practicehacker

I like JD Supra and admire the cojones with which it shot out of the starting gate 3 years ago. I’ve used it myself and blogged about the experience while waiting for the promised traffic to materialize. I was still waiting when my “free look” expired a year later and JD Supra informed me that if I wanted to keep my profile, documents, etc. I’d have to pay. In one e-mail JD Supra went from Law 2.0 superstar to paid lawyer directory. Fair enough. If JD Supra wants to get paid like a vendor, I get to evaluate their services as a vendor. Let’s see, the company claims that it can

• promote my firm to prospects
• connect me with the prospects
• earn higher search-rank for me
• earn higher profile on LinkedIn

Can it really do any of these things? Who knows? I spent 40 minutes yesterday talking with a salesperson who couldn’t answer that question or explain why he was calling a 5-person firm to sell a big-firm document posting service. Can’t blame him: there is no explanation.

The fact is JD Supra should be paying for high-quality content, not the other way around. The more content, members, and activity it accumulates the more of a network effect it generates, the higher its search rank, and the more leverage it has to value itself in the inevitable acquisition (Lexis, Westlaw, whoever). So far everything is coming up JD Supra. What about its members? The company promises to put them in front of prospects. But how does it know who and where my prospective clients are? Presumably JD Supra assumes that putting me in the “bankruptcy” category in the “Illinois” bucket on their directory is all the customization I need.

Seriously, JD Supra? Why would you insult my intelligence like that? Your service should cost $0, you should be paying for my content, and LinkedIn is the Dane Cook of social networks. And don’t call me back until you are prepared to treat my content as valuable or you manage to get a grip on reality. Whichever happens first. Posted via email from practice (redux)

A few weeks ago I posted a video introduction to knowledge-management application GrexIt.

Many people apparently want to know more, so here is a synopsis of what this free tool can do. GrexIt works on the principal that vital information is often custom-crafted for each client, then buried in client communications. The application attempts to solve the problem by breaking down your messages by phrase, concept, even by word, then reorganizes those elements into a searchable knowledge-base. GrexIt’s performance has been documented by such high-profile blogs as GigaOm, TheNextWeb, and ReadWriteWeb. Check it out yourself and let me know if you like GrexIt.

Posted via email from practice (redux)

I generally avoid posting about far-fetched, Jestons-inspired stuff. Sure, someday computers will practice law, instant video conferencing with replace Court appearances and most of the people reading this post will be out of a job.  But until that day, law practice is still a job, more or less. Learning how lawyers might practice in 100 years is of marginal interest.  Of course that simple fact doesn’t stop professors and judges from using euphemisms like “law is a calling” or “the law is a profession.”  That sounds great until I try to pay my mortgage with the gratitude of a non-paying client or the respect of my peers. Then it’s every man for himself. That said, jut just this one time I noticed a conference (=waste of time) in Hong Kong (=expensive) sponsored by the University of Hong Kong (=foreign law with no bearing on real life) and just had to post about it. Feel free to enjoy it for about 10 seconds. Then get back to work. Posted via email from practice (redux)

The single biggest complaint that I hear from people who don’t use Twitter is that it’s all about pointless crap that fills people’s days. Well nobody is interested in what I had for breakfast so that’s not what I tweet about. And anyone who does write about garbage like that is soon in my rear view mirror.

I use Twitter to learn about developments in technology and to discuss the law.  In other words: things that matter to me and to the way I make my living (practicing law). I always assumed that these rules go for everyone; that all Twitter users more or less demand high-quality, relevant content or else.

This infographic illustrates that most of the time only about 1 in 10 Twitter users pays attention to messages, while 90% of the messages come from the biggest companies in the world (i.e. Ford, Proctor & Gamble, etc.).  The graphic also tells us that Twitter is big with 20-something women of Latin-American descent, is huge in South America, and is dominated by a tweeting elite of celebrities and brand-hawking marketers.

Pretty soon the “little social network that could” is going to look a lot like that other medium that has come to be dominated by big companies: Television. And at that point I intend to simply turn in my Twitter account. In any case, it looks like Twitter will have a long, long way to go before it’s actually useful to professionals like me.

Posted via email from practice (redux)

About a week and a half ago, I wrote a post defending Apple against the location FUD being spread. Due to some real, but minor issues (which have already been resolved) Apple was at the center of this. Then the focus seemed to shift towards Google. If Apple is “watching you” with the iPhone, Google must be as well with Android devices, right? Sure, if you’re a paranoid looney. Naturally, that group includes the US government. In an effort to attach their names to these highly publicized complaints and companies, certain legislators have called upon executives to testify before Congress. On Tuesday, those companies will deliver a Location 101 lesson to Congress. As I noted in the previous post, the press certainly isn’t helping with any of this FUD — and may actually be more than a bit to blame for it. After the Apple FUD started spreading, who else but The Wall Street Journal started digging into Google’s location approach as well. The shocking discovery? An email from a Google project manager to co-founder Larry Page stressing how important it is for Google to have their own location database for Android. … No. Shit.

Read the full article on  practice (redux)