Do You Like Free Stuff?

 

No, I don’t really expect you to answer.  It’s a rhetorical question.  Of course you like free stuff.  We all do.  But we’ve been raised on the notion that there’s nothing good for free.  Not true.  And there’s a resource out there that reviews and categorizes the good stuff for you.   I’m talking about Gizmo’s Freeware.    I’ve been a subscriber for a long time, and have always appreciated the tips. 

Here’s the perfect example.  For my mother’s 88th birthday present, my sister and I gave her a Kindle.  Best darn thing we ever got her next to the gym membership we got her for her 50th birthday.  But Mom is such an avid reader – sometimes going through a book a day –that she eats through our gift certificates like a hot knife going through butter, and runs up quite a tab on her credit card as well.  She is always looking for the “bargain” books, regardless of whether or not she is really interested in the author or genre.  If the book is under $1 she’ll read it. She’ll be in heaven when I help her bookmark some of the 446 Places for free e-books and audio downloads recently published by Gizmo’s.  It will be an easy thing to download whatever she wants and move them to her Kindle.

Don’t have a Kindle and don’t want to purchase another piece of electronic stuff?  Well, how about free software that will turn your laptop, netbook, or desktop into a great e-reader?  Yep, Gizmo’s provides tips too, in addition to the details and links.

What do you like?  Are you an iPad or iPhone user?  Have you been to their App store?  It’s overwhelming, isn’t it?  There’s a ton of free or no cost applications.  Sure there are end-user ratings on some of the stuff, but nonetheless I’ve had the distinct displeasure of downloading many apps based on high ratings, and been sorely disappointed.  Gizmo’s isn’t the be-all and end-all expert, but when they review something and rate it highly, I have a higher level of confidence, based on experience, that it will work as I expect.  And the fact that they aggregate applications in meaningful ways that make sense to me, make them a great resource.  Take a look for example, at their list of the Best Free iPhone Apps.

I own no stock in Gizmo’s.  I’m just a fan who likes to share with others what I find useful.  Enjoy!

Smoking Hot News from Mobile World Congress

Today’s issue of CNET News is smoking hot.  It has a review of the 26 hottest phones and tablets shown at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain.  There’s an article about the new Nokia 41-megapixel camera phone with digital zoom.  And there’s a great video offering a sneak preview of the new Windows 8 beta operating system.  Touch screen is but one new feature.  Wholly molly, this tech addict needs to start breathing into a paper bag to calm down.

It’s Sweepstakes Time!

Feeling lucky?  We’re trying something new here at Freedman Consulting.  We’re holding a sweepstakes for a FREE CLE seminar.  No purchase necessary to enter or win.  Go to our e-commerce store (http://store.freedmanlpm.com/pages/freedman-consulting-incs-cle-sweepstakes) for details!  Hurry . . . the contest ends on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 at 5:00 pm EST.

Google Privacy Countdown

My partner, Jennifer Ellis, has just posted instructions on her blog about how to get rid of your Google web search and YouTube histories before the March 1, 2012 account consolidation deadline.  You can read about it here.

As Jennifer explains, Google announced that it would be combining all of the data from various accounts into one place for purposes of making its privacy policy easier. She finds the prospect of Google  putting all of the data from various accounts into one place  a bit scary, and notes that, not too surprisingly, a lot of people want to delete the data before Google puts it into once place.  Jennifer explains what you can and cannot delete, and provides illustrated step-by-step instructions.

Ghostwritten Blog Posts — Ethical or Unethical?

Ironically, a blog post about the recent and sudden passing of Finis Price led me to Finis’ blog, on which the final post was entitled “Ghostwriting in Legal Blogs.”  Ironic. The topic itself was so controversial and interesting to me, I had to follow the links to additional reading.  If you have a blog, Facebook page, or Twitter account, you may have considered hiring a ghostwriter, because these mediums are content hogs.  Maybe you’ve been using a ghostwriter for some time.  The question is, does it violate ethical rules?

This discussion has been around for a while.  Kevin O’Keefe blogged about it in great detail on January 12, 2012, in a post entitled “Are ghostwritten lawyer blogs unethical?“  His opinion is very clear.  But I wonder why no one weighed in with comments.  There was post about it on ABA Journal Law News Now similarly entitled “Are ghostwritten lawyer blogs unethical?” written by  Debra Cassens Weiss on February 4, 2010.  Again, no comments are posted, which is pretty unusual.  Most controversial posts on ABA news feeds invoke tons of comments.

Not being satisfied, I dug deeper by going onto the main page for ABA Journal Law News, and conducting a search for “ghostwriting”.  I found that there was a poll conducted which ended on Tuesday, December 8, 2009.  A total of 849 attorneys (presumably) cast their vote.  In a blog post redundantly named “Are ghostwritten lawyer blogs unethical?” written by Molly McDonough and published on February 23, 2010, the results of the poll were published:

When we asked late last year whether you thought it was ethical for lawyers to ghostwrite legal documents, the results were mixed. With more than 800 readers weighing in (PDF), 60 percent answered that ghostwriting is ethical and happens all the time. Only 14 percent thought it was akin to cheating.

I’d love to have those of you who have served on your State’s Disciplinary Boards weigh in with your opinions.  Post your comments below.  I don’t think this topic is dead by any means.

 

 

Are You Having a Problem With Your Microsoft Outlook Rules?

Many people like myself have had a lot of problems with their Rules and Alerts in Outlook.  At first I thought that I was doing something wrong.  Sometimes my Rules worked properly, and sometimes the same Rules did not.  Sometimes things went to the proper folders automatically, and sometimes they just plain disappeared.  No one I talked to could explain what was happening.  I thought — hoped — that when I implemented MS Exchange this problem would go away.  It did, but only for a short while.  Now I know why.

As many of you know, I have been instructing lawyers and staff on how to use Microsoft Word, Outlook, Excel and PowerPoint for many years.  I teach privately inside firms.  And I teach publicly at the PA Bar AssociationPA Bar Institute’s annual Law Practice Management Institute, as well as at various county bars in PA from time to time.   I don’t claim to be facile in absolutely everything.  And there is never a class where something doesn’t embarrassingly fail to work, even though I’ve done it successfully many times before.   But I am always more knowledgeable than those I instruct, except occasionally for a feature here or there.  And because I was a big WordPerfect fan and power user in the past, I have the ability to ease the transition for users from WordPerfect to Word, by explaining how to do what they used to do, often in an easier manner using tools they didn’t know existed in Microsoft.

Another thing which makes me a valuable instructor is that I understand the challenges and needs of law firm users.  One of the most important combination of features I teach attorneys in Outlook is the use of folders and Rules.  Oh, and the use of Follow-up Flags, too.  Let me explain why.

I’ve found that  most attorneys are increasingly swamped with in-bound information.  Their inbox becomes so crowded so quickly, it becomes almost impossible to stay on top of everything that’s important.   Typically, the inbound content is not just about client matters anymore.  There are electronically delivered pieces of subscribed information from news sites, blogs, e-newsletters etc.  There are all of the social media requests to connect on LinkedIn and friend on Facebook.  There are all the updates on activities of others we’ve connected with on social media.  There are tons of sales-oriented emails from vendors, educational groups, marketing people.  There is no doubt a certain amount of personal correspondence.   And then, on top, there are the back and forth “conversations” with clients, co-counsel, and other parties involved with various client/matters.  This is what I consider the most important content in the inbox.

By setting up a folder for each active client, and then creating email  Rules based on who has sent the email, one can automatically  route emails related to particular clients directly to the client’s folder.  Customize “Outlook  Today” to display all the active client folders.  (It’s easy to add and subtract which folders display in this view — it takes literally seconds to make a change.)  Make sure you have checked the box “When starting, go directly to Outlook Today” which you can get to from a variety of locations.  Now, when you open Outlook, you will immediately see whether emails came in related to on-going matters, and each folder listed is a live link to the actual folder itself, so it’s easy to get there to read the new emails.  You don’t miss seeing it just because it’s automatically routed to a folder.

By avoiding your Inbox and going directly to the active client folders to review new correspondence, you’re allowing the cream to rise to the top.  You don’t wade through all the less important stuff in your Inbox — likely getting distracted by the latest joke or puppy pictures — and maybe run out of time before you get to the red hot messages lower down.  You first go to the really important stuff.  Later, when and if you have time, you can check out the other “stuff” in your inbox.  I encourage attorneys to create folders for newsletters, social media news and requests, and more.  That way you can prioritize your email review time better, especially when it’s limited.

Creating Rules is easy in Outlook.  There’s a wizard which walks you through what you want to do fairly quickly and easily. Once you’re created one or two, you’ll be an expert.  And you’ll wonder why you didn’t avail yourself of this tool combination earlier.  But now, let’s get back to the problem.  A problem I only recently discovered had a relatively simple solution.

Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, has for some unknown reason decided that 32K of memory is sufficient for storage of Rules for those who have cloud-based Exchange.  It isn’t.  For those with in-house Exchange, their limit is 64K for Rules, which is built into Outlook.  Again, Microsoft feels this is sufficient room.  It isn’t.  And if you don’t have Exchange server at all, you are still limited to the 64K storage for Rules.   Problem is, there’s nowhere you can go to find out how much of that memory you’ve used, so when you hit the limit, some of your Rules just stop working, or don’t work properly.  You don’t even get to decide which.  If you go to create more Rules when you are over the limit, and only if you have Exchange server, only then will you get an error message that tells you that you have no more room for Rules.  With just Outlook, you get no error message . . . some of your Rules just stop working, and not always the same ones.

You will think you’re crazy, like I did.  You’re not.  Because when something that was working perfectly stops for no apparent reason, or suddenly works unreliably, you just assume it’s you.  Especially when support tells you nothing is wrong.  If you’re not extremely persistent, you get nowhere, and no explanation.  Eventually, you just give up.  I admit I did.

It was not until  my new partner, Jennifer Ellis, finally believed that there really was something strange going on, she was doggedly determined to get to the bottom of it.   And eventually she did.  I was apparently using their best feature too well, and had exceeded the size threshold.

We put in a request to increase the storage size for my Rules from 32K to the 64K built into Outlook.  That request was granted in a reasonable length of time.  But it wasn’t long before I hit that limit as well.  We put in another request to up the limit.  This was more difficult.  Microsoft had to be “convinced” that I deserved to have more memory.   We had to prove that my Rule names were optimized for saving space, that they were not duplicative, and that they were important to the way I do work using Outlook.   Come on, really?  Yes!   Finally, after a month or so back and forth, my size limit was increased to 128K.  With that size increase, all my Rules worked reliably, and I was finally able to regain control of my 350 – 450 daily  inbound emails.

A short while ago, Microsoft made us migrate to their new “365″ product.  Immediately thereafter, my Rules experienced the same problem as before.  It was apparent I had lost memory.  Most of my Rules started acting erratically, or stopped functioning, immediately after the conversion.   However, what we thought would be a simple request to up the storage size — after all we had been through the drill before — hit a rock wall.  It seems that Microsoft had hard-coded the 64K limit into Outlook itself, and because this is not considered a “bug” they will only fix it if they get complaints.  Now, they’ve already gotten quite a number of complaints, we’re advised, but not enough to move this up to actually get it resolved.  They tell me that they must have more complaints to up the priority.

So, this post is both informative, and self-serving.   Perhaps you didn’t know about the power that Rules and creation of client-specific folders could give you to tame your inbox.  Now you do.  Perhaps you’ve been using Rules already, but weren’t getting reliable results and didn’t know why.  Now you do.  Now to the self-serving part:  I urge you to take a moment to contact Microsoft and let them know that it makes no sense whatsoever to purposely limit use of one of their most beneficial features in Outlook.  If enough of you out there join me in complaining, it will be fixed.  And it will be fixed quickly, because some important eyes are watching the “buzz” about this  right now.  So please, help me help us all get this resolved.   The phone number for Microsoft support is  (866) 764 5574.  The email page  for support is at http://support.microsoft.com/.

Wash Hands Before Using Phone

Once in a while I read something that just makes me outright laugh.  I especially love when it concerns our use of technology.  This is one of them.

A recent article on C-Net Daily News entitled “‘Reverse smudge engineering’ foils Android unlock security” explains how an Android user with greasy fingers left his unlock pattern visible for others to hack.  Fortunately, they were colleagues, because it took them only minutes to bypass his security thanks to his greasy screen.

Really?  We have to worry about washing our hands before using our phone now?  Check it out.

Does Coaching Really Help?

A recent caller on the PA Bar Association Law Practice Management Hot Line wanted to know whether coaching really helps.  His practice had taken a downturn, and his girlfriend suggested that perhaps he needed to update his skill set to better enable him to engage prospects and seal the deal.  She recommended coaching.  He was skeptical. He wanted a viewpoint from “a dog who isn’t in the fight.”  My answer?

I’ve learned well from attorneys over the years in how to answer these types of questions.  My answer?  “It depends.”  Then I went on to discuss the considerations which would sway the answer one way or another:

  1. How motivated is the attorney to learn and grow?  How willing to change?  How willing to accept criticism and take direction? 
  2. What are the qualifications of the coach?  Lots of people call themselves coaches, and many even have lots of initials following their names, but that doesn’t mean they’re effective.  So the attorney must do the following before engaging a coach: 

      a) check references carefully – make sure they are applicable to the results desired

      b) find out exactly what their methodology is – a good coach will tell you exactly how they proceed, and be able to give you a detailed proposal with associated costs

      c) check credentials, which includes their background experience - a psychology degree doesn’t mean they can help you create any client development breakthroughs

      d) have a good long conversation to see whether you feel comfortable speaking candidly with the individual

  3.  Make sure you  can afford the investment of time, in addition to actual out-of-pocket payment to the coach

Ultimately, my answer is YES.  Coaching can be a tremendous help for attorneys who are committed to improvement, open to the process, and who engage the right coach. 

Now that being said, I do have names of several coaches on file.  But to be frank, none has blown me away thus far. Nor the attorneys who I have referred to them. But this week I am hopeful.  An attorney’s wife went out of her way to call and tell me about a “terrific coach” she engaged to work with her husband. She said the process was a tremendous success, and wanted me to know about it, in case other attorneys needed similar help. 

I am always interested in highly qualified vendors or service providers who can assist Pennsylvania attorneys. So I contacted the coach right away, after reviewing her web site. We had a good talk, and I got a sense of what she’s about and how she operates, and I am hopeful.  She was gracious, and invited me to attend her seminar “How to Avoid the 5 Most Common Marketing Mistakes and Increase Your Sales by Up to 200%” which will be presented in two 2-hour evening sessions on February 27th and March 5th in Malvern, in order to get to know her work a little better.  I accepted. 

Here’s hoping I have finally found a coach I can recommend without hesitation.  Have you worked successfully with a coach you feel is highly qualified?  I appreciate all recommendations.  Feel free to contact me directly, or post your recommendation on the blog for all to see.

Kudos to Best Buy for Making E-Waste Disposal Easy

We are all drowning in electronic trash.  Ok, maybe not all of us, but most of the people and businesses I know.  Old routers, cables, telephones, discarded laptops and CPUs.  Oh my! I had three big boxes filled with just cables, routers, headsets, and other paraphernalia.  On top of that, 3 dead laptops, 2 laptop cooling stands, and 4 dead CPUs crowded a corner of my office.  I wanted to dispose of these items in some responsible, environmentally-friendly manner. 

I didn’t want my old equipment tossed in a landfill.  In addition, I was under the distinct impression that I was required to dispose of my e-waste responsibly.  In fact, I was pretty sure I had blogged about new e-waste disposal rules years ago.  So I did some digging in my blog archives, and found out that, sure enough, I did blog about it back in November, 2005 in a post entitled “Disposing of Unwanted E-Equipment.”  What I had forgotten is that the EPA regulations applied only to businesses, and not to residences.  Since I operate on a virtual-office basis out of my home, it seems I have no requirement, at least Federally, to recycle electronic waste. 

The Federal eWaste site indicated that individual states may have requirements of their own.  That seemed to jog my defective memory a bit, so I looked to the National Electronics Recycling Infrastructure Clearinghouse to determine what is required in my native state of Pennsylvania.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see from the map above, PA does not have any state-specific e-waste disposal requirements.  So it’s up to the conscience of each individual to do the right thing.  And that includes all those of us who have home-based business.  According to one resource, “The home office market will add nearly 2.0 million home-based businesses by 2015, with over 450,000 net new home-based businesses per year in 2013 and 2014. “  Folks, we’re looking at a lot of e-waste here!

There are a lot of choices for e-cycling and disposal.  I know because I did a Google search to find them.  And while many are good solutions for business, most didn’t work for me.  But I finally found a convenient solution at the local “big box” store.  I walked into my local Best Buy, just minutes from my home. Right in the foyer were several recycling bins.  Each was labeled for appropriate content: batteries, cables, and so forth.  Intrigued, I went to their web site to find out more about their e-cycling program.  I was amazed to find that I could recycle almost everything I had, regardless of where or when it had been purchased.

By coincidence, my old Sony 27″ TV died right after I became aware of this service.  So with much labor, hubby and I managed to get it into the car, along with all the other “stuff” I had piled around the office.  They took everything with a smile and a thank you. I was back home within 15 minutes with a good feeling, and a lot of regained space in the office.

Kudos, Best Buy, for making my e-disposal quick and painless.  Keep up the good work.

Bad Online Reviews About Lawyers or Law Firms

When I wear my hat as Law Practice Management Coordinator of the PA Bar Association, I get a call at least every couple of weeks from a distraught attorney who has had a negative comment posted on their Facebook page, in a blog comment, or on some other site.  From the attorney’s perspective, it’s a painful experience, because it reflects on their reputation, and that’s what they spend a career building.  “What should I do?  What can I do?”  These are the questions I am asked. 

I am mindful of something called the Streisand Effect.  My partner, Jennifer Ellis, speaks about it in her popular seminar entitled “I am Begging You — Please Don’t Look Like an Idiot on the Web“.  (You can take a peek at her PowerPoint presentation here.)  She also talks about it in a top-rated seminar we do together, entitled “Social Media Examined – Possibilities Ethical Considerations Privacy & Security Concerns“  (You can find the slides for this presentation here.)  Keeping the hard lesson learned about what is now commonly referred to by social media experts as the Streisand Effect, I advise hot line callers to ignore it, or at most to post a respectful and brief response.  But I have to say that I am not happy about this being the best advice I can give.  There should be a better solution. 

An article in ABA Journal Law News Now drew my attention today. (Yes, I am behind in reading!)  Entitled “Dallas Law Firm Sues Anonymous ‘Ben Doe’ over Bad Online Review,” the article explains that the Dallas, TX Lenahan Law Firm filed suit against an anonymous negative poster, claiming defamation and seeking $50,000 in damages.  The law firm’s managing partner is quoted as saying that since the poster was anonymous, the only way to find out who posted the comment, and hold them accountable, was to file suit.  To be honest, the voice inside me was silently cheering the law firm on. 

Then I began reading the posted comments.  At the time of reading, there were 50 comments.  Obviously, many people feel strongly about this topic.  Many cited first amendment priviledges.  Some felt the law firm stepped over the boundary into abuse of process by filing what they considered a frivilous law suit.   I strongly agreed with just a few comments:

In comment #17, Curmudgeon, Esq said <<Sorry, but I must disagree with most comments in this thread.  A lawyer’s reputation, especially regarding integrity, is important to marketing ability and credibility in work.  The review in question challenged both incompetence and integrity.  It appears that the insult was done both anonymously and negligently.  Perpetrators of such conduct should be held accountable.  Those of you who think this is sport will not think so when you are the target of unfair abuse.>>

In comment #24, Saa said <<How is “Bad experience with this firm. Don’t trust the fake reviews here.” protected by the first amendment from a defamation suit?  It’s a comment about a business, implying that they write fake reviews.  It’s not a comment about a public person or a matter of public policy.  They are entitled to find out who wrote this just as much as the person who wrote it was entitled to post it.  Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, even “anonymous” comments.>>

In comment #28 Jim said <<This is definitely an issue that needs to be dealt with either through legislation or litigation. Businesses can’t just ignore bad posts that might even be mistaken. And if Google and/or other companies won’t provide an opportunity to rebut or remove then the business has no choice but to sue and subpoena. This sounds ripe for a fee shifting statute.>>

I’m not afraid to admit that I’m someone with a strong existential backbone.  I firmly believe in personal freedoms, but like Saa, I believe in taking responsibility for ones actions as well.  As I wrote in my comment <<Whether the comments are anonymous or not, the problem is that our “new normal” is evolving from a paradigm shift in communications of epic proportions.  A shift in which people will now often turn to the words of strangers (e.g. online reviews) at their first level of filtering information about who they might find suitable to do business with, rather than start with the formerly reliable circles of friends, family, business acquaintances, and service providers.>>  That’s why this matters so much. 

Let’s not have a repeat of the formerly “dirty little secret” where just a few knew that if their lawyer threatened to sue for fees, they (the non-paying client) could threaten to counter-sue for malpractice, and the lawyer would run away in fear.  Look where that’s gotten us.  Lawyers are almost universally afraid to aggressively go after fees they are rightfully due. And now some malpractice carriers won’t even offer a policy to firms which choose to sue clients for unpaid fees.

If the legal profession continues to be cowed into silence by the threat of the Streisand Effect, the eventual outcome will be no different.  Is the suit an abuse of process?  I don’t know, frankly.  That’s for the courts to decide. Me?  I’m just hoping to someday have better advice to give, other than to have to keep recommending to Bar members that they ignore such actions, for fear of worsening the consequences.

 

 

 

WordPress Themes