Year: 2014

Avvo Issues: When Online Reviews Go Bad

February 17, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Ethics

Lawyer accused of revealing TMI in response to bad Avvo review is reprimanded (ABA Journal, 21 Jan 2014) – A Chicago lawyer accused of disclosing confidential information about a client in response to his bad Avvo review has been reprimanded partly for the revelation. Employment lawyer Betty Tsamis “exceeded what was necessary to respond to [the client’s] accusations,” according to stipulated findings of fact. The Legal Profession Blog links to the joint stipulation and reprimand by the Hearing Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Tsamis also bounced a check to a client, partly because she failed to account for credit card fees charged to her client trust account, according to the stipulated facts. She made good on the check with money from her own funds. Tsamis’ Avvo revelation occurred as a result of a negative online review by an American Airlines flight attendant who hired Tsamis in an unsuccessful effort to secure unemployment benefits. The attendant had been fired for allegedly assaulting a co-worker. Tsamis asked the former client to remove his first review, posted in February 2013, and he responded that he would do so if Tsamis returned his files and the $1,500 he had paid in attorney fees. Avvo removed the post, spurring a second negative review by the former client. This time, Tsamis responded to the post and revealed confidential information about the case, according to the stipulated facts. The disciplinary complaint had alleged that Tsamis wrote this: “I dislike it very much when my clients lose, but I cannot invent positive facts for clients when they are not there. I feel badly for him, but his own actions in beating up a female co-worker are what caused the consequences he is now so upset about.” One of Tsamis’ lawyers has said he thinks the client was not identified by last name on the Avvo website when Tsamis responded to his criticism. In mitigation, Tsamis has already taken steps to improve her financial record-keeping, she has no prior disciplinary history, and she has expressed remorse for her conduct, the stipulated facts said. One of Tsamis’ lawyers, Kathryne Hayes, gave this statement to the ABA Journal: “While we believe that Ms. Tsamis’ conduct was within the [ethics rules], this matter raises an important issue for all lawyers-especially those who are active on attorney-review websites and have the opportunity to comment on client reviews posted to these types of websites.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.

Why Bitcoin matters

February 14, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Finance

Why Bitcoin matters (Marc Andreessen in NYT, 21 Jan 2014) – A mysterious new technology emerges, seemingly out of nowhere, but actually the result of two decades of intense research and development by nearly anonymous researchers. Political idealists project visions of liberation and revolution onto it; establishment elites heap contempt and scorn on it. On the other hand, technologists – nerds – are transfixed by it. They see within it enormous potential and spend their nights and weekends tinkering with it. Eventually mainstream products, companies and industries emerge to commercialize it; its effects become profound; and later, many people wonder why its powerful promise wasn’t more obvious from the start. What technology am I talking about? Personal computers in 1975, the Internet in 1993, and – I believe – Bitcoin in 2014. * * * [ Polley : very, very interesting. I’m confused though by the Bitcoin mining motivation issues – as Bitcoin transactions increase (possibly thru micropayments), this’ll require an explosion in block-ledger verification processing (by so-called “miners”). But, if the Bitcoin algorithm in fact has a finite number of possible coins (21 million), won’t miners sometime lose the incentive to do the verification work?] [ Polley : I’ve decided I should know more about Bitcoin, and so am installing the MultiBit.app on my Mac and creating an account—#notstraightforward]

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of techinasia.com/bitcoin-illegal-thailand/cdn.btcpedia.com.

Hearsay Culture – Denise Howell’s interview with David Levine

February 13, 2014 Hearsay Culture Leave a comment Podcasts

At last, the big moment: here’s Show 200, Denise Howell‘s wonderful interview with me! I had a great time being on the other side of the proverbial “glass,” and developed a deeper appreciation for the great work of all 199 previous guests. Denise asked me about my history in radio, as well as my current non-Hearsay Culture substantive focus on information flow and system issues in hydraulic fracturing and international trade.

After Denise’s interview, I ran through the long list of people who have helped make Hearsay Culture possible. It is a LONG list. I am in your debt.

I hope that you enjoy the discussion, and thanks again to Denise for being a great interviewer! To that end, and most of all, thanks to YOU for listening! Here’s to 200 more.

Briefing Best Practices: iPad Edition

February 12, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Tech for Lawyers

Writing briefs when judges read on iPads (Volokh Conspiracy, 17 Jan 2014) – I just read a very interesting article, Daniel Sockwell, Writing a Brief for the iPad Judge . The basic problem: [M]ore and more judges are reading briefs primarily on iPads or other tablets…. The Fifth Circuit judiciary reads the majority of their briefs on iPads, and, from conversations with numerous judges and clerks, the other Circuits are not far behind (though I was told that the Third Circuit is “not as iPad heavy as some circuits”). The best way to know how a particular judge typically reads briefs is to ask – the clerks will likely be happy to help. Why do iPads even matter? … Lawyers who care about communicating forcefully and clearly should seek to perfect style and typography in addition to substance. The rules of typography are simply different for a screen than for print… And here are the author’s suggestions (reprinted with his permission, some paragraph breaks added): A brief written to be read on an iPad should differ from one written for text in three main ways: it should use fewer footnotes, should use a different font, and should avoid confusing hierarchical organization. Lawyers who expect a brief to be read on an iPad should try to avoid footnotes. One of the advantages of reading on an iPad is that judges can adjust the screen view, zooming in and focusing on the current passage. However, this advantage is lost if footnotes require the reader to constantly scroll to the bottom of the page for citations or substantive material. Worse, the extra scrolling raises the risk that the footnotes won’t be read at all, already a concern with substantive footnotes. Next, lawyers should carefully consider what font to use in a brief that may be read on an iPad. Fonts designed for screen reading are significantly different from those designed to be printed. Most importantly, quality printers print at a much higher resolution-even the retina iPad display has only 264 pixels per inch, less than half the dots per inch of a quality laser printer. As a result, some of the best print fonts can become jagged or difficult to read at screen resolutions, especially when readers zoom in. * * *

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/bplanet.

Social Media And The SEC

February 11, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Tech

Tweets, likes and follows: social media and the fair disclosure (Corporate Counsel, 10 Jan 2014) – Is tweeting considered Fair Disclosure? Have social rules changed the rules? The SEC says yes, but the landscape is new and the dust is still settling. Be careful. In April 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cleared public companies to use social media outlets such as Twitter® and Facebook® to announce key information in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD), “so long as investors have been alerted about which social media will be used to disseminate such information.” However, the SEC’s guidance was general, leaving room for error. Some executives may be rightfully worried about those in their organizations with “itchy Twitter fingers,” while balancing a desire to communicate with shareholders and potential investors who are eager for information. Indeed, social media are essential channels in today’s world, and there is good reason to act prudently when using them to announce financial and other key information to investors. Some law firms, such as Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton LLP, recommend some best practices. A commentary posted on the firm’s corporate website shortly after the SEC guidance was released includes several key “Pepper Points” that are particularly instructive. For example * * *

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/bplanet.

How Access Can Affect Copyright Infringement

February 7, 2014 Administrator Leave a comment Copyright

Does publication on the web give rise to “access” in copyright infringement analysis? (Evan Brown, 30 Jan 2014) – Plaintiff sued defendant for copyright infringement. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings (which is essentially the same thing as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim except it is after defendant files an answer). Defendant asserted that plaintiff had not pled copyright infringement because under the Seventh Circuit’s “substantial similarity” test to demonstrate infringement, plaintiff had not pled defendant had “access” to the allegedly infringed work. In some copyright infringement cases, a plaintiff may not have direct evidence that the defendant committed infringement. In those situations, a finder of fact may infer that infringement has occurred when it is shown that: (a) the defendant had access to the copyrighted work; and (b) the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. In this case, defendant argued it never had access to plaintiff’s designs that it was alleged to have infringed. But the court considered the online publication, 11 years ago, of plaintiff’s designs, to find access for purposes of the motion for judgment on the pleadings: “With regard to online publication, in 2003, [plaintiff] first published the [allegedly infringed work] at [its website]. The Internet already was widely used and accessible at that time. Because the non-movant is entitled to reasonable favorable inferences in evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the online publication is enough to establish access for purposes of denying [defendant’s] motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.