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 Publisher, InfoNgen, ShiftCentral, 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…

Image [cc] Wonderlane

I’m usually not big on sharing motivational sayings, but occasionally I run across things that make sense to me and make me feel a bit more motivated in moving forward in my profession. I have run across two of those things in the past 24-hours.

First of all, I read Andy Hines’ post on Ten Do’s and Don’ts for an Aging Futurist. Andy’s a great guy and has works in the field of Professional Futurists. You might remember the post on “Coolhunters” I did last year. Andy lists ten things that Aging Futurists should, and shouldn’t focus on as they enter the twilight of their careers. I particularly like #5 (the “Do” part, not the “Don’t” part.)

   Don’t… Do….
5. deflate the energy and enthusiasm for a project or idea by pointing out how “this is nothing new” or “this was already done before,” often by pointing out a critical paper written 20 years ago (that probably was not read then either ) build up ideas rather than tear them down; if there is relevant history, contribute what we can learn from it that aids the present case

Andy ends his list with the idea that “Don’t” think of all the above as just related to aging. I’ll add to that by saying “Don’t” think that this only applies to Futurists. Thanks Andy. I also look forward to hearing more about this when you are the lunch speaker at the AALL Conference in Seattle this July.

The other list was just pointed out to me by Geek #2. Inc. magazine has a list of 17 Ways to Be Happier at Work. He especially played up #7 on the list:

7. Daydream more rather than less.
The idea that daydreaming and working are mutually exclusive belongs back in the 20th century. It’s when you let your thoughts wander that you’re more likely to have the insights that will make you both unique and more competitive.

 I like #16, too. Trash everything in your work area that isn’t useful or beautiful. I’ll even expand on that one to include the attitude you take at work with a saying that my Aunt Joyce used to say in her infininte Southern Wisdom: “Don’t act ugly.”

My kids were going through every TomSka (asdfmovie) video on YouTube last night when the first five seconds of asdfmovie4 caught my attention (as well as my wife, who is also a librarian.)

Although she has to deal with Pre-K through 5th Graders, and I have to deal with lawyers, we just smiled at each other and nodded.

Now, I’m off to do more Internets!! Whoooaaa!!!

Image [cc] theanthonyryan

I found a cool resource a couple weeks ago and think it has some definite possibilities for those Client Development and Monitoring projects that many of us have to create and maintain these days. The idea is to use information that companies dissemenate on Facebook, but in the more managable form of an RSS feed.

Now Facebook used to allow you to convert a public page into an RSS feed (it was tricky, but doable) up until last November when it (apparently) changed its policy and nixed it unless the company specifically change the settings to allow for RSS. That is a shame, but not surprising, as how could they make money on all those ads if you were getting information without going straight to the Facebook site??

I use RSS feeds to pass into my InfoNgen account (I assume that the other products out there for aggregation should do this, too), and set up Client or Industry monitoring news and alerts based on those feeds. I really liked having the Facebook feeds because it tended to give more “what’s happening right now” information than the company’s website. So, I found it to be pretty valuable information. Perhaps some of the other aggregators can index Facebook pages directly, but InfoNgen doesn’t because Facebook apparently prohibits aggregators from doing so. However, why should I let a little thing like Facebook rules keep me from figuring out how to do it?? In other words, “Okay Facebook, challenge accepted!”

Here’s what I found that can do the trick, and my process that keeps it manageable.

  1. Have the user set up a generic Facebook account.
  2. Find the Facebook page that you want to monitor and “Like” that page (it can be individual or company)
  3. Go to http://fbrss.com and connect that Facebook account with this service
  4. The FBRSS page will take all of your “LIKE” pages and create an RSS feed for each of them.
  5. Copy the RSS links and request that they be added into your aggregator (or into your own RSS Feed Reader*)

I think this will work (at least until Facebook screws with something and causes the FBRSS service to fail.) Let me know if you get this to work in other aggregators, or if you have other tricks of dissemnating RSS Feeds that you don’t mind sharing with the rest of us.

*By the way… I’m still ticked that Google is killing off Google Reader. They have really thrown a monkey wrench in many of my add-on features (like Shaunna Mireau discusses on SLAW) that I’ve developed over the years using Google Reader as the resources!! I give you a “-1” on that Google! Boo!!

Image [cc] cseeman

That celebratory sound you heard from your local library today was your librarian reading the Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (PDF) case handed down by the US Supreme Court this morning. I’ve added a statement on the case from The Owners’ Rights Initiative, about the Supreme Court ruling that even books purchased outside the United States are subject to the ‘First Sale Doctrine’ as long as they are legally purchased (piracy is still a no-no), and brought into the United States. As Duke University’s Kevin Smith wrote about the decision, “It seems that libraries have really ducked a bullet here.” However, he also warns that we should also be on the lookout for changes in the First Sale Doctrine brought in by the publishers through the US Congress. So, stay vigilant my librarian friends!!

Owners’ Rights Initiative Applauds Supreme Court Decision in
Kirtsaeng v. Wiley Case

March 19, Washington, D.C. – The Owners’ Rights Initiative (ORI) issued the following statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion in favor of Kirtsaeng, reversing the Second Circuit Court decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Breyer, clearly affirmed that the Copyright Act was not intended, and cannot be misconstrued, to limit the distribution of authentic goods. Andrew Shore, Executive Director of ORI said:

“ORI is gratified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Supap Kirtsaeng in this important copyright case. This decision is a landmark win for consumers, small businesses, online marketplaces, retailers and libraries nationwide and an affirmation of the ORI motto, ‘you bought it, you own it.’ This decision definitively affirms the first sale doctrine, cementing the right of consumers and organizations to sell, lend and give away goods that they bought and own, regardless of where those goods were made.

“While we are energized by this decision, we expect that some will continue attempts to eliminate owners’ rights, reduce competition in the marketplace and restrict the global trade of authentic goods. ORI will continue to be vigilant and diligent in protecting owners’ rights now and in the future and we expect policymakers to do the same.”

Many ORI members have issued statements about the Supreme Court’s opinion. These comments will be made available on the ORI website at www.ownersrightsinitiative.org. 

###

About Owners’ Rights Initiative
The Owners’ Rights Initiative (ORI) is a diverse coalition of businesses, associations and organizations that have joined together to protect ownership rights in the United States. ORI believes in the fundamental premise that if you bought it, you own it, and should have the right to sell, lend or give away your personal property. Members include:  American Free Trade Association, American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Service and Computer Dealers International and the North American Association of Telecommunications Dealers (AscdiNatd), Association of Research Libraries, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Chegg, CXtec, eBay Inc., Etsy, Goodwill Industries International, Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Impulse Technology, International Imaging Technology Counsel (ITC), Internet Commerce Coalition, Just Between Friends, Network Hardware Resale, Overstock.com, Inc., Powell’s Books, Quality King Distributors, Radwell International, Redbox, United Network Equipment Dealers Association (UNEDA), and XS International. 

Visit http://ownersrightsinitiative.org for more information.
 
Image [cc] jimbethmag

The Maine State Library is leveraging its Public Library System and its Volunteer Lawyer Projects (VLP) along with video conferencing services (via Jabber/MOVI) to bring services focused at low-income citizens on specific topics. The idea is to have a presentation on a topic, like landlord-tennent rights or end-of-life issues, and then allow people to ask the lawyer general questions at the end of the session. The video conferencing tools allow for the interaction to go statewide, and in real-time. It is one more example of how libraries (whether court or public) are helping achieve access to justice programs. This program, called Lawyers in Libraries, received a grant to produce the workshops/clinics and is defined by the State Library as:

  • The project will allow volunteer lawyers to provide information clinics on specific civil legal subjects that are likely to be of interest and use to Maine people with low incomes (but open to all patrons of public libraries). These clinics will be remote, but in real time, so patrons in different libraries will be able to attend and ask questions directly to the attorney who will be available by video conference.
  • This project will allow Volunteer Lawyers Project to set up actual consultations for people with low incomes to speak privately with a lawyer over the MOVI technology. The client will be at their local library, while the lawyer will be at the Volunteer Lawyers Project offices.
  • The focus will be on bringing these video clinics to rural areas that have less legal resources available, but will be open to participation for all Maine Libraries.

More information can be found on the Lawyers in Libraries outreach from the Bangor Daily News.

Hat-tip to Bob Ambrogi for pointing this out to me. And, hat-tip to the State of Maine for using the public library platform, technology, and the VLP to at least bring a little sanity to the legal process for the public at large.

First of all, I am not Catholic. I was raised Pentecostal (just one step below snake handling.) However, I saw a picture running around Facebook last night that was being disseminated by major news networks that implied that society has so drastically changed between the death of Pope John Paul II (2005) and the announcement of Pope Francis I (2013).

With all due respect, I’m calling BS.

First of all, apparently, the picture from 2005 is a shot from JPII’s corpse being displayed. So, many are saying, “Hey, of course people wouldn’t take pictures at a funeral!!”

Au contraire mon frere.

Image [cc] Ammar Abd Rabbo

Take a look at this picture that I found in doing a simple little Flickr search (for creative common pictures, no less.) Granted, all of these cameras don’t double as phones, GPS, pagers, blackberry’s, gaming systems, ect. But, basically, people haven’t changed, technology has (slightly.) Turn all of those flip-phones, digital cameras, film cameras, and video cameras into cell phones, and iPads, you have a duplicate of the 2013 pictures.

I’m not saying that anyone is right here. But, I will say that all of the “news” outlets that pushed this out as some monumental shift in humanity in eight years has overblown downfall of said humanity. We haven’t changed at all… we just have new toys to play with.

So, the next time you see something on Facebook that makes you think that humanity has lost its mind… just remember, by applying that rule, we lost our mind about the same time that the Internet evolved, or cell phones evolved, or instant photography evolved, or tintype cameras evolved, or pencils evolved, or paper evolved, or our ability to share a common experience evolved.

People that think that this is some garish expression of the base of humanity, let me share to you what I shared with a friend on Facebook last night that posted the initial photo:

I don’t know… each one will share it with multiple friends as a personal experience. So, even though there will be a news reel with the same scene, there will be 100,000 personal experiences being shared with millions of friends. That’s not reporting a news story, that’s sharing a personal experience with friends. [someone commented that this is why the media is there, so people should just soak in the experience]
Personal experiences should be… well, personal, but today, it is seen like you are being selfish if you aren’t sharing that with someone else. I don’t think that any of these people feel that they are unique, but rather that they are sharing a unique experience with someone else.

Even after all of this, I still think that all of those media outlets that released this photo with a deceptive caption should be called out for lazy journalism. I’m just a simple blogger that doesn’t exactly spend a lot of time researching the topics I write about, but I know when something looks too good to be true. I usually don’t point out when my Facebook friends get hooked by these types of sloppy journalism tricks. But this time, I’m standing up and calling BS!! Technology shifts at a rapid rate… humanity usually lags far behind.