« December 2004 |
Main
| February 2005 »
January 31, 2005
VOLOKH: WHAT AMAZON NEEDS TO DO WITH ADS FOR TERM-PAPER MILLS
Professor Eugene Volokh's asking readers to help him communicate to Amazon (yes, the same company that sells his book) that the ads they run for term-paper mills are unacceptable.
Volokh writes that he made the startling discovery while surfing his book (here) on Amazon this weekend:
"I checked the amazon.com page for my Academic Legal Writing book, and what should I find near the bottom but:
Customers interested in this title may also be interested in:
* Research Papers
On any topic. Learn more.
askburris.com
When one clicks on the link, one sees pointers to a list of what are pretty clearly term-paper mills (an ironic result given that my book, among other things, tries to stress the perils and impropriety of plagiarism -- though perhaps not unexpected, given that some customers who are looking for books on writing may also be looking for other, less ethical, ways of satisfying their writing obligations).
I suspect that the Amazon ad selection mechanism is fairly automated, and may be done through a third party service; if I'm right, then I won't fault Amazon for accepting the ad in the first place. But I do hope that the Amazon people can be prevailed on to stop running this ad (they are surely technically capable of rejecting those ads that they find improper)..."
More here.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
NEWSCAST ABOUT THE PODCAST
May It Please The Court hits the weekend papers.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
UCKEDFAY UTBAY UNNYFAY
Good thing Bill Heinze is bilingual.
On I/P Updates, he digs in to the serious business of trademarking (dead) languages:
"Even if you can't speak pig latin, John Welch at the TTAB Blog makes you wonder why the U.S. trademark application for UCKFAY in connection with clothing, published for opposition on November 16, 2004, isn't at least as "immoral or scandalous" as the one for..."
More here.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
TO MARTINDALE OR NOT TO MARTINDALE?
Carolyn Elefant quietly voted with her mouse back in 1997, thanks to the results she got from her (then) 2-year-old Web site.
Read on for her recommendation today and why she agrees with Wired GC.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
HOW TO SERVE THE HISPANIC LEGAL MARKET?
What five ways can lawyers better serve their Latino clients? Matt Homann turns to Juan Guillermo Tornoe, author of the fantastic Hispanic Trending Blog, for the answer.
Also, Homann says he "had a devil of a time rounding out my panel of five," which is the number of people he typically interviews on a given subject. If you know someone you think he should interview on The[non]billable hour, you can e-mail Homann here.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT AMERICAN LAW FIRMS BUT SHOULD
The Common Scold has the latest law firm data from JoAnna Forshee. Here's some of what you can learn:
1. What's the No. 1 revenue-generating law firm in the country and how much ca$h did they bring in last year?
2. Which states represent the five largest legal markets?
3. Of the 900 law firms in the United States with 50 employees or greater, how many have between 50 and 150 employees? What percentage of U.S. law firms has fewer than four employees?
...more here.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
JUDGE CHATIGNY -- "PHILOSOPHER KING"?
Norm Pattis, new to Crime & Federalism, thinks U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny has overstepped his bounds by accusing the attorney for convicted serial killer Michael Ross of "not adequately investigating claims that Ross was mentally incompetent to make the decision to die" (story here). Ross was scheduled to die by lethal injection Monday, but it appears that the execution may be delayed now in order to hold a mental competence hearing.
Pattis wrote Sunday:
"No one is questioning whether this judge is abusing his discretion by playing philosopher-king. Blinded by opposition to the death penalty, there is praise for this judge on many lips. Those same lips will cry foul when this judge oversteps his bounds in some more mundane case."
and today:
"Take a look at the transcript of [Judge] Chatigny’s bullying of [defender T.R.] Paulding. Then ask yourself what is going on in Connecticut’s federal courts."
What do you think?
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
ASHCROFT ON WIRETAPS, IMMIGRATION ARRESTS AND WHAT HE'D DO DIFFERENTLY
Reporter Vanessa Blum of Legal Times held this question-and-answer session with outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft.
They covered a lot of ground, as you can see from this excerpt:
LT: As a U.S. senator, you were a staunch supporter of individual liberties and wary when the federal government sought powers that might infringe on Americans' privacy. As attorney general, you have overseen a dramatic expansion of government surveillance power in the name of national security. How do you square those two seemingly inconsistent positions, and how have your views on government surveillance and the proper balance between liberty and security evolved?
ASHCROFT: The kinds of things that we've done to improve the intelligence capacity of the federal government, to deter terror, are the kinds of things that had been in place for years as it relates to a number of other kinds of criminal behavior and activity.
Let me give you the example of the so-called roving wiretap. In the late '80s, specific authority was granted in surveilling individuals who were involved in serious drug offenses and organized crime so that every time they changed telephones you didn't have to get a new court order in order to continue to surveil them. That power had never been extended to authorities relating to the surveillance of terrorists. Virtually all of the extensions to be found in the Patriot Act were extensions of authorities that were used on a regular basis against other kinds of criminals, but the authority had never been made available for the surveillance of and detection of and monitoring of people involved in the terror community.
More here.
January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
January 28, 2005
FIND OUT WHY MY EMPLOYEES ARE FAT AND GET ME SOME QUARTERS FOR THE VENDING MACHINE, WILLYA?
Walk your talk, urges one fit-as-a-fiddle boss (age 71), and you can begin a weight loss program for employees that'll fatten-up your bottom line.
It all starts, Mike Fox writes, with the employer's recognition that if his staff members were obese, they might have a legally protected status. Read on at Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer to learn about the boss's decision to pay for eating disorder therapist and coaches, health-related $100 bonuses and $45 vouchers for health club memberships.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
MORE ON 1L -- COMMENTS FROM THE EXAM HALL
Over at Crime & Federalism, Michael Cernovich agrees that The VC's Orin Kerr has done a public service with his post, "A Few Thoughts on First-Year Law School Grades."
Cernovich offers some of his own advice about law school exams:
"My 1L grades were horrible. However, I figured out the Law School Exam Writing Game, and obtained wonderful results, earning numerous "A's" and the highest scores in four extremely competitive classes. My advice is..." continue reading here.
Note: Yesterday I attributed this quote to David Giacalone, one of Crime & Federalism's contributors. Turns out his advice about exams can be found here at Legal Underground.--LS
Meanwhile, students (former and current) are beefing up professor Kerr's post with some great comments. Here are some excerpts:
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
WHAT MOUNTAIN BIKERS AND NATIVES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT BOISE
Updating his article, IP Blogs: Pocket Parts for a Digital Age, Bob Ambrogi notes that three of the great IP blogs on his list originate in Boise, Idaho.
That's just one more way in which Boise's secrets to a fabulous Big West lifestyle are getting out, as you can see from the list on this page.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
ONE-STOP SHOP FOR CHILD PROTECTION ONLINE
Bookmark suggestion: Robert Ambrogi's LawSites recommends the Virtual Global Taskforce, created by Interpol and law enforcement agencies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
"I LIKE LAWYER JOKES, TOO. SO SUE ME!"
Monica Bay scolds New York's Nassau County for prosecuting a man who told a lawyer joke outside a Hempstead courthouse.
In "Colossal Waste of Tax Dollars," Bay reminds us why average Americans are unlikely to want to see attorneys -- and puts jokes in perspective:
"Doesn't the average lawyer realize that NOBODY -- NOBODY -- wants to come see us? If you are an average American, and you have to go to your lawyer, unless you've won the lottery, it's rarely good news. It usually means a crisis, where things you care about very much -- your money, your relationships, your family, sometimes your very life and liberty -- are suddenly out of your control -- and your future rests in the hands of someone who often won't even return your phone calls in a timely fashion. Going to a lawyer for even routine matters, for the average American, is about as thrilling as -- and more expensive than -- a root canal.
(I can confirm that Bay likes lawyer jokes so much that she has a whole list of sites on her blog -- see the bottom right nav bar.)
This particular case also caught the eye of at least two other Law.com bloggers this month:
What do you think?
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
THE HAPPY BIRTHDAY PATENT FOR 50+ FRIENDS -- NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SPOUSES
...Unless you want to pay until they're 60. See what I mean in the fine print of U.S. Patent Number 5,954,369, from Bill Heinze.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
INTERESTED IN AN ORPHANED PATENT? CHIME IN
Bill Heinze reports that the U.S. Copyright Office is open to your comments on any compelling concerns raised by orphan works, specifically:
"...[W]orks whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate -- that merit a legislative, regulatory, or other solution, and if so, what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders."
Interested? Your comments are due by Mar. 25 -- more here (including submission requirements) on I/P Updates.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DANG IT, THERE GOES THE BATHROBE AND BUNNY SLIPPERS OPTION
J. Craig Williams is talking about new videophone options. He's a little older than he was the first time he saw one (1964), but he thinks it may have been worth the wait.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
YOUR 1L GRADES: FIVE-SECOND THERAPY FROM PROF. KERR
Oh how I wish professor Orin Kerr had been around 100 years ago, when two of my best friends considered dropping out of law school after suffering through the first half of 1L. (They didn't -- one now works here, another here.)
Today on The Volokh Conspiracy, the professor takes the podium to talk about 1L grades -- how they matter now and how they soon won't, as you seek your professional footing as attorneys, possibly as clerks, and as professionals. Are they important? Are they random? Should you chuck it all unless you went to the same school as your future big boss? Kerr covers it all -- here's an excerpt from his thoughtful post:
"Finally, it's important not to let lower-than-expected grades become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Recognize the psychological game going on here: many students expect their fall 1L grades to give them a lightning bolt of insight about their future in the legal profession. Grades don't do that, though: all they can do is measure how well you did relative to your classmates on a few 3-hour exams taken at a particular place at a particular time. Too many students think that grades are destiny, and begin to take steps to readjust their expectations to what they think is their destiny..."
What do you think of his advice? He's open to comments, here.
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
IF WE JUST BANNED FROWNY-FACE EMOTICONS IN THEIR BOARDS, EVERYTHING WOULD BE FINE
Executive Faces Uphill Battle in His Suits Over Anonymous Web Attacks
Despite the headline, I note that Daily Business Review reporter Jessica M. Walker tucked this appellate law reference into her conclusion:
"While the federal courts have tended to protect the confidential[iality] of John Does in cybersmearing cases, Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami took a position against anonymous cybersmearing in a 2000 case, Hvide v. Doe. The 3rd DCA rejected the anonymous posters' claim to protection under the First Amendment."
January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
January 27, 2005
POP QUIZ: IS THIS PRIEST "CHURLISH" OR CRIMINAL?
Scenario: Your job requires you to work with a parish priest on outreach programs. In the course of your work with Father Nutt, he twice asks you to "watch pornographic movies with him and 'to jerk off with him' to relieve stress" (which you decline), kisses you on the mouth, grabs your buttocks, grabs your thigh and reaches for your genitals.
You file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and your case lands in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Which of the following decisions does the 8th Circuit take?
(a) The court affirms a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment that affected the term, condition or privilege of your employment
OR
(b) The court holds that you failed to establish the existence of a trial-worthy question of fact on your hostile work environment claim because Father Nutt's behavior did not rise to the level of actionable hostile work environment sexual harassment.
Mike Fox has the answer and the whole story, here, on Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
"HOW CAN YOU REPRESENT THOSE PEOPLE?"
This eternal question for criminal defenders elicits a long, thoughtful post by guest blogger Aaron Larson -- and a question of his own:
"So what type of lawyer do you want to be, and what type of culture of law do you wish to foster? (You don't answer that question in words -- you answer it with your conduct.)"
More here on Crime & Federalism.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
NEXT TIME THIS GUY WILL GO BEFORE HE GETS ON THE PLANE
Mike Cernovich says this man's fellow airline passengers exercised one of his favorite rights: The right "to exercise our freedom to kick the asses of people who get out of line."
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR HANGING OUT YOUR OWN SHINGLE
Law.com blog affiliate Carolyn Elefant is one of five bloggers named by The Social Customer Manifesto blog as a "maven." Why? Because she's put out her own shingle, in more ways than one:
"Where the ["Tour Guide" bloggers] are showing an inside view of the company, the mavens are putting their expertise out there for readers to discover...Instead of being directly tied to the corporation, the blog is tied to the individual. The assumption is, if you are an expert in your field and provide a reason for readers to frequent your blog then you will be "top of mind" when a particular reader is looking for someone to help him or her with a particular business need in a related area at some time in the future."
Meet the other "mavens" here.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
FREE LESSON: WHY CLIENTS DO BETTER IF THEY PAY TO PLAY
"Once I stopped giving free consultations to prospective clients, I found that the potential clients were more likely to show up on time, be prepared for our meeting, and retain me as their lawyer far more often then before."
More here from Matt Homann on why free consultations don't work.
Wondering how to recruit more clients in the first place? Try Homann's 100 Marketing Tips (PDF), which he's presenting at the ABA Techshow later this year.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS ON U.S. PATENTS
Bill Heinze provides a terrific service here with his highlights from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance and Accountability Report for 2004. He includes key graphics.
If you care about IP, you need to read this post about a hot year: "The USPTO registered 155,991 trademarks and renewed 34,735 registrations in fiscal year 2004. At the end of the fiscal year, there were 1,216,691 active trademark registrations."
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
"I DIDN'T AGREE TO AGREE, I JUST DIDN'T OBJECT TO AGREE"
How not to handle a settlement, courtesy of J. Craig Williams.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
HON, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DELETE JR'S COPY OF "CHOPPER CHICKS IN ZOMBIETOWN!
Once upon a time, the Motion Picture Association of America released new software to help parents police their kids' illegal movie-swapping habits. Hollywood execs encouraged parents to scan their computers for ill-gotten flicks and talk to their kids about breaking IP laws.
Then one day, over on The Volokh Conspiracy, professor David Post pointed out that parents could use the snoopy software to their own ends. He even invoked the phrase "contributory copyright infringement."
Read the rest of the story here.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
YOUR "F**K BUSH" STICKER, COPS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Citing Cohen v. California, professor Eugene Volokh illustrates how public profanity is constitutionally protected and why one Denver officer was outside the law when he threatened to arrest this driver. On The Volokh Conspiracy.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
YOUR HONOR, THIS CONFERENCE ISN'T FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Suspended for Groping Five Women, Judge Quits the Bench.
January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
January 26, 2005
WHAT SHOULD DANIELLE, 15, DO?
"You can always tell a lot from the first line of court opinions. This one gives no doubt about the outcome: "This case is a parent's nightmare come true," begins this post by J. Craig Williams. He continues:
"Daughter, 16, started dating a 15-year-old boy. Her grades declined, she failed three classes, skipped school and ..."
More here.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
SHEPPARD, MULLIN ET AL. IN "DEEP OUTER SPACE," SAYS JUDGE
"As lawyers, we all want our work to be regarded as 'out of this world' -- but just not in this way," quips Carolyn Elefant. Find out here why a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton had overcharged its municipal client.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
200+ MILLION TRACKS OF GOOD KARMA
That's according to Steve Jobs, says Bill Heinze, who is blogging about geometric growth in the digital download market in 2004.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
CARSON V. HERE'S JOHNNY PORTABLE TOILETS, INC.
In a retrospective on the passing of his favorite late-night host, David Post of The Volokh Conspiracy remembers the interesting case of "The World's Foremost Commodian."
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DON'T LICENSE DOGS, LICENSE PARENTS
As you may know, it's very bad voodoo to criticize another parent. The second you do, your own darling progeny will either loudly invoke Latin to compare the genders or launch a tantrum that'll shake loose your fillings. And you'll deserve it.
But I'll threaten the parenting gods today with this link -- because the last time I checked, children under 16 couldn't drive themselves to the drive-thru: McExcuses, McExcuses.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
LIES AND THE LYING LAWYERS WHO DESERVE SANCTIONS
Carolyn Elefant's got a rant on sanctions and suspensions. And I like it:
"...I can live with lawyers who are, occasionally rude to judges (who after all, may deserve it) or even lawyers who don't return phone calls to clients who pester them several times a day or don't pay bills on time. But there's simply no excuse for lying -- to the court or to a client..."
Read the whole thing here. Do you agree? Or do you think there are times when you have -- and others should -- lie to clients for their own good?
She's open to comments.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
"HOW EMPLOYERS MAKE JURIES MAD AND PAY FOR IT WITH BIG VERDICTS"
Working from a recent talk and Fresno, Calif., headlines, Mike Fox has some advice for employer attorneys faced with cases that involve rape versus consensual sex.
"The danger to the employer is that if the jury does not believe that the admitted sexual conduct was consensual, the employer has also (in the juries' mind) lied to them and impugned the integrity of the plaintiff, who they believe was telling the truth. It is what I call a "shoot at the king" defense; great if it works, but with magnified risk if it fails."
For a primer on definitions of sexual harassment -- including rape and attempted rape -- see Workplace Fairness here.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
NOW ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS FIGURE OUT WHO'LL REGRESS TO AGE 18 LATER...
Should criminal sentencing be keyed to age and gender? Is that possible under the U.S. Constitution? Guest blogger Ken Lammers mulls these what-ifs on Crime & Federalism:
"On the one hand, if age and gender determine length of sentence we move beyond punishing a crime and punish status. On the other hand, if an 18-year-old male charged with an assault is 5 times as likely to offend multiple times in the next 5 years than a 35-year-old woman charged with assault, is it just to ignore their statuses? (stati?)"
Comment here.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
@ THE WATERCOOLER
Happy bloggoversary!
To Matt Homann.
January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
January 25, 2005
9-1-1 FOR LAW REVIEW GEEKS
Okay, law review geeks, expert help is available just in time for your last publication of the year. Blogfather Volokh
pledges to try and help:
"Over the years, I've thought and written quite a bit about law reviews, from the perspective of academic authors, student authors, editors, cite-checkers, would-be members, and more. So I thought it might be helpful to revive the
Ask Law Review Lara column."
"If you have questions -- again, whether you're a student, a lawyer, or professor, whether you're on law review or want to get on law review, or whatever else -- just pass them along to me at volokh at law.ucla.edu. I can't be sure that I can answer all your questions, but I'd like to give them a shot."
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
GOOGLE VS. YAHOO: THE VIDEO SEARCH GAME IS AFOOT
"As this searchable archive of TV programming grows, it could become an invaluable tool for lawyers. Use it, for example, to search for references to a particular company or product, or to pinpoint historical information about news events or weather conditions for a particular date."
So says Bob Ambrogi, who unveils a user's guide on his write-up of both Google Video and Yahoo Video search technologies on Robert Ambrogi's LawSites.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WHAT HAPPENS TO FLU PATENTS IN A PANDEMIC?
Bill Heinze blogs: Countries get to "override patents in efforts to tackle a future flu pandemic while limiting the risk to intellectual property rights," according to a recent compromise resolution by the World Health Organization.
Heinze also notes the recent rise in headlines about avian flu -- nine deaths in Vietnam and the first known case of avian flu passing from person to person.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
RUMSFELD QUITS GERMANY TRIP TO AVOID ARREST?
The Volokh Conspiracy's Juan Non-Volokh posts that Rumsfeld has canceled a trip to Munich. Why? Because the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights "filed a complaint in December with the Federal German Prosecutor's Office against Rumsfeld accusing him of war crimes and torture in connection with detainee abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison."
Apparently, the lawsuit's in play -- Germany hasn't quashed the center's legal motion, even though Rumsfeld said he wouldn't attend the conference unless they did. More here.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DEBATE: SUPERSIZE SMALL CLAIMS COURT?
Crime & Federalism guest blogger David Giacalone thinks there ought to be a better legal system for you and me. He writes:
"Our courts need major re-programming, to make them accessible, client-centered dispute resolution centers -- instead of the expensive, complicated, lawyer-centered bureaucracies they have become. Total court reform is indeed a big, complex job. But our lawmakers could give a big chunk of the civil justice system back to the people by simply increasing the dollar limits allowed in small claims courts."
Do you agree with his treatise?
Is this approach, similar to Michigan's, going to empower the individual?
See who else agrees and doesn't in the open comments. I see that Mike Cernovich agrees ("Finally -- you get something right!"), but others are worried that the lack of formal discovery could hurt the little guy -- and that subpoena duces tecum is no substitute.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
INCOMING! TAX SHADOW OVER JCA SETTLEMENTS
Mike Fox raises a red flag about potential future pain for employment law clients whose attorneys were paid contingency fees for cases settled before Oct. 22, 2004, when Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Banks), Fox writes, that:
"...[T]he entire amount of a settlement, including the portion to be paid to the attorney under a contingency fee agreement is included in the gross income of the plaintiff for the year of the payment. While the plaintiff is entitled to a deduction it often does not remove the pain because of the alternative minimum tax..."
More here.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
FIVE THINGS YOUR CORP COUNSEL SHOULD KNOW
Bill Heinze recommends this list of the bare minimum every corporate counsel should know about patent law.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
A NEW FAN FOR JUSTICE SCALIA
"[I]t's a bit odd to hear a pornographer try to explain Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas." -- The VC's Orin Kerr, commenting on his Monday appearance on ABC's Nightline. Kerr was interviewed alongside Robert Zicari, one of the defendants in United States v. Extreme Associates, et. al.
Kerr wrote last week that he doesn't agree with a district court opinion out of Western Pennsylvania that legislatures cannot ban the distribution of porn on substantive due process grounds.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
@ THE WATERCOOLER
"Imagine American Beauty with a canvas bag"
...that's just one of the complaints J. Craig Williams has about a new San Francisco tax on grocery bags.
Judge King, what's this next to Brahms' No. 1?
Oh to have been a fly on the wall last week in Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King's office at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. King wrote the majority opinion in Positive Black Talk Inc., et al. v. Cash Money Records, et al.
Help this man before he shovels again!
One man's desperate, online quest to save his back, here.
January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
January 24, 2005
WHY HOURLY BILLING IS !@$%!!
Matt Homann invites your feedback on his latest article, "Building the Service-Centered Firm: A bold proposal to bring customer service back to the professional service firm." Here's his opener:
"How can professional service providers become professional providers of service? In my essay, I'll argue that lawyers (and other professionals such as accountants, architects, and designers) who have embraced hourly billing have based their entire business on a model that rewards inefficiency and is at odds with the best interests of the clients they serve. I will then offer one hundred (or thereabout) practical yet innovative ways these professionals can build their "perfect firm" by revamping their business model and putting their customers first..." More
Professional, serious comments only please.
January 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
PUBLIC-SPIRITED AND PROFITABLE
Creative Commons 101: Bill Heinze recommends Linda Seebach's Online Journalism Review article.
January 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WHAT'S THE BIG STINK?
J. Craig Williams points out that the Environmental Protection Agency's new agreement with animal-feeding operations gives the farms "immunity from Clean Air Act civil fines and penalties in exchange for the farms' agreement to submit air quality data and pay a one-time fine."
What do you think -- is this the fastest path to compliance by massive feed lots? Williams is open to comment here -- and the EPA is opening up a 30-day public comment period (see the bottom of this press release).
January 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
IF DISNEY AND DETROIT BLOG, WHY NOT YOU?
You think you don't have time to blog?
Might be time to think again: Follow J. Craig Williams' links to two of the latest bloggers to join the fray, GM's Bob Lutz and Mouseketeer Matt Ouimet.
January 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack