. And Bloomberg News, delivered through the Bloomberg Professional service, television, radio, mobile, the Internet and two magazines, Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets, covers the world with more than 2,300 news and multimedia professionals at 146 bureaus in 72 countries.  Headquartered in New York, Bloomberg employs more than 13,000 people in 185 locations around the world.
About BNA
BNA is the largest independent publisher of news, analysis, and reference products for
professionals. Delivering specialized information to business, legal, and government professionals at every level of expertise, BNA produces more than 300 news and information services, including the highly respected Daily Labor Report, U.S. Law Week, and Daily Report for Executives.  For more information, visit bna.com.
About Bloomberg Law
Bloomberg Law is the first real-time legal research system that integrates innovative search technology, comprehensive legal content, company and client information, and proprietary news all in one place. This collaborative workspace also includes a suite of new tools for more effective legal analysis and more productive client development. For more information, visit BloombergLaw.com.
About Bloomberg Government
Bloomberg Government is the single source for professionals who need to
understand the business impacts of government actions so they can work quickly, decisively and effectively. This comprehensive, subscription-based, online tool collects best-in-class data, provides high-end analysis and analytic tools, and delivers deep, reliable, timely and unbiased reporting from a team of more than 2,300 journalists and multimedia specialists worldwide.  For more information, visit BGov.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This announcement contains forward-looking statements relating to the potential acquisition of BNA by Bloomberg Inc. These forward-looking statements are made within the meaning of and pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The actual results of the acquisition could vary materially as a result of a number of factors, including: uncertainties as to how many of BNA’s stockholders will tender their stock in the offer; the possibility that competing offers will be made; and the possibility that various closing conditions for the transaction may not be satisfied or waived. Other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially include those set forth in the reports that BNA files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 and quarterly and current reports on Form 10-Q and 8-K. These forward-looking statements reflect BNA’s expectations as of the date of this announcement. BNA undertakes no obligation to update the information provided herein.
# # #
Media contact:
Ty Trippet
Bloomberg L.P.
+1.212.617.2443 – office
ttrippet@bloomberg.net

You may agree with me that the best thing about going to a professional conference is finally making it back home and sleeping in your own bed. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy ourselves while we are traveling to different cities every year and meeting up with our usual set of friends over a round of drinks or a nice dinner. This week, we wanted to know what city you enjoy going to the most, and why that is.

Oddly enough, almost all of the cities were West of the Mississippi (or in one case, directly on the Mississippi). This may upset many of the conference planners because I know they prefer to have the conferences smack-dab on the East coast because of the ease in which all those law firms, law schools and government agencies can send their people to attend the conferences. Nevertheless, these are the wonderful cities you chose to share with us.

Next week’s Elephant Post (embedded form conveniently placed below this week’s contributions) asks what do you think your organization will stop buying in the next two to five years. If something just popped into your head when you read that last sentence, don’t forget to scroll down and let us know what it was!!

Kevin Miles
Guru


Seattle
The conference center itself is well designed and at the epicenter of most of the hotels; the weather is very mild; the Pike Place Market is a great place to wander and relax; for exercise there are the mountains, bike trails and self-guided tours; For cool things to brag about, there are the Space Needle, the Seattle Art Museum, and of course, the Seattle Public Library.

Lisa Rush
Librarian


Monterey, CA
The calm and beauty of it.  Good transportation.  Easy to walk.

Greg Lambert
Library/Records Guy


Eugene, Oregon
So maybe Eugene isn’t on the “big” conference rotations, but I went to a CALI conference in 1998 or 1999 in Eugene and found it to be a wonderful city that rivals Austin, Texas in “weirdness” … but in a cool way. It isn’t just cool in spirit either. It was actually really nice weather for late June.   While I was there, I got to drive out to the Pacific Ocean and watch the sun set, I drove out to Sisters, OR which was like Jackson Hole, Wyoming (without the snobby L.A. actors and hipsters scene), plus I got to watch an Anarchist rally where people were stripping off their clothes and smashing any corporate window (especially those with a Nike Swoosh on them.) Thinking back, however, it seems a little oxymoronic to have an organized Anarchist rally, doesn’t it??  Oh yeah… the CALI conference was great, too!! If it wasn’t for the lack of hotel space and conference locations, I’d suggest that AALL, SLA, ILTA and others go to Eugene every ten years or so.

Stephanie Davidson
Librarian


Chicago!
For me, the best conference city has all the restaurant and arts offerings of a medium-sized or large city, and proximity of the conference activities to the city, and/or excellent public transportation options to venture beyond conference-land. If we could hold the conference at a law school like CALI does, I’d quickly pick Columbus or Seattle or Boulder, but AALL in its current form is most attractive to me when it’s in Chicago or DC.

Donna Williams
Law Librarian


Denver, CO
Location, it’s easy to get to from almost everywhere in the U.S.  The convention center & hotels were right across the street.  It was very clean and the shopping district & restaurants were very close by.

Marilyn Bromley
Librarian


Denver
I love Denver as a conference city. It has great June/July weather, incredible scenery, a nice set of hotels and an up-to-date conference center, and fun eating and shopping.  But most of all I love being there because I feel healthy and alive when I’m visiting, and I can easily imagine living there (as opposed to hot towns like New Orleans and San Antonio, or crowded towns like NY).  Seattle is a close second to Denver for the same reasons.

Sarah Glassmeyer
Director of Content Development, CALI.org


New Orleans
Okay, let’s just get it out of the way.  Yes, New Orleans’ weather sucks (especially if you are attending a conference there in the summer which most librarian conferences are.) It’s hot and muggy in a way that can only be described by referencing Satan or Hell.  And there’s no public transportation. And it smells funny.  And it can be sort of divey and dangerous if you leave the tourist areas.  And the tourist areas are filled with….well, tourists of the obnoxious frat boy variety. EVEN WITH ALL THAT, I love going to conferences in New Orleans!   Visiting NOLA is like traveling to a foreign country. You’ll see things and meet people there that exist no where else in the USA.  There’s always great live music to be found and even better food and drink for those evening post conference adventures with your fellow attendees. From high class super fancy to earthy and street, no matter what your tastes or comfort level, there’s a venue for you.  And maybe the heat encourages you to stay in the cool convention center and attend meetings during the day?  If you want safe and easy, go to Washington, DC. (Which is also obnoxiously hot, by the way.)  I’ll always happily go to NOLA.

Jennifer Stephens
Librarian


Seattle, WA
I’ve been to Seattle twice for AALL conferences, and thoroughly enjoyed it both times. The airport has plenty of shops to keep you entertained while waiting for flights, there is plenty of coffee, and the convention center does not sprawl over multiple city blocks.  Biggest plus: the temperatures tend to be 20 degrees cooler than they are in Texas during the summer. As I recall, it is fairly easy to walk to major attractions (the market, coffee shops, the convention center, places to eat, the underground Seattle tour.)  Biggest drawback: how long it takes to fly there…

Toby Brown
AFA

Las Vegas
Duh.
On a personal note, don’t believe the marketing slogan.

Next Elephant Post:

What Will Your Organization Stop Buying In the Next Five Years?

While listening to one of the ILTA-TV broadcasts this week, I heard a speaker say that she thought that law firms would stop buying PC and Laptops in bulk, and would navigate toward supporting personal devices (mobile, tablet and personal laptops.) Whether that can actually happen or not, it does seem that organizations are under more and more pressure to support items that are normally outside the scope of what the organization buys, could firms leverage that demand and say that they would “support” unique devices, but that the employees are on the hook for purchasing them? Many organizations are already doing this with cell-phone service… so, it may not be too much of a stretch.

Don’t limit your thinking to electronics, however. Are there other services, hardware, software, subscriptions, etc. that your organization currently buys, but may no longer need over the next two to five years? Let us know what you think, and come back this time next week to see what others have contributed as well.

Image [cc] ivyfield

When I was at AALL last month, someone asked me who I though would “win” the e-book format challenge. I think they were giving me a multiple-choice answer between Kindle, iBooks, HTML5, etc. However, my answer was “D — None of the Above.” In my mind, the “winner” doesn’t even exist yet. It may take a few years of weeding through moving “the book” to “the e-book” to actually moving to a format that really takes advantage of everything that is available to us now, and will be available to us in the near future. Now, there are a number of things that are going on right now that are moving in a different direction, and publishers and entrepreneurs should take notice and start thinking of re-purposing and bringing to market.

Make Existing Formats Better!

Take a look at what one of my favorite teaching, Khan Academy, tools is doing to make it’s wonderful YouTube videos better. Sal Khan and e-textbook startup Kno have teamed up to integrate Sal’s video tutorials (which by themselves are awesome) into Kno’s electronic textbooks with “Smart Links.” Kno has set up an algorithm to automatically tag new Khan Academy videos to appropriate e-textbook pages. In a way, making the e-textbooks a living document that changes and improves over time.

Don’t Limit the Format to What Fits in Their Hands!


Many years ago, I remember watching a video of an airplane mechanic that had a virtual mechanic’s manual integrated into a pair of glasses. The idea behind that was that it was actually a safety hazard to lug a five-pound manual up on top of an airplane, and it would be more convenient to leave the mechanic’s hands free to work on the machinery rather than fumbling through a manual while searching for the right page and the right tool at the same time. I couldn’t find a copy of that old commercial, but I did find this YouTube video of a car mechanic with a virtual manual to show that access to information shouldn’t require standing in front of a PC or even holding an iPad.

The Demand Is There — Will You Fill The Need, Or Let Someone Do It For You?


The constant desire for a “more efficient workforce” may not be a strong in the legal market as it should be, but as we continue the mantra of “doing more with less” even law firms will need to find ways to push the right information, to the right people, at the right time. Of course, all of these processes also need to come with an overall improvement in costs to deliver that information. Law firms may want to take a look at an announcement this morning from United Airlines on how they are moving toward the fluidity of information, improving worker productivity, and reducing overall costs at the same time.

United Airlines is converting to what it is calling a “Paperless Flight Deck” by pushing out 11,000 iPads to all of its pilots (both United and Continental) and getting rid of all of its paper flight manuals. The idea is that pilots will have easy access to massive amounts of instructions, as well as the ability to access real-time information at any point in their flight. This isn’t just moving the paper manual to the iPad, it is making that information better by having the ability to update it instantly and push out that information at the right time to the right people. Not only does it improve the ability for pilots to do their jobs better, it also has the added benefit of reducing the amount of paper United uses by 16 million sheets of paper and saving an estimated 326,000 gallons of jet fuel every year.

The “Winner” Still Doesn’t Exist


I still think that the eventual “winner” (however you want to define that) doesn’t exist today. There is some new Steve Jobs / Bill Gates / Sal Khan out there getting ready to drop out of school, or quit their job to start on a crazy idea of how to better put information in front of people in such a unique way that they will end up billionaires for their efforts. I, for one, can’t wait to see what that end result will look like.

Almost all those books…
government created content that someone paid for!

I am a huge proponent of state governments helping their citizens understand the judicial system, and help with the access to justice, but I think that a recent action from the State of Montana is sliding down a slippery slope in its actions to enforce copyright on its forms listed through the State’s Law Library website. The Readers’ Digest version of the situation is that the Montana State Law Library created a legal forms data bank, claimed copyright to those forms and specifically stated that the forms could not be sold in commercial format. Like and any red-blooded American company, an operation out of Helena, Montana took those free forms, repackaged them and sold them for $389. And, as any red-blooded American would do in response, the State of Montana sued the company for copyright infringement. (See the whole story here.)

My feelings are similar to my fellow Texan, Don Cruse:

I agree the forms should be free & that people shouldn’t be misled into paying for free forms. So the intent is noble enough. But it’s still awkward to see a state agency wielding copyright over state-published legal materials.

I think that the State of Montana’s heart is in the right place in trying to protect its citizens against paying for things that it can get for free, but at the same time, there has to be a point in which when citizens are better informed about how to access justice, whether for free or for a fee, trumps the paternalistic view of the State that  it alone should be the educator of its people.

Let me make this point clear — All Government Information Should Be Available To Its Citizens In An Easy-To-Use Format, and Free — however, there should be absolutely no limitation on the public to repackage this information and resell it to those same citizens. In a private email, my co-blogger, Toby Brown says it best:

Companies resell govt content all the time – usually with some value-add like Westlaw. They [the governments] are just upset since stupid people pay them.

Just as you can’t protect your children from making bad decisions, State governments just can’t expect to sue every company for reselling government created content. Yes, your citizens should be better informed that they can get the same information for free, but just as every parent experiences, sometimes you just got to be grateful that they got to the right place, even if they did it in a dumb and costly way.

Claiming copyright on information that was created in the environment of a government action… paid by government officials, either through tax payer money, or filing fee collections… that information belongs to everyone. That includes those that are smart and creative enough to repackage that information and sell it to those that are not smart enough to realize they can get that information for free.

Again, I’m a big believer that government information should be free, but I’m also a big believer that government information should be freely available for anyone to use for private or commercial purposes. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I applaud Montana’s effort to make its information free and accessible to its citizens (or anyone with Internet access), but I think they are entirely mis-guided in thinking that anyone that repackages this same information for profit is a charlatan. I would argue quite the opposite… they are assisting governments in providing access to justices, and should not be punished for that effort.

The news of Google investing in Rocket Lawyer got me thinking about the dynamics of the broader market for legal services. On one end of the market we have the discussion about how BigLaw is broken. There is a long and growing list of broken pieces of BigLaw, including: how fees are billed, how marketing is done, how research is conducted, how documents are created, …. You get the picture.
3 Geeks has previously commented on the need for law firms to shift from a cost-plus business model where all revenue is good (and profitable), to a profit margin model where profit (a.k.a. partner pay) is dependant on cost coming in below revenue. We’re not sure what the new law firm picture will look like, perhaps some sort of Law Factory, but we do know it will not be like the picture we see now.
One piece of the new picture emerging into view is being presented by LPOs. These providers present the option of using much lower cost lawyers to perform lower level legal tasks. For BigLaw this means that a segment of work and revenue is disappearing. Although not purely disruptive on its face, this model is disruptive to the cost-plus law firm business model. Outsourcing copies is one thing, outsourcing lawyer work is quite another.
The rest of the legal market has enjoyed poking fun at BigLaw, feeling immune to this force of change. Well – thanks to Google (and LegalZoom), their day has come, with their portion of the market being attacked by “legal forms” shops.
You can argue over whether legal forms offerings and their add-on services are “first amendment speech” or whether they are the unauthorized practicing of law (UPL), but I think that misses the point. The solo/small firm segment of the legal market has been equally comfortable with the way they provide services whilst change whirls around them. Enter the disruptive force, drawn to an un-served market, offering a needed service at a competitive price point.
The Missouri reaction of claiming UPL against LegalZoom is understandable, but IMHO a bit too late for a couple of reasons. First – the market wants and needs theses services and hasn’t been getting them from lawyers. Without the ability to fill this void, the organized bar will in essence be asking the courts (and legislatures) to reduce access to justice. Second – these services have been around for years, evidenced by Nolo Press. I recall years ago the then Utah Chief Justice commenting that if providing forms and minimal guidance on using them was UPL, then the biggest offender would be the court clerk’s office. The point being – attempting to stem the tide of the market in the courts is futile.
Where do these two market trends leave us? Once these two disruptive forces meet in the middle, they may well own the legal market. It’s a variation on the classic military pincer movement, whereby an enemy is attack from both sides, cut off from reinforcements and escape.
Sun Tzu was not a fan of the pincer movement. He argued that an enemy with no where to run will fight ferociously. But will the lawyers? Suing competitors will only get them so far. At some point, to survive, lawyers will have to fully embrace change and find effective ways to compete in a changing market.
Who would you bet on?
ADDENDUM
After writing this post, thanks to a tweet from Jason Wilson (@jasnwilsn), I found this article on Jacoby and Meyers suing some state bars to allow for non-lawyer investment and ownership in law firms. Wow. Here’s a firm feeling cornered and willing to fight ferociously. And instead of suing competitors, they are suing the regulators holding them back from competing. They want to “increase competition, drive down prices, depress some lawyer compensation, and serve people who don’t even know how useful legal services can be.”
But before you change your bet – realize this will need to make its way through the courts, likely up to the Supreme Court. Which means they’ll have an answer in 5 or 6 years. Still, it is nice to see a firm fighting to be competitive.

I have been playing with Google+, trying to figure out the best way to incorporate it into my social media arsenal. Look out world, @Lihsa is armed and grammarous!
For one, I’m loving being one of the few active Google+ers in a room full of geeks. I am learning a ton. Reminds me a lot of the early Twitter days, before the rest of the world got on the Twitter Train.
But first, I had to install a few tools, otherwise, it was a lot like the avalanche that the Twitter stream created.
· Chrome: makes, sense, right? Google+ works better in Google’s Chrome browser. You can download their browser at http://www.google.com/chrome.
Next, set up your Google profile. There is a big controversy about Google+ requiring real names. But you can work around that. As a female lawyer, I am not inclined to share my personal data. And since my last post on Google profiles, they have made some modifications, allowing you to limit who sees this info to either “You”, “Circles”, “Extended Circles”, “Public” and any customizable set thereof.
· Name: I used my Twitter handle and my last name’s initial. Problem solved.
· Photo: I used my Twitter pic so my Twitter Peeps would recognize me.
· Intro: To be consistent in with personal brand, I copied my Twitter description.
· Bragging Rights: Be funny. Otherwise, you just come off as a pompous twit.
· Occupation: Well, I toyed with this and chose to be more descriptive rather than putting my actual title. Sue me.
· Employment, Education: Because of the privacy options available, I listed my business, but limited to just my circles.
· Location: I just put the states instead of giving addresses.
· Birthday: I put my day (but not the year—you never ask a lady her age!) because I like getting birthday wishes. Hint, hint 😉
Then I uploaded a Chrome Extension called Publish Sync. You can get it on Facebook or in the Chrome Store. Publish Sync gives me the ability to auto-synch postings from Google+, Facebook, Twitter and a few others. Now I don’t have to tediously post in 5 different locations.
Lastly, I installed the latest version of Google+me. It has some great features, which has made it a lot easier to use. The two best features are:
· Status Notice: this resides on the chrome tool bar and lets me know when I have new notifications.
· Collapsible Posts: this is really nice, especially when over-sharers who are hugely popular (the Scobleizer) and have ridiculously long comments section. Keeps my posts nice and tidy.
Oh, and a word about circles. I’ve read some interesting articles about different circle philosophies. Some say limit your circles to batches of no more than 15 folks. Others create incredibly niche categories like “people who think green.” Others let everyone in. Me, I have 14 circles broken out by job titles like tech, marketing and writers. But I’m finding that they all seriously overlap and tend to default to my stream.
I’m finding Google+ to be incredibly robust, falling between Twitter, Facebook and blogging. Lots of great conversations and lots to learn.

So that’s it. No more excuses, guys! It’s time to get on board the Google+ Train before it choo-choos out of this station and leaves you in the dust.