First off, I’m going to come out and say that I think that what the Illinois Supreme Court officially adopting a vendor-neutral citation system is a great thing. In fact, EVERY STATE COURT should adopt a vendor-neutral citation system that allows everyone to access new decisions immediately, and with the ability to have an instant and authoritative method of citing to those decisions. Now, with that out of the way… let me make a couple of suggestions to that same court about some things it really needs to re-evaluate when it comes to a Uniform Citation System. (See the PDF press release… of course, even the press release is in PDF format… see #3 below on this one.)
Interested in all things digital? Well, if you didn’t know, for the first time in its history, the 9th annual D: All Things Digital is going to be streaming its sold-out conference. Kicking off the conference will be Google exec Eric Schmidt, who will step up to the mike at 6:15 PDT. Netflix CEO and Founder Reed Hastings will speak tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. PDT. Featured speakers include Hewlett-Packard CEO Léo Apotheker, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop, DARPA director Regina Dugan, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft’s Windows division.
[Please Welcome Guest Blogger – Jeff Ward]
When Google announced it would be accepting requests for testers for its new cloud-based Music Beta platform, I immediately sent in my request. After a couple of weeks of waiting… and assuming that I wouldn’t be invited… I finally got my invite and jumped in with both feet. After a couple of days of testing it on a few computers, my Android phone, and even my iPad, I think there is a lot of potential here, and there’s also a lot that can be improved. I’ll be pointing out both in my review. Perhaps the most impressive thing about the Music Beta project is the amount of space Google gives you for your music. I expected to see a limit of 2-10 Gb like you would see from services like Amazon’s Cloud Drive, or from services like Dropbox. Instead, Music Beta gives you the ability to upload up to 20,000 songs in either mp3 or AAC format. I did some quick calculations based on the size of my music collection on my iPad (@3200 songs = @12 Gb of space) and estimated that 20K of songs would end up being around 75 Gb of space. That’s a lot of space, and a lot of music.
Google Music Beta uploads your music using a PC or Mac based program called Music Manager. With the Music Manager, you can sync your music files from either your iTunes library, your Windows Media library, your My Music folders on your PC, or from any other folders you select (and you can select multiple folders if you have a unique way you store your music on your computer.) The upload speed will vary depending upon the speed of your Internet provider, but I was able to upload all of my music from my PC over one night. You can change some of the options on the uploading procedures and limit the uploads based upon if you want to do it all at once, or if you want to only upload a few at a time, or if you want to upload the songs manually. You can also set how you want the Music Manager to use your Bandwidth. You can also have Music Manager start when your computer is restarted, and it will upload any new music you add to your collection automatically. During the install of the Music Manager, you are also given an opportunity to select the type of music you like, and Google Music Beta will add some free songs to your collection based upon those preferences. I checked off a couple of music selections, and ended up having over 100 free songs added to my collection. Now, I have to say that some of those freebies were really good (a couple of Cheap Trick, Live at Budokan songs are awesome), and some were… well, I just got to say that I personally wouldn’t have picked David Cassidy’s cover of I Think I Love You as one of my choices. But, they were free, and as many of you know, I like free, so I’ll put up with a little Partridge Family to get to the Cheap Trick stuff. Once the music is uploaded, you can play it through just about any Internet connected device. I’ve tried it on my PCs, my laptops, my iPad, and multiple mobile devices that have Internet browsers. So far, the music service worked on everything I tried (with the exception of my Kindle, first-generation device.) The only real annoyance I discovered on any of the mobile devices is that on the iPad you have to use the two-finger scroll method to move the music lists up and down. But, considering I had access to my music collection from pretty much any device with an Internet connection, I could put up with a few individual device quirks.
Google’s Music Beta interface is similar to the iTunes, but not nearly as flexible as iTunes is with how the artists, albums and songs are displayed. Visually, iTunes is much better, especially with the way you can set up the Cover Flow visualization. With Google Music Beta, you can see the album covers, but only if they are embedded in the MP3 files. There is no “Get Album Cover Art” option on Google Music like there is on iTunes. If you want to add the missing album covers, you can do so manually through the edit options for each of the individual albums. I hope that Google works with someone on this to make it easier to get the album artwork automatically, rather than having to do so on a one-on-one basis.
Just like the iTunes “Genius” tool, Google Music Beta allows you to create Instant Mixes by selecting one song, and it will then find 25 similar songs based upon “a combination of metadata and audio analysis to create playlists that match the mood and style of your selection.” Just like the “Genius” mix, however, these Instant Mix lists can be hit-or-miss, but usually aren’t too bad on how they select other songs. My suggestion for both iTunes and Google Music is that they give the user the ability to help in the selection process. So, for example, let’s say I pick a song by the Hard-Rock, Girl vocals, Spain-based but sings in English band, named Dover, and want a mix. In iTunes, the Genius program selects all of my Spanish songs for the mix. Whereas Google Music selects a bunch of girl vocal, pop songs. Neither of those really fit what I’m looking for, so perhaps adding an option for me to exclude, or include certain categories would make it work better. A few other features of the Google Music Beta is the ability to rate songs with a simple ‘thumbs-up’ or ‘thumbs-down’ option. Of course, I immediately thought about why would you upload songs you would want to give a thumb-down to in the first place?? Other features include grouping songs by genre (based upon the metadata from the songs), sorting by the number of times the song has played, or sorting by the ratings you’ve assigned to the songs. Speaking of sorting, there is one major flaw in the sorting by Artists that would drive most librarians crazy. Artists with “The” as the first word in their names get sorted in the “T’s”. So, groups like The Decemberists, The Dollyrots, and The Donnas show up in the wrong place when you sort by artists. This is not the case in iTunes, and I’m hoping that Google fixes this during the beta phase. Perhaps the biggest short-fall of the Google Music Beta is the “Shop this Artist” option which simply links out to Google Shopping page for a hodge-podge of different places to buy additional material. Unlike the Amazon or iTunes Store, the shopping options are very disorganized and lack the integration that you get from the Amazon and iTunes services. Overall, the Google Music Beta is pretty good for Beta, but still needs a little improvement with its interface, its sorting and selection processes, and its integration with online services to purchase and download new music. All of these issues aside, the basic idea of being able to access your music on most Internet enabled devices, and to do so for free, is something that is worthwhile. If you want to test it out for yourself, Google is still accepting requests for the Music Beta.
Yesterday Google announced the release of its Google Wallet app.
Different from Jack Dorsey’s Square technology, the phone does not require any additional hardware in order to complete transactions.
Reports are that Sprint, Citibank, MasterCard, Subway, Macy’s, Walgreens, Toys ‘R Us, and First Data are partnering with Google. And with Mastercard’s backing, Google Wallet will be fully compatible with their already existing PayPass system.
Right now, Google’s Sprint Nexus S 4G works with this technology but other Androids will be rolling in. RIM’s already commited to implementing this technology in future Blackberry releases. Alternatively, phones without built-in NFC could add an NFC sticker ($36), which will need to be implemented on any iPhone device due to Apple’s reticence to “buy in” to NFC technology. Check out this definitive list of NFC phones if you want to know if which phones are or will be NFC.
Notably, Hong Kong and Japan implemented NFC technology a number of years ago and it continues to be a success.
Then you ask him for a retainer. He pulls out the same phone, you push forward your NFC chip reading device (I’ve seen them sell for anywhere from $50-$250) and, VOILA! His money is now your money.
We seemed to have asked about a hot topic issue this week when we wondered if non-lawyers that work at a law firm should be visible through the firm’s website. This actually may be the Elephant Post with the most contributions (18 total), and although most answered “Yes”, it wasn’t even close to a unanimous response. One noticeably missing profession from the contributions, however, were lawyers. Lots of non-lawyers (actually some are lawyers, just not actively practicing for their respective law firms) chimed in to give their votes for or against (and a couple that were very close to “I voted for it, before I voted against it” type of endorsements.
I did get a personal message from one lawyer that claimed that it may actually be a bar violation to present non-lawyers on the firm’s websites. The thought was that it knocks up against the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) issue. I talked with a couple more people that were familiar with various Bar Associations and they assured me that as long as it was clear that the non-lawyers were clearly identified as not being lawyers, that this wouldn’t violate the UPL guidelines. When I brought this answer back to the lawyer, however, she scoffed and said that she wouldn’t want to take the chance. If anyone wants to clarify the UPL issue, please feel free to set all of us straight.
Enjoy the contributions. Thank you, everyone that contributed. Once you’ve digested these, scroll on down and take a look at next week’s post which asks if a two-tiered Associate system will be the make up of law firms in the near future.
Kate
Sales/Marketing
Yes
When my former law firm re-did their website, there was a page for administrative managers with their contact information, and if those people spoke, wrote articles, etc., they received equal promotion on the firm website as the attorneys.
See: http://www.saiber.com. Under “Publications and Articles” the fourth article listed is written by the Director of Finance. And on the “Firm News” page, the first item under “October 2010” is from the Executive Director.
Vivian
IT
Yes
It’s more friendly and personal, less imposing and intimidating to prospective clients.
Sarah Mauldin
Librarian
Yes
Absolutely! If I might appear on your bill, you ought to be able to find out a little more about me and why I am qualified to perform work you should have to pay for. I think this extends to paralegals, lit support folks, etc.
Elaine Knecht
C-level Librarian
Yes
Particularly in this social networking age, every opportunity that a firm has to make a connection is a good one.
Julie
KM
Yes
Non-lawyers should absolutely be promoted on a law firm’s website. First, such promotion helps improve morale within the firm, particularly in the case of a substantial administrative staff with a wealth of talent and expertise. Second, law firms stand to benefit from educating clients and potential clients about their administrative infrastructure. We are all aware of the dramatic shifts in the legal economy in the last decade. More than ever, departments such as KM, LPM and Pricing/Finance are actively involved in matter management. Clients have taken a keen interest in law firm resources extending beyond the capable and talented lawyers that many law firms can claim they can offer. Promotion of non-lawyers is, I believe, critical to successful law firm business development from now on.
Jason
IT
Yes
It takes more than the lawyers to make a law firm work and so senior non-lawyers should be included. After all a website is as much about selling to customers as providing information to all interested in the company, providing details and CV’s of your CFO and CIO’s can tell you a lot about the running of the firm.
Andy
IT
Yes
Because they provide value to the client.
Scott Jaffee
Controller
No
The purpsose is to attract clients who pay for legal services. The website should focus only on that.
Anonymous
Marketing
Yes
We post some on our site- we draw the line before paralegals, but those admin folks (almost always billers) which the practice leaders feel give us a competitive advantage get listed. This includes patent agents, admin directors, etc. I think it’s a good policy- if these people make our client service stronger and will come into direct contact with the client, we should list them.
ThatTech
IT
Yes
Look, at the end of the day, Law Firm’s are businesses. Businesses in general have a lot of moving parts to make it successful. It’s almost silly, or unwise to think that it wouldn’t be in the firm’s best interest to show off their talent. Frankly, if I knew so and so was working at XYZ Firm, I might be more inclined to join. Like any other job, people are attracted to other talent too.
So speaking from an IT perspective only, why not showcase your superstars that back the wheels run smooth?
Dave Rigali
CIO
No
We aren’t the reason why people come to the Firm’s web site. We don’t provide legal services to clients. There are obviously exceptions to this, but I think this is generally true.
Law firm web sites need to stop being shrines to the Firm and to their attorneys, let alone administrative staff. They need to make it easy for clients (or prospective clients) to find information about the specific experience and expertise the Firm and its attorneys have. I’ve never understood why so many sites have news tickers and profile generators on their home page as if someone has the time to read random blurbs about the Firm. Promoting administrative staff would simply add to the noise.
I would make an exception for COOs. They are usually part of the executive board and often bring pertinent background and experience that might influence a general counsel’s decision as to whether to engage the Firm.
This is not to say that staff can’t be promoted on the site at least indirectly. Staff may be involved in the Firm’s diversity program or community service activities for example, and these are increasingly important factors in hiring decisions. But I don’t think that individual bios for staff (for example) are necessary or even advisable.
Christopher Fryer
IT Director
Yes
IT expertise is a great marketing tool.
Andrew Collier
CIO
Yes
Of course, the non-attorney staff supports the professional staff; however, is the impact of this support even really acknowledged, other than when it misfires or is unavailable? In Many cases, the impact of the support staff manifests itself as a force multiplier. Paralegals and business analysts perform the research that can be the defining aspect of making or breaking a case. When clients are impressed with the appearance of the office reception or conference rooms, it is pretty clear the partners and associates were not up late with the spit and polish. When the concessions and catering make a war room remain productive, who ordered the food, presented it, made sure the coffee was hot and plentiful, and soft drinks cold? When the documents that have to be submitted by 5pm on a Friday are dropped on a secretary’s desk at 4pm, who ensures the attorneys work is properly formatted, spell checked and cited before letting it out the door?
We are constantly telling our people that they are the greatest resource the firm has to wield over its competition, yet rarely do we sing their praises in an open forum. Occasionally, you will see a reference on a website about the “team” that backs up several individually named attorneys. You may see the occasional reference in a staff meeting or firm “all call”. However, like the names that turn heads among attorneys, in many areas of legal support, there are individuals that stand out as “go to” guys/gals among our peers. Just look through the ILTA, ARMA or ALA rosters, and many other groups) and you will find those folks that transcend the firm they are currently employed because of their skills, professionalism, experience and personality. I consider many of these fine people role models and (unbeknownst to them in most cases) mentors that I glean information and guidance with many of these individuals being well below the C-level. It is in the firm’s best interest to promote these folks to demonstrate their competitive edge and to build the firm’s brand through the achievements of the exceptional support staff.
It is about time that we promote the entire firm, not just the attorneys. Without doubt, it is the attorney’s names on the door. They do take the responsibility of face of the firm, there is no denying that. We all need to remember that we are all under the employ of the billable hour. When an attorney writes an article for a business journal or gets interviewed as commentary for a national trial, these should be marketed and publicized. And the same should be so, when your Controller writes for the ALA Legal Management, your Records Clerk is sourced as an authority on retention in news story or your IT Security Specialist gives a standing room only presentation at the ILTA Conference. The firm has invested handsomely in the non-legal staff, they should see it as no question when asked to market their single greatest resource.
Shirley Crow
CIO
Yes
We’re professionals who contribute to client service and a law firm’s success.
Anonymous
Librarian
No
How far would this extend – someone mentioned the people who keep the place clean and orderly. Valuable work indeed but what would the rationale be for putting these people on the website? Are clients/others going to want to contact anyone other than attorneys? Would the law firm want people to directly contact professional staff such as the librarians? Even though we make a substantial contribution as well as do IT people, paralegals, records managers and others whom I am going to offend by not including them here , we never get the recognition we really deserve. I’m not sure what the goal her is but if it is for recognition, the website isn’t really the place for that.
Anonymous
IT
Yes
Won’t really matter, no one reads law firm websites anyway.
Clare Brown
librarian
Yes
1. We are as professional and as qualified as lawyers
2. Networking opportunities – It is good for other librarians to find out where friends/ex-colleagues are
3. Demonstrates that law firms care about/ respect their business support staff
Ayelette Robinson
To be honest, I wish Greg had given a ‘maybe’ option. A part of me feels strongly that all the hard-working and skilled professionals who support a business should be promoted on a website — for all of the reasons already mentioned above. But when I asked myself what I look for on a company’s website, I had to admit that I wouldn’t really care about seeing the people who make the business run. To be honest, I just assume that any good business has good people running it.
And my question to everyone who said “yes” on this post is: when you go to gap.com, cnn.com, or ey.com, would seeing the biographies of the IT, accounting, and marketing professionals truly affect your decision about whether to purchase or use the company’s services? Or in your heart of hearts do you feel the same way I do, that – unless proven otherwise – you assume the company is providing its employees with appropriate IT equipment, managing its financial strategy soundly, and marketing itself well to ensure future business? Even (perhaps especially?) if you don’t make that assumption, would seeing the biographies of those professionals on the company’s own website really make a difference or would you assume that those biographies are spun to sound great regardless of whether or not the professionals are strong?
In other words, if you don’t question how the business is run, you don’t need to see the biographies. If you do, you’re probably going to do research in places other than the company’s own site.
Next Week’s Elephant Post Question:
Is a Two-Tiered Associate Track the way of the Future for Law Firms?
Most of us have read the New York Times article on how firms like Orrick, WilmerHale and McDermott Will & Emery are experimenting with creating positions of “career associates” or “permanent associates” and starting them out at around $60,000 per year. I found it interesting that some of the people I know that gasped when newly minted Associates’ pay jumped to $160,000 a few years back, and now are gasping at the non-partner track Associates’ pay of $60K.
So, what are your thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? Done deal?? I’m sure that in this time of law students coming out of school with no prospects and $100K + in loans, maybe this is exactly what they need. Could it be a win-win for both those students and the law firm, or is this second-tier system going to diminish the prestige of the law firm and the associates that take these positions?
Note: Guest Blogger, Ian Nelson
It was fascinating to read about BigLaw exploring new, more efficient ways to practice on the front page of the NY Times Business section. If this doesn’t demonstrate how mainstream and “ready for prime time” this issue is then I don’t know what does. I certainly agree with the author of the article in that this movement is certainly in response to a “fundamental shift” in the law firm business model.
It’s also interesting to note that this “non-partner track” or “career associate” role being described is essentially that of the professional support lawyer, a role that I wrote a few posts on earlier this year and which Toby wrote about last year.
The issue that was not addressed by this article and one that merits further analysis is how to best structure this role so that the firms and clients realize maximum value.
Since the idea behind this role is to allow firms to operate more efficiently, offer services at lower prices and still grow profits, I wonder how efficient it will be if each firm hires large teams of support lawyers that, in many cases, are tasked with almost identical responsibilities.
Of course, each practice group and firm is different but it is safe to say that in this era every firm should have updated standard templates and clauses, practice and how-to guides, checklists, etc. To not have them at all times is putting a firm at a competitive disadvantage, but the document itself is not why a client is hiring a firm. In other words, IBM is not hiring a firm due to their form of asset purchase agreement or standard board minutes.
Should we now have every large firm essentially creating the same materials?
It is an interesting question and one the UK had to deal with as their own PSL industry developed. The UK firms certainly started down a path of large teams of PSLs each doing the same things, but then the firms started to realize that outsourcing the generic materials and using their PSLs for firm-specific and client-facing work (the “crown jewels”) was a much more cost-effective way to proceed. As I pointed out in my earlier posts and for full disclosure, the company I work for, Practical Law Company, is a provider of these materials to law firms and legal departments.
As the NYT article points out, this model is indeed one of outsourcing, but at a much higher level. Firms need to take a look the economics and decide whether they are truly looking to the best value source. 30 people at $60,000 a year is $1.8 million – a rather hefty investment. In most cases, the people filling these roles are experienced practitioners. I would argue that focusing their time onto high level, firm specific work and outsourcing the generic work to trusted providers is a combination that truly reflects innovation and efficiency.