The Importance of LinkedIn

picWhy every attorney should still be using LinkedIn

In 2016, Microsoft acquired LinkedIn for $27 billion.  The company has struggled to find its relevance as a professional social network amongst traditional social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.  Founded in 2003, the company was initially known for their resume and job searching abilities.  Now the site has amassed over 500 million users.  Since its inception, LinkedIn has been a valuable asset for companies, professionals and job searchers.  With its Microsoft partnership, its value is unparalleled.

 

Microsoft Integration

Since the acquisition, Microsoft has been working to integrate many of LinkedIn’s features with its own programs including email and calendar.  The new LinkedIn is working to incorporate artificial intelligence into its database.  Artificial intelligence will help LinkedIn users further target potential clients and sales opportunities.  It can help provide valuable connections for attorneys, law firms, and legal staff.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft quietly integrated data from LinkedIn with Office apps.  Users can find information about other meeting attendees and group members directly from calendar invites.  The integration will help to move LinkedIn to the next generation of professional networking.  One of the most significant problems affecting the company has been the lack of user participation.  People are no longer regularly updating their information or checking the platform on a daily basis as they may be more inclined to do with other social media sites.  To combat this problem, LinkedIn and Microsoft have focused on some different functions including the integration of LinkedIn with Microsoft resume builders, focus on being a content-first platform where users can publish articles quickly and efficiently and most recently the ability to post videos to their feeds.

 

2018 and Beyond

The company is not stopping there.  LinkedIn has also launched monthly notifications regarding relevant trending skills, LinkedIn Learning Courses, Workforce Reports, career advice features, Lead Gen Forms for Sponsored Content which includes Sponsored InMail and Dynamic Ads, interest panels and many other features to make the site more user-friendly and more enticing for everyday visits.

Attorneys who are not using LinkedIn are doing themselves a disservice.  LinkedIn is an ideal professional branding platform.  You can professionally showcase your experience and expertise.  You can link to your profile from any of your websites or blogs.  You can immediately publish articles and most importantly use it as a referral source.  Connections on LinkedIn can be crucial to your firm.

 

Learn more about the revamped LinkedIn and the importance of professional branding across all social media platforms from Amicus Media Group. We work with attorneys and law firms to develop comprehensive media campaigns including digital and TV ads.  We want to help you grow your firm and acquire the cases you deserve.  Contact our offices today for more information.

 

 

This article does not contain legal or financial advice.  Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

/by

Massachusetts: Big Pharma can be held liable for Generic Labeling

picInnovator Liability

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Pharmaceutical Companies such as Merck could be held liable for injuries resulting from generic labels even when another company manufactures the generic version of the drug.  Known as innovator liability, this precedent could hold big pharmaceutical companies accountable for intentional, reckless conduct where they control the content of a generic drug label and fail to update labeling.

 

Federal Law Generic Labeling Requirements

Plaintiffs must show that the brand-name drug maker was reckless, not merely negligent in their conduct.  According to the United States Supreme Court in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, federal law requires generic drug companies to use the same label as the brand-name version precluding generic drug companies from lawsuits for failing to provide adequate label warnings.  This would leave a plaintiff unable to receive compensation for injuries sustained by a generic drug.

 

Holding Big Pharm Accountable

In this case Brian Rafferty vs. Merck & Co., Inc. Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Gants writing for the court said “Where a brand-name drug manufacturer provides an inadequate warning for its own product, it knows or should know that it puts at risk not only the users of its own product, but also the users of the generic product.”

Rafferty had initially sued Merck for negligence for failure to warn after taking finasteride for an enlarged prostate.  Finasteride is the generic version of Proscar, manufactured by Merck.  Not long after taking the drug, Rafferty experienced side effects including erectile dysfunction and decreased libido.  Despite stopping the medication, Rafferty continued suffering the side effects.  While finasteride’s label warned of potential side effects including sexual dysfunction, it failed to warn that the side effects would continue after stopping the use of the drug.  Finasteride’s label was identical to the label for Proscar as required by federal law.  Rafferty alleges that despite knowing about the continued side effects and even changing the label in other countries, Merck did not update the label in the United States.   Rafferty alleges that Merck had a duty to warn him of any adverse reactions since they control the label as the brand-name manufacturer.

While the court dismissed the negligence claim, they did recognize the need to protect consumers stating, “to shield brand-name manufacturers entirely from liability for the failure to warn generic drug consumers, (we) would leave those consumers with no chance of obtaining compensation for their injuries because generic manufacturers are already immune from State law claims.”  The court found that there is a duty not to intentionally or recklessly cause harm to others.

 

Other Courts Agree

The California Supreme Court issued a similar ruling regarding innovator liability stating that generic drug users could sue brand-name manufacturers.  In T.H., et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation the California Supreme Court held that “brand-name manufacturers have a duty to use ordinary care in warning about the safety risks of their drugs, regardless of whether the injured party (in reliance on the brand-name manufacturer’s warning) was dispensed the brand-name or a generic version of the drug.”

 

 

Find out more from Amicus Media Group and Amicus Capital Group.  We are dedicated to bringing you up-to-date information about ongoing mass tort and products liability litigation.  Our dedicated team can help you obtain litigation funding and develop a comprehensive marketing campaign.  Contact us today for more information.

 

 

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

/by

DOJ Joins Plaintiffs in Opioid Lawsuit

Late last month Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would be joining the efforts to combat the deadly opioid crisis gripping America.  The Justice Department, under the guidance of Sessions, has designated a task force to track opioid producers who have been flooding the markets.  The Department of Justice Prescription Interdiction and Litigation (PIL) Task Force would use civil and criminal penalties to go after opioid manufacturers that violate the law.  Sessions appointed federal prosecutor Mary Daly to oversee opioid enforcement.

pic

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Opioid Litigation

Sessions also stated that the Justice Department would be filing a “statement of interest” in an Ohio lawsuit currently filed against opioid makers.  According to a recent article in the New York Times, the lawsuit goes after manufacturers and distributors of opioids who have used “false, deceptive and unfair marketing of opioid drugs.”  The statement of interest does not make the Justice Department a party to the lawsuit, but it could hold some persuasive power.

The Justice Department has joined a lawsuit out of the Federal District Court in Cleveland.  Sessions has joined attorneys general from seven states to combat the national epidemic which is believed to have cost more than $4 billion from the federal Medicare program.  Over 400 complaints were consolidated out of the Ohio courthouse.  US District Court Judge Dan Polster is overseeing the MDL.  Many believe it could result in a substantial settlement not seen since the tobacco company payouts in 1998.  The settlement included a $206 billion payout over the first 25 years of the agreement by the four largest tobacco companies: Phillip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard.[1]

 

History of the Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is nothing new in America, what is new is the number of people who have access to the drugs such as oxycodone and fentanyl.  More alarming is the ease at which doctors were prescribing the potentially life-threatening drugs.  Plaintiffs argue that manufacturers misled consumers and doctors about the risk of abuse, addiction, the risk of overdose and death.  It is believed that opioid overdoses were responsible for the deaths of 64,000 people.  Aggressive marketing by Purdue Pharma and other drug manufacturers leads to a massive jump in the number of doctors prescribing opioid painkillers and a huge increase in the number of people who die from an opioid overdose.  According to the Attorney General, 180 Americans die every day from drug overdoses.[2]

 

Interested in representing those affected by the opioid epidemic?  Amicus Media Group can help you acquire more cases with less risk.  Contact our qualified case management specialists today to learn more about getting quality cases with a company founded on trust, transparency and with a proven track record.  We bring cost-effective solutions to your marketing needs focusing on mass tort, personal injury and class action litigation.  Contact us today to learn more about how to deliver your message to prospective clients across the country.

 

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

 

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080625084126/http://www.naag.org/backpages/naag/tobacco/msa/msa-pdf/1109185724_1032468605_cigmsa.pdf

[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-announces-new-prescription-interdiction-litigation-task-force

 

 

/by

Online Reviews: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

picThe real cost of getting client reviews

Online reviews are an essential component of any digital marketing campaign.  Positive client reviews create what is known as social proof.  Social proof or informational social influence “is a psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others reflect correct behavior for a given situation.”  The idea is that if something has been accepted or liked by others, then more people will be motivated to use that product, try that business or use that service.  In addition to reviews, social proof can be offered by trusted industry leaders recommending a service or product, testimonials or even social media followers.  A large percentage of people go to yelp before trying a new restaurant.  Consumers regularly rely on google reviews before purchasing a product.  It can be tempting to solicit positive reviews by whatever means necessary.  The problem is that it could get you in big trouble.

 

Client Reviews: The Good

As we mentioned, client reviews offer social proof that your business is well-liked and that you are good at what you do.  As attorneys, word-of-mouth has been an essential component to getting new clients.  You do good work for your client; they tell others, you get new clients.  Enter the digital world and an ultra-competitive market.  Word-of-mouth referrals are no longer enough to keep most firms afloat.  You must have a robust online presence and a comprehensive digital marketing campaign to compete.  Even if you are getting old school word-of-mouth referrals, those prospective clients are still going online.  The original personal recommendation may have gotten them to your website, but the social proof will be what makes them give you a call.

 

Online Reviews: The Bad

When asking clients to leave reviews, or even when you don’t ask, you run the risk of receiving a negative review.  It could be a legitimate client who feels that you performed less-than-adequate work for them.  It could be a competitor (which brings a whole other set of ethical concerns).  It could even be a disgruntled ex-employee or girlfriend or anybody with a keyboard.  The internet offers anonymity and while review sites such as Yelp, AVVO and Google are working hard to stop fake reviews, they still exist.  If you do receive a negative review, you need to take steps to address it.  Responding immediately out of frustration or anger is never a good idea, but you do want to take time to issue a rational response.  If you feel that an actual client did not leave the review, you can petition the site to have it removed.

 

And Now… The Ugly

Attorneys have to be very careful when dealing with online reviews.  There are definite ethical considerations in soliciting client reviews that can not only get your highly sought after positive reviews removed from a review website but can also get you in hot water with the state bar association.  Most Rules on Professional Conduct prohibit offering any money in exchange for reviews or endorsements unless it is marked as a “paid” endorsement.  Some ban it altogether.  Review sites have started to take action as well.  Google recently removed nearly 100 positive reviews solicited from an attorney who offered free zoo tickets as an incentive.

 

That being said – we in no way want to discourage you from getting online reviews.  They are an essential part of your online footprint.  They can serve a crucial role in getting new clients and are a great way to establish your firm as an industry leader.  We only caution against an all-or-nothing strategy.  Do good work, have a reliable system for closing out case files and asking for reviews.  The rest is easy.  Well, not easy, but worth the effort.

 

 

Learn more about the importance of social proof from Amicus Media Group.  We are a full-service legal marketing firm.  Our network of media relationships is unparalleled.  We will work directly with you to develop a customized ad campaign to get you more cases at less risk.  Contact us today for a free consultation.

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

 

 

/by

Pennsylvania Superior Court Remands Risperdal Verdict to Lower Court to consider New Trial on Punitive Damages

pic2The third Risperdal case to go to trial has been remanded to the trial court to consider whether there should be a new trial.  At question is whether to apply punitive damages to the verdict.  The case, Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals originally rendered a $1.75 million verdict.  The amount was later reduced to $680,000 by the trial court after Janssen moved for a modification of the verdict.  The modification of the damages was granted when the trial court applied Maryland’s cap on noneconomic damages.

 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the trial court’s reduction of the verdict but sent the case back to the trial court to consider punitive damages.  In a previous case, the court had decided that Risperdal plaintiffs should be able to seek and recover punitive damages.  The trial court must now decide whether to apply the substantive law or New Jersey or Maryland.  New Jersey law strictly prohibits recovery of punitive damages in products liability cases.  Maryland law, however, allows for a plaintiff to recover punitive damages or those damages designed to punish the defendant’s conduct.

 

History of Risperdal Cases

In 1994, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Risperdal to treat schizophrenia in adults.  In June 2006, a study linked use of the drug with an increased likelihood of male breast growth, a condition known as gynecomastia.  Despite this study, the FDA approved the drug for treatment of schizophrenia in boys between the ages of 13 and 17 years old.  The drug was also approved to treat bipolar disorder in children between the ages of 10 and 17.  By September of 2012, over 400 lawsuits are filed against manufacturers of Risperdal.  At least 130 of these cases involve plaintiffs who have suffered from gynecomastia.  Today there are over 5500 Risperdal lawsuits pending in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

 

In the matter of Pledger v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals the jury awarded the plaintiff $2.5 million after testimony that 21-year-old Austin Pledger had developed 46DD breasts as a result of taking Risperdal at the age of 12.  The jury found that Janssen Pharmaceuticals was negligent and failed to provide adequate warnings to Pledger’s physician about the risk of gynecomastia.

 

In the matter of Yount v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the jury awarded a $76.6 million judgment. The jury found that Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Janssen did “intentionally falsify, destroy or conceal records containing material evidence in the case.” Other plaintiffs have received jury awards from $500,000 to $1 million. Johnson and Johnson have agreed to confidential settlements in some other cases.

 

Risperdal litigation is still ongoing.  Thousands of people have been affected by this drug and others.  Amicus Media Group is dedicated to bringing you the latest information on Risperdal lawsuits, mass torts, class action lawsuits and products liability litigation.  We provide comprehensive legal marketing services for attorneys practicing in these fields.  Contact us today for more information.

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

/by

Devastating Wildfires Spur Legislative Action

pic1
Why insurance can be your adversary after a natural disaster

The news was plagued with images of Hell on Earth as fires ripped through Northern and Southern California.  The fires were relentless, leaving smoking chimneys as the only remnants of multi-million dollar homes.  The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection reportsThe devastation is utterly unfathomable.  Many wildfire victims had only minutes to evacuate their homes losing everything but the clothes on their back and few mementos they could grab before leaving.  As the dust begins to settle for those greatest affected by this destruction, the reality hits that those who are supposed to make you whole again may not have your best interest in mind.

 

California Lawmakers take Action

Eight bills have been submitted to California legislators regarding insurance companies’ relationship with victims.  Legislators were flooded with phone calls from citizens who were being inundated with misinformation and the inability to recover money to rebuild their homes.  Insurance adjusters told many that they did not have enough insurance to cover rebuilding.  Some were given false information about their rights after a total loss of their residence.  Complaints about out-of-state adjusters not knowing California law filled the phone lines.  Many of the bills focus on requiring insurance companies to cover full replacement costs and would make it difficult for insurers to cancel policies or reduce coverage in areas at highest risk for wildfires.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times follows several wildfire victims who have lost everything and are now in battles with their insurance companies to get recovery.  The insurance companies have become their adversary, giving out false information about their coverage including their rights to recovery.  According to a lawsuit filed by the victims, adjusters flooded in from out-of-state, “most failed to register, worked unsupervised and did not know California law.”

 

Adjusters put on Notice

Complaints from survivors prompted California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones to issue a formal notice.  In the statement, Jones stated “all claims adjusters assigned to wildfire claims, including those not licensed in California, are properly trained on the California Unfair Practices Act, Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations and all laws relating to property and casualty insurance claims handling.

The Commissioner pointed out that many survivors of the wildfires were told blatantly false statements, including:

  • Incorrect time frames – survivors were told that they had only 6 -12 months to collect full replacement cost to rebuild when California law requires that they are given at least 24 months in a state of emergency.
  • Incorrect rebuilding location recovery – policyholders were told that they would be unable to receive full replacement benefits if they did not rebuild in the same location. California law allows for a survivor to rebuild in a new location or choose a home that is already built.
  • Incorrect living expense coverage – claimants were informed that their living expense would only be allocated for 12 months when California law allows up to 24 months after a state of emergency.

 

How Attorneys Can Help

Given the frustrating state of affairs and the slow legislative process, the best advice for anyone affected by a natural disaster is to contact an attorney.  The interests of a policyholder and their insurance company are naturally at odds.  The conflict comes down to financial interests.  The more that the insurance company has to pay out, the less they make in profits.  An attorney can help you understand your rights.  They can help you negotiate your claim and fight for what you deserve.  Unfortunately, your adjuster may not be giving you accurate information.  The California Department of Insurance found that many adjusters did not know California law after a state of emergency is declared by an official.  Many were poorly trained and gave false information about policyholder benefits.  An attorney will fight to make you whole again and will not rest until you get the recovery that you deserve.

 

If you or a loved one has been affected by the recent wildfires contact Amicus Media Group immediately.  We work with attorneys from across California that can help you understand your rights and get you the recovery you deserve.

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

 

 

/by

Opioid Crisis causes Purdue to stop marketing OxyContin to Prescribers

picThe US Department of Health and Human Services reports that more than 115 Americans die every day from opioid overdose.[1]  These opioids include OxyContin made by Purdue Pharmaceuticals.  In response to the growing crisis that is affecting nearly every sector of the population, Purdue announced that it will no longer be marketing to doctors.  The company has reduced its sales team and is restructuring their focus from direct, in-person marketing to physicians to helping to combat the crisis.

 

How Prescription Pain Pills became a leading cause of death in America

Opioid overdose is nothing new.  Opioids include prescription painkillers such as OxyContin and Hydrocodone, but also include opiates such as morphine and heroin.  Overdose from opiates has happened throughout time, but the huge increase over the last two decades can be directly related to the increase in sales of prescription pain killers.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that 40% of all opioid overdoses were due to prescription opioids.  The overall number of deaths from opioid overdoses increased five times since 1999.[2] Doctors were told that the prescription pain killers being given to patients were not addictive.  Aggressive, direct-marketing to doctors by pharma giants Purdue and others, led to a large increase in prescriptions and, in turn, a large increase in the number of patients who became addicted to these substances.

Documents from cases settled regarding the misleading information distributed by sales representatives for the pain killers indicates that employees were told to minimize the addictive quality of the drugs.  Major sales tactics began almost immediately after the US Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in 1996.  Sales of the drugs quickly drew into the billions for pharmaceutical giants manufacturing the drugs.

 

Future Problems for Prescription Pain Killers

The opioid epidemic has affected millions of people all across the United States.  It has captured national headlines and gotten the attention of local representatives as well as politicians across the nation.  Pressure is mounting against pain killer manufacturers that misled doctors and consumers about the addictive quality of the drugs and presented information that was not backed by scientific data.  Purdue has already paid out millions.  In 2007, the company entered a guilty plea for “misbranding” the drug.  The company took an uncompromising approach to selling OxyContin directly to physicians claiming that the time-release feature of the drug would prevent misuse of the drug and reduced the potential for addiction.  [3]

Government agencies, consumers and others have begun filing lawsuits against opioid manufacturers.  A federal judge overseeing more than 200 lawsuits regarding the epidemic urged the focus to be to “dramatically reduce the number of opioids that are being disseminated, manufactured and distributed.” [4]  Purdue in a complete reversal has agreed to join these efforts by stopping the promotion of OxyContin to doctors and find ways to fight misuse and overdosing.

Are you an attorney interested in representing individuals afflicted by the opioid crisis?  Now is the time to get involved.  Opioid litigation is heating up and too many individuals have suffered at the hand of drug manufacturers and distributors.  Amicus Media Group can help you acquire cases with comprehensive media campaigns.  We work with digital marketing campaigns, TV and radio ads to help you get the cases you deserve.  Contact us for more information today.

 

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

 

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/images/data/OpioidDeathsByTypeUS.PNG

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/index.html

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html

[4] https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2018/01/26/opioid-epidemic-litigation-dan-polster/1014046001/

/by

Johnson & Johnson stock falls as Talc cases proceed in court

Johnson & Johnson’s stock fell five percent on a recent Monday alone.  The market decline comes after a report was released that could expose documents detrimental to the company.  Johnson & Johnson is facing thousands of lawsuits regarding its baby powder.  Many claim that the Talc powder manufactured by J&J contains asbestos causing ovarian cancer and mesothelioma in some patients.

 

Johnson & Johnson has repeatedly denied that the product contains these products.  This comes after several verdicts against the pharmaceutical giant.  Baby powder is considered a cosmetic and therefore does not require the same US Food and Drug Administration testing as prescription and over-the-counter drugs.  Currently there are over 5,500 lawsuits pending against the drug company regarding their baby powder.  The company continues to defend its product saying that the Talcum powder contained in the product is safe.

 

The lawsuits hinge on the argument that Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of repeatedly applying the talc-based product to their body, particularly the increased risk of ovarian cancer when talc is applied to the genital area.  Record verdicts have been returned in some of the first talcum powder cases to go to trial.  In one California case, a plaintiff was awarded $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.  A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge has since reversed the jury’s verdict.  A new trial is pending in the matter at Johnson & Johnson’s request.

 

The debate over the safety of talcum powder has existed since the 1970s.  To date, the matter has not been definitively settled.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified talc-powder, when repeatedly applied to the genital area, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  Some talc-based products manufactured by other companies contain a warning about the possible link to an increased risk of ovarian cancer.  Johnson & Johnson, however, maintains that its product is safe and free from harm even with repeated use.

 

If you or a loved one has developed mesothelioma or ovarian cancer after repeated use of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder, you need to speak to an attorney immediately.  Call our offices today to speak to a knowledgeable case manager.  We work with the top firms across the nation who handle talcum powder litigation.  Amicus Media Group provides comprehensive marketing campaigns for attorneys and law firms.  We are dedicated to providing case acquisition with less risk.  Contact our offices today to learn more about talcum powder litigation and the pending lawsuits against drug manufacturers such as Johnson & Johnson.

/by

Tips for Young Lawyers: How to Find your Way in a Crowded Arena

picYoung lawyers can face some uphill battles out of law school.  The dream of defending the innocent, prosecuting the guilty or triumphing for the little guy is quickly overshadowed by the crowded practice of law.  Recent articles such as Huffpost’s “Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Lawyers” and CBS News “5  Reasons Not to Get a Law Degree” don’t help the cause.  They point out the high cost of law school, low number of jobs and high level of unemployment.   According to the State Bar of California there are currently 191,334 actively practicing law in the state.  That is a lot of competition for one area.  So, now that you have graduated law school and passed arguably one of the hardest bar exams in the nation, what do you do when faced with these seemingly insurmountable obstacles?

 

Easy, you buckle down.  Dig in your heels and fight to be the best damn lawyer you can.  You take everything that you learned inside and outside of law school and apply it to becoming an irreplaceable member at your firm.  You learn to network and, deep breath, sell yourself.  You listen and learn from others who have been there and done that.  It may seem like a daunting task, but these tips will help you get there.

 

  1. Get an Elevator Speech.

 

An elevator speech is a short sales pitch.  In your case, the thing you are selling is you.  Generally, your pitch should be around 30 seconds to two minutes.  You need to be able to market yourself to other attorneys, potential clients and other networking potentials in a short amount of time.  In a crowded field you need to stand out, but not sound disingenuous.  Promoting yourself does not have to sound like a used car salesman.  Use this technique in every aspect of your life.  The ability to sell will help you persuade judges, juries, potential clients and other attorneys to agree with you.

 

  1. Love what you do.

 

Enthusiasm goes a long way.  It may not be easy right out of law school to practice something you are passionate about.  You are likely leaving with a large amount of debt and you have bills to pay.  But the quicker you know what you love and start practicing something you are passionate about or working for clients that you truly care about the easier it will be to set yourself apart and to sell yourself.  Great sales people know the importance of passion, find your passion.

 

  1. Get Invested.

 

Get invested in what you do, the people you work with and the people you work for.  Get emotionally involved in every aspect of your work.  It will show, and it will pay off.  Find a mentor to learn from.  Choose someone who truly cares and who is willing to invest in you.  You want honest feedback and you need someone to help you overcome challenges and celebrate victories.  Find someone who you aspire to be like, but who is also something like you. Find someone who has some of the same characteristics and traits that you have and that will champion you whenever you aren’t around.

 

  1. Never stop learning.

 

The State Bar requires you to be constantly learning and growing as an attorney, but you need to do more than just the obligatory Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). You should never stop honing your skills.  You should become an expert in your field.  Once you have mastered a topic, try to get on a speaking circuit.  Speak at local bar associations and conferences.  Seek out people who do what you do better and learn from them.  After you have been practicing for a few years go back to the basics and write a few motions.  Work on your argument techniques.  Attend training classes and webinars.  Watch other attorneys.  Become the best attorney that you possibly can and people will take notice.  People always take notice of the athlete that is first on the field and last to leave.

 

  1. Consider your reputation.

 

No matter who you are, no matter where you work, you should always be networking.  Burning bridges will never get you ahead in the field of law.  While there are a lot of lawyers, the community is pretty close knit.  You will run into your classmates from law school.  You may be opposing counsel, you may attend the same conferences, you may even be competing for the same job.  You never want to leave a bad taste in someone’s mouth because word gets around quickly.  A bad reputation can ruin even a good attorney.  Look at every opportunity as a networking possibility.  Be the person that people think of when they want to refer a case or recommend a potential client.  Be the person at the firm that is respected, not trashed behind closed doors.

 

Amicus Media Group provides TV, Radio and Digital Campaigns for national and regional case acquisition.  Grow your firm and get the cases from a company founded on Trust, Transparency and Track Record.

 

This blog post does not contain legal or financial advice. Author and publisher disclaim any and all warranties, liabilities, losses, costs, claims, demands, suits, or actions of any type or nature whatsoever, arising from or any way related to this blog, the use of this blog, and/or any claim that a particular technique or device described in this blog.

/by
,

Amicus Group to Attend AAJ Winter Convention in Maui

Amicus Media Group and Amicus Capital Group will proudly be attending the upcoming AAJ 2018 Winter Convention in Maui February 3 – 6.  The American Association for Justice convention will be held in the picturesque Grand Wailea Resort.  Set in paradise the 4-day event will cover a wide range of topics including trucking litigation, admiralty law, asbestos litigation, family law, nursing home litigation, E-Discovery and numerous other topics.  The conference is designed by plaintiff’s lawyers and put on for plaintiff’s lawyers.  Speakers from across the nation put on cutting-edge topics with the newest litigation strategies.  Each day is broken down into specialized and advocacy tracks that help attorneys focus on a particular area of the law or litigation strategy.  Some highlights of the conference include a specialized track on “Responding to the Opioid Crisis,” “Building Credibility in a “Fake News” Environment” and “Traumatic Brain Injury Trilogy: Techniques.”

 

We look forward to meeting with our many clients and friends and continuing to transform the practice of law.

 

If you would like to meet with us, please click here to schedule: https://calendly.com/bill-tilley

 

Or reach out via email here.

/by