Out-of-the-Box Lawyering

Sometimes Google is not the best search engine to use – AltaVista has two valuable tools that Google lacks

The New York Times in "Fishing for Information? Try Better Bait," (August 21, 2003) reports that AltaVista has a couple of tools that Google lacks. The first is truncation:

As popular as Google is, it does not measure up when it comes to two other strategies beloved by expert information retrievers. One is truncation - the ability to chop off a word and put an asterisk in place of whatever was chopped, thereby searching for all variations of that word with one search query. To many experts, AltaVista wins at this game. Plug "fudg* brownie recipe" into the search box and you will find fudge brownies, fudgy brownies and fudge-nut brownie cake.

AltaVista's second trick is proximity searching:

[Y]ou can search for two words in close proximity, instead of simply on the same page or within the same phrase. AltaVista has this licked, using the NEAR command. Type in "substitution NEAR chocolate" or better yet, "substitut* NEAR chocolate" and you get advice on substituting bars of unsweetened chocolate with semi-sweet, or how to use chocolate substitutes like cocoa powder.

Here's a little known tool that Google and some other search engines have: You can type an asterisk in place of a word in the middle of phrase you are searching:

[You can] use a wild card, an asterisk in place of the word that escapes you. Type " Nestle * cookies" as a phrase and Tollhouse appears (along with Rolo, Quik and Raisinet goodies, too).

Google and some of the other engines also allow you to limit your search to a particular domain. Thus, if you just want to search government sites that have a .gov domain, you could type "site:.gov" (of course without the quotes). This could quickly refine your search results and save you lots of time.

Happy searching.

Here's an out-of-the-box way to market on the Internet

Here's a way to find new clients, or more precisely, here's how to let new clients find you.

An article "Matching up by Internet" by Ari Kaplan describes how the Internet dating service concept has been applied to providing ways that clients looking for attorneys can match up with attorneys looking for clients. (The article originally was in the in the July 14, 2003 issue of the National Law Journal.)

Ari describes three of the services and their pricing structures and quotes three satisfied attorneys and a disgruntled one. Among the satisfied attorneys was one whose firm changed from "barely making it" to becoming profitable.

Legal malpractice policies may pay all or part of an attorney's fees for defending against disciplinary claims

Elizabeth Alston is heavily involved in defending lawyers charged with disciplinary violations and in lawyer professional liability litigation. She reports in the August 2003 issue of the ABA Journal (page 29) that the normal legal malpractice policy may cover some or all of the costs of an attorney who is defending against a disciplinary charge.

She writes that the policy deductible typically will not apply and that the attorney will normally be able to choose his or her attorney and will not have to rely on counsel selected by the insurer.

Moreover, "[a]lthough most carriers provide from $7,500 to $12,000 in coverage for disciplinary proceedings, some provide for up to $100,000 for reimbursement of fees and costs if the proceeding is successfully defended."

Recognizing that attorneys may be wary of invoking the coverage, she adds that attorneys will eventually have to inform the companies of the complaints when they file for renewal policies. She also includes some thoughts as to what attorneys might do if they are still concerned about reporting a disciplinary complaint to an insurer.

The ABA has the article online now, but I am told it will not be there permanently. On Westlaw, FIND 89-AUG ABAJ.29; Lexis-Nexis will include the article later, but it's not online as of this writing.

Improve your client relations by having a second monitor for your clients to see while you are entering data and considering options in their cases

Have you ever thought of allowing your clients to see your calculations and the documents in their cases while they are being prepared? Lawrence S. Pascoe of Mirsky Paskoe has, according to an article in Law Office Computing's August/September issue, pp. 10-12. (Although this article is not online, many of its articles and reviews are. I highly recommend subscribing to the magazine.)

Pascoe writes that he has a second monitor -- a 20-inch ViewSonic -- on his desk solely for his clients.

The client's monitor helps him explain financial issues and calculations and tax ramifications in their family-law problems. It also helps him when he is creating documents for them to sign, for they can see the documents and correct them before they are finalized.

He also uses the monitor when filling out client checklists that he completes on his own computer. Does it help client relations? Here's what he says:

"Clients now want to participate in their case, and its beneficial for them to participate, so this extra monitor helps tremendously, and helps my image as someone who wants to work with his clients."

He adds that when he sends out a draft will, he uses his word processor to line-number the will "so the clients can easily refer to a change they want by indicating the line it's on."

An out-of-the-box contract provision to help prevent lawsuits — General counsel or the CEOs of both contracting parties must meet before either may file suit

The July 28 issue of The National Law Journal has an interview with Frank Sherer, general counsel for Timex Corporation. The Journal reports one way Sherer helps prevent litigation: Timex contracts may require that before either side may file suit against the other, either the general counsel or the CEOs of both sides must meet about the dispute. Here's how the Journal reports it:

"Timex avoids most litigation through aggressive intervention at the early stage of legal disputes, said Sherer. No fan of either litigation or arbitration, Sherer pushes for mediation clauses in major contracts. He prefers a requirement that the general counsel of both sides (and the CEOs, for more high-stakes cases) meet to discuss the dispute before either party may file a lawsuit."

The article notes that several years ago, the requirement facilitated a prelitigation settlement with a component manufacturer over a major product defect dispute.