Law & Technology Symposium: A Recap and Announcing the Winners of the Supreme Tweet Contest

By all accounts, Friday's Law & Technology Symposium by the Connecticut Bar Foundation was a smashing success.  Over 125 people attended with dozens more watching online.  But beyond the numbers was the feedback from the attendees who appreciated the symposium for the content it delivered.  It'll soon be posted on the internet for download and we'll share the details once its available.

My thanks, once again, to the terrific Connecticut Bar Foundation staff, who assisted in pulling this together, my planning committee, and our sponsors for all their support.  And my thanks to all the speakers who came from near and far to speak -- for free -- to this group.  Because of their generosity, we were able to waive any registration fees to the attendees, a luxury to have in this day and age. 

At the program, we also announced the winners of the Supreme Tweet contest, in which we asked people to summarize their favorite Supreme Court case in a "tweet" (140 characters or less).  It was tough to choose, but here were our three favorites:

  • @malson4 Carolene Products - Justice Stone: "Fine, fine, I will put it in a footnote. No one ever reads those things anyways." #cbftech
  • @GoldnI Brown v. Board of Education--"Hey Eisenhower, just kidding about the conservative thing. Love, Earl Warren." #cbftech
  • @coolasmcqueen U.S. v. Nixon: We have the privilege of informing you that you ARE a crook #cbftech

My thanks to all who participated. We'll be sending out the prizes to the winners shortly. 

Law & Technology Symposium: The Power of Social Media Through Donuts

At the Connecticut Bar Foundation's Law & Technology Symposium on Friday at UConn Law School, we spent some time talking about social media and the power of social networking.

Many were convinced; some were not. For employers, it's still a scary subject. The loss of control and of messaging is just too much for many employers to still deal with.

For those who are still skeptical, let me relay this story:

This morning, I stopped into the local coffee/donut shop, one that has been around for 50 years and is surviving despite the Dunkin Donuts & Starbucks that pop up. 

It's quaint, with hand-written signs around and counters in a semi-circular fashion dotting the place. It has no website (gasp!).  

Sitting on stools at the counter, people were sharing the latest goings on with each other. None seemed to be there with others, but rather to talk in the company of "strangers".  Talk of the Masters. Of local budgets and politics.  Of stuff.  

As I was waiting, one person stopped me to say hi and congratulate me for my recent inclusion in Hartford Magazine as one of the area's "Top Lawyers" in Labor & Employment law.  I don't run into him often, but I thanked him, asked briefly how he was doing, got my order and headed back home. 

For me, and countless others, the use of LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter (and now, Foursquare), are all modern day re-creations of this local donut shop.  You stop by, see a few people you might know, say hi, talk about Lefty's unbelievable round at the Masters on Saturday, and then move on to some place else.  

If you stop by a social networking site (or the local coffee shop) and don't interact with people, it'll just be a fairly boring place.  You might just think its a place to get donuts.  But if you persist, and take the time to listen and, on occasion, to interact, you can discover that it's more than that.  It's a place to deepen the relationships you have with real people and maybe meet some people who share a common interest.

In pulling together speakers for the symposium, I drew on my experiences -- both through social networks and otherwise. Some relationships have originated online -- like Bob Ambrogi, an attorney in Massachusetts who often writes on media law issues.  Or Ryan McKeen, who writes A Connecticut Law Blog.  Or Susan Cartier-Liebel, who runs the Solo Practice University.  

Some have been forged through actual working relationships, like Victoria Chavey -- who I used to work with. Or David Atkins, a partner of mine at Pullman & Comley.  

And some have been forged through a combination of both in-person and online, like Brent Robertson and Kevin O'Keefe, who I've chatted with more online, than in-person over the years.

In all of these instances, social media though has contributed to the relationships.  We share a story of interest, or a personal achievement.  We interact, much like the people at that donut shop.

The idea that social networks are "just" for online interaction is a fallacy. It is a place where the connections you have can been broadened, deepened, and cemented.  It is not a solution, per se, but a tool that can be used to achieve goals and outcomes.

If you still think your local donut/coffee place is just a place for donuts, then perhaps online social networks will never make an impact for you. But if you take the time to stop by, listen, and interact, you might realize that your local hangout (and that online social network) can be so much more.

For employers and law firms, banning the use of social networks by employees, can deprive your employees of the connections that they have on an every day basis.  Having a social media policy so that employees can know the limits of their usage, can help bring the benefits of social networking to your workplace without the total loss of control. 

Law and Technology Symposium - Live-Streaming; Supreme Tweet Contest

After months of planning, the Law & Technology Symposium by the Connecticut Bar Foundation is finally here. Registration begins at 7:45 a.m. and the program will begin promptly at 8:30 a.m.  It's at the UConn Law School. 

If you're out of state (or even if you're in-state) and can't attend in person, the Connecticut Law Tribune and Brandon Smith Reporting have teamed up to provide a free live broadcast of the event.   To view the event, simply go to www.lawtrib.com/techsym and you'll be able to sign up there. 

My sincere thanks to both the Trib and Brandon for their generous sponsorship of this. 

As part of the run-up to the event, we ran a contest on Twitter to have people "tweet" their favorite U.S. Supreme Court case in 140 characters or less.  We had only two big rules: 1) That they use the hashtag #cbftech, so we could publicize the event; and, 2) That they be creative or witty with their tweets. 

When I first thought of this, we just wanted to spread the word about the program.   I expected to get maybe a few dozen responses at best.  By my count, we had well over 200 tweets about the program. I stopped counting. Crazy.

Nevertheless, we have gone through them all and picked our top ten. We will announce our grand-prize three winners from this list at tomorrow's event.  The other seven receive an honorable mention and our sincere thanks. (Hey, it's a non-profit educational foundation, no iPad to hand out here.)

We've got a good cross-sampling of the different types of approaches people took. Some were serious, some were humorous, some were absurd, and some were, frankly, educational. 

In no particular order, the top ten tweets (after the jump) are:

  • @brucecarton Bush v. Gore: "Blah, blah, blah..have we written enough yet? Yes? OK, great--Bush wins." #cbftech
  • @malson4 Carolene Products - Justice Stone: "Fine, fine, I will put it in a footnote. No one ever reads those things anyways." #cbftech
  • @jkbeitz Miller v. CA: pornography? Protected by the 1st Amendment. Obscenity? Not so much. Here's a test to help you tell the difference. #cbftech
  • @conlawgeek "Dude, but I have a valid prescription for . . . uh . . . medical . . . uh . . . what were we talking about?' Gonzales v. Raich #cbftech
  • @GoldnI Brown v. Board of Education--"Hey Eisenhower, just kidding about the conservative thing. Love, Earl Warren." #cbftech
  • @gideonstrumpet Gideon v. Wainwright: helping poor people get convicted WITH the assistance of counsel since 1963. #cbftech
  • @ThirdTierAmie Buck v. Bell: You're dumb, your mama's dumb, even your mama's mama is dumb! Three generations of imbeciles are enough! #cbftech
  • @coolasmcqueen U.S. v. Nixon: We have the privilege of informing you that you ARE a crook #cbftech
  • @elizabeth627 Griswold v. CT: Damages are in order when a vacation is ruined by the state's shuttering of Wallyworld for safety violations. #cbftech
  • @JenLaviano Fav SCOTUS dissent: Blackmun's "Poor Joshua" in DeShaney v Winnebego Cty #cbftech; made me cry when I read it in law school; still does

My sincere thanks to all that participated in the contest and spreading word about this great program. 

See you tomorrow.

Can You Tweet Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court Case? Help Publicize the Bar Foundation's Technology Symposium!

This post continues my public service outreach on a program developed by the Connecticut Bar Foundation.

As I mentioned earlier this month, I am chairing what I expect will be a terrific educational program on April 9th at UConn Law School on how technology is changing the practice of law. Full details to this free program are available here.  We hope this symposium will sell out, so please register today (did I mention it includes breakfast and lunch and is FREE?). 

We've spread the word through conventional means (ads, e-mails, mailings) but there are still many others who we think will benefit from this (particularly for those out-of-state who would like to see the webinar). Thus, we're going to try to use the power of social media to do so.  We need your help.

Here's how you can help:

Everyone knows (or should know) of at least one U.S. Supreme Court case.  It could be a favorite case, a notable one, or even an obscure one.   We thought it would be fun to try to summarize, comment on, or write something pithy on that Supreme Court case.  But there's a catch.  Can you do so in 140 characters or less; in other words, in a "tweet" that you can post to Twitter? 

What do we mean? Take these examples:

  • Brown v. Bd of Ed: Remember Plessy v. Ferguson? We don't know what we were thinking. Yes, separate schools are inherently unequal #cbftech
  • What would Law & Order be without its most common phrase "You Have the Right to Remain Silent"? Thank you Miranda v. AZ #cbftech
  • Roe v. Wade: The decision that determined how George Washington got across the Delaware River #cbftech

Ok, so the last one might not pass muster, but hopefully you're getting the idea (and we'll explain the hashtag below).  In essence, we're asking you to come up with your favorite Supreme Court summary tweet.  We'll be asking all of our presenters at the symposium to come up with their favorite "tweet" of a Supreme Court case and will share them with you as well. I've already seen a few and you have your work cut out for you.

So how do you participate? A few simple steps:

  • First, using any Twitter account, just "tweet" or post your summary.  It can be serious, funny, pithy, cute, whatever you wish.  But it has to be on Twitter. No e-mails or comments to this post will be included in the contest though you are welcome to add one. (For tips on how to get started on Twitter, click here.)
  • Next, and this is critical, you MUST use the hashtag (or symbol) of #cbftech for your tweet. This hashtag is being used to promote the Connecticut Bar Foundation symposium and is the official tag for the conference. In addition to spreading the word about the free educational conference, it will also allow us to keep track of the tweets.
  • You can enter as many tweets as you'd like. In fact, we hope to spread the word about this contest so tweet early and often!  But only tweets made by midnight of April 2, 2010 will count towards to the contest.  We will announce the winner at the symposium on April 9, 2010. 
  • By participating in this contest, you allow the Bar Foundation to re-tweet or publicize or use, in any way, without any compensation or further permission, the tweets in any future publication or for any other purpose.  Of course, we will attempt to link each tweet with the Twitter user name (for examples of this, David Pogue did a Twitter contest as well.)
  • A winner (or winners) will be chosen in the sole discretion of myself and members of the symposium committee. Our decision is final and we reserve the right to modify the rules as necessary to ensure that this runs smoothly.
  • The prize or prizes are still being finalized.  But it won't be an iPad or anything close; this is a non-profit educational foundation we're talking about. Besides, shouldn't just being named the "winner" be a prize enough? (Scratch that, we'd probably want an iPad as well.)
  • If you'd like to track all the entries, you can search on Twitter for the hashtag #cbftech. This should also work on Google!

Sound fun? We think so. So, take a minute to spread the word about this great contest and tweet away! And don't forget to register for this terrific program on April 9th. 

Technology & The Law Symposium: How Technology is Changing the Practice of Law

For the next few weeks, I will be posting a few items about a technology and the law symposium that I am chairing on April 9, 2010 for the Connecticut Bar Foundation.  It is a free program that should be of interest to attorneys and non-attorneys alike.  While it is not strictly "employment-law" related, I hope you will indulge me in a few of these posts as a public service for the CBF whose website (how do we put this delicately) is in need of some free technology help.  

Thirty years ago, people discovered that Apples were more than something you ate.  And yet, ten years ago, tweeting was something birds did, cell phones were just for making calls and electronic filing was a quaint dream.

Today, attorneys can file a motion from home in pajamas, can look up a case on their smart phone, and can text a client from a beach -- in Portugal.  

What does tomorrow bring?

On April 9, 2010, a free symposium -- hosted at UConn Law School -- will explore multiple facets of the changing practice of law and begin to answer that question. The scope of the symposium is wide-ranging: From social media and Facebook, to the rise of internet self help sites; from Google and iPhones to cloud computing.  You can download the entire program here.

With nationally-recognized speakers (Ross Kodner, Kevin O'Keefe, Brent Robertson, Professor Jane Moriarty, Wesley Horton and Robert Ambrogi to name drop a few) and local expert attorneys, the symposium will discuss how each generation is embracing (or shunning) these changes and how each generation is using (and can use) different tools to accomplish the same goals. The symposium will also explore how 20th century rules apply to today's changes and discuss ways of adapting those rules to future needs.  Social media and technology tips are also on the agenda.

But not to be missed is a unique lunchtime discussion on "Would Lincoln get LinkedIn? Or Would He Tweet? Technology, Then and Now", bringing a historical perspective to the changing practice.  

No matter if you're plugged in or think an 'app' is still something you order before dinner, this program promises to be one of the most talked about programs of the year. And did I mention that breakfast and lunch are ALSO included, free of charge? (Thanks to generous sponsorship by my firm, Pullman & Comley LLC.)

Space really is limited.  We fully expect it to fill up.  But you can print out the RSVP form and e-mail it back to ctbf@cbf-1.org to guarantee your spot.

And what to do if you're out of state? Well, it just so happens that the Connecticut Law Tribune and Brandon Smith Reporting & Video have teamed up to provide a free webcast. Details on that broadcast will be available soon.  

I'll be announcing more details in the upcoming days including a Twitter contest.  (You can follow all symposium tweets on Twitter with the hashtag #cbftech.)   In the meantime, be sure to RSVP. You won't want to miss this one.