(Pictured above: UVIC Law TweetMooters Matthew Nefstead and Jenn Cameron work under the glare of CTV’s camera.  Image credit: Kim Nayyer/University of Victoria’s Diana M. Priestly Law Library)

History has been made. The first Twitt­er Moot Court was officially brought to a close at 12:30p.m. (PST) yesterday following an hour of furious legal tweeting, hash tagging, and @mentioning. Although we might be decades away from actual cases being tried in the twittersphere, yesterday’s moot provided some insight into how social media can interface with classic legal debate.

The Twitter Moot commenced with submissions from two Skunkworks sponsored tweeters, Jenn Cameron and Mathew Nefstead, representing the University of Victoria. Cameron and Nefstead argued on behalf of the Province of British Columbia in the environmental case West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia.  Cameron started her submissions by indicating that she would “briefly” state the facts of the case. This was no understatement. Limited to 140 characters or less, Cameron and all other participants were forced to find creative ways to effectively lay out the points at issue.   

The tweeters, however, had clearly planned ahead. Certain tactics were adopted that allowed for the formalities of the courtroom to be brought to the world of social media. The three Twitter Moot judges, which included University of Calgary Law professor Kathleen Mahoney, lawyer-turned novelist William Deverell, and legal social media guru Omar Ha-Redeye, were content to be referred to as ML rather than My Lord. Likewise, the participants modified the formal designation of opposing counsel as “my Learned Friend” and adapted the much simpler LF.

Conversely, the informal atmosphere and peculiar affectations of twitter invariably played a part in the way the case was discussed.  Judge Omar Ha-Redeye began proceedings with the tweet, “Let’s get down,” which is an effective and lexically economical way to begin a Twitter Moot, but unlikely to catch on in the Supreme Court of Canada. At one point, Mathew Kalkman (tweeting for Team UBC and representing the Province of Alberta in the moot), argued his side by stating that an alternative interpretation of the discussed case would constitute a “hashtag fail.” Kalkman, the most comedic advocate on the day, also managed to include tweets referencing the Vic Toews/Vikileaks story, his own book on liberalism, blatant (and funny) pandering to a couple of the judges, and a great in-character rant all within his team’s 10-minute time allotment.

Despite the fun that was had, the participants also effectively and seriously argued the case at hand.  Nikki Peterson from Team Osgoode included a great Google Map to showcase how close the First Nation reserve lands were to various major developments impacting the area.  At times, several concurrent tweets were required to convey a single argument and a veritable storm of tweets ensued. The efforts were clearly appreciated by the Twitter community as the hashtag #twtmoot became a trending topic in Canada at around 11:30a.m. PST.

Following much deliberation it was decided that the team from Osgoode School of Law, representing the West Moberly First Nations, had earned the top prize. However, Skunkworks is proud to announce that the team from University of Victoria won the People’s Choice award by garnering the most online votes in a West Coast Environmental Law poll asking which Twitter Moot team most effectively argued their case.

All things considered, it was a fun day in legal education and an interesting exploration into the increasingly ubiquitous world of social media.  Skunkworks congratulates and appreciates the efforts of all participants and would like to extend particular thanks to the folks at West Coast Environmental Law who conceived and organized the event. Kudos on a job well done.  

West Coast Environmental Law will be hosting the first ever Twitter Moot Court on Tuesday, February 21^st, 2012 at 10am PST (1pm EST). The event takes the tried-and-true law school practice of mooting and flips it on its head by conducting it via social media. It’s an exciting innovation that will help interested parties explore how traditional legal arguments will translate into the environment of modern technology.

Presenting a legal argument in “tweets” that consist of no more than 140 characters is certainly going to be a challenge. However, Skunkworks is proud to be sponsoring Matthew Nefstead and Jenn Cameron, two students from the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria (alma mater to a couple of us here at Skunkworks).

In total, 5 Canadian law schools have entered teams into what promises to be a fascinating experiment in legal academics. The other schools participating include Dalhousie University, University of Ottawa, UBC, and The Osgoode School of Law. Each tweeting team has its own page here. The judging panel is a an interesting mashup of talent itself, and includes University of Calgary law professor Kathleen Mahoney, lawyer-turned-novelist William Deverell and legal social media wunderkind Omar Ha-Redeye.

The tweeters plan on mooting the landmark environmental decision West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia – a precedent-setting decision that confirmed the government of British Columbia has an obligation to protect First Nation treaty rights from incremental intrusions into the habitats of at-risk-species.

In the actual case, the BC Supreme Court found that the BC government had not sufficiently consulted West Moberly First Nations on how to adequately protect the Burnt Pine Caribou Herd prior to issuing mining permits to First Coal Corporation. It was decided that Crown also failed to put in place an active plan to accommodate for the protection and rehabilitation of the Caribou Herd. As a result, the BC Court of Appeal suspended First Coal Corporation’s mining permits.

It’s important to note, that you don’t need to be a member of the Twitter community to watch the latest crop of digitally savvy law students make social media and legal history. You can follow along through the “twitter feed” embedded at http://wcel.org/live-twitter-moot-feed.

Best of luck to all participants!

We’re very pleased to see the launch of Made in Vancouver. The program offers badges for websites/web-based software that are developed in Vancouver. Think Fair Trade for computer code. Not only does it support some of the ambitious start-ups coming out of our hometown, but it just looks cool. They did an excellent job on branding.

If you buy local produce, why not use locally made websites?

Richard Fowler and Lyndsay Smith are well respected criminal defence counsel with years of experience in complex criminal litigation. They have been involved in some of BC’s most high profile criminal cases of the last ten years and have worked together on cases in one way or another since 2005.

They share a passion for the law, high professional standards and empathy for their clients. Whether the charge is extremely serious or a client is facing a less serious offence, they treat each case with the same commitment to detail and results because they fully recognize that the consequences are always serious to the people involved and to their families.

Given their like-minded approach to the practice of law, Richard and Lyndsay decided to collaborate and have recently established their own boutique criminal defence law firm, Fowler and Smith, Barristers.  They came to Skunkworks to help them develop a  corporate identity for their firm and a website to establish their online presence.

Taking cues for their offices in The Marine Building and photographs from this iconic Vancouver landmark we gave them a clean and simple word mark coupled with a visually unique website based on a WordPress Content Management System.  Both prolific trial lawyers, Lyndsay and Richard wanted a way to communicate the types of cases they are working on to prospective clients. As a result, we incorporated a Cases & News feature into the site that operates along the same lines as a blog and will allow them to talk about cases they think may be of interest to the public. We are very pleased with the resulting site www.fowlersmithlaw.com and we wish Lyndsay and Richard every success in their new firm venture.

Everything. A firm’s name is the core of its brand in a competitive legal market. For better or worse, law firms have never had much choice in their firm name. Just take the last names of the founding partners and string them together. While some firms certainly benefited from this arrangement (see Smart & Biggar or Bird & Bird) the rest of us are left with less appealing options (Jasinski, MacLeod, & Hessing-Lewis doesn’t exactly roll-off the tongue). This is now changing. Chinese firms, such as King & Wood (with whom Skunkworks has worked), have no such requirements. This is the future of legal marketing.

A Brief History of Law Firm Names

1. The vast majority of legal practitioners have always and continue to operate under their given names. Because most of your business is likely based on your professional reputation, it makes sense that your name has traditionally been inseparable from your brand. When I was in private practice, I opted for the exotic brand of Jeremy Hessing-Lewis Barrister & Solicitor. This is essentially the same brand name I would have selected 200 years ago.
2. The formation of law firms meant partnership names needed to describe multiple professional reputations. This resulted in the tradition of Hessing & Lewis LLP type brands. While a lawyer hiring a junior might get away with not changing the firm’s name (or appending “& Associates”), the status associated with a firm’s masthead meant that when practices merged, so did their names.
3. As firms grew, so did their names. I articled at a firm formally known as Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw LLP that resulted from a series of amalgamations. To remove a partner from the marquee/shingle would have been a slight. Many firms kept the amalgamated legal names even while doing business under an abbreviated version (Lang Michener LLP in this case).
4. The traditional names of large law firms are increasingly outdated. Within a profession trying to shake the reputation of being an old boys club, doing business under the brands of long-since dead white men remains a problem. With large, global law firms (as big as 3,800 lawyers) adopting rigid corporate structures, two trends have emerged with regards to the firm’s name. The first is to cut down the masthead to one or two partners at most. In Canada, Blakes LLP, Davis LLP, and Gowlings LLP all went this branding route (most kept their full legal names and simply re-branded under a single name). Alternatively, the acronym route has been equally popular with the likes of BLG and FMC. The renewed interest in firm names has arisen in parallel with an acknowledgement that legal marketing actually matters.
5. With the emergence of law corporations, law firms now have the flexibility to choose just about any name (subject to the rules outlined below) for their practice. Some of the local firms include Open Door Law Corporation, Bacchus Law Corporation, and Axium Law Corporation.

Law Society Naming Regulations

In BC, the Law Society closely regulates the naming of law firms. The key principles are to ensure that the size of the firm is not misrepresented, that the people involved with the business are not misrepresented, and that the legal status of the firm is identified (sole proprietorship, LLP, or law corporation).

Registering a Business Name

To register a business name in BC alluding to the status as a lawyer (e.g. barrister, solicitor, lawyers, law firm, etc), the corporate registrar requires you must first get written approval from the Law Society of BC. The name will be rejected by the Law Society if it violates any of the rules described below.

Marketing Rules

The main naming requirements are found under the general marketing rules. See my previous post on this subject. Essentially, your firm name cannot be false, inaccurate, unverifiable, misleading or contrary to the interests of the public. This means I can’t call my firm Jeremy & Associates if its just me. I also can’t name my firm Borden, Ladner, and Gervonis Law Corporation.

LLPs and Law Corporations

Both limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and law corporations, have particular rules in the Law Society Rules. Essentially, the name can’t be confusing or similar to an existing corporate name. Nothing overly stringent.

Trademarks

Given the traditional naming conventions, it tended to be difficult to prevent other firms from using their partners’ names. Run a search for Davies Law and you’ll see what I mean. With the rise of law corporations, trademark issues will begin to appear.

Law Firm Naming Best Practices

The sky is now the limit for law firm naming. If you’re starting a new firm or re-branding your existing firm, there’s no reason to be stuck with the name on your drivers’ license. Here are some of my best practices:

• Use a name people can easily spell (this means you Thorsteinssons).
• Keep it short.
• Make it distinctive and evocative.
• Use your imagination (yes lawyers can do this too).
• Do not use references to the quality of the services themselves (e.g. Quality Law Corporation or Budget Law Group).
• Run both trademark and Google searches.
• Check with the law society before you even start thinking about the rest your branding (such as business cards and letterhead).

If you want a good example of effective naming, have a look at Heritage Law.

In legal marketing, perhaps the most tempting rule to violate (at least in BC) is the prohibition on using the name of sitting judges or masters as being former members of the firm. If your former colleague has been appointed to the Bench, it only seems natural to proclaim your pedigree by association. Alas, this would violate Professional Conduct Rule 7.2 in Chapter 14.

Former firm of current judge or master

7.2 A lawyer must not state on any letterhead or business card or in any other marketing activity the name of a judge or master as being a predecessor or former member of the lawyer’s firm.

As every lawyer should know, it doesn’t make it OK just because everyone seems to do it. It may fall within a grey area if you are simply posting “news” that a colleague has been appointed to your website. Just don’t make it a permanent marketing presence.

We often encounter law firms struggling with what to post on their firm Facebook pages. Because Facebook is not a dedicated professional platform (like LinkedIn), many lawyers are understandably cautious of allowing their personal and professional lives to overlap. While the merits of having a firm Facebook page are certainly up for debate, their visibility in search engine results should be well worth the effort. While Skunkworks regularly builds branded Facebook pages, we don’t supply the content. We do recommend that Facebook be used to show the “human side” of the firm, but we leave it to them to express their own personality.

Our friends at Davidson Lawyers LLP in lovely Vernon, British Columbia have an excellent social media presence. In particular, they regularly update their Facebook page. While we played no role in setting-up their branded Facebook page, it is a good example of what type of content firms can offer.

Law firm SEO is big business. The more traffic that gets drawn to your site, the more visitors you can potentially convert into clients. This is particularly important for highly competitive retail practice areas such as personal injury, immigration, family, and wills & estates. Unfortunately, the trend is to sacrifice everything for the sake of SEO. Because keywords found in page titles, headings, and body text all inform how search engines rank your website, law firms have been piling-on the generic legal keywords and geographic spam. In this race to the bottom, I wanted to see if I could take the lead and draft home page copy for a brand new imaginary personal injury firm, Mulberry & Yew LLP. Perfect SEO, but at what cost?

Personal Injury Accident Lawyers Mulberry & Yew LLP Attorneys – Law Firm in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta

Accident Injury Lawyers in Calgary

If you have been injured in a car accident in Alberta, our experienced personal injury lawyers will assist you in claiming fair compensation. At Mulberry & Yew LLP, our experienced attorneys will help you after you have been injured in a car crash. We offer lawyers who operate on a contingency basis. If you don’t obtain a settlement, you don’t pay. Our experienced lawyers are available 24/7 to help you get a settlement after your car accident.

Personal Injury Law Firm in Edmonton

Mulberry & Yew LLP accident lawyers have an office in Edmonton, Alberta. Our injury lawyers also have a Calgary, Alberta office to serve you better. Our attorneys are only motor vehicle accident lawyers. They do not work for insurance companies. They work for you. If you need legal assistance following a car accident, please give our injury claim lawyers a call before you speak to the insurers.

Car Crash Attorneys for Injury Claims

Our experienced lawyers will aggressively  represent your interests for injuries sustained in a car accident. These accident injuries include:

• spinal injury claims;
• brain injury claims;
• soft tissue injury claims;
• chronic pain injury claims; and
• neck,  back or other injuries.

Serving Canmore, Ft. McMurray, Red Deer, Medecine Hat, Lethbridge

Our car accident lawyers serve the entire province of Alberta. In particular, our clients are often located in Canmore, Fort McMurray, Red Deer, Medecine Hat, and Lethbridge. If you are unable to visit one of our office locations, our personal injury lawyers will come to you. Mulberry & Yew LLP also represents victims of pedestrian accidents, bicycle accidents, motorcycle accidents, and accidents generally.

There is a better way. Upcoming posts will suggest ways in which you can earn SEO through relevance without sounding like a broken record.

SEO consulting is a booming business. Law firms are routinely solicited to “improve their Google rankings.” Even Google itself receives emails reading:

“Dear google.com,
  I visited your website and noticed that you are not listed in most of the major search engines and directories…”

Improving organic search engine rankings is an increasingly popular method of drawing non-referred clients to your law firm (so long Yellow Pages).  Because the value of each new client tends to be high for many practice areas (personal injury and family law in particular), lawyers are a core target market for SEO consultants. The challenge is to distinguish fly-by-night operations from established, reputable, and effective firms like our friends at Stem Legal (full disclaimer, Skunkworks also advises firms on SEO during website development and through search marketing retainers) . When retaining a consultant of any type, the key is to know the right questions to ask. Here’s a quick cheat sheet:

Sweat Equity

1. Who will actually do the work?

Legitimate forms of SEO work are…(surprise, surprise)…actually hard work. There’s no magic technological bullet that will shoot you to the top. In most cases, you’ll need to write relevant content for your website. You should be weary of anyone who says that they’ll take care of everything. A reputable consultant will likely tell you that “You should be doing X, Y, and Z. For my part, I’ll do A,B, and C to ensure your efforts are rewarded. Our combined work will improve SEO because of G and H.”

The other reason for this question is that many larger firms complete a bait and switch with regards to your point of contact. They have knowledgeable, experienced professionals on the sales/executive side with a small army of junior account managers below them. If you’re hiring a consultant, be sure that you ask who’s time you’re actually buying.

Methods

2. Can you generally describe your primary methods for improving my organic rankings?

There are both legitimate (white hat) and illegitimate (black hat) methods for improving SEO. Despite Google’s best efforts, the ranking algorithm remains susceptible to underhanded methods of improving search engine performance. While these tricks change regularly, a popular strategy involves link-farming where large networks of automated sites are used to link back your website (see also shadow domains and doorways). Not only is harnessing drone sites a risky practice from a professional conduct perspective (most law firms prefer not to share space with Russian Viagra), but it also runs the risk that subsequent modifications to Google’s algorithm will punish the practice and demote the firm accordingly.

Guarantees

3. Do you guarantee placement in organic Google rankings?

This may be a general business principle, but always beware any guarantee. Nobody can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google and this tends to be a primary clue of a sketchy operation. For that matter, beware anyone who claims to have a “special relationship” with Google. I see this fairly often. Another reference I hear is when people say they have been to the Googleplex. I have been to the United Nations for that matter. While Google does certify professionals (including myself and Skunkworks) for specific types of services, this means that we have completed training courses and passed the associated tests. This does not mean that we are part of a secret society where Google software engineers impart top secret wisdom.

Contracts

4. What happens if I fire you?

Yet another general business principle. As a lawyer by training, one of my first questions with any new business relationship is how easily I can get out of it. Does the relationship have a minimum contract term? Can I fire you if I’m not happy? Am I locked-in to a piece of proprietary technology that will require me to start from scratch if I hire someone else? SEO doesn’t have any magic bullet formulas. Most of the challenge involves content generation and syndication. While some processes can be automated, you don’t want to lose all the hard work that you and the consultant have done.

A Taste of Your Own Medicine

5. How come I don’t see you when I google “Law Firm SEO Consultant?”

You can even give it a try right in front of them. This is actually somewhat cheeky, but it can be used to assess how they respond. If they’re so good at improving SEO, you would think that they would rank well for their target market. Not surprisingly, keywords relating to SEO Consulting are extremely competitive.

Skunkworks client Andrew Feldstein is no stranger to the media. Andrew appears regularly through various news outlets as a leading commentator on family law matters. His firm, Feldstein Family Law Group, is itself a powerhouse in offering web-based educational legal resources to the general public. In particular, the firm’s YouTube channel offers over 67 videos of Andrew and lawyers at his firm presenting on family law matters in Ontario.

Andrew approached Skunkworks with an impressive amount of content to be edited and transformed into bite-sized episodes for his YouTube channel. We have also added some additional production flourishes to ensure a consistent, professional feel for the new videos.

Demonstrating subject matter expertise is an excellent marketing approach for law firms and Feldstein Family Law Group’s  YouTube channel provides a rich information resource for people in Metro Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario who are considering divorce or want to learn more about how family law issues are dealt with in that Province. 

Here’s a sample of the finished product.