Online Video Can Increase Your Firm's Conversion
LegalBlogWatch recently discussed the benefits of video as a means of promoting your law firm. The post referenced a Findlaw study indicating that the average consumer visits 4.8 websites before choosing an attorney, but that the average drops to 1.8 when the attorney uses video on his site.
It's easy to understand why that might be the case: video sets you apart, gives you an opportunity to share your expertise with the prospective client in a way that's easy for him to digest, and is more personal than the written word. A consumer who watches you or a member of your firm on video comes away feeling like he "knows" you in a way that he can't from simply reading an article.
And, of course, video is simply an increasingly popular medium on the web. The major search engines have added specific video search functions, and those features are seeing heavy action…and YouTube tells us that it's serving up more than 100 million videos a day. In short: a huge sector of your potential client base is watching videos on the web.
The LegalBlogWatch post points out that many attorneys don't like seeing law firm videos. That may be because many law firm videos aren't created as artfully and effectively as they could be—in today's Kevin's Corner, we'll give you some tips for creating good, effective video for your firm. But whatever the reason, those other attorneys aren't your market—and all indications are that the consumers who make up that market feel differently.
Because most firms aren't yet using online video, the medium provides an excellent opportunity to boost your marketing success and connect with an untapped audience.
Increase in Collection Litigation Puts Debtors at Risk
Mainstream news outlets across the country are reporting on "zombie debt"—debt that just won't die. It's no surprise to us; for years we've been seeing clients in our offices who have been hounded into making payment arrangements on debts that were no longer legally valid, or hearing from post-bankruptcy clients whose creditors were barely slowed down by the bankruptcy discharge that rendered their claims uncollectible.
Recently, however, tough economic times have brought a new twist to the old game—and it's one that means higher stakes and more hassles for your post-bankruptcy clients. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune provides a look inside what's happened to one court system as debt collectors gear up to file suit against…well…pretty much everyone.
In the Cook County Circuit Court, debtor lawsuits have approximately doubled over the past two years, a trend that's reflected across the country. Of course, the increase in suits is burdening court systems, but the real risk is to debtors—or alleged debtors. With the high volume of cases moving forward and the number of departments and collection agencies and debt purchasers through which many of these debts have passed, there are bound to be mistakes. And, of course, there are always those collectors and debt purchasers who aren't quite so scrupulous about whether or not a debt is actually valid.
The good news (for the bad guys) is that those invalid debts—debts discharged in bankruptcy or expired or sometimes even paid—can be converted to current judgments with the flick of a pen if the alleged debtor doesn't show up in court.
While in some regards this is an old story, the recent proliferation of resurrected debt and the trend toward moving much more quickly toward legal action means that it's increasingly important to put our clients on notice that collection efforts may well continue after bankruptcy, and that swift action is required if they receive a summons on a discharged debt.
DUI Lawyers Fighting Back
Over the past few years, we've all witnessed and seen our clients affected by the efforts to "get tough on DUI." Despite sporadic and inefficient enforcement of laws already on the books, thousands of unserved warrants in DUI cases, and the high incidence of cases in which court-ordered ignition interlock devices are simply never installed, legislatures across the country seem to keep thinking that a new law will change everything. Or, perhaps, that it will make them look "tough on crime."
Thus, we've seen new provisions for forcible blood draws, the creation of "extreme" DUI charges for higher BAC levels, an increase in the use (or at least, the ordered use) of ignition interlock devices, and more.
In Arizona, DUI lawyers are fighting back, and the state legislature was quick to take notice. Although some lawmakers publicly stated that they were confident that the law would hold up, anyone playing a role in DUI legislation and prosecution is surely conscious of the complications, slow-downs, and outright dismissals brought about when courts in multiple states addressed the issue of breathalyzer source code disclosure.
In this case, quick action by the legislature and the Arizona governor may have rendered this challenge moot; a bill signed by Governor Janet Napolitano this week will resolve two conflicting provisions in the statute, possibly resolving the source of the vagueness that formed the basis for the Constitutional challenge.
Regardless of the outcome in this particular case, it's another example of the importance of dissecting DUI laws and hitting hard. Recent experience has shown that in their haste to push through tougher bills, legislatures are getting sloppy with DUI law—and that courts are not afraid to call them on it if we make the right arguments before them. In a sense, the frenzy to create newer and tougher drunk driving laws is an advantage to us and our clients: the days of well-settled DUI law are gone in many states, at least for the time being, and the field is wide open with new opportunities to fight back.
Supreme Court Upholds Child Pornography Provision
Last month, the United States Supreme Court upheld PROTECT Act provisions criminalizing the promotion of child pornography. The Act has a tangled Constitutional history: it was enacted in part to replace federal child pornography provisions struck down by the Supreme Court four years ago, and had recently been declared unconstitutional by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
At issue was the fact that the statute may impose criminal penalties for soliciting or advertising materials that are not illegal to possess. That's because it's illegal under the Act to offer child pornography even if you don't really have it, or are trying to pass off something computer generated or filmed with young-looking adult actors as child pornography. The 11th Circuit deemed that unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court opinion pointed to extensive precedent for the idea that not only the sale of illegal goods but also fraudulent offers for the sale of illegal goods could be punished under the law.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, relying on a 2002 ruling that possession of material that purported to be child pornography but was actually computer-generated material or merely involved youthful-looking adult actors could not be criminalized. Souter's dissenting opinion argues that rendering it unlawful to solicit a transaction which is not in itself unlawful creates a tension that undermines the protections maintained by earlier rulings which distinguished actual child pornography from virtual or adult-actor materials because the interest in protecting children from the abuse and exploitation necessary to create actual child pornography was not at stake where actual children were not involved.
The majority, however, reads the statute to clearly apply only to cases in which the defendant intended to convey the impression that actual child pornography was being offered, and asserts that this requirement protects many that advocacy groups (and the dissent) suggest could be affected by the statute, such as mainstream movie distributors and grandparents.
While it remains to be seen exactly how far prosecutors will go in attempting to apply the statute and what other challenges may arise, the Supreme Court's clear and aggressive explication on the required intent will provide a solid basis for argument against expanded application of the statutory provision.
Drug Settlements Keeping Prices, Profits High
The basic message has been clear for some time: pharmaceutical companies are not our friends. As lawsuits uncover incidences of drug company executives consciously putting patients at risk in the name of maximizing profits and the U.S. Supreme Court tells us that FDA approval of medical devices means that state courts are powerless to protect their citizens, that much is clear.
It seems, however, that the well of abuses is bottomless. A recent report by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicates that "pay-for-delay" settlements proliferated in 2007, with 14 cases in which a generic drug company was financially compensated in exchange for an agreement not to launch or sponsor an approved generic drug that would have competed with the branded company's product. Nineteen other settlements took slightly different forms.
That means no competition, and higher prices for consumers.
The FTC has attempted to block such agreements, but has been thwarted, and since two appellate courts ruled similar agreements legal in 2005, the number of such settlements occurring each year has increased dramatically. In 2005, there were only three such agreements.
Earlier this year, the FTC sued Cephalon, Inc., alleging that the Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company acted illegally when it paid four generic drug companies a total of more than $200 million to abandon patent challenges and agree not to market generic versions of the drug Provigil until at least 2012.
Because of the regulatory scheme surrounding the approval of new drugs, these four "first-filers" must either relinquish marketing exclusivity or one of them must enter the market before any other company can market a generic equivalent. As such, the agreement with these four companies has effectively locked out any competition until 2012.
Cephalon argues that the agreement was a perfectly legal settlement of patent litigation. If that view prevails, we can expect to see more agreements that line the pockets of multiple drug companies at consumers' expense. While the generic drug manufacturers may be fairly compensated in these agreements, they entirely undermine the intent of the patent and approval scheme that allows generic manufacturers to enter the market: the benefit of competition for consumers.
Kevin's Corner
Connecting with Your Future Clients through Video
"It stands to reason that letting prospective clients see a face and hear a voice does more to instill confidence and invite further inquiry, but you may find yourself wondering how to create videos that are informative, professional, and still engaging enough to hold your future clients' interest.
"One key is keeping videos short. While most of us could talk for hours about the finer points of our areas of expertise, we all know that most people don't find statutes and case precedent scintillating—they simply want to know how the law is going to affect them. When we create videos for the Total sites, we generally keep them under 90 seconds.
"Creating bite-sized clips that speak directly to consumer concerns furthers your interests as well. It helps prospective clients see that you understand the issues that are most important to them, that you have the knowledge necessary to address their legal concerns, and that you've taken the time and trouble to break it down and make it accessible for people like them.
"It's easy to think purely in terms of information when you create a video, but it's important to think beyond the substance to the needs of your prospective viewers, just as you think of those needs when speaking with a potential client on the telephone or meeting with a client for the first time. Be open and conversational; let the consumer know that you're not just an expert but someone who understands his concerns and wants to help him. This is your opportunity to make a connection before you ever even meet your future client.
"And once you have those powerful videos online, don't forget to promote them. Just placing them on your website is a benefit and a selling point for those clients and potential clients who already know about and visit your site, but the use of popular video outlets like YouTube can help spread the word even further, drawing consumers who might otherwise never have known you were out there."
- Kevin Chern is President of Total Attorneys and a Law Practice Management Consultant to more than 700 law firms throughout the country.
Military Deployment Complicates Custody Law
Kansas last month joined the growing number of states revising custody laws to make special provisions for the children of military personnel who are called up for active duty. While the mainstream news has been full of tear-jerker stories about parents who lost custody due to circumstances beyond their control—such as being shipped off to Iraq—the underlying issue is much more nuanced. While it seems unfair that a parent can lose custody for simply doing his duty and serving his country, we all know that the purpose of custody laws is generally not to make sure parents are treated fairly. On the contrary, the job of the family court is to endeavor to make decisions in the best interests of the children.
Since consistency and stability have traditionally been key factors in assessing the best interests of the children, it's difficult to see how a parent being deployed for active duty might not be a factor in determining custody.
The Kansas law appears to make an effort to balance those issues, mandating that divorced or separated parents establish a parenting plan when one parent receives military deployment, mobilization, temporary duty orders, or unaccompanied tour. Where a custody change is necessary, the law makes it a part of the court record that the change was based purely on military orders and not reflective of the soldier's fitness as a parent. It also includes provisions for visitation with the absent spouse's family and states that any custody order entered under these provisions be temporary.
In practical effect, though, it's uncertain how much weight that "temporary" designation will carry. After all, the disruption to the children who are asked to move and then move again six months or a year later—just as they've adjusted to new homes and new schools—won't be mitigated by the fact that the order was never made permanent. While the outlining of the parenting plan in advance and the guarantee of contact with the absent spouse's family may help to ease the stress on families, judges will find themselves facing very similar issues when it comes to the impact the absence and associated instability has on the children.
Your Sponsor Advocate Team
A Special Thanks & Farewell to Tressa DiGiulio
While we typically use this space in the newsletter each month to detail specific ways in which you can work more efficiently in your TA account, this month is a bit different as it will be Senior Sponsor Advocate Tressa DiGiulio's last newsletter with Total Attorneys.
Tressa and her husband Don will be moving back to her hometown of Pittsburgh on June 18th to further pursue opportunities with their theatre company, the No Name Players.
Best wishes to Tressa and her husband as they continue to pursue their passions for acting and producing, and thanks to Tressa for all of her input, help and availability in shaping this newsletter during the last nine months.
If you'd like to send Tressa any farewell wishes, feel free to drop her a line at tressa@infra-strategy.com.
While Tressa's tireless work ethic and positive attitude will truly be missed, we are happy to announce that Sponsor Advocate Beth Bond will be stepping into a new role as Manager of the Sponsor Advocate team.
Beth and Tressa actually started their careers with Total Attorneys on the same day, and we are more than confident that Beth will continue to build on the foundation of outstanding customer service that Tressa established as a calling card of the Sponsor Advocate Team.
Highly recommended by Tressa to take over the reins of the Sponsor Advocate Team, Beth may be reached by telephone at (312) 753-6911 or by email bbond@infra-strategy.com.
With Beth's promotion, we would like to introduce you to the newest member of the Sponsor Advocate team, Rebeca Avila.
Prior to becoming a Sponsor Advocate, Rebeca previously worked as a call center agent in our communications department, where she helped connect contacts to your offices.
When you have the time to speak with Rebeca, please welcome her as you'll find her a very capable addition to the Sponsor Advocate team consisting of Susaan Jamshidi and Beth.
Thanks and see you next month with a new tip on working in your TA account.
