There are a couple of conversations taking place on different listservs that are all discussing the same issue: common marketing mistakes in the legal industry. Of course, there is nothing new here, but it is surprising the disconnect that exists between knowing what one should be doing in one's legal practice and actually doing it.
Here are a few of the most common marketing mistakes I've come across when talking to attorneys: 

• Failing to plan. You don’t have to draw out a huge, elaborate plan, but outlining what you need to accomplish and the steps to getting there are basic elements of good legal marketing.
• Failure to execute the plan. Even when attorneys prepare marketing plans, they sometimes fall off the map when trying to execute the objectives. Who is responsible for implementing? What sort of benchmarks are in place to monitor progress? Who’s in charge of measuring progress?
• Failure to get professional help for the firm. Whether it be in a consultant for marketing, public relations or sales training, or an organizer to get those files and systems in order.
• Not enough face time with clients. Client testimonials are your most effective form of marketing, so the more positive face time you have with clients, the better reputation you will build.
• Focusing in the business rather than on the business. It’s easy to get caught up in the day-to-day business, but stay invested in the grand scheme of the business and if it’s progressing.
• Failing to understand that lawyers are in the business of people, NOT law. The legal industry is a business that survives on quality customer service, so do not forget the importance of client relationships and satisfaction.

Action Item: Do any of these mistakes sound familiar? If so, what action steps will you take? What is your deadline for taking the step? What will you do after taking that step?

Finally, remember that Rome was not created in a day, but after a culmination of lots of planning, organizing and implementation. So don't get overwhelmed. Start with something small and build on that gradually.

About SCG Legal PR Network
SCG Legal PR Network is a global network that connects lawyers as expert sources with reporters and features a 24/7-accessible database of legal experts from a variety of areas. Its team is comprised of former award-winning journalists whose experience spans over three continents and 30-plus years of experience in the field of journalism and public relations. The network was started by a former journalist, Paramjit Mahli, who has worked within news outlets like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Financial Post, CNN, CNNfn and The Journal of Commerce. For more information about the SCG Legal PR Network, please call 212-661-9137 or visit SCG Legal PR Network’s Web site at http://www.scglegalprnetwork.com.

On March 29, 2010, in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al,  the Southern District Court of New York held that isolated human gene sequences and the comparison of their sequences were not patentable subject matter under Section 101 of the United States Patent Act.  In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the court ruled that the patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes were invalid because the genes were “products of nature.” The court further explained that isolating a naturally occurring DNA sequence does not transform the DNA into patentable subject matter because the isolated DNA is not “markedly different” from the native DNA.  In issuing this significant decision, Judge Sweet ignored the rationale that has allowed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to issue hundreds of commercially significant patents claiming genes.  If this decision is upheld, a large number of commercial patents would be at risk of being held invalid.  Moreover, it would be challenging for biotechnology companies to secure future patents for gene sequences for diagnostic or treatment purposes as the companies would have to be able to show that the isolated gene sequences were markedly different from the native forms.  

For an in depth examination of this important case, watch Lawline.com’s newest course, "Yours, Mine and Ours: An Update on Genetic Patents."  In this program, patent law expert Amy Goldsmith reviews the most important aspects of Association for Molecular Pathology, from the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ arguments to the reasoning behind the district court's decision. Ms. Goldsmith surmises on how the federal appeals court will rule, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent patent decision, In Re Bilski.  Until the Second Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court rule on this matter, the fate of the BRCA breast cancer genes and many other like patents is uncertain.  The Legal Beat will follow the progress of this case, and provide any developments as they become available.

Two days ago, Amnesty International requested that the online website WikiLeaks censor secret files on the Afghanistan war to protect civilians who have worked alongside the U.S. and foreign forces from reprisals. Recently, WikiLeaks published more than 80,000 classified diplomatic documents pertaining to the Afghan war, many of which included names of Afghan informants.  Similar to Amnesty’s request, the United States Government has publicly demanded that WikiLeaks refrain from publishing any more classified military documents, and that they remove the secret files that have already been posted.  While the requests may be morally valid, there may not be any legal grounds for removing and/or censoring the materials, as forcing WikiLeaks to refrain from publishing and/or censoring the documents may constitute a prior restraint of its First Amendment right to free speech. 

For a comprehensive overview of prior restraints on freedom of speech, watch Lawline.com’s new course, “Prior Restraints: Why Courts Disfavor Limitations on Free Speech.” In this program, George Freeman, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of the New York Times Company, discusses the courts’ aversion to censorship in the name of national security and reveals how such censorship of the media is only legal if it passes the “immediate and irreparable harm to the nation” test.  As part of his discussion, Freeman provides behind the scenes information on the New York Times employees and attorneys who were involved in publishing the Pentagon Papers, a series of documents which contained classified information about the Vietnam War.  Freeman explains how that case, the New York Times v. U.S.,  represents the last time the media was enjoined from publishing a story on the grounds that doing so would jeopardize national security.  Does the human rights group's request for censorship of the Afghan documents satisfy the “immediate and irreparable harm to the nation” test, or is it a prior restraint on WikiLeaks’ First Amendment free speech rights?  Please share your comments on this matter with us.

Lawline.com has launched a new introduction for all courses and video clips! The featured course below is George Freeman's new CLE Prior Restraints: Why Courts Disfavor Limitations on Speech.

Take a look!

In this clip, experienced mediator Simeon Baum discusses the role of the mediator as a facilitator. A mediator is not simply a rented judge, but rather a part of the dispute resolution process. An open and engaging mediator will help identify each party's interests, solve problems, and enhance communication. Attorneys can take advantage of the mediation process to achieve a successful outcome for their clients.

To learn more about becoming an effective mediator and representing clients in mediation, watch Simeon Baum's new course, Effective Representation in Mediation.

Duckenfield provides us with insights about the SBA 8(a) Business Development program, a program which aids small businesses to get their feet through the door into the Federal Contract space.  Duckenfield explains that the program's purpose is to promote development of small businesses that are owned and controlled by socially and disadvantaged individuals.  He goes on to provide us with the criteria that is necessary for a business to qualify to participate in this program.

Fahringer sheds on light on the issues that arise from trials dealing with multiple defendants. He points out that these situations could be dangerous because of the temptation to "lump" all the defendants together as a guilty party. So how can we avoid falling into this trap? Fahringer explains that by assigning each defendant a cardboard box and filing each box with evidence that is only relevant to that defendant will provide us with a true sense of who the evidence really stacks up against.

We've all experienced it at one time or another; particularly when you are debating whether to incorporate public relations into your firm's business-development efforts.

How many times have you read an article about a topic that fits in with your area of interest and legal expertise and felt disheartened and disappointed that you were not the person who was quoted in the piece?

Does this sound familiar?

But how could you be quoted if the reporter doesn't know who you are and what you do?

Well, the good news is that even though your firm may not incorporate a public relations plan, there is still a way to get your message and your name published in that publication. Follow the below steps to get your side of the story featured in the Op Ed section of publications.

Write a letter to the editor of the publication referencing the article and the date it was published. In the body of the letter, you have several options to choose from:

A. Present a different viewpoint from the original writer’s stance.

B. Agree with the original writer's viewpoint and expand on the issue. Just remember to keep this at a maximum of a few paragraphs.

C. Showcase your expertise by introducing a little-known fact or issue related to the subject of interest to the public. Bring something fresh to the conversation.

It is important to note that letters to the editor are published in the editorial section – a respected section of the newspaper. Simply put, by being included in the Op Ed pages, your letter will be accorded a great measure of credibility.

Finally, don't forget it is critical to write these letters concisely and succinctly. You have only a couple of short paragraphs to convey your opinions and thoughts.
 

In a recent LeClairRyan webinar about successful mediating, attorney Robyn Gnudi Kalocsay pointed out that failing to get the agreed-upon terms in writing can be a critical mistake at the end of the negotiation process.  She said, “You can leave the mediation thinking that you have an agreement, and spend the next three months trying to get the agreement re-agreed to by both sides.”

Here are three suggestions for avoiding this problem.

1.  Confirm all oral commitments in writing as soon as they have been made, perhaps by email or fax.

2.  Get a ready-to-be-signed written agreement over to your counterpart ASAP and include a reasonable deadline for his or her signature and some incentive for them to sign it by the deadline.

3.  Don’t adversely affect your leverage, such as setting aside a trial or arbitration date, until you have a signed, sealed and delivered deal.

Marty Latz is the founder of Latz Negotiation Institute, a national negotiation training and consulting company, and ExpertNegotiator, a Web-based software company that helps managers and negotiators more effectively negotiate and implement best practices based on the experts' proven research.  He is also the author of Gain the Edge! Negotiating to Get What You Want (St. Martin’s Press 2004). He can be reached at 480-951-3222 or Latz@ExpertNegotiator.com.

Lawline.com congratulates Elena Kagan who was just confirmed by the Senate in a 63-37 vote as the 112th justice to the United States Supreme Court.  Ms. Kagan will be the fourth woman ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court, and joins Justices Sonia Sotomayer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to form the first ever bloc of three women to serve on the Court at the same time.  Though Kagan, who is currently the U.S. Solicitor General, has never served as a judge, her diverse professional background includes clerking for a Supreme Court justice, being the Dean of Harvard Law School, and working for the Clinton administration.

Once on the Supreme Court, Kagan will likely have the opportunity to weigh in on the current prominent cases in California where a judge recently struck down the state’s ban on same sex marriage and in Arizona where a judge blocked several main components of the strict immigration law.

To learn more about Supreme Court justices, watch Lawline.com faculty member Herald Price Fahringer’s popular course, Arguing in Front of the United States Supreme Court.  Fahringer, who has argued in front of the Supreme Court 14 times, shares his insights into the inner workings of the Court and also gives helpful tips on how to adequately prepare your Supreme Court arguments.