A federal judge has ruled Brunswick police may continue to enforce the city's disorderly conduct ordinance and have the legal authority to ask small groups of protestors whether they have a permit to demonstrate.
Under the city's ordinance, any group 100 or larger must obtain a city permit.
Read more here: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-12-07/story/federal-judge-declines-ban-brunswick-disorderly-conduct-ordinance
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Elbert County News
Image via WikipediaElbert County residents fought hard against a plan to build a waste-to-energy incinerator and 39-acre landfill west of Elberton by funding lawsuits, signing petitions and talking to their neighbors.GreenFirst announced its decision a week after winning a ruling in one of the four lawsuits spawned by the proposal. Northern Circuit Superior Court Judge Jeffery Malcom rejected residents' efforts to hold a referendum on Elbert County government policies that cleared the way for the incinerator.
Plant Granite, which the company planned to build off Georgia Highway 72 between Elberton and Carlton, would have burned garbage and wood to generate electricity, and would have disposed of the ash in an on-site landfill.
But GreenFirst decided to abandon the incinerator plan when Covanta, the company that would have operated the plant, backed out of the project.
Read more at the source: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/121210/new_755348800.shtml
Friday, December 10, 2010
More Good News about Amazing Aspirin
From NPR:I'm one of those guys who takes an aspirin daily. So, I read this news with interest:
A British study claims evidence that aspirin can prevent death from a variety of cancers, if you take the medicine long enough in middle age. Even a baby aspirin might be enough.
Published in The Lancet, the study suggests aspirin could provide protection against a wide variety of tumors. They range from pancreatic cancer to the type of lung cancer that strikes nonsmokers.
For some of these cancers, the reduction in death was noteworthy. Twenty years after people had started taking aspirin regularly (and kept it up for at least five years), their deaths from esophageal cancer were reduced by 60 percent compared to study subjects who got a placebo.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/12/07/131873139/study-aspirin-cuts-deaths-from-wide-variety-of-cancers
Read more:
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Is Social Media Crucial to Law Firm Marketing?
I know that when it comes to the law practice (and consumer law/personal injury), it's much different than selling shoes. Alas, some so called 'social media experts' do not understand that. Imagine if Zappos.com the shoe sales site had to actually have its employees sit and take a licensing test in order for shoes to be sold in Florida?
That takes me to the subject of social media for lawyers. I will tell you that I have spoken more than a dozen time at lawyer CLE courses about law and technology, and marketing in the 21st century using the web. First and foremost I find that at least in terms of lawyers in the injury field, many lawyers get an "F" grade just for their websites. Lawyers with blogs? Right. I would say 10-15% blog, and of those less than half blog regularly.
So, why dive into social media marketing headlong, like Rene Perras suggests in this article, "Social Media is Crucial to Law Firm Marketing Efforts?"
It's easy. You don't. I will accept at face value for the sake of this post that the statement that "Currently, there are over 500 million active users on Facebook, who spend over $700 billion a month" is correct. There is a Twitter reference as well. Law services -- sticking again to the injury law practice - is not like buying books on Amazon.
Parras then goes on to write what I think is just plain bullsh*t: "Cepac uses specialized approaches to find online conversations people are having that are relevant to law firms to capture potential clients."
Remember myspace.com? Three to four years ago, the buzz was you and your firm had better get on myspace or you'd be roadkill. Folks who were 'experts' insisted to me that I had better get with it. Now, a new .com, but the same old verse. What happens in 3 years if FB goes away?
For lawyers, you make mistake number one if you or your firm go to Social Media first without taking an honest assessment of your website and the message the site conveys. Oh, I also have news for you. Now law firms (like mine) have multiple websites, niche sites, and blogs. Combined with a sensible google adwords approach, those are the touchstones to the tech/internet approach to marketing on the web.
Where does Social Media fall? Let's compare: I have almost 2700 tweets since jumping into Twitter in December of 2008. I have almost 1900 followers. Zero cases. In fact, since I have started, only one lead.
Now, look at my firm's blog network, including this one and the others. In a typical week, my firm will post 2-10 times on any given subject or set of subjects. By the end of each month, we average more than 50 calls or emails a month, and usually meet with and are retained by no less than 15 new clients. A month.While there is a cost in terms of posting time, there is zero cost for google adwords.
Google adwords has --separate and apart from the blogs - helped the firm prosper. Huge successes. Right now, though -- today -- there are firms wasting thousands on google with crooked and incompetent vendors. Start there if not with blogs. In Georgia, at the top of the results is a sponsored link for a firm - seeking a very niche client - that not only is based in California, but the firm (who I called) will not even accept a case in GA. Does that sound wise to you? Lawyers, however, will pore over a grocery bill and argue about being overcharged for milk, but won't ask why thousand of $$ are being spent on the web in areas other than your practice zone, or will spend money on adwords that don't generate leads, and don't question their vendor. Start there. I will tell you that I actually make fun of certain firms that simply don't get it when it comes to google adwords. Learn it!
Now what about Social Media? Twitter to me is good for information gathering. I'm able to direct folks to our firm blogs for news.
Facebook? I've tried it a bit with a business page at the beginning of the year. Advertise on FB? We do. Just like we have ad buys on linkedin.com. For a biz page or other page, however, you and your firm are foolhardy if you hire some person out of the blue to handle SM. Beware the 'experts' in the area.
Social media is like that new client who walks in the door. Do the research on your own. Biz lawyers call it due diligence. Don't allow yourself to get your eyes glazed over and let someone else do it for some price Roll up your sleeves and spend no less than 50 hours on sites like I have (and I may be your competition) first.
Never mind that what Parras suggests would possibly be unethical in some states. In Florida, you're not even permitted to have on your own website a page about verdicts without first posting a "warning" page ahead of it that the user acknowledges that the page is deemed an ad before viewing. Never mind that lawyers who are not licensed in Mississippi who wind up with info that may reach citizens there could risk a criminal charge.
My advice: Look very closely at the substance before rushing headlong into SM. Perhaps toutmeisters who seek SM clients might look up the definition of "crucial" - "Extremely significant or important. " Better yet: "Vital." None of those words in my view would marry up with lawyers, their practices and 'social media.'
I will tell you this: Look at Social Media closely. It's crucial that you don't make a costly mistake.
That takes me to the subject of social media for lawyers. I will tell you that I have spoken more than a dozen time at lawyer CLE courses about law and technology, and marketing in the 21st century using the web. First and foremost I find that at least in terms of lawyers in the injury field, many lawyers get an "F" grade just for their websites. Lawyers with blogs? Right. I would say 10-15% blog, and of those less than half blog regularly.
So, why dive into social media marketing headlong, like Rene Perras suggests in this article, "Social Media is Crucial to Law Firm Marketing Efforts?"
It's easy. You don't. I will accept at face value for the sake of this post that the statement that "Currently, there are over 500 million active users on Facebook, who spend over $700 billion a month" is correct. There is a Twitter reference as well. Law services -- sticking again to the injury law practice - is not like buying books on Amazon.
Parras then goes on to write what I think is just plain bullsh*t: "Cepac uses specialized approaches to find online conversations people are having that are relevant to law firms to capture potential clients."
Remember myspace.com? Three to four years ago, the buzz was you and your firm had better get on myspace or you'd be roadkill. Folks who were 'experts' insisted to me that I had better get with it. Now, a new .com, but the same old verse. What happens in 3 years if FB goes away?
For lawyers, you make mistake number one if you or your firm go to Social Media first without taking an honest assessment of your website and the message the site conveys. Oh, I also have news for you. Now law firms (like mine) have multiple websites, niche sites, and blogs. Combined with a sensible google adwords approach, those are the touchstones to the tech/internet approach to marketing on the web.
Where does Social Media fall? Let's compare: I have almost 2700 tweets since jumping into Twitter in December of 2008. I have almost 1900 followers. Zero cases. In fact, since I have started, only one lead.
Now, look at my firm's blog network, including this one and the others. In a typical week, my firm will post 2-10 times on any given subject or set of subjects. By the end of each month, we average more than 50 calls or emails a month, and usually meet with and are retained by no less than 15 new clients. A month.While there is a cost in terms of posting time, there is zero cost for google adwords.
Google adwords has --separate and apart from the blogs - helped the firm prosper. Huge successes. Right now, though -- today -- there are firms wasting thousands on google with crooked and incompetent vendors. Start there if not with blogs. In Georgia, at the top of the results is a sponsored link for a firm - seeking a very niche client - that not only is based in California, but the firm (who I called) will not even accept a case in GA. Does that sound wise to you? Lawyers, however, will pore over a grocery bill and argue about being overcharged for milk, but won't ask why thousand of $$ are being spent on the web in areas other than your practice zone, or will spend money on adwords that don't generate leads, and don't question their vendor. Start there. I will tell you that I actually make fun of certain firms that simply don't get it when it comes to google adwords. Learn it!
Now what about Social Media? Twitter to me is good for information gathering. I'm able to direct folks to our firm blogs for news.
Facebook? I've tried it a bit with a business page at the beginning of the year. Advertise on FB? We do. Just like we have ad buys on linkedin.com. For a biz page or other page, however, you and your firm are foolhardy if you hire some person out of the blue to handle SM. Beware the 'experts' in the area.
Social media is like that new client who walks in the door. Do the research on your own. Biz lawyers call it due diligence. Don't allow yourself to get your eyes glazed over and let someone else do it for some price Roll up your sleeves and spend no less than 50 hours on sites like I have (and I may be your competition) first.
Never mind that what Parras suggests would possibly be unethical in some states. In Florida, you're not even permitted to have on your own website a page about verdicts without first posting a "warning" page ahead of it that the user acknowledges that the page is deemed an ad before viewing. Never mind that lawyers who are not licensed in Mississippi who wind up with info that may reach citizens there could risk a criminal charge.
My advice: Look very closely at the substance before rushing headlong into SM. Perhaps toutmeisters who seek SM clients might look up the definition of "crucial" - "Extremely significant or important. " Better yet: "Vital." None of those words in my view would marry up with lawyers, their practices and 'social media.'
I will tell you this: Look at Social Media closely. It's crucial that you don't make a costly mistake.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Advanced Bionic Recall of HiRes 90K Implant
Image via CrunchBaseAdvanced Bionic has advanced a recall of its cochlear implant systems, announced today that it has notified the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) that it will voluntarily recall its HiRes 90K cochlear implant device and is retrieving all unimplanted devices in distribution. This action is being taken in response to two confirmed instances where the product experienced a malfunction requiring explantation.These recipients experienced severe pain, overly loud sounds and/or shocking sensations at 8-10 days after initial activation of their device.
There are three companies in the world that manufacture cochlear implants: Med-El, Cochlear Corporation, and Advanced Bionics. Advanced Bionics is based in the Los Angeles, California area, and Advanced Bionics was recently acquired by Sonova, a Swiss corporation. Advanced Bionics was previously controlled and owned by Boston Scientific Corporation. Over the course of its history, Advanced Bionics has manufactured three types of cochlear implants: (1) The Clarion / Clarion 1.2 / C1.2, (2) The Clarion II / CII, and (3) The HiResolution 90k / HiRes90k.
In 2004, Advanced Bionics issued a worldwide recall of all unimplanted Clarion and HiRes90k devices. The company was issued a Warning Letter by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2005. Later, in March 2006, the company issued a second recall of all unimplanted HiRes90k devices containing a feedthrough manufactured by AstroSeal, Inc. / vendor B. Almost 4,500 persons around the world were implanted with HiRes90k with vendor B feedthrough components.
Talk with us if you believe that you have a defective or recall implant. Call
404-451-7781.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Darvon and Darvocet/Propoxyphene Recall News November 19, 2010
The FDA has asked that propoxyphene, (brand names Darvon and Darvocet, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals) be removed from the US market. The decision will also affect generic manufacturers and the makers of propoxyphene-containing products.
Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Public Citizen's Health Research Group said it was too little, too late, noting that Britain banned the drug six years ago.
"Due to FDA negligence, at least 1,000 to 2,000 or more people in the United States have died from using propoxyphene since the time the U.K. ban was announced," Wolfe said in a statement.
"Our February 2006 petition to the FDA to ban the drug, following the U.K. ban announcement, did not even result in an FDA advisory committee hearing until we had sued the agency in 2008 to force them to respond to our petition."
An FDA advisory committee split on whether to ban the drug in 2009. The European Medicines Agency pulled it from the market in June 2009.
The FDA has told medical professionals to stop prescribing propoxyphene. Patients who are taking the stated medications should not sinply stop taking it, ut should contact their doctor soon as possible to discuss switching to another pain-management therapy.
Propoxyphene is an opioid typically used to treat mild to moderate pain. It was first approved by the FDA in 1957. It is sold by prescription under various names alone or in combination with acetaminophen. Since 1978, the FDA has received two requests to remove propoxyphene from the market.
In January 2009, an FDA advisory committee voted 14 to 12 against the continued marketing of propoxyphene products. At that time, the committee called for additional information about the drug's cardiac effects.
From Public Citizen:
Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Public Citizen's Health Research Group said it was too little, too late, noting that Britain banned the drug six years ago.
"Due to FDA negligence, at least 1,000 to 2,000 or more people in the United States have died from using propoxyphene since the time the U.K. ban was announced," Wolfe said in a statement.
"Our February 2006 petition to the FDA to ban the drug, following the U.K. ban announcement, did not even result in an FDA advisory committee hearing until we had sued the agency in 2008 to force them to respond to our petition."
An FDA advisory committee split on whether to ban the drug in 2009. The European Medicines Agency pulled it from the market in June 2009.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tech, The Web, and Being Told what Lawyers Should Do
The way lawyers do business is changing rapidly, which is obvious to just about every attorney in the business. That may not be news. It is also not news to have non lawyers who do not run an office, seek clients, counsel clients, pay bills, or handle 'bet the company' litigation trying to tell lawyers how to do all of some of those.
Today was no different. A webinar was hosted today by a company that from its site provides services like software to lawyers. The webinar dispense free information to attorneys. Some of it was helpful, some - not so much.
First a little about our office - we have a very diverse clientele. It is not uncommon for us to send emails with updates. For some of the younger, mobile generation, many of those clients only have a cellphone. More than a handful will move at least once during the course of a case that lasts two years or more.
With that being said, here is the first bad advice this company (through a speak) gave in its webinar:
1. Bad advice #1: Don't text with clients. Then later, "Never text message your clients."
In my offices, texts are common but limited in subject matter. When we call on the phone and leave a client a message, it is short. "Please call us when you have time." Same for texts - it is to ask the client to call. We never give advice, or simply remark on a pending case.
We have a policy in place for texts. No one in the office but a law partner may text, and that person may only leave a msg to call us back, or to give an address for a meeting or deposition, or to confirm that the attorney is at a meeting place.
It's overly simplistic that "never" is the rule. It once again shows how non lawyers, without clients - especially injury clients - lack an understanding of how an office operates now.
2. Minimize mobile emailing as well. It's very reactionary..
I'm in court or on the road - a lot. It does take discipline to limit emails. If like me you are in a courthouse, or another office, or on the way to/from either, it's just a way of life to address and prioritize what you may respond to while 'mobile.'
3.Don't answer the phone simply because it's ringing.
I saw this one from the vendor on twitter. It's a head scratcher. May need better context. For a call into my office, I may let it ring to VM. For the office as a whole, they get answered. After 5PM lawyers may answer.
A story - it was after 8 PM one night. A new call came to my cell. I answered. It was one of the most significant cases for us that year, a fellow lawyer who needed help on a legal case (his own) and he was impressed that I took the time not only to answer but to talk for an hour.
My advice - we are all busy. Answer.
Finally, not bad advice, just not sure how real this one is: "Work with a clean desk"
I worked with a clean desk. My first day in the practice of law. Never again since.
Today was no different. A webinar was hosted today by a company that from its site provides services like software to lawyers. The webinar dispense free information to attorneys. Some of it was helpful, some - not so much.
First a little about our office - we have a very diverse clientele. It is not uncommon for us to send emails with updates. For some of the younger, mobile generation, many of those clients only have a cellphone. More than a handful will move at least once during the course of a case that lasts two years or more.
With that being said, here is the first bad advice this company (through a speak) gave in its webinar:
1. Bad advice #1: Don't text with clients. Then later, "Never text message your clients."
In my offices, texts are common but limited in subject matter. When we call on the phone and leave a client a message, it is short. "Please call us when you have time." Same for texts - it is to ask the client to call. We never give advice, or simply remark on a pending case.
We have a policy in place for texts. No one in the office but a law partner may text, and that person may only leave a msg to call us back, or to give an address for a meeting or deposition, or to confirm that the attorney is at a meeting place.
It's overly simplistic that "never" is the rule. It once again shows how non lawyers, without clients - especially injury clients - lack an understanding of how an office operates now.
2. Minimize mobile emailing as well. It's very reactionary..
I'm in court or on the road - a lot. It does take discipline to limit emails. If like me you are in a courthouse, or another office, or on the way to/from either, it's just a way of life to address and prioritize what you may respond to while 'mobile.'
3.Don't answer the phone simply because it's ringing.
I saw this one from the vendor on twitter. It's a head scratcher. May need better context. For a call into my office, I may let it ring to VM. For the office as a whole, they get answered. After 5PM lawyers may answer.
A story - it was after 8 PM one night. A new call came to my cell. I answered. It was one of the most significant cases for us that year, a fellow lawyer who needed help on a legal case (his own) and he was impressed that I took the time not only to answer but to talk for an hour.
My advice - we are all busy. Answer.
Finally, not bad advice, just not sure how real this one is: "Work with a clean desk"
I worked with a clean desk. My first day in the practice of law. Never again since.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)