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.

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 Association /  PA 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/.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The sad footnote is that it doesn’t seem that this sizable award will have much of an impact on the practices of Asset Acceptance LLC.  As of September 30, 2010, Asset Acceptance had 34 million accounts with an original value of more than $42 billion. It had bought that debt for 2.54 percent of face value.  At that margin, even if it collects only a miniscule portion of the acquired debt,  it can afford a whole lot of penalties without taking notice.  “The company does not expect the operational requirements of the consent decree to have a material adverse effect on its business,” the company said in a statement on its website.   That’s a darn shame!

This reminds me of a sad story involving someone I loved very much.  She never got a chance to finish high school because during the depression she had to drop out and go to work to help support her family.  She worked as a housekeeper all her life, and always with pride. She was in my mother’s class in high school before she dropped out.  So when she applied for the job my mother advertised, she was hired.  That was when I was born.  She was part of the family for about 40 years.  I considered her my second mother.

We kept in touch in her senior years.  I never forgot to call each year and wish her a happy birthday, or send a mother’s day card, in which I predictably hand-inserted “second” with a little heart.  I will always remember the tears of pride in her eyes when she visited me to see my first house.  She insisted on helping me get it properly cleaned for move-in, and shared her well-guarded secrets about how to remove all types of grime and stains in record time. 

The last time we spoke she was upset beyond belief.  Her health was seriously declining, and her beloved husband and most of her family had died.  But that’s not what got her down.  She overcame those hurdles.  This was different.  She had been a victim of identity theft.  She had filed all the appropriate papers, notified all the appropriate authorities, and made all the appropriate reports.  Yet, one unscrupulous credit card debt collector had hounded her so persistently that he convinced her that the substantial balance due on a card she had never applied for herself, was her responsibity.  She was informed that if she did not make monthly payments, which included a high penalty and interest component, she would go to jail. She was terrified at that prospect.

She was so distraught I could not get her to understand that she didn’t have to pay.  She was unable to make the payments and still  buy her medicines, or even buy adequate groceries to nourish herself.  I suggested that she seek free legal services, but she said they had turned her away.  I tried to give her names and numbers of some members of the bar I knew well, who I felt would help her.  I was prepared to secretly pay the fees if need be, because she was always a proud woman.  But she felt she was beyond help, and called no one.

She had given up.  She was a broken woman, and there was just no fight left in her.  It was the last time we spoke.  And it haunts me to this day.

I can’t help but wonder whether she was one of the victims of Asset Acceptance and their unscrupulous practices.  I hope the FTC continues to aggressively pursue such companies, and hit them with fine after fine after fine, until their profit margin is sufficiently squeezed to get their attention, and modify their practices in accordance with the law.

 When we originally created the seminar and shared the podium, Jennifer was still serving as Associate Director of Media Technologies with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and as an outstanding program manager who developed many of PBI’s programs on technology, technology law and law practice management, as well as PBI’s social media presence.

 My approach to social media covers the sea-change in communications it has created, and social media’s affordable application as a business tool for law firm use; uses for strategic intelligence gathering, networking, and as a marketing and client communication tool.  Jennifer, on the other hand, focuses on the ethical traps for unwary users, current evolving case law regarding various aspects of social media, specific uses of social media in various areas of practice, how to advise clients so as to avoid spoliation charges, and how to properly preserve evidence.  It is a very fast-paced two hour program which totally engages the audience.

 While talking about the power of blogging and tweeting, one of the audience members questioned how often one should expect to blog.  I stated without hesitation that one should consistently blog at least three times per week.  Minutes later this audience member, who had a laptop, questioned whether he had correctly connected to my blog, since there had not been a post since mid-October. 

 I winced and laughed simultaneously.  Just because I know what best practices are, doesn’t necessarily mean I follow them myself all the time!  Truth be told, there has been such a huge increase in intake since Jennifer joined the practice — before I never took on more than one or two private assignments over and above my work for the PA Bar Association, and turned the others away  — that I have struggled to keep up with demand for my time. 

 Yes, I’m struggling to squeeze 25 hours into a 24 hour day.  Just like you do, Mr. or Ms. Attorney.  I really do understand that there are often not enough hours in the day to get it all done.  I am sympathetic.  But if you ask me what you should do, I will still give you the answer which covers best practices.  Not always the same as reality, though, I’ll give you that. 

 Keep in mind that we should all be constantly trying to make small steps of progress toward the goal of best practices.  Whether that goal concerns improving your timekeeping and billing habits, or marketing activities, or client intake procedures — no matter what the goal — small steps of progress in the right direction will always produce better results in reaching ones goals over the long term.

 There will always be some backsliding from time to time.  That’s to be expected.  But that doesn’t change the ultimate goal.  Nor does it erase all the progress already made.  It’s just a temporary blip on the radar screen.  Ok, I missed a couple months.  It’s happened before, and likely will happen again.  That doesn’t mean I give up on blogging or tweeting.  It means I redouble my efforts to get back on track.  Perhaps I change the time of day I try to blog.  Or decide to seek out guest bloggers I can trust, to take off some of the burden.  Blogs are, after all, content monsters which require frequent feeding in order to successfully engage an audience.

 I appreciated the challenge from the seminar participant, because it pushed me back on track.  So thanks for coming, and thanks for being such an active participant.  I have a feeling you’ll have a big smile when you read this blog post, and hopefully many more to come.

Unlike most of the attorneys who attend this presentation, most of those in the audience were already extensively using Social Media on a personal basis.  Almost everyone had a FaceBook page, most had profiles on LinkedIn, a few tweeted, and most everyone subscribed to one or more blogs.  One person (actually, the program sponsor, from Harris Investigations), stood alone as having created a FaceBook page for his dog.  My dogs, and their FaceBook friend, Curtis D. Ellis, will be sending  friend requests shortly!

One point I worked hard to drive home involved the crowded marketplace in which legal professionals navigate nowadays.  It’s hard to get the attention of prospects when so many other attorneys are trying to get their attention at the same time.  And the concept of being “out there” in order to establish relationships with prospects and referral sources has taken on a whole new meaning with the use of Social Media.  It enables one to be “out there” way beyond what would have been possible, both time-wise and geographically, without these tools. 

I spoke about the “new normal” in marketing, which I describe as “target and pursue” — identify the ideal client or referral source, and then find ways to reach out and touch them in a meaningful (and metaphorical) way.  I emphasized the importance of LinkedIn as a tool for strategic intelligence.  It enables one to identify the key players in the industry or specific company one wishes to pursue, and to track relationships in order to find a point in common, who can provide an introduction. 

Today, the AttorneyAtWork blog posted “Let Me Introduce You: One of Many Things LinkedIn Is Good For” and it directly addresses the same topic in the same way.  The fact that the blog post was written by marketing expert Merrilyn Astin Tarlton made me feel pretty darned good about the messages I delivered in my presentation.  It was worth the trip in driving rain, to provide valuable information for such an appreciative group.