Ride The Lightning

BOOKS TO SHOP FOR AT ABA TECHSHOW

As I prepare to head for ABA TECHSHOW this Wednesday, I thought it might be helpful to list some of our newest titles, so you have a chance to use the $10 book coupon that all attendees will receive when they check in. LPM Publishing will have two booths, one in the Exhibition Hall and one in the Educational Sessions area.

Make sure you check out these titles:

The Busy Lawyer's Guide to Success: Essential Tips to Power Your Practice, by Dan Pinnington and Reid Trautz

The Lawyer's Guide to Practice Management Systems Software, 2nd Edition by Andrew Z. Adkins, III

The Lawyer's Guide to Governing Your Firm by Arthur G. Greene

The 2009 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide by Sharon D. Nelson, John W. Simek and Michael C. Maschke

The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Excel 2007 by John C. Tredennick

Winning Alternatives to the Billable Hour by Mark A. Robertson and James A. Calloway

The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007 by Ben M. Schorr

The Lawyer's Guide to Concordance by Liz M. Weiman

The Lawyer's Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell

These are just a sampling of the many great titles that will be there. There will also be a pre-order form for my new book, How Good Lawyers Survive Bad Times, by Sharon D. Nelson, James A. Calloway and Ross L. Kodner.

If you're not going to ABA TECHSHOW, no worries. All of these books can be ordered directly from the ABA here.

Happy reading!

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com       Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

DEJA VU: VENDOR CODE OF COMPETITION

I guess I'm exercising the eternal right of women to change their minds. Having declared this thread closed, I received a thoughtful response to my March 11th post that deserved the light of day. So, herewith:

Sharon,

This is a really late response to your post from 3/12/2009.  Regardless, I still feel compelled to respond.  First, I am stunned by the fact that firms threaten other firms for doing any type of competitive marketing comparison.  Do you have any understanding of why these firms even consider this type of action?  Are certain firms incorrectly portraying another’s firms capabilities?  This type of behavior seems so counterintuitive  to my I/T security cultural upbringing.   I typically seek out this type of comparison whenever I am tasked to research, evaluate, recommend, purchase, and implement a solution for our business. 

In principle, I agree that CEOs of EDD firms should agree on a vendor code of competition.  I don’t think it should be mandatory (or even possible to make it mandatory).  It appears that the  RFP+Sub-Group of Sedona Conference has attempted to do something similar with their RFP Guidelines (http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ediscovery_html).    I do see a potential marketing opportunity for EDD vendors that not only sign a vendor code of competition, but also release information in a standardized manner.   

Bottom line, I think that consumers of EDD services will need to demonstrate their dislike for a lack of transparency and comparability of EDD capabilities by not selecting them.  In addition, the consumer needs to complete a “forensic analysis” of the marketing material from EDD firms.  Specifically, I recommend consumers utilize the RFP and RFI processes to help obtain standardized \ comparable answers and help find out the true capabilities of the EDD vendor.  The RFI process can build a short-list of preferred EDD firms, while the RFP process can be utilized to select the right firm for a given case.

I have used the following sources for creating RFIs and RFPs

·         Sedona Conference (2005)  Navigating the Vendor Proposal Process – Best Practices for the Selection of Electronic Discover Vendors (http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=RFP_plus_july05ver.pdf)

·         Merrill Corporation  (2007/2008) How to Avoid the Five Critical Mistakes Made in the E-Discovery RFP Process

I enjoy your blog and hope that business is going well.

Robert Rost MA CISSP GFCA  GSEC Security+

I/T Security Consultant

Information Security

Banner Health

 

************************

Thanks for writing Robert. OK, now this thread is officially closed. Unless I open it again. 

Hope to see many of you next week at ABA TECHSHOW!

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com     Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

HAMMURABI'S CODE OF E-DISCOVERY

Once again, it helps to have a sense of humor in this business. Thanks to CaseCentral for passing this along.

I always liked the "river dunking test" of determining guilt. Anyone for reinstituting the test for Wall Street execs?

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com        Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

THE ULTIMATE COMPUTER FORENSICS TOOL

From the folks at DISKLABS. We always say when we lecture that folks want a simple "Find All Evidence" button. This comes close. :-) 

 

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com   Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

COMPARATIVE MARKETING IN EDD

In reply to yesterday's post, I received the following comment from Rob Robinson, the Vice President of Marketing for Orange Legal Technologies:

"Concerning the comment on “any marketer worth his/her salt” – I would suggest that when “Firm C” uses its resources not only to market, but to prevent “Firm A” from marketing/using creative resources – it then has nothing to do with a marketer’s “salt” – but does have more to do with how much an organization is willing to spend (time/money/focus) to defend its legal right to be “creative and use its resources”.

Additionally, comparative marketing should not be confused with competitor bashing.    Ultimately making decisions requires comparisons – and as all offerings have their strengths and weaknesses – it is absolutely beneficial for the market to be informed – and judge comparisons presented not only from those who hold the resources (money for ads, money for studies, money for access to Analysts) – but from those who want to compare – and are threatened when they even mention a competitor’s name.   As a marketer, I am more concerned about the freedom to factually and creatively compare than the amount of budget I have to use in marketing efforts.

Legal Professionals are smart – and will make the best decision possible – based on the information available to them.   With that in mind, comparisons are helpful in providing information – and those organizations that seek to obstruct comparisons may truly hinder the fair and legal “provision of information”.   Ultimately, if comparisons are not worth their “salt” – legal professionals have and will continue to make that pronouncement – however – my competitor should not be making that pronouncement for me –and if they do - I should have the right to rebut those statements and share another point of view."

 

And there we'll wrap it folks. Thanks for the discussion and exchange of views.

 

I'm going to go give myself a $1.000,000 retention bonus - seems to be the rage and I hate missing out on all the latest trends . . . . I only wish . . .

 

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com       Phone: 703-359-0700

 

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

 

HOW DO SMALL EDD FIRMS GET THE WORD OUT?

In yesterday's post, there was a comment from Mr. John Smith. A reader who wishes to remain anonymous wrote to rebut something that John said:

Mr. John Smith wote:

“Any marketing professional worth their salt should be capable of defining competitive advantages no matter what size their company or their competitors. This is marketing 101. Having the most resources is no guarantee of success. How resources are used is much more important.”

What Mr. Smith is missing is that although defining competitive advantages is easy, getting the message out is like climbing Everest  for a small firm. The larger firms have deeper pockets from which to feed the advertising machine, and they’re operating from a perceived position of superiority to start with, since the implication in a competitive capitalist system is that a larger company reached the top of the food chain by providing superior service at a lower cost.

A good marketer can do good work, but no amount of marketing genius can make $10,000 do the work of $10 million, and it takes more than talent to topple a company from a “perceived” position as a market leader. In marketing, mindshare matters more than money – that’s why most people still call facial tissue “Kleenex,” and why copies are still thought of as “Xeroxes.”

 

*********************************

As the President of a company whose marketing budget is closer to $10,000 than $10 million, I can only sigh and agree - but I'm still climbing Everest with determination and grit.

 

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com           Phone; 703-359-0700

 

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

 

WHAT READERS SAID ABOUT AN EDD VENDOR CODE OF COMPETITION

As promised, here are some of the replies to my last posting:

Sharon,

Thank you for yesterday’s post (Vendor Code of Competition) – and the team at Orange Legal Technologies fully agrees with the synopsis thoughts in the post.

We absolutely ascribe to fair and legal competition and work to do our very best to follow the laws, statutes, rules, and best practices in this area  – so please keep us posted on your responses – as we would certainly be interested any developments in this area.

We also believe that if vendors have issues with other vendors – it is certainly beneficial to discuss those issues prior to any “threats” (to use the vernacular of your post) – as many differences might be able to be worked out in an amicable manner.

We enjoy your posts – and appreciate your voice in the industry.

On behalf of the team at OrangeLT,

Highest Regards,

Rob Robinson
Vice President of Marketing
Orange Legal Technologies

***********************

Dear Sharon,

I am doing some late night reading and saw your question on vendor competition. I do not think large firms will give competitive intel to their smaller competitors. What advantage would there be for them in doing this? None.

Your justification for a vendor conduct code is because small vendors are bullied by large vendors. Doesn't this view strike you as biased? I've worked for three large vendors in my career and none of them have any extra time or special desire to go after small competitors unless forced to do so in cases of trademark, libel, or non-compete violations.

Your reader sounds frustrated and I can understand because I work for a small vendor too. I have been a marketing executive for more years than I care to admit and I've learned from trial and error that resources are only as limited as the imagination to use them. Instead of attacking competitors by name, think positive marketing strategies and talk about real customer problems and the solutions.

Any marketing professional worth their salt should be capable of defining competitive advantages no matter what size their company or their competitors. This is marketing 101. Having the most resources is no guarantee of success. How resources are used is much more important.

Comparative bashing of competitors is only looks like an act of desperation. Your reader needs to do more thinking out of the box. A Google search will find many free resources on the internet with good tips on creative and positive marketing styles.

Best of luck,

John Smith

**********************

Sharon,

First off, thanks for the comments and thoughts shared on your blog.  I have enjoyed reading them ever since I found your site. This recent one troubles me ...

"There are firms today that threaten other competitive firms for any type of competitive marketing comparisons. Many times these threatening efforts stop smaller firms from competitively marketing, not because they are doing anything wrong - but because the smaller firms have neither the desire, time, or resources to contest the request of the threat."

On the surface, this seems like standard schoolyard bullying, and the smaller players find it easier to acquiesce than to stand up and fight or report the behaviour.  Of course, reporting the behaviour comes with its own problems - finding someone interested enough to take on your cause, having enough evidence to actually prove criminal or civil wrongdoing, and being able to weather the storm of activity if anyone does "take up the cause".

The other side of the coin relates to what you are trying to accomplish when you make comparative claims.  Are you comparing like products, services or costs?  How do you know?  Without having an insider in the firm you are comparing against, or without having current accurate knowledge of what you are comparing, don't you run the risk of unintentionally misrepresenting the comparison?  Is this what the threats are about - making sure smaller firms don't disadvantage larger firms because of inaccurate comparisons?

My experience is that the larger firms usually have more resources, and can offer a broader range of services while smaller firms can usually bring a more personal touch AND a clearer focus with possibly better expertise in a limited number of specific services.  The trade-off is that the larger firms can't really provide adequate one-on-one interaction with their clients.  This leaves potential clients with a clear choice - do they want a relatively adequate impersonal big name general service provider, or do they need specific expertise from a firm that will give them more personalized service?  Every situation has its own answer to that question.

As for an agreement to abide by existing laws and codes - give me a break!  The rules are already there, with mechanisms in place to enforce them.  What makes you think that the bullies will be willing to agree on giving up their perceived power as long as the victims scatter in front of them?

Posted anonymously by request

*********************

Sharon,

I embrace the concept but wonder about the execution because of the difficulty in comparing vendor capabilities in a real apples to apples description of services.

Much of the confusion surrounds the semantics of this industry and the abuse of those words to either embellish or distinguish a particular capability to meet the every pressing marketing department agenda to sell, sell, sell.

I don't know if you saw a recent posting by John Martin advocating a program of testing each vendors code to exhibit a standard similar to the UL code of approval.

I think many of us would like to see the end to the hype and a return to solid litigation support practices, but I doubt that is possible with the "magic" of technology changing every day and the entrepreneurial drive of finding ways to make things better for a bigger buck.

Timothy Westcott

******************

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully consider the suggestion from one of RTL's readers.

Timothy's reply struck a huge chord with John and I because we think it is well nigh impossible, at the moment, to get a true apples to apples comparison between vendors. But, as Rob points out, it is helpful simply to have the conversation.

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com         Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

VENDOR CODE OF COMPETITION: WHAT DO YOU THINK?

A reader asked me to post the following for comment. Please reply privately to my e-mail address and I will post your reply if desired. And because I know I will be asked, I do not permit comments because I don't want flamers or flame wars on this blog. But I am very good about posting serious comments!

Is it a rational idea to have a Vendor Code of Competition that would allow for EDD vendor CEOs to all agree to place comparative marketing information in the public domain - and agree not to threaten or sue other vendors if they market according to FTC rules and applicable advertising law?

 

There are firms today that threaten other competitive firms for any type of competitive marketing comparisons. Many times these threatening efforts stop smaller firms from competitively marketing, not because they are doing anything wrong - but because the smaller firms have neither the desire, time, or resources to contest the request of the threat. This anti-competitive behavior not only hurts  the smaller firms - but ultimately hurts the end users - clients who may or may not make different choices if they understood the comparitive facts and had a chance to address those facts with both vendors - so they (the end user) could make fully informed decisions. Moving these comparisons out of the office (where they do occur) into the public domain (online/print) would benefit all except those who are truly not transparent and honest about their firm's capabilities.

 

Any thoughts on how such an approach - such as public agreement to a vendor code - or any other approach/suggestions that would help achieve the same objective would be very much appreciated? Honest, straightforward, and legal comparisons should not be constrained by the lack of desire to contest threats of further legal action. Let good, legal presentation of info - a standard that we all should adhere to - be the rule and not the exception. And let the best tools for each EDD challenge be addresed by its own merit in relation to other offerings - regardless of the size of the legal budget of those firms involved in comparisons.

 

Thoughts?

 

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com       Phone: 703-359-0700

 

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

 

SOCIAL NETWORKS: AN AVALANCHE OF EVIDENCE

This just makes my day. Theglobeandmail.com has just reported that (according to Nielsen) one in every eleven minutes spent online is spent on a social networking or blogging site.

Consider the veritable avalanche of electronic evidence that will result, much of it written in haste and ill-considered. We just came across a divorce case where a wife discovered her husband's affair with another woman on their respective Facebook sites.

As Tony the Tiger would say (if he were in the computer forensics business), "This is GREAAAAT!

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com     Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq

COMPUTER FORENSICS AND THE IPHONE

Recommended reading:

Andrew Hoog's new white paper on iPHONE forensics, published on March 2nd. It took Andrew four months to compile the 101 page paper, which looks very informative to me, remembering that I am not a computer forensics technologist myself. But every member of our forensics team has downloaded this, which speaks for itself.

E-mail: snelson@senseient.com      Phone: 703-359-0700

http://twitter.com/sharonnelsonesq