Editors note: This guest post is by Aaron Kelly, a Scottsdale, AZ attorney who deals extensively with internet-related legal issues.

Internet defamation can be devastating for any business. With the speed and accuracy that search engines use to index new online content, defamatory content can quickly appear on the first page of Google when a potential customer searches for your business. But before you fire off an angry letter or threaten litigation there are certain things that you must keep in mind.

First and foremost, the old adage, “if you make one client happy he’ll tell three people…if you make one client mad he’ll tell thirty people,” rings true today, and in fact is amplified by the way community review sites work. Sites like Yelp, Google Local, and even Avvo allow people to review a particular person or business. These sites do not, however, provide any of their own reviews, which is why they are not personally responsible for the content their users post. But what happens if the person who posted the comment did so with the intention of defaming you or your business?

The first, and most ideal strategy, is asking nicely. Like our mothers said, minding your manners can pay off and it is no different over the Internet. Some webmasters may, if you ask them nicely, remove defamatory content. [ed. note - Avvo won't remove a review, even if you ask nicely. But we will double-check to ensure the review meets our Community Guidelines and was not left in error for the wrong professional] One of the primary methods of persuasion used to get them to do this is that, as webmasters, they gain credibility by ensuring that only truthful content is on their website. After the content is removed, you can put the URL in Google’s cache removal form along with the term which no longer appears at the URL, and Google “should” de-index and de-cache the link relatively quickly.
The second method is through a court order to have the defamatory page de-indexed from the search engines. In essence, what happens is the affected business files a lawsuit against the person who posted the material. If the poster is unknown, then things get tricky and you will have to go through the discovery process. Once the poster’s identity is revealed, the lawsuit will be amended with their name. As a part of the lawsuit, an injunction is sought, declaring each specific URL where the material appears to be is unlawful. Google will then remove any unlawful content from its index which is listed in that order.

Sometimes, fighting defamation like this can be exhaustive to your business’ resources, and it might be best to ignore it if the negative material is getting little attention. If the defamation is getting noticed by other potential customers, but the above methods seem overwhelming to you, a positively worded rebuttal and a statement about your company’s commitment to customer service might be a good alternative.

This is just a general summary of some of the main methods used in getting rid of libelous material about your business. For more information about removing defamatory content from search engines and websites in general, you should consult an attorney who is experienced in handling these kinds of matters.

The debate over online advertising for lawyers gets to the heart of the profession’s reluctance to embrace technology. While websites, blogs, and social media have become important aspects of all professions, lawyers have been notoriously slow to embrace the new forums of information sharing and client outreach. State bar associations have even set regulations against social media use among lawyers drawn along similar lines as the advertising restrictions.

When the Florida Bar Association, already among the most restrictive bodies in the nation, announced last month that it would strengthen guidelines for online advertising, eight of the state’s largest law firms cried foul, announcing their intention to sue the Florida Bar. The proposed new rules would prohibit the publication of testimonials, case results, and audio or video content they deemed “deceptive, misleading, manipulative,” or confusing. The eight law firms said these new rules crossed a line–that altering their websites would require thousands of man hours and cost a fortune.

In a post for the Rainmaker Blog skewering the Florida bar suggestions, Stephen Fairley writes that while these new rules would be inconvenient for major players, they would devastate small firms.

I recently spoke with Diane Karpman, a legal ethics guru from California, who came to the same conclusion about legal advertising rules as Fairley–from a slightly different path.

Advertising is necessary for poor clients without access to big-name referrals, she says. Without it, “the white-shoed partners in the multi-storied buildings are going to prevail,” Karpman says. “At some point you have to say that people need access to attorneys, even if that means releasing restrictions on attorney advertising.”

Karpman feels that such stringent regulations miss the point of social media altogether. “Every state has Byzantine regulations regarding lawyer advertising,” she said, noting that common guidelines boil down to an obligation to make statements that are true, accurate, and not confusing. “But these rules fail to take into consideration things like Twitter. If you only have 140 characters, you just can’t comply with all the requirements.”

Avvo general counsel Josh King suggested that the Florida lawsuit could prompt state bar associations to scale back regulations, where websites would be considered “information provided at the request of a client,” or even scrap advertising rules altogether, since such restrictions “routinely flout the First Amendment, create uncertainty in their membership and drive the cost of legal services higher.”

As a strong supporter of social media as a forum to boost client interaction, Karpman echoes King’s assertion that additional restrictions could raise constitutional questions. “The type of regulation in Florida is just overkill. I almost think it’s unconstitutional because it’s a prior restraint to freedom of speech,” she says.

Like King, Karpman also predicts that state bar associations will begin to embrace new technologies and ease their ethics restrictions as they begin to see the potential for social media and the web as a whole to strengthen the legal profession.

But this debate serves as an important reminder that even when legal social media use becomes widespread, lawyers must maintain the ethics standards that have been commonly accepted for decades before the advent of the web. Otherwise, the more restrictive regulations of online communication might actually be warranted.

About the Author: Ben Buchwalter is Director of Client Outreach for GJEL Accident Attorneys in northern California. Before joining GJEL, Ben studied political science at Haverford College and worked as a writer and researcher for Mother Jones Magazine and Talking Points Memo. Ben enjoys skiing, public transportation, and television detective dramas. Find GJEL at www.gjel.com, the blog at www.gjel.com/blog or on Twitter as @GJELblogger.

Following the rise of the internet, a cohort of once-dominant industries, including newspaper, music, and film companies all scrambled to adapt to emerging internet culture.

Now, the question for lawyers is: how will you adapt?

Over the past few years, a group of lawyers and law professors has answered that question by creating a community “blawgosphere” that continually shares legal news, opinions, and humor.

Kevin O’Keefe, the CEO of the LexBlog Network and author of Real Lawyers Have Blogs, for one, has championed this transition from old-world representation to internet-savvy lawyers. But, quoting popular author Doc Searls, O’Keefe warns that lawyers can go too far when it comes to building a personal brand. As Searls advises, “build a reputation by doing good work. Put that work where others can judge its value…Never promote for its own sake.”

I suspect that the lawyers yet to join the online community hold back for two reasons: computer incompetence and/or a fear of appearing to violate Searls’ advice. Fortunately, those fears can be assuaged by following a few key guidelines, and updating state laws that regulate lawyer marketing.

Last November, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Ethics released a report on “Preliminary Issues Online,” which warned that “the accelerating pace of technological innovation and the increase in globalized law practice raise serious questions about whether existing ethical rules and regulatory structures adequately address the realities and challenges of 21st Century law practice.”

Later, addressing lawyer accountability on the state level, the ABA asked “should all state lawyer disciplinary agencies and/or state bar associations make information about public lawyer regulatory actions available on the internet?” Avvo’s general counsel Josh King responded with an emphatic yes. “Every state should make public disciplinary decisions publicly available,” he wrote.

Recognizing the overwhelming exodus among lawyers toward greater online presence, states like California and Maine have developed progressive regulations governing marketing and client interaction online. Other states, like Florida and New York, have been less internet-friendly. Florida, for example, considers sending friend requests on Facebook unlawful solicitation, and says that attorney websites cannot disclose past results on their websites without a disclaimer. Both practices are expressly permitted in California.

That the public is critical of lawyers is nothing new. In movies, television and daily conversation, people relish jokes about the supposedly greedy, deceptive nature of the legal profession. By using social media to share interesting information or connect with others interested in common subjects, lawyers can begin to distance themselves from this misconception. But, if social media is misused, as the one-sided echo chamber designed to drive profits that Searls criticizes, lawyers will end up affirming every stereotype in the book.

The key to ethical online interaction is pretty clear. First, check your state’s guidelines to ensure that it doesn’t view social media use as unlawful. Second, go out of your way to separate your firm’s online advertising from its social media presence. And finally, if you blog, tweet, or use Facebook, do so to share information, not preach about your firm’s greatness.

As the next generation of lawyers joins the online community, they’re sure to be accompanied by an entirely new generation of online resources that will further complicate the line between online marketing and ethical use of social media. But as long as states are clear about what is and is not kosher, and lawyers remain conscious of their own ethical standards, the internet won’t force the profession to suffer the newspaper’s online fate.

About the Author: Ben Buchwalter is Director of Client Outreach for GJEL Accident Attorneys in northern California. Before joining GJEL, Ben studied political science at Haverford College and worked as a writer and researcher for Mother Jones Magazine and Talking Points Memo. Ben enjoys skiing, public transportation, and television detective dramas. Find GJEL at www.gjel.com, the blog at www.gjel.com/blog or on Twitter as @GJELblogger.

Today, we have a thoughtful article from Venkat Balasubramani of Spam Notes.

Lawyers are expected to be advocates for their clients, but this zealous advocacy should be tempered by a lawyer’s duty to serve as ethical officers of the court. In theory, overreaching lawyers should be held in check by opposing attorneys, however sometimes the victim of an overzealous advocate is not able to afford counsel. Other times, even though a party has counsel, the party would rather not go through the time and trouble of contesting an issue, or lacks the resources to fight a battle with a far bigger opponent. Public interest organizations sometimes get involved in a dispute if a lawsuit raises an issue which touches on their mandate. However, their resources are limited and they can only represent a handful of worthy parties. Often, a lawsuit or claim may not come to their attention. The internet has changed the playing field. In the modern era, the internet functions as a powerful force in bringing what are viewed as overly aggressive positions or claims to light, and mobilizing opposition. In lawyer-speak, the internet functions as a giant Rule 11 committee. (Rule 11 is the rule most associated with sanctions imposed on a lawyer for taking an untenable legal or factual position.)

Consider a few recent examples:

BlockShopper: BlockShopper is a website which describes itself as a “local news and market data service for current and aspiring homeowners”. It ran a few items noting purchases of real estate by associates of a large Ohio-based law firm (Jones Day). In the process it linked to the online biographies of the lawyers, and to the website of the firm. Jones Day sued, alleging trademark infringement. Ultimately, the lawsuit settled on terms which were viewed as favorable to the plaintiff, but the ensuing negative publicity was something that Jones Day may not have anticipated. The lawsuit caused an uproar on the internet, and caused public interest groups to try to get involved. As noted by Slate, one lawyer opined that the lawyers who brought the lawsuit against Blockshopper should be required to take ethics classes.

The Nordstrom/Beckons Trademark Dispute: Beckons is a small firm based in Colorado which developed organic lifestyle clothing. Through what was described as an error in the Patent and Trademark office, Nordstrom (the Seattle based retailer) obtained a registration for a trademark which Beckons previously used. When the giant Nordstrom tried to attack tiny Beckons based on its mark, a similar uproar erupted on the internet. Bloggers wrote open letters to Nordstrom and called for its boycott. Again, there was no way Nordstrom or its lawyers anticipated that what would have otherwise been a run of the mill trademark dispute would morph into a public relations war (the value of which probably far outstripped the value of the original dispute).

(Note: I don’t mean to suggest that the lawyers in the examples above should be sanctioned or that they necessarily brought improper claims. Merely that they asserted what were viewed as overly aggressive claims and in response, the internet mobilized.)

Who raises the red flag? Just about anyone can raise a red flag about a court decision or position taken by a litigant. However, some bloggers tend to flag these claims frequently. Lawyers probably live in relative fear of one of their lawsuits being mentioned by any of these bloggers:

Professor Eugene Volokh: who founded and blogs at the influential and popular group blog Volokh Conspiracy often flags decisions which “get it wrong” on First Amendment grounds. More than one school administrator or local government official has surely cringed upon seeing his/her decision highlighted on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Walter Olson: who blogs at Overlawyered is another blogger who frequently flags unreasonable positions taken by lawyers. While he monitors litigation excess generally, absurd tort lawsuits are his specialty, and many a plaintiff’s lawyer has graced the pages of his blog in shame.

Marc J. Randazza: who blogs at the Legal Satyricon flags decisions which are problematic from a First Amendment or an intellectual property perspective. Mr. Randazza is often scathing (but accurate) in his criticism. He also covers a wide range of topics but the government of Florida is one of his favorite subjects.

Bloggers from all stripes flag problematic decisions. In one famous example, a blogger pointed out an error in a United States Supreme Court decision. (ABA Journal: “Blogger Points Out Substantial Error in Supreme Court Decision.”) More recently, law blogger and media lawyer Bob Ambrogi raised the alarm about a recent 1st Circuit libel decision. (Media Law: “Think You Know Libel Law? Think Again.”) I would venture to guess there is no way the Supreme Court Justices who decided Kennedy v. Louisiana were not made aware of the mistake pointed out by blogger Dwight Sullivan. Similarly, I would guess that there is no way the three 1st Circuit judges who participated in the decision in Noonan v. Staples, Inc. have not read or been made aware of Mr. Ambrogi’s criticism of that decision.

In addition to bloggers, public interest groups also participate in the dynamic. Washington DC-based Public Citizen, San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Cambridge-based Citizen Media Law Project have been quite active in participating in cases where a stronger adversary tries to bully a weaker opponent. Many famous examples exist. EFF fought and won one of the first internet anonymity cases: Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc. Public Citizen has taken on Wal-mart when the giant retailer tried to silence a criticism site: Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

What is the Effect of This Dynamic?

One obvious effect of this dynamic is to level the playing field in certain types of litigation. There are no concrete statistics, but lawsuits in certain areas seem to be more likely to receive significant attention in the blogosphere – lawsuits involving: (1) free speech on the internet; (2) corporate criticism; (3) the assertion of trademark rights; (4) copyrights and copy control mechanisms; and (5) abusive or overbroad subpoenas (particularly those related to number (2)). (Bloggers are not necessarily rising en masse to the defense of indigent defendants or death row inmates.) The obvious effect of blogospheric participation is in these types of cases it is less likely that a person or company with greater resources is able to simply bully an opponent.

Second, the blogosphere’s participation has created (or more likely amplified) the “Streisand Effect”. The Streisand Effect refers to a situation where someone seeking to silence a critic draws attention to the critic by filing a lawsuit or taking legal action. Many lawyers and public relations professionals have rued sending out a strongly worded demand letter – only to find out that the letter riled up the blogosphere and an army of commentators have joined the fray on behalf of a seemingly outgunned opponent.

Finally, the blogosphere’s participation can result in the correction of bad decisions. The Kentucky Domain Name decision is one good example of a recent decision which sparked a firestorm of controversy, and which was ultimately reversed on appeal. (EFF: “Kentucky Court of Appeals Overturns Domain Name Seizure Order” (as the EFF page notes, a further appealing is pending).)

****

Increased scrutiny of legal decisions and lawsuits by blogs and internet commentators will have undoubtedly have an overall beneficial effect. Judges and lawyers realize there are one more set of eyes scrutinizing their decisions.

For a lawyer, however, the dynamic is slightly different. Lawyers these days live in fear that one of their lawsuits will be highlighted on the pages of sites such as Overlawyered, the Legal Satyricon, or the Volokh Conspiracy. I know I sometimes do.

This is a guest blog post from Long Island Attorney, Jeena Belil, who I have had the pleasure of meeting through Twitter, email and occasionally over the phone. She was also one of the early adopters integrating Avvo Answers into her law practice’s website. The post recounts her transition from large in house attorney to solo practitioner and provides a real life example of how Avvo has impacted an attorney’s marketing efforts.

For twelve years, I was employed as an attorney defending insurance companies against claims made by their insureds. I handled a case load, managed a staff counsel law office and was personally responsible for implementing legal strategies in connection with litigation, arbitration and trials. My work for these companies boiled down to achieving the overall goal set by the insurance carrier: my job was to help maintain the corporate bottom-line.
Most recently, I was managing counsel for an insurance company based on Long Island. I had a lofty title and my name was engraved on a plaque in the lobby. By the summer of 2007, I was counsel of record on over 10,000 law suits in the court houses in downstate New York. Unfortunately, during 2007, roughly half of the people employed by the insurance company were downsized. In September of 2007, the entire in-house legal department was let go. Once the dust settled, I knew that I did not want to go back in-house. I wanted to start using my experience to help injured people in my community.
I started my personal injury solo practice out of my home with spit and glue. I had a lot of things going for me: some money to start up, a business plan, budget in place and prior experience representing injured persons in auto/motorcycle and slip and fall accidents. The one major disadvantage I had was that although I was well known in the auto insurance defense community, my name was not known to the general public.
I knew that while the Yellow Pages and other types of print advertising were the traditional forms of marketing for personal injury attorneys, the ads that I found did not fit my business model or my personality. I wanted my clients to know more about me than what could be contained on a quarter page.
I found that Avvo was a great tool to assist me in achieving my marketing objectives. It is an excellent way for me to showcase my experience, speaking engagements and publications. Additionally, I have found the “Track Record” platform is an effective way to demonstrate to consumers my ability to personally litigate their cases.
It’s important for lawyers, especially solos, to realize that the traditional methods of getting your name out to the public can be expensive, redundant and ineffective. The Web is here and it’s easier then you think to embrace the technology. A web marketing vehicle like Avvo makes it simple to set yourself apart from the herd.
Avvo will continue to be a big part of my marketing plan in 2009 and beyond.

Cliff Tuttle is a Pittsburgh sole-practitioner and the author of a general legal blog with a focus on Western Pennsylvania called Pittsburgh Legal Back-talk. He has recently authored an AVVO Legal Guide on mortgage foreclosures. As you can tell from the photo on his blog and on his Avvo profile, Cliff has a robust sense of humor. Cliff believes in the importance of dedicating a part of his day to nonbillable tasks and he sent along this article on the topic.

Busy lawyers must do more than serve clients. They must manage the firm, develop future business and maintain professional competence. Most of us keep detailed time sheets for client work. But after working a full day and billing only a few hours, we often wonder what we did all day.

Keeping time for billing purposes is hard enough. So why use more of it to keep records of tasks for which you can never charge a dime? Short answer: Productivity and achieving goals.

Keeping written records has been universally demonstrated to increase productivity and facilitate the achievement of goals. If you want to improve your sales, keep a sales diary. If you are trying to lose weight, keep a food diary. Athletes keep score even while training. The act of writing down goals and recording achievements has been demonstrated to increase performance in every kind of human activity. Indisputably, it works.

As a sole practitioner, I write down daily goals and keep time in four broad non-billing areas:
FINANCE
ADMINISTRATION
MARKETING
EDUCATION

My goal is to achieve some modicum of progress – even if it is only token – in all four categories every day. Finance, among other things, includes billing and client time keeping. Administration includes all non-financial aspects of running a law office. Marketing includes relations with existing clients, plus developing new prospects. Education includes increasing a lawyer’s legal knowledge and competency, improving the value of what we have to sell.

To some extent, these activities are self-driving. When planning a day, Finance and Administration tasks may come to mind automatically. But this is far less likely for the categories of Marketing and Education. These require more proactive planning. Without some kind of a plan, Marketing and Education efforts are likely to be sporadic and haphazard. Busy weeks and months go by without addressing these vital areas of practice at all. That’s where FAME comes in.

This approach requires a written daily plan, compiled before the day’s most demanding activities take over. I insert a blank sheet of paper into each day’s section of my Day Timer. I divide it into four sections, marked F, A, M and E. At the beginning of the day, I write at least one task I plan to do that day in each category. As the day progresses, I may add more.

When I first began this routine, it seemed almost impossible to think of daily entries for the Marketing and Education categories. But with practice, ideas and then a plan began to emerge. In Marketing, I began calling clients with whom I had little or no recent contact. With a little thought, I could usually find a reason for the call that was more than a mere pretext. At the least, such calls put me back inside the client’s sphere of influence. At best, they resulted in one or more immediate assignments. Similar marketing activities could involve joining groups, giving speeches or keeping up contact with colleagues and classmates. The key is to keep doing it and to do it naturally. Check off every accomplishment and write down the time required to complete the task.

In addition, whenever you receive one of those famous ten-minute calls, the kind you can’t bill, charge the time to Marketing. Then plan a follow up with the caller a week or two later. Don’t ignore the potential for referrals. Everyone you meet or talk to on the phone has the ability to refer a friend. A referral carries the implied endorsement of the referring party, which is worth a great deal. Some people have a talent for referrals and keeping in touch with them is like owning a gold mine.

Education should consist of more than attending mandatory continuing legal education seminars. Find a blog, listserve or website dealing with a topic of value in your practice and plan to read it every day. Note the time devoted to this task under E. Sometimes I email articles or blog posts to clients or other people I think might be interested. This combines the Marketing and Education functions.

I try to review the prior week every Saturday morning and to begin to plan for the next week. It is not unusual to find four hours of FAME recorded in a given day. I try to determine whether the activities noted in my log were worth the time spent and whether some should be increased, decreased or altered. If an activity is not meeting my goals, I want to consider replacing it with one that does.

My daily focus on Marketing and Education have ultimately lead to the launch of my new blog, Pittsburgh Legal Back-talk. This demanding endeavor requires me to greatly expand the time and energy devoted to both M & E. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that it will prove to be worthwhile, personally and professionally. If you would like to see (and possibly bookmark for future reference) Pittsburgh Legal Back-talk, click here.

Attorney Sharon Chirichillo graciously offered to participate in our guest blogger series. Sharon founded The Law Offices of Sharon Chirichillo, a 6 lawyer DUI criminal defense firm located in Olympia, WA. She was an early adopter of Avvo and is a prolific participant in Avvo Answers.

Got Avvo?

Inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King’s counsel that “[i]njustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” I became an attorney. His call to action was based in respect and truth. Throughout the process of becoming an attorney I hold on to those tenets.

Before I began my criminal defense six person law office in Olympia, I had read a library full of books regarding small business ownership. Basically the information sifted into three factors: business plan, budget, and marketing plan.

I started by visiting various non-legal business groups in my community to see which one might fit my values and goals. Wanting to serve my community in other ways a fellow business person invited me to join Rotary. It is with Rotary that I crystallized my vision.

There is a Four-Way Test of the Things Rotarians Think, Say and Do: First, is it the truth? Second, is it fair to all concerned? Third, will it build goodwill and better friendships? And finally, the fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned?

These four tests and the commitment to achieve for justice are the foundation in how we govern our practice. Especially in its application to marketing concepts this foundation is keen. Our firm does not play games, psych other people out, and be anything but what we commit for our clients, aggressive representation with compassionate counsel for justice.

Consistently we carry that view to our clients. In fact, truth and our commitment to justice is exactly what attract people to our firm. Bottom line, we deeply care for our client’s outcome and will be tenacious to achieve reasonable and sometimes miraculous results.

Following this connection for truthful marketing concepts, it was a client who first introduced me to Avvo. He pointed out that I had a profile and it was not claimed. I went to Avvo’s site, checked it out and found it fascinating. I was drawn to the features of attorney claiming profile, client rating attorney and peer rating attorney aspects. I have been used to being rated through Martindale-Hubbell and have been an advocate to be rated as an attorney.

Avvo has been a tremendous springboard in promoting access of the public to attorneys. A useful feature is that the public can ask questions for an attorney to answer. I value answering people’s questions. Through the writing, it seems to help the public connect with the legal system. For most people, the legal system is convoluted and inaccessible. Avvo precipitates a bridge for the public to bring a voice that can be heard.

In particular, my clients enjoy Avvo. Most of my client’s are highly computer savvy. My client’s tell me they use Avvo as a way to get informed and ask questions. I find that Avvo helps my client’s to navigate through the haze of the judicial system and feel more secure in getting answers.

I see that Avvo assists me to be beneficial for all concern in promoting the essence of our practice. Our commitment is to our clients to uphold compassionate counsel with aggressive representation towards justice. Avvo assists me to corroborate that genuineness.

Last month, J Craig Williams, wrote a guest blog here on legal recommendations for the victims of the California fires. I’m looking for a Washington lawyer who is interested in writing a similar post for Washington residents who have been impacted by the recent devastation. If you are interested, comment here, or give me a call at Avvo – 206-734-4111.

This week, I’m proud to kick off Guest Bloggers with J. Craig Williams‘ first hand insight on the legal issues consumers should consider when dealing with the aftermath of the California fires. Craig is a Newport Beach lawyer who blogs regularly at May it Please the Court.

As the smoke now simmers and smolders, we’re starting to figure out how to address this mess created by seven days of hellish fires in Southern California. This post covers ten tips on dealing with insurance companies on catastrophic claims and how to learn from the lessons people suffered through in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster as a result of the ways insurance companies handled those claims.

So let’s get right to it. Here’s the top ten tips to deal with insurance companies on catastrophic claims:

(1) Lawyers call it RTC: Read The Contract. Your insurance policy is a contract between you and your insurance company. It spells out what you’re supposed to submit for your claim and what the insurance company is required to provide in response. You’re going to find three relevant coverages: Building, Contents and Living expenses/business interruption. If you’ve lost your home or business, then you’ll be submitting claims under all three. If you don’t have a copy of your policy, then ask your agent for one or send a letter to your carrier asking for a certified copy.

(2) Gather evidence of your claims and submit it to your carriers now. NOW. Don’t wait. Take pictures and video and send it in. Send in samples of the ash if they don’t believe you. Tell them you’ll submit more later, but get the process started now. Get the additional living expenses / business interruption coverage payments coming your way. Keep a copy of what you submit, what you receive back from your insurance carrier and every other piece of paper associated with your claim. Your carrier has 40 days to respond to your claim under California’s Fair Claims Practices Act, so get started now. Did I say NOW enough?

(3) Submit your claim to state and local governments. FEMA may provide reimbursement, as well as several California state agencies. The Small Business Administration will help businesses get back on their feet. Check out the Helping Handbook for other resources.

(4) Reconstruct your house and its contents in your mind and write it down. Check your iPod to see if it has any photos of your house or anything inside it. Ask your friends if they have photos. When you create your list of contents, systematically go through each room in your house and write everything down. Estimate the value to replace your items and list each one individually. Create a spreadsheet.

(5) Deal with the insurance company’s adjuster, but consider hiring your own “public adjuster” or obtaining an independent valuation of your list. Remember, the carrier wants to minimize its payments to you, and will try to negotiate you down on each point. Use your agent to pressure the insurance company. Don’t cave to unreasonable offers.

(6) Use your head. As you rebuild your home, make sure you engage a licensed contractor. Make sure you have an agreement with your insurance company about who’s going to pay that contractor and when.

(7) Wait until everything’s been replaced and your home has been rebuilt until you sign a release of your insurance carrier’s liability to you. Otherwise, the carrier is no longer on the hook to you. Keep your claim open as long as you can and submit additional items lost as you remember them.

(8) Talk to your CPA. Most fire losses are deductible. You’ll want to have records and information to enable you to obtain these deductions. Small consolation, but everything helps. Your carrier cannot take advantage of these deductions to offset your claim.

(9) Refuse to take less than it will cost to replace your contents and rebuild your home (assuming you have replacement cost coverage, not actual cash value coverage). You paid for the coverage, you’re entitled to the benefit of your bargain. If you have problems, then report your insurance carrier to the California Insurance Commissioner.

(10) Hire an attorney to litigate your claim with your carrier only as a last resort. While some attorneys will handle insurance cases on a contingency matter (they take a third or more of your recovery), you may want to limit the contingency to the punitive or bad faith portion of the recovery to ensure you recover the money you need to replace your contents and rebuild your house. Otherwise, consider hiring the attorney on an hourly basis.

In the aftermath of the Katrina disaster, people waited to submit claims to their insurance carriers and the government. Some as long as two months. Don’t wait. Get started now.

Louisianans hired unlicensed contractors and got scammed. California law does not allow anyone other than you to swing a hammer to drive a nail to rebuild your house if they’re not licensed. In this state, you don’t have to pay a contractor if he/she is not licensed no matter how much work they’ve done. In fact, if the contractor’s license lapses during the job, you don’t have to pay for any part of the job.

Stay on top of the process. Lawsuits arising from the way insurance companies handled claims after Katrina are just coming to trial now, some four years later. In California, courts are required by the state legislature to get the majority of cases handled with a year, and in most cases no longer than 18 months. What happened in Louisiana shouldn’t happen here, but there are lessons there we may repeat if we’re not careful.

No one will get your claim resolved faster than you, especially if you push. But remember, honey is much sweeter than vinegar. A little kindness goes a long way, and human nature requires us to help those who are nice.

But if you can’t get it handled to your satisfaction, then you can likely find the lawyer you’re looking for on Avvo. Or call me at 949-833-3088. I know a few lawyers in California.

J. Craig Williams