Most people by now have had experience purchasing or using a coupon from Groupon, Living Social, Plum District and similar websites. Aside from a couple of incredibly annoying experiences with two purchases from Living Social, I have been a content consumer of these coupons.

Recently, the ABA Journal provided an overview of ethics opinions on lawyers and law firms using these services. The state bar associations in North Carolina, South Carolina and New York have issued opinions suggesting it’s OK for lawyers to jump on the deal-of-the-day coupon bandwagon. As this phenomenon spreads, I am willing to bet that more bar associations will also opine on the issue. Here are three main concerns discussed in these opinions:

1)  Does this kind of payment arrangement amount to fee splitting with non-lawyers, which is prohibited by Rule 5.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as the ethics rules of all the states?

2) Are advertisements for discounted legal services using this “couponing” method inappropriate for attorneys to use from a professionalism or appearance standpoint?

3) Is a “couponing” for business a good business model for attorneys?

One analysis of the fee-splitting issue says it does not amount to more than a payment of reasonable advertising costs. The South Carolina Bar’s advisory opinion states the fee charged by the website operator amounts to payment of the reasonable cost of permitted advertising by a lawyer rather than sharing the lawyer’s fee.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

A few weeks ago, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that language software maker Rosetta Stone could proceed with its lawsuit against Google over whether an Internet advertising program creates brand confusion.

In 2009, Rosetta Stone sued Google in the federal court claiming  Google’s AdWords advertising program unlawfully allowed the use of trademarks in the text of ads that accompany Google search results. Rosetta discovered that Internet consumers were purchasing counterfeit versions of its software.

Rosetta Stone’s counsel said pleased with the ruling and that it set a very important precedent. Google’s AdWords advertising program offers companies the opportunity to buy advertisements that run with a Google search engine’s results. Companies “purchase” certain keywords that trigger the inclusion of the their advertisement.

In 2009, Google began allowing the limited use of trademarks in advertising text, which it had earlier prohibited. While Google expected increased legal expenses stemming from future disputes with owners of trademarks, the company also anticipated a boost in revenue.

Rosetta Stone sued on claims that included direct trademark infringement. The company’s case-in-chief presented survey and anecdotal evidence that would-be customers were buying fake Rosetta software via Google advertisements. It will be interesting to watch this matter go to trial.

What are your thoughts? How will this affect monetization not only on a large-scale platform such as Google, but on smaller platoforms, such as blogs?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Within minutes of talking to me, it is fairly obvious that I am an animal lover and take great joy in spending time with my two dogs, Dexter and Luca. In fact, it very well might be my favorite thing to do.

So, in honor of my two great loves, I type this post in memory of Phoenix, a pit bull who lost her life in Baltimore, Brandi, who almost lost her life in Frederick County and all companion animals who have fallen victim to human cruelty or recklessness.

I was saddened the second trial involving the cruel act against Phoenix (soaking her with an accelerant and setting on fire) concluded with a “not guilty” verdict. Don’t get me wrong — I was not gunning for the conviction of the accused twins. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the evidence presented at trial and I am not privy to any inside information from either side.

However, my heart is filled with sadness that this dog had to unnecessarily suffer from the extreme pain of the severe burns on her body. My heart is filled with outrage and frustration that she had to give up her life because someone found it amusing to torture an innocent animal.

In January 2010, Roger and Sandra Jenkins almost lost Brandi to a police officer’s gunshot. The chocolate Labrador retriever bounded toward an officer who arrived at her home to serve a warrant on the Jenkins’ son. Without attempting any alternative actions in response to an allegedly threatening dog, the officer shot Brandi despite the fact that she had ceased moving toward the officer. A Frederick County jury awarded the Jenkinses $620,000 in damages.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

“Slime.”

As someone who was born in the ’80s, I think of the gross green dude from Ghostbusters or that nasty gelatinous substance that was regularly dropped on people on Nickelodeon. Wasn’t “slime” sold in single plastic containers in toy vending machines as well?

But I digress: I’m sure many of my contemporaries have fond memories of the green slime from our childhoods, but that is not the slime that has been plastered all over the news lately.

That would be “pink slime.” And guess what? We have all eaten it. Back in 1994, Rick Perry’s “Lean Finely Textured Beef” was developed in the wake of public health concerns over E. coli in beef. A process was developed by the founder of Beef Products Inc. that disinfects the meat using ammonia (YES, you heard that right…AMMONIA). The additive was approved for human consumption by the USDA in 2001.

Since its approval, consumer advocates, scientists, and even internal United States Department of Agriculture staff staff have objected to its addition to ground beef in the U.S. In 2007, the USDA determined the disinfection process was so effective that it would be exempt from “routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public. More disturbingly, beef in the U.S. can be labeled “100 percent ground beef” even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime in the U.S. You can only be confident that your ground beef has no pink slime in it if it comes with a USDA Organic label.

OK… what?? I knew those “mystery meat” hamburgers and hot dogs weren’t healthy for me, but not in my wildest imagination could I have known that I was eating something that was treated with the same thing that I use to clean windows. Maybe the father from “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” was on to something when he sprayed Windex on everything, but I doubt it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Forgive me for what will be a short post. Forgive me for any lack of wit. I’m tired.

Why? I was really sick for a week in January and had to take a week off at the beginning of this month to deal with some family stuff. What does that mean, really? Working lots and lots of hours to try and close the gap in my goal numbers. And that means… I’m TIRED.

Due to the lackluster job market, people are doing whatever they need to do to keep their jobs.

“If you’re lucky enough to have a job right now, you’re probably doing everything possible to hold onto it,” Sara Robinson wrote recently on AlterNet in an article titled “Bring Back the 40-hour Work Week.” “If the boss asks you to work 50 hours, you work 55. If she asks for 60, you give up weeknights and Saturdays, and work 65.”

Studies researching the results of the 40-hour work week and overtime productivity repeatedly show industrial workers have eight reliable working hours in them. On average, you get no more widgets out of a 10-hour day than you do out of an eight-hour day. Likewise, the overall output for the work week will be exactly the same at the end of six days as it would be after five days.

So, paying hourly workers to stick around once they’ve put in their weekly 40 is basically nothing more than a stupid and abusive way to burn up profits. Let ‘em go home, rest up and come back on Monday. It’s better for everybody.

This is truly enlightening if you consider the number of hours an attorney at a big law firm puts in per day, per week, and per month. Above the Law reviewed Robinson’s story, concluding “one should work to live, not the other way around.”

However, it seems like the majority of working Americans are “the other way around.” I watch as my friends in law firms toil for 12 hours a day, only to spend their few, free waking moments drinking and venting about how they have no lives.

What do you think? Do you think American working culture will allow a return of the 40-hour work week as the norm?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

As I read Sarah’s post about time spent outside the office, a flood of different thoughts passed through my mind.

First, I always feel like I have no time for anything. Second, bar associations? I can’t even figure out why I am always going to bed at 1 a.m., when it makes the morning extra-uber miserable. Third, why did I go to law school again?

I keed, I keed. Sort of. The desire to strike an ideal work-life balance has been a struggle for me since day one of my associate’s career. I am not at a crazy and scary BigLaw firm, but my firm does expect its associates to make their goals.

As one of the few associates in one of the smaller branch offices, I know it is easy to feel like you are on a very depressing island, churning away at a thankless career. As I see young attorneys, especially my fellow bloggers who seem to find the time and energy to help the community, participate in bar or professional organizations, be a supportive spouse AND raise kids, I want to hang my head in shame (and I’m neither married nor have kids).

I have been making headway where I can — participating in this blog, getting more involved in a professional organization catering to corporate defense counsel and… oh yeah, the small task of trying to make my associate goals.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™