A post at MyShingle.com asks whether lawyers should suggest not only going to the Better Business Bureau with complaints that are too small monetarily to sue over, but also whether lawyers should now suggest using social media to start a viral campaign telling everyone the issue.  See the post here.   My initial thoughts: just be careful what you post is not libelous and complies with other laws.  Some people get so angry, they get carried away.  But if they can stay within the laws and are not breaching any contract by doing so (such as confidentiality provisions), and can take the risk that it might provoke other issues with that company if there is any ongoing relationship, then go for it.

The B2B has published the next in my series of artlices with co-writer David Bowman.  This October article is called  ”Blogs, comments subject to libel law:  Sites walk fine line between editing, being immune from suits.”    It discusses some choices you might want to make about how you set up your site and what you choose to edit and how that might affect whether you have immunity for what others say on your blog.    Happy reading!  (Next artcle will be on privacy aspects of social networking….)

Social networking is helping companies (specificially corporate counsel) cut legal fees by providing groups and forums for them to discuss and share ideas and answers to legal questions for free.  For instance, on Linked In, there are topic groups that you can subscribe to, like Intellectual Property.  You can then post questions and answer other people’s questions.  Human resources professionals are also benefiting.  Of course, there are issues about the lack of attorney-client privilege and there is no privacy to the questions.  However, for general inquiries that are not private (perhaps such as “Where might I find good examples of social networking policies?”), these sites can really help.

Corporate counsel are also trading forms and drfating their own documents before sending them to outside counsel.

To read more about how companies are cutting costs, see this article here, which incidentally, mentions LexisNexis, my employer.

Are you concerned about your privacy on social networking sites?  Take a look at EPIC’s site on just this topic here.   You’ll learn a number of things.  For instance, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner investigated Facebook’s privacy practices, issued some findings, and Facebook listened and issued a press release about some changes it will make here.  Specifically, in that August 27, 2009 press release, Facebook says these will include:

“• Updating the Privacy Policy to better describe a number of practices, including the reasons for the collection of date of birth, account memorialization for deceased users, the distinction between account deactivation and deletion, and how its advertising programs work.

• Encouraging users to review their privacy settings to make sure the defaults and selections reflect the user’s preferences.

• Increasing the understanding and control a user has over the information accessed by third-party applications. Specifically, Facebook will introduce a new permissions model that will require applications to specify the categories of information they wish to access and obtain express consent from the user before any data is shared. In addition, the user will also have to specifically approve any access to their friends’ information, which would still be subject to the friend’s privacy and application settings.”

Go to the Settings tab, pick Privacy Settings, and pick what you want to be shared!

Yes, Virginia, Facebook postes disparaging your co-workers can get you fired. Just see story of Griffin Scott, who posted on his Facebook status that the rest of the news team didn’t know what the Enola Gay was. He described the incident like this:

“The comment was posted on my personal Facebook page on August 14. I made the comment that I ‘knew what the Enola Gay was and that makes me the only person under 40 who knew that in our newsroom. Not sure whether to be proud or not,’” he said.  

See the Denver- The Latest Word blog here.

Apparently, three days before he was fired, he was asked to remove the post, which he did by deactivating his account.  They fired him anyway.  Now he has filed suit for breach of contract.  The station had terminated him under  a contract clause that prohibited him from subjecting the station to public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule. For more on that see here.

The Dayton B2B recently published an article of mine on Social Media policies, whether employers should have them, what they might look like, etc.  To read it, click here.

The Dayton B2B also recently began publishing a series that David Bowman and I are doing on social media.  David writes on one side about the business implications, and I write on the other side about the legal implications.  Each month there will be a new article.  Our first article is here.

Please let me know what you think of the articles and what ideas you want to see covered in future articles.

Sorry for the silence over the last couple months. I changed jobs (now a Corporate Counsel at LexisNexis) and got married! Very busy times. But I’m back!

We’ve all heard the adds for LegalZoom on the radio.  They claim LegalZoom was developed by “expert attorneys.”   Hmmmm…. It always made me wonder.

But read for yourself their disclaimer, which in part says:

LegalZoom is not a law firm, and the employees of LegalZoom are not acting as your attorney. LegalZoom’s legal document service is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.

LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) is a registered and bonded legal document assistant, #0104, Los Angeles County (exp. 12/09). LegalZoom cannot provide legal advice and can only provide self-help services at your specific direction.

LegalZoom is not permitted to engage in the practice of law. LegalZoom is prohibited from providing any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies.

Well, somone filed a bar complaint in North Carolina.  The complaint alleges that the software that creates the legal documents constitutes the practice of law because it selects the content. 

So does this mean all forms are bad?   I think not, and remember this is just a complaint, not a decision.  I think that it depends upon the extent to which the forms are reviewed for changes before they are distributed to the “clients.”   But, time will tell…

Of course, although you can do some documents yourself, there are so many things to consider that in most cases, you need a professional.  Biased?  Yes, but I also speak from experience.  Legal issues are not like doing your taxes.  Taxes have a defined set of rules (albeit large).  Legal documents reflect the breadth of creativity in business and life, and there are so many “reasonable” rules whose application can vary by jurisdiction.  One size does not fit all. 

For more information, see eLawyeringBlog’s post here.  For a nice discussion of the allegations of LegalZoom’s deceptive advertising practices, see For Connecticut Lawyer’s blog post here.

I stumbled across http://futurelawyer.typepad.com/futurelawyer/ today.  Futurelawyer is a blog about technology developments for lawyers.  However, he also reviews new phones, computers, and other programs that any business person can learn from.  Lately, he’s posted about the possibility of a color Kindle, itunes in the pool, and new Palms.