#fastcase

[carriesthewind]

Thanks so much for your writeup of the 2 Stupid 2 Sanction case. OMG.

As a reference librarian in a special library (i.e. not an academic or public library), the database access of this case has been -fascinating- to me. I regularly struggle with the challenge of how to provide access to materials to my patrons, when we have limited access and an even more limited budget. This case is an absolutely TEXTBOOK in what NOT to do.

Regarding the apparently wonky access to different categories of cases in Fastcase, I can provide a little professional insight, as I have spent FAR too many hours trying to decipher database providers' pricing guidelines. (But, DISCLAIMER: I am not a law librarian and hold my colleagues who are in absolute awe. So I don't have any direct experience with the database in question, just 15+ years of trying to wrangle these kinds of databases in general.)

It is conceivable that Fastcase could be setup in such a way that Schwartz et al. had access to ALL of the 2nd Circuit cases and some of the 5th Circuit cases. Research databases are nearly always broken out into "collections" and you can often pick and choose which collections you have access to, depending on how much money you fork over. I have absolutely seen instances where content I expected to be in one such collection was actually found in another (looking at you, Oxford Scholarly Editions…). This can happen for a variety of reasons: when the content was acquired by the database provider, what kind of distribution rights they were able to secure, or even who was doing the ingesting of that content.

None of which are relevant for Fastcase.

Acquisition and distribution rights are a non-issue for case law (particularly US Federal case law), and the inherent nature of the structure of the court system creates pre-made "collections" for the database to be organized into.

This is supported by Fastcase's own website. On their "Coverage" page, they helpfully break out the different content that they can provide access to into exactly the manner that you would expect. Each Court has its own "bucket" of content, starting from the Supreme Court and working our way down through more and more specialized courts.

So the idea that Schwartz would have access to some of the 5th Circuit cases, but not all? Pretty laughable. They should all be in the same "collection", where you'd either have access to ALL or NONE. It's hard to conceive of it as anything other a binary setup.

It gets even more laughable when you look at Fastcase's helpful Pricing Plans page.

They helpfully breakdown the content that each subscription plan would have access to. Their "Appellate Plan" (the cheapest) provides access to US Supreme Court, US Court of Appeals, and State Supreme & Appellate Court decisions and to "Nationwide Statutes, Regulations, Court Rules & More". Their "Premium Plan" and "Enterprise Plan" both provide access to all of this, PLUS US District and Bankruptcy Court decisions.

(Side note: As database pricing goes, this really is Not Bad. They seem to be making good on their claim to try to provide broader access and tools for legal research.)

Now, the scope of access for a subscriber level probably isn't set in stone; database providers can be remarkably flexible about what they provide access to if it means making a sale vs not. So despite the fact that on their public-facing information page, they give the appearance that a subscriber would get access to ALL Federal Appeals cases, it is certainly conceivable that the Firm negotiated access to ONLY 2nd Circuit cases.

But then how would they have access to ANY 5th Circuit cases?

No, it's far more likely that they had access to everything. And again, it's hard to comprehend how an "error in billing" would lead to partial access. It's generally a binary setup: either you have access to everything in your subscription, or you have access to none of it.

I'm gonna call shenanigans on the "billing error" argument as well.

And all of this is completely aside from the fact that, as you've noted several times, YOU CAN JUST GOOGLE FEDERAL CASES WTIH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SOMETHING USEFUL COMING UP. (There's a whole other discussion of why these cases exist in subscription databases at all, having to do with metadata and search frameworks and site functionality, but that's another whole long thing and this is already far too long as is.)

(As as side note, whoever has written the training documentation (https://go.fastcase.com/teachingfastcase) for Fastcase deserves a goddamned medal. The line "Parentheses are the Marie Kondo of Boolean Operators: Here to bring you joy and sort similar things in similar locations." made me laugh for 5 minutes straight. I'm still giggling about it.)

Thank you for this fantastic writeup of this issue!

This was so much good information (and dam, yes, that documentation is delightful), and I don't have anything substantive to add.

If I may indulge in some brief speculation, if I had to bet on what actually happened, here is what I suspect: the Firm didn't have access to the federal Fastcase database at all (I think this because it would be such a stupid and pointless thing for the Firm representative to lie about, otherwise). But it may have been less of "billing error" and more of a, "we're not going to bother to pay for that, we are never in federal court." However, once he got the Court's order to annex the cases, he got access somehow - maybe someone else at the firm had access, or he had a friend with access, or he did actually go to a bar association library, or whatever. And that's how he downloaded the real opinions. (I think this because it seems like the simplest explanation, and it explains why he/they are so cagey about how he actually go the opinions. Because if had full access, it shatters his excuse that he thought the "opinions" were real because he couldn't check them in another source "because he didn't have a database with access to the federal reporters available.")

(But I want to know! Especially with what you've just laid out, I want to shake everyone involved until the truth falls out!)

[christielawoffice]

The Four Founders Of vLex And Fastcase On The Merger Of Their Two Companies https://t.co/PsMNqKd1pj

The Four Founders Of vLex And Fastcase On The Merger Of Their Two Companies https://t.co/PsMNqKd1pj

— Christie Law Office (@ChristieLawOfc) May 1, 2023

via https://twitter.com/ChristieLawOfc/status/1653096387486134273

[rippleon-blog]

Thinksgiving, Meetings and Just Plain Rippling with Matthew Homann

We are so grateful that Matthew Homann with FIlament stopped by The Ripple Effect Podcast. He and Steve have been great friends for a lot of years and we area so honored he came on the show to share some of the incredible work he and his team are doing.

From hosting really innovative meetings through his company Filament to his incredible annual "Thinksgiving" events, his efforts to create positive Ripples in the world never stop.

He will simply blow your mind in this interview!

Here's a bit more about Matt:

Matt Homann is the founder and CEO of Filament, a meeting-focused business that is rethinking the ways people think, meet, and learn together better. An accomplished keynote speaker and creative facilitator, Matt has worked with legal, accounting, financial services, nonprofit, and healthcare professionals around the world, as well as with executives from companies including Google, Purina, McDonald's, HP, Microsoft, IBM, British Petroleum, DuPont and the US Military.

In his previous life as a lawyer he earned a reputation as a tireless advocate for legal innovation, alternative fees, and client-focused service. He was named one of the 50 most innovative people in law by Fastcase, a "Legal Rebel" by the American Bar Association, and is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management.

Matt has suffered from "Idea Surplus Disorder" as long as he can remember. He's the founder of and former CEO of Invisible Girlfriend and Invisible Boyfriend, a startup that pioneered virtual companionship and that was featured on The Today Show.

He's also the inventor of Thinksgiving: a collaborative event that pairs deserving nonprofits with innovative teams from smart companies for a day of creative problem-solving.

Matt lives in St. Louis with his wife, Jessica and daughter, Grace.

Ready to get your Ripple On? Check out the latest episode of The Ripple Effect Podcast with Steve Harper!

[abizinabox]

Fastcase - Legal Research Platform

Fastcase – Legal Research Platform

Fastcase – Legal Research Platform

Fastcase – Legal Research Platform a HUGE thank you to Sean Hocking, the publisher of CannabisLaw.report for introducing us to Steve Errick, the COO of Fastcase, a brilliant next generation legal research platform that augments our subscriptions to Thomsen Reuter Editorial materials, Tax Notes and Bloomberg Tax.

Fastcaseis a comprehensive, nationwide law…

[tyronearmstrong]

Illinois Bar Shines a Light on Legal Bloggers With Illinois Lawyer Now

Big kudos to the Illinois State Bar Association for shining a light on their state’s blogging lawyers with the launch this week of Illinois Lawyer Now. 

Illinois Lawyer Now aggregates all of the posts on blogs published by members of the Illinois Bar and curates the posts into a constantly updated legal news and commentary publication, which also includes original articles from the Bar and contributors.

Each blog, blogging lawyer and law firm with contributing blogs is profiled in individual pages on the site. 

From the Bar in announcing the site: 

By aggregating members’ legal blogs on a single website, the ISBA aims to shine a brighter light on the excellent writing its members are doing every day. While the average blog on a firm’s website is seen by only those who visit the firm’s site, inclusion on Illinois Lawyer Now will amplify the content’s exposure and result in many more readers.

Lawyers benefit from Illinois Lawyer Now in growing the readership of their blogs and having access to a growing body of legal information, per Illinois State Bar President James F. McCluskey.

We find that a syndication portal is a win-win for our members and their readers. Illinois Lawyer Now gives our blogging members an opportunity to grow their audience, and at the same time, it gives readers access a variety of knowledge from Illinois lawyers all in one place.

Illinois Lawyer Now is the first publication to be launched on LexBlog’s new “Syndication Portal” platform. The technology delivers a turnkey publishing product that gives organizations the ability to aggregate content from many blogs and sites into one online publication. 

The Syndication Portal product is appropriate for any organization that seeks to highlight members’ content, strengthen its membership organization and realize new revenue from digital publishing. That could include bar associations, law schools, larger law firms and special interest groups.

A special thanks to Tim Slating, Assistant Executive Director, Communications for the Illinois State Bar and his team for working with LexBlog to develop this product. Truth be told, the “Syndication Portal” concept was drawn out on a napkin over a dinner in Vancouver with Tim a year ago. 

I guess a thanks also goes to Ed Walters who invited me to that annual Fastcase dinner for bar executives and sat me at a table with Tim, who I had not before. 

And just how is Illinois Lawyer Now working? In just two days, sixty Illinois law firms have submitted a total of eighty blogs for inclusion. Amazing.

Illinois Bar Shines a Light on Legal Bloggers With Illinois Lawyer Now published first on https://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelphiablog.wordpress.com/

[josephquinn]

Non Sequiturs: 03.24.19

* In the wake of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's retirement, I predicted that Chief Justice John Roberts, a staunch institutionalist when it comes to the Supreme Court, would serve as a moderating influence at SCOTUS -- and so far that seems to be the case, with Adam Feldman noting a "a mild liberalizing over time" in JGR's jurisprudence. [Empirical SCOTUS] * Speaking of SCOTUS, it's high time for the Court to resolve the messy circuit split on email privacy under the Stored Communications Act, according to Orin Kerr. [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason] * The Trump Administration's new executive order about free speech on university campuses might harm rather than help the cause of academic freedom, as Paul Horwitz points out. [PrawfsBlawg] * Republicans aren't the only ones with purity tests for judicial nominations; Demand Justice, a left-wing group focused on the federal judiciary, has high standards for Democratic opposition to Trump nominees. [Bench Memos / National Review] * While you wait for the 2019 edition of Above the Law's law school rankings, check out the latest installment of the "revealed preferences" law school rankings, by C.J. Ryan and Brian L. Frye. [SSRN] * What's next for Kira Systems, a leader in the world of legal AI? Co-founder and CEO Noah Waisberg isn't resting on his laurels -- and he's putting that $50 million investment from last September to work. [Artificial Lawyer] * Fastcase continues to forge new partnerships -- and in its latest alliance, it will give its subscribers access to select titles from the American Bar Association (which, full disclosure, published my book (affiliate link) in 2014). [Dewey B Strategic] * If you'll be in New York this coming Wednesday, consider attending the inaugural Kenneth P. Thompson '92 Lecture on Race and Criminal Justice Reform at NYU Law School, focused on wrongful convictions and the roles of prosecutors and others in the criminal justice system. [NYU Law] Non Sequiturs: 03.24.19 published first on http://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelphia.blogspot.com/

[antonioriley]

WWW at 30 : Democratization of Legal Publishing Made Possible

In 2003, @WordPress was created to democratize publishing on the open web. #Web30 #ForTheWeb pic.twitter.com/1Xny14pqu4

— Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt) March 12, 2019

The World Wide Web is thirty years old today.

The Internet may have existed for twenty years before the WWW, but it was not until English scientist Tim Berners-Lee brought us the Web So that documents and resources could be shared and linked to via Uniform Reosource Locators (URL’s).

A year later, Berners-Lee brought us the first software to display web pages on terminals called the Line Mode Browser.

It was not until 1993 when a Marc Andreessen led team at the University of Illinois brought us the Mosaic browser and then Netscape built on Mosaic a year later in 1994 that the Web became democratized – usable by the masses.

Matt Mullenweg, the co-founder of WordPress celebrated the Web’s 30th anniversary by sharing that WordPress was created fourteen years after the birth of the Web with the mission to democratize publishing.

Democratize publishing WordPress did. As recently as twenty years ago, it was unheard of for anyone to have ready and inexpensive access to a printing press and a worldwide distribution network. Today, WordPress open source software has made this a reality. 

Seeing the opportunity for citizen publishing by lawyers to build their name as trusted and reliable authorities in niche areas of law via the Web, LexBlog jumped at the opportunity fifteen years ago to democratize legal publishing.

Until then, large legal publishing and media companies held the reigns to publishing in the law. Only those legal professionals approved by these gatekeepers could write and publish whether it was a journal, news, commentary or an informative piece.

Now, any legal professional may publish and distribute news, insight and commentary. LexBlog, with 22,000 law bloggers contributing to its network is, as Ed Walters, the CEO of Fastcase, describes it, the largest newsroom in the history of legal journalism. 

We talk of AI and other technology bringing us extraordinary change in the years ahead. But, arguably, the digital printing press, enabling anyone to communicate, advance ideas and collaborate is the most powerful piece of technology we’ll see in our lifetimes. 

Mind too that we are witnessing all of these changes in many of our lifetimes. Vinton Cerf, recognized as one of the fathers of the Internet itself. was born just a decade before me.

We’re not talking Bell or Edison. In celebration of this 30th anniversary, Cerf tweeted a picture of he and Berners-Lee joking about who invented what.

#Web30! pic.twitter.com/3d5xUcn9Mb

— vinton g cerf (@vgcerf) March 12, 2019

When I think of it being only 16 years since the advent of the digital printing press and LexBlog grabbing it to build a managed WordPress platform for the law (thanks Matt), it feels like we are just getting started in democratizing legal publishing. 

WWW at 30 : Democratization of Legal Publishing Made Possible published first on http://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelph.tumblr.com/

[kennethmjoyner]

Fastcase Partners With TransUnion To Offer Public Records Search And Analytics

Legal research service Fastcase is announcing today a partnership with TransUnion that will give its subscribers access to public records information and analytics for individuals and businesses via TransUnion’s TLOxp platform.

The partnership will provide Fastcase subscribers with single sign-on access to information such as addresses, phones, places of employment, professional licenses, criminal records, bankruptcies, liens, assets, relatives, associations, and more.

Lawyers can use the information to perform due diligence, conduct litigation support, locate witnesses, track ownership of assets, verify identities, and conduct other investigations.

The integration will be available in Fastcase 7 when it comes out of beta sometime later this month or early in April. When a user conducts a search within Fastcase that involves an individual or company, Fastcase will offer the user the option of extending that search to TransUnion’s public records.

To access the public records information, Fastcase subscribers will need a separate subscription to TLOxp. When they first sign up for a subscription, they will also need to be authenticated by TransUnion before being allowed access. Once approved, they will be able to access the TLOxp platform without requiring a separate login and password.

TLOxp offers three levels of pricing:

Transactional, for firms with low search volumes.

Per seat, offering discounts for fixed numbers of users.

Flat rate, with pricing based on a minimum volume but no limit on users.

The TLOxp platform also provides analytics tools that enable users to map connection points among their search subjects and relatives, associates, companies and others. For businesses, these tools help users find subsidiaries, DBAs, UCC filings, owners and officers, board members, bankruptcies, liens, court records and more.

The TLOxp platform allows users to search this data in three ways:

User interface, for standard searches one by one.

Batch, allowing hundreds of thousands of records to be run at once, a feature the company says is popular with class action and mass tort attorneys.

API, also allowing users to run hundreds of thousands of records at once.

Among the types of data available in TLOxp are:

Social security numbers.

Dates of birth and death.

Drivers’ licenses.

Addresses and phones.

Military service.

Linkages among people, businesses and assets.

Relatives.

Voter registration.

Hunting permits.

Weapon permits.

Social media.

Criminal records.

Business information regarding liens, judgements, bankruptcies, UCC filings, criminal records of principals.

Owner of email address or phone number.

Steve Errick, chief operating officer at Fastcase, told me yesterday that this partnership is another step in the company’s push to provide a comprehensive legal research platform. “Our customers have been asking us for this,” he said, adding that he has already heard strong interest from subscribers at both smaller and larger firms.

Future plans call for the two companies to more tightly integrate the public records data within Fastcase and to jointly develop additional tools for accessing and analyzing the data, Errick said.

from Law and Politics https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2019/03/fastcase-partners-with-transunion-to-offer-public-records-search-and-analytics.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[haley-zelenka]

Which 5 Steps Make Up Legal Research?

The first step in conducting legal research is gathering primary materials, frequently the most reliable sources on a particular subject. On the other hand, secondary sources aren't always reliable. However, whether they are or not may depend on the situation and your level of expertise. Therefore, reviewing a range of sources, beginning with a primary source like an encyclopedia, may be necessary before moving on to sources with more specific information. Chapter 6 provides a thorough explanation of the many categories of secondary sources.

Secondary sources are helpful for brief summaries of a particular subject or body of legislation. Legal encyclopedias, treatises, and law magazines are excellent places to start when you're unsure about a subject. In addition, you can utilize non-legal materials and legal encyclopedias as a place to start. The primary sources will provide a general understanding of the legislation, but if more information is needed, you may always go to other resources.

Find primary authorities after you have a general understanding of the subject of your legal study. The most effective way to achieve this is to read mainstream textbooks, reference works, legal journals, reliable comments, and common online sites. You should then locate, study, and analyze any pertinent prior research to identify any gaps or conceptual problems in the main sources. Finally, consult a topic-specific secondary source if there is a very dense area of law.

Finding your knowledge gaps is the next step in conducting legal research. This is where you'll locate materials for that subject and identify any gaps. Note any important words, overarching themes, and background information. You can also draw attention to the general details that are absent. You may also use primary and secondary sources to fill in the gaps. Finally, you can come upon the solution to your query in a source not mentioned here.

Treatises and laws are examples of secondary resources. These publications thoroughly study a legal subject and cite a leading authority. These publications are frequently made by professionals who focus on a certain region. Some treatises could be quite authoritative, but not all of them. To locate the most trustworthy title, use a subject-specific research guide. Also available are legal encyclopedias. The latter are specialist books that might offer useful data on a subject.

The researcher must define an issue statement as part of the preliminary stages of their investigation. This claim may or may not be true, but it will restrict the investigation process. For example, the problem statement might be a conceptual framework, such as a power structure. This is a crucial stage in conducting legal research. The legal study is crucial for society if law change is being pursued. There are several approaches to the issue in law.

You might need to use standard searches in legal databases as you progress through the legal research process. In these circumstances, Boolean searching and search filters can be used to limit the results. It is crucial to take the time to evaluate your research techniques and issue a statement and findings since you may run across new problems and terminologies. A legal research tool like Fastcase should also be used to speed up the research procedure.

Theories. Theories aid in understanding both the issue and the wider universe. The idea clarifies how and why events take place. It is also founded on a logical examination of fundamental legal theories. New knowledge is built on top of the theoretical framework. The theory will then be applied to the issue. There are five phases of legal research:

First-tier authorities Citators enable academics to use earlier sources to trace the history of a legal problem. They can also find more sources by looking through the headnotes of cited viewpoints. These take time, but they can be helpful for analysis. But ultimately, they give the finished piece of writing a structure. The five phases of the legal study are not exclusive of one another. They could be required, though, if you want to conduct legal research for a specific case.

[christielawoffice]

It’s a long road ahead for driverless cars, says Fastcase executive https://t.co/E0enqf5qBd

It’s a long road ahead for driverless cars, says Fastcase executive https://t.co/E0enqf5qBd

— Christie Law Office (@ChristieLawOfc) Nov 12, 2022

via https://twitter.com/ChristieLawOfc/status/1591488370181804034

[freemindtech]

Docket Alarm To Unveil New “Enhance” Feature that Provides Actionable Insights and Empowers Litigation Feeds

Docket Alarm To Unveil New “Enhance” Feature that Provides Actionable Insights and Empowers Litigation Feeds

“There are more opportunities for smart people to use [Docket Alarm’s] data …and tools…that give them and their firms a clear advantage.” WASHINGTON (PRWEB) August 24, 2021 Docket Alarm by Fastcase, a leader in litigation analytics and data-based judicial profiles, today unveils its latest feature, Enhance, at the International Legal Technology Association’s (ILTA) annual conference, ILTACON,…

[academicheroes]

criminal case brief 2

criminal case brief 2

Criminal Case Brief For this assignment, you will research a case and present and present a summary of your findings as a case brief. Read the following case: State of Minnesota v. Daryl Negel Curtis A17-0390 January 10, 2018. (State v. Curtis, 905 N.W.2d 609 (Minn., 2018) State v. Curtis, 905 N.W.2d 609 (Minn., 2018) Note: State Supreme Court cases like this can be found in Fastcase by following…

[tyronearmstrong]

WWW at 30 : Democratization of Legal Publishing Made Possible

The World Wide Web is thirty years old today.

The Internet may have existed for twenty years before the WWW, but it was not until English scientist Tim Berners-Lee brought us the Web So that documents and resources could be shared and linked to via Uniform Reosource Locators (URL’s).

A year later, Berners-Lee brought us the first software to display web pages on terminals called the Line Mode Browser.

It was not until 1993 when a Marc Andreessen led team at the University of Illinois brought us the Mosaic browser and then Netscape built on Mosaic a year later in 1994 that the Web became democratized – usable by the masses.

Matt Mullenweg, the co-founder of WordPress celebrated the Web’s 30th anniversary by sharing that WordPress was created fourteen years after the birth of the Web with the mission to democratize publishing.

In 2003, @WordPress was created to democratize publishing on the open web. #Web30 #ForTheWeb pic.twitter.com/1Xny14pqu4

— Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt) March 12, 2019

Democratize publishing WordPress did. As recently as twenty years ago, it was unheard of for anyone to have ready and inexpensive access to a printing press and a worldwide distribution network. Today, WordPress open source software has made this a reality. 

Seeing the opportunity for citizen publishing by lawyers to build their name as trusted and reliable authorities in niche areas of law via the Web, LexBlog jumped at the opportunity fifteen years ago to democratize legal publishing.

Until then, large legal publishing and media companies held the reigns to publishing in the law. Only those legal professionals approved by these gatekeepers could write and publish whether it was a journal, news, commentary or an informative piece.

Now, any legal professional may publish and distribute news, insight and commentary. LexBlog, with 22,000 law bloggers contributing to its network is, as Ed Walters, the CEO of Fastcase, describes it, the largest newsroom in the history of legal journalism. 

We talk of AI and other technology bringing us extraordinary change in the years ahead. But, arguably, the digital printing press, enabling anyone to communicate, advance ideas and collaborate is the most powerful piece of technology we’ll see in our lifetimes. 

Mind too that we are witnessing all of these changes in many of our lifetimes. Vinton Cerf, recognized as one of the fathers of the Internet itself. was born just a decade before me.

We’re not talking Bell or Edison. In celebration of this 30th anniversary, Cerf tweeted a picture of he and Berners-Lee joking about who invented what.

#Web30! pic.twitter.com/3d5xUcn9Mb

— vinton g cerf (@vgcerf) March 12, 2019

When I think of it being only 16 years since the advent of the digital printing press and LexBlog grabbing it to build a managed WordPress platform for the law (thanks Matt), it feels like we are just getting started in democratizing legal publishing. 

WWW at 30 : Democratization of Legal Publishing Made Possible published first on https://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelphiablog.wordpress.com/

[josephquinn]

Non Sequiturs: 10.28.18

* Adam Feldman identifies eight issues where widely divergent state laws could lead to Supreme Court intervention. [Empirical SCOTUS] * Jonathan Adler wonders why it took so long for NBC to report on the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the allegations that Julie Swetnick made against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. [Bench Memos / National Review] * It seems that Cesar Sayoc didn't limit himself to threatening prominent liberals and progressives; he apparently went after Ilya Somin as well. [Reason / Volokh Conspiracy] * A riddle from Mark Lemley (via Orly Lobel): what's the "most Silicon Valley fact ever"? [PrawfsBlawg] * Congratulations to Bloomberg Law on the launch of its latest offering in litigation analytics. [Artificial Lawyer] * And congratulations to Fastcase on its latest deal, the acquisition of Law Street Media. [Dewey B Strategic] Non Sequiturs: 10.28.18 published first on http://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelphia.blogspot.com/

[antonioriley]

Legal tech companies at Legalweek have yet to master marketing as a conversation

A year ago this week, I blogged that legal tech companies and their founders and executives didn’t understand how to use technology and the Internet to market and sell.

Unfortunately, nothing much has changed for legal tech companies marketing at this week’s Legalweek/Legaltech in New York City. Applies equally to most of the PR and marketing agencies they use to engage reporters, bloggers and potential customers attending the show.

Sure, there are exceptions, such as Ed Walters, the CEO of Fastcase, but they are few and far between. Ed can do more from his office in D.C. to market and engage customers, prospective customers, partners and influencers of those three (reporters, bloggers, leading media influencers) at Legalweek than CEO’s and marketers can do while being there.  

Twenty years ago,  Doc Searls and Dave Weinberger wrote in the widely read business book, Cluetrain Manifesto, that with the advent of the Internet markets are conversations.

On the Internet, markets are getting more connected and more powerfully vocal every day. These markets want to talk, just as they did for the thousands of years that passed before market became a verb with us as its object.

The Internet is a place. We buy books and tickets on the Web. Not over, through, or beside it. To call it a “platform” belies its hospitality. What happens on the Net is more than commerce, more than content, more than push and pull and clicks and traffic and e-anything. The Net is a real place where people can go to learn, to talk to each other, and to do business together. It is a bazaar where customers look for wares, vendors spread goods for display, and people gather around topics that interest them. It is a conversation. At last and again.

Twenty years, two decades have passed since the advent of conversations and networking through the Internet.  With the marketing technology software that companies and agencies are using today, we’re arguably worse off as a legal industry than we were twenty years ago when it comes to the Internet for marketing. 

If you want to hear the sound of real Internet marketing, listen to the conversations coming from inside, outside, over, and above even the hardest-selling overtures from companies that still think marketing means lobbing messages into crowds. 

Rather than hiring marketers and PR companies to email leading press, including bloggers, hoping that they’ll stop by your booth or give you coverage, engage these folks in a real and authentic way through Internet.

Build trust. Without trust, no one can hear your message.

Blogging, Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn – take your pick – by company leaders, personally, is not an option, it’s necessary to enter the conversation. Social media is not to be pushed aside by a legal tech CEO letting marketing and the social media coordinator do the work. 

A few years after Cluetrain, Searls blogged some salient points about marketing as a conversation. 

The purpose of conversation is to create and improve understanding, not for one party to “deliver messages” to the other. That would be rude.

There is no “audience” in a conversation. If we must label others in conversation, let’s call them partners.

People in productive conversation don’t repeat what they’re saying over and over. They learn from each other and move topics forward.

Conversations are about talking, not announcing. They’re about listening, not surveying. They’re about paying attention, not getting attention. They’re about talking, not announcing.

Conversation is live. It’s constantly moving and changing, flowing where the interests and ideas of the participants take it. Even when conversations take the form of email, what makes them live is current interest on both sides.

Searls added that companies engage in marketing as a conversation in a manner that is:

Real. Conversational marketing is carried out by human beings, writing and speaking in their own voices, for themselvesnot just for their employers.

Constant. Conversational marketing’s heartbeat is the human one, not some media schedule. Brands need to work incessantly to be understood within the context of the market conversation and to earn and keep the respect of their conversational partners.

Genuinely interested. Intellectual engagement can’t be faked at least for long. Current interest is what keeps conversations going, and its the key to sustained brand presence.

Personal. No individual outsources their conversation or their education. This is no less true of brands than of people. Because brands today are people. Smart brands reward individual employees for engaging in market converstions.

Other than Jack Newton, CEO of Clio, and Ed Walters, I am not sure that any CEO’s with companies at Legalweek have engaged me personally in a conversation through the Internet.

Between them these guys are regular users of Twitter and Facebook so what their companies are doing and/or launching at Legalweek is just part of their ongoing conversation with us.

No coincidence that their two companies are two of the fastest growing and most successful in the legal tech world. 

Rather than press releases, announcements and emails to bloggers/reporters you don’t know, take a crack at being genuine. Learn how to converse online. After all, marketing is a conversation. 

Legal tech companies at Legalweek have yet to master marketing as a conversation published first on http://personalinjuryattorneyphiladelph.tumblr.com/