Legal IT Blog

What Google Wave Needs

2009-12-01T13:32:00.002-06:00

OK, I made a long post on what I've seen wrong in Google Wave, now I'm going to attempt to briefly outline what needs to be done to make Google Wave a success.

1. Ownership and permissions. There must be a true and granular security model, so that content can be secured and protected. The current "everyone is an admin" model for Waves just won't work. No one is going to adopt a system where that not only lose control of what happens to the content, but they even lack the ability to truly preserve what they put out there for collaboration. Without a concept of Wave ownership and granular permissions there's no point in doing anything else. So get this done or can the project...

2. Integrate the full breadth of Google apps. Going into the "premeire" Google collaboration application and discovering that there is no way to readily use Google Docs, PicasaWeb photos or Google Voice services immediately suggests this product lacks real vision and scope. Google Docs is only a start, as nice as it is for simple documents or spreadsheets, there's still a lot of core functions it can't do, so integrating the Microsoft apps is going to be necessary to really reach into the corporate markets that could really make this a success. But discovering that Google Wave doesn't even work with Google Docs? That creates the immediate impression that this isn't a serious collaboration platform that any business user would find useful.

3. I realize the vision is that this "replaces" e-mail. Instead of having an e-mail client open on their desktop all day (or in addition) they will have Google Wave open at all times. I understand that vision. But, that's not going to happen overnight. And if it is ever going to happen, Google Wave has to start out by making it easy to reach out and pull people into the environment. Right now you can jump through some hoops to find a robot that will send out notices when a Wave is updated. This can't be an option, it needs to be a default component that is quick and easy enable on any Wave, it's going to take Wave prompting people to come back for people to develop the habit of going to it regularly and eventually running it constantly.

4. And it needs to be painlessly simple for someone to add someone to a Wave that doesn't already have a Google Wave account, and equally painless for that new person to access the Waves they are added to. If you're going to make people jump through hoops creating accounts it's easier for them to just e-mail it. Look at the "success" of secure file transfer services, deal rooms, and other online collaboration services. Even in the case of secure file transfer services, where security is a driver, you tell someone they need to sign-up for an account (even if it is free) and the most common response is going to be "I don't have time for that, just e-mail it to me," "Why don't you just upload it to my FTP site," or find another way that makes use of something I already have in place and don't need to spend time setting up.

Google Wave

2009-12-01T12:35:00.002-06:00

Last week I finally got into the Google Wave beta and have had some time to get familiar and test it out. At this point, my opinion is that it has a LONG way to go before it is a tool I would use for ANYTHING other than just goofing around.

Looking at what it can do and the possible uses it's got enormous potential, but right now it has too many glaring flaws that render it nearly unusable. Here are a few of the highlights (or lowlights...)

1. There is no concept of ownership or true permissions. Once I add some to a Wave, give them permission to see the Wave, I have given them full administrator level access to the Wave. They can add others to the Wave, they can edit or delete anything in the Wave. Not just what they've added, but what anyone else has added. There is no capability to limit some users to read-only, to allow them to only contribute new items and edit their own items. Once someone has access they can do anything they desire. And given they can add anyone else with the same access without any oversight, it's mind bogglingly dangerous to consider using this for any communication of value.

2. To make matters worse, there is no capability for removing someone from a Wave. Once someone is granted permission to a Wave, it's permanent. And adding a person to a Wave is a one-step process without any confirmation. So, mistakenly add someone to a Wave, and it's impossible to remove them.

3. Strangely a Wave itself cannot be deleted. That is to say, the container/subject once created will always exist. Sure you can move it to Trash, but Trash is never emptied. What makes this stranger is that the content of a Wave isn't quite as permanent. There is a delete option for that which deletes the content (and anyone with access can do that...) Although, the "playback" function provides some form of permanence to all content, it seems it's either buggy or subject to some rules I don't yet understand as in testing there have been numerous circumstances where I post a blip, someone else responds to or even edits that blip, then at a later point someone deletes the blip and while playback will note those stages where the item was created, edited, and/or replied to, the playback won't display the actual item that was logged.

Combine these 3 items together and I can't see anything of consequence that I would use Wave for. Having no control over any aspect of the conversation or content is unacceptable for any product uses.

Additionally, at this stage there are several other glaring concerns.

1. It seems entirely bizarre that there is still no integration with other Google apps. The ability to combine Google Docs, Picasaweb, and Google Voice with a Wave seems blatantly obvious and would logically be one of the first things to implement in a product like this (right after an ownership/permissions model). But, after reading through their support forums it seems like it's not even on their list of priorities. (I find it unbelievable that when people request Google Docs integration or a permissions model that the response is "submit a feature request" it seems ridiculous that this hasn't been part of their internal design plan since day one.)

2. Extensions, bots, and the really useful features are simply to complicated to implement for the standard user. Between bots, extensions and gadgets, so far I've counted no fewer than 4 ways to "install" or access these types of functions. And none of them are readily apparent or accessible. I'm really hoping this is just a part of the beta process and that the intent is to condense all this into a single process and to provide a centralize repository for finding and installing these components similar to the simple, standardized, one-stop shopping you'll find when it comes to Firefox add-ons. It's beta, so I can give it a pass on this and assume they intend to simplify this and make it accessible to any user, not just a certified computer geek like me. But...

I see a lot of potential if this is properly developed. But when I look at the things that are missing, things that seem so obviously necessary or logical and yet the developers seem to be indicating weren't even in the back of their mind when they started this project, it concerns me.

Lastly, the other problem I see is nothing in the design, but may be the most significant problem. That is getting people to use this. Today people use e-mail for everything, this is sort of aimed at replacing a lot of the things e-mail is used for today. But in the past 10 years I've seen countless other alternatives for e-mail surface. Instant Messaging, Blogs, Forums, SharePoint Collaboration spaces, Deal Rooms, Web workspaces, web conferencing, etc. And while you'll certainly find niche groups that use one or more of these, you'll always find that there are a signficant number of people that want to use an alternative similar solution that isn't compatible with your choice, or they choose to use e-mail to avoid the compatibility or learning curve issues.

Beta testing this has been a bit of a chore, because it's a collaborative tool. You need to get others to work with you to put it through it's paces. You can't do it alone. And as a limited beta it's hard to get the critical mass of people you know together working in Wave to see what it is and isn't capable of. When this goes live, it will need to get everyone to use it like e-mail for it to work, as in when people think about communicating or working together this will need to be one of the tools that immediately pop into mind, like e-mail does today, and it will need to be kept open and accessible all the time like e-mail today. No one has succeeded in supplanting e-mail as the go to communication application, the always on tool that we immediately think of, even those that have come close (like IM) find themselves limited by their proprietary or closed designs. Email is a standard, you don't have to buy a server and client from Microsoft, SMTP is standardized and there are many vendors ranging in price from free to thousands of dollars and you can choose to host your own or let someone else host with the same variance in price points. And you have the same flexibility in your e-mail client. But if someone chooses to IM through AOL, and you chose MSN, one of you has to make a significant change or commit to two apps and two accounts to work together. Wave you're going to have to get everyone to sign up for a Google Account and log-in to Google to get the ubiquitous usage necessary to challenge e-mail. And if it doesn't challenge seriously challenge e-mail as a "go to" tool, it's going to be just another niche like blogs, forums, SharePoint, IM, etc...

Not against improving e-mail standards...

2009-06-26T13:07:00.003-05:00

But saw someone Twitter this "campaign" attacking Microsoft for their decision to continue using Word as the e-mail editor/renderer in the next version of Office. The instant take-away is that people are upset MS is choosing to use Word as the editor/renderer, if you dig into Home Email Standards Project's website you find that they're not so much against the use of Word as they are wanting MS to better adhere to web standards when editting and rendering e-mail.

So for starters, it'd be nice to actually see the "knowledgable" people tweeting and fueling this campaign making sure people are actually on the same page, asking MS to adhere to standards and not just getting themselves wrapped around the axle about the use of Word as the editor.

Secondly, I'm not going to get too worked up about this issue and I'd advise those jumping on the bandwagon to consider who is behind this campaign. The domain for the project was registered by Createsend.com and Campaignmonitor.com appears to be closely associated with the origin of this movement as well. So, it appears this movement is being created and fueled by the people that enable so many organizations to fill your mailbox with newsletters, alerts and the multitude of other commericial marketing e-mails that fill all too many of our mailboxes. In other words, it's very likely that signing onto this campaign you're jumping on the same boat with spammers. Sure, all of us that work in corporate America use, need or benefit from marketing and e-mail marketing. It's not just an annoyance to us when we receive it, but it is a "tool" most of us use or benefit from when used to gain business for our organization. But, honestly, when's the last time you met someone that liked how many commerical e-mails they are subjected to?

While we may use it and benefit from it, the more common and stronger feeling is that we all hate spam and few distinguish between Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) and "solicited" commercial e-mail. With rare exception, the newsletters, alerts, ads and coupons we receive in e-mail are called spam just like the porn, viagara, and "self-help" promises we recieve. For that reason, I'm not jumping on this "campaign". And I'd urge you to consider whether you want to be endorsing a petition being made by the people that enable the "spamming" of your e-mail account.

Update/Clarification: The original Tweeter was not directly jumping on the "Use of Word is bad" bandwagon, though their tweet was a bit unclear. However, when you read many of the tweets in support of the linked website, you find a lot are opposing the use of Word and not understanding the actual point of wanting adherence to Standards...

Working with Windows 7

2009-06-24T12:26:00.004-05:00

For the past 3 weeks I've been doing some preliminary testing of Windows 7, running it as my only OS in the office. And to this point, I'm pleasantly surprised with the results. We never made the leap to Windows Vista. We did a lot of work to try and prepare a desktop image using Windows 7, getting all our applications, drivers, services, add-ons, macros and templates updated to support Vista. Building new GPO's to support Vista, doing some initial pilot testing, but we never reached the point where Vista was going to work for us. Printer driver issues, UAC issues (we ultimately decided to disable UAC), difficulty in managing Vista's configuration enterprise-wide, etc. led us to delay upgrading from XP.

But so far with Windows 7, I'm excited. My initial install consisted of Win 7, Office 2007, our macro/template package (MacPac), Workshare Professional, DTE, Adobe, NetDocuments EMS, ViewMail for Outlook (a unified messaging addon), and Symantec Vault's add-on for Outlook. The first thing I tested was our biggest headache with Vista: Printing. I installed multiple printers, various models of HP LaserJets and Xerox WorkCentres, and to my delight the drivers installed flawlessly and printing worked without any coaxing, cajoling, or time spent locating new drivers. It isn't hyperbole to say I was shocked.

In my office I have a Dell desktop and a Lenovo Thinkpad, both of which I installed Windows 7 on (I didn't leave myself an XP safety net, I jumped into the deep-end, feet first) and I was equally surprised to see that Windows 7 recognized all the hardware on both platforms. I wasn't too surprised with the desktop, but the laptop? Without installing any custom drivers or going to any added effort, Windows 7 automatically recognized my laptop's bluetooth card AND fingerprint reader and built right into the OS is support for using the fingerprint reader. While I'm not 100% satisfied with their implementation of this feature (you have to press CTL+ALT+DEL prior to scanning your finger, Lenovo's software on XP and Vista allows you to just scan the finger without pressing CTL+ALT+DEL first, a minor annoyance I know...) the fact that without going to any extra efforts to download and install drivers all my hardware works is refreshing and promises to make managing our enterprise significantly easier.

I started out using Paul Thurrott's excellent Windows 7 Feature reviews to guide my exploration of the environment. I can't say I've found a lot of features and functions that are going to be great for user productivity or enhance our attorneys' or secretaries' ability to serve their clients. But it's definitely a slicker, cleaner UI and has a lot of nice little tweaks built in like "Aero Snaps" and "Aero Peek". I will also say that despite Paul's negative spin on the new task bar, I'm finding I like the new functionality it offers. It's taking some getting used to, but I've quickly reached the point where I prefer it to XP and Vista's taskbar, but YMMV.

Testing of applications, to this point, has been mostly positive. Office 2007, of course, works flawlessly and our MacPac build for Vista with Office 2007 appears to be fully compatible with Windows 7/Office 2007. The only real issues I've had have been with the View Mail and Symantec Vault add-ons for Outlook. They have a tendency to cause Outlook to crash or to prevent Outlook from shutting-down properly. But, to be entirely honest, that's been a problem with those add-ons in every version of Windows and Office.

Overall performance, stability and reliability have been very positive. And, really, the biggest complaint I've had so far is with UAC. It doesn't nag and interrupt nearly as much as it did in Vista, but I'm still running into the same problem that ultimately pushed us over the edge with Vista: Some websites that have ActiveX controls, every page load will spawn multiple UAC prompts to run the page's controls. Every single page loaded that contains an ActiveX control will prompt once per ActiveX control. Our Intranet is one example of this problem, having 4 ActiveX controls that appear on every page, every attempt to navigate the site is hindered by 4 UAC prompts. Hopefully we'll find a way to correct this annoying behavior on Windows 7, but the only solution we ever found when testing Vista was to disable UAC entirely.

Given the need to train users on a new version of Office, numerous changes to other applications, as well as the new Aero UI (they're still using Windows XP, remember?) it's doubtful we'll move to Windows 7 this year, as the budget probably won't allow us to travel and conduct the training necessary. However, if our testing continues to be as positive as the early going, I'm sure we'll make the move as early as the budget will allow.

Contemplations on Twitter

2009-05-27T11:13:00.004-05:00

This morning's Twitter "debate" on the value of Twitter to law firms has my mind stuck on the question of whether Twitter is a tool worth pursuing here. A tweet from Matt Homann generated an immediate response in my mind of "but you're not representing a law firm so your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to the discussion." That got me thinking a bit more about the situation with Twitter, my experiences, and whether it is viable for a law firm like the one that employs me.

It occurred to me, that the people I follow are people that will tweet items of interest to me. While my follow list includes a number of lawyers, I don't follow lawyers that tweet about their areas of practice. I have no interest in the legal discussions that might interest the potential clients of our firm, my work does not involve finding legal representation. I follow lawyers that talk about technology. And those lawyers, their Tweeting, isn't going to draw them any business if they actually practice law. Though a lawyer like Mr. Homann, that speaks about innovation and using technology with law, sure he might attract some business. But he's speaking about a subject that is evolving rapidly, there is plenty "new" activity and opportunity for learning and discussion to allow frequent tweeting without seeming like forced marketing or repetitive "look at me" antics. Maybe our lawyers can find that kind of flux that will lead to natural tweeting on their area of expertise, tweets people will be interested in following. But I think some practices will be terrible fits for Twitter and quickly be seen as adding no value and following those lawyers will be akin to voluntarily submitting one's self to spam.

As an IT professional, more of my following has been related to following those I already do business with. Another way of keeping up with vendors and consultants that I already rely on. In those scenarios it's not a relationship creation tool, it's a tool to maintain existing relationships. I do follow a few potential vendors, competitors of products I currently use, etc. But rarely do I do that because I'm actually considering going to them, typically it tends to be simply because they offer free content through their feed that I find useful and it avoids me having to sign-up for updates on their website and then be bothered by their account/sales reps. Maybe I'm in the minority on that, but if I'm not, it really underscores the questioning of the value of Twitter...

Another blog post this afternoon discusses this weekend's commentary as being based on a false argument of Twitter being a win or lose tool. I think that post raises a valid point regarding social media. I don't think we're going to see a lot of these tools have direct, measurable results like mailings, client alerts, or other forms of marketing and advertisement. What I think the social media/networking tools do is help build and maintain relationships that might add names to contact lists and lead to social connections that later lead to business. I have no doubt that social media and social networking will prove to be valuable tools for our attorneys to grow and maintain their client lists. Just as it's unquestionable that being involved in civic and social organizations, attending social events, and getting to now more people in social venues can lead to more business, I think social networking and media builds similar ties and relationships that lead to business. However, thus far, my observations with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social media is that social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are far more casual and their asynchronous nature allows one to use the sites occasionally, while Twitter being more synchronous and interactive requires more constant attention, presence and activity to really be of use, additionally, the signal-to-noise ratio on Twitter seems to be far lower, and there are few options for filtering out or avoiding the static that Twitter seems to encourage.

If you're a blogger and 50% of your posts are of interest to me, I can consume that 50% and engage in the conversation via RSS without being troubled by the 50% of posts and comments that have no interest for me. But with Twitter, if I find 50% of what you post interesting, I have to wade through 100% of your postings AND 100% of the replies to your tweets. That can lead to a lot of needless noise...

I've been on Twitter for nearly a year now. Almost exclusively a lurker, a follower, only posting a few times to try it out from the web site and from my mobile device. In that time Twitter has really exploded. In the first couple of months it was pretty useless, unless what people were eating for lunch had some value I missed. It then evolved to where a few people were mixing in valuable tweets with the mundane, and for awhile it started to have some value. But now? With the explosion of the service, the twitter feed can roll past so quickly it's information overload, and when one starts to realize just how many Tweets are of limited or no value compared to the rare gems? It's hard to view Twitter as having a future as an effective business tool.

The way I'm seeing it right now trying to use Twitter for business purposes is a lot like trying to do my job sitting at the bar of an ILTA conference. Sure, I'll make some contacts, I'll get some occasional nuggets of value. But I'll spend a lot of time being non-productive or inefficient. Going to ILTA once a year, going to local social events a couple times a month, participating in local social/professional organizations weekly, with limited time commitments? That can be very valuable and efficient. But going to work everyday and sitting at the bar? It's just not efficient and at this point that seems to be the direction Twitter is headed. A lot of loud voices, talking about a lot of topics, some interesting, others mundane, and no way to really filter out the nonsense.

Quick Follow-up to My Twitter Post

2009-05-27T10:51:00.003-05:00

As I was typing that up, Kevin O'Keefe tweeted "Twitter ROI? Senior partner in major law firm asks me to speak to corp clients in 2 cities on what I do & becoming LB client". That's a bit of anecdotal evidence of the value of Twitter. However, in contemplating the worth of this bit of anecdotal evidence I'm led to construct an analogy.

A lawyer or marketing professional can certainly go sit at a bar or restaurant all day, every day and do their work while socializing and striking up relationships. But are they going to be as effective at all aspects of their job distracted by the TV, the music, the non-business conversations? Are they in the best place for reaching the best range and depth of clients that will be good for their business? Twitter strikes me as a bar or social scene, where there are a lot of distractions and the audience is pretty unpredictable, arbitrary, and/or flittering in and out. Sure, you will occasionally strike up the conversation that leads to new business or results in a relationship that is helpful down the road, but is it really sound business practice to sit in the bar or at social events all day? And, while attending social events for business purposes has legitimacy and socializing at bars or restaurants can have serendipitous results, those "methods" or marketing are effective without devoting constant resources or attention to them. You don't have to go to social events every day and interupt work to benefit from that source of potential business. But is Twitter effective if you don't really devote significant, regular time to Tweeting and interacting?

Is Twitter an Effective Tool for Law Firm Marketing?

2009-05-27T10:33:00.002-05:00

Over the holiday weekend Larry Bodine, Esq. posted to the Law Marketing Portal asserting that Twitter is not effective for law firm marketing. This morning a minor fire-storm erupted on Twitter when this article was tweeted. With the limitations of Twitter (140 characters) the responses were little more than "He's right" or "He's wrong" with nothing to substantiate their position. Me? I'm on the fence.

The initial link posted is a summary of Larry's opinion, that Twitter doesn't work. That summary contains a link to the extended article that supports his position (the article I linked above is the full article.) In that article he prevents hard facts and statistics about Twitter retention rates and statistics on how effective Twitter is seen when it comes to actually generating new business, as well as numerous other data points on use and value of social networking in general.

His article also addresses some of the dangers of Twitter, not simply the legal concerns about liability, confidentiality, unintentional establishment of attorney-client relationships, or ethics, (all quite valid considerations) but also other concerns regarding the nature of Twitter that can be addictive, requiring frequent attention which can be counter-productive, and often branching out into exchanges completely unprofessional or lacking in any redeeming business value.

I find his observations, statistics and comments interesting, I do stop short of completely writing off Twitter, however my discussions with the attorneys and potential clients that would use and give Twitter value as a tool reflect his article and to this point I have yet to see anyone present any case-study, anecdotal evidence, or argument to counter Mr. Bodine's arguments which are the hurdles to acceptance.

My experience with Twitter has been that some organizations and personalities make good use of Twitter.

Software companies announcing new products, new features, or webinars will sometimes catch my attention in the Twitter feed where their e-mail would have been quickly dismissed. At the same time, if they make the announcement during a period I'm away from Twitter I rarely go back through more than the last 10-20 Tweets after a time away from the Twitter feed. And that kind of plays into Mr. Bodine's point about Twitter requiring attentiveness. I don't give it constant attention, it would be counter-productive for me to do so. And in the same way many of us find it more efficient to conduct most of our business discussions via asynchronous e-mail versus spending the entirety of our day in conference rooms or on conference calls, I think Twitter is a more synchronous inefficient business tool, while blogs, LinkedIn, Facebook, e-mail and websites are more in-tune with the asynchronous ways we prefer to maximize our productivity.

I also find bloggers and news sites to have some of the most effective Tweets. They will lure me to their site posting quick announcements of new blog entries or of breaking news. However, once again it requires attentiveness. And an RSS feed or simply making a daily habit of checking all my sites and blogs of interest interrupts my productivity less and fits better with the asynchronous style of communication much better.

I don't think any of this completely dismisses Twitter as a useful tool. But I do think it's operates within a narrow band. I am open to counter-arguments, I'm still trying to get a firm grasp on the tool and how it might be useful for a law firm's business, but beyond the above mentioned effective uses the single most valuable usage I have seen has been for "live blogging" of events. Someone reporting from a conference, news event or press conference giving minute-by-minute updates. That can certainly be interesting and grab my attention. However, it's more of an instant gratification value. The same information could be just as effectively, if not more effectively, conveyed via a blog post. With the added advantage being that the reader does not need to devote real-time attention to the event.

I'm sure there may be areas of law that can really use Twitter as a marketing tool. However, it seems to me that Twitter's effectiveness is largely based on the volatility of the information. Technology news is highly volatile, but the practice of law? While some areas are volatile and you might be able to get attention and draw interest of potential clients by Tweeting about the dynamics of the practice, it seems that most areas lack the volatility to really create an effective Twitter following.

I think, for a law firm or lawyer that is blogging or otherwise actively using the Internet as an effective marketing tool that it can't hurt to use Twitter as another route to reaching people and drawing them to the content your are posting to the internet. Particularly when you can use automated tools or quick methods of Tweeting in conjuction with posting elsewhere. However, that won't contribute to a lasting model for Twitter. Twitter does seem to require interaction, back-and-forth, active discussion to differentiate it from other Web 2.0 options like blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn, or RSS feeds. At some point, it may find its niche. However, right now, Mr. Bodine has effectively summarized a lot of the points of resistance. The objections or hurdles to be overcome. Simply Tweeting "He's wrong" isn't what's needed. Solid counter-arguments, valid business models, real ROI that shows the time spent on Twitter is more effective than time spent on other marketing methods and that Twitter can be effective without demanding so much attention that it detracts from productively practicing law or marketing via other channels as well, that is what is needed right now.

Social Networking and Strategy

2009-05-20T15:02:00.003-05:00

DuoConsulting raises an excellent point about the need for a law firm to think about strategy in conjunction with social media policy. In all the talk about the value of social networking for law firms, it does seem that a lot of the discussion starts from a position lacking in strategic vision. That makes it near impossible to craft a meaningful, effective policy or approach.

Firms definitely need to identify what their marketing and business development strategy is. And they need to consider how social networking and media can contribute to that strategy. They also need to consider how it can compromise the strategy. Lastly, they need to determine what they are hoping to accomplish through any policies or initiatives related to social networking.

The draft policies for social networking that I have read so far do not seem to have entirely figured out what they are hoping to accomplish. In some cases they appear to give every individual at a firm free-reign to manipulate the firm's image to their individual liking. In other cases they seem to lay down such stringent guidelines that an employee can't have a personal Facebook account and share their lives with friends and family if any google search *might* turn up an association between the employee and employer, and expressly bar them from listing their employer in the profile information. Frequently, it appears that the flaws in policy or approach are rooted in a lack of strategy or thinking on a broader scope. They are knee-jerk approaches thrown together with minimal thought to the ripple effects or implications.

As a side note, I'm also a bit concerned about DuoConsulting's note about metrics. Undoubtedly, a firm could establish some criteria for quantifying and measuring the results of social networking. However, I'm not sure that it's possible to quantify at a meaningful level. I suppose, I'm a bit concerned that in this day and age of instant gratification, the quantifiers that will focus to heavily on immediate ROI per blog post or Status Update and pay too little attention to the long-term relationship building that is where I see social networking having the most to offer. I'm not opposed to quantifying and establishing metrics for validating ROI, I'm just concerned that this method of marketing and business development may be evaluated incorrectly using short-term metrics or metrics that try to associate direct contact with results, when there's sure to be a greater long-tail or long-term benefit than direct or short-term results.

Email Management Tips

2009-05-20T14:47:00.001-05:00

How to Keep Your Email Inbox Under Control - David Silverman - HarvardBusiness.org

Nothing revolutionary or new, but a good approach to share with those still struggling with 1000+ messages in their inbox or 2GB mailboxes.

Companies Want to Monitor Workers on Social Networks - BusinessWeek

2009-05-20T14:27:00.001-05:00

Companies Want to Monitor Workers on Social Networks - BusinessWeek

So many challenges to developing a strategy and policy regarding social networking. To what degree should a firm or organization monitor or direct usage of sites like Facebook or Twitter? When actively a part of the organization's business model the case becomes clearer, but what about a blog like this?

I do acknowledge who I work for and my role in that organization, how far should we go in limiting activity like this? What about my Facebook page, which lists my employer and shows me as a member of that network, my focus on Facebook is entirely personal, only friends have access to my Wall, Info and Status. But, some of my friends do come from my professional life, kind of hard to spend 13 years at the same law firm working in technology and not end up having real friends that started as vendors, peers at other firms, or were staff or attorneys here and are now at other firm's or organizations. Is my name, associated with my firm's name on my Facebook profile/bio a legitimate concern to the firm?

It's complicated...

Mobile Device Etiquette

2009-05-20T12:49:00.006-05:00

I admit, I'm sometimes guilty of using my Blackberry at times others may not appreciate. And I've been known to where my bluetooth earpiece unnecessarily, more a consequence of me not remembering I'm wearing it (I've worn glasses all my life and just don't notice the device on my ear) than it is any ulterior motive.

However, Legal Ease Conulting's "Blackberry Behavior - Is it Ruining Your Reputation?" is a good reminder for everyone with a mobile device on how a mobile device can effect your professional image. A good read for all of us, our collegeagues and attorneys.

20 Twitterers Lawyers Should Follow

2009-05-20T12:41:00.003-05:00

20 Twitterers Lawyers Should Follow

As an I.T. Director, some of this are completely outside my zone of interest, but many are really helpful to understanding the people I support or helping to keep up with what is going on in the industry.

145 Lawyers (and Legal Professionals to Follow on Twitter (actually closer to 700 now) is a rather extensive list of attorneys and legal professionals on Twitter. You may find some interesting people to follow here as well.

Social Networking for a Law Firm

2009-05-20T11:57:00.001-05:00

Right now, we're trying to wrap our heads around the value of social networking for a law firm such as ours. There are those that buy into Legal Blog Watch's idea that clients will drive firm's to social networking in order to be considered for engagements.

There are some that feel that social networking holds little value for a law firm and the value that does exist is offset by enormous risks.

I hold a different view from both of these. I think there is tremendous potential for social networking to benefit a law firm such as ours. However, I definitely don't agree with Legal Blog Watch that clients are going to drive us there by soliciting for legal services through those channels. Certainly some will, but for most that will be far to public a venue for them to expose their business plans or attempts to secure legal services.

Some social networking platforms, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, or Twitter will help attorneys stay connected with current clients, re-establish relationship with prior clients or acquaintances, and expand their network of acquaintances. Most people that have used Facebook as a personal social tool can attest to the way it strengthens existing relationships and re-establishes older, stagnant relationships, and not just creating a virtual relationship, but becoming a tool to initiate real life interaction away from the computer. Who use Facebook and hasn't re-connected with an old college or high school buddy, got together for a beer, baseball game, or bar-be-que and renewed at least one friendship? I can easily see these tools helping attorneys maintaining that always critical network of friends, colleagues and acquaintances that opens doors and generates new business.

While Blogs, Wikis and other social networking tools (even Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook) can provide platforms for a legal profressional to publish to their market, establish a name, and build a body of public work that can serve to validate their expertise and help them to be recognized as an expert to be considered for work in their practice area.

As I said, right now we're trying to wrap our heads around social networking. We're trying to get everyone to come to a consensus on the value, accepted and unaccepted uses of the technology. The ultimate goal being to draft a policy and strategy for using these technologies as individuals and as a firm.

Part of the policy and strategy will include offering best practices such as the 5 things not to do in the sociosphere part will be establishing guidelines and processes for them firm to help shape, direct and protect its image like the policy drafted by Doug Cornelius.

Clearly, whatever we settle on in the near-term will change quickly, as the technology is evolving almost daily. Any policy we draft today will surely be outdated tomorrow, but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and expect it to go away or resolve itself. And from my perspective, simply banning social networking today would be as short-sighted as refusing to implement phones, faxes, or internet access would have been when those technologies started to work their way into legal practice.

Welcome!

2009-05-20T10:57:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the Legal IT Blog. As an I.T. Director at a large, national law firm, I plan to comment on technology as it effects me and my firm. With over 10 years experience in legal technology, I hope to offer my perspective and perceptions to the Legal IT community. A significant part of my role is to keep the firm up-to-date on technology, to find new directions, products, and solutions to increase the firm's productivity, profitability, and efficiency. So many of my posts are likely to be highlighting new trends or technologies or new uses for technologies as they come across my desk. Others will be more focused on how we get our lawyers to accept the technology or the potential risks and pitfalls and how we address those in keeping our firm moving forward.

Hopefully you'll find some useful information here. And hopefully, via your responses, I'll find new ideas, new directions or improve my ability to help my firm.