The proliferation of web sites that offer pirated versions of textbooks has been pointed out as one of the main culprits of the decrease in textbook sales. Contrary to what many believed, that the books published in university presses were too specialized to even attract attention from pirates, electronic files of university-press books have already been spotted on those pirate websites.

The overpricing of textbooks might be the reason why pirate sites even exist. It can be noted that several lawsuits have already been filed over overpriced textbooks. The expense and the fact that a ‘free’ alternative is available might encourage one helpless student who cannot find cheap textbooks for his highly demanding subjects to turn to these pirate sites for refuge.

There is also the issue of electronic reserves and the use of course management software such as Blackboard. In instances where professors make chapters of a book available as electronic reserves or disseminate the materials through Blackboard, buying a textbook may not be necessary anymore. Furthermore, professors may get out of having to pay a permission fee to the publisher.

The situation calls for university presses to start making it easy for people to ask for permissions. Aside from this, open textbooks already exist to assist students in their scholarly concerns. These methods will hopefully eliminate the problem of piracy while helping students get the best learning experience possible without the additional costs.

However, the decline of textbooks sales will continue to be the challenge faced by university presses at present, considering the online alternatives. Not a good sign for the traditional textbooks industry indeed, but this is something that they need to deal with.

http://flickr.com/photos/bhartzer/

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a brief yesterday saying just that, appealing a July decision by a federal district judge’s who held that the new restrictions on lawyer ads violate First Amendment free speech rights and issued a permanent injunction against them.

The new rules, which debuted February 1, sought to forbid, among other things, client testimonials, monikers or nicknames implying the ability to get a result or attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence or the fictional portrayal of a judge.

Public Citizen won the case on behalf of Alexander & Catalano, a Syracuse personal injury firm that bills itself as “The Heavy Hitters” and uses an aggressive advertising campaign, one that offended the sensibilities of some upstate judges who are charged with setting the state’s rules for lawyer advertising.

The attorney general’s brief describes the Alexander & Catalano advertising campaign as “frequently embellished with exaggerated images of the firm’s attorneys as giants towering over local buildings, running to assist clients so fast that they appear as a blur, and counseling space aliens on insurance claims.”

Clearly not as funny or deft as Geico’s gecko. But it’s a shot. Some of us might like to see the Skaddens in our midst lighten up a bit, and try this sort of thing. Not Cuomo: The brief asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court, which first green-lighted lawyer ads as protected commercial speech in 1977, is no fan of humor.

“It has never held that puffery, dramatizations, unverifiable statements of opinion, slogans, or promises, absurd portrayals, extreme use of humor, appeals to emotions, fears or prejudices, special effects, nicknames or other techniques in attorney advertising unrelated to rational decisions about selection of counsel are protected commercial speech,” the attorney general said in his brief.

The First Amendment protection, according to Cuomo, extends only to “truthful, factual, nonmisleading information relevant to the attorney’s services.”

Gregory Beck of Public Citizen says the state should not be in the position to make these judgment calls. “Who is going to make the decision about what information is relevant or too funny?” says Beck. “Humor is not protected, in their opinion, by the First Amendment.”

The Alexander firm is cross-appealing another part of the decision by U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin, who upheld a restriction in the new rules that puts a moratorium on solicitations of accident victims for 30 days following the accident.

Meanwhile, the Skaddens of the world remain on the sidelines, quietly accepting the hassles of the new rules. Another requires any firm that practices in New York—which means just about every large firm in the country—to put an “Attorney Advertising” notice on their websites, with the disclaimer: “Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.”

So far, no corporate firm has stepped forward to challenge it.

by Karen Donovan Technorati Tags: andrew cuomo ]]> http://lawfirmblogging.com/2007/12/11/humorous-lawyer-ads-cuomo-is-not-amused/feed/ http://lawfirmblogging.com/2007/07/24/new-lawyer-advertising-restrictions-violate-free-speech-us-district-court-says/ http://lawfirmblogging.com/2007/07/24/new-lawyer-advertising-restrictions-violate-free-speech-us-district-court-says/#comments Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:24:47 +0000 Law Firm Blogger Lawyer Advertising Legal Newsfree speech violations http://lawfirmblogging.com/index.php/2007/07/24/new-lawyer-advertising-restrictions-violate-free-speech-us-district-court-says/ A ruling by the US District Court, Northern District of New York declared key new provisions of New York’s new rules on attorney advertising unconstitutional.  The suit was brought by consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.  According to Public Citizen’s press release: 

“In a victory for First Amendment rights, the court permanently enjoined enforcement of most of the challenged rules against attorney advertising, including rules against attention-getting techniques, the use of nicknames and mottos, the use of client testimonials, the portrayal of judges and the use of Internet pop-up ads.”

A copy of the Court’s ruling is available on Public Citizen’s website here, and noted on their blog here.  Public Citizen also has complete information on the case at its Consumer Law & Policy Blog, co-sponsored by Public Citizen’s Consumer Justice Project, at  http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/advertising/index.html.

superlawyerfacts.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx–jNQYNgA

The video looks as though it could have been shot at almost any sleepy corporate seminar in the country, with one camera panning between a man in a suit and tie standing at a podium and others seated nearby. But the dialogue is riveting: It’s a group of lawyers openly discussing strategies for helping their clients pretend that they’re trying to recruit American workers—as required by law—while they, in fact, hire cheaper foreign workers. 

“[O]ur goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker,” says Lawrence Lebowitz, director of marketing for the Pittsburgh law firm Cohen & Grigsby, before an audience of employers at the firm’s conference. The seminar provides details on how employers can meet the government’s requirements for the Permanent Labor Certificate program (PERM), which lets employers sponsor foreign workers for permanent residency if they can demonstrate no U.S. worker can fill a job. The trick, according to Cohen & Grigsby attorneys, is to only go through the motions of hiring Americans without ever intending to.

The video, which has been posted on YouTube (GOOG), is now sparking a sharp backlash. On June 21, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) fired off a letter to Cohen & Grigsby demanding an explanation for its advice, as well as going so far as to ask for the names of its clients. “Your firm’s video advises employers how to hire only foreign labor, while making it nearly impossible for a qualified American worker to get a job,” they wrote. “We look forward to hearing from you on how such advice is ethical and does not undermine the programs by enticing fraud and misuse.” (See the lawmakers’ letter here.) A public relations firm representing Cohen & Grigsby did not return phone calls seeking comment.

 And now… SHE’S ALREADY OUT.  After just 3 days Paris Hilton was released from jail to house arrest… for 40 more days.

Her Mug Shot

This got me thinking, her Lawyer Richard A. Hutton from Hutton & Wilson, a supposed preeminent DUI Firm in Los Angeles must have seen a surge in prospective clients due to the publicity.   

Or did he… receiving a 45 day sentence for a violation of probation after she was caught driving on a suspended license is hardly what I would call a successful DUI representation (Original DUI charge in September). I know many people that have had similar cases or even more serious charges that did not even sniff the interior of a jail cell.

So the question this poses from a marketing perspective: Is it worth it to take on a celebrity or high profile client, whether it be Pro Bono or not, in order to get free publicity even if you LOSE THE CASE?  I know many people would revert to the cliche “There’s no such thing as bad press”.  Of course it works for Paris, but what about her Attorney?

ps. I promise I will never mention Paris Hilton ever again on LawFirmBlogging.com…

I’d like to introduce myself as the new webmaster of Lawfirmblogging.com.  I’d like to thank Nathan for the opportunity to take over a great site.

My name is Stephen Palmer and I’ve been building and marketing websites since 1998.  It’s hard to believe it was almost ten years ago when I realized that working exclusively on the internet and ACTUALLY making a living from it was what I wanted to do.

It will be my goal here to provide my personal insight and methodologies on internet marketing and development that I’ve spent the last 10 years learning.

Things to come:

A new site theme- I’ve already started a new design template which I think everyone will enjoy.
Additional Services- Time permitting I will be available to select clients for design, development, SEO and law firm marketing consulting.
Law Firm Directory- The addition of a search engine optimized law firm directory will not only help this site grow, but all of our readers, clients and partner’s websites grow.

You may have noticed some tweaks I’ve made to the site already, In my next post I’ll explain what I did and why it’s so crucial to your success.

-Steve-

Law

Web sites for law firms, legal service providers, pro-bono legal services, litigation support, and self-help legal information. Sites that feature content on legal issues, trials, law and business issues, court decisions or legal advocacy.

From the email I received:

The awards, hailed by the New York Times as “the online equivalent of an Oscar”, officially launched their Call For Entries last week. Justice Learning took home the top prize at the 10^th Annual Webby Awards, while sites from Court TV, Jurist, and FindLaw were among the nominees.

If your firm has a site that you think is Webby-worthy, I would definitely encourage you to enter. While designing your firm’s site with an award in mind is an absolutely awful idea (you’re trying to get clients and make money….not have a pretty site), the converse is also true: If you’ve got a great site that is really working well for you, maybe you deserve an award!

And as any law firm knows, a little bit of nationwide good publicity never hurts.

So, I think I’ve got the answer.

This morning, I created an award. I’ll give it out each year, and the selection process is absolutely a no-brainer. There are just two qualifications:

1) You need to be an attorney.
2) You have to post a comment on the Adequate Attorney page.

All adequate attorney honorees are encouraged to display the following graphic on their blog:

As Google always does, this beta is only available to a limited number of people (invitation only). If you’re using Blogger and want to try the beta, sign in and you’ll need to indicate that you want to switch to the new beta. Maybe you’ll be one of the lucky ones.