Navigation Menu+

Home

Why Use Social Networks In Law Firms

Posted by on 8:48 pm in Law Firm Public Relations | Comments Off on Why Use Social Networks In Law Firms

Many law firms avoid using social networks, but in this way they are not contributing to their business.  What’s more, they are damaging their business unknowingly.  Even though senior partners and all law firm executives might oppose using social networks as a public relations medium, it is often for the best that social networking is used as a legal public relations medium.  There are numerous reasons why this is so, and here we will only enlist but a few which are the most important.

  1. Different Customer Base

lawbooksIf your law firm would like to expand your customer base, and perhaps even reach of different market.  If you would like to as each different people, as opposed to your current customers, you must take into consideration various ways of using public relations in order to attract different customers.  Using social networking is a powerful medium when it comes to dealing with public relations of a law firm.  It will allow you to reach a larger number of people, but it will also allow you to reach different kinds of people.  Furthermore, you will be able to come in contact with all sorts of clients and gather a day in court and data concerning their opinions.

  1. Inexpensive

law-firm-12086-largeUsing social networks as a way to promote your law firm is not only convenient, but it does also literally inexpensive.  Of course, there are some minor costs but in in no way they will these costs burden your business.  So far, social networking is one of the cheapest ways end the most productive ways to work on public relations especially when it comes to conducting the public relations of a law firm.  All the money you have been spending on various ads and commercials, can now be put into good use, and until a different use altogether, because you want have to advertise on various media when you can use social networking to your advantage.

  1. Mobile and User-Friendly

Furthermore, using social network is really easy and each will allow you to handle the public relations all by yourself.  Of course, you cannot also establish a team that will only manage public relations and social networks, but if you choose to do it yourself it’s also easily done and it is almost inexpensive.  Moreover, you will be able to be in constant contact with your clients, and they will be able to reach your law firm whenever and they are in need of your legal advice or services.

  1. Immediate Communication and Feedback

gavelIn this way you will be able to not only work on your public relations but also get something which is much more important and that is the feedback from your clients.  You will have the immediate feedback and you will be in immediate contact with the majority of your clients which is absolutely precious to someone who would like for their business to grow.

Dismissal of Whistleblower Lawsuit Won by JPMorgan

Posted by on 8:08 pm in Law Firm Public Relations | Comments Off on Dismissal of Whistleblower Lawsuit Won by JPMorgan

On Friday October 15, 2015, JPMorgan Chase won the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower, the former vice president of the financial institution, Jennifer Sharkey. In the suit Sharkey alleged that obvious red flags were ignored by the bank that indicated potential fraud being perpetrated by a client of the bank. It was alleged that the bank ignored Sharkey’s warnings even after the public had already been apprised of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

JPMorgan Moves to Have the Case Dismissed

100613792-148294807.530x298JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet. This was based on the finding that Sharkey was not able to demonstrate retaliation by the bank in its decision to dismiss her after she publically spoke out. The reason the case was thrown out of court is because the bank was able to substantiate that she was fired because of issues related to performance when she was dismissed in August 2009.

Sharkey’s Attorney States Intention to File an Appeal

According to Lawrence Pearson, Sharkey’s attorney, they would be filing an appeal. JPMorgan, although they had denied Sharkey’s allegations in the past would not offer a comment after the decision was handed down. This decision is not the first time Judge Sweet dismissed the lawsuit but actually the second time he has thrown it out. Sweet had previously ruled that Sharkey did not meet the standards set forth in the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act that defined how whistleblowers would be protected. Sweet’s previous ruling came in December 2013.

Standards Defining Whistleblower Lowered in 2014

As the result of another totally unrelated 2014 case, a lower bar was established by the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals which lowered the requirements needed to be protected as a whistleblower under this Act. The court then proceeded to reverse the decision by Sweet and ordered him to consider again whether or not Sharkey should be allowed to present her case under the new standards that are much more lenient. Even with these less restrictive measures, Sweet said the case should again be dismissed.

Concerns of Money Laundering First Voiced in January 2009

finlayIn January 2009 Sharkey began voicing concerns that an Israeli client was engaged in the laundering of money which involved Columbia. This was just short weeks after the multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme of Madoff’s was exposed. The court papers did not identify the Israeli client. At the time, Madoff had been a client of the bank for two decades and had sent approximately $150 billion in transfers and deposits through the bank from his investors.

Amidst allegations that JPMorgan had failed to alert the proper authorities of their suspicions that Madoff’s firm was involved in fraudulent activities, JPMorgan did agree to pay the United States government and victims of Madoff a settlement amounting to $2.6 billion. The case in question is listed as Sharkey v JPMorgan Chase & Co et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 10-3824.

$5 Million Lawsuit over Pine Cone Injury

Posted by on 9:30 am in Law Firm Public Relations | Comments Off on $5 Million Lawsuit over Pine Cone Injury

Sean Mace, Navy veteran, was sleeping under a pine tree in the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park when a 16 pound pine cone fell on his head, causing what he and his lawyer claim is ‘irreversible damage’ to his brain.

Pine Cone in Question Dropped from Australian Araucaria Bidwillii

The tree in question is a member of the Araucaria bidwillii which is native to Australia, particularly in the southeast of Queensland. Commonly referred to as the bunya pine, these trees can grow to heights between 115’ and 131’. Falling asleep while reading, Mace contends that the cone dropped on his head and that the U.S. Park Service is at fault because there were no signs posted warning of giant falling cones.

Lawsuit Leveled Against the National Park Service

NationalParkService-Logo_svgThe cone that allegedly landed on Mace’s head was larger than a pineapple and due to the brain damage that Mace says he suffered, he is suing the United States Department of Interior as well as the historic San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park for damages that he states add up to $5 million USD. The park is managed by the National Park Service, a division of the Department of Interior and it is the National Park Service within the Department of Interior that is actually named in the suit.

Mace’s Attorney Claims the Experience Was Devastating

ToddSteadmanAccording to Mace’s attorney, Scott Johnson, the pine cone that landed on Mace’s head was akin to a 16 pound bowling ball. He states that the experience was ‘devastating’ for the Navy vet who was visiting the park during the Navy’s Fleet Week.

The date in question was October 12, 2014 during this celebration of seagoing services within the United States military. As a veteran, Mace claims to have been in town for the celebration. Mace’s lawyer states that his client was “immediately rendered unconscious” and that there was literally blood everywhere.

Mace Taken to San Francisco General Hospital

173940At the hospital surgeons worked to relieve swelling by removing parts of the skull, according to Mace’s lawsuit. As a result of the injury Mace suffered from memory loss that was short-term but will probably need care that is ongoing for the long-term. This according to his attorney.

The lawsuit also notes that warning signs were posted by the park after the incident and that netting was placed around bunya trees. The Park Service refuses to comment on the lawsuit, according to spokesperson Craig Dalby. The agency will not make comments on litigation that is ongoing.

This is not the first time that bunya cones came under scrutiny of officials. In 2002 officials from a town to the southeast of Melbourne, Warragul, became aware of the potential danger to residents of the town. The town’s mayor then proceeded to warn residents as to the dangers of falling pods. Mayor Diane Blackwood stated that these pods could be potentially lethal to anyone passing under the trees if a cone should fall from such great heights.