Chuck Newton

The Defamation Of AT&T Wireless By iPhone Fanatics?

I am not a techie.  I do not claim to be.  My hit and miss experiences with tech, combined with my skinflint ways, have carried me to looking at the practical application of cheap (or cheaper tech) in the Third Wave practice of law.  The fact is that if it is too hard for me to figure out, requires something more than some simple advice on how to implement and use it, or is too expensive, then technology might be groundbreaking, but it is presently useless. 

I figured this out back in the mid 90s when my large firm at the time paid IBM over $100,000 to install an AS400 (a huge piece of iron) and to connect all of the offices and computers with simulation software, T1 lines and the like so that we could achieve, in theory, what we can do easily today for the investment of a couple of grand.  And, despite all of the bravado on IBM's part, all of the sloganeering, it could not make it work after it spent months getting it place.  AT&T could not make the phone lines operate properly either, even though their service costs thousands of dollars a month.  I now replicate what AT&T proposed today for $99 per month with a virtual PBX.

For real people, the issues for them are not tech issues, as it is application and workability issues.  After all, most of us do not design system as we pick and chose what is available off the shelf (or increasingly off the cloud) and try to implement it efficiently in what we do.

The greatest difficulty for Third Wavers is a lack of accurate information or the understanding of what techies are saying.  Because of this (the ability of tech devices that look just alike to actually represent apples and oranges inside), deception among providers and others runs rampant.  This means there is not a lack of information for most of us.  It means there is an abundance of deceptive information. 

Since we are still visual beings, we favor design over an intangible things like broadband, the Internet and Google.  We want to believe in design and as a result the application and pricing of a tech product is often overlooked because of the wow factor involved.  In my estimation, to succeed cost effectively in the Third Wave practice you have to get past the wow factor and you have to look at products and services realistically in terms or cost, compatibility and how it serves your practical needs.  That is what you have to focus on.

Partly what I mean by practical needs is that, for example, connectivity in smart phones is more important than an app for the product that makes the phone sound like a fart or appear as a class of beer being consumed.  This is child's play, much like the the attorney I contacted on his iPhone (I know because he made a point of telling me it was an iPhone) recently only to be met by a very suggestive Barry White sounding recording asking me to leave a message.  I first thought, this is a professional trying to represent serious people with serious problems.  Then I thought, that was a good use of an investment that cost so much money and a service plan that costs thousands of dollars a year.

I digress some, but what I found interesting in this regard was the New York Times article explaining how AT&T is taking the blame for the inferiority of the iPhone.

Now, for the reason stated above, I have no great love for AT&T, but I do use its U-verse service in my home and office, and it is very good.  At least it is light years better than Comcast.  (Do you not feel sorry for NBC).

What the NYT article states is that when looking at independent data to confirm the superior performance of Verizon’s network, AT&T seems to have the superior network nationwide, and the problem in reputation for AT&T might actually be the performance of the iPhone.  Apparently, the electronics in the iPhone that connect it to the cell towers, has shortcomings that affect both voice and data.  But, since in the eyes of the design mavens that flock to Apple believe the iPhone and their purchase choices are infallible, the AT&T network has been tarnished with the iPhone.  Of course, AT&T cannot publicly defend itself without insulting its provider.

The issue is an important one because it demonstrates the problem in our line of work with form over function - design over workable tech.

Admittedly, it is a problem that pervades all areas.  I read recently about green washing of building products for consumers, and in particular to use of bamboo as a design elements to cover up more environmentally hazardous manufacturing processes than what is typically associated with wood products.

Look, I understand that most of us guys are going to chose to go out with the drop-dead-gorgeous girl with the overbearing personality over the moderately beautiful lady that is simply delightful to be around.  And, there is something to be said for the need for the better products to concern themselves more with design as Apple does.

This has a place in home marketing as well.  The staged or model home sells better, more quickly and for more money than the similar house not staged.  Yet, nobody is actually buying the staging.

My point is that if you want to succeed at cheap tech, if you want to succeed at functionality that makes you life better and more rewarding, you have to look below the plastic casing.  Beauty is really more than skin deep.  That is true for tech and cell phones as well.

I have reached a milestone where I have to buy a new smart phone that better works with me in the tasks I have to perform to make a living as a virtual lawyer.  Whatever that choice, I have pretty much decided that it will not be an iPhone for a couple of reasons.

First, I like the pretty girl as much as the next guy.  However, there is, as they use to say, a difference in the type of girl you are willing to go out with, and the one you are willing to bring home to meet your mother.  Apple is the first girl.

Second, like it or not we live in a Google world.  We are there not just because Google is becoming dominant, but because it has achieved this right for the free and cheap services it has time and again provided us what we need to live and work better, more efficiently and cheaply.  Apart from its logo, it is not about outward design.  It is about function.  It is also about the cost.  Therefore, my choice will be an Android phone.  It will not buy a phone from a company deeply rooted in myth, design and is not based on free software.  Google believes in freeware and providing those the tools to develop functionality.  The opposite of Apple.

I am not saying Google is perfect or flawless.  I am saying it generally respects the future and how it needs to develop, and in the process it has produced good (and sometimes great) products that make it possible to do what I want to do in life and in a living  Further, it does so with the littlest of cost to me.

Is There Something Hinky About Your Law Practice?

Hinky?

It is a word used to describe when something is indefinably wrong, out of place of just not quite right.

It does I think describe most law practices, does it not?  You report to work each day, do your best, and try to find that right balance between work and life.  But, for reasons you cannot really define, you just feel out of place.  You think what am I doing in this practice area, in this job, in this office building, with these cases, or working with these lawyers or staff.  You almost feel invisible in and amongst the office, the law and life zooming around you.  You tend to feel a little like Bruce Willis as Dr. Malcolm Crowe in the movie The Sixth Sense.

It is okay.  You are not going crazy, and you are not in an episode of the Twilight Zone.

It ought not be that way.

The problem, I think, is that all of us happen upon our life and our law practice serendipitously.  We come at it uncertainly, extemporaneously and sometimes erratically.  It depends a lot on our early image of ourselves as empire builders, the first job or lack of a job directly out of law school, and then what we can afford to do.  As such, the practice of law that we find ourselves, and the way in which we practice, and the cases we take, come less deliberately, less painstakingly, and with little premeditation.  The practice is unplanned, more offhand than not, and we come at it unforeseen.

This does not mean that we did not come at the practice of law purposefully, or that we are not adamant in our profession.  It just turned out that past all of this our direction was more wavering, more indefinite, less planned.

We came at the practice of law zealously and wholeheartedly.  But, who among us really knew anything about organizing a practice, or allocate our lives, or reconciling what we want to do with the realities of what we end up doing.  Then, as the practice moves on it is only natural that it all feels a little accidental or a little alien.

And then, after we find ourselves here, the fear of the unknown or letting others down, like our staff and family, cause us to feel stuck.

As stated, it ought not be this way. It does not have to continue this way.  The benefit of hindsight is that you can see better the solution that might for us now and in the future.

For me, I hated the lengthy commutes, not seeing my children grow up, and the monetary strain of running a large practice.  The first goal was to set out to correct this.  In doing so, I know the practice area in which I practiced was too large and it required a retail type of presence in order to meet with clients.  It was based upon volume and I was more concerned with dedication to a cause.

The point was that as I moved toward the new direction or objective I saw for myself, the fog started to lift and I could see how the other pieces needed to fit together.  I began to feel more attached, more in control, and more tuned in to the my practice and what I wanted to do.  Sure, at first, it was a little scary or confusing.  I mean, after all, I had not addressed or placed a stamp on my own envelopes in a long time.  But, I had faith that it would work out.

The point that I would like to make is that you can change.  Just start with a premise of what you want to change and then think yourself through how achieving that change might affect everything else.  Start in the direction of where you want to be in some category, and then figure out the rest as you go along.  Just plan to work around the obstacles and do not stop the journey to avoid the obstacles you encounter.  The objective needs to meet the objective.

And the other point to keep in mind is that you do not have to change all at once.  You just need thought and movement.  The transition is generally the hardest part, not because it is actually hard but because you have to fight to change your mindset.  After all, what I have found is that most barriers exist no place but between our own ears.

The beauty of the practice of law, at least for me, is that you are not stuck with your practice, your policy or your area or niche of law.  All of it can be retrofitted to represent you better, and to get you out of your hinky law practice.

The Blogfamation Law Niche

Okay.  Fine.  I will admit it.  I made the name blogfamation up, but people combine words all of the time for fun and profit.  For me it this is really more an amusement.  You see I have a online buddy, Corinne Tampas over at What's Your Authority, who, like me, gets a kick out of scouring the blawgosphere looking for possible overlooked legal niches.  Corinne is a little bit better at it than I because she is a legal researcher and writer, and as such she tends to fall across these issues more easily.  We do not necessary look for practices areas that have not been tried, but rather those that are not well positioned or not well identified.  We look for sub-practice areas at which some attorney should be able to make a full time living if he or she wished.  Anyway, this is more Corinne's discovery than mine but, for better or worse, I made up the word.

Hence, blogfamation.  Either bringing or defending defamation suits because of all the crap and careless trash talking on the web.  Some have called cyberlible.  Let us face facts.  Real or not, truths or untruth, fact or fiction, gossip and rants spread across the web like wildfire.  Sometimes people are hurt.  Sometimes people are not hurt but think otherwise.  Sometimes people and companies are unduly helped by this wrong information.

There are sites the touch on this phenomena.  Dan Abrams help launch Gossip Cop recently, it which the site states that it is "Busting bad dish!"  There is FactCheck.Org.  It is a problem that even the best organizations have to fight.  Now Public recently reported that Wikipedia, for example, is changing how members contribute to online articles.  Under its old system, anyone could write and edit an article without revision, but under the new system articles about organizations and people will have to be fact checked by an editor before it is published.  There are sites that try to alert you and help you repair your online reputation.  One is called Reputation Advocates.  Another is Reputation Defender.  IRM Consultants claim to "neutralize negative publicity" on the web.  Of course, negative publicity is not the same as defamation, and consultants are not law firms.

There are some law firms that dabble in this area, as well as other practice areas, such as Kroneenberger / Burgoyne.  The Nissenbaum Law Group has a blog on the subject, but with most of these firms this is just one of many practice areas in which this subject matter can get lost.  For most online defamation is a sideline for technology lawyers and law firms, but defamation falls more in tort than it does in little tech disputes.  Other defamation lawyers are more broad based than this.  Nobody nationally or locally is really the blogfamation expert that I can see.  Few limit their practice to this area.

Presently, you see this problem in everyday life.  Clarksville, Texas attorney Mark Lesher and his wife filed a defamation lawsuit against anonymous posters on the Internet forum Topix.  They were just unmercifully trashed by a bunch of posters as they were charged in a what can only be considered a frivolous criminal charge of sexual assault in which they were summarily acquitted.

A Florida woman was awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook", "con artist" and a "fraud".

Bloggers sued by Anna Nicole's mother have been going to jail, not because of any potential defamation but because, in one case, they failed to follow court orders, such as turning over computers for inspection.

Most of us read where Sarah Palin's lawyer threatened to serve libel papers on a blogger at a local kindergarten where the blogger worked.  That was probably a bit unnecessary and a represented a little too much grandstanding, but the blogger speculated on whether Palin had marital problems that might be leading to a divorce between Palin an her husband.  This represented an unproven or unsubstantiated rumor.

I do not know if Sarah Palin is right or wrong in pursuing these matters.  After all, she is a public figure.  Also, she starts plenty of these kind of unsubstantiated rumors herself, such as coining the phrase, it seems, "Obama death panels".  But, the point is that rumors, some damaging, can be rampant on the Net.  People and companies do not like it and they want to pay someone a lot of money to vindicate themselves.

The situation is not always helped with the proliferation of so-called "gripe sites".  Some are more general, such as Ripoff Reports.  But, others have more specific targets, such as ScrewPayPal.Com, FarmersInsuranceGroupSucks.Com, and ChaseSucks.Com.  MyVWLemon.Com boasts 2,000 members and 15,000 message board postings from VW buyers.  You can find a ongoing list of these on WebGripeSites.Com.  How long these sites will stay up before being removed is anybody's guess, but whether someone has a grievance or not, does not mean all of the statements posted on these sites are correct or innocent.  Public Citizen tends to get a lot of criticism itself, but it has been know to defend the existence of grip sites.  You have to think that when those griped about gripe about gripe sites it is often called litigation.

The question is which one of you is going to become the first lawyer known exclusively as the blogfamation expert in your area?

Our Third Wave Manifesto Is Published By Texas Bar Journal

Acceptance ... at last.

I am pleased to announce that the January issue of the Texas Bar Journal will contain our manifesto on the Third Wave Practice of Law.  You can read a copy of the article in PDF by CLICKING HERE.

The State Bar of Texas is a mandatory bar association, and it is one of the largest in the United States.  The Texas Bar Journal is distributed by mail to over 97,000 members and subscribers each month.  I know I read it from cover to cover.  It represents an outstanding forum to discuss the changing practice of law.

It is so vitally important for other lawyers, staff and law students to understand that they do have alternatives to the traditional practice of law.  I would encourage you to help me populate the Web with this article.  Please help me spread the word.

When You Think Of Clients, Think Of Content First

Websites.  Blogs.  Social Media.  Variations of these.  Multiple of these.

We all spend some time primping, speculating, and publishing our media so as to get the best results.  That is good.  But, just because you have the slickest site in the world ultimately means nothing.  I have known attorneys who spend a lot of money on marketing and those who spend next to nothing.  I know people like me that like to doodle with their own site designs, and I have more than enough sites that are simply amateurish and elementary.  Where I want to be personally satisfied with my sites and how each looks or operates, I have found that looks have very little to do in reality to the success of your media.

Really, content the key.  Again, I am not necessarily talking about the amount of the content.  And, I am not necessarily talking about the quality of the content.  I am talking about reasonable content, which directly and specifically speaks to those things your potential clients want to know.  Not, for example, knowledge that the person looking at your site whats a divorce, but what information is missing that would overcome the persons fears in retaining an attorney, and would encourage them to hire you?  What satisfaction are these potential clients not getting in the way of content from other sites?

As the New Year approaches, and you are sitting down to think about your media and how to attract clients, you need to move on to the core questions: