Legal Marketing News

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.

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.

 

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