jimgsimon

[jimgsimon]

Legal Tech Needs Open Online Community With Company Leaders Participating

Northwestern Law Professor and widely respected author and speaker on legal tech and innovation, Dan Linna, told the UK’s Law Gazette that the lack of community leadership is stopping a true legal tech community from being formed. 

I responded on Twitter that while the Internet drives countless communities in other verticals and causes, we’re lacking a strong legal tech community and leadership because the people brining us legal tech are absent from the discussion – they do not use the Internet. 

A lack of community leadership is stopping a true legal tech community from being founded. – @NorthwesternLaw’s @DanLinna at @CodeXStanford https://t.co/SW6mWpvh3T << Internet enables communities to form in countless areas, but legal tech folks/companies don’t use net to network.

— Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe) April 15, 2019

A Twitter discussion ensued as to how to form such an online community, and how to frame and advance such a discussion. 

Should the forum be open or private?

What platform should be used for the discussion, ie, Slack to other discussion and thought design mediums.

Getting people together face to face to discuss how to advance the discussion on how to build a community.

Forming a new Facebook or joining in an existing one.

Rather than discuss how to form a community and what medium should be used, why not just start using the medium we have, the open Internet, and get the people we need in the discussion, the legal tech company leaders and legal entrepreneurs.

Our legal profession is notorious for lack of action and studying things to death. Partially out of protectionism and partially for fear of a real and authentic discussion listened to and engaged by all.

 Many in legal tech are acting, talking, and seizing the opportunity to bring access to legal services. 

Let’s now use the open net to share ideas, collaborate, and advance ideas, software and other technology. 

The net is an open communication medium. Starting with Bulletin Board Systems (BBS), usenet groups, AOL, message boards and, close to twenty years ago, blogs. You listened to what was being said and, if so inclined, you engaged in the discussion.

No one discussed how we should begin to talk, collaborate and network through the Internet. Various Google apps, Twitter, Medium and countless other tech advancements and products grew out of blog conversations.

The outcome:

Real and authentic insight and commentary, directly from the people in the know.

Advancement of ideas, concepts, software and products ensued.

Real leadership formed, by virtue of the discussion.

Trust or distrust developed in people, their companies or their products. 

Reputations were built so as to make for true, not manufactured influence.

Relationships were built so we knew who to trust when they shared news and information. 

Today, we have legal tech companies whose leaders are totally absent from the discussion. They “speak” through PR and communications people. Using social media, they get hired hands who know little of the underlying technology and its relationship to the law to cover for them.

Even tech organizations such as Legal Hackers, with about 200 chapters, worldwide, shy way from blogging to collaborate, to dialogue with us and to advance their important projects. Their Internet presence, if you want to call it a presence, comes largely in the form of websites.

I am no net guru, but a legal tech community starts with getting the players to participate. If legal tech company leaders are not participating l, call them out. Ask them what they are afraid of, why they do not want to give of themselves, what they are trying hide and why they don’t want to build trust with the community.

Leadership, like Linna talks of, arises of out action – of discussion in the community and open advancement of ideas and technology. Leadership is not another organization, conference or a title. 

Community requires inclusion.

Community is open to all on the Internet. Those talking and those listening. Ideas and leaders can come from anyone, anywhere in the world.

Community does not come by invitation, anymore than one would need an invitation to use the Internet.

Inclusion requires going where the people are, not where you feel comfortable. Blogging and other social media – listening and talking, personally

The Internet is a wonderful place, when used. We have a lot at stake in legal technology, and so do the people we serve. 

How about we be a little vulnerable and start conversing. Our community will evolve and leadership will arise through participation and action. 

[jimgsimon]

See You In Atlanta Next Week for the LMA Annual Conference

I am headed to the annual Legal Marketing Association Conference (“LMA”) in Atlanta next week. I’ll be joined Dan Mintz, who heads our sales and business development.

Dan’s a good person who comes with a lot of passion and care. Like me, he sees business development as all about relationships. People buy people, not products. So don’t be surprised if Dan reaches out to say hi or to meet with you – if he hasn’t already. 

With LexBlog’s evolution from solely a professional turnkey blog publishing platform to a legal news and commentary network with over 22,000 law blog contributors, the feel of LMA has changed for us.

As the publisher of legal news and commentary, we’re looking to help, at no cost, law firms and those agencies helping law firms.

LexBlog is now publishing and syndicating law firm blogs, at no cost, whether the law firm is using LexBlog’s publishing platform or not. Each lawyer, blog and law firm receives a profile, automatically and at no cost. We’re looking to talk to those law firms whose blogs are not already on LexBlog. I saw a number of large law firms who we reached out to meet in Atlanta have already submitted their blogs.

PR and marketing agencies have law firm customers looking for exposure. We want to talk with you about your syndicating your clients publishing to LexBlog – at no cost.

Coverage about you from LMA. I have been contacted by a number of companies and PR professionals to report on product or service offerings. I am happy to do so, as relevant and newsworthy, via video or Twitter – you’d be surprised what you can report in 280 characters. LexBlog can then pick up my coverage.

Don’t get me wrong, we still have a business model founded on our managed WordPress platform for blogs, micro-sites and digital magazines.

Mintz has lined up meetings with a number of law firms and digital agencies. Agencies and PR professionals are looking to use LexBlog’s platform as a more powerful and less costly platform than something they development on their own. 

Socially, I am always happy to get together. Look me up or drop me an email if you’d like to get together. 

Last, but not least, LexBlog’s Beer for Bloggers comes to Atlanta – or at least a version of it – on Monday evening at 5 at Gibney’s Pub, 231 Peachtree St NE – a short walk from the conference hotel. 

Siteimprove and LexBlog sponsoring a joint happy hour for members of the Legal Marketing Association Marketing Technology, PR & Communications, and Social & Digital Media SIGs. All who attend will be eligible for our door prize – an Apple Watch courtesy of Infinite PR. 

See you in Atlanta.

[jimgsimon]

Lawyers and Twitter: Six Ways To Make People Like You

I use Twitter more to give shout outs to the good stuff being done by others than to broadcast about LexBlog and our doings.

I’ve always had a hard time believing I did something that qualified for bragging. Maybe that’s my Irish Catholic roots and my being an entrepreneur my whole life — nothing’s ever good enough and there’s no reason not to feel guilty.

Selfishly though, it just always felt good to make others feel good about what they’re doing. Lawyers, the organizations supporting access to legal services and the innovators bringing us the future of the law also need an attagirl or attaboy now and again. 

Turns out that sharing the good of others, rather than talking about my company and our products, is the most effective method of business development I have ever used.

Dale Carnegie, in one of the best-selling books of all time, ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ laid out six business principles for making people like you – an essential he believe needed for business development.

Each of Carnegie’s points apply to how you as a lawyer can use Twitter to make people like you.

Become genuinely interested in other people. “You can make more friends in two months by being interested in them, than in two years by making them interested in you.” The only way to make quality, lasting friendships is to learn to be genuinely interested in them and their interests.

Smile. Happiness does not depend on outside circumstances, but rather on inward attitudes. Smiles are free to give and have an amazing ability to make others feel wonderful. Smile in everything that you do.

Remember that a person’s name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language. “The average person is more interested in their own name than in all the other names in the world put together.” People love their names so much that they will often donate large amounts of money just to have a building named after themselves. We can make people feel extremely valued and important by remembering their name.

Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves. The easiest way to become a good conversationalist is to become a good listener. To be a good listener, we must actually care about what people have to say. Many times people don’t want an entertaining conversation partner; they just want someone who will listen to them.

Talk in terms of the other person’s interest. The royal road to a person’s heart is to talk about the things he or she treasures most. If we talk to people about what they are interested in, they will feel valued and value us in return.

Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely. The golden rule is to treat other people how we would like to be treated. We love to feel important and so does everyone else. People will talk to us for hours if we allow them to talk about themselves. If we can make people feel important in a sincere and appreciative way, then we will win all the friends we could ever dream of.

I use Feedly, a news aggregator, and Twitter lists in most of my use of Twitter. 

Feedly gives me news stories on subjects and from certain sources. Sharing the story, with an excerpt or quote from it, and also mentioning the person’s name (Twitter handle) by attributing the story/quote to them seems to work well. 

Twitter lists enable me to see what the people and organizations I’d like to know are sharing. By retweeting, with an excerpt from the underlying story shared or a kudos to the person or organization in the story – or to the party tweeting – seems to enable me to make friends.

With a decade or two under my belt, I’ve found generating business to be about friendships and people liking each other.

Unlike the “Oracle of Omaha” Warren Buffett, though, I never realized Dale Carnegie’s course could be the most valuable degree I could get. I’m learning.

[jimgsimon]

Public shaming is not a solution to trademark bullying. Let’s build one.

–Jason Voiovich

Last week, we saw the latest installment in the “trademark bullying” saga. But this time was different. Instead of lawyers fighting amongst themselves, DuetsBlog brought out the big gun: Seth Godin. You can read the entire piece here. I like Seth Godin, and so do lots of other people (hence, the “big gun”). I read the comments (over 30 from my count). It seems to make people feel better to have someone with credibility give voice to their frustration.

I’m not against feeling better; mental health is a big deal. But as I read situation after situation, I am struck by how cases of trademark bullying almost always turn out: The small business loses.

Perhaps they don’t lose in the legal sense, but they lose in nearly every sense that matters to a small business: Time, Energy, Money, Resources, and Attention. Every moment addressing a trademark issue is a moment not invested in their business. Small businesses do not have any of those assets to spare. Large organizations do. They have legal teams that shield their workers from the ongoing drama. They have marketing budgets to drown out negative publicity. If all else fails, they have the resources to outlast you. In over 10 years of public attention, is it any wonder their behavior hasn’t changed?

Public shaming feels good, but it is not working.

It’s time to act.

To act, small business owners need reliable information about their risks. They need that information in advance of a trademark filing, and even in advance of first usage – after-the-fact litigation or advertising insurance don’t solve the problem. And finally, they need accessible and affordable information – calling your lawyer before each decision is not realistic.

In other words, small business owners need an ounce of (affordable) prevention, not a pound of cure.

Here’s my proposal.

To explain it, I am going to adapt Guy Kawasaki’s new business pitch format. At the end, I am going to ask you to invest. Let’s go.

Define the problem.

Trademark owners rightfully defend what they’ve built. However, when they overstep, there is no downside for their behavior. Even if they “lose” in court, they don’t really lose. They create a “chilling effect” for future conflicts. Additionally, they can restrict the distraction in their organization to only their legal team (who, to them, this is not a distraction). By contrast, there is plenty of downside for the small business owner. An unfavorable result in a lawsuit can put a small company out of business. But even if you win, you lose. Distractions are killers.

How does your product solve that problem?

Prevention is the best cure. Imagine a “Trademark Risk Score” much like a credit score. At “1” might be a name you completely invent from random characters. At “100” might be naming your tech company “Big Apple Computers” – an algorithm automatically scores everything in between.

Underlying magic or technology.

Building the algorithm seems easy, but it is not. Factors could include the number of existing trademarks, the size of the companies with those marks, matches in categories of use, length of trademark ownership, recent court decisions or filings, etc. But those factors don’t make an algorithm any more than ingredients don’t make a recipe. The “magic” here is using professional attorneys to “train” the algorithm and improve it.

Business model.

Small business owners could buy access to the system as a one-time purchase (like a “risk check”) or as a subscription (like a “regular checkup”). Accelerators and angels offer this subscription as a service to their startups. I could even see entrepreneurial publications (cough, cough) providing this to their subscribers as an add-on. Lawyers could advertise their services. You get the idea.

Go-To-Market plan.

Aggregators of small businesses are key to the strategy; reaching them 1:1 is cost prohibitive. Fortunately, there are plenty of accelerators, gig economy supporters (e.g. WeWork), and trademark lawyers in the world.

Competitive advantages.

The biggest competitor to this idea is a data aggregator named Trademarkia. However, their service still relies on you as the small business owner to know what you’re looking for (and I don’t think their search functions or aggregation is all that “smart”). If you’re confused, they offer expensive add-on services ranging in cost up to $10,000. That’s not going to fly for the average small business owner. They need something easier to understand and digest.

In this proposal, you plug in a few details, the algorithm spits out a risk score. Is it perfect? No. Will it protect you? No. But it will give you critical information you need to make an informed decision on next steps based on your risk tolerance.

Management team.

This solution will require three key groups of people – tech (to write the learning algorithm), lawyers (to train it), and marketers (to promote it). I wonder if I know any of those people who might be reading this?

Financial projections.

Based on the 300,000 (or so) new businesses started in the United States each year, and a 20% penetration rate for my TAM, and a $100 subscription price, I calculate about $6 million in annual revenue. Back of the napkin, but it’s a business.

Rollout plan and milestones.

I am putting my money where my mouth is – with hard cash. I am committing publicly to the first $1,000. That’s (obviously) not enough to get started, and there is hardly enough detail in this “proposal” to make a formal investment decision, but perhaps it’s enough to get others interested and begin the conversation.

Hate this idea? Awesome! Use it (copyright free) to come up with your own idea.

Just don’t keep public shaming. That’s not helping anyone.

The post Public shaming is not a solution to trademark bullying. Let’s build one. appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

Syndication of Legal News

What if there was legal news service, ala UPI, that syndicated legal news, information and commentary so that such news and commentary could be published by third-parties?

UPI (United Press International), founded in 1907, at its peak had more than 2,000 full-time employees, 200 news bureaus in 92 countries and more than 6,000 media subscribers, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations. 

As a kid I thought it incredibly neat that our local daily small town newspaper could pull and publish UPI stories and photos from around the world, in what looked like instantaneous fashion. 

Most of us who are old enough think Walter Cronkite broke the news of President Kennedy’s assassination. Not so, Cronkite got the news from UPI.

The essence of UPI, as well as AP and Reuters is syndication. Collect the news in various formats (text, audio and video) and syndicate it to those in the news business. 

With the decline in the traditional news business, these news services are no longer what that they used to be.

The legal news and journalism business is also on the decline.

With declining ad and subscription revenues, it is near impossible for traditional legal publishers to retain top reporters and editors.

Law firms are paying third parties to distribute the content published by their lawyers, with the third party often taking the Google search and social networking influence of the content. 

Third party publishers are asking legal professionals to write for them – for free – and for the third party publisher to retain ownership of the content and its original domain on the net.

What’s killing traditional legal journalism even more is the importance of the individual citizen journalist and what that citizen journalist should own and control in today’s Internet world.

Legal journalism has been democratized. 

Legal professionals have a printing press in their hands via a WordPress platform on a desktop or mobile device.

Legal professionals are reporting on law blogs – thousands of blogs with tens of thousand of bloggers, over 22,000 bloggers on LexBlog alone.

Legal journalism is now created by those in the know – practicing lawyers, law professors, law students and other legal industry professionals, all of whom have first hand knowledge and experience in niche areas.

Legal professionals can own and control their journalism (content and domain) without handing it to third parties for publishing or distribution, resulting in loss of influence caused by not having their domain be viewed as the primary domain.

With all of these law blogs, why not have a “UPI” syndicating this legal news and commentary?

The content could be syndicated to subscribers licensing a “syndication portal” displaying the stories the subscriber saw as relevant. 

Subscribers could include associations, law firms and other organization who had a ready reason to license a “syndication portal,” whether it be for member relationships, brand building or otherwise. 

Content could also be syndicated in niche focused “magazines” comprised primarily of syndicated legal news and commentary.

Most important in such legal syndication is it being all about the individual law blogger, not the third party publisher as in days past.

A hub for legal blogs with accompanying technology for “syndication portals” could make legal news syndication a reality. 

[jimgsimon]

What Does Entrepreneur Mean Anyway?

Let’s be very clear, today is April Fools’ Day, but this is not an April Fools’ Joke.

It’s not every day Seth Godin volunteers a guest post, but Thursday was that day.

Friday we published Stop Bullying the Entrepreneurs, 33 comments and counting.

This isn’t the first time Seth has spoken out against trademark bullying, he’s on record before noting: “When a brand becomes a bully, it loses something vital.”

And: “If you want to keep the taco place down the street from infringing on your business, don’t hire lawyers to hate on their slogan. Make better tacos instead.”

On Friday Seth went to public bat for kindred spirit and entrepreneur Jen Lehner:

Seth called out Entrepreneur Magazine for going after the name and mark for Jen’s podcast, “The Front Row Entrepreneur” — described by Jen this way: “The Front Row Entrepreneur gives you a front row seat to all of the most exciting people and happenings in online marketing and entrepreneurship.”

To Seth’s point, it’s difficult to create a podcast designed for an entire class of people known as entrepreneurs and not have the ability to include “entrepreneur” in the name, because it is: “One of the only words available to describe a person who builds an enterprise bigger than herself, often using outside resources.”

Actually, that’s a fair point, given the special meaning of the word — no other word that I could find with a thesaurus really captures the same and complete essence of the word “entrepreneur,” not “administrator, contractor, executive, manager, producer, backer, businessperson, founder, industrialist, organizer, promoter,” etc.

In fact, the Examining Attorney who approved Jen’s application to register THE FRONT ROW ENTREPRENEUR as a mark for podcasts, recognized the special meaning of the word, noting it to be descriptive of Jen’s podcasts: “A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture.”

So, the USPTO told Jen to disclaim exclusive rights in the term ENTREPRENEUR in THE FRONT ROW ENTREPRENEUR mark for podcasts, and she did, but to satisfy Entrepreneur Magazine she also apparently needed to withdraw her registration application and, in terms of future use, contort the more efficient name into the more wordy mouthful: THE FRONT ROW PODCAST FOR ENTREPRENEURS.

So, what does ENTREPRENEUR mean anyway? Clearly much more than a particular magazine or other offerings of that magazine. Might it even designate a category or perhaps a subgroup of magazines — those about and for an entrepreneur?

If Entrepreneur Magazine is not careful, one of these days, it might find itself in a position tangling with an enforcement target willing to go the distance, finding out the hard way, if ENTREPRENEUR has become generic (part of the public domain).

The post What Does Entrepreneur Mean Anyway? appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

Stop bullying the entrepreneurs

– Seth Godin

It’s not good marketing and I’m pretty sure it’s not good law, either.

It seems as though Entrepreneur magazine (who should know better) is working with Latham and Watkins (who should certainly know better) to persist in their relentless efforts to bully entrepreneurs to stop using the word ‘entrepreneur’.

And yes, it’s a word.

Not a fanciful or inherently distinctive trademark, a word. Almost 800,000,000 matches in Google.

One of the only words available to describe a person who builds an enterprise bigger than herself, often using outside resources.

Without that word, it’s hard to describe the work.

Poignantly, it’s interesting to see that they’re not going after people with a ton of resources. If Brian Koppelman, David Levien and Showtime started going after billionaires for using the word ‘Billions’, I’d call it a fair fight. A dumb fight, but a fair one.

But deep in the bowels of the Latham offices in San Diego (which, fortunately, hasn’t been sued by the producers of Anchorman for trademark infringement) there are young lawyers, early in their career, sending nasty letters to entrepreneurs (there’s that word again) like Jen Lehner. You can see her work here: jenlehner.com/blog

Apparently, the powers that be decided that her podcast called “Front Row Entrepreneur” somehow infringed on a magazine that hit its peak in 2013. How?

“Front Row” modifies the noun. The trademark is the modifier, not the noun. Front Row

is a trademark. Entrepreneur is simply a word.

With great cost and hassle, fledgling entrepreneurs (there’s that word again) who have finally gotten their business off the ground now have to dig in to either fight a huge law firm and their misguided but well-funded lawyers–or spend the money to change what they already built.

Who, exactly, does this help?

By engaging in this behavior, Entrepreneur might think it is building a strong trademark; instead, it is throwing away the very purpose of any trademark: To be a symbol of goodwill within a community. Amongst entrepreneurs, it is simply becoming a hated one.

Better, I think, to spend the time and the money building something that entrepreneurs actually like and respect.

The post Stop bullying the entrepreneurs appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

Cardi B, You (Probably) Can’t Trademark “Okurrr,” Okay?

The saltiest trademark news in the last week surrounds singer Cardi B’s application to register the marks “Okurr” and “Okurrr,” both slang for “Okay???”–but pronounced in a hip, rolled-r trill, sometimes with a shady tone. Or, as Cardi describes, it: the sound of a “cold pigeon in New York City.” If you haven’t heard it said before, search no further than these humorous and fully-extra renditions by a few popular drag queens:

As with most seemingly-overreaching trademark applications, Cardi’s registration of these popular words–particularly in the drag queen community–has been met with criticism. The public backlash is understandable; it brings to mind the concern that trademarking a term will take it out of the public domain and inhibit free speech and fair use. Though, to be fair, Cardi’s applications only seek to preclude use of the word on clothing and merchandise. But she acknowledges the registrations are, essentially, a cash grab.

Indeed, trademarking common words appears to be a regular strategy for celebrities seeking to capitalize on words’ popularity. I’m reminded by the recent example of singer Will.I.Am attempting to trademark the phrase “willpower,” which was cancelled by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board because the mark was too similar to other existing marks and had no source-indicating distinctiveness. That is, the public did not strongly associate the word “willpower” with Will.I.Am, so Will.I.Am cannot claim exclusive use of the mark in commerce. But Cardi argues that “Okurrr” has become her famous slogan, buoyed by a Superbowl Pepsi ad featuring her using the phrase and instructing others on how to pronounce it correctly.

And that brings me to the “T”–the truth–of the enforceability of Cardi’s registrations: it is unlikely that the general public would identify Cardi as the source of goods beat with “Okurrr” or similar marks because, in fact, “Cardi can’t honestly make the argument that she created the word.” Rather, according to the fiercest drag queen of them all, RuPaul, the credit goes to Broadway actress Laura Bell Bundy–even though RuPaul and other drag queens brought the phrase, which may have roots in African-American culture, to the runway, where it was picked up by the Kardashians and, now, Cardi B.

The contextual history of Okurrr is important and cannot be overlooked in the distinctiveness and goodwill analysis. It not only undermines Cardi’s legitimate claim to exclusive nation-wide use of the mark in commerce, but also seriously calls into question the appropriateness of restricting use of the word by all others, including the communities from which it originates–and which much of the public likely identify as earlier or actual sources of the word. Thus, trademarking “Okurrr” is likely to lose from both a legal and PR standpoint. That’s a sickening realness, but not in a “feeling the fantasy” kind of way.

Whether Cardi’s tuck-under will be allowed to stand, or the gag will be up, remains to be seen. At least one drag queen, Alaska, who is also known for her rendition of “Okurrr,” plans to clock Cardi’s conduct, potentially by challenging the registrations in court. Time will tell whether Cardi’s gambit will stay, or be asked to “sashay away.”

The post Cardi B, You (Probably) Can’t Trademark “Okurrr,” Okay? appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

Legal Journalism Takes All Forms

I’ve been wondering of late how many lawyers have hands on, blue collar work experience. Jobs that shape character for life, as my colleague, Bob Ambrogi, put it to me this afternoon.

I was concerned that if lawyers lacked such experience they wouldnt be as good a lawyer. 

So walking off the ferry yesterday morning I put the question of blue collar work experience before law out on Twitter.

Has anyone every done a survey as to the percentage of lawyers who have worked “blue collar – get your hands dirty” jobs (at anytime) before starting a job as a lawyers? @atlblog?

— Kevin O'Keefe (@kevinokeefe) March 26, 2019

The resulting responses, and the story they in effect created, made for one of the more inspiring legal journalism pieces I’ve “written.” Or at least the kind of legal journalism I do out here on my blog and social media. 

I curated the responses in a Twitter Moments, below. The responses included farming, Army combat medic, fireman, ditch digger and Taco Bell. Thirty-five responses by Wednesday afternoon with more coming in.

As I flipped through the responses/tweets on “Moments” on my iPhone (best way to view) I was consuming journalism in a new form. Inspiring stories on an inspiring medium. 

I simply asked a question, received responses from folks I wanted to hear from, curated the responses on existing and free reporting technology and distributed the “story” on that same free media technology. 

Who’s to say the story, as reported, wasn’t as powerful as a story a full-time reporter would do for a traditional news publication. Admittedly not with the same thoroughness nor accepted news story format of a news site.

But perhaps a more widely accepted format of journalism for a new generation who have grown up with the net and for those of us who rely on social networks for our news.

Check it out. I’ll be adding the responses still coming in.

Real Lawyers With Real World Job Experience

[jimgsimon]

More DuetsBlog Accolades, Thank You!

It’s that time of year again, and we’re honored to share some wonderful news — hot off the press today — concerning the 2019 JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards:

For the third year in a row, we have been recognized as the Top law firm writing on Trademarks (incredibly, four of us made the Top Ten listing out of more than 1,200).

Of course, we couldn’t achieve these lofty accolades without you, our dear readers, followers, and those who generously provide their valuable insights and comments.

However you have found us, whether through JD Supra, LinkedIn, Twitter, or if you’ve been with us since the beginning, more than 10 years ago, we’re thrilled you have joined us on this journey, and thank you for your generous contributions! Each one of you inspire us to write clearly, also thanks to Jimmy John’s, for this reminder:

The post More DuetsBlog Accolades, Thank You! appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

What is Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage and Should I Have It?

Ask the next person you see – it could be a stranger: “Do you know what UM or UIM automobile coverage is? Chances are the person will give you a bewildered look and ask: “What is it?” Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist coverage, known as UM and UIM coverage, is a form of insurance that protects you against drivers who choose to drive without insurance or only bare minimal policy limits. If such a driver negligently causes an accident, your ability to recover from your injuries and secure compensation for damages is put at severe risk. You may be forced to pay for your own vehicle repairs, medical bills, lost wages, co-pays, and deductibles. You cannot even be compensated for the pain and suffering the other driver caused no matter the extent of your injures. To protect against such a nightmare scenario, drivers are offered UM/UIM coverage that allows you to make a claim against your own policy when the other driver does not have enough insurance to pay your reasonable losses. In areas of the country containing especially aggressive drivers, like Las Vegas, you should have UM/UIM coverage to protect you and your family. UM/UIM is not mandatory in Nevada so it must be specifically requested. In fact, your insurance agent must have you sign a document to affirmatively decline this coverage. Many people decline without understanding the potential consequences. According to USLegal.com, uninsured motorist coverage is defined as follows: Additional coverage in a policy of insurance on an automobile which provides that if the owner (or a passenger) of the automobile is injured by a negligent driver of another vehicle who does not have liability insurance, then the insurance company will pay its insured’s actual damages. Not having UM/UIM coverage could carry heavy consequences and result in the following scenario: You are driving to work, as you do every morning, when someone runs a red light and t-bones your vehicle. Your air bags deploy, you are hurt and disoriented, and you are fault free. After calling 911, you exchange insurance information with the other driver and secure a police report then immediately seek treatment for your injuries. The next day or so after the accident, you meet with an attorney and learn the consequences of the negligent driver having no insurance or only minimal coverage. Your attorney then reviews your own auto policy to learn that it does not contain UM/UIM coverage. You are now left without recourse or remedy – you must pay your own damages, often out of your own pocket. This consequence is potentially devastating depending upon your level of injuries and the extent of damage to your vehicle. Unfortunately, the above scenario is all too common. If you do have UM/UIM coverage, your attorney will negotiate with your insurance company regarding that coverage to ensure you receive compensation for your loss. Each case is different, but the one constant should be that you have UM/UIM to rely upon. The lawyers at vegas west attorneys strongly recommend that you immediately call your insurance agent or pull your written policy to verify UM/UIM coverage. If you do not have this coverage, consider adding it. If you, or someone you know, is injured by the negligent driving of another, whether it be in your car, ride-share, or company vehicle, do not wait to consult with an attorney. First, seek treatment for your injuries, then immediately meet with an attorney to discuss your rights. Do not speak with the adverse insurance company or give a recorded statement until you have “lawyered up.” The insurance companies have teams of defense attorneys and adjusters that diligently aim to pay you the least amount possible for your injuries and damages. Do not fall victim to their tactics. At vegas west attorneys, we have defense attorney experience which allows us to meet and beat the insurance companies at their own game. We will protect your rights while you undergo appropriate treatment and recover from your injuries. Once the extent of your losses are known, we will aggressively seek a fair recovery that properly compensates you for the inconvenience you have suffered, property damage, medical treatment, lost wages, and the pain and suffering you had to endure because someone chose to act carelessly at your expense. By not reaching out to a legal professional after suffering an injury, you risk not knowing the answers to the following important questions: • Should I provide the insurance company with a statement and, if so, when?

• Do I call my insurance company to make a claim or call the person’s insurance who hit me?

• Who do I call to fix or replace my damaged vehicle? Is a rental car available?

• I cannot miss work to attend doctor appointments. What should I do?

• If I don’t know a doctor who can provide treatment, how do I find one?

• If I do not have medical insurance to pay my medical bills, what other options are available?

• How much should I expect in a settlement or judgment following trial? At vegas west attorneys, we work directly with you to provide proper legal advice to answer these important questions and others. Our experienced attorneys and case managers provide aide in different aspects of your accident case as well. We are your injury advocates and will speak with the insurance companies, so you don’t have to; instead, you can focus your attention on getting better. It is most important in any accident case that you recover from your injuries and pain to the greatest extent possible. This requires that you receive all the health care that you need and deserve, including, if necessary, physical therapy, proper imaging, orthopedic services, pain management treatment, neurological analysis, and sometimes neuropsychological treatment in cases involving closed head injuries. Often, various experts are required such as accident reconstruction engineers, biomechanical experts, vocational rehabilitation experts, and others. Hopefully, your injuries will not require such extensive treatment and analysis, but if it does, vegas west attorneys are equipped to handle every aspect. Often, an accident can involve forces that cause your head to whip so violently that your brain collides with the bony interior of your own skull. This contact can cause bruising to your brain tissue and tearing of blood vessels. Not every head injury is immediately followed by a loss of consciousness and, often, the symptoms from a brain injury do not manifest until later. Other injuries, such as spinal injuries, may seem minor at first but ultimately require extensive treatment, including surgery. Seeking proper treatment for injuries that you might not even suspect initially is crucial to recovery. Waiting to seek legal advice may prove detrimental not only to your accident case, but to your health and ultimate outcome. At vegas west attorneys, we evaluate our client’s insurance policies when injured in an accident, along with all potential insurance policies that may be applicable, so we may provide you the best chance of returning to your pre-accident condition. UM/UIM is just one benefit that many people do not secure when obtaining automobile insurance because they want to keep their monthly premiums low. However, UM/UIM coverage is not overly expensive and can prove extremely valuable in case of an accident. We recommend asking your insurance agent about the cost of adding this coverage with the hope that you’ll never need it, but if you do, you will be thankful to have it.

The post What is Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage and Should I Have It? appeared first on vegas west attorneys.

What is Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage and Should I Have It? published first on http://summerlinlawgroup.blogspot.com/

[jimgsimon]

Twitter as an Engagement Medium for State Bar Associations

Twitter, by definition, is an online news and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as tweets. 

In just twelve years, Twitter has changed journalism, business, politics and social networking in ways we could never have never predicted — mostly in a very positive way.

Every state bar association, except one, is using twitter. Many bars make their Twitter communications prominent on the front page of their website. Most invite people to follow them on Twitter.

But what’s missing for most bar associations is the social networking and interaction part of Twitter, what I call engagement.

Bar associations share news and information, varying from CLE programs to awards and pro bono/charitable efforts. Some bars have genrerated a decent Twitter following to this news, others have a very small following. 

Many bars are struggling to make themselves relevant to their members and the public. Most are looking to demonstrate the relevance of lawyers to a public which is increasingly attracted to alternative legal services providers not involving lawyers.

Twitter is an excellent medium for bars to increase their relevance with members and the public – so long as Twitter is used for social networking and interaction, in addition to news.

Follow the Twitter accounts of member law firm and lawyers who are Tweeting information of help to the public. These members may be even sharing information from their blog posts.

Retweet those Tweets with a comment providing your take or giving a kudos to the firm or lawyer for their efforts.

Follow the Twitter accounts of state and local reporters who periodically cover social justice, business or legal matters. 

Retweet those Tweets with comments and you’ll be in effect be reporting news, giving an atta-girl or atta-boy to the reporters and building a following from reporters.

Follow relevant organizations and businesses. May be other state bar associations or metro bar associations. Large businesses such as state organizations or health organizations may have interesting and well followed Twitter feeds. Same for chamber of commerces or other civic groups.

Retweet items of interest, again with a comments. Maybe use “what makes me feel good and is likely to make others feel good” being the guide as to what you retweet. 

Put these Twitter accounts into a Twitter list so it’s easy to quickly scroll through the Tweets and do the retweeting. Use Tweetdeck or Hootsuite to space out the five items you retweeted in 10 or 15 minutes. 

You’ll start to see these Twitter users follow you on Twitter and share your tweets with their followers, often a greater following than you have. 

In a short time, you as the State Bar will start to stick out as a shining star. Organizations, not just bar associations, don’t use Twitter much as a social networking and interaction  medium. Those who do are welcomed warmly by those of us who do.

You’ll have turned your megaphone into something akin to a handshake where you’ll be received with a welcome and an offer to help you.

You’ll have positioned the brand of the state bar to represent an organization and membership that serves and helps the public. All in a real and authenticate way, a way that establishes trust. 

Time and no staffing may be an excuse more than a reality. Bars are doing the engagement I reference.

Look at this item tweeted by a San Francisco lawyer retweeted by the Bar Association of San Francisco. 

10 Mediation Tips For Patent and Trade Secret Cases- Part 1 | ADR & Conflict Management Strategies https://t.co/MzNOiis21N Review the choices technology companies face in mediating these cases. @sfbar @SCCBarAssn @ACBAtweets @CCCBAR @smcbar #patents #tradesecrets #mediation #ADR pic.twitter.com/FbCp9f8nJn

— Frank Burke (@fjburkejr) March 20, 2019

The Florida Bar is well known for its social media efforts. Here’s a tweet where the bar highlighted the work of the Florida State University College of Law.

Last week the Assoc for Criminal Justice welcomed alum Krista Dolan (’11) from @Fla_Innocence. She shared details about public interest criminal and post-conviction work. Nearly every day, our student organizations host engaged alumni & distinguished speakers over the lunch hour. pic.twitter.com/Vtug94TDZw

— FSU College of Law (@FSUCollegeofLaw) March 21, 2019

Some education, mostly by trial and error, will be required. Reprioritization of your communications work will be needed.

The public, especially those looking to learn and network, is using Twitter en masse.

Bars, looking to make themselves more relevant to members, to serve its members and to help the public have no other choice than to use Twitter for online news — and for social networking and interaction. 

[jimgsimon]

The Death of the Supplemental Register?

Let’s all hope that the Supplemental Trademark Register is not on the death watch.

It appears though to be on life support, at times, and especially with the USPTO’s heightened focus on “merely informational” matter, including laudatory messages.

This is a common basis for registration refusal nowadays: “Merely informational matter fails to function as a mark to indicate source and thus is not registrable.”

Don’t all valid trademarks communicate information? Exactly. How does the USPTO know when at least one of the bits of that information is not about the source?

It cannot be fatal to validity that a mark communicates more information than simply source, see a suggestive mark or a descriptive one that has become distinctive.

Although not a laudatory example, the first precedential decision from the TTAB in 2019 denied Wal-Mart’s application on the Principal Register, for INVESTING IN AMERICAN JOBS, a slogan for retail store services, calling it “merely informational,” incapable as a mark:

Wal-Mart recognized that its claimed mark communicated descriptive information, yet it argued that its evidence was sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness.

What’s striking about the Wal-Mart decision is that evidence of descriptiveness was used to support the fatal conclusion that the slogan can never function as a mark.

It relied on a series of prior cases holding certain phrases incapable of functioning as marks (THINK GREEN, GUARANTEED STARTING, DRIVE SAFELY, and others).

It used evidence typically supportive of a descriptiveness refusal to say that Wal-Mart’s slogan would not be perceived as a mark to indicate the source of services.

It also pointed to several examples like “ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE,” “PROUDLY MADE IN THE USA,” and “THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA,” as merely informational or laudatory slogans, incapable of serving a trademark purpose.

Laudatory terms long have been considered merely descriptive (not generic) for the provided goods or services, so they’re ideally suited for the Supplemental Register.

The Supplemental Register exists as a holding cell for merely descriptive phrases not yet distinctive, but capable of becoming distinctive, maybe at some future time.

Incapable matter — subject matter that cannot serve as a trademark — like generic terms and phrases are impossible and hopeless of ever functioning as a valid mark.

TMEP 1202.04(a) actually blends laudatory and informational: “Matter that only conveys general information about the applicant’s identified goods or services, including highly laudatory claims of superiority, fails to function as a mark.”

So, now we’re going to differentiate between garden variety laudatory claims that are descriptive, and “highly laudatory claims of superiority” — the latter being incapable, and the former holding out some hope of having at least a chance?

This unfortunate approach is reminiscent of the widely criticized approach of the “so highly descriptive” category as to be incapable of serving a trademark purpose.

All the way back in 1989, I went on the record, questioning the “so highly descriptive as to be incapable” line of cases in “Putting the Cart Before the Horse in Assessing Trademark Validity — Toward Redefining the Inherently Generic Term,” published in the University of Iowa College of Law’s Journal of Corporation Law.

The problem with the “so highly descriptive” category is it treats descriptive matter as incapable and generic without the rigors of an actual genericness determination.

The poster (or coaster) child for the eerily similar approach is the Federal Circuit’s 1999 decision rejecting Sam Adam’s THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA slogan as incapable, blurring the distinction between descriptive and generic designations:

In that decision, Sam Adams had “not met its burden to show” that the slogan THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA for beer, had acquired distinctiveness/secondary meaning.

Had the TTAB and Federal Circuit stopped there, fair enough, doing so would have allowed Sam Adams to seek a Supplemental Registration and try again later (with more evidence of acquired distinctiveness) for a coveted Principal Registration.

But instead, both the TTAB below and the Federal Circuit on review, went on to editorialize that no amount of evidence could ever turn THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA into a trademark, not because it’s generic, but because it’s incapable.

That’s what courts routinely said about single color marks, they’re impossible and incapable of serving a trademark purpose, until Owens Corning came along with the Pink Panther, to reverse decades of thinking against single color trademarks.

And, if “highly laudatory claims of superiority” are actually incapable of a trademark purpose and outside the possible definition of a trademark, then how can Principal Registration of AMERICA’S BEST BEER DRINKING CITY be explained, or these?

Let’s be honest, since the stated test is really to discern how the claimed mark would be perceived by the relevant public, too easily dismissing evidence going to that question, doesn’t help and starts to feel more like an impossible shell game.

I’d rather see the evidence of descriptiveness (which provides information) used to support a descriptiveness refusal, allow a Supplemental Registration, then the USPTO can wage the real evidentiary battle with claims of acquired distinctiveness.

Last week was an incredible opportunity to share some of these thoughts in NYC with those attending Practicing Law Institute’s Advanced Trademark Law 2019 seminar, thanks to PLI, Kenneth Min, and co-chairs Kieran Doyle and Dean Eyler!

In the end, let’s all hope that the USPTO reins in its hyper-focus on expanding the “merely informational” and outcome-determinative category of incapable subject matter, so we don’t have to kiss the Supplemental Register goodbye.

Additional hat tip to Sam Adam’s and its vintage painter’s cap:

    The post The Death of the Supplemental Register? appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

You Should Consider Where You Store Your Content

My COO, Garry Vander Voort’s post yesterday about MySpace’s deleting their user’s archived content should serve as a wake up a call to legal professionals publishing articles and blog posts to third party controlled systems.

MySpace announced this week, that in addition to other content, over 50 million music tracks were lost.  How So?  Per MySpace:

As a result of a server migration project, any photos, videos, and audio files you uploaded more than three years ago may no longer be available on or from MySpace. We apologize for the inconvenience.

“We apologize for the inconvenience.” More than glib as Vander Voort describes the statement, it’s more of a “tough luck, what do you expect from us, we’re just one of those Internet companies to whom you pay little or nothing, what more could you expect.”

Think companies don’t think that way? Sit in an investors meeting when the projected businesses models didn’t pan out.

Your interests and your content will take a back a seat to their monies and the monies of the folks who invested in their fund. Monies are not going to be set aside for a perpetual archive of your content and the content of hundreds of thousands of other people. 

There are some brilliant people in legal innovation publishing on Medium, an online publishing platform founded by Ev Williams, a co-founder of Blogger and Twitter.

They include Rob Saccone and Ed Walters, writing to and storing their writings on Medium here and here. Rob has eight articles on Medium and Ed, six. 

Though not publishing often, when you’re a widely recognized legal tech entrepreneur and corporate leader writing and commenting on “Tech, Data and Innovation Breaking Down the Barriers Between Law Firms and Business,” you are going to be cited. Your pieces are going to be shared in law school and MBA classrooms. 

Same thing applies when you’re the co-founder and CEO of a 22 year old, yet still the fastest growing legal research company — and teach Robots and the Law at two law schools — and publish “Data is the New Oil: Legal Management Lessons from John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.” 

We could blame companies like MySpace or, in the case of legal publishing, Bloomberg Law, for deleting content, but as Vander Voort says, “I think we would be wiser and happier in the long run if we instead used this opportunity to look at our own behavior.”

Do you care about the content you are posting online?  If so, you should be considerate of where you are posting it.  Is it a closed system?  Do you have the ability to retrieve that content when you want it?  Will it be in a format that is useful for you in the future?

Look at blogging. 

A lot of great options exist for open Content Management Systems that allow you access/download to your content in convenient formats. WordPress is by far the largest and most successful example.

Yet people continue to buy into closed systems. Either buying opaque packaged software that hides behind vague promises of security or in closed publishing platforms that strip you of the rights to your own work.

Get beyond looking at publishing as content marketing to grab attention or to improve search performance. That’s akin to advertising, something we’re not looking to store because of it’s lasting effect on learning, knowledge and advancements in business and the law. 

Vander Voort puts it well. 

The decision you make on “where” to post content has long term repercussions. Not just for the long term accessibility of your content, but also for the viability of the web itself. 

When millions of files are silenced all at once, it creates a giant hole in the web. It robs of us of our history and confines the talent of many people to the digital void.  The only evidence that they ever existed being tantalizing links that lead to nowhere. 

Maybe you think that the internet works best at a living AND dying entity.  Even if that is the case, you should consider what you do with your own content.  It belongs to you.  Don’t let other companies or “incidents” decides its fate.  Choose your platforms wisely to ensure that you are in control. 

Frequency of writing is not a reason to put your content at risk, inconvenience countless others who will go to dead links for years to come (links created by others such as online commentators, professors, presenters and business people), and decrease your object influence as measured by social networks based on a long standing consistent domain.

Compared to ten years ago, the costs of publishing to platform that provides you control and long term archival  are minimal. An beyond storage and control, but to a software language that is open and ubiquitous so that your content is effectively portable at a minimal cost – think WordPress. 

Each of us are sharing insight and ideas that are looked as valuable by those around us and the legal profession as a whole, perhaps more valuable than we’d believe. Treat the insight and commentary with the respect it deserves. 

[jimgsimon]

Food Fight in NYC!

Famous celebrity chef Chloe Coscarelli (“Chloe”) and Tom Colicchio (“Colicchio”) started a new pop-up restaurant called “Supernatural” that is in the midst of a “food fight” or lawsuit with owners of the By Chloe restaurant Chloe originally founded but no longer has an ownership interest in.  After receiving cease and desist letter from BCH Hospitality Group LLC (“BCH”), Chloe and Colicchio sued BCH in a declaratory judgment action for a judgment that they do not infringe on the CHLOE® trademarks and did not breach Coscarelli’s Name, Face and Likeness Agreement (“NFL Agreement”) with BCH.

Chloe was the first vegan chef to win Cupcake Wars, a national cooking competition, on the Food Network.  She is a published author of four popular cookbooks.  She is known as “Chloe” and “Chef Chloe” and worked at gourmet vegan restaurants in New York and San Francisco.  She has been recognized as “America’s favorite vegan chef” and featured on the “30 under 30” series by  The New York Times, Zagat and Forbes.  However, I must confess that although I am a pescatarian (meaning a vegetarian that eats fish) I had not heard of Chloe or her vegan restaurant until I learned about her lawsuit.

However, I have heard of Chef Tom Colicchio.  He is a James Beard Award winner and also known as “Top Chef.”  Colicchio received an Emmy Award for his work as a Judge on the show Top Chef.  I have had the pleasure of eating at Colicchio’s New York restaurants:  CRAFT (located by the fabulous Flat Iron Building), Gotham Bar & Grill and Gramercy Tavern.  I am hoping to check out The Quilted Giraffe on my next trip to New York (but I digress).

Their Complaint includes the following picture of the chefs:

Chloe founded “by CHLOE” and then partnered with BCH’s predecessor.  BCH is associated with James Haber and ESquared Hospitality.  She claims in her lawsuit that BCH ousted her from the restaurant and she has not been involved for two years.  BCH has a different story, alleging among other things, that she was “grossly negligent” related to losing leases and sabotaging deals with partners.  I have not delved into this messy business “divorce” so I will comment no further.

After Chloe left, BCH started “Sweets by Chloe bakery” pictured below:

am starting to get hungry so I better get back to the legal dispute.  In their Complaint, the chefs included the following picture related to their vegan restaurant:

The chefs argued that the restaurant’s name is “Supernatural” which is not similar to By Chloe at all.  The name highlights that the food is super natural.  According to the Complaint, the two chefs collaboration arose from Colicchio writing “An Open letter to (Male) Chefs” on the platform Medium about rampant harassment in the restaurant industry.  It sounds like Colicchio is on the right side of the Me-Too movement.

In contrast,  BCH focuses on the lower portion that identified the two chefs involved with the new SUPERNATURAL restaurant.  Specifically, the lower part of the sign is “CHLOE COSCARELLI X TOM COLICCHIO COLLABORATION.”  The chefs will likely argue that their names are informative and the trademark and certainly any dominant mark for their restaurant is SUPERNATURAL.  Further, the chefs argue their fame as chefs will not be confused with BCH or its By Chloe marks or restaurants.

I have not seen the NFL Agreement.  It may have a non-compete, but it would likely have some sort of time limit rather than preclude her from working for life.  Chloe asserts the agreement is terminated.  Further, I would doubt that the NFL Agreement required her to change her name or not be able to truthfully state who she is in connection with a restaurant.  The more likely prohibition would be to not use the name “CHLOE” for the restaurant.  But, I have not seen the NFL Agreement, so there may be other arguments that BCH will have against the chef.

This will be an interesting case to follow.  As there are allegations about a dip in quality at By Chloe, the judge and jury might want to sample food from the restaurants involved.

The post Food Fight in NYC! appeared first on DuetsBlog.

[jimgsimon]

WordPress, Used Correctly, for Law Firms is Stable, Secure and Highly Peforming

The reason that some law firm IT and legal marketing folks aren’t fans of WordPress is that when they neglect to update it or make ill-advised use of plugins and themes WordPress becomes unsafe.

It really is as simple as that. WordPress is one of the most, if not the most, stable, secure and highly performing content management solutions available to law firms, whether it be for a blog, a microsite or a website. 

Whether WordPress performs, is secure and stable comes down to its set up, maintenance and feature upgrades. Because of this, most law firms, including the largest law firms, are not running their WordPress sites themselves, they are using a managed WordPress platform or host. 

Think of an Indy racing car. Team Penske, perennial favorites at the Indianapolis 500, will be driving three Chevrolet’s this May. 

Chevrolet’s? Sounds too simple of a car to win the 500.  

Highly performing Chevrolet engines delivering 550 to 700 horsepower capable of propelling cars at an average of over 230 miles per hour for 200 laps, 2 1/2 miles each. 

Now hand that Chevy to an amateur or someone otherwise skilled and someone is going to get killed, let alone have the car highly performing. 

I read with a chuckle one legal marketing company’s checklist comparison of WordPress with their own website software.

WordPress costs more to use.  WordPress, no matter who you use for hosting or a platform, is dangerous to use and always insecure. WordPress is difficult to use. WordPress doesn’t work for search performance. 

Geez, sounds like a list of possible side effects from the use of a prescription drug. Maybe you have good web software, but to bash WordPress is a little silly.  

In a piece at Search Engine Land, Detlef Johnson, the editor of Third Door Media, makes clear that WordPress is very safe. Neglecting to set it up right and failing to maintain it, among other things, can make it unsafe. 

Detlef states the obvious. There is no such thing as a 100 percent secure system. WordPress, like any software, needs security updates to operate safely, and those updates shouldn’t negatively affect you. 

As a lawyer or law firm, make informed choices when it comes to web software and the parties whose web platforms you will be using. But don’t let anyone tell you WordPress is not suitable for law firms. 

If you need any comfort, look at the fact that over one third of the top ten million web properties and over two thirds of sites with a content management system (CMS) are powered by WordPress. 

[jimgsimon]

WordPress Now Powers Over One-Third of the Web

As reported yesterday, WordPress now powers over 1/3rd of the top 10 million sites on the web according to W3Techs.

Their market share has grown steadily over the last few years, going from 29.9% just one year ago to 33.4% today. 

WordPress isn’t just for individuals, small businesses or blogs.  

Over the years WordPress has become the CMS of choice for more and more people and companies. As various businesses use WordPress, the variety of WordPress sites grows. Large enterprise businesses all the way down to small local businesses: all of them use WordPress to power their site. 

LexBlog,  founded in 2005, was run on MovableType software. Looking at WordPress then, as developed by a sophomore at the University of Houston, Matt Mullenweg, I thought no way was WordPress credible publishing software for the legal profession.

Boy was I wrong.

In 2005, we were celebrating 50,000 downloads. Six years later, in January 2011, WordPress was powering 13.1% of websites. And now, early in 2019, we are powering 33.4% of sites. Our latest release has already been downloaded close to 14 million times, and it was only released on the 21st of February.

LexBlog switched to WordPress in 2009 and now runs one of the larger managed WordPres platforms around. 

WordPress is prevailing and will become the digital publishing software of record because it’s open source. Hundreds of thousands of developers, including LexBlog’s developers are working to improve WordPress — each and everyday. 

We’d like to thank everyone who works on WordPress, which is built and maintained by a huge community of volunteers that has grown alongside the CMS. This incredible community makes it possible for WordPress to keep growing while still also remaining free. 

Drupal, Joomla, Wix, Squarespace and Blogger (no longer even being supported) are not credible long term publishing solutions for law firms or other organizations. 

Congratulations to WordPress — and thank you for your success.