Let’s face it:  Lawyers don’t love us if they have a history of behaving badly.  We knew this would be the case when we launched Avvo, and it is still the case today.  Not surprisingly, these lawyers (in legal parlance, “sanctioned lawyers”) fear the transparency that Avvo offers and they attempt to snuff it.  Now, usually they just threaten to take us to court.  However, every now and then they actually sue.

Yep, that’s right . . . another sanctioned lawyer has sued Avvo.  When I say “another,” you may recall that nine days after we launched Avvo (yes nine days) a sanctioned lawyer named John Henry Browne sued us for, in his view, misleading Washington consumers.  Interestingly, he asked for damages for himself rather than the aggrieved consumers, but that’s another story.  Fortunately, a federal judge saw Mr. Browne’s complaint for what it was and threw it out on a Motion to Dismiss.

Our current plaintiff, Joe Davis has filed a similarly misguided complaint.  It is a 25-page manifesto presumably intended to bully Avvo (you can see it here).  Sadly, not a word of it speaks to the real issue: that Mr. Davis was sanctioned by the Florida State Bar in 2007 and he doesn’t want you to know about it.  And I get it — Mr. Davis has had some serious problems involving child support payments and failing to appear for court dates – so much so that he was twice convicted and spent eight days in the pokey (you can read more about it here).  He was also found to have willfully obstructed the Florida Bar’s disciplinary process relating to these matters.  I wouldn’t want people to know about these things either.

But that is not how the modern informational age works.  Thanks in large part to the informational behemoths like Google and Microsoft, all sorts of information that was once locked away is being digitized and democratized for consumers.  What once may have taken a trip to the courthouse or a public information request is now a simple Google search away.  Those that have something to hide hate this.  Those that don’t range from ecstatic to indifferent.

But here’s the kicker:  Wherever you fall on this spectrum is irrelevant, because it’s not about you.  It’s about those consumers who are buying your products and services.  They have a right to know the good and the bad, and increasingly they demand to see it.  Sites like Yelp, Zillow, TripAdvisor and Avvo have not prospered simply out of the ether.  They have prospered because they give consumers more information and better guidance than they have ever had access to before.  In specific regard to Davis v. Avvo, while consumers have a right to know all of the highlights of Mr. Davis’ resume (which he dutifully shares here), they also have a right to know of his misconduct.

As I have said many times before, we are shining a flashlight in dark places.  Not surprisingly, some are more comfortable in the dark.

Avvo issued a press release regarding this lawsuit today.  You can find it here:  “Avvo Sued By Another Sanctioned Lawyer .”  Thanks to everyone who has already offered their support.  We look forward to a speedy resolution to this deceptive lawsuit and all of the silliness it brings.

Mark

[Note:  Updated at 9:01 a.m. 8/31/10 based on comment below]

Recently, the Lawyerist had a short but interesting article on lawyers using video chat to communicate with clients (“Is Video Conferencing Part of Your Practice”).  Now, just mentioning “video chat” and “clients” in the same sentence will make many lawyers crumple their noses into a risk-averse mess.  “It is so impersonal,” they say (forgetting they use the telephone) or “I (or my clients) don’t really know how to use it,” or “I’m a lawyer, not an Internet-obsessed teenager.”  These and similar arguments are probably what caused the Lawyerist to call this the more-sophisticated “video conferencing” rather than “video chat.”

On some level all of these arguments have merit.  However, the reality is that, as the 15-35 set becomes the core of our consuming public, video chat among everyone – personal or professional – will be commonplace.  And lawyers are not immune.  Even today, I would much rather pull up Skype to meet with my lawyer on a face-to-face issue rather than driving all the way over to her office, parking, etc. (or paying her by the hour to do the same).  Even if we need to review a document together, nothing prevents us from looking at different digital copies at the same time.

Not to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I don’t really need to see my attorneys’ faces on a regular basis (except the ones I socialize with).  I know what they look like and what their offices look like.  We can handle every important matter over the phone, and never am I put off that I haven’t seen their corporeal being for months, if not years.   To the contrary, it appeals to my tightwad nature.  If I’m not seeing my lawyers, they are probably not charging me.

All of that being said, I appreciate it when one of my attorneys reaches out and says, “We haven’t seen each other for awhile.  Let’s grab lunch.”  Or, “Mind if I stop by for 15 minutes to shoot the breeze?”  While I don’t *need* them to do this, I appreciate that they are reaching out and inherently telling me that I am important to them.  And, maybe part of that appreciation stems from the fact that I know they don’t have the time to do this for all their clients, lest they forget to practice law.

So let’s accept the following:

• Most clients are similar to me and like lawyers to unexpectedly reach out and throw them some non-billable love now and then. 
• You can’t be reaching out to all of your clients all of the time.  And, if you have a regional, national or international practice, forget about it.
• Even for important matters, digital communication is more efficient than in-person meetings. 

If you accept each or even most of these assumptions, then what is the next-best-thing to stopping by?  If it were letters, we wouldn’t have the phone.  If it were the phone, we wouldn’t have the Internet or video chat.  The fact is, video is exponentially growing in popularity because it is the next best thing to being there.  With very little investment, both parties get real time, face-to-face communication.  No one needs to commute, clean their office, boil a pot of coffee, whatever.  You simply turn from your email, phone call or meeting, and with a few clicks your client (or your lawyer) is sitting there.  When you are done, no need to walk anyone to the door or engage in idle chitchat while waiting for the elevator.  A simple “thanks for the time” and click of the mouse will do.  Best of all, the enterprising lawyer will be able to do many more video visits than they could ever do in person – especially if their client is thousands of miles away. 

While video chat may not be a necessity for your practice today, it will be tomorrow.  And the more that you can utilize it today — especially with tech-savvy clients – the better off you will be both in time and quality of client contact.

Video killed the radio star.

Mark

Many restaurants (especially those attempting to charge a premium for their services) require waiters to take your order without writing anything down.  This is typically accompanied by clasped hands and a soft “of course” with each order.  While this is elegant and impressive, in my experience the memorizing waiter forgets some detail of my table’s order roughly half the time.  This leads to a sotto voce drive-by with a mumble of “Was that a Caesar salad, sir?” or “That was medium on the steak correct?” 

Partly because I was a waiter once, and partly because the waiters don’t make the rules, I always politely reply that it was “mixed, not Caesar” or “medium rare, not medium.”  Still, on the inside, I am a bit miffed.  I think, “How hard could it be to write it down?”  I’m all for elegance and cool memorization tricks, but when the waiter is back two minutes later with questions, the aura lifts.

Being an associate in a law firm is a lot like being a waiter (and consecutively a cook as well).  You are constantly taking orders from multiple partners and clients, and you are supposed to take all of those orders back to your closet-sized office and mix them into a delicious legal bisque.  Whether it is an offering document or a motion to dismiss, your ability to get all of these orders right is a trick.  And if you fail to remember or understand these orders, clients and superiors will seldom be quietly miffed. They will be downright hostile.

So, how does one best avoid such hostilities?  Write it down.  Write down everything that is important regarding the order you are taking.  Don’t be panicked or in a hurry.  Calmly take notes, ask questions and make sure you understand the essence of every requested ingredient.  For me, I carry a spiral-bound notebook with me everywhere I go in the office.  This pad is critical for a couple of reasons:  First, in many Avvo meetings, I am tasked with multiple follow-up items.  In a fast-paced environment like Avvo or a law firm or corporation, the tasks quickly stack-up each day and my or anyone else’s ability to remember the increasing to-do list is close to impossible.  Studies show that your short-term memory can typically store seven or so items for roughly 15 to 30 seconds without certain memorization tools.  If you are like me, you can store half the items for half the time.

Second, short-term memory aside, I see writing things down as a sign of respect and efficiency.  On the respect side, whether it is a client, employee or superior, writing things down says “I am listening to you, I respect this task and I intend to get it done correctly.”  Just go back to a client for the same information a couple of times and surely they will wonder whether they are getting the respect they deserve.  On the efficiency side, for an organization to run efficiently, people cannot constantly be guessing at instructions or asking others to repeat themselves.  I am reminded of Kevin Kline in the still-fabulous movie, “A Fish Called Wanda.”  Kevin, playing the role of new-age philosophical idiot “Otto,” responded to most important instructions with “What was the middle part?”

Whether you are an associate, paralegal, partner or CEO, don’t be Otto.

Especially for associates, partners seldom have the time or patience to revisit instructions/issues which are probably simple to them and completely foreign to you.  In my old firms, I would often have a tough time getting a partner’s time for additional information, as they were making requests from other time zones and expected the perfect answer on their desks when they arrived from their red-eye in the morning.  There is no worse feeling than being a younger lawyer, sitting at your desk, and thinking, “I’m not sure what [insert powerful partner’s name] is asking, but I can’t go ask her again.”  It’s an even worse feeling if you know the task is not hard, but you just can’t remember all of the facts, issues or requests that the partner laid-out in his drive-by assignment shooting.

So, write it down and save yourself some stress and increase your efficiency and competency.  With your orders solidly recorded and defined, you can then go back to your office, put on your chef’s hat and enjoy adding just the right ingredients to your bisque.

Mark

I had a simple but interesting experience the other day.  We (actually my wife) decided to put AC in our 100-year-old home.  Anyone that has put AC in an old home knows that it is staggeringly expensive.  That is why this spring, after last summer’s heat wave (they do occur now and then in Seattle), my wife paid for new AC without additional wrangling with or notice to her allegedly cheap husband.  I was surprised to see a gargantuan AC installation charge on our credit card, but I was even more surprised to find out it was only for the down payment . . .

Anyway, no matter how much we spent on our new, super-duper AC system, it broke down the first day we used it.  Mrs. Britton (she loves being called that btw) was livid and called the company and they had someone out the next day.  Considering my wife’s mood, I did not want to be the AC guy ringing our bell.

But, when I came home that evening, my wife was all smiles (!?) even though the AC man was still at our house doing repair work.  Apparently he had to run off to get some new parts which slowed his progress to the point where he was still working in our kitchen during dinnertime.  Raising an eyebrow at my wife (both because this guy was still in the kitchen and because my wife was so calm about it) she said, “He is very competent and working so hard.  He’s doing his best.”  I wondered if my wife was getting snowed, so I decided to go meet Mr. AC.  He looked up, smiled and introduced himself as Ignacio but quickly pointed out that I could call him “Nacho.”

Now, I probably wouldn’t start by asking customers to call me a snack food, but I found myself being immediately comfortable with Ignacio . . . sorry, “Nacho.”  He stood squarely in front of me in a very proper, but unassuming way and explained everything that had happened – in plain English (I’m not an AC guy).  He told me what he had done to rectify the issue, why it was taking so long, and how much longer he would be at our house.   He told me upfront that the issue was their fault and that we would not have to pay any money.  He was direct in his eye contact and communication.  I couldn’t help but feeling like I was watching some well-rehearsed speech.  He also asked me if there was anything else related to the AC that we wanted to change because he was happy to handle it before he went home.  After our exchange, I felt like we were in the best of hands – someone who really cared.  A young person — but one that was bright and in search of excellence.

I tell this story because Nacho offers an important lesson to anyone in the service business, including lawyers.  Young lawyers should take particular note, as they are constantly met with clients wondering whether they are worth their hourly rate.

What did Nacho do that was so effective?  He mixed together a number of presentation, client-service and product-expertise elements that made both my wife and me immediately trust him and feel lucky that he was in our house:

• Nacho was highly communicative.  Nacho understood his product, service responsibility and the specific issues with our system.  He clearly articulated the issues, his analysis and the proposed solution.  He told me exactly where he had been, where he was going and when he would be gone.  I found myself having to ask few questions because Nacho had identified my key questions in advance.  Before speaking with a client, a great lawyer (or any other service provider) will always ask himself, “What is important to my client?  What will she want to know?  What facts, documents, etc. could I offer to communicate more clearly?”  Identifying and answering those questions in advance will often lead to the necessary preparation to wow your clients.
• Nacho was confident.  He stood squarely in front of me, looked me right in the eye and spoke to me as a peer – so much so that he asked me to call him by his nickname.  He sold the idea that we were in the AC boat together, and he was the captain.  Every lawyer, from partner on down must be a similarly confident leader.  Young lawyers in particular are often so servile that they immediately put themselves at a disadvantage.  The client views them as someone inferior who is in charge of nothing, when in fact every lawyer on a case or transaction is in charge of something.  As a client, I like very confident lawyers that will have a normal conversation with me — no matter their years of experience.  They don’t put me on a client pedestal; they talk to me as a peer and together we decide on the best course of action.
• Finally, for someone that had been working on an AC unit for hours, Nacho was very put-together.  He was not a blur of oil and coolant stains.  When you meet with clients after a long morning, day or whatever of work.  How do you look?  Do you look fresh to fight their battles, or do you look worn down.  Believe me, no client likes to see someone from their high-priced legal team looking worn down.
• Nacho understood his service responsibility.  This may simply be the culmination of all of the above, but he also had an upbeat, “How can I help you” attitude without it seeming overly apologetic or stiff.  On the other hand, he wasn’t macho, aggressive or defensive.  The entire conversation had an element of “I have a responsibility to make you happy because you are the client.”  Again, I didn’t feel he was playing me, I felt that he would sincerely do whatever it took to get our AC was working by the end of the day.

In the end, all of the presentation, client-service and product-expertise elements that Nacho implemented – consciously or not – made him very affective in handling the Britton’s AC disaster.  Whether it is an AC Unit or a delicate legal transaction, people want confident, communicative, service-oriented people like Nacho on their team at all times.  Notwithstanding, I consistently see technically great lawyers, and often other professionals, fumble in this area.  Instead of trying to dissect it, maybe we should simply ask, “Are you like Nacho?”

Be Like Nacho!

Mark

Big news last week that Obama fired his general in Afghanistan, General  Stanley A. McChrystal.  I read the Rolling Stone article and couldn’t help but thinking that McChrystal was a megalomaniacal moron.  From a managerial point of view, McChrystal’s comments gave Obama no choice but to dismiss him.  Anything less would have been an abomination to Obama’s elected position as Commander-in-Chief (by that way, is that title even in English?) and duty to be a competent manager.

In any organization, it is critical that people argue and debate.  I remember joining Microsoft and watching people engage in mental (and sometimes hostile) combat regarding product and other strategic directions.  They always left the conference room as friends, but the culture at Microsoft, which spawned Expedia, which sort of spawned Avvo, mandated such a crucible to ensure the best ideas rose to the top.  Even at Avvo today, I feel fortunate to have a team that cares so much about our product and vision that I practically have to pull them off of each other in strategy meetings.  All of this conflict is borne of passion, and I don’t believe any company can succeed without it.

That being said, when a decision is made within Avvo and any other successful organization, that’s it.  Possibly the decision is revisited if it is not achieving its objectives, but it is not revisited immediately after it is made (otherwise the decision has not been made at all).  Moreover, anyone who disagrees with the decision needs to get on the bus and support the direction rather than dwell on the differences.  Failure to get on the bus is arguably a firable offense, but then taking that to the media in such a crass way is akin to loading your own gun.  Why?  Obama could not have said it any better, “I encourage debate will not tolerate dissent.”  Maybe he should have said “public dissent” but you get it:  He’s talking about the bus. 

Adding insult to injury, this is not the first time Obama told McChrystal to get on the bus.  The picture above was their first public spat over disparaging comments McChrystal made regarding Vice President Biden.  Even though Obama called him to the carpet then, McChrystal was still full enough of himself to ignore his boss’s admonition and do it again a year later.  Sheesh.

It was bad enough that McChrystal chose to attack Biden again and just about everyone in Afghanistan not in fatigues. But taking this matter deeper into the organizational toilet was how he did it.  The article opens with him engaging in an expletive-laden whining session about having to have dinner with a French official.  He could not have sounded more jingoistic and moronic.  He is flipping the bird at his subordinates for getting him “screwed into” this Franco-mess and reminding them that they could not kick his ass (his words).  Think of your own business, if this was one of your employees publicly discussing his disdain for a business partner in your local paper or similar media outlet, you would go crazy — no matter how troubled the relationship with that partner may be.  If the relationship needs help, then work on it with a positive attitude.  If it can be saved, then save it.  If it cannot, then get out of it.  But don’t stoop to the level of badmouthing your partners, co-workers or superiors in public.  It is such bad form that I cannot come up with a pithy analogy that does it justice.  My “moron” characterization is the best I can do.

I’ve written and spoken about organizational communication a lot over the years:  It is the lifeblood of any successful organization.  Successful organizations need to constantly work to keep the good, bad and ugly in plain view and on the table for discussion.  But McChrystal’s actions were none of that.  They were a violation of organizational respect, good manners and all of the lessons we learned (or not) in kindergarten . . . beginning with “works and plays well with others.”

Mark

Over the years, I have had various people contact me – many of them lawyers – looking to make a jump to the “business-side” – i.e., leave their current profession and become a business person.  I try to take as many of these meetings as possible mostly to be helpful to other professionals in transition, but also because I like the “forward payment” of these meetings.  We have all been in transition at one time or another, and the more we share ideas, introductions, etc., the better off we will all be as a community of professionals over the years.

Notwithstanding my desire to be a good community participant, these meetings with lawyers often fall flat.  After a bit of small talk, the meetings usually go something like this:

Mark:  “So how can I help?”

Transitioning Lawyer:  “Well, I wanted to get together because . . . well . . . I like business and I think I could be good at it.  I’m also pretty tired of being a lawyer.  I have a couple business ideas, and since you made the jump to the business-side maybe you could give me some advice on how I could do it.”

Mark:  “What kind of business do you like?  Did you major in business? “

Transitioning Lawyer:  “Any kind of business.  Maybe high tech?  I majored in philosophy and got my JD and have been doing litigation for the last four years, but I have done some contract negotiation in the past.  I always felt that I had an affinity for business when negotiating contracts.”

I’m always a little puzzled where to take the conversation from here.  The Transitioning Lawyer likes business, but doesn’t really have a passion for a particular area of business.  It’s like saying you want a dog – ok, but is there a type of dog that makes you so excited that you want to take it home and snuggle it forever?  How do you know you want a dog?  What kind of dog is best for you?  Big?  Small?  Furry? Hypoallergenic?  Active?  Quiet?  Good with kids?  Simply wanting a dog is not enough.  You must passionately want a particular kind of dog; otherwise the long-term commitment is going to be hard.  Jumping to the “business-side” is no different.

Moreover, the Transitioning Lawyer above has little exposure to business, and yet he knows it is for him.  Don’t get me wrong, the world of business does not require a Mensa-certified IQ.  Many with below-average IQs and little formal business training have succeeded.  But just because you are sick of practicing law, doesn’t mean that the “business-side” is for you.  Many lawyers want to make the jump because they feel overworked and underpaid – “I’m tired of dealing with clients” is a common complaint.  But here’s the secret:  Being in the business world is not all giggles.  The wide-ranging business world is rough and tumble and finding success therein always requires, just like legal, brute-force, roll-up-your-sleeves execution.  Don’t fool yourself, the grass may look greener in the business yard but it’s because someone consistently pulls all-nighters to keep it watered. 

Becoming a businessperson does not automatically give you the G4 -flying, Cristal-sipping, celebrity-mingling lifestyle you see on TV.  To the contrary, the “business-side” often drops you in a jungle with no path or map and only a butter knife for defense.  So, with that admonition, let me offer a couple pieces of advice for the aspiring businessperson – especially those that are planning to leave their boring legal job for that of the mythically exciting life of corporate America:

• First and foremost, you need to have a passion for a specific area of business.  If you don’t have that innate passion, you probably don’t have a sense for business opportunity in general.  Anyone who starts a business does so because he or she has a passion and corresponding vision.   In the healthiest companies, that passion flows through the ranks.  Why would a founder, CEO or any other manager hire someone who they need to get fired up or otherwise explain the opportunity to?  While somewhat overused, the old adage of “learn it, live it, love it” holds true here.  If you are simply pursuing business for the sake of “being involved in business” you have already failed.  You need to find your passion and pursue it with abandon.  With that passion comes opportunities.
• Second, many lawyers forget that they are already in business.  They own a P&L, even if it is their own production for the year.  I am always surprised by lawyers who don’t understand this business element of what they do.  It is usually the solos that have the greatest grasp on this and understand their organizational ROIs, etc.  Whether solo or not, if you are not excited about running or even being part of a legal business, why would you be happier in a non-legal business?  If it’s all hard work, then what are you looking for?  If you can’t answer that, then you need to stay in the legal business.
• Third, while not an absolute, it does help to have a business background/education in making the jump from legal to business.  Maybe it is an accounting degree, maybe it is having worked on a number of financially sophisticated deals through the years.  However, if you don’t have this experience, all is not lost – think about ways that you can get the experience.  One of the best ways I know of is to join an in-house legal department (which incidentally was my own path to the business-side).  In-house counselors will quickly acquire business experience simply by doing their job.  You succeed in-house by understanding your business well enough to balance business opportunities with legal risk. 
• Fourth, if you are going to start your own business out of the gate, keep in mind that a cost of business is making all sorts of mistakes.  Again, make sure you understand the business you are getting into and have socked away enough savings to allow you to weather at least a year without income.  Because lawyers can start billing on day one, they often forget that revenues from any product can often be many months out.  Moreover, lawyer-run businesses are not typically the first choice for outside investors – especially VCs who have a strong MBA bias.  This is because lawyers are often more risk-averse (obsessed?) than your average MBA and they do not have as much exposure to diverse business cases.  So, if your plan is to leave your law practice and immediately score VC money, you may want to have a back-up plan.  Many VCs will require you to show some business development before they believe in the viability of your business.
• Finally, before doing anything, reach out to everyone you know (and everyone they know) who has already had success in business – especially ex-lawyers.  Offer to buy them coffee or lunch and pick their brain on how they identified the opportunity and executed against it.  Ask if you can pick their brain from time to time.  For the most impressive and engaged, put them on your board or ask them to serve as an advisor.  The network you assemble will be invaluable to you as you decide to make your jump and, if you do, as you grow your business.

In the end, this is all pretty basic stuff.  But when it comes to the lawyer who is just tired of a being a lawyer, it’s worth repeating.  The old adage that “nothing in life is free” holds true in the business world as much as anyplace else.  Yes, there are wild success stories like the YouTube founders selling for a billion dollars eight months after launch, but there are umpteen gazillion more stories of businesses crashing and burning.  To have a shot at business success – which I hope for most is building a sustainable, responsible business, rather than simply looking for the YouTube quick hit – you need to have a passion which leads to vision which leads to a ton of hard work and, hopefully, a little bit of luck. 

That’s the recipe:  passion, vision, hard work and luck.  If you have it for the “business-side” then, by all means, get moving.  If you aren’t sure, then it’s time to get back to happily shepardizing that brief you’re working on.

Be Passionate.

Mark

If you are the marketing director at Baker & McKenzie, please read the entire article before filing suit.  However, keep in mind that truth is an absolute defense.  Just joking . . . honest.

OK – now that I have everyone’s attention, let me begin:  I’ve been writing about Facebook a lot lately, partly because they have been making a lot of news, but also because I think they have the best chance of really changing the social networking game.

One recent development in the Facebook world that largely went unnoticed (but for this great article by the National Law Journal) was Facebook’s auto-generation of groups for all sorts of entities, including law firms, based on profile information of seemingly affiliated users.  So, people who include in their Facebook profiles, say, K&L Gates as their employer could be included in an auto-generated “K&L Gates” Facebook group.  The issue is that Facebook is naming these groups using descriptive words found in the affiliated users’ profiles.  So instead of just the “K&L Gates” group, it may be the “Saucy K&L Gates Lawyers” group.  Hmmmm . . . 

 
While there is some overlap with these Facebook groups and Avvo’s lawyer profiles (based on public information, Avvo creates profiles for lawyers whether they request them or not), I believe Facebook is taking things too far.  Rather than simply aggregating publicly available data, Facebook is attributing descriptive language to groups that affiliated users never intended to be attributed to a group.  For example, if a Baker & McKenzie lawyer decides to describe himself in his Facebook profile as “hairy and smelly and, thus, single,” those attributes may just be attributed to an auto-generated Baker & Mckenzie Facebook group – the “Hairy and Smelly and, thus, Single Baker & McKenzie lawyers.”  Uh . . . Facebook . . . we have a problem. 

In a very Avvo-like fashion, Facebook should simply build the groups using very basic data (name, address, affiliated users, etc.), and if an authorized person decides to claim the group they can describe it any way they wish.  Facebook’s strategy here is pretty simple.  Auto-generate a group with a provocative name and people will feel compelled to claim and maintain it.  Again, Avvo with its Avvo Rating has some similarities*, but like it or not we are going to see more and more of this on the Web.  All sorts of profiles and groups are sprouting up, and it is every marketer’s choice whether to interact with or ignore them.   But law firm marketers should not wring their collective hands over this.  I love Fenwick’s confident response to their auto-generated Facebook group in the NLJ article.  They describe their Facebook group as a “non-issue,” even though it may be confusing to some clients.  I’m guessing the Fenwick math goes like this:  We are confident in our brand + no one is going to take it seriously + we like the free marketing = nonissue.  Moreover, the Facebook generation is slowly becoming the general counsel generation, so you are going to need a firm Facebook firm presence at some point so you don’t look like a complete troglodyte.  Although with many older, less internet-savvy partners driving executive committees, this is not always an easy task for marketing directors.

In the end, Facebook points out that its auto-generated groups are in “beta,” or a trial phase.  I’m guessing with enough complaints (especially from lawyers), they will still auto-generate groups but without the dicey descriptive language.  This will not make all executive committees happy, but at least they will be talking about and interacting with social media. :-)

The Internet continues to roll.  Ignore it or sculpt it – it’s your choice.

Mark

* To be clear, Avvo does not assign a lawyer an Avvo Rating to be provocative but rather to actually rate the lawyer’s background in a way that is helpful to consumers.  Still, some lawyers find our ratings provocative enough to sue us or at least threaten to do so.  I can only imagine the uproar if we took the Facebook approach and named them a “sassy” 6.5, rather than just a 6.5.

I’ll be speaking (?) at the TechFlash Town Hall on June 15^th.  TechFlash has set up an interesting, town hall format where a number of entrepreneurs, investors, commentators, etc. will share thoughts on raising money, specifically the pros/cons of bootstrapping vs. venture capital.  Here is the current cast of characters:

Michael Arrington, founder and publisher of TechCrunch.
Mark Britton, founder and CEO of Avvo.
Bill Bryant, angel investor and venture partner at Draper Fisher Jurvetson.
Hillel Cooperman, founder of Jackson Fish Market.
Ben Elowitz, founder and CEO of Wetpaint.
Geoff Entress, angel investor and venture partner at Voyager Capital.
Greg Gottesman, managing director at Madrona Venture Group.
Serena Glover, co- founder and former executive at Twango.
Glenn Kelman, president & CEO of Redfin.
Andy Liu, angel investor and co-founder of BuddyTV.
Steve Murch, founder of BigOven.com and former CEO of VacationSpot.com.
Dan Rosen, chairman of the Alliance of Angels.
Andy Sack, general partner at Founder’s Co-op.
Lucinda Stewart, managing director at OVP Venture Partners.

This format could be really interesting or a complete free-for-all.  We shall see.  Whatever the case, I have spoken on enough panels with most of the participants to know it will be tough for me to get a word in edgewise.  ;-)

So, please join us at Seattle University on June 15^th.  You can register here.

Mark

Recently, I wrote about attending F8 – Facebook’s annual conference – and their new “Social Graph” strategy, including incorporating your friends’ recommendations into third party websites, etc.  I talked about the pros and cons of this new initiative, but ultimately came out favoring its utility over its expense, specifically Facebook’s strategy of dominating social (and possibly all) search. 

In light of everything that has happened since, man, was that a boring blog post.  A whole firestorm has erupted around Facebook’s new strategy.  In a nutshell, Facebook has changed their privacy policy so that they have a greater ability to share users’ pictures and private data with other websites.  Not surprisingly (see below), they automatically opted-in all of their users regarding this sharing (requiring them to expressly “opt-out”), and that is really where the storm started building.  Many felt that Facebook should not have included anyone unless they opted-in.  Many also felt Facebook made its too complex to opt-out. 

All sorts of people — commentators, entrepreneurs and now even politicians — have decided to give Facebook a good old-fashioned smack down regarding the privacy issues related to their new functionality and underlying strategy.  On the entrepreneur front, one of the better publicized campaigns is called “Quit Facebook Day.”  This came out of the frozen technological tundra of Toronto, where two “technologists” are attempting to have the world quit Facebook on May 31^st. 

Sharing similar concerns (in much more formal way) is a group of Senators from the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill.  Even though they are not suggesting people quit Facebook, they are saying that Facebook’s new initiatives raise serious privacy concerns.  I have republished the full letter below, as it is entertaining.  But, when reading it, I couldn’t help but think, “Isn’t there a big oil spill in the Gulf?”  Possibly they think Facebook will pollute the digital world more than BP?  Hard to tell.  Maybe that’s why I’m not a Senator. 

But our fellow Canadians and noble politicians are not alone, in the last two weeks there have been dozens of articles taking Facebook and their boy wonder CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to the privacy woodshed.  Just take a look at this blog post announcing the changes, with 2,000 mostly scathing comments welcoming it (I didn’t read them all mind you).  It’s all been a painful read, so I can only imagine how painful it is to be Facebook’s General Counsel right now. 

As total hysteria sets in on this (when senators send letters, total hysteria is already upon us), let me offer a couple of thoughts:

• Mark Zuckerberg is not Kim Jong-Il – Its funny, whenever a company becomes important to our lives, the public begins attributing all sorts of conspiratorial malice to it.  Really, from some of the articles you would think that Mark Zuckerberg runs the rogue nation of Facebookistan which is exploiting state resources to destroy the world.  Microsoft also experienced this when people (especially in the Valley) began referring to them as the “Death Star.”  In analyzing Facebook’s actions, I suggest we start with the presumption that these are pretty good guys. My hypothesis is that Zuckerberg and his Facebook posse are simply trying to build the most effective social networking experience on the Web.  As part of that, they want to make money.  Sounds fairly consistent with American principals to me.
• You don’t have to be on Facebook — OK, if Facebook is not a calculating dictatorship, then how can they steal my private information?  Well, they can’t and that’s where everyone should take a deep breath.  A couple of things:  Facebook is FREE.  You chose to be there.  You are free to leave.  “Wait a minute!” you say.  “I have to be there because all of my friends are there! I use Facebook for my email and book club!”  Exactly, and that’s why you need to cut Facebook some slack.  They are giving you something really valuable for FREE and their new initiatives are simply trying to enhance that really valuable FREE experience for you.
• Facebook made the best choice re: the automatic opt-in — Probably 95% of Facebook’s users *want* Facebook’s new functionality and all of the personalization that goes with it.  If Facebook automatically opted-out this 95%, then most would never know the functionality/personalization exists and the rest would have a tough time opting-in.  This is because it is really hard for people to understand (and then implement) new functionality when it is already difficult for them to even upload pictures.  You simply give it to them, they are happy, end of story.  Imagine your tastiest ice cream truck (summer is on the way after all) that wants to add a free waffle cone to every order.  Even though they believe that most customers would cheer this generosity, the ice cream truck requires everyone to fill out a form to receive the upgraded cone (because of the increased fat content, of course).  The ice cream truck will not give out many free waffle cones.
• Facebook should make it easier to opt-out – Admittedly, I have not tried to opt-out of Facebook’s new privacy settings; but, if it is as difficult as the articles say, they should change it.  Yesterday’s news reports say that Facebook is already capitulating on this point.  But, again, even if they make it easier, the overwhelming majority of their users will not opt-out.  Facebook was probably smart to see how many wanted to change their privacy settings before spending money on seldom-used functionality.
• Facebook is sharing benign information that many want shared — Facebook is not trying to reveal your medical records, medications, old boyfriends, criminal convictions or anything else that we currently see as very private.  They are simply sharing information with your network that you have already hung out for that network (and possibly the Facebook world) to see.  Moreover, not everyone has the same definition of private information.  Just take a look at what your 18 year old nephew chooses to share on the Web, and you can see that one size does not fit all.  Facebook is trying to be responsive to a younger generation that shares almost everything.  That’s not evil, that’s smart.  

Because this post is getting way too long (and there is no way to break it into two posts), let me close by asking everyone to take a big breath. Privacy is a serious matter, and any business that does not take it seriously will perish.  But Facebook is not attempting a home invasion here.  Let’s assume they are good people who are trying to advance social networking.  Let’s assume that more people want these changes than not.  Let’s assume that these changes will improve all of our social networking experiences across the Web.  Let’s not fault them for trying to dominate or make money.

Those assumptions paint a very different picture that does not require anyone to abandon Facebook or beg Congress to get involved.  If Facebook is acting inappropriately, they will quickly become irrelevant.  It’s that simple.   

Can we all now get back to the oil spill in the Gulf?

Mark

Letter from U.S. Senators Schumer, Bennet, Begich and Franken (D-MN) to Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg:

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

We are writing to express our concern regarding recent changes to the Facebook privacy policy and the use of personal data on third party websites. While Facebook provides a valuable service to users by keeping them connected with friends and family and reconnecting them with long-lost friends and colleagues, the expansion of Facebook – both in the number of users and applications – raises new concerns for users who want to maintain control over their information. The following three changes have raised concerns:

1. Publicly available data. Facebook’s expansion of publicly available data to include a user’s current city, hometown, education, work, likes, interests, and friends has raised concerns for users who would like to have an opt-in option to share this profile information. Through the expanded use of “connections,” Facebook now obligates users to make publicly available certain parts of their profile that were previously private. If the user does not want to connect to a page with other users from their current town or university, the user will have that information deleted altogether from their profile. We appreciate that Facebook allows users to type this information into the “Bio” section of their profiles, and privatize it, but we believe that users should have more control over these very personal and very common data points. These personal details should remain private unless a user decides that he/she would like to make a connection and share this information with a community.

2. Third party data storage. Previously, Facebook allowed third-party advertisers to store profile data for 24 hours. We are concerned that recent changes allow that data to be stored indefinitely. We believe that Facebook should reverse this policy, or at a minimum require users to opt in to allowing third parties to store data for more than 24 hours.

3. Instant personalization. We appreciate that Facebook is attempting to integrate the functionality of several popular websites, and that Facebook has carefully selected its initial partners for its new “instant personalization” feature. We are concerned, however, that this feature will now allow certain third party partners to have access not only to a user’s publicly available profile information, but also to the user’s friend list and the publicly available information about those friends. As a result of the other changes noted above, this class of information now includes significant and personal data points that should be kept private unless the user chooses to share them. Although we are pleased that Facebook allows users to opt-out of sharing private data, many users are unaware of this option and, moreover, find it complicated and confusing to navigate. Facebook should offer users the ability to opt-in to sharing such information, instead of opting out, and should make the process for doing so more clear and coherent.

We hope that Facebook will stand by its goal of creating open and transparent communities by working to ensure that its policies protect the sensitive personal biographical data of its users and provide them with full control over their personal information. We look forward to the FTC examining this issue, but in the meantime we believe Facebook can take swift and productive steps to alleviate the concerns of its users. Providing opt-in mechanisms for information sharing instead of expecting users to go through long and complicated opt-out processes is a critical step towards maintaining clarity and transparency.

Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)
U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-AK)
U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN)

Last month, I blogged about Avvo getting a “new suit.”  Well today we added a couple of shiny new buttons to that suit.  Below are a few of the more visible new features; and, not surpisingly, I urge you to visit Avvo and check out the rest!

• Results Map:  We have a new map on our lawyer search results pages.  This map will show all of the lawyers on the page that have claimed their Avvo Profiles.  The really neat part is that, when a user hovers over each pinpoint on the map, a summary of the corresponding lawyer’s Avvo profile pops-up, effectively giving the lawyer a free billboard on some of our most valuable real estate.  We think of this as a gift to all of the lawyers who help make Avvo a hearty marketplace.
• Neighborhood Filters:  Do you need a lawyer close by?  Beginning today, you can search for lawyers based on neighborhoods within a city.  Not only can you type a specific neighborhood into the Avvo search box at the top of the page, but you can also start with a city search and then, from that search results page, filter to your favorite neighborhood.
• Avvo Profile Filters:  When selecting a lawyer, different elements of competing lawyers’ profiles are important to different people.  Some focus on client ratings, others the Avvo Rating or languages the lawyers speak.  Because of this, from the lawyer search results pages, we now allow users to filter Avvo profiles by client reviews, attorney endorsements, misconduct, Avvo Pro subscribers, Avvo Ratings and whether the lawyer offers a free consultation or speaks a specific language. 
• P.O. Boxes:  Post office boxes will no longer be indexed for search results.  This means that, if a lawyer has a  p.o. box for his/her primary or any other office, the attorney will not show up in the search results for the city where the p.o. box is located.  So, let’s say a lawyer has a primary office in Manhattan and a p.o. box in Brooklyn.  Going forward, the lawyer will only show up in Manhattan search results.

We hope you like all of our new buttons.  I had someone say to me recently, “You guys are always changing.”  In response, I took the liberty of citing the mighty Heraclitus* who said, “The only constant is change.”

Mark

* Thanks to Wikipedia for helping find the source of this quote.  I know a lot of great philosophers, but Heraclitus is not one that comes immediately to mind . . .