Will Twitter Spam Ruin Your Reputation?

Yesterday I noticed a near 10% spike in my followers.  You notice something like that.  I thought maybe it was an unexpected response to having my book on conflict resolution published.

It was not.  Instead it was a small army of spam porn accounts complete with embarrassing profile pics and porn links.  That Britney one with the peculiar punctuation and what I think is a hot dog is particularly dangerous.

Spam accounts cause a real problem for a professional using Twitter to communicate. 

A potential client could look at who follows me – why wouldn’t they?  If they see that I am followed by a bunch of porn spammers, what impact does that have on my reputation?

Sure, I can delete, or block, accounts, although the Twitter tools for doing so are slow and fallible.  They keep on coming back.

Now, you and I know that just because someone follows me, does not mean that I am associated with them, but then again you and I are fairly savvy about that sort of stuff.

To a potential client, or referrer, or colleague, I will be judged by the company that I appear to be keeping.

The answer is that I have to manage the followers and ensure that embarrassing contacts are not in there.  This is an unwelcome administrative chore especially when 50 of the scum turn up at once.

I could just leave the stuff up there, but then someone looking at my followers will draw the conclusion that I approve, don’t manage my online reputation, or am simply apathetic. Not quite the image I want to portray.

It becomes impossible for me to demonstrate Twitter, how it works and the like to colleagues or clients because I cannot click through to my followers confident in knowing that there will not be a new porn profile glaring out. 

I cannot even use Twitter, or the followers page at home if my children are around, or my wife for that matter – that is something I would rather not have to explain.

I now need to spend 15 minutes clearing my followers out.  Next time, who knows, I might just clear out altogether.

Twitter, do us a favour, and sort this out. 

Fellow Twitter users, is your followers page ruining your reputation?

 

Is Legal Tech Used To Add Value, Or Cut Cost?

Barnetts solicitors have released an iPhone app that enables you to ask a solicitor for a quote on a conveyancing deal and check how the transaction is going.

For the full story, read the Gazette, here.

There is something about this story that strikes me as odd.

Perhaps it is the futility of apps and widgets which do nothing that you couldn’t do before.  Get a quote from a conveyancer?  How about using that iPhone of yours, or any phone, to, you know, well, phone them?

The Gazette article suggests that other law firms could licence the software.  I don’t get that.  Does that mean that an enquiring client would have to download a similar app to their iPhone from each law firm that they were interested in getting a quote from?

Again, why wouldn’t you just call?

Or are Barnetts saying that they will process the enquiry, from the app, for all licensed conveyancers?  I can’t see me being able to sell it to my firm on the basis that our potential new client enquiries would go through another law firm.  So that can’t be it.

I think the ability to check, via app, on your file and progression is admirable but not if it is to exclude human contact between the client and adviser.  If we go to the app download page here you will see that your app enquiry links to

“…our tracking services, you will be asked to enter your case reference and a password. This will then display your cases key milestones. This information is live from our case management system and you will receive updates via SMS when key milestones are triggered.”

There is a comment also from Richard Barnett, the Senior Partner at Barnetts, which reads;

“‘In the past few years, conveyancers have been challenged to provide the best possible service at the most competitive price. To succeed with this goal, the use of the latest techniques and technologies has to be embraced.’

So, to revisit my opening question, I’m curious, do we innovate legal technology to add value to the client, or cut cost for the provider?

C’mon! Let’s innovate!

Wikivorce the UK online divorce community

There is a perception that the pioneers of what Richard Susskind calls “disruptive legal technologies” are on a mission to do just that – disrupt.

I was recently talking at an event which was attended by Ian Rispin, the pioneer and tech ability behind www.wikivorce.co.uk, perhaps the leading independent online divorce community, together with the equally resource rich divorceonline.

I had the impression that there was no agenda to disrupt here at all.  He had simply come up with an idea and gone ahead and implemented it.  He was very modest about his creation and showed an affectionate, almost fatherly concern for the community it hosted and served.

I also had the feeling that he was not concerned about just how great a threat he and his website is perceived as being by conventional legal practices.  There was no lawyer bashing agenda here.

Lawyers; Do not take comfort in this fact. There are plenty of other lawyer bashers out there who long to see the profession taken down a peg or several hundred.  What is more we are currently seeing only the first wave of these “disruptive legal technologies” or communities and to guess what the second wave might look like would be crystal ball gazing.

I am sure we will continue to see more and more innovation.

To close, and to encourage any lawyers out there wringing their hands, fretting about Tesco Law, Web 2.0 and whatever else keeps you up at night, take notice of that last sentence.

“We will continue to see more and more innovation.”

Now, here’s the good news!  There is no monopoly on innovation.  The only reason those pioneers are pioneers is because they did something, they started something, they had the germ of an idea which they then nursed and cared for and it grew strong.  Anyone, yes, even a lawyer, even you, can innovate.

What’s stopping us?

Stop fretting. Stop trying to denounce the changes that are already very well advanced and join in.  Conservative longings for the times gone by aren’t going to help us. It was just that conservatism and perhaps complacency (“Oh they could never replace solicitors”) that probably got us where we are today.

Nor will it help to simply polarise the market into us and them, demonising and denigrating the online providers and their services.  There is room for dialogue, scope for inspiration and collaboration.  Remember, they don’t have the monopoly on innovation.

So c’mon! Let’s innovate.

Now,who’s with me?

Google SideWiki – My, that is helpful. Or is it?

“What if you could easily contribute to any webpage and help others” opens the well intentioned trailer from Google for their new Sidewiki project.

Thanks to Jay Fleischman who brought this to my attention via his blog, Legal Practice Pro

Essentially Sidewiki enables other users to attach wiki stickers to your website, or your company’s website.  Invisible wiki stickers that is.  You will not know if you have been stickered unless you install a pair of special glasses, aka the Sidewiki toolbar app, into your browser.

Even then, you have to remember to put on your wiki sticker spectacles to see what has been said.

Is this going to be a problem?  What happens with malicious wiki stickerers?  What remedies are available to wiki sticker victims?

What safeguards will any firm have against a competitor running a diversionary tactic against any other given firm, in any given sector?

For the first time in a long time I find myself feeling a little bit reactionary here.  Perhaps it comes on the back of the criticism I read about Google Wave being a productivity sink – see Robert Scoble’s critique here .  Is this another example of Google introducing stuff that could impact on productivity, `just because it can’?

To what end does Google innovate and introduce, or in the case of Sidewiki, impose these functions?

Will the cavalcade of Social Media Experts be looking at how to leverage your Sidewiki stickers and devising campaigns to do so?

Following Friday’s article on the ability of legal processes to offer protection against defamation, or passing off and fraud, how will Google Sidewiki protect against malicious one off comments?  In what circumstances could persisitant commenting amount to harassment?

Furthermore, as I understand it, Google is saying that it will determine what gets through and what doesn’t by way of adopting an algorithm.  On that basis, does it take on the role of controlling what gets published and could that bring liability back upon their doorstep?

Is it right that an organisation spends a large budget (insert your figure here) in crafting a carefully designed and presented message, only to have it defaced, with special invisible paint, by all and sundry?

So far, if an organisation wanted to embrace web 2.0 sentiments and capability then they had the option to do so by including blogs, their own wiki’s, comments, facebook fan pages and the like.  Many – well, a few –  will have carefully constructed policies determing how they will be monitored and managed.

Many more organisations will have decided they would rather not have that dialogue on the web and that, to date, has been their call, even if we as tech evangelists might disagree with their decision.

What Sidewiki seems to do is to force those companies into the middle of the dancefloor even though they might have preferred to simply hang out in the kitchen of the web 2.0 house party.  Is that appropriate?

And just when did Lawyer1point9 become so conservative?  Normal service will resume shortly.

The relationship between law and tech

It is an interesting day today for musing on the relationship between law and tech.

First was the story about an injunction being served upon a rogue imposter Twitter account.  You can read that story here, from the Guardian.  Interesting to see the machine that is law evolving to adapt to the changing culture.

How would the injunction be enforced though in the face of breach?  Interesting comments can be found also from scotslawyer, attached to that Guardian article.

Secondly, as I write, there is a breaking story about Harry Redknapp, the manager of Tottenham Hotspur, having had his odds slashed with William Hill to evens to be the next premier league manager to lose his job.  Rumours are about that I am not going to repeat here.  But some of the stuff that is being printed about Redknapp, if inaccurate, is going to cause an almighty stink once his lawyers get onto it.  I should imagine the forum moderators are having a next to impossible time trying to keep their messageboards libel free.

How is the law machine going to deal with these kind of wildfire stories in a way which is adequately swift?

There are massive challenges ahead.

…of suits and geeks…

I have some good friends in the tech industry with loud voices debating the merit in breaking down the status quo relating to copyright and the like.

I touched upon the copyright issue, very briefly, in my post lamenting the president of the Law Society’s inaugural artcle in the Gazette.

It seems clear to me that the intellectual property ways of old, as enshrined in common law and statute, are

• facing immense change
• under attack; or
• doomed

depending upon your position.

Is it the case, I wonder, that it is purely the domain of the tech producers, users and enthusiasts to challenge the established order?

On the other hand, is the role of the Internet/Media Law lawyer to merely uphold the law of the land or do the two camps collaborate to explore what the landscape could look like in the years to come. 

If so, where? What forums are there where these conflicting positions can be thrown together and explored?

I’d be interested in hearing more of that conversation.

Punk law, anyone, anyone…

Punk Law.

There’s a brand, or a blog, ready for someone to pick up and run with.

The idea came to me while being interviewed on Blogtalkradio – see this post.

I was recounting how the manner in which I had prepared my Youtube clip was in keeping with punk ethics, namely, it doesn’t matter if you are not a virtuoso guitar player, pick it up and get started. The form is to some extent irrelevent, as long as the message, the content, is good.

If clients are going to be looking for lawyers who meet with them on the client’s terms and in the virtual spaces that the client’s use, then is it likely they will look for other resonances?

If physical location is less relevant, then the choice that a client has as to who he or she instructs becomes impossibly diverse. Is it inevitable that they will therefore look for other similarities linking their tastes, values and aspirations with their solicitor of choice.

To what extent do we deliberately communicate our tastes, sympathies and values within social media? (Not that I have ever been a punk, although I did once have a Jimbob from Carter USM haircut. My mum thought it was very nice which wasn’t quite the point.)

Even in the title to this blog, I am communicating other tastes, namely an affinity for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

I wonder if we do it all the time and how we survive when that gets repressed by the larger corporate image. To what extent does social media provide an outlet…

…and what would a Malcolm McClaren designed law firm look like anyway?

The President’s Inaugural Column

Robert Heslett, new president of the Law Society

What happens when leadership says nothing to you about your life?

Last week’s Law Society Gazette features the first article from the new Law Society President, Robert Heslett.  If this is designed to be his rallying call at the start of his 1 year term in office then it is disappointing. 

It looks back and then inwards but never, that I can discern, out or forwards.

The theme of the new presidential year is…

“The Rule of Law” 

What is the rule of law?

“The rule of law is the touchstone of the solicitors’ profession. It is the bedrock and the foundation upon which a solicitor’s work stands. It is therefore right to return to the rule of law to dictate our guiding principles in a time of economic, regulatory, social and political change.”

I have just been speaking to a colleague in another firm and asked him about the rule of law.  Was that why he does what he does?  No it was not, nor is it for me.  How about you?

As I was on the bus into work this morning, I was trying once again to read Wikinomics and was struck by this;

“The net-generation is re-negotiating the definitions of copyright and intellectual property… They won’t let outmoded intellectual property laws stand in their way.” pg 52

I mused on how the net-generation is not so much negotiating change, as forcing change.  Set alongside this, our President’s suggestion that we should “Return to the  rule of law” feels out of time and place, harkening back to a time when power was vested in the affairs of lawyers and politicians.  We are a long way from that now, aren’t we? 

Some will ask if I am suggesting that we abandon law and permit anarchy.  That is clearly not my case and would be nothing more than an attempt to reduce the debate into polarised positions.  We need to be more responsive and help shape the newly democratised conversation.

Robert Heslett rightly identifies that there are challenges ahead for the profession, there are many, but then goes on to concentrate introspectively upon the question of profession regulation and the relationship “Between the Society and the LSB, the SRA and the OLC” 

The “protracted period of consultation” within our profession may well provide, ironically, a relatively safe haven for many to dwell within, constructed as it is with the familiar disciplines of negotiating, drafting and implementing the ”Details and structures.”

My big concern is that as we concentrate on this introspection, that our leaders take our eye of the social economic changes that are taking place in the world, both online and realtime.

Nowhere does our President refer to technology, communication or commoditisation of legal services.

It may be correct that “The rule of law is also emblematic of the relationship between the citizen and the state.” although that feels rather esoteric to me.

It may be flattering to perceive that “For centuries, solicitors have been the principle guarantors of this relationship and of the efficient conduct of democracy.” although I am even less convinced of this assertion than the previous one. 

Either way I fear it is dangerously naive to believe that what might have been the case (if it ever was) will always be.

We need a different dialogue within the profession – this conservative opening gambit says nothing to me about my work or my clients’ concerns- and need any effective dialogue with the marketplace and our end users.

Blogradio Interview Set List

Photo credit to AndrewVDill Flickr CreativeCommons

I was interviewed on Saturday by Blawgtalkradio, about the foray into YouTube that I made for my law firm Mogers.

The full interview, kindly said by some to be inspiring, can be found here.

For those without speakers handy, I have pasted below the crib sheet, or set list, that I had prepared to structure our discussions to give you a feel of what was discussed.

Tell us about the film.
1. What is it
2. Where is it
3. Why did you make it
   a. Personal curiousity/interest – can I, and how do I
   b. Susskind’s End of Lawyers book and how Soc.Med will impact on lawyers
   c. Start debate in firm and broader re soc med
4. Why did you make it that way/Design choices
   a. Worked within restrictions – tech, equipment, lighting
   b. Led in part by collaborative law model – not too centred on me
   c. Desire to be different
   d. No suits or desks
   e. Punk ethics?…
5. How did you make it
   a. Stuff lying around the house
      i. Family camcorder
      ii. Flip chart in my study
      iii. Software freely available
6. Permission from law firm? Sought approval as matter of courtesy and to stimulate debate
7. Questions regarding;
   a. Quality – Doesn’t need to be pristine, but of a certain level
   b. Content control – Likely that future editions will be cleared
   c. Inclusion into mainstream company web – unlikely and unnecessary? Soc Media strategy can run parallel to central web. Distinction between the web 1.0 content and contribution from individuals on soc media who lend their enthusiasm and creativity in this way. Different audiences?
   d. Way forward/strategy – Create and drive repeat visits – other content/series
8. How to get heard?
   a. Blogging
   b. Ecademy
   c. Twitter – retweeting not obtrusively but regularly
   d. The tipping point?

There is a great deal within this to come back in future articles.  If there is any particular area you would like me to concentrate on then please do get in touch.

Blawgradio on Blogtalkradio

I will be talking on Blawgradio, hosted on Blogtalkradio, together with Tia Carr Williams of Legal Social Media this coming Saturday.

We will be exploring the short story of a little YouTube video that has gone to the top.

Many readers will already be familiar with my first tentative steps into the world of YouTube. My guide to the collaborative law process has taken off and gone viral to some extent.

It is the #1 result for Collaborative law on YouTube, has come to the attention of Pauline Tesler, recognised as one of the leading lights within the collaborative law field and is being hosted on other law firms websites and upon the website for the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals.
Our Blawgradio slot will explore the practicalities of getting stuck in and making the film and the challenges presented to myself, my law firm and the profession generally through the adoption and use of media such as this.

Join us live or download the webcast later.