A consultant recently asked “Are you making this decision for the firm, or are you making this decision for the club?” The question has stuck with me and it is one that I’ve asked others when it comes time to make decisions that are going to cause some people to have to change their habits. It is a pretty straight forward question, but there is a lot of meaning behind it. Do you do something that benefits everyone, and causes pain to a few, or do you do something that has little to no benefit for everyone, but keeps a few select people happy?

Whenever  hear something like this, I immediately think of the scene in the movie Office Space where there is a banner hanging over the staff that asks “Is This Good for the COMPANY?” The Draconian concept of stiffling innovation and individuality and relying upon following every rule and playing your part as a single cog in a great big machine. With “The Firm or The Club” question, however, I don’t think it falls into this “Is this good for the Company?” category. Instead, I think it allows for creativity and innovation and discourages the collective and blindly following the rules. In fact, I would say that this question gets raised whenever new ideas and innovation are shot down rather than when new ideas are accepted. Most times when new ideas are dismissed, it tends to fall under the idea that “we can’t do that because Partner X, who has been with the firm for 150 years, wouldn’t like it.”

So the next time you have a discussion about changing the way you are doing business, and the idea is challenged or dismissed, ask those making the decision if they are deciding upon what benefits the firm, or what benefits the club?

I watched an excellent presentation by Anil Dash to the Berkman Center at Harvard where he talks about the craziness of Terms of Service that we take as “law” and how there is already a massive civil disobedience being conducted by the youth when it comes to YouTube and copyright violations. He talks about searching for the words “no infringement intended” on YouTube and how he sees it as poetry. He says that youth are basically saying:

I’m not trying to step on your toes, and I know there is some reason I shouldn’t do this, but the world needs to see this video and I’m going to put it up. 

We all know it is going on. We all know that it is blatant copyright infringement. However, we tend to write it off as just a fad, or just something that comes with the technology advancement, and not actually thinking of it as a solid form of social disobedience where a large number (millions??) of people are taking action to show that they think that sharing the information trumps the rules/laws and they are just going to start breaking that law because they either feel it shouldn’t apply to them, or that their need to share is greater than their need to follow the rules.

After a long email thread with a number of my friends about the Lexis move to convert some of their publications to ePubs and eliminate the paper versions completely, I started to wonder if there is a similar revolution brewing in the library world. Librarians tend to be solid rule followers. They tend to follow contracts and terms of service to the letter and snap at those that try to skirt the rules. However, as the formats change and we are forced to accept those changes without some sensible alternatives, and as the contracts become more restrictive, or the terms of service become more limited, will there be those that begin to put their own version of “no infringement intended” on these services (for, they really can’t be called “products” any longer), and make them accessible to the people they need to share them with?? Will there come a group that says:

Look, I’m not trying to step on your toes, and I am paying a fair price for your product, but your actions are making it very difficult for me to get the content to the right people, and I’m going to fix that in spite of your rules.

Take a look at Anil Dash’s presentation (around the 56:44 mark it will start at the “Civil Disobedience” section.) This section only takes a few minutes to watch. I suggest that when you have an hour, to take a look at it in its entirety. There are a number of relevant issues that he addresses of how the Information Age is shifting, and many of us are not even realizing it.

Happy Library Week!! My thanks to Katie Brown for pointing out the Anil Dash presentation.

I just saw my first Auto-Reply text message for someone that is driving. At first you may say, “Greg, that’s a good idea, because I hate seeing people text and drive!” And, I would agree with you. However, my first experience of the Auto-Reply Text was actually via a Facebook post. I’m sure it won’t be the last time I see it, and I can tell you right now that I’m already annoyed by it.

AT&T’s DriveMode AutoReply, or Sprint’s Drive First are a great ideas. While you are driving, and someone texts you, it will automatically send out a reply like this:

AT&T DriveMode AutoReply: Thanks for your msg. I’m driving and unable to reply. I will get back to you soon. When it comes to texting & driving, it can wait

Again, great idea, but the problem with texting these days is that it is no longer just a plain text. People have many of their social media resources connected to their text messaging platforms, and the lines get blurred on what’s a text versus a post versus a status update. So, the simple idea of auto replying to someone that you are driving, and are being safe, really isn’t something that you need to put as a Facebook reply, or Tweet.

I know that it is all easily fixed by going in and changing your Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Blogger, Tumblr, Instagram, etc., etc., accounts to ignore those autoreplies. But, that can be quite a task, and almost as annoying as the autoreply itself, or even as annoying as this Dale Earnhardt Jr. commercial’s “But, who sent the text??” portion.

Remember: Don’t text and drive!! I’m tired of having to honk at you when the light turns green!!

Last week I went to Chicago to sit in on the AALL Executive Board’s Spring meeting. I also crashed a couple of TechShow parties while I was there, just for fun. During the Thursday morning stragegy meeting, the presenter, Paul Meyer, consultant with Tecker International, made a comment that resonated with me. Paul talked about the trap that members of a non-profit executive board fall into, especially one where there is a lot of member input and volunteerism involved. The trap is that whenever a suggestion or proposal is made by the members, the answer the Board has to the proprosal is never a “Yes/No” answer. Instead, the answer is:

“Yes/Maybe/WhatCanWeDoToFixThisSoWeWon’tHaveToSayNo”

Of course, I’m paraphrasing Paul’s actual statement. He went on to talk about why it is the resposibility of the Board to sometimes say No, and explain why we had to turn down the proposal (money, time and resources were the main contributors.)

It made me think back to last year’s PLL Luncheon when a consultant spoke about librarians never saying “No” to anything, but instead saying “Yes, we can do that is we have X number of Dollars, and Y number of People, so what can we do to get those dollars and people?”

I understand both consultants’ meaning here and know that the difference between saying “No” and saying “Yes, with conditions” is really determined by the audience to whom you are talking. The thought that’s been lingering around my mind over the weekend has been focused on whether many librarians are overusing the “WhatCanWeDoToFixThisSoWeWon’tHaveToSayNo” option and not using either the “No” or “Yes, with conditions” options at all? We do not like saying no, and we are not all that fond of saying yes, with conditions either. However, it would suit us well to brush off our “No’s” every once in a while because in order to be a leader, it is necessary from time to time to understand that leadership sometimes means saying no.

 

A couple weeks ago, Michael Robak guest blogged about his experience on Why ReInvent Law Was Not Just a ‘Preaching to the Choir’ Conference. There was, and still is, a lot of discussion on this Silicon Valley conference, both with the presentation model, and the content. Now you can see for yourself what all the buzz is about. The ReInvent Law Channel now has many of the six and twelve minute videos available for you to watch for free. Here are a couple of my favorites on the concepts of visualizing law (Joe Kelly), and who owns the law (Ed Walters.)

Image [cc] Highways Agency

The story goes something like this:

Sitting in a Partner’s office a few months ago, a research librarian was listening to the speech the partner was preparing to give the client.  Suddenly, the librarian ran into one of those moments where her own experience suddenly became very relevant. As the partner jumped through a specific legal issue, the librarian jumped in and mentioned that this sounded very similar to a recent case she researched for another attorney a few weeks back. It wasn’t a published case, but rather a trial issue that ended up settling out of court. Within a few minutes she emailed the trial documents she had saved from the original suit, and the names of the attorneys working on that matter. By the end of the day, the attorney contacted the client with a solid answer to how they would defend the client and the matter settled within the next few days. Perhaps the partner would have found a similar case as she researched the issues, but by being in the right place at the right time, the librarian’s experience pushed everyone in the right direction.

Similar stories happen all the time in law firms, and the keys to the success revolve around the processes of getting the library researcher out of the library and in the areas of the firm where the attorneys are working. The librarian wasn’t there to conduct training or talk about the latest legal research tools. She was there to listen. She was there to observe. She was there to learn. She was there to share her knowledge and add to the overall conversation. In most situations, she does not have to contribute directly to the meeting, but by being there, soaking in the information being relayed between attorneys, she may be able to contribute in the next meeting, or in an unrelated practice group meeting.

We’ve talked before about the Embedded Librarian model and the value that this type of structure can bring to the firm. In ways, it increases the ability to contribute to the strategy of the lawyers by having someone in the room with diverse experiences. That moment of happenstance when someone shares their seemingly unrelated experience and knowledge on the topic and can bring in a fresh perspective and approach on how to solve the issues at hand.

The situation is not the easiest to create. There are barriers to entry in many cases, and a history of how things are always done around the office. There must be a motivation on the part of the librarian to overcome that history and a determination of finding ways to break though those barriers. The ability to communicate, in all its various forms (listening, observing, analyzing, interpreting, and talking), in ways that contribute and add to the conversation can only happen if you are actually a part of the conversation in the first place. Happenstance can only happen, if you happen to be there and express your stance on the issue.

CANO Strategists shy away from the camera
Image [cc] justinmaier

Turns out that some legal bloggers are using a system of mentioning company names in order to boost traffic to their blogs. This strategy, known as Company Alert Name Optimization (CANO), takes advantage of companies like Thomson Reuters, LexisNexis, and BloombergLaw, including subsidiaries like BNA, CCH, Practical Law Company, Matthew Bender, and even smaller companies like Hein Online, Fastcase, Casemaker, and Jones McClure Publishing, all in the hopes that those companies have alerts that will funnel traffic set up by products like Google Alerts, WestClips, Lexis PublisherInfoNgenShiftCentral, Eqentia, Manzama, Ozmosys, FellSoft, Vocus, Aurora WDC, or Digimind. The practice is pretty shameful, yet seems to work very well in drawing traffic from those monitoring their company or competitor brand names.

CANO isn’t just limited to company names. Some legal bloggers go as far as to name law firms by name. The bigger the better. So, AmLaw 100 firms like Baker & McKinzie, DLA Piper, Greenberg Traurig, Hogan Lovells, Jones Day, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Sidley Austin, Skadden, White & Case are all prime cases for CANO strategists. A larger list of firms that are commonly mentioned are listed below.

CANO strategists are extremely crafty in constantly finding creative ways of bringing traffic to their blogs. Some will even mention other popular legal blogs in the hopes that they are monitoring their brand. The Blawg100 Winners from the previous year are prime candidates for CANO strategists to use. Blogs like Legal As She Is Spoke, The Velvet Hammer, Divorce Discourse, Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, Lowering the Bar, IPWatchdog, Inside the Law School Scam, The Delaware Employment Law Blog, Koehler Law, Abnormal Use, Groklaw, SCOTUSBlog, California Corporate & Securities Law, and The Legal Writing Prof Blog are all creatively inserted in to blog posts that may or may not have anything specifically related to the topic of the post.

Beware of CANOs. Their name-dropping strategy may lure you onto their site, but once you’re there, you find out that the topics may not cover things like Gay Marriage Supreme Court arguments, or BigLaw Billable Hour Churning at all. It is simply a strategy to artificially increase webstats in order to drive advertising from companies like Google Ads, or Amazon, or Apple, or Bing. They go as far as to republish, or link out their CANO activities on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Tumblr and more.

So a word of warning to you on this April 1st, beware of the CANOs and their ability to mention company names that are not relevant to their blog posts. Some of the common names are list below:

Adams and Reese
Akerman Senterfitt
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Alston & Bird
Archer & Greiner
Arnall Golden Gregory
Arnold & Porter
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz
Ballard Spahr
Bancroft
Barnes & Thornburg
Becker & Poliakoff
Berger Singerman
Best Best & Krieger
Bingham McCutchen
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
Bracewell & Giuliani
Braff, Harris & Sukoneck
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Bryan Cave
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Carlock Copeland & Stair
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
Cohen Milstein
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
Connell Foley
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz
Conrad & Scherer
Cooley
Cooper & Kirk
Cozen O’Connor
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Debevoise & Plimpton
Dechert
Dickie McCamey & Chilcote
Dilworth Paxson
DLA Piper
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles
Dorsey
Dorsey & Whitney
Drinker Biddle & Reath
Duane Morris
Fish & Richardson
Flaster Greenberg
Fox Rothschild
Freehills
Freshfields
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Fulbright & Jaworski
Ganfer & Shore
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Greenberg Traurig
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
Herbert Smith
Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas
Hogan Lovells
Holland & Knight
Horton, Shields & Knox
Horvitz & Levy
Jenner & Block
Jones Day
K&L Gates
Kabateck Brown Kellner
Kilpatrick Townsend
Kirkland & Ellis
Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
Latham & Watkins
Locke Lord
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Gold, Lazris & Discenza
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
McCarter & English
Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers
Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Morrison & Foerster
Nixon Peabody
Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus
Nossaman
O’Melveny & Myers
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Perkins Coie
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitman
Proskauer Rose
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
Rawle & Henderson
Reed Smith
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
Robinson & Cole
Ropes & Gray
Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
Saltzman Chetkof & Rosenberg
Seyfarth Shaw
Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
SNR Denton
Sprague & Sprague
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
Stark & Stark
Sullivan & Cromwell
The Pagan Law Firm
Thompson Hine
Thorp Reed & Armstrong
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
White & Case
Williams & Connolly
Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Winston & Strawn
Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor

I recently stumbled across a report, How College Students Evaluate and Use Information in the Digital Age, from Project Information Literacy (PIL). The report was published in November of 2010, based on research conducted in the spring of that year. Therefore, some of these students might be entering your firms this year as summer associates or have already joined your ranks in other positions.

The entire report is fascinating, but one particularly disturbing finding was about how these students use librarians, especially as compared to their responses from the prior year. In ranking “Sources used for Course-Related Research”, the students placed librarians second from the bottom (above Blogs) at 30%, down from 47% the prior year. When asked about their personal “Everyday Life Research”, the students ranked librarians at the very bottom at 14%, down from 33%.
I think it is fabulous that Librarians were listed as a “source” right along with Google and Wikipedia, and that as early as 2009, almost half of the students used librarians as a source. What isn’t so great is the 17% drop in just one year. 
What is also interesting is that PIL found in a 2009 study that the students do use the library, but just not the librarians or the services provided.

As a whole, the results suggested that students do, in fact, use libraries—but most of the respondents used library resources—not librarian-related services.

I happen to believe that law students, as opposed to undergraduates, do utilize the librarians as sources to assist them and that some of this does carry over into the law firm. However, it still feels like we are starting in a hole and trying to back-fill our way up to level ground. 
How can we get there? PIL offers a thought-provoking recommendation in the 2009 report:

Librarians should systematically (not just anecdotally) examine the services they provide…this may require looking at things through a new lens, if need be. Questions should be addressed about how and why services and resources are used—not only how often (e.g., circulation or reference desk statistics)…At the same time, we recommend librarians seriously question whether they are developing a set of “niche services,” which only reach a small percentage of [users].
 

The recommendation that we examine the “how and why” we do what we do is absolutely key and one that we need to be able to answer in a way that makes sense to management and clearly demonstrates value. So take any statistics you are currently gathering and add in this component. It might make a big difference.

Colleen Cable is a Library Consultant for Profit Recovery Partners bringing the “consultant angle” to Three Geeks.

Luxury Daily reports that according to the latest Forrester Research, just under 10 percent of U.S. consumers trust marketers’ text messages, while 12 percent trust information on mobile applications.

Well, obviously, they haven’t met me.

I love my little Target, Walgreens, and RedBox texts. I get coupons, free movies and reminders. And AT&T sends me usage reports.

And my tailor, hair stylist and others regularly remind me of pick-ups and appointments via text.

I guess they just didn’t ask the right people.

How are you? So good to see you again.  It’s been so long?  When was the last time we…

Oh, wait.  No! Somebody lock that door! Don’t let him out! You guys, each grab an arm and sit him down in this chair.

[cc] Image – Spiterman

OK.  Calm down…  It’s alright.  No one is going to hurt you, BigLaw. You are surrounded by friends. Everyone in this room is here because we love you.  We care about you. And we’re worried about your well being. We’re afraid you may be a danger to yourself and to others. And we are holding this intervention because we want to help you.

Take a deeeeep breath…. Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihhhh-hooooooooooooh.  OK?  OK.

Did you see the article in the NY Times Tuesday?

Hey!  Calm down.  The guy has a valid complaint. I know, I know, the asinine emails of a few immature associates do not represent the attitudes or opinions of most of your attorneys.  That’s good. They certainly should not. However, are they really just the attitudes of a few associates at one firm?  
Really?  Be honest.
Yes, I know.  The allegations are that they “churned”, not that they “padded” hours. Do you really want to argue that their actions were merely unethical rather than illegal?  I know that’s kind of your bailiwick, but I don’t think John Q. Public is going to really distinguish all that much. That’s the same argument that those guys at that BigEnergy company used a couple of years ago when they were caught manipulating California energy prices and bragging about it?  That’s not going to fly in the court of public opinion.
Let’s be honest BigLaw, people don’t really like you. I know, when they’re in trouble, they always come running, because you are good at your job, but they don’t like spending time with you, they don’t like talking to you, and they don’t trust you.  They mostly keep you around just to keep other people like you away.  I’m sorry, I know this is hard to hear, but it’s true.
That’s OK.  Go ahead and cry.  I know it hurts.  And yes, their jokes can be really cruel.  No, a hundred lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is not a “good start”.  Hahaha, well… I’m sorry, it’s…it is a little funny.  No, you’re right, I should not have laughed. I truly… and sincerely… apologize. 
What’s that?  Yes, I saw what you said yesterday.  And that was a great start.  But let’s talk about what you didn’t say in that public response.
First, you didn’t take any responsibility.
Hey!  I know, they don’t represent… yes, but… but… but, they were your employees at the time!   Therefore, you are at least somewhat responsible for their actions. I’m not saying you should admit to encouraging their behavior, or to ever “churning” a client’s bill.  All I am saying is that it’s shameful to deflect all of the blame on to some stupid young associates who are no longer working with you. The idea that “none of those email’s reflect the firm’s culture” is laughable.  They may not reflect the culture you desire, or the culture you are striving to achieve, but clearly, to those people, working at your firm, writing those emails at that time, they did reflect your firm’s culture. You can’t force a culture on your employees, but if they feel it’s appropriate to make this kind of “joke” then there is something rotten in your culture. You need to look inward and fix what’s broken inside.
Secondly, you didn’t say “this will never happen!”
No, it doesn’t go without saying.  Go ahead, say it.  Yes now.
See, don’t you feel better?  Now try this one, “If anyone, from the Chairman of the firm to the newest paralegal, is EVER found to be ‘churning’ hours, they will be terminated with extreme prejudice immediately!”  No, that isn’t implied.  You said they left, you didn’t say why and you didn’t explicitly deny it would ever happen. Your clients are all extremely uncomfortable now, look at them.  They were already worried that you were over-charging them.  Now, you need to do something dramatic to reassure them that you’re not crooked.  Maybe become more open with your communication?  Make your billing more transparent? A little Legal Project Management done in conjunction with the clients might go a long way toward regaining their trust. Which leads me to number three.
In the NY Law Journal article about your non-apology response you were quoted as saying, “you wouldn’t sue a client if you ‘were not confident in the appropriateness of a bill.'”
Are you f***ing kidding me!?  Have you been hanging out with BigMusic and BigMovies again?
No, you should get comfortable…  I think we’re going to be here for a while…