Matthews Ryan Bark
Matthews R Bark Attorney – Fourth of July fireworks legal only in three counties
Source : Wivb
By : Al Vaughters, News 4 Reporter
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews R Bark Attorney
For the first time in more than 100 years, New Yorkers can light up more than sparklers to celebrate the Fourth of July legally. Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed off on a new law back in November, allowing the sale of small fireworks to consumers, under strict conditions. The law gives counties the last word, by “opting in” to the new relaxed restrictions. State officials say 30 counties have exercised their options, but only three local governments have done so in Western New York: Niagara, Cattaraugus, and Allegany counties. Katey Schultz, was loading up on the legal pyrotechnics at a fireworks stand in North Tonawanda, and said, “It’s the greatest thing ever. It needed to happen a long time ago.” Proprietor Gary D’Amico pitched his fireworks tent in the parking lot of the Walmart Supercenter, in North Tonawanda, and said it makes sense to sell tightly regulated fireworks, rather than forcing people to go out of state.
“It has already been approved for this state, and there is directions with each one of these items so you know what is is you are buying, and how to go about using it.” For some customers, like Kyle Brant of Ransomville, this will be there holiday celebration. “I think it is pretty cool. You can stay at home and do your own thing, instead of going out. Enjoy it in the privacy of your own area, as long as you don’t disrupt other people, obviously.” But fire officials across Niagara County had urged county lawmakers to opt out of legalization for the fireworks, worried that more fireworks could lead to more fires. Niagara Falls felt the new law could wreak havoc in the city, and were initially advised the city could opt out, after the county approved the fireworks. But officials from State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services warned, the city had no option after Niagara County’s approval. Niagara Falls Fire Prevention Chief Dan Ciszek said, even the low power fireworks could cause serious injuries.
“These are considered sparkling devices. They burn at 1800 degrees and if you have children running around with them, they can cause burns to their hands.” Assistant North Tonawanda Fire Chief Joe Sikora said as long as the fireworks are handled responsibly, by adults, he doesn’t see any major problems. “The proper supervision, common sense–it is going to take place, and not happen to be near a house, or inside a house, anything like that, and hopefully we will be able to get through this Fourth of July season without any additional problems.” Mitzi Kolek, who is selling the legal fireworks from a tent at the Sam’s Club in Niagara Falls the products provide safe family etnertainment, as long as they are properly operated by adults. “You light it, everyone backs away, you just enjoy it. It is a nice thing to do with your family and your friends. If you don’t want to go to a big fireworks show, you want to do something back home, in your backyard, it is perfect.”
Gary D’Amico said sales are going well at his tent in North Tonawanda, and is amazed so few people even know they are legal. “I still have people walking in and saying, ‘is it true, is it true, can we really buy this stuff? Is it really legal for me to take this stuff home and use it?’” State law allows sales of the consumer fireworks from June 1 to July 5, then later in the year another window opens up for selling fireworks during the holidays, from December 26 to January 2.
Read More : wivb.com/2015/06/29/small-fireworks-now-legal-on-the-fourth-of-july/
Matthews Bark Attorney – ITV threatens legal action against BBC production plans
Source : Telegraph.co.uk
By : Christopher Williams
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews Bark Attorney
ITV has threatened to begin a legal attack on the BBC over “extremely complex, costly and uncertain” plans for the BBC’s production arm to compete for commercial contracts. In a letter to the BBC Trust, seen by The Telegraph, solicitors for ITV warned that the company would mount multiple legal challenges if the expansion proposals go ahead. It accused the BBC of taking an “unnecessary and costly approach” to reform and argued the proposals would mean “substantial use of licence fee funds”. The solicitors said: “A failure to properly address these concerns… leaves the BBC’s commercial strategy open to complaint under the Fair Trading Guidelines, as well as challenge on multiple grounds of competition law.” The clash will form part of the coming battle over the licence fee. The Government is due to trigger a renegotiation of the BBC Charter with a Green Paper within weeks.
• BBC and ITV battle Arqiva on future of Freeview
Lord Hall, the director-general of the BBC, has outlined plans to create BBC Studios, a new subsidiary that could make programmes for other broadcasters and internet streaming services such as Netflix, as well as for the BBC. The proposals have caused dismay among independent producers, who claim BBC Studios would have unfair advantages due to its links to the broadcaster and its £3.7bn in taxpayer funding. Now ITV has privately added its voice to concerns recently publicly expressed by PACT, the independent producers’ trade body, that BBC Studios would violate laws on public subsidy. ITV’s solicitors, Slaughter and May, also acting for PACT, said in their letter to the BBC Trust: “Our view is that it would be extremely challenging to implement a proposal along the lines currently proposed that conforms with EU state aid law. “We have not seen anything that suggests that the BBC has considered these issues in any detail or has any proposal on how that will be resolved.” Citing advice from George Peretz QC, a leading competition barrister, the letter raised concerns over whether BBC Studios would be capitalised on commercial terms and the advantage of stability it could gain from making long-running BBC programmes such as Eastenders. ITV’s solicitors also argued BBC studios could unfairly benefit from using to the BBC’s “globally renowned brand” and “cutting-edge technology”. The strength of the BBC brand is understood to be seen as a concern particularly in the growing international market, where British producers are increasingly competing for major series commissions from Netflix and others. ITV has in recent years built up its production arm to reduce its dependence on cyclical broadcast advertising sales. It would see commercial competition from the BBC as a significant threat to that strategy.
The letter said: “The commercial significance of this issue for our clients should not be underestimated. “If [BBC Studios] is to be endowed at the outset with advantages that are not available to its commercial competitors, whether in the form of cheap funding, cheap assets, or a long term revenue stream on non-commercial terms then this would put it in a privileged position as compared to all other providers in the market.”
“The BBC brand has been built-up throughout the BBC’s entire history as a public service broadcaster; it is a distinctive and well-recognised badge of quality that would be likely to open doors for [BBC Studios] to pitch on any project, either domestic or international.” It claimed that with a subsidised BBC Studios “would undermine incentives to invest in this sector and as a result reduce diversity and the drivers of creativity”. The BBC has said that in return for competing in the commercial production market it would be willing to open up more of its own commissioning to competition. Half of BBC programmes are currently made in-house under a quota system. Last week the BBC Trust said the quota was “not sustainable in the long term” due to the success of Britain’s independent production industry. The governing body said it was expecting detailed proposals on BBC Studios as part of the Charter renewal process. The BBC itself has said that it will ensure its detailed proposals comply with the relevant laws. A BBC spokeswoman said: “These proposals would see the end of the BBC’s in house guarantee, opening up more opportunities for ITV studios and others. “As you would expect the proposals will be designed to ensure compliance with State Aid and competition law and the BBC’s fair trading guidelines. Final plans are still being developed and we will continue to work closely with the industry on this.”
Read More : Telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/11690018/ITV-threatens-legal-action-against-BBC-production-plans.html
Matthews Bark Attorney – “Silence Can Be Used Against Suspects”
SOURCE : ABC News
By : PAUL ELIAS Associated Press
Category: Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews Bark Attorney
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them. Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured. Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.
Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom’s failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt. Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect’s refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. “It’s a bad and questionable decision,” said Dennis Fischer, a longtime criminal appellate lawyer. Tom’s attorney Marc Zilversmit said he is deciding whether to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue or renew his arguments in the state court of appeal. “It’s a very dangerous ruling,” Zilversmit said. “If you say anything to the police, that can be used against you. Now, if you don’t say anything before you are warned of your rights, that too can be used against you.”
The state Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling said Tom needed to explicitly assert his right to remain silent — before he was read his Miranda rights — for the silence to be inadmissible in court. Tom has been freed on $300,000 bail pending his appeal. Tom was arrested after his Mercedes sedan plowed into a car driven by Lorraine Wong, who was turning left onto a busy street. Prosecutors argue that Tom’s car was speeding at 67 mph in a 35 mph zone when the collision occurred. He was placed in the back of a police cruiser but was not officially arrested and advised of his rights until later in the day. Prosecutors said Tom’s failure to ask about the Wong family while detained showed his guilt.
Justice Goodwin Liu dissented.
“The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one’s right to remain silent,” Liu wrote. The ACLU filed a friend of the court brief supporting Tom’s appeal.Fischer and others say the ruling might not be the last word on the issue. The high court ordered the court of appeal to reconsider the case, meaning it could return to the California Supreme Court. The high court is undergoing a dramatic transition and it’s possible that two new justices would reconsider the ruling. Baxter, a Republican appointee and reliable conservative vote on the court, is retiring in January. Meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown recently nominated Stanford University law professor Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar to fill a vacancy. “This could be the last hurrah for a conservative Supreme Court,” appellate lawyer Jon Eisenberg said.
SOURCE : abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-silence-suspects-25000247
Matthews Bark Attorney – “Appeals Court Rules Bloomberg Plan for ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ Is Legal”
Source : NY Times
Category : MATT FLEGENHEIMER
By : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews Bark Attorney
A state appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a plan for a nearly uniform fleet of yellow taxis in New York City was legal, reversing a lower-court ruling and resuscitating a program initially enacted under the Bloomberg administration but opposed by Mayor Bill de Blasio. Writing for the majority, Justice David B. Saxe of the State Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, said that the city’s decision to require nearly all fleet operators to buy the same vehicle, a Nissan NV200, was “consistent with the broad interests and perspectives” that the Taxi and Limousine Commission is asked to protect.This “Taxi of Tomorrow” plan, a cornerstone of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s transportation agenda, was blocked in October, when Justice Shlomo S. Hagler of State Supreme Court in Manhattan said that the commission had exceeded its authority with the mandate.
Though the departing administration hailed the cab’s safety performance, spacious interior and distinctive features like transparent roof panels and “lower-annoyance” horns, opponents seized on the choice of the Nissan because it was neither a hybrid nor wheelchair-accessible without modifications. While Mr. de Blasio has been a longtime critic of the vehicle, his new taxi commissioner, Meera Joshi, was the commission’s general counsel as it fought for the cab in court. Ms. Joshi said in a statement that the commission was “still reviewing the ruling and its implications, especially in view of the potential for further appeal.” She added that she was “gratified” by the court’s view of the commission’s regulatory authority. The plaintiffs in the case, a group of yellow cab operators known as the Greater New York Taxi Association, said that the use of the taxi violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, a federal law, because the Nissan NV200 is a van; the act stipulates that for-hire vans must be wheelchair accessible, the group added. “Fleet owners are now in the uncomfortable position of having to violate either local or federal law,” Ethan Gerber, the group’s executive director, said in a statement released Tuesday. About 180 NV200s are already on the road, the taxi commission said, despite the absence of a mandate.
In a statement, Nissan expressed support for the ruling. It is unclear if the company, which secured a 10-year contract with the city worth an estimated $1 billion, would seek to recoup expenses if the de Blasio administration decides not to apply the mandate to its roughly 14,000 yellow cabs. When the plan was blocked in court last October, Nissan said it was “evaluating options for next steps regarding the exclusivity contract,” noting that it had invested more than $50 million in the program.
Source : nytimes.com/2014/06/11/nyregion/appeals-court-rules-bloomberg-plan-for-taxi-of-tomorrow-is-legal.html
Matthews Ryan Bark – “Legal Decision Could Leave KRS with Huge Liability”
Source : State Journal
By : Kevin Wheatley
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews R Bark Attorney
The Kentucky Retirement Systems’ Board of Trustees will have plenty to discuss behind closed doors Wednesday, as recent legal actions could send shockwaves through the underfunded pension program. Most pressing is a judgment in federal court allowing Seven Counties Services to proceed with Chapter 11 bankruptcy and thus abandon the Kentucky Employees Retirement System, the fund covering state workers, public health departments, regional mental health agencies and quasi-governmental groups. The KERS non-hazardous plan is among the worst funded public pension plans in the country, with a funding ratio of 23.2 percent and unfunded liabilities totaling $10.4 billion. If U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Joan Lloyd’s decision stands, Seven Counties would leave behind $90.7 million in liabilities for others to cover and drive up projected employer contributions from 33.49 percent to 36.24 percent in fiscal year 2033, attorneys for KRS claimed in court filings.
Lloyd, in her May 30 order, said the non-profit behavioral health organization’s pension contributions in 2014 would exceed $70 million, about 70 percent of its $100 million in gross revenues. “Seven Counties can perform its charitable mission or pay system contributions that will force it to terminate operations,” she wrote in the 85-page order. “It cannot do both.” KRS Executive Director Bill Thielen said the pension systems’ board would decide Wednesday whether to appeal Lloyd’s ruling. Trustees are scheduled to meet behind closed doors to discuss pending litigation at the 9:30 a.m. meeting. “I won’t know what the board decides until our attorneys present the case to them,” Thielen said. Kentucky leaders have offered their opinions on whether the $15.7 billion KRS should appeal the court’s ruling, which would substantially impact the pension system if it survives an appeal. “The Kentucky Retirement System must decide whether to appeal, as the commonwealth is not a direct party to this suit,” Gov. Steve Beshear said in a statement Friday. “However, I would urge the KRS to appeal. The issues in this case are fundamental to the structure and financial viability of the system.” House Speaker Greg Stumbo said the judge’s order brings many issues to light, such as how Seven Counties’ employees who are vested in the system with at least eight years of credit will be treated if the bankruptcy case proceeds. “I’ve always taken the position, look, if you want to leave, leave, but you take your liabilities with you,” Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, told reporters. “You have to get all your employees to go with you because you can’t just leave a few and take the ones that are costing you out and end up costing the system, because the system has to perpetuate itself.”
Senate President Robert Stivers said his office has been discussing the court decision’s impact with Stumbo’s and Beshear’s staff. He, too, hopes the KRS files an appeal because the ruling raises many pertinent questions that must be answered. “I think it’s something, I don’t want to say gives great concern, but I think it’s something that puts a blip on the radar screen that we have to watch,” said Stivers, R-Manchester. Public officials are not the only ones keeping close watch of the judicial process in this case. Gwen Cooper, spokeswoman for Seven Counties, said the organization is evaluating the court order as it develops a reorganization plan and will follow Lloyd’s direction in the matter. Whether the decision will be appealed by the KRS is “completely out of our hands,” she said. Kentucky Public Retirees, a group of retired public sector workers, is also monitoring the situation. Paul Guffey, KPR’s president, said his organization would discuss the Seven Counties case at its annual conference Thursday and Friday in Louisville. “We’re becoming increasingly concerned about the viability of the KERS pension fund unless the Legislature and the executive branch decide to go ahead and do something that’s going to be a long-term remedy,” Guffey said. “Obviously we need more than just each biennium paying the full (actuarially required contribution).” The KRS was dealt a second blow this week as Fort Wright, a fourth-class city of about 5,700 in Kenton County, filed a class-action lawsuit against the system, alleging it mismanaged contributions in the County Employees Retirement System to invest in alternative assets, such as private equity and hedge funds. The city is seeking a jury trial, an order barring such investments with CERS funds and restitution equaling all management fees paid to alternative asset managers. Ronald Parry, a Cincinnati attorney representing the city, pegged the minimum figure at $50 million based on an audit performed by former state Auditor Crit Luallen.
SOURCE : state-journal.com/latest%20headlines/2014/06/07/legal-decision-could-leave-krs-with-huge-liability
Matthews R Bark Attorney – “Google, Apple Settle High-Tech Workers’ Lawsuit”
Source : USA Today
By : Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews R Bark Attorney
Four U.S. tech giants have agreed to settle a federal class-action lawsuit that accused them of suppressing salaries for thousands of workers by conspiring not to poach each other’s staffers. Attorneys for Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel joined plaintiff lawyers in signing a letter Thursday notifying U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif. about the proposed settlement. Terms of the agreement have not yet been made public, though the estimated 64,000 employee plaintiffs had sought $3 billion in damages. That amount could have risen to $9 billion if the employees had proved the companies violated federal antitrust regulations.
“The parties have executed a memorandum of understanding containing the principal terms of the settlement, and anticipate completing documentation of the proposed settlement and presenting it for the court’s consideration by May 27, 2014,” the attorneys wrote. Kelly Dermody, the co-lead counsel for the plaintiff class, characterized the proposed settlement as “an excellent resolution of the case that will benefit class members.” The case focused on Silicon Valley’s constant struggle to recruit and keep top talent. Filed in 2011, the lawsuit alleged that the companies for years conspired to suppress the pay of technical, creative and research and development employees.
If finalized, the agreement would avert a potentially damaging federal trial that was expected to feature email evidence that showed former Apple CEO Steve Jobs and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt were among tech executives who secretly discussed common recruitment efforts for top employees. Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit similarly agreed to settlements last year in a bid to resolve their involvement in the case. The case followed an investigation and two U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits filed over similar allegations against the companies. Those cases ended with the tech firms agreeing to end alleged anticompetitive practices. But that resolution did not include any financial compensation for employees.
SOURCE : usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/04/24/google-apple-settle-lawsuit/8112671/
Matthews Ryan Bark – “10 Unbelievable Driving Laws Around The World”
Source : NEWS AU
By : Press Release
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews Bark Attorney
DRIVING on the right side of the road or converting the speed limit from miles to kilometres per hour is challenging enough. But in some places, you have a whole host of weird traffic laws to contend with, too. Here are 10 laws that could really drive you mad!
1. Don’t eat while driving in Cyprus
In Cyprus, eating or drinking (even water) while driving is illegal. That’s right, grabbing a quick snack at a drive-through and chowing down while driving with your knees will net you an €85 ($130) fine. And don’t even think about taking a sip of that soft drink!
2. BYOB (bring your own breathalyser) in France
Did that last drink at the bar put you over the limit for driving home? If you’re following the law in France, you should be able to find out easily — drivers are required to carry a breathalyser kit in their vehicle (or motorcycle). Originally, drivers who didn’t have one were required to pay a fine of $17, but enforcement has been delayed indefinitely.
3. Keep your car clean in Russia
You’d better keep your car looking shiny and clean if you’re in Russia, as driving a dirty car can get you fined up to 2000 roubles (about $62).
4. Don’t run out of fuel on Germany’s Autobahn
Make sure you have enough fuel in your tank to accommodate your inner speed demon on the world-famous Autobahn. If you run out of gas and have to pull over, you’re breaking the law. It’s illegal to stop unnecessarily on the Autobahn, and running out of fuel is considered unnecessary, since it could have been avoided.
5. Use your headlights 24 hours a day in Sweden
When in Sweden, don’t honk at passing motorists whose headlights are on in broad daylight — they’re legally required to keep them on 24 hours a day. Yes, even in the month of June when, in certain parts of the country, the sun never sets.
6. Don’t shake your fist at other drivers in Cyprus
As tempting as it is to flip off or shake your fist at an annoying driver, you’d better keep both hands on the wheel in Cyprus. Drivers who unnecessarily raise a hand from the steering wheel can face fines — although we argue that making obscene gestures at bad drivers is sometimes required for our mental health.
7. Carry an extra pair of glasses while driving in Spain
Anyone with a Mr. Magoo-esque prescription for thick spectacles will understand the reasoning behind this law. In Spain, those who require vision-correcting glasses in order to drive must keep a spare set in their car at all times.
8. Don’t ride with a drunk driver in Japan
If you’re sober, why would you ever get in a car that has an intoxicated driver behind the wheel? In Japan, besides risking your life, you’re also risking legal trouble — sober passengers in the car with a drunk driver can be punished under the law.
9. Don’t drive blindfolded in Alabama
We’d love to hear the story around why this law was created. In Alabama, it’s illegal for people to drive while blindfolded. So much for proving you know your route so well you could get there blindfolded!
10. Have a beer while driving in Costa Rica
In Costa Rica, you can drink an alcoholic beverage while driving — as long as you don’t get drunk. Sipping a beer with one hand and navigating the windy and treacherous roads of Costa Rica with the other? Totally legal. Driving with a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.75 per cent? You’re going to jail. We’ll stick to water while we’re behind the wheel, thanks.
SOURCE : news.com.au/travel/travel-advice/unbelievable-driving-laws-around-the-world/story-e6frfqfr-1226846662840
Matthews Bark Attorney – “Facebook Trying To Stop Illegal Online Gun Sales”
Source : ArkLatex HomePage
By : Kimberly Rusley
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews Bark Attorney
Facebook is at it again: making changes for users. The social media giant says the new changes are to stop illegal online gun sales and protect children from accessing firearms. The company announced the changes for Facebook and Instagram on Wednesday. Both social media sites will remove offers to illegally sell guns without background checks or sell them across state lines.
Users that sell guns, like the popular Facebook page “Guns for Sale,” will get messages warning them about selling to minors. Also, when users search for guns on either site, a message about gun laws will pop up. “Well, anything that a company or person does to be more responsible to lower the rate of violence in our society is a good thing,” says Daniel Woodall. “Well, it seems very arbitrary to me that they would select guns of all things to try to limit,” says Kenneth Cochran. “It ought to be some of those other things that seem to be so much more dangerous to our kids. I don’t view that with a very strong feeling about it other than it seems to be politically motivated.”
“Even with them trying to put emphasis on age or anything like that it still shouldn’t be going over the website period of trying to sell a gun period,” says Richard Benton. “Guns for Sale” issued a statement on Thursday saying: “We are a classified community that has been developed to help gun enthusiasts to legally buy and sell firearms. We 100% support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of children and dangerous people (i.e. criminals who aren’t allowed to own them). We applaud Facebook for taking a deeper look into this issue that will help make our country a safer place while still keeping our freedoms intact.”
SOURCE : arklatexhomepage.com/story/d/story/guns-on-facebook/28394/M0w1sQtO-0eqzlZZvyjFag
Matthews Bark Attorney – “Law 101: Service > Business”
Source : Lawyerist
By : Matt Spiegel
Category : Matthews Ryan Bark, Matthews Bark Attorney
Of the many changes in the legal profession in recent years, perhaps the most seismic shift has concerned our relationships with our clients. Clients no longer face limited options when choosing an attorney. Any client seeking legal representation these days can turn to Google, which gives them a staggering number of options. Lawyers are so numerous these days that clients can afford to be selective – and when you consider the number of law students and recent graduates, it’s clear that trend will only intensify in the near future. As a result, the legal profession has experienced a commoditization of sorts. Legal services are now viewed by many clients as the same as other services, and they tend to approach finding representation just as they would looking for a good realtor. If that sounds far-fetched, contrast the expectations between visiting a doctor and visiting a lawyer. When visiting a physician, the patient is at the mercy of the doctor’s schedule and generally accepts the inevitability of delayed appointments. That’s not at all the case with law firms. Today’s clients feel empowered to express more autonomy and expect higher standards of service, and many will change attorneys at the first feeling of dissatisfaction. This naturally has driven an increase in competition between firms, who must now find new ways to differentiate themselves in a very crowded marketplace.
Yet the solution for distinguishing oneself as an attorney does not have to be complicated. It is, in fact, quite simple: a new direction that can help firms rise above the competition while improving the legal profession overall. Stellar customer service. By exemplifying the best of client service, firms can accelerate their market visibility, please their clients, and drive referrals and repeat business. If you think that sounds too simple, remember this: poor client-attorney communication and substandard service are problems that have dogged the profession for decades. Consider the following ways most law practices can improve their service, thereby accelerating their businesses as well.
Courtesy
No doubt every law firm believes they offer courteous service, but many clients would disagree. Consider how many lawyers share this experience: a client calls to find out her next court date but you’re tied up in court and can’t take her call. From there, perhaps you head to a deposition, then another meeting, with the result being that the client doesn’t receive a return call or answer until the following day. Then there’s the matter of answering calls from prospective clients. Many clients make a list of lawyers they found on Google and begin dialing numbers until they speak with a live human — and that person becomes their attorney. Busy lawyers without support staff will innocently lose out on significant business, thanks to simply being busy and possibly understaffed. There are basic standards of good customer service that time and again, harried attorneys fail to meet. You can leave your clients waiting in a reception area while you finish a call or you can greet them on time and offer them a beverage. It’s a small difference, but it tells new clients that they are valued and respected from the start. Think of it from your perspective; what kind of treatment would you like to receive upon walking into a restaurant, car dealership or Apple store? No doubt you’d like to receive exceptional attention that tells you the business genuinely cares about your satisfaction. Offer excellent customer service and your clients will know they are in the hands of world-class experts — security that is especially appealing to people who are confused and anxious over their legal case.
Communication
It used to be that attorney-client communication involved significant work, from multiple phone calls to mailing cumbersome documents. Even communicating something as simple as a new court date meant typing up a letter, printing and signing it, then getting it in the mail and verifying its receipt. In fact, these communication and administrative tasks have traditionally been so time-consuming that attorneys have often been forced to hire paralegals to handle it or reduce their caseloads while managing it themselves. Even when the communication using these antiquated methods was effective, it still posed a burden on law practices. The good news is that today’s attorneys have technology to communicate swiftly and securely. Where many fall short nowadays, though, is in making the effort to communicate enough. Set aside a dedicated hour to make phone calls, instead of returning calls while driving from a meeting to the office, so clients have your full attention. Remember that their case might be their first experience with the legal system, so taking the time to explain basic processes and terms in order for them to understand every step of their case trajectory can go a long way. Clients may not even know enough to ask the right questions, which means that overcommunicating is always a smart idea. The amount of interaction will vary from case to case and by type of law, but the general rule of thumb is to make sure your clients feel informed and supported at all times. This isn’t just part of the rules of professional responsibility, it’s the baseline of a client-friendly practice.
Transparency
This goes hand-in-hand with communication. A client who has put his legal matters in your hands is entrusting you with more than just a piece of business; this may well be a life-altering financial and lifestyle matter for him. To honor that trust, you must provide full transparency as a matter of course. Too many attorneys assume their clients only want to know major developments and omit details that their clients care about. By making all case developments available, the client has the power to choose whatever level of awareness he desires. Ultimately it helps to think of your client as a collaborative partner who can assist you in achieving the best possible outcome in the case. Just as you would like your client to provide as much helpful information as possible for you, your client deserves visibility into all ongoing developments and decisions. Again, think of this partnership in terms of visiting your physician. Just as you’ll provide your doctor with detailed descriptions of your symptoms, you’ll probably be anxious to hear a test result or diagnosis as soon as possible. Provide that same transparency to your client.
Engagement
Before software systems made case statuses available in the cloud, many clients wanted to hear from their lawyers every day, whether or not there was vital information to communicate. Simply hearing their attorney’s voice reassured them that they hadn’t been forgotten and were receiving dedicated legal service. Today’s software platforms make a new version of that possible; clients can log in to view their case developments around the clock. But while that’s undeniably a positive thing, clients still want personal attention. Letting them know of their next court date is good, but reaching out to truly connect with them is exceptional. Be attentive and available, and you’ll build a client-attorney relationship that extends beyond this immediate case to their future legal needs. Again, remember that what may be viewed as business as usual to you can be a highly emotional and major life event for a client. By truly engaging with each person, you’ll earn trust as well as glowing referrals.
Setting Expectations
Even promising attorney-client relationships can go awry because of mismatched expectations. Let’s face it: we live in a world where Hollywood courtroom dramas and crime shows have created skewed ideas about everything from trial outcomes to DNA testing to settlements. A client inexperienced in the legal system will need you to set realistic expectations. That means not creating a sense of false hope when defending someone in court and explaining legal policies that may surprise a client.
Your relationships will also benefit by taking into account the differences between clients. When representing an organization that regularly uses lawyers, you’ll often find it has defined strategy policies on working with outside counsel. Everyday clients, on the other hand, will often require more education and hand-holding if they’ve never hired a lawyer. Remember that these clients often lack foresight into the processes and strategic decisions that can arise in a case; preparing them in advance can give them time to brace for all outcomes.
Conflict Resolution
Clients today are much more likely to insist on having a say in their case decisions and direction. While this is understandable, good communication will go far in avoiding most disputes. Establish case objectives up front and thoroughly analyze the case before agreeing to pursue it. If you disagree on taking a case to trial, make the cost benefit of an early case resolution clear to your client, compared to the expense of a long trial and appeal. Always explain your reasoning when formulating a strategy and be sure the client understands the rationale for your decisions. Ultimately you will benefit from drawing clear lines on authority. By identifying who is responsible for what, you’ll be able to avoid a significant number of attorney-client disputes. Generally speaking, attorneys have implied authority over legal and tactical matters, while the client has the right to make strategic decisions on factors such as expenses or calling witnesses. Rule 1.2 provides firm guidelines on who has the right to decide to settle cases, enter pleas, call witnesses, testify, and waive jury trials; communicate authority to your client and the beginning and there will be fewer surprises and disagreements.
The Latest Technology
One of the most advantageous recent developments in the legal field is availability of practice management software. With the right platform, attorneys can offer their clients a full-service digital resource that lets them pay bills, view their accounts, answer questions on court dates and case developments, and review documentation — all at their convenience. Secure emails can be sent, tracked and received from mobile devices and stored for future consultation; clients can also receive notifications to stay on top of important alerts and appointments. This is especially appealing in our fast-paced world. Clients with unpredictable schedules will appreciate the round-the-clock availability of their case information; in our digital age, most people expect the convenience of online payments and accounting. Offering a tech-friendly practice suggests to clients that you have your finger on the pulse of our times and are likely to be on top of intelligent legal strategies as well. While winning cases will indeed help build a positive reputation, providing stellar customer service is just as important in building a successful practice. Combine the best of legal representation with excellent personal service and you’ll make a name in your market as one of the most popular — and well-respected — attorneys in town.
Source : lawyerist.com/law-101-service-business/
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
Matthews Bark Attorney, Criminal Defense, Family Law Attorney 