The State Bar’s electronic newsletter dedicated to technology items has just come out in its winter 2013 issue. As I’ve mentioned before, this quarterly news source provides a wide variety of headlines on topics that may affect your law practice.

State Bar of Arizona eLegal Technology NewsletterAmong the stories is a lead item on addressing the digital accounts of the dead.

If you’re interested in the topic, you should turn to the current Arizona Attorney, where Rex Anderson writes on digital assets in estates.

And while you’re at it, do you like how we transformed this month’s Facebook profile picture for Arizona Attorney? The image is below (click to make it bigger and look closely). (We like to change the image every month depending on our cover story.)

Facebook profile picture for Arizona Attorney Magazine March 2013

About a month ago, I wrote about a workshop on social media I will help lead. Thank you to those who provided their general insights about the topic.

cool new facebook features

But now, in a week, is when the rubber hits the social media road. And so I’m asking for your insight again, specifically on the topic of new(-ish) and advanced Facebook features that you appreciate.

That is the topic for which I’ve been tasked at the National Association of Bar Executives, and I am trying to winnow down a list of Facebook fan page features that I think bar associations should consider and maybe adopt.

Here are a few of the features I appreciate on Facebook business pages. Have you used any of them on your personal Facebook page? And would they add to your experience of bar pages?

  • Bigger Facebook profile photos
  • Improved SEO via updated Facebook URLs
  • Better using of the “About” box & “Info” tab
  • Use of “Like” boxes to increase inbound links
  • Incorporating your blog content into Facebook
  • Adding Google Analytics to your Facebook page
  • Posting (more) multimedia on your Facebook pageFacebook Like thumbs up

Of course, it’s possible there are Facebook features you love that have entirely omitted. Let me know what you think.

Write to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.

social-media-word-cloudA headline for a blog post yesterday made me pause:

“Is Online Social Networking Worth My Time?”

Gulp. If The Lawyerist takes up the topic, and declares social media a waste of said time, won’t that provide conceptual cover to many lawyers who are seeking—desperately—permission to stop thinking about the topic? Instead, I suppose, those lawyers would like to return to practicing law the way it’s been done for a generation (whatever that means).

But then Lawyerist founder Sam Glover answered the question posed in a reasonable way:

“Sure, in the same way that email is worth your time. Online social networks are, like offline social networks, a way to stay in touch with family, friends, and acquaintances. If you use social networks — online or offline — for that purpose, they will be worth your time in the same way watching the Super Bowl with your college friends or having lunch with your rich aunt are worth your time.”

I’m beginning work on a social media presentation that I’ll deliver in Dallas in February. And as I ponder what to tell bar executives about the topic, it helps to keep in mind that social media is just another tool. And, as Sam says, it’s not a tool that does just one thing all the time. It can be used to sell—occasionally—but it also can inform, amuse and infuriate. Just like any relationship we have.

In print and online, we always must remember that our readers have many parts in their brains. The best social media—the best content provider—will help exercise multiple parts of those brains. And that is where a valued relationship is best developed.

social media icons

Next February, I’ll be part of a panel communicating all we know for a “Social Media Master Class.” At the moment, I’m feeling vaguely outclassed.

Sure, by February, I plan to have a vast knowledge to impart. But right now, I’d appreciate your insight on what you would expect if you passed by a hotel conference room and spotted the following sign:

“Social Media Advanced Class”

That, essentially, is what we’ll cover in our session.

We will be presenting at the ABA/NABE Midyear Meeting in Dallas, and our audience will be chock full of bar association executives and lawyers.

I didn’t write the copy for the program description, but I am looking for ways to meet its expectations. Here’s what it says:

“If you have not seen the very latest features for Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and other leading social media platforms, you may be living under a rock. Delve into the newest add-ons and enhancements that will bolster your messaging workflow while optimizing your Association’s exposure. Learn how to navigate unexpected (and sometimes unwelcome) redesigns of leading sites. Plus, get recommendations on the best shortcut tools like HootSuite to ease the pains of posting. Whether you’re a seasoned social media junkie or the new kid on the block, you’ll find something valuable to take away.”

social media "map" by Fred Cavazza

I love this social media “map” by Fred Cavazza.

Hmmm. We’d better bring our A game.

I figure one of the best ways to stretch your audience’s knowledge is to stretch your own. That’s why I’ve reached into a few new worlds this past month, to Quora and even Instagram. And I’ve also been examining the old standards (Facebook and Twitter) for what I think are best practices. But Pinterest hasn’t yet sucked me into its vortex.

Later today, I meet (via conference call) will the other panelists (from Ohio, San Francisco, Philadelphia and the District of Columbia). We’ll be strategizing the best way to communicate valuable content to attendees.

Your insights would be appreciated. Write to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.

Happy Change of Venue Friday!

Today, I’ll share an article and ask you a question. First, the article.

A new story called “The Social Media Evolution” was published recently, and it got me to thinking about law practice. It was written by Dan Kittay and published in Bar Leader, an American Bar Association magazine.

In it, Dan quoted many Bar communications folks (including me) to take their temperature on how we all choose among the many social media channels. What’s right for you, Dan asked, and for your bar association? How do you fit that part of communications into your work day?

The answers were varied, as you might guess. My responses were pretty favorable toward social media and what it can do for us (and for any business). I’ve found this multi-year experiment to be an interactive one with readers, and I’ve gotten many great story pitches and leads out of it.

The complete article is here. And here’s how Dan opens it:

“Judging by some of the specialized programming on social media at recent National Association of Bar Executives events, there seems to be a growing consensus within the bar association community that Facebook, Twitter, and the like have a place within a bar’s arsenal of member/public outreach tools.”

“But there are also differences in how much attention bars think they should devote to the various social media platforms, both in how often to update content, and how much staff time to devote to the whole process. And when it comes to adopting newer platforms, opinions vary widely.”

Now, here is my question for you on this Friday morning: What channels are you using via social media? A list is all I ask for (though commentary is always welcome). And the list doesn’t have to distinguish between word sites and personal-enjoyment sites; I’m really just curious about where you spend time online. Write to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org, or post your response below.

After that, have a fun (and largely device-free) weekend!

Yale Law School Library Reading RoomOver at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, reporter Sam Favate asks the question, Are you looking for a law school to fit your politics?

The rather atonal question arises because The Princeton Review has now included among its many categories the odd terms “most liberal” and “most conservative.” You can read Favate’s article here.

I may sound naïve when I suggest that I’m not sure what that means. I know the phrases never were part of my decision-making when I selected a law school back in 1989 or thereabouts.

My “blindness” on that score may rankle some readers, who instead recall law school as a time of struggling through their days as one-sided ideology was crammed down their throats. The law school they suffered was a curricular version of one political platform or another.

Sorry I missed all that. I was too busy thinking that the faculty were hell-bent on their mission to obfuscate what could have been clear. Through the fog, I completely missed the indoctrination. (Except, of course, the pedagogical imperative that we accept as normal and right the status quo—in business, and law, and public policy).

Should prospective law students select schools based on politics? Probably not—but what do I know. I think being around folks who think differently from you may be a good thing.

Recently, I read some commentary about the news sources we all select. No more must we all imbibe from the network nightly news fountain; instead, there are multiple streams from which to drink.

That’s great, but it has a downside. If we shun sources that don’t agree with our worldview, are we just insisting on being a choir that is preached to?

This fall, another media critic pointed out a common phenomenon on Facebook: As “friends” offer views that others find disagreeable or worse, people “unfriend” each other. Pretty soon, our Facebook feeds are cleansed of contrary views—especially in an incendiary presidential election year.

I don’t argue that any of us should have to weather a storm of offense in Facebook—or in law school. But a little diversity of opinion can’t possibly be a bad thing. Can it?

Getting some legal education over a great meal has always been a terrific combination. This Wednesday, lawyers and others will belly up to teppanyaki bars to hear about ethics, law and social media.

The lunchtime gathering is hosted by the Phoenix chapter of the Public Relations Society of America. (Follow them on Twitter here.)

I’ve enjoyed a good number of PRSA events in the past, and I appreciate the lawyer-filled panel they’ve created. The attorneys will sit at grill tables at Sapporo, where they will facilitate discussions among attendees—all while they are entertained and nourished by the creation of delicious food.

Here is more information about the event from the PRSA:

Have you wondered about the legal ramifications of posting news clips on your website or whether or not you need permission to re-use an image of a photographer you hired for an event? If so, do not miss our upcoming Ethics Luncheon.

Join us for an interactive discussion on copyright and social media law, and other common ethical dilemmas set around teppanyaki tables. The luncheon will feature small-table discussions with industry leaders while enjoying the entertainment of the teppanyaki chefs. Come hungry and prepared with your questions.

A social way to learn about social media law

This luncheon is also our annual membership meeting, so come hear the latest updates about our Chapter and meet this year’s board of director’s candidates.

The panel features the following professionals:

  • Matt Bycer, trademark and patent attorney at Bycer Law PLC and adjunct professor of intellectual property and economics for National Paralegal College.
  • Sean O’Hara, associate at Snell & Wilmer, focusing on intellectual property litigation and complex commercial disputes.
  • Lori Higuera, director in the Litigation Section at Fennemore Craig and a member of the Labor and Employment, School Law and Commercial Litigation practice groups.
  • Gregory Collins, attorney at Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC, focusing on trademark, copyright and patent infringement matters.

Register here.

When: Wednesday, Oct. 10 from 11:30 to 1 p.m. with discussions beginning at 11:45 a.m.

Where: Sapporo, 14344 North Scottsdale Rd., Scottsdale, Ariz. 85254, Thunderbird East Plaza (southwest side of Scottsdale Road & Acoma).

Phone: 480.607.1114

Cost: $45 all walk-ins

About the PRSA:

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is the world’s most prominent organization dedicated to the professional development and advocacy of PR practitioners. The Phoenix chapter is among the largest and most respected chapters nationwide. Join us to gain access to career advancement opportunities, industry events, awards programs, accreditation and a variety of skill-building resources.

This morning, I am staring at a dollar bill on my desk, trying to decipher what it “says.”

Legally speaking, it’s quite likely that it’s saying something, since the U.S. Supreme Court held that in the campaign-contribution context, that dollar is speech.

So if a greenback can talk up a storm, how is it possible that a Facebook “Like” holds no communicative value?

That was the ruling at a federal district court that had to determine whether employees were fired for exercising their free-speech rights. As the Washington Post tells the tale: 

“Daniel Ray Carter Jr. logged on to Facebook and did what millions do each day: He ‘liked’ a page by clicking the site’s thumbs up icon. The problem was that the page was for a candidate who was challenging his boss, the sheriff of Hampton, Va.

“That simple mouse click, Carter says, caused the sheriff to fire him from his job as a deputy and put him at the center of an emerging First Amendment debate over the ubiquitous digital seal of approval: Is liking something on Facebook protected free speech?”

Read the whole article here.

Risky behavior, certainly, especially given how tetchy elected sheriffs can be. But the court ruled that a simple click of “Like,” without commenting, is not speech.

The sheriff’s office is likely ecstatic. But the ruling puts that office in a strange conceptual box: The office fired people for taking a speech position contrary to the top official’s position. And the court sustained that employment decision because there was no speech involved.

Confused yet?

Oddly enough, would the court have had to rule otherwise if the employees had dropped dollar bills off at the opponent’s campaign headquarters without a note attached, rather than signal support via a digital thumbs-up?

Now, of course, the appeals roll in. As this article explains, Facebook, the ACLU and a number of amici have briefed the issue of how a Like certainly is speech.

It all makes me wonder how much the court understands social media. I wrote on Friday about a promising survey that shows judges are growing warmer to social media. But anyone who has ever worked hard for a “Like” for their business’s Facebook page understands inherently that a Like is speech. And among all the difficult-to-grasp concepts in technology, “Like” is just what it sounds.

Feel free to Like this post; I’ll know it means something.

Curious to know what judges think of Facebook?

It may not be advisable to stroll up to a jurist and ask her or him; they may get kind of prickly. Instead, on this Change of Venue Friday, flip through a comprehensive new report from the Conference of Court Public Information Officers (or, as I like to call them, some of the hardest-working PIOs in any sector; follow them on Twitter here).

The complete report, titled “2012 CCPIO New Media Survey,” is here, and it paints an evolving picture of judges’ comfort level with social media, at least in regard to the propriety of using it themselves. (Use by lawyers and—ugh—jurors is left for another study.)

Or, as the cheeky Wall Street Journal Law Blog said, judges today appear to be “less freaked out” by Facebook and Twitter.

Reporter Joe Palazzolo writes, “Fewer of them hate the idea of incorporating new media in their professional lives, and more of them are convinced they can use such tools in their personal lives without ethical issues.”

Ha! “Fewer of them hate” it. That may not sound like we should break out the bubbly, but it is quite a change from even a few years ago.

Here is a chart from the CCPIO study showing the shift.

Judges are warming to social media, a new study says in August 2012

And here are a few of the findings from the study:

“The 2012 data reveal several major conclusions:

  • “The participation of judges in the survey continued to climb, as did their use of the technologies surveyed.
  • “The percentage of judges who strongly agree that their own use of the technologies in the survey poses no threat to professional ethics has doubled since the first year of the survey. This applies whether the technologies are used in personal or professional lives.
  • “The percentage of judges who strongly agree that courts as institutions can use the technology without compromising ethics has also doubled since 2010.
  • “The percentage of judges who strongly agree that new media are necessary for public outreach has doubled since 2010.”

Very impressive.

(I am amused, though, that we continue to hold fast to that moniker “New Media.” Ironically, the last time I hectored readers about the oddity of that phrase was when I covered an event put on by court personnel. Is “New Media” a court thing? Let’s all just stop it. After all, social media is descriptive; New Media is kind of a throwback, sort of a Steamboat-Willy-gapes-at-moving-pictures vibe. New Media is old. If judges can change, so can we. Onward.)

Have a great weekend. And as you post a status update in social media, think of a judge.

I wrote on Monday about a New York Times op-ed written by Dean Frank Wu of the Univ. of California, Hastings College of Law. But on Change of Venue Friday I wanted to add a postscript that says more about social media than it does about the historic Vincent Chin case.

I was struck by the op-ed, but I was also struck by a strange social media coincidence. (Prepare for a meandering sidebar.) To understand it, you’ll have to bear with me and a brief history lesson.

UC Hastings has long been proud of something called the 1066 Foundation. It provides funding to bring on stellar faculty from around the country, some of whom may have been precluded from continued teaching at their top-ranked schools due to mandatory retirement. And the 1066? It emanates from the famous Battle of Hastings in that same year (witty, huh?)

The oddity arose when I noticed that Dean Wu’s NYT op-ed was tweeted by Hastings on the same day I happened to have 1,066 Twitter followers. I “favorited” the tweet, so you can see a screen shot of the confluence.

And speaking of Twitter realities, below is a shot the day I hit 1,000 followers. I agree that’s pretty random, but I was struck by the tweets at the top of my stream when I noticed I had reached that milestone in mid-April: A hilarious post by comic Jim Gaffigan, a thoughtful post by LexBlog CEO Kevin O’Keefe, and a determined-at-all-costs-to-appear-normal post by an Arizona legislator who had just been forced to resign from the Assembly amidst a criminal and ethical scandal. All in all, that demonstrates pretty well the chaotic creativity available in Twitter!

So in honor of Twitter mashups and today’s Social Media Day celebration (which I wrote about yesterday), send a tweet or write a blog post. It’ll make you feel better.

Have a great weekend.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,594 other followers