FloridaLawCommentary.com

Following Trends in Florida Law


Archive for the ‘Legal Tech’ Category

Lawyers: Foursquare & Yelp May Be New Discovery and Marketing Tools

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Lawyers were fairly quick to catch onto the trend of Twitter and, to a lesser extent, Facebook.  It is now common for lawyers to ask deponents about email addresses, Internet usage, and social networking activities.

A new Internet trend is afoot and savvy lawyers may want to at least be aware of the new media.  No, it’s not Google Buzz, which both the Wall Street Journal and CNET recently panned here and here.

Foursquare and Yelp are similar social networking systems which integrate, rather than replace, Facebook and Twitter into a person’s real world social life (indeed, that’s how they overcome the hurdle of creating a new Internet space, which is Google Buzz’s hurdle).  Both are apps which are used on a person’s smartphone (iPhone, BB, and Android).yelp

Yelp began and remains a solid restaurant/bar/hotel finding app to be used on the go via the smartphone.  You can get names of places near you and read quick reviews.  A small community has developed, especially now that users can “check in” when they arrive — letting friends (real and internet-y) know where they are AND giving the business owner a chance to offer specials just for Yelp users.  You can even post the fact you’ve “checked in” to a certain place go to Facebook or Twitter.

Over the weekend, I saw a Yelp sticker at a business and, when I fired up the iPhone app, it beamed me a 10% off coupon while I was in line to pay.

Foursquare is a similar — if not better —  concept which, in their words, is “a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide and a game that rewards you for doing interesting things.”  Each time you check in to a place, you receive points.  If its a new place, you get more points.  As you check in to different types of places, you get badges.  As you drop Twitter-like “tips” about a restaurant, business or place, it will reward you with more points and even badges — if you are familiar with Xbox Achievement Points, you’ll realize this is a Barnum-like tool which does, indeed, drive participation.

Foursquare also lets you check-in and share via Twitter and Facebook; businesses likewise can reward you with specials for checking in.  If you are the person who “checks in” the most at a particular location, you will become the “Mayor” of that place.  In short, Foursquare takes Yelp and incentivizes it with a game.

Why should lawyers care?

One, if you are interested in a person’s activities, this provides their personal experiences, a timeline, and some of their commentary about their day.  For a personal injury plaintiff, this might amount to  jaw-dropping disclosures since Foursquare amounts to a breadcrumb trail mixed with a Twitter-like diary of the person’s day.

Second, on the business side, it may be interesting to ferret out defamation; determine whether there were witnesses to a particular event; find out how often someone have visited the location; or it may help locate potentially favorable witnesses who frequent the establishment.

Third, lawyers may  want to use these services to market their practice.  While clients may be hesitant to publicly “check in” that they have gone to their lawyer’s office (much less be the “Mayor”), it does list your business on the Yelp and Foursquare maps when users are looking around to see what “locations” are near them when they are playing with the app.  There’s even room for comments/tips.

Florida Supreme Court and Bar Need to Follow FINRA’s Example on Internet Use and Regulation

Monday, February 15th, 2010

The non-governmental entity which regulates securities firms issued guidance to firms and brokers on the proper use of social networking websites such as Facebook, Linked In, and Twitter.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), issued Regulatory Notice 10-06 in January 2010 — on the heels of a prior Guide to the Internet for Registered Representatives.  Additionally, FINRA had a Social Networking Task Force up and running… and podcasts to provide further explanations.

The Florida Supreme Court and Bar, on the other hand, are still working on Internet advertising regulations for Florida lawyers which they have been kicking around since the pre-Twitter era.  FINRA, which handles brokers on a national scale, has repeatedly addressed Internet and social networking issues — touching upon record keeping, advertising, and book/record requirements, according to their press release.  Conversely, the Bar has not been user-friendly in getting a clear explanation into the hands of lawyers.

Does Your Company Need a Lawyer to Handle Social Media, Twitter and Facebook?

Friday, January 29th, 2010

At least one company, Clorox, is looking for a full time, in house lawyer to clean up their social media policies and presence.  Is that necessary?

A marketing person (or even an astute college student) could likely develop and monitor Twitter feeds and a Facebook fan page.  But is that enough?

Developing a social media policy and handling questions about “new” issues (tech, advertising, responses to comments) is a task probably for a lawyer.

For businesses looking to enter the Social Networking sphere, I would recommend a Twitter feed, Facebook fan page, and an announcement on their own webpage (media release is optional).  I would further recommend setting up an automatic Google search for your business name appearing on the Internet as well as routine searches/monitoring of Twitter and Facebook.  Finally, you need a clear social media policy.

This is actually a fairly good task for a lawyer and paralegal working with the client.  The client could develop the content and have the law firm handle the updating and monitoring.  With a cost-effective paralegal on the front line with some concise supervision by counsel, this would be cost effective.  Moreover, it would ensure (a) the corporation has a social media policy, (b) the posts and entries are appropriate and not patently violating policy or laws, and (c) major social networking sites are monitored for defamation, copyright, unfair competition and other issues.

Depending upon the frequency of the posting/monitoring, this likely could be accomplished for a few hundred dollars a month.  A lot of PR firms could run up that tab in a week.  In good hands, this could be transitioned back to the company full time after 6-12 months.

Meanwhile, follow Clorox on Twitter to see how they are doing.  Some basic good advice on cleaning up your Twitter service is here.  Email if you have comments, experiences or questions about lawyers providing social media services.  I’m interested to see who else out there is providing that service.

“Blogging for Lawyers” at Palm Beach Bar Association

Monday, January 25th, 2010

We recently offered a lunch-time seminar for lawyers interested in learning about blogging at the Palm Beach Bar Association.  This was one in a series of lawyer-technology seminars, much like our prior Tweet Meet and Eat.

Thanks to Matt Kakuk of Webmanagement.us who jumped in with some technical help on issues relating to Google Analytics, Adsense, and Google Local.pbbar

If you couldn’t make it, the Palm Beach Bar Bulletin article is here and the powerpoint is here.

A Frustrating Attempt to Find Current Lawyer Web Advertising Rules in Florida

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Confused by what you can put on your law firm website, blog, Facebook or Twitter?  Who isn’t.  Here’s a primer… to the extent we could find the most current information.  If you are looking to develop a new advertisement or simply confirm your website is in compliance… good luck trying to find the rules.

As a starting place, the Florida Supreme Court is working off of proposals which began BEFORE TWITTER EVEN EXISTED.

* The good news is that there is a Florida Bar Standing Committee on Advertising.  Further good news is that they offer a “handbook on advertising” which is available on the web.  Too bad the link is broken.

* But we jest.  In part.  The Bar has a page regarding website advertising, including the handbook, here.

* By the way, if you want to find out information about the Bar’s Standing Committee on Advertising, do a Google search for it.  Yes, you’ll get results like that, where the first page of hits includes a site from… 1996.

* What does NOT readily come up in a Google search for “Florida Bar Standing Committee on Advertising” is this page, with the committee member names, which you can find by meandering and aimlessly drilling down on links in the Bar website.  The page provides nothing on the Committee’s recent activity.  I was unable to find more current information (can you?).

* The Standing Committee on Advertising has an (undated) set of Guidelines for An Attorney’s Statement of Qualifications and Experience.

* November 19, 2009: Florida Supreme Court issues In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Rule 4-7.6, Computer Accessed Communications. This allows lawyers to create an “upon request” section for solicited communications by potential clients to lawyers, which would then exempt the lawyer’s communication advertisement from Rule 4-7.2.  Effective date was January 1, 2010.

* The Bar petitioned an extension to the January 1, 2010 date.  In this January 1 Bar News Article, there’s no indication of the status of the request for an extension (nor is there a clear indicator in the January 15 article, below).

* After this ruling, in mid-December 2009, the Board of Governors determined that the Bar will not review attorney websites, even if voluntarily submitted but will answer calls from lawyers asking specific questions.

* On December 29, the Florida Bar’s Standing Committee on Advertising issued guidelines to help lawyers meet the new rules.  Good thing the Florida Bar News’ January 15, 2010 article, “Panel Offers Guidance to Bring Lawyers’ Web Sites into Compliance” is available online with excerpts from those guidelines, since doing a Google search for the guidelines will get you nowhere.  The article is here.

* The front page of the Florida Bar site does not provide patent guidance.  The “Rules Update” page is confusing… but here it is.

* Were you thinking about joining the Standing Committee to see if you could change things?  The instructions on how to apply are here.  Were you able to find the link to the form?  (hint: hidden in the upper right corner)

If I am off the mark and missing some readily-apparent resources, someone please clue me in.

Florida Paralegal Association & Internet Social Networking

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Thank you to the Paralegal Association of Florida - Boca Raton Chapter for the very kind invitation to speak about “Social Networking Websites for Fun and Research” at their January 14, 2010 meeting.

This presentation grew out of the Sppaf_bw_logo40130432ring 2009 article, “Internet Social Networking Sites for Lawyers,” which was one of the first published articles to discuss using Facebook, Twitter, and others for law firm marketing as well as jury selection.  That article was published in the Trial Advocate Quarterly; it also is available under “Articles” on the right column of this website.

Since that article, there have been a number of developments including the fact that Facebook reset its community’s privacy settings to “Everyone.”  This creates greater potential researching options for lawyers and paralegals — as well as greater need for individuals to pay attention to their privacy settings.

The powerpoint for the presentation can be found under “Materials” along the right column at www.FloridaLawCommentary.com (scroll down).

At the meeting we discussed steps to secure your own privacy rights — for further discussion, take a look at this article, “8 Steps to Regain Control of Facebook Privacy.”

CA Federal Court Finds Bit Torrent Search Engines Violate Copyright Laws

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Several major motion picture production companies scored a new victory in their fight against Internet piracy by obtaining a summary judgment order finding a “bit torrent” search engine operator liable for copyright violation by end users.

The nearly 50-page order reflects the one-side nature of this legal “battle” and references a number of case citations indicative of the string of successes that major music and movie studios have won in the last decade.

The copyright holders hired forensic computer and statistics experts from major universities across the nation to submit affidavits which essentially tutor the court with explanations of how “file sharing” works on the Internet, down to nitty-gritty distinctions between vari0us peer-to-peer protocols.

The Defendant managed to summon at least one expert however it appears he had to concede all of the relevant incriminating principles.  Meanwhile, the Defendants’ use of file descriptions (”Top 20 Movies”), accolades for frequent users, and interviews where the operator admits knowledge and purpose of the torrent sites, make this “battle” fairly easy to win for the copyright holders.

The case is Columbia Pictures v. Gary Fung.  WIRED Magazine provides an interesting write-up here.  The site still exists, for the moment, here.

Google Scholar’s Legal Search and Fast Flip

Friday, December 18th, 2009

The ABA Journal Daily alerted us to “Google Offers Legal Research for Average Citizen… and Lawyers Too” so we had to take Google Scholar out for a test drive.  Along the way, we also stumbled across another Google product, Fast Flip.  Both are free.scholar

Apparently Google wants to dip a toe into the legal research world by adding a “legal opinions and journals” radio button to Google Scholar search.  In our unscientific testing, Scholar did not find a recent Fourth DCA case which was issued that same day.  A “regular” Google search, however, pulled the case right up.  Depending on when you read this, test it out using that same case.  Email when that case makes it to Scholar.

Testing slightly older cases, we searched for a relatively new case, Perez v. Life Care Centers, and obtained no results in Scholar but, again, “regular” Google pulled the case right up.  Even a few cases we tested which date back a few months fail to appear in Scholar but pop right up in Google.

Searches by case names and attorney names seems to work fairly well, although not necessarily in chronological order.  There is even an attempt to reference whether the case has been cited (a rough version of Westlaw’s KeyCite or, for we old-timers, “Shepardizing”).  Like anyone with a  Google search bar and a few moments on his hands, I searched my own name and it dutifully pulled up some appellate decisions but no journal articles.

A good start for a Google Lab project.  We like it.

Also of interest is the current events reader, Fast Flip, which needs little explanation.  Watch the media, they’ll likely pick it up soon as the new internet toy…

JEAC Enters Ethics Fray Over Judges and Facebook… But Florida Wasn’t the First

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

As has been recently well-hyped, there are certain restrictions on Florida judge’s use of social networks.  It apparently took awhile for everyone to notice a November 17 Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee report but once the New York Times got a hold of it nearly a month later on December 10, the Florida media kicked it into gear with front page coverage the next day in the Daily Business Review (and other publications).  But South Carolina had quietly already jumped into the fray.

While we were expecting some evidence of Internet fear and misunderstanding, both panels appear to have a reasonable grasp on both the zeitgeist of the new media and the purpose of arcane legal rules.

According to Florida JEAC, judges are not supposed to openly “select” and identify friends since the concern is that this creates the appearance that the “friend” sits in a special position.  A minority on the panel apparently felt that the word “friend” has been bent so far (from noun to verb to… nothing) that the implication isn’t there.  However, consider a situation where you are first appearing before a judge only to learn that your jurist is a (published) Facebook friend of your opponent.  Depending upon how heated your case gets, the ugly implication will roost somewhere in your mind.  Or your client’s.

Anyone can be a “fan” of a judge’s page since that does not involve the jurist making a selection.  Again, as the committee wrote, “to the extent that such ["friending"] identification is available for another person to view, the committee concludes that this practice would violate [judicial rules].”

If it sounds a bit heavy-handed, judges knew going into their situation that they would suffer some unusual social burdens and restrictions, as warned under Canon 5a.  Likely, there are far more sticky situations than Facebook.

But, judges can be friends with non-lawyers and lawyers who do not appear before them.  Additionally, judges can be associated with lawyers in other Internet groups, as long as the judge is not selecting/de-selecting the public association.

The South Carolina Judicial Department likewise has some opinions.  In their October 2009 opinion, which received virtually no press until after the Florida story broke, judges may be members of Facebook and be friends with law enforcement officers and employees of the Magistrate as long as they do not discuss anything related to the judge’s position.

How did Florida and South Carolina beat everyone to the punch on these techno-legal issue?  One would expect New York or California on the cusp of this one.

Can You Twitter from a Courtroom?

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

The answer is a mixed bag, with the least favorable outcomes in federal court under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In a recent federal criminal case in Georgia, the Judge in U.S. v. John Mark Shelnutt wrote that, “the request to ‘tweet’ from the courtroom is denied.  According to the 4-page opinion, Rule 53 prohibits photographs and “broadcasting” from inside the courtroom.  The court acknowledges that “broadcasting” usually refers to TV or radio, it relied on Webster’s to broadly define broadcasting as widely disseminating information.  3733948174_b215e57968

Stated in more federal court-like manner, the judge concluded that contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages of courtroom activities intended to be widely and instantaneously accessible was impermissible broadcasting.  Our thanks to the ABA Journal Mobile for the scoop.

Contrast the foregoing with a Kansas federal court judge or a more recent Colorado state court judge.

We note, at least locally, Palm Beach Post reporter, Susan Spencer-Wendel, covers trials via Twitter.

First Case on 2003 Amendment to Medical Negligence Statute Turns into Battle Over Judicial Use of Internet

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

The dispute over who can serve as an expert under the 2003 version of Chapter 766 pre-suit requirements is, by itself, an opinion which covers new ground in Florida law.

While Florida court watchers have experienced an overdose of Amendment 7 opinions, we can’t think of any opinions which have significantly interpreted Chapter 766 (Florida’s medical malpractice statute) since it was amended in 2003.  Then, in the heat of appellate battle, the issue arises about the appropriateness of appellate judges citing internet sources in opinions.

Since, on this site, we embrace medical cases and internet issues, this case is right up our alley.  Will this 15-page opinion in Keith Robinson Oken v. Mayo Clinic of Florida get traction to travel to the Florida Supreme Court?

First, let’s dig into the pre-suit issue.  Prior to 2003, a pre-suit expert who signs the required corroborating medical affidavit must have “training, experience and knowledge” similar to the prospective defendant doctor.  Since 2003, Florida Statute 766.102(5) requires the expert to specialize in the same or similar specialty that includes the evaluation, diagnosis or treatment of the medical condition at issue.

Notably, “similar specialty” in the current statute is not defined nor interpreted.  Here, the defendant doctor is a board certified cardiologist.  The plaintiff had used a family/ER doctor (who proclaimed experience in evaluating, diagnosising and treating heart attacks) as an expert.  The defendant moved for dismissal under F.S. 766.202(6), claiming the standards for the expert had not been met.

The majority held that it was the claimant’s (plaintiff’s) burden to demonstrate by facts, not conclusions in the expert affidavit, that the expert met the statutory requirements.  In short, statements such as “expert’s practice is a similar specialty” apparently is insufficient.  After some discussion and reference to internet medical citations, the majority held that family/ER practice is not the same or sufficiently similar to a board certified cardiologist and that public policy behind the 2003 amendment were not met.

Second, let’s turn to the internet citations.  The majority turned to the internet for citations to the American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Emergency Medicine for its discussion of whether the expert was a “similar specialty.”

Upon being challenged for use of these citations by the dissent, the majority shored up its position by reporting that (1) these cites were raised without objection in the Reply Brief and (2) the use of “generally-known knowledge” which is capable of accurate and ready determination from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned does not present concerns.

The dissent complained that the majority reliance on internet cites for the recitation of certification criteria for cardiology  was never presented below and was “injected at the appellate level.”  Interesting references were made to the proposed revision to the ABA Model Code of Conduct 2.09 which prohibits a judge from making independent investigation through various means including “electronic access.”  The dissent further complains that there is no “check” on proficiency and objectivity of the judge’s or JA’s research.  The majority fired back, in a footnote, that even without the citations, the outcome would be the same.

Palm Beach County Bar Association Hosts “Tweet, Meet & Eat”

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

What does $30 buy you these days?  How about a 90-minute session learning to use Twitter and Facebook, a free lunch, and 1 hour of Florida Bar CLE credit!

Come join us on Friday, September 25, 2009 at the Palm Beach County Bar Association offices for the Tweet Meet & Eat seminar.  Bring your laptop and log in through the Bar’s WiFi and learn how to create a Twitter and Facebook account as well as tips on posting, setting privacy settings, and marketing your practice.twitter_fail_whale

Sign up here.

Can’t make it?  Check out the two Powerpoint presentations on the right column of this page under “Materials” (look for “2009 Twitter for Lawyers” and “2009 Facebook for Lawyers”).  Also check out Why Lawyers Should Be @ Twitter and Internet Social Networking Sites for Lawyers.

Lawyer & Law Firm Blogs: Advice from Palm Beach County Attorneys

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

Considering writing a law blog?  Interested in seeing what other firms are doing?  Take a peek at the September 2009 Palm Beach Bar Bulletin article, Lawyer Blogs: Overview and Advice from Palm Beach County Bloggers.  It’s also included in the column to the right under “Articles.”

Note the interesting statistics: images185% of law firms in 2002 had websites but a more recent study suggests they are ONLY accessed for lawyer bios and practically nothing else.   Meanwhile, firms are missing out on catchy domain names like this one which might create other marketing opportunities.

A special nod, as always, to co-author, Diana Martin of Leopold~Kuvin in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Better Searching on Facebook

Friday, August 21st, 2009

We’ve written about how to use social networking websites for jury selection and marketing (see right column under Articles) and Facebook has now made it even easier to hunt down its members and their posts.

Conceptually, Facebook has been a “closed circuit” social networking site where users limit who can view their profiles and posts.  The idea is you keep it to a close circle of friends.  On the other hand, Twitter has been an “open circuit” social networking site where your posts go out into the twittersphere for friends, people you don’t know, neighbors, and prying lawyers to read.  Thus, Facebook has become a rock-solid means to communicate among friends while Twitter has become a way to communicate with the world.  Stated differently, and at the risk of overthinking this issue, Facebook makes connections based upon people, Twitter makes connections based upon topics.

Back to the changes at Facebook.  They’ve changed the general search query (top right corner of your facebook page) so that you can run your search term for everything on their site as well as subcategories like people, pages, groups, etc.  The change was announced (and perhaps better described), here on Facebook blog’s August 10 post.  We also came across this Florida-related post on the topic at Examiner.com, which is likewise a good description of the changes.

This does not mean that you now have access to Facebook user’s profiles, walls or other information.  By default, a user’s profile and other information is restricted.  However, this is an easier way to find users in the first place as well as see other Facebook “events” involving your search term.  Arguably, this could be a babystep towards Facebook becoming more open and searchable.  Meanwhile, don’t think lawyers are alone in searching Facebook

Thanks to our friends at TechCrunch for the scoop, here.

California Supreme Court OK’s Employer Videotaping Employee’s Office - and no one cares?

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

The California Supreme Court issued an August 3 opinion holding that an employer could secretly videotape an employee’s closed office without invading workplace privacy rights — and only a few news agencies mentioned the case by name (about 50 outlets referenced the case generally).  To give you an idea of the short attention, here’s the one page coverage in the L.A. Times.  You would think a state supreme court OK’ing secret videotaping of employees would be an catchy news story..?

The case is Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. where an employer secretly placed a wireless videocamera in an employee’s office (which had a door lock and window blinds, which could be closed).  The court held that, while the element of “intrusion” was met, the affirmative defenses to “offensiveness” carried the day.

The defendant is a former orphanage which is now an overnight facility for abused children.  The facility had a computer policy against accessing x-rated sexually explicity websites.  The employer learned that two computers — one in a public area and one in a closed office — were being accessed at night for internet porn viewing.  The employee who used the office often failed to log off at night.  She was never suspected.

The employer, motivated both to stop the porn-viewing AND to catch the person, initially tried to put a camera on the public computer but could not sufficiently hide the computer.  He then placed it in the closed office and swore under oath that the camera was there for three weeks, he never viewed it during normal business hours, he never saw anything invasive, he kept the video camera screen out of reach of other employees, and… he saw nothing.

Also interesting, the court found that there was no requirement that the defendant try alternative, less intrusive methods (although the court excluded that other methods would have worked).

The employee apparently found the camera one day with the red light blinking, the cord plugged in, and the equipment warm to the touch.  She was concerned because she often closed her office door to change or have private conversations.  The court acknowledged, “we appreciate the plaintiffs’ dismay over the discovery of video equipment… nothing we say here is meant to encourage such surveillance measures…”

The case is fact-rich and may, indeed, be so fact-specific that it could be distinguished from other workplace situations.  This opinion should, by no means, be viewed as the “green light” for employers to videotape employees.  That said, especially for California, which we view generally as a plaintiff-favoring jurisdiction, it is remarkable that the court unabashedly relied on the self-serving testimony of the employer — to the point that summary judgment was granted.

Download Full Movie Online Domperidone