West Virginia Business Litigation : West Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Jeffrey V. Mehalic : Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg

Last week, at LegalTech New York, I attended a program on Twitter, the latest social media phenomenon.  The panel was moderated by Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of Law Technology News, and was made up by Matt Homann, lawyer and author of the [non]billable hour blog; Kevin O’Keefe, CEO of LexBlog; and Chris Winfield, CEO of www.10e20.com.

Robert Ambrogi, a Massachusetts lawyer and technology expert, introduced everyone.  In addition to  his blogs, Media Law and Law Sites,, and wrote an article in the December 2008 edition of Law Technology News entitled “Tweet Sixteen,” in which he gave 16 reasons for lawyers to use Twitter.

Chris Winfield said the goal of Twitter is to be able to answer what you are doing at any one time.  Twitter has a 140 character limit, the same as other text messages, so necessarily the messages are brief.

He explained that when he was preparing his presentation, he Twittered three questions:

1. How would you explain Twitter in 140 characters or less?

2. What is your “one” must-have Twitter tool?

3. How could a lawyer or someone in the legal field use Twitter effectively?

He said that he received 135 responses in 30 minutes and then turned those responses into his presentation.   Chris also discussed the presentation and his research approach in this post on his blog, 10e20 Blog.

Matt Homann explained that although he has been on Twitter for the past two and a half years, he has only used it for the last six months, because it took him that long to understand its utility.

Matt also blogged about his presentation in Ten Tweets about Twitter.  You can read all of them for yourself, but a couple really jumped out at me.

1. It’s easy to learn how to use Twitter, but it’s hard to learn why.  Once you get the “why,” you’ll move from skeptic to disciple overnight.

4. Ever think, “If only I could get 5 minutes with Mr. _____, my biz would explode” moments?  They’re on Twitter, you’ve got 140 characters.  Go!

6. If you fear Twitter will interfere with your ability to get your work done, you’re not afraid of Twitter, you’re afraid of doing your work.

He also said that he thought blogging was the path to instant expertise, which could take six months to a year, but that Twitter is “exponentially faster.” 

(Personally, I think six months to a year is a little ambitious to achieve instant expertise in a field.  Name recognition and credibility are realistic within that time frame, but instant expertise takes longer.)

I think it’s fair to say that Kevin O’Keefe approaches Twitter from a more practical aspect, namely, its ability to enhance other forms of social media.  In fact, he said that social media is more important than search engine optimization (SEO).  (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, SEO refers to the design of a web page or the content of a blog so that it is more easily searched and located and given a higher ranking in search results.)

He pointed out that Twitter differs from Facebook in that Twitter users tend to be older, “the kind of people you’d like to have as clients,” where Facebook tends to appeal to younger people.

Kevin described Twitter as the “single biggest branding tool since TV,” and said he would rather go without his cell phone for a week than go without Twitter for a week.  Although I’m sure a lot of people would be happy to go without their cell phones and Twitter for a week, if not longer. 

In terms of business development, Kevin said that if you want to create a clientele, there’s no better way than to Twitter a trial in your field of expertise.  In fact, he mentioned, as had Matt, that a judge had recently allowed the use of Twitter in his courtroom.  (For more information on the ruling, Social Media Law Student blog has this post.)

Part of the appeal of Twitter is its simplicity; check out its website, which lets you set up an account in just a couple of steps.  I’m not on Facebook, but I understand that its sign-up is more cumbersome, and I know from experience that it takes some time to create a profile on LinkedIn.

Once you have your account, you can find people to follow, i.e., receive their Tweets (Twitter updates) on your Twitter home page or on a mobile device using a program like TwitterBerry for a BlackBerry or Tweetie for iPhone.

Then, it’s just a matter of checking in as little or as much as you want. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Stephen D. Rosenberg, who writes the excellent Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog, was kind enough last week to post the materials he presented to a group of pension professionals and actuaries earlier in January.  Stephen's presentation was entitled "ERISA Litigation: An Update from the Front Lines," and it discusses recent developments, including Supreme Court decisions and potential causes of action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The E-Discovery Town Hall presentation yesterday afternoon at LegalTech New York featured questions submitted in advance on YouTube, including one by Cambridge University professor Stephen Hawking.  Here are some of the panelists' introductions and some of the questions, although not Professor Hawking's, unfortunately. 

The panel was moderated by Patrick Oot, director of electronic discovery and senior litigation counsel for Verizon.  The panelists were:

• Browning Marean, a partner at DLA Piper;
• Patrick Zeller, vice-president and deputy general counsel for Guidance Software, Inc.;
• Craig Ball, a lawyer and certified computer forensic expert;
• George Rudoy, director of global practice technology and information services at Shearman & Sterling;
• Ken Withers, director of judicial education and content at the Sedona Conference; and
• Theresa Beaumont, discovery counsel at Google. 

Much of the discussion centered on the costs associated with e-discovery review and production, which can dwarf such costs in conventional, i.e., paper, litigation.  Craig Ball suggested that uncertainty drives decision about data collection, which results in unnecessary costs.  In other words, if you're not sure what your client will need to produce, you may err on the side of including too much information in your review.  He recommended that litigants "push for compulsory collaboration in the data collection process," but that as to evidence preservation issues, "you're on your own."

Craig also recommended the use of special masters.  Their advantage is that they are neutral and technologically savvy and can assist in mediating a settlement where e-discovery costs will be substantial, which seems to be nearly any case involving e-discovery.

Also generating discussion was Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26's meet and confer obligations.  In response to a question about whether there is any standard checklist for the meet and confer, Ken Withers said there is no 3x5 laminated card you can pull out of your pocket and consult, but that certain basic considerations apply in most every case.  

He said that everyone participating in the conference must have a good grasp on his or her client's "data holdings."   He also said that too many lawyers treat the meet and confer obligation as perfunctory, which usually has disastrous results, for the lawyers and the client.

Lastly, the presentation mentioned the conflicts that can develop between clients and their counsel.   Browning Marean pointed out that lawyers need to know the scope of their client's response to discovery.  In e-discovery particularly, where more document review and production can translate into huge sums of money, a client may want to narrow its discovery responses in order to reduce expenses, while its lawyer may view the issue more broadly and recommend -- or insist -- on broader responses.  This conflict can also arise between in-house counsel and outside counsel, and needs to be resolved as soon as possible.

By the way, Professor Hawking's question was whether lawyers could rely on key-word searching in document production; the answer, at least according to Craig Ball, is no, unless the lawyer is also a linguist, statistician, or computer scientist.

The presentation will be available at LegalTech on Demand, which can be accessed on LegalTech.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm attending LegalTech New York 2009, which started this morning and runs through Wednesday afternoon.  

This afternoon I am going to attend two programs: LegalTech E-discovery Town Hall, which will feature an interactive panel of electronic discovery and and legal technology experts who will answer questions submitted in advance via YouTube. 

The other one is What is Twitter and How Can I Use it?, which, as the title suggests, will explain the ins and outs of Twitter, including its application to lawyers and clients.  I don't Twitter (yet), so I'm very interested in the presentation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'll be attending and blogging from the LegalTech New York 2009 seminar in a couple of weeks.  The seminar will take place from February 2-4 at the New York Hilton in New York City.

If you're in the area and want to attend a first-class program with interesting speakers and presentations and plenty of exhibitors, then LegalTech New York is for you.

And for those of you out west, LegalTech West Coast 2009 will be held on June 24-25, 2009 at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

    Subrogation and reimbursement issues, including Medicare and Medicaid liens, arise in an increasing number of cases, and if not handled correctly, can derail a settlement and/or have disastrous consequences for an unwary lawyer.  If you have a personal injury or employee benefits practice, you should consider attending "Liens, Liens & More Liens," a seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar on Friday, May 2, 2008, which will be broadcast live over the Internet starting at 8:55 a.m. EST.  Here is the seminar information.  You can attend a webcast from literally anywhere with an established Internet connection, so it doesn’t get much easier than that.

    I know faculty members Roy Harmon and Rob Hoskins (Roy blogs at www.healthplanlaw.com and Rob was co-counsel for LaRue in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1020 (2008)), and both are well-known and well-respected in the ERISA/employee benefits litigation field. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks