Crash of Air France 447: What Pilots and Law Firm Professionals Can Learn
The Complex System Of Mistakes & Cooperation
The moment was unforgettable in aviation history.
No mayday call, no eyewitness, not even a slight radar trace of the Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro-Galeão (GIG) to Paris-Roissy (CDG) was found on June 1, 2009.
After extensive search efforts, finally, wreckage from the flight was discovered in the Atlantic Ocean where the airliner crashed that fateful night.
Two years later, Popular Mechanics published a synopsis of the event, titled “What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447."
In it, author Jeff Wise states, “Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots. Human judgments, of course, are never made in a vacuum. Pilots are part of a complex system that can either increase or reduce the probability that they will make a mistake.”
Pilots, physicians, even law firm professionals are all part of a complex system that demands cooperation to be successful.
Each could benefit from reading the following excerpt from the Popular Mechanics article:
02:11:21 (Robert) On a pourtant les moteurs! Qu'est-ce qui se passe bordel? Je ne comprends pas ce que se passe.
We still have the engines! What the hell is happening? I don't understand what's happening.
Unlike the control yokes of a Boeing jetliner, the side sticks on an Airbus are "asynchronous"—that is, they move independently. "If the person in the right seat is pulling back on the joystick, the person in the left seat doesn't feel it," says Dr. David Esser, a professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "Their stick doesn't move just because the other one does, unlike the old-fashioned mechanical systems like you find in small planes, where if you turn one, the [other] one turns the same way." Robert has no idea that, despite their conversation about descending, Bonin has continued to pull back on the side stick.
The men are utterly failing to engage in an important process known as crew resource management, or CRM. They are failing, essentially, to cooperate. It is not clear to either one of them who is responsible for what, and who is doing what. This is a natural result of having two co-pilots flying the plane. "When you have a captain and a first officer in the cockpit, it's clear who's in charge," Nutter explains. "The captain has command authority. He's legally responsible for the safety of the flight. When you put two first officers up front, it changes things. You don't have the sort of traditional discipline imposed on the flight deck when you have a captain."
The vertical speed toward the ocean accelerates. If Bonin were to let go of the controls, the nose would fall and the plane would regain forward speed. But because he is holding the stick all the way back, the nose remains high and the plane has barely enough forward speed for the controls to be effective. As turbulence continues to buffet the plane, it is nearly impossible to keep the wings level.
02:11:32 (Bonin) Putain, j'ai plus le contrôle de l'avion, là! J'ai plus le contrôle de l'avion!
Damn it, I don't have control of the plane, I don't have control of the plane at all!
02:11:37 (Robert) Commandes à gauche!
Left seat taking control!
At last, the more senior of the pilots (and the one who seems to have a somewhat better grasp of the situation) now takes control of the airplane. Unfortunately, he, too, seems unaware of the fact that the plane is now stalled, and pulls back on the stick as well. Although the plane's nose is pitched up, it is descending at a 40-degree angle. The stall warning continues to sound. At any rate, Bonin soon after takes back the controls. A minute and a half after the crisis began, the captain returns to the cockpit. The stall warning continues to blare.
We now know what became of the international flight, but are the lessons learned from it being promulgated around the world?
Stewart Baker, author of the Volokh Conspiracy, likens this disaster to cyberwar, writing “Once we lose faith in computer systems, especially in an emergency, all of us are likely to ask, ‘What instruments are reliable, and which can’t be trusted? What’s the most pressing threat? What’s going on?’”
In a similar way, the Air France crash can provide lessons learned for law firm managers, who are responsible for adequately training associates, assessing any weakness within the team, and appropriating the tools necessary to win a case.
On the Airbus plane, controls are "asynchronous”, where movement from one co-pilot cannot be felt by the second. Much the same way, law firm professionals operate independently. Often, one member of the team assigns a research task to their paralegal, not knowing the same task was given to a first-year associate by another attorney.
Keep your lawyers from working asynchronously by implementing a system that requires each case member to report their project assignments back to a single team leader. Allow only one person to assign tasks. Distribute a project list once a week so that the right hand always knows what the left is doing.
Next, adopt the aviation industry’s crew resource management (CRM) system. Attorneys assigned to the same case should understand their position within the team hierarchy and functional model.
Give each associate a specific subject and definable portion of the case—i.e., in a divorce, one associate should compile discoverable research on the wife, another on the husband, a third on legal precedent, and a fourth works on assets and money matters.
Finally, don’t let complex technology eliminate common sense. It’s important to trust your instruments—case management software, e-documents, and electronic bates systems—but it is equally important to trust your instincts.
Law firm managers should take the Air France crash as one more reason to increase on-the-job training. Associates should be taught not to implicitly trust technology.
Attorneys should not get into the routine of relying on a fail-safe for their actions—a person who always proofreads their work or double-checks filing deadlines.
When disaster strikes, attorneys need to talk with one another, cooperate, develop a creative solution to the issue at hand, or—in the worst-case scenario—simply tap into education and common sense.
Deregulating The Law Industry: Pros, Cons & Free Market Economics
Should We Seek Legal Service Innovation During A Recession?
Law blogs, like this one, spend a large amount of time pushing for legal service innovation.
Creativity, FLEX time, investment capital, reverse auctions, social media--these are all ways by which law firms are told to innovate to provide more efficient services to their clients and to increase profitability among their partners.
But instead of forcing innovation on existing law firms, perhaps innovation should be brought upon the industry via increased competition.
It's not the first time that the practice of law has been called a monopoly. Clifford Winston, Robert W. Crandall, and Vikram Maheshri of the Brookings Institute argue in their publication, First Thing We Do, Let's Deregulate All the Lawyers, that entry barriers and restrictions combined with government-induced demand for lawyers drives up the prices for legal services.
The authors further purport that this economic inefficiency draws significant social costs, hampers innovation, misallocates the nation’s labor resources, and creates socially perverse incentives.
This week, Winston and Crandall contributed an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal calling for the immediate deregulation of the legal industry. They write:
"The reality is that many more people could offer various forms of legal services today at far lower prices if the American Bar Association (ABA) did not artificially restrict the number of lawyers through its accreditation of law schools—most states require individuals to graduate from such a school to take their bar exam—and by inducing states to bar legal services by non-lawyer-owned entities. It would be better to deregulate the provision of legal services. This would lower prices for clients and lead to more jobs."
Amid countless lawsuits accusing law schools of misrepresenting employment statistics and a boom in online legal services, it's clear that law school graduates are seeking jobs, and clients are seeking affordable counsel.
To achieve this, both the Cato Institute and OpenMarket.org agree with the WSJ that deregulation is necessary. “People can represent themselves in small-claims courts, which have simplified procedures, but in many states, such courts can hear only the tiniest legal claims, like those seeking less than $5,000,” states OpenMarket.org (via ATL).
"Every other U.S. industry that has been deregulated, from trucking to telephones, has lowered prices for consumers without sacrificing quality," continue Winston and Crandall.
So, to spur innovation and increase economic efficiency, the legal industry should be deregulated. Or, should it?
There are myriad economic reasons in favor of deregulation, but an equal number that support its continued regulation.
Common law procedures and the protection of Constitutional rights lay at the foundation of American society. At the same time, understanding American civil liberties is complicated, convoluted even.
The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision was critical for U.S. laymen. Miranda warnings ensure that individuals are given equal and fair standing under the law, at least as defendants in criminal matters. One particular Miranda warning is the right to an attorney, and the right to have an attorney appointed for you in the event you cannot afford one. It could be inferred, along with this court decision came the economic opinion that legal services are a public good--defined by its nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption--not party to typical free competition rules.
Adam Smith is famous for making the observation that certain goods in society would have to be funded by means of general contribution. One of the key characteristics of a public good is its unique regulation via state and non-state actors (institutions not unlike the American Bar Association).
Some might argue that regulating the legal industry is necessary to keep legal services of an equally high-quality and ethical standard, accessible to all. By limiting entrants, regulation is, in fact, preserving the spirit of this public good.
So, which economic theory do you believe? Is law just another business in a free market, or is it a public good to be regulated? Is the legal industry headed toward deregulation or just a revision of old traditions?
Puppies and PR Strategies: Five Pitfalls Law Firms Should Avoid
Public Relations And What Not To Do
Oscar Wilde once said, “Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.”
While it’s a wonderful experience to learn from your mistakes, clients hire those law firms that avoid making them in the first place.
Of course, it’s safe to say nobody is perfect. That’s why firms often trust in a third party dedicated to mistake-prevention and mistake-correction: the public- relations (PR) agency.
Television is rife with PR disasters: Tom Cruise and the couch-jumping incident, John McCain bailing on Letterman, Ellen’s puppy fiasco... Law firms, for their part, are hardly immune.
Consider, for example, the firm King & Spalding.
In May, the firm received a fair bit of bad press after it agreed to represent House Republicans in defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). After gay-rights groups protested, King & Spalding withdrew from the case—but without any definitive explanation. Amid much controversy, King & Spalding experienced a snowball effect in terms of averse consequences and bad PR.
First, former solicitor general and firm Partner, Paul Clement (the attorney who brought King & Spalding the case) resigned. Next, the NRA and Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli—both clients of the firm—changed counsel.
Eventually, the dust settled on King & Spalding’s office politics. But, how much damage was done?
The following is a list of PR pitfalls—like King & Spalding’s—that your law firm can learn from to avoid succumbing to its own. Hopefully these errors in judgment will prevent your firm from being next in the negative, legal limelight.
1. Employing Hands-off PR Strategies. Though experts in their field, PR agencies should not shoulder all the responsibility and work involved in creating a positive image for your firm. Partners and associates must all chip in when it comes to managing the PR poker game.
After the New York Post broke the story regarding Worby Groner Edelman's marketing poster (and ploy) that used 9/11 imagery to advertise for plaintiffs harmed at Ground Zero, the firm referred reporters calling about the controversy to Barker/DZP—the agency in charge of the ad. The firm should have responded to critics directly. Although conceived in an office somewhere else in New York City, the image and reputation of the law firm and its attorneys is the one at stake, not the art directors.
Richard Levick, President of Levick Strategy Communications, writes of law firm PR strategy:
“Reporters are like stray cats –if you don't feed them, they go to someone else's door. Call them back first, even if it is to say that you can't say anything. Reporters remember who calls them and who doesn't. Not returning the journalist’s call today, no matter what the reason, guarantees that you won't get the call when you do want to be in the paper.”
Employing third-party consultants does not exempt an attorney from speaking to the press or being a model representative of their firm. A PR person does not substitute for a well-spoken (and sometimes apologetic) law partner.
2. Participating In Impromptu Interviews. Senior attorneys would never show up to a courtroom unprepared, so why would you do the same for interviews with the press?
Continuing on the 9/11 example, the band Blue never recovered from backlash resulting from comments made by band member Lee Ryan during an interview. He was reported saying, “What about whales? They are ignoring animals that are more important,” among other insensitive statements, when asked about the events of September 11.
Lawyers are more poised than popstars. But, the point remains. Impromptu interviews to the press about a case can have disastrous consequences.
Implement a firm-wide policy that controls what lawyers are allowed to say to the press. This simultaneously controls what the press prints about your firm and its clients. Also, ask your PR agency to prep key law firm partners for difficult, public scenarios involving the media. Don’t forget, even an ill-prepared press statement can grossly misrepresent the voice of your firm.
3. Going On The Defensive. Managing your public image—like social media—is not fad. Both trends are here to stay. That’s why a PR strategy should become a permanent addition to your firm.
It’s tempting to outsource PR work only when there’s trouble. The key, however, is to prevent trouble in the first place.
Take, for example, Miley Cyrus’s PR people. After the underage singer posed in some racy photos by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair, her PR company correctly issued a public apology to the many disgruntled fans (and parents of fans).
Nevertheless, Miley Cyrus’s family was present for the shoot and should have involved their PR reps far before the magazine was ever published. Printed material sets words and images in stone.
Richard Levick, advises:
“Law firms conducting press relations project-by-project are wasting their money. If Coca-Cola only engaged in publicity when they had a new formula, you would be drinking Pepsi. Publicity requires reach and repetition. That means lots of placements, lots of times. Getting press ‘every once in a while'’, has little value beyond soothing the ego. Publicity for law firms is about business development, not ego.”
Law firms should keep PR-agency opinion handy for both defensive and pre-emptive decisions.
4. Believing More Publicity Is Good Publicity. The fact is, more publicity does not equal good publicity.
The company Mutts & Moms can serve as a testimonial to that fact.
When Ellen DeGeneres adopted a puppy, Iggy, from Mutts & Moms, she had no idea the dog wouldn’t agree with her cats. So she gave Iggy to her hairdresser’s family. However, Mutts & Moms’ policy required Ellen to return the dog to it, and took aggressive measures to repossess Iggy.
Despite appearing in tears on her show, Ellen could not get Mutts & Moms to return Iggy to her hairdresser’s family. And, in turn, Mutts and Moms received thousands of scathing reviews and threats from furious Ellen fans. Now, opposed to "good service" and "cuddly puppies," a Google search of Mutts & Moms leads to, "Mutts and Moms: Ellen Ruined Our Reputation."
Lesson learned? Even when it's non-standard practice, do what it takes to avoid negative publicity—within reason (see last pitfall).
5. Trusting In Total Denial. Finally, the strategy to “deny, deny, deny” is the same as “lie, lie, lie.”
Whatever ethical standards lawyers abide by in the courtroom, they should require in the press room.
---
Read more about the above celebrity PR incidents in “10 of the Biggest PR Blunders in Recent History,” here.
Extreme Child Obesity Grounds For State Intervention and Foster Care?
Now Legal Reasons For A Healthy Diet.
Is child obesity grounds for abuse allegations?
An article by the Journal of the American Medical Association seems to think so. In fact, it suggests that morbidly obese children—those with weight-related health problems, like diabetes—should be placed in foster care.
“Ubiquitous junk food marketing, lack of opportunities for physically active recreation, and other aspects of modern society promote unhealthful lifestyles in children. Inadequate or unskilled parental supervision can leave children vulnerable to these obesigenic environmental influences.”
Are you following? You should, the article was written by a lawyer… and a doctor.
The article's two authors, Murtagh and Ludwig, “point out that states have long addressed parental neglect that results in children’s undernourishment through already existing legal frameworks governing child abuse,” summarizes the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. A few states have legalized this logic for overnourished ones, including New York, California, Texas, and Indiana.
However, parents who have had children removed from their homes wonder if child obesity laws do more harm than good on family units. “They’ve done damage by pulling us apart,” Jerri Gray, a single mom who lost custody of her 555-pound, 14-year-old son, told the AP, reported the WSJ.
As a lawyer, what would you say after discovering Gray’s son—two years out of his mother’s care—has since lost over 200 pounds? As a parent, do you feel the same way about such legislation?
The summertime has us all thinking about children. But, adult obesity—especially for professionals in high pressure jobs—is of equal concern.
Guidelines from the same article about child obesity can be applied to attorney parents, as well. It can be difficult to maintain a healthy diet at the office when McDonald’s is the only restaurant open at 2am.
Even still, like your child’s health, it’s important to plan ahead for yours.
Obesity is a disease that can be caused by:
Emotional distress;
Excessive available junk food; and a
Lack of physical activity.
Although a candy bowl on your desk is a great way to invite colleagues to your office, replace it will mints or mixed nuts, which are a great deal healthier.
Use one hour a day to exercise. If you don’t have time to hit the gym at lunch, then walk around the neighborhood instead. If you must combine this activity with a conference call, then so be it. Put the phone on mute and bring a change of shirt to the office.
Finally, realize that stress takes a physical toll on people’s health as much as diet and exercise. Whatever your stress relief outlet may be—hobbies, gaming, or just talking to your kids—take the time for it, for your client’s sake.
And, apply these same healthy-living principals to your home life, for you family’s sake.
Book Scandals: Do You Have All The Facts To Defend Your Clients’ Work Of Fiction?
A Discussion On Literary Litigation
It’s only fitting (and possibly ironic) to discuss literary litigation on the birthday of Georges Duhamel.
Duhamel was the father and founder of the Abbaye de Créteil, a community and publishing house that aimed to establish a place to protect freedom of speech and press and practice the arts of writing and poetry.
Today, authors and the agents that sponsor them have a similar reason to unite in defense of literary liberty. This time, instead of in the southeast of Paris, they gather in front of the courtroom.
Why? The number of lawsuits surrounding high-profile book content is on the rise. Some, like Cato Institute senior fellow Walter Olson, believe the trend started with James Frey’s famed faux-memoir, A Million Little Pieces.
After a contentious lawsuit, Random House agreed to pay up to $2.35 million in the suit against the memoir. In the end, only 1,700 people asked to be reimbursed for their book purchases.
Although the publisher also paid opposing counsel’s legal fees, there was a more costly aspect to the lawsuit. The court case against A Million Little Piecesuncovered the truth about its author’s past and Random House’s pocketbook, but the precedent it set for targeting high-profile books is what caused the most damage.
Since then, a variety of court cases have been brought against similar best sellers.
For example, as of this month, there are currently two class-action suits against Penguin regarding its publishing ofThree Cups of Tea. “The first, filed in May, accused the author Greg Mortenson and his charity of fraud and racketeering of book profits and donations,” reports the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.
And, although willingly dismissed in May, Simon & Schuster was initially sued for alleged misrepresentations on certain Israel-Palestine issues contained in Jimmy Carter’s 2006 memoir Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.
“What’s going on?” asks Alex Beam, Boston Globe columnist. “’This is part of the evolution of the class action lawsuit,’ explains Walter Olson, founder of the website Overlawyered.com. ‘For a long time the courts only listened if you could prove the defendant liable, and that everyone had suffered. Now there have been several waves of rulemaking that have liberalized the standards.’”
So while your client may be eager to express his views in ink, best express your legal opinion on the book’s marketing strategy first and foremost. Plaintiffs and the judges presiding over your literary lawsuit have, of late, become less lenient.
Meanwhile, the litigious debate about the breadth of First Amendment rights has yet to fade after all these decades.
In the words of Georges Duhamel, “It is always brave to say what everyone thinks.” These days, it’s even more brave (and, in some cases, costly) to write it in a memoir.
New York State Associates Now Have Good Reason To Ignore Their Blackberries
Vacations are rare if not impossible to take as a first-year associate. The hours are grueling and long, and the Blackberry bestowed each new bar-card carrier is less a perk of the job and more its albatross.
Like an emergency room doctor, lawyers answer their phones rain or shine. And when the partner calls, less senior associates must drop what they’re doing and report to the office. Mother’s birthday? She will have one next year. Daughter’s soccer game? If it’s not the championships, the game’s hardly worth watching anyway. But, at least for attorneys in New York, now there’s an acceptable reason to let your Blackberry Bold go to voicemail—driving.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced on Friday that he plans to introduce legislation that would prohibit drivers from using any electronic instrument while driving. This month, the New York State Senate of legislation already passed laws restricting texting while driving. Governor Cuomo would like to extend the restrictions to all portable electronic devises—mp3 players or iPads, for example.
Today, the fine in New York for a driver using a handheld phone as opposed to using a hands-free devise amounts to as much as $150. But, Governor Cuomo would like to see even this stiff penalty increase.
“Distracted driving is nothing less than a lethal activity for the driver themselves, other drivers on the road, and pedestrians,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Current warnings, educational programs, and driving laws aren’t working. We need to impose a true deterrent to stop people from driving while using an electronic device and to keep our roads and citizens safe.” [Law Blog, Wall Street Journal 6/10/11]
Governor Cuomo would also like to make the use of an electronic devise while driving a primary offense (meaning no other traffic offence is needed for a police officer to pull over a driver). And, he would like to add “distracted driving” to the defensive driving curriculum in New York State.
So, if you’re wondering if “I couldn’t answer my phone because I was driving” is a legitimate excuse for the state in which you practice law, consult the Governors Highway Safety Association’s chart. The matrix outlines which states consider driving with a handheld cell phone or texting while driving a primary offense and which consider it a secondary one.
No state bans all cell phone use—both handheld and hands-free—for all drivers. However, many states restrict all cell phone use by certain drivers, such as novice drivers (30 states and D.C.) or school bus drivers (19 states and D.C.). Thirty-three states, D.C., and Guam ban text messaging for all drivers, and twenty-nine of these states, plus D.C. and Guam, consider it a primary offense.
Ergo, resist the temptation to answer texts, emails, or phone calls from the boss’s line while driving home. It may not get you out of a traffic jam, but leaving your phone in the back seat while driving should serve as a legal and defensible explanation for any sort of gridlock at the office.
To read Governor Cuomo's statement regarding his plans for distracted drivers, click here.
What happens when private companies are allowed to invest in law?
Imagine Apple owned your law firm. Conference rooms would be full of attorneys on their iPhone 4s, not the Blackberry Bold, and paralegals would be trading yellow legal pads for the iPad.
The best part—aside from a shiny Macbook Air—would be Apple’s fiscal 2010 fourth quarter revenue of $20.34 billion and net quarterly profit of $4.31 billion. In today’s economy, the capital markets and investment Apple could offer to a law firm would have immense implications in terms of future revenue streams and attracting new clients. Certainly internal management structures would be streamlined to match Apple’s own aggressive management strategy.
These days, it’s already difficult to identify a quote as coming from a firm equity partner or the Apple CEO:
“It’s not about fooling people, and it’s not about convincing people that they want something they don’t. We figure out what we want. And I think we’re pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That’s what we get paid to do.”
Even still, adopting Apple’s (and Steve Job’s) management style would definitely come as a great relief to lawyers amid the recent layoffs. “We’ve had one of these before, when the dot-com bubble burst. What I told our company was that we were just going to invest our way through the downturn, that we weren’t going to lay off people, that we’d taken a tremendous amount of effort to get them into [the company] in the first place—the last thing we were going to do is lay them off.”
Emulating Apple’s management style has merit. But, the reality is, thanks to recent lawsuits by Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices LLP, Apple may actually be able to own your firm sometime soon.
On Wednesday, the WSJ reports, Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices LLP filed three suits challenging state laws in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut that prohibit non-attorneys from owning stakes in law firms. With the exception of Washington, D.C., this ban originates from ethics rules established by State supreme courts, aiming to eliminate the conflict between profit-based principles of business and legal priorities of serving clients’ interests first and foremost.
Jacoby & Meyers maintain that a restriction on firm ownership “perpetuates economic inequity,” because “small [legal] practice [do] not have access to the capital markets that the Wall Street [law] firms have.”
Clearly there would be consequences and complications to a change in the law. A fear exists that with private company ownership of or investment in a law firm, attorney-client privilege would be compromised.
At the same time, many feel the restriction is just another boys-club ban created by lawyers aiming to preserve a level of elitism within the industry. “There is this idea of fraternity [in law]—if we allow nonlawyers to be members of our club, we are no longer special,” said Stephen Gillers who is a professor at New York University School of Law. Specializing in legal ethics, Gillers laments, “This is a deep and abiding sentiment of the American Bar.”
However, if there can be private hospitals or schools— with arguably equal levels of ethics concerns—is the ban on private ownership of law firms unconstitutional? Managing Partner of Jacoby & Meyers Andrew Finkelstein would answer, “yes.”
"There is no legitimate rationale that exists to prevent nonlawyers from owning equity in law firms,” said Finkelstein. “The rule unconstitutionally restricts interstate commerce by limiting attorneys' ability to act like any other business in the United States.”
So, there’s only one question left. What will color iPad will you get?
Discovery And Investigation Policies For Social Networking Sites Made Easy
Poking is unacceptable behavior in most social environments, except social networking. But, according to at least one New York lawsuit, even facebook poking is inappropriate and, in certain cases, illegal.
Actually, the lawsuit addresses facebook’s feature of “liking” pages. Facebook—the social networking mogul—is getting yet another thumbs down for its advertising measures, this time, for allegedly using the photos and names of minors who “like” select brands on the website.
New York resident Scott Nastro filed a suit seeking class-action status this week that claims the name and photo of his child, as well as other minors, have been used in “social ads” by Facebook since 2007 without parental consent.
Under the New York Civil Rights Law, a person’s picture cannot be used for advertising purposes without that person’s permission. Nastro has not only invoked this law, but will likely seek damages. Bloomberg covers this story in more detail.
Social media—whether its restrictions on use in the workplace or the sites themselves—has certainly been receiving a lot of media attention. With so much technology at play in today’s everyday environment, it’s no surprise that the number of complaints and subpoenas involving msn, myspace, facebook, twitter, or craigslist, for example, are on the rise.
Now, requesting information and data from these social media sites is just as easy as signing up for them.
Luckily, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and the blog, An Associate’s Mind) is on your digital defense, by sending a “Freedom of Information Act request to a half-dozen government agencies seeking their policies for using social networking sites for investigations, data-collection, and surveillance.”
Since 1990, EFF has “championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.” They believe “from the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers.”
In protection of these digital rights, the EFF has published Law Enforcement Guides to several social media and e-commerce websites, including:
Facebook 2010 Law Enforcement Guide
Craigslist Law Enforcement Guide
Twitter Law Enforcement Guidelines
Litigation is going to see a continued increase in social media and electronic discovery requests. With myriad sites to track and choose from, the EFF has produced a spreadsheet in PDF and XLS formats to juxtapose all pertinent law enforcement and privacy guidelines.
This way, the only thing your firm needs to worry about is the difference between myface and spacebook.
Don’t be fooled by the logo, Apple is reportedly the least environmentally friendly of all tech companies profiled by Greenpeace this year.
“’Of the big four IT companies—Apple, Dell, HP, IBM—Apple has disclosed the least information and is the only one that has not made a major commitment to carbon footprint reduction.’ That's the conclusion of the director of As You Sow, an organization which uses shareholder activism as a tool to promote sustainability and corporate social responsibility.”[1]
With most of today's companies making efforts to practice more environmentally efficient behavior, this conclusion is quite surprising. Certainly Apple will feel the backlash of this report. We’ve already seen how public interest adds further pressure to difficult decision-making (See Why Firms Should Assume Judges Will Throw Out Confidential Commercial Rights). So, whether your firm needs extra eco-advertising, wants to qualify for government rebates, or just plain loves the earth, it’s important to be green. And, as Kermit says, it’s easy. Follow these five steps to get a quick head start on the coal-eyed competition.
1. Eliminate Styrofoam Cups.
Coffee—at most business around the world—is the most important office supply. But three or four plastic cups discarded per day by twenty employees will add up for the environment and your bottom line. Instead of plastic, try stocking your shelves exclusively with ceramic mugs. Hold a Ceramic Mug Day where each employee donates one or more mugs from their homes. Or, consider monogramming mugs with your firm’s logo or name and distribute them to employees on hiring anniversaries, which will boost the morale, marketing for your firm, and management of your carbon footprint.
2. Replace Vending Machines.
Coffee-making vending machines are not the only culprits in the environmental equation. In addition to a caffeine addiction, a sweet tooth can drive late nights spent drafting motions and briefs. Typical refrigerated vending machines, however, consume 400 Watts a day—at the rate of 6.39 cents per kWh—on which your firm spends an average of $225 per year,[2] (not to mention the mass, unnecessary energy consumption). Instead of a vending machine, consider the honor (snacking) system. Ask your office manager or another volunteer to purchase assorted candy and chips on their corporate card during a grocery run. Then, have a basket in the break room that sells these goodies—with an appropriate $1 donation. It’s likely you will save firm money via this method, in addition to helping save the earth.
If employees continue to nitpick, keep the commercial vending, but have your provider to de-lamp the machine. Also ask for an occupancy sensor on the machine to reduce its power requirements during periods of inactivity. Studies show that de-lamping vending machines save at least $100 annually, and an immeasurable number of trees.
3. Encourage Carpooling.
Few people will complain about carpooling while gas is over $4 a gallon. Even still, sometimes carpooling is too tedious for individuals to organize themselves. So, start a carpooling sign-up service at the firm. After all, you already have access to associates’ timesheets, it should be easy to investigation who arrives at the same time and which (soon to be promoted!) lawyers stay late.
At the beginning, offer a small incentive, like a Starbucks gift card, to promote car sharing. In cities with mass transportation, there are often government incentives or tax breaks available for businesses and those employees who take the train, bus, or their own two feet to work. Driving just ten percent less by walking, cycling, carpooling, or taking public transit has been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.2 to 0.8 tonnes per year (depending on the vehicle).[3]
Finally, if that doesn’t cut down on the cars in your garage, allow telecommuting one day a week or, more radically, FLEX time. Often these measures result in higher productivity and efficiency for the office, and certainly higher sustainability for the earth.
4. Operate Your Technology Responsibility.
Office equipment comprises sixteen percent of an office’s total energy use, according to The Department of Energy. Not only do fax machines, printers, and copiers waste mass amounts of paper, they also consume large amounts of energy. That’s why, at the end of the day, it’s important to shut down your computer, turn off its monitor, and generally pretend you’re at the take-off of a commercial flight.
Have your IT gurus change the settings on your employees’ computers so that this is done automatically. Nominate your first-years to circulate the office at night and ensure all equipment is switched to the “off” position. The reasons are black and white. If every U.S. computer and monitor were turned off at night, the country could shut down eight large power stations and avoid emitting seven million tons of CO2 each year. In terms of financial gain, IBM estimated $17.8 million in worldwide costs were saved in 1991 solely by encouraging employees to turn off equipment and lights when not needed.[4]
5. Nominate A “Green” Manager.
There are myriad ways to make your firm more green. Hire or nominate a manager within your firm to look into similar energy-saving ideas, such as soybean ink, compact fluorescent lamps, and paper-reduction. It’s more than likely at least one employee already feels strongly on the subject and will volunteer.
Either way, like a long-term legal strategy, changes to make the office more environmental friendly will see similar long-term impacts. With a few, small changes, ensure that the earth is still around for you to add “& Son” to the firm's moniker, and to task the next generation with continuing your hard-earned efforts.
