TU NO ESTAS SOLO EN ESTE MUNDO. YOU ARE NOT ALONE SI TE HA GUSTADO UN ARTICULO, COMPARTELO

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Leadership for the "I-Cubed Economy"

Leadership for the "I-Cubed Economy"

According to my recent research, we have entered what experts call the "I-Cubed Economy" ... which stands for INTANGIBLES, INNOVATION, and INFORMATION. Knowledge assets (what people know and put into use), collaboration assets (who people interact with to create value), engagement assets (the level of commitment and energy of people) and time quality (how quickly value is created) are the four factors of production in this "Intangible Economy" according to Wikipedia. "They" also say this new era calls for new leadership ... "post heroic" leadership which is based on "bottom-up transformation fueled by shared power and community building." Organizations that apply this leadership approach are referred to as "leaderful" and assume that all of us have leadership qualities that can be pooled and drawn upon as needed.

Here's where this conversation gets juicy ... in a world that changes so rapidly, the gap between what we know and what we do has to close...leaders can't just know that command and control leadership doesn't work ... they actually have to DO a different kind of leadership ... NOW! The problem, as I see it, is that we lead from our rearview mirrors. We learn to lead from those who lead us, in an environment that supports old business practices and in cultures that reinforce old values and belief systems. If we learn from those before us ... are we not, in fact, followers? And, if we want to be great leaders, doesn't it make sense that we look to our "followers" to learn how to lead? Imagine a future and live into it, rather than trying to just improve upon or change the past? We spend a lot of energy trying to capture and apply best practices ... but, in a world with so much change ... what is the shelf life of a best practice anyway?

Darci Riesenhuber posted this on 10/05 | Permalink | Comments (18

 

Blogs: Ten ways blogs boost a law firm's image

Ten ways blogs boost a law firm's image

Law Technology News has published a great article by Ed Poll, 'Ten Ways Blogs Boost a Law Firm's Image.'

Ed's not only a great guy, but a talented law practice management consultant and lawyer coach. If you haven't listened to some of his podcasts and blog posts at LawBiz Blog, you're missing a real treat.

Ed's tips to making your blog experience a worthwhile one (much abbreviated - read the article):

  1. Hit the Target. Define, and then target, your ideal niche audience.
  2. Demonstrate your expertise.
  3. Write clearly and concisely.
  4. Make the commitment. Blogs are most effective when they have a steady flow of posts.
  5. Image counts. You don't go to court in a T-shirt. Consider carefully the design of your blog.
  6. Everything has a cost. Measure your ROI.
  7. Do your homework. Keep time and costs down by using Web tools that help you produce and distribute your blog.
  8. Delegate. Consider hiring someone to manage the technical aspects of your blog, including search engine optimization.
  9. Keep your perspective. Don't confuse blogs with the second coming of the printing press. Ultimately, they are just another communication vehicle.

I'm blessed that folks like Ed can eloquently explain how to publish an effective blog far better than I. As way of full disclosure, Ed is a client of LexBlog. And it's an honor to serve him.

 

innovation 2006

InnovAction 2006

Innovaction_cover_page_01_1

Long weekend reading:

InnovAtion 2006 is OutThe College of Law Practice Management has published the inaugural issue of InnovAction, a 100 page online book on innovation in law firms. 

The book features articles by
-  David Maister
Silvia Coulter
Bruce MacEwen
Patrick McKenna
Gerry Riskin

A Roundtable on Innovation in Billing, Client Relations, Management, Marketing, and Talent with:

Merrilyn Astin Tarlton
-  Simon Chester
Matt Homann
Dennis Kennedy
-  Dan Pinnington

And success stories of:

-  Blank Rome
-  Bowman & Brooke
-  Bryan Cave
-  Nicholas Critelli
-  DLA
Halleland Lewis Niland & Johnson
Holland & Hart
-  Morrison & Foerster
Pinsent Masons
-  Simpson Grierson
Sughrue Mion
Wragge & Co. 

It  is beautifully produced by Greenfield/Belser and edited by Jordan Furlong, editor of the Canadian Bar Journal. 

Read it here:             http://www.colpm.org/pdf/innovaction_emagazine.pdf

 

More Leadership Training at Law Firms

More Leadership Training at Law Firms

Leadership consultant Linda Pennington claims that "only about two or three of Philadelphia's largest 15 firms have seriously began to do this," referring to leadership training in law firms. 

The Philadelphia Business Journal last week interviewed Pennington and others about the growing trend to invest in law firm leaders:

"When law firms think of leadership, Pennington said, they automatically refer to serving as managing partners, chairmen, practice leaders and executive committee members. But her coaching focuses on informal leadership qualities such as social skills. She conducts a few sessions with a lawyer and cross references information gained with his or her co-workers to see if the self-perception jives with the view others have of the lawyer's leadership skills. She then offers a critique and asks the lawyers to implement behavioral changes and report back on progress. " - Philadelphia Business Journal.

The article lists Reed Smith, Blank Rome and Morgan Lewis were mentioned as having some sort of leadership development program.  The article also refers to something close to my heart - community leadership programs:

"Krufka was surprised to see how many law firms had enrolled their lawyers in Leadership Philadelphia -- a nonprofit that works to improve leadership skills of private-sector executives through a series of seminars each year. Krufka predicts that firms will continue to develop more in-house programming.   We just did a program with junior partners from a firm," she said. "And their response to it all was 'Boy, I wish our senior partners had this kind of training.'"

Here's the article.   Frankly, I'm surprised that three Philly law firms have actually started leadership training.  Not a bad start.

 

Law Practice Management, Lawyer Coaching, Legal Consulting, Law Firm Retreats : LawBiz Blog : Ed Poll

Recominedo visitar esta pagina
 
 
RODRIGO GONZALEZ FERNADEZ
CONSULTAJURIDICACHILE .BLOGSPOT.COM
RENATO SANCHEZ 3586 DEP 10
TELEF. 2451168- 5839786
SANTIAGO,CHILE

The Brand Called You

Click here to find out more!

Fast Company

The Brand Called You

Big companies understand the importance of brands. Today, in the Age of the Individual, you have to be your own brand. Here's what it takes to be the CEO of Me Inc.

From: Issue 10| August/September 1997 |  Page 83 By: Tom Peters Illustrations by: Alison Seiffer


It's a new brand world.

That cross-trainer you're wearing -- one look at the distinctive swoosh on the side tells everyone who's got you branded. That coffee travel mug you're carrying -- ah, you're a Starbucks woman! Your T-shirt with the distinctive Champion "C" on the sleeve, the blue jeans with the prominent Levi's rivets, the watch with the hey-this-certifies-I-made-it icon on the face, your fountain pen with the maker's symbol crafted into the end ...

You're branded, branded, branded, branded.

It's time for me -- and you -- to take a lesson from the big brands, a lesson that's true for anyone who's interested in what it takes to stand out and prosper in the new world of work.

Regardless of age, regardless of position, regardless of the business we happen to be in, all of us need to understand the importance of branding. We are CEOs of our own companies: Me Inc. To be in business today, our most important job is to be head marketer for the brand called You.

It's that simple -- and that hard. And that inescapable.

Behemoth companies may take turns buying each other or acquiring every hot startup that catches their eye -- mergers in 1996 set records. Hollywood may be interested in only blockbusters and book publishers may want to put out only guaranteed best-sellers. But don't be fooled by all the frenzy at the humongous end of the size spectrum.

The real action is at the other end: the main chance is becoming a free agent in an economy of free agents, looking to have the best season you can imagine in your field, looking to do your best work and chalk up a remarkable track record, and looking to establish your own micro equivalent of the Nike swoosh. Because if you do, you'll not only reach out toward every opportunity within arm's (or laptop's) length, you'll not only make a noteworthy contribution to your team's success -- you'll also put yourself in a great bargaining position for next season's free-agency market.

The good news -- and it is largely good news -- is that everyone has a chance to stand out. Everyone has a chance to learn, improve, and build up their skills. Everyone has a chance to be a brand worthy of remark.

Who understands this fundamental principle? The big companies do. They've come a long way in a short time: it was just over four years ago, April 2, 1993 to be precise, when Philip Morris cut the price of Marlboro cigarettes by 40 cents a pack. That was on a Friday. On Monday, the stock market value of packaged goods companies fell by $25 billion. Everybody agreed: brands were doomed.

Today brands are everything, and all kinds of products and services -- from accounting firms to sneaker makers to restaurants -- are figuring out how to transcend the narrow boundaries of their categories and become a brand surrounded by a Tommy Hilfiger-like buzz.

Who else understands it? Every single Web site sponsor. In fact, the Web makes the case for branding more directly than any packaged good or consumer product ever could. Here's what the Web says: Anyone can have a Web site. And today, because anyone can ... anyone does! So how do you know which sites are worth visiting, which sites to bookmark, which sites are worth going to more than once? The answer: branding. The sites you go back to are the sites you trust. They're the sites where the brand name tells you that the visit will be worth your time -- again and again. The brand is a promise of the value you'll receive.

The same holds true for that other killer app of the Net -- email. When everybody has email and anybody can send you email, how do you decide whose messages you're going to read and respond to first -- and whose you're going to send to the trash unread? The answer: personal branding. The name of the email sender is every bit as important a brand -- is a brand -- as the name of the Web site you visit. It's a promise of the value you'll receive for the time you spend reading the message.

Nobody understands branding better than professional services firms. Look at McKinsey or Arthur Andersen for a model of the new rules of branding at the company and personal level. Almost every professional services firm works with the same business model. They have almost no hard assets -- my guess is that most probably go so far as to rent or lease every tangible item they possibly can to keep from having to own anything. They have lots of soft assets -- more conventionally known as people, preferably smart, motivated, talented people. And they have huge revenues -- and astounding profits.

They also have a very clear culture of work and life. You're hired, you report to work, you join a team -- and you immediately start figuring out how to deliver value to the customer. Along the way, you learn stuff, develop your skills, hone your abilities, move from project to project. And if you're really smart, you figure out how to distinguish yourself from all the other very smart people walking around with $1,500 suits, high-powered laptops, and well-polished resumes. Along the way, if you're really smart, you figure out what it takes to create a distinctive role for yourself -- you create a message and a strategy to promote the brand called You.

What makes You different?

Start right now: as of this moment you're going to think of yourself differently! You're not an "employee" of General Motors, you're not a "staffer" at General Mills, you're not a "worker" at General Electric or a "human resource" at General Dynamics (ooops, it's gone!). Forget the Generals! You don't "belong to" any company for life, and your chief affiliation isn't to any particular "function." You're not defined by your job title and you're not confined by your job description.

Starting today you are a brand.

You're every bit as much a brand as Nike, Coke, Pepsi, or the Body Shop. To start thinking like your own favorite brand manager, ask yourself the same question the brand managers at Nike, Coke, Pepsi, or the Body Shop ask themselves: What is it that my product or service does that makes it different? Give yourself the traditional 15-words-or-less contest challenge. Take the time to write down your answer. And then take the time to read it. Several times.

If your answer wouldn't light up the eyes of a prospective client or command a vote of confidence from a satisfied past client, or -- worst of all -- if it doesn't grab you, then you've got a big problem. It's time to give some serious thought and even more serious effort to imagining and developing yourself as a brand.

Start by identifying the qualities or characteristics that make you distinctive from your competitors -- or your colleagues. What have you done lately -- this week -- to make yourself stand out? What would your colleagues or your customers say is your greatest and clearest strength? Your most noteworthy (as in, worthy of note) personal trait?

Go back to the comparison between brand You and brand X -- the approach the corporate biggies take to creating a brand. The standard model they use is feature-benefit: every feature they offer in their product or service yields an identifiable and distinguishable benefit for their customer or client. A dominant feature of Nordstrom department stores is the personalized service it lavishes on each and every customer. The customer benefit: a feeling of being accorded individualized attention -- along with all of the choice of a large department store.

So what is the "feature-benefit model" that the brand called You offers? Do you deliver your work on time, every time? Your internal or external customer gets dependable, reliable service that meets its strategic needs. Do you anticipate and solve problems before they become crises? Your client saves money and headaches just by having you on the team. Do you always complete your projects within the allotted budget? I can't name a single client of a professional services firm who doesn't go ballistic at cost overruns.

Your next step is to cast aside all the usual descriptors that employees and workers depend on to locate themselves in the company structure. Forget your job title. Ask yourself: What do I do that adds remarkable, measurable, distinguished, distinctive value? Forget your job description. Ask yourself: What do I do that I am most proud of? Most of all, forget about the standard rungs of progression you've climbed in your career up to now. Burn that damnable "ladder" and ask yourself: What have I accomplished that I can unabashedly brag about? If you're going to be a brand, you've got to become relentlessly focused on what you do that adds value, that you're proud of, and most important, that you can shamelessly take credit for.

When you've done that, sit down and ask yourself one more question to define your brand: What do I want to be famous for? That's right -- famous for!

What's the pitch for You?

So it's a cliché: don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle. it's also a principle that every corporate brand understands implicitly, from Omaha Steaks's through-the-mail sales program to Wendy's "we're just regular folks" ad campaign. No matter how beefy your set of skills, no matter how tasty you've made that feature-benefit proposition, you still have to market the bejesus out of your brand -- to customers, colleagues, and your virtual network of associates.

For most branding campaigns, the first step is visibility. If you're General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler, that usually means a full flight of TV and print ads designed to get billions of "impressions" of your brand in front of the consuming public. If you're brand You, you've got the same need for visibility -- but no budget to buy it.

So how do you market brand You?

There's literally no limit to the ways you can go about enhancing your profile. Try moonlighting! Sign up for an extra project inside your organization, just to introduce yourself to new colleagues and showcase your skills -- or work on new ones. Or, if you can carve out the time, take on a freelance project that gets you in touch with a totally novel group of people. If you can get them singing your praises, they'll help spread the word about what a remarkable contributor you are.

If those ideas don't appeal, try teaching a class at a community college, in an adult education program, or in your own company. You get credit for being an expert, you increase your standing as a professional, and you increase the likelihood that people will come back to you with more requests and more opportunities to stand out from the crowd.

If you're a better writer than you are a teacher, try contributing a column or an opinion piece to your local newspaper. And when I say local, I mean local. You don't have to make the op-ed page of the New York Times to make the grade. Community newspapers, professional newsletters, even inhouse company publications have white space they need to fill. Once you get started, you've got a track record -- and clips that you can use to snatch more chances.

And if you're a better talker than you are teacher or writer, try to get yourself on a panel discussion at a conference or sign up to make a presentation at a workshop. Visibility has a funny way of multiplying; the hardest part is getting started. But a couple of good panel presentations can earn you a chance to give a "little" solo speech -- and from there it's just a few jumps to a major address at your industry's annual convention.

The second important thing to remember about your personal visibility campaign is: it all matters. When you're promoting brand You, everything you do -- and everything you choose not to do -- communicates the value and character of the brand. Everything from the way you handle phone conversations to the email messages you send to the way you conduct business in a meeting is part of the larger message you're sending about your brand.

Partly it's a matter of substance: what you have to say and how well you get it said. But it's also a matter of style. On the Net, do your communications demonstrate a command of the technology? In meetings, do you keep your contributions short and to the point? It even gets down to the level of your brand You business card: Have you designed a cool-looking logo for your own card? Are you demonstrating an appreciation for design that shows you understand that packaging counts -- a lot -- in a crowded world?

The key to any personal branding campaign is "word-of-mouth marketing." Your network of friends, colleagues, clients, and customers is the most important marketing vehicle you've got; what they say about you and your contributions is what the market will ultimately gauge as the value of your brand. So the big trick to building your brand is to find ways to nurture your network of colleagues -- consciously.

What's the real power of You?

If you want to grow your brand, you've got to come to terms with power -- your own. The key lesson: power is not a dirty word!

In fact, power for the most part is a badly misunderstood term and a badly misused capability. I'm talking about a different kind of power than we usually refer to. It's not ladder power, as in who's best at climbing over the adjacent bods. It's not who's-got-the-biggest-office-by-six-square-inches power or who's-got-the-fanciest-title power.

It's influence power.

It's being known for making the most significant contribution in your particular area. It's reputational power. If you were a scholar, you'd measure it by the number of times your publications get cited by other people. If you were a consultant, you'd measure it by the number of CEOs who've got your business card in their Rolodexes. (And better yet, the number who know your beeper number by heart.)

Getting and using power -- intelligently, responsibly, and yes, powerfully -- are essential skills for growing your brand. One of the things that attracts us to certain brands is the power they project. As a consumer, you want to associate with brands whose powerful presence creates a halo effect that rubs off on you.

It's the same in the workplace. There are power trips that are worth taking -- and that you can take without appearing to be a self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing megalomaniacal jerk. You can do it in small, slow, and subtle ways. Is your team having a hard time organizing productive meetings? Volunteer to write the agenda for the next meeting. You're contributing to the team, and you get to decide what's on and off the agenda. When it's time to write a post-project report, does everyone on your team head for the door? Beg for the chance to write the report -- because the hand that holds the pen (or taps the keyboard) gets to write or at least shape the organization's history.

Most important, remember that power is largely a matter of perception. If you want people to see you as a powerful brand, act like a credible leader. When you're thinking like brand You, you don't need org-chart authority to be a leader. The fact is you are a leader. You're leading You!

One key to growing your power is to recognize the simple fact that we now live in a project world. Almost all work today is organized into bite-sized packets called projects. A project-based world is ideal for growing your brand: projects exist around deliverables, they create measurables, and they leave you with braggables. If you're not spending at least 70% of your time working on projects, creating projects, or organizing your (apparently mundane) tasks into projects, you are sadly living in the past. Today you have to think, breathe, act, and work in projects.

Project World makes it easier for you to assess -- and advertise -- the strength of brand You. Once again, think like the giants do. Imagine yourself a brand manager at Procter & Gamble: When you look at your brand's assets, what can you add to boost your power and felt presence? Would you be better off with a simple line extension -- taking on a project that adds incrementally to your existing base of skills and accomplishments? Or would you be better off with a whole new product line? Is it time to move overseas for a couple of years, venturing outside your comfort zone (even taking a lateral move -- damn the ladders), tackling something new and completely different?

Whatever you decide, you should look at your brand's power as an exercise in new-look résumé; management -- an exercise that you start by doing away once and for all with the word "résumé." You don't have an old-fashioned résumé anymore! You've got a marketing brochure for brand You. Instead of a static list of titles held and positions occupied, your marketing brochure brings to life the skills you've mastered, the projects you've delivered, the braggables you can take credit for. And like any good marketing brochure, yours needs constant updating to reflect the growth -- breadth and depth -- of brand You.

What's loyalty to You?

Everyone is saying that loyalty is gone; loyalty is dead; loyalty is over. I think that's a bunch of crap.

I think loyalty is much more important than it ever was in the past. A 40-year career with the same company once may have been called loyalty; from here it looks a lot like a work life with very few options, very few opportunities, and very little individual power. That's what we used to call indentured servitude.

Today loyalty is the only thing that matters. But it isn't blind loyalty to the company. It's loyalty to your colleagues, loyalty to your team, loyalty to your project, loyalty to your customers, and loyalty to yourself. I see it as a much deeper sense of loyalty than mindless loyalty to the Company Z logo.

I know this may sound like selfishness. But being CEO of Me Inc. requires you to act selfishly -- to grow yourself, to promote yourself, to get the market to reward yourself. Of course, the other side of the selfish coin is that any company you work for ought to applaud every single one of the efforts you make to develop yourself. After all, everything you do to grow Me Inc. is gravy for them: the projects you lead, the networks you develop, the customers you delight, the braggables you create generate credit for the firm. As long as you're learning, growing, building relationships, and delivering great results, it's good for you and it's great for the company.

That win-win logic holds for as long as you happen to be at that particular company. Which is precisely where the age of free agency comes into play. If you're treating your résumé as if it's a marketing brochure, you've learned the first lesson of free agency. The second lesson is one that today's professional athletes have all learned: you've got to check with the market on a regular basis to have a reliable read on your brand's value. You don't have to be looking for a job to go on a job interview. For that matter, you don't even have to go on an actual job interview to get useful, important feedback.

The real question is: How is brand You doing? Put together your own "user's group" -- the personal brand You equivalent of a software review group. Ask for -- insist on -- honest, helpful feedback on your performance, your growth, your value. It's the only way to know what you would be worth on the open market. It's the only way to make sure that, when you declare your free agency, you'll be in a strong bargaining position. It's not disloyalty to "them"; it's responsible brand management for brand You -- which also generates credit for them.

What's the future of You?

It's over. No more vertical. No more ladder. That's not the way careers work anymore. Linearity is out. A career is now a checkerboard. Or even a maze. It's full of moves that go sideways, forward, slide on the diagonal, even go backward when that makes sense. (It often does.) A career is a portfolio of projects that teach you new skills, gain you new expertise, develop new capabilities, grow your colleague set, and constantly reinvent you as a brand.

As you scope out the path your "career" will take, remember: the last thing you want to do is become a manager. Like "résumé," "manager" is an obsolete term. It's practically synonymous with "dead end job." What you want is a steady diet of more interesting, more challenging, more provocative projects. When you look at the progression of a career constructed out of projects, directionality is not only hard to track -- Which way is up? -- but it's also totally irrelevant.

Instead of making yourself a slave to the concept of a career ladder, reinvent yourself on a semiregular basis. Start by writing your own mission statement, to guide you as CEO of Me Inc. What turns you on? Learning something new? Gaining recognition for your skills as a technical wizard? Shepherding new ideas from concept to market? What's your personal definition of success? Money? Power? Fame? Or doing what you love? However you answer these questions, search relentlessly for job or project opportunities that fit your mission statement. And review that mission statement every six months to make sure you still believe what you wrote.

No matter what you're doing today, there are four things you've got to measure yourself against. First, you've got to be a great teammate and a supportive colleague. Second, you've got to be an exceptional expert at something that has real value. Third, you've got to be a broad-gauged visionary -- a leader, a teacher, a farsighted "imagineer." Fourth, you've got to be a businessperson -- you've got to be obsessed with pragmatic outcomes.

It's this simple: You are a brand. You are in charge of your brand. There is no single path to success. And there is no one right way to create the brand called You. Except this: Start today. Or else.

Tom Peters (TJPET@aol.com) is the world's leading brand when it comes to writing, speaking, or thinking about the new economy. He has just released a CD-ROM, "Tom Peters' Career Survival Guide" (Houghton Mifflin interactive). Rob Walker contributed the brand profile sidebars.


Copyright © 2005 Mansueto Ventures LLC. All rights reserved.
Fast Company, 375 Lexington Avenue.,New York , NY 10017

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

from legal blog watch

Legal Blog Watch

For These Lawyers, It's 'Trick or Dupe'

"Trick or treat" is the theme of the day, but for three Massachusetts lawyers recommended for discipline earlier this month, the state Board of Bar Overseers found their modus operandi to be "trick or dupe." The case is surprising both for the prominence of the lawyers and the outrageousness of their conduct.

As The Boston Globe reports, the Bar Overseers recommended the disbarment of lawyers Gary C. Crossen and Kevin P. Curry and the suspension of Richard K. Donahue. Donahue is a former chairman of the very board that voted to suspend him and a prominent member of the bar. Over the course of his career, he has been assistant to President Kennedy, president of Nike Inc. and president of the state bar. Crossen is a former assistant U.S. attorney and former state prosecutor. Curry is a former state prosecutor.

The three lawyers participated to various extents in an elaborate scheme to get information in a case from a law clerk to former state judge (and now TV judge) Maria Lopez. As Globe reporter Charles Radin recounts:

The lawyers, who all worked at various times for the losing side in the case, engaged in an elaborate scheme to get information from Lopez's law clerk, Paul Walsh, to provide information that would allow them to discredit Lopez and invalidate the judgment. ... The men first enticed Walsh with a bogus offer of a dream job, then threatened to harm his career if he did not cooperate with them.

The Bar Overseers' report, issued Oct. 16, sums up the lawyers' actions this way:

The whole point of the phony-job ruse was to 'trick or dupe' Walsh into making statements he 'otherwise would not have made.' This was because the premise of the respondents' dealings with Walsh was their expectation that he would not disclose, in violation of his obligations as a clerk, confidential communications with a judge unless he were seduced by an offer he could not refuse. Hence the dream job, the meticulous arrangements to make it seem real, the fancy hotels, the cash, the limousine service. ... When blandishments failed, Crossen and Donahue resorted to the threats to make public Walsh's statements and the bar letter.

The board's recommendations now go to the Supreme Judicial Court for review.

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 31, 2006 at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Will Punitives Go up in Smoke?

From corporate boardrooms to PI law offices, all eyes today are on the Supreme Court, which hears arguments in Philip Morris USA v. Williams on the extent to which punitive damages can punish a tobacco company for "highly reprehensible" conduct and for the effects of its conduct on non-parties. It is a case, writes Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, that "pits familiar gladiators debating broad cultural questions over whether and how to make Big Tobacco pay."

At issue is a punitive damages award of $79.5 million to the Oregon widow of a Marlboro smoker. Supreme Court observers such as Denniston and Legal Times reporter Tony Mauro agree that the outcome of the case may turn on the votes of the court's newest members, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The case is significant on multiple levels. Mauro writes that it could be a watershed in tobacco litigation:

The case ... marks a major milestone in the decades-long litigation battle against big tobacco. For the first time, the justices will have before them evidence of tobacco-industry misbehavior drawn from the 35 million documents pried from company files in Minnesota's 1990s lawsuit against the industry. Included are decades of statements from tobacco company executives, scientists, and lawyers acknowledging the dangers of smoking and strategizing ways to keep customers hooked.

NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg says today that the case "is the ultimate test of whether the Constitution imposes significant limits on punitive damages in each and every case of misconduct." She continues:

On any scale of reprehensibility, the conduct of the tobacco industry is right up there at the top. The question in this case from Oregon is: How much freedom does a state have to assess damages in an individual case involving reprehensible conduct?

In an editorial today, the New York Times answers that question in favor of allowing state juries loose rein.

The purpose of punitive damages is, the Supreme Court has noted, 'punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition.' In cases of extremely bad conduct, particularly when a defendant is large and willful, a bigger award may be necessary. In this case, $79.5 million does not strike us as unreasonable. Nor do we see any basis for holding that this jury verdict, affirmed in a thoughtful decision by Oregon's highest court, is a denial of Philip Morris's due process rights.

Today's oral arguments may foreshadow the eventual outcome. In the meantime, Legal Times offers a preview of each side's arguments in a set of dueling opinion pieces written by lawyers who filed amicus briefs: Too Much? Yes and Too Much? No.

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 31, 2006 at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Shingle-Minded Devotion

Carolyn Elefant is hanging tight to her shingle. The founder of the blog MyShingle.com (and my co-blogger here at Legal Blog Watch) says she could care less if some lawyers believe hanging out a shingle is out of style -- she'll take substance over form any day:

I love running MyShingle, but I'll always be a practicing lawyer, first and foremost.  And that's why I favor the solo and practice blogs that aren't form over substance or full of jargon but those that teach me, by example, how to practice law and deliver legal services to my clients better, faster and less expensively.

What's got Elefant defending her domain? It's "third wave" lawyer Chuck Newton, who writes on his blog that it's time to "give the whole shingle metaphor a rest." Says Newton:

I am just not sure that I like the term 'hanging out a shingle.' I know it is insider slang that is shouted out by the plaintiff-crips and the defendant-bloods that means going into practice for yourself. I am all for getting your 'law dog down,' but it just seems that phrase is so-o-o-o-o-o last millennium. It is almost Amish-speak.

Rather than a shingle-hanger, Newton calls himself and his ilk Third Wave lawyers. Inspired by futurist Alvin Toffler's book, "The Third Wave," Newton offers a manifesto of sorts:

We work from our homes or from cubicles or small shared offices free from the confines of standardization, centralization, concentration, synchronization and bureaucracy, which has primarily contributed to the dissatisfaction of lawyers with the practice of law.  We live, support and fight for diverse lifestyles.

So, he continues, rather than hang shingles, Third Wave lawyers should pursue the M-Theory. This is a principle of physics that somehow translates into "doing what you love, while keeping your sanity, your earnings and your clients happy."

Which brings us back to Elefant and her shingle. "Truth is," she says, "trends and coolness aren't my focus." That's why, as quoted above, she prefers legal blogs of substance over form. "Maybe that makes me awfully stodgy in a third wave world, but that's My Shingle and I plan on sticking to it."

Hmmmm. Sounds very M-Theory to me.

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 31, 2006 at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For Sale: One Gallows, Slightly Used

Throughout suburbia, the Halloween-decoration competition is beginning to rival Christmas. If your yard's ghoulishness remains frighteningly lackluster, here is just the adornment you need: the gallows Chicago built in the late 19th century to hang anarchist labor organizers convicted in the Haymarket Affair and later used to hang some of the city's most infamous criminals.

Actually, it will be a bit late for this Halloween, but, as writer Kari Lydersen reports in The Washington Post, the gallows is to be sold at auction beginning Nov. 20. Last used in the 1920s, it sat dismantled in the basement of the Cook County Jail until 1977, when two history buffs put it on display in a Wild West theme park in Union, Ill. Before it was retired and replaced in 1927 by the electric chair, the gallows was used in at least 40 hangings, beginning with those of four of eight men convicted in the deaths of eight police officers during an 1886 labor rally in Haymarket Square.

Starting bid: $5,000. If no private party steps forward to purchase the gallows, perhaps the states of New Hampshire and Washington will be interested -- hanging remains legal in both.

[Via Sentencing Law and Policy.]

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 31, 2006 at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

 

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

CORRUPCION

CORRUPCIÓN:

Hace unos días en la Universidad de Chile en la facultad de derecho, cátedra del Prof Davor Harasic, les presentaba a los alumnos de quinto año unas definiciones de corrupción a propÓsito del tema principal "Lobbying dsin caer en tráfico de influencias"

Siempre es bueno definir conceptos y en lo personal lo hago frecuentemente, es una forma de entender mejor los diferentes institutos, es parte de nuestra formación en derecho. Eileen O'connor, presidenta del International Centre for Journalists, ha definido el término corrupción como "la intervención en política mediante el pago de dinero o retribuciones en especie y  que tiene como consecuencia frenar el crecimiento económico e incrementar las diferencias sociales". Esta definición de corrupción engloba desde la adquisición de recursos estatales por debajo de su precio, hasta las donaciones a partidos políticos, pasando por todo tipo de sobornos y apropiaciones indebidas, incluso tráfico de influencias . Para Eileen O'connor el discurso político habla de acabar con la corrupción, pero sólo se activan las medidas necesarias cuando presiona la sociedad civil.

Más en consultajuridicachile.blogspot.com

Rodrigo González Fernández

Sunday, October 29, 2006

aceleracion & modelos de negocios diversos

ACELERACION:

La velocidad de crucero de la Historia se está acelerando debido a las extraordinarias posibilidades de comunicación e interconexión que las nuevas tecnologías traen de la mano.

 

Y en consecuencia, están surgiendo modelos de negocio radicalmente distintos y los antiguos quedan obsoletos en muy poco tiempo.

 

Ya hemos hablado de los “blogs y la empresa,” pero hay más.. Ahora iremos al personal branding o marca personal en esta aceleración. Y dictaremos cursos, charlas conferencias que estarán disponibles para empresas y organizaciones

Saludos

 

 

 

RODRIGO GONZALEZ FERNADEZ
CONSULTAJURIDICACHILE .BLOGSPOT.COM
RENATO SANCHEZ 3586 DEP 10
TELEF. 2451168 - 5839786
SANTIAGO,CHILE

 

 

 

The Eight Laws of Personal Branding by Peter Montoya

The Eight Laws of Personal Branding

  1. The Law of Specialization: A great Personal Brand must be precise, concentrated on a single core strength, talent or achievement. You can specialize in one of many ways: ability, behavior, lifestyle, mission, product, profession or service.

  2. The Law of Leadership: Endowing a Personal Brand with authority and credibility demands that the source be perceived as a leader by the people in his/her domain or sphere of influence. Leadership stems from excellence, position or recognition.

  3. The Law of Personality: A great Personal Brand must be built on a foundation of the source's true personality, flaws and all. It is a law that removes some of the pressure laid on by the Law of Leadership: you've got to be good, but you don't have to be perfect.

  4. The Law of Distinctiveness: An effective Personal Brand needs to be expressed in a way that is different from the competition. Many marketers construct middle-of-the-road brands so as not to offend anyone. This is a route to failure because their brands will remain anonymous among the multitudes.

  5. The Law of Visibility: To be successful, a Personal Brand must be seen over and over again, until it imprints itself on the consciousness of its domain or sphere of influence. Visibility creates the presumption of quality. People assume because they see a person all the time, he/she must be superior to others offering the same product or service.

  6. The Law of Unity: The private person behind a Personal Brand must adhere to the moral and behavioral code set down by that brand. Private conduct must mirror the public brand.

  7. The Law of Persistence: Any Personal Brand takes time to grow, and while you can accelerate the process, you can't replace it with advertising or public relations. Stick with your Personal Brand, without changing it; be unwavering and be patient.

  8. The Law of Goodwill: A Personal Brand will produce better results and endure longer if the person behind it is perceived in a positive way. He/she must be associated with a value or idea that is recognized universally as positive and worthwhile.

 

RODRIGO GONZALEZ FERNADEZ

personalmarca.blogspot.com
CONSULTAJURIDICACHILE .BLOGSPOT.COM
RENATO SANCHEZ 3586 DEP 10
TELEF. 2451168
SANTIAGO,CHILE

Friday, October 27, 2006

FROM LEGAL BLOG WATCH

Legal Blog Watch

Is the Supreme Court Picking on the Media?

Lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court expect tough questioning, perhaps even skepticism or ridicule from the justices. But journalists? According to this commentary, The Supreme Press Critics Take on the Fourth Estate by Supreme Court reporter Dahlia Lithwick (Slate, 10/24/06), Justices Scalia and Alito have been speaking out against the media, in some instances at events that are closed to the press and the public. As an example, Lithwick writes that last weekend at a conference sponsored by the National Italian-American foundation, Scalia criticized the quality of media coverage of Supreme Court cases, asserting that "The press is never going to report judicial opinions accurately." Lithwick continues:

And although, if anything, the Supreme Court press corps is hypercautious in its attention to legal detail at the expense of sensationalism, Scalia dismisses them, and their readers, because, in his view, "nobody would read it if you went into the details of the law that the court has to resolve."

Justice Samuel Alito apparently picked up on the theme, complaining about the role of the Internet in legal reporting, suggesting that the media either oversimplifies or sensationalizes decisions (I guess Alito doesn't realize that while he turns up his nose at Internet reporting, his colleagues are increasingly citing blogs in their opinions).

Lithwick also quotes Justice Roberts' recent comment that judges don't serve to educate the public about the law and the court system. And perhaps that's true. But the legitimacy of our judicial system comes from the public confidence in the system, which in turn, comes about only where the public knows what's going on. As Lithwick concludes:

Either the justices want Americans to understand and care about what they do in that big old white building, or they don't. It's too late to hope that citizens might just choose to tune out. And if the justices want Americans to be educated about the court, they should encourage the fullest reporting possible, recognizing that some of it will be good and some will be bad, but that more information is always better than less. The justices can keep taking swipes at the Internet, imaginary editorialists, and phantom tabloid reporters for making them look bad. Or they can recognize what makes them look even worse: themselves.

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on October 26, 2006 at 01:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

$100,000 Available for Public Service Grads from UC Berkeley

You don't typically see "$100,000" and "public interest law attorneys" in the same sentence. But to some extent, that's changing, at least for law school graduates from UC Berkeley, as reported in this article, Berkeley to help lawyers in public service (10/25/06). From the article:

In an effort to make it easier for young attorneys to pursue careers in public service, the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, says it will cover up to $100,000 in student loans for graduates who embark on public interest work.  A number of law schools offer similar programs, which are intended to help students manage loan debt while they're entering careers that typically dont offer lucrative salaries.

The loan program is funded by student fees and alumni donations. Graduates must work in government or public service jobs that pay less than $58,000 per year. Previously, the law school offered up to $55,500 in loan repayment, but the amount has been nearly doubled in light of the increasing cost of law school tuition. On average, students graduate Berkeley with about $60,000 in debt.

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on October 26, 2006 at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Four Score Years of Practicing Law

Many law firms don't stay in practice 80 years, but this 1924 Harvard Law School graduate did. As this news story reports, Walter Seward, a West Orange, N.J., resident who celebrated his 110th birthday, loved the practice of  law so much that he stuck with it for 80 years, working as a title attorney until he neared 100. He's the oldest living graduate of Harvard Law School.

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on October 26, 2006 at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reality Movie Participants Gain Release From Their Release

Let's say you sign a general consent form to participate in a "documentary-style film" designed to reach a young adult audience by using entertaining content and formats." Turns out, however, that your participation entails playing straight guy to comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, who's posing as a journalist from Kazakhstan, who has a knack for making even the mundane look foolish on camera and who plans to use your tape in a major movie.

Most people would wonder whether they could sue Cohen, for fraud or invasion or privacy or ... something. But as Daniel Engber discusses in this article, Borat Tricked Me! Can't I sue him or something? in Slate (10/24/06), the movie participants face an uphill fight, having signed a fairly extensive release that appears to cover all bases. Though it's difficult to feel sympathy for consenting adults who bound themselves by contract, when you read this piece about the circumstances surrounding the signing and take into account that the movie will probably generate a good deal of money, it's not hard to conclude that the movie producers took advantage.   

What do you think?

Posted by Carolyn Elefant on October 26, 2006 at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sponsor Spotlight

Practice Center Premium Subscription!
Sign up today for Law.com's Premium Subscription and gain easy and convenient access to all of Law.com's Practice Centers: Business, Employment, IP, Litigation and Tech Law. Receive summaries and full access to the latest news, decisions, practice papers, and practice tools. Register now and receive a complimentary round-up newsletter delivered each week to your inbox. Subscribe today!

Inside Opinions: Legal Blogs
Robert Ambrogi's LawSites
Blawg Review
Adam Smith, Esq.
I/P Updates
Silicon Valley Media Blog
InhouseBlog
My Shingle
Prism Legal
Human Law
May It Please The Court
Leadership for Lawyers
Law Department Management
Insurance Scrawl
Crime & Federalism
The Wired GC
The Common Scold
Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer
Future Lawyer
Professional Services Marketing Blog


From the Law.com Newswire
[about RSS]
Law.com Privacy Policy


This Legal Blog Watch Alert is brought you by ALM's Law.com (http://www.law.com/service/aboutlaw.shtml).

 

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

FROM LESSING BLOG

Stuck in the 20th Century (or the latest to effectively call me a communist, while technically calling me a communalist

So Nick Carr charges me with launching the Cultural Revolution, in a post dripping with references to the evils of communism, and with a triumphant close: “The Cultural Revolution is over. It ended before it even began, The victors are the counterrevolutionaries. And they have $1.65 billion to prove it.”

Wow.

The point of my Web 2.0 post is probably clearer to anyone who read my earlier post about the three economies of the Internet — commercial, sharing, and hybrid. As that post suggested, in my view, the really critical question for the Internet economy is how well companies negotiate the hybrid economy. In my view, those who follow Web 2.0 values are likely to profit most; those who don’t, won’t. Thus, when David Bowie tries to jump into the mashup/remix world by offering prizes for the best remix of his content, but demanding the rights to all the creativity produced by the remixers, he’s violating a Web 2.0 principle, and by doing so, weakening the extraordinary potential his effort could have. Put differently, sharecropping is no better a strategy for the virtual world than it was in the physical world.

Yet if you don’t see that there are different economies, then of course if follows that any effort to argue in favor of less control sounds just like communism. (Not technically, of course, because the control under all the communism we’ve seen was shifted to the state, it wasn’t eliminated. But this is a detail red-baiters often overlook). If there is just the commercial economy, then an argument in favor of exercising less control over content sounds just stupid — like arguing to GM that it should give every 5th car away for free.

But if you really don’t see that there are different economies, then I suggest you spend sometime reading the very best scholarship about what’s new about the Internet. Benkler, Weber, and von Hippel are my favorite examples; though not directly on point, much in Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail points in the same direction.

And if you don’t have time to read, then ask yourself a simple question: Is Jimmy Wales a communist? (Anyone who knows him knows how absurd the question is, but even if you don’t know him, you can figure it out.) There is no better, more effective advocate for the sharing economy. The project he’s helped steward — Wikipedia — is perhaps the sharing economy’s prize. But when he advises companies, and others trying to use the net, how best to build upon the value of the Internet, is he just doing Chairman Mao’s work?

I hope YouTube is an extraordinary success — much bigger than it has been so far. (Carr says YouTube is my “villain.” I must really be confused, because in the very same week, YouTube was my hero). It will be so, I believe, if it plays by the rules of the hybrid economy. A hybrid neither gives away everything, nor does it keep everything. And I’d suggest we’ll find that golden mean more quickly if we left the red-baiting to the 20th century.

posted by [ Lessig ] on [ Oct 23 06 at 2:55 AM ] to [ free culture ] [ 17 comments ] [ post diffusion: No trackbacks + technorati

http://www.lessig.org/blog/