Meh.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is not your best material.

Yes, it is.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let's say that you just spent the morning running in loops because a client just came back to you to question why your advice you just gave them is contradicted by a "client bulletin" from a large New York firm. Let's say that it eventually comes to light that the client bulletin was based of a prior version of the relevant bill, not the one that was passed, and the mistake was probably the result of some first year not knowing how to pull new laws off the relevant state's legislative web site.

The big firm is obviously trying to break into this area of the law, which is your bread and butter. Few people who get the client bulletin will actually bother to read it, but they may remember it when they have an issue relating to this area of the law and decide to call Big New York Firm.

Would you call Big New York Firm and point out their glaring and potentially dangerous error, out of professional courtesy? If you got such a call, would you send out a correction?

Dude, the big firm is a competitor, right?

You let that Hindenberg float all over the marketplace and when the marketplace is saturated with its erroneous analysis, you put out your own bulletin stating your contrary, and correct, analysis.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by nononono
Why not do your own client bulletin, if the issue is still fresh?

Done. And probably will be done again soon because of rapid moment in the law in various states.

Good suggestion, but I'm trying to figure out how to make them look like the incompetent hacks that they are, especially since they made me (okay, my trusted first year minion) spend hours trying to figure out how they made their mistake, so I could be certain that it was indeed they who made the mistake.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, the big firm is a competitor, right?

You let that Hindenberg float all over the marketplace and when the marketplace is saturated with its erroneous analysis, you put out your own bulletin stating your contrary, and correct, analysis.

Do I call them out on it?

"Despite misinformation sent out by Big New York Firm, the new XYZ statute does not actually require you to shoot yourself in the head."

Otherwise, how do I overcome the fact that the two bullitens are going into the same folder, and the prospective client may still go with Big New York Firm, because its Big New York Firm?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Would you call Big New York Firm and point out their glaring and potentially dangerous error, out of professional courtesy? If you got such a call, would you send out a correction?

Yes, call me and set me straight.

Of course, I no longer work at Big New York Firm, but if I did and I fucked up, I would definitely appreciate someone setting me straight.

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Done. And probably will be done again soon because of rapid moment in the law in various states.

Good suggestion, but I'm trying to figure out how to make them look like the incompetent hacks that they are, especially since they made me (okay, my trusted first year minion) spend hours trying to figure out how they made their mistake, so I could be certain that it was indeed they who made the mistake.

Expand your distribution base. If they're big and competing with you, they're sending it all over, and you need to reach wide as well. Increases the likelihood someone will actually read both and wonder why they disagree. I wouldn't give them the head's up at all. They'll either figure it out or screw up. You need to get the right message to the right people, and whatever satisfaction you might have calling them to report their error will only result in another bulletin from them, and quickly.

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Do I call them out on it?

"Despite misinformation sent out by Big New York Firm, the new XYZ statute does not actually require you to shoot yourself in the head."

Otherwise, how do I overcome the fact that the two bullitens are going into the same folder, and the prospective client may still go with Big New York Firm, because its Big New York Firm?

I think you can reserve disparaging comments about the competition to subtle conversational mentions, if you even want to mention them by name (wouldn't - just reinforces the brand identification of them wiht the topic).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Do I call them out on it?

"Despite misinformation sent out by Big New York Firm, the new XYZ statute does not actually require you to shoot yourself in the head."

Otherwise, how do I overcome the fact that the two bullitens are going into the same folder, and the prospective client may still go with Big New York Firm, because its Big New York Firm?

No. Your bulletin does that. Badmouthing them would give every potential client a bad taste about you.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Yes, call me and set me straight.

Of course, I no longer work at Big New York Firm, but if I did and I fucked up, I would definitely appreciate someone setting me straight.

2. Lawyers love constructive criticism. Not defensive about their work product either.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Do I call them out on it?

"Despite misinformation sent out by Big New York Firm, the new XYZ statute does not actually require you to shoot yourself in the head."

Otherwise, how do I overcome the fact that the two bullitens are going into the same folder, and the prospective client may still go with Big New York Firm, because its Big New York Firm?

In your second client bulletin, why not state something like "some may believe that the statute says X [BIG FIRM ERRONEOUS POSITION]. That is not correct and is based upon an earlier version of the bill. As we reported earlier, the final statute says Y. Y is correct. Y is the best. Trust in Y."

aV

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc


"Despite misinformation sent out by Big New York Firm, the new XYZ statute does not actually require you to shoot yourself in the head."

"Statute XYZ does not require you to shoot yourself in the head, as the most recent [enacted] version of the bill makes clear. This marks a substantial departure from earlier versions of the bill, which did require you to shoot yourself in the head. [fn: See earlier version of bill; see also Big Firm Bulletin (describing earlier version of bill)]."

What's the best you can get? If you tell them, they correct it quietly and get the publicity. If you don't tell them, they don't correct it, and they get embarassed or slapped with a malpractice suit. neither one of those gets you anything, other than some Schadenfreud in the second scenario.

But maybe you can trade the correction for their email list.

[BetterThanYou]

Originally posted by andViolins
Y is correct. Y is the best. Trust in Y.

2.

[Replaced_Texan]

I've been sort of careful about not buying CDsfrom Sony BMG since the summer, which meant no Foo Fighters for me.

Looks like Sony BMG has relented.

WASHINGTON - Stung by continuing criticism, the world’s second-largest music label, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, promised Friday to temporarily suspend making music CDs with antipiracy technology that can leave computers vulnerable to hackers.

Sony defended its right to prevent customers from illegally copying music but said it will halt manufacturing CDs with the “XCP” technology as a precautionary measure. “We also intend to re-examine all aspects of our content protection initiative to be sure that it continues to meet our goals of security and ease of consumer use,” the company said in a statement.

The antipiracy technology, which works only on Windows computers, prevents customers from making more than a few copies of the CD and prevents them from loading the CD’s songs onto Apple Computer’s popular iPod portable music players. Some other music players, which recognize Microsoft’s proprietary music format, would work.

Sony’s announcement came one day after leading security companies disclosed that hackers were distributing malicious programs over the Internet that exploited the antipiracy technology’s ability to avoid detection. Hackers discovered they can effectively render their programs invisible by using names for computer files similar to ones cloaked by the Sony technology.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Yes, it is.

He's right Penske.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
He's right Penske.

[sadly] Yes, I know. I was trying to inspire him beyond his marginalised level of mediocrity [/sadly]