Category: Blog

Glass Lewis Recommends that Deckers Stockholders Vote “FOR” ALL
of Deckers’ Director Nominees on the WHITE Proxy Card

ISS Acknowledges Significant Risks of a Loss of Board Continuity in
Recommending that Deckers Stockholders Vote on the WHITE Proxy Card

Deckers Brands (NYSE: DECK), a global leader in designing, marketing and
distributing innovative footwear, apparel and accessories, today
announced that leading proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass
Lewis”) and Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) recommend that
Deckers stockholders vote on the WHITE proxy card for Deckers’
highly qualified and experienced director nominees at the 2017 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders to be held on December 14, 2017.

Glass Lewis recommends that Deckers stockholders vote “FOR” ALL
of Deckers’ director nominees on the WHITE proxy card. In its report,
Glass Lewis stated¹:

“…[w]e ultimately come away with the sense that the current Deckers
board has a firm handle and deeply engaged understanding of the
opportunities and challenges facing the business and how to address them
in a timely and sustainable manner.”

“…[w]e believe Marcato has failed to establish a sufficient case for the
extensive, majority board change it has sought throughout this proxy
contest. In our view, the Company appears to have the right board and
plan in place for Deckers at this pivotal juncture for both the Company
and the retail and branded products industry.”

“The Company’s strategic and cost savings initiatives implemented both
before and since Marcato arrived on the scene have begun to show
positive results in terms of margin improvement and growth. Thus, now
does not appear to be an appropriate time for shareholders to support an
overhaul of the board proposed by a shorter-term shareholder advocating
an alternative plan that is centered on dismantling the strategies put
in place in recent years by the current board and on more aggressively
pursuing cost savings, store closures or other financially short-sighted
initiatives, all of which would likely derail the progress made by the
Company and potentially be value destructive.”

“We find the board’s strategy to be prudent and well-reasoned and we are
encouraged by the recent positive results as the management team has
begun to execute on the Company’s plan. We also consider the current
board to have the requisite and relevant assortment of skills and
experience among its members to continue to oversee a proper direction
for the Company, recognizing that the board intends to appoint at least
two new directors with additive skills within the next year.”

“Further, while we see no case for shareholders to support a board
overhaul, we also see limited — if truly any — cause for shareholders
to seriously consider using this opportunity afforded by Marcato’s
nomination to support incremental board changes.”

In making its recommendation, ISS stated²:

“…The dissident has failed to justify its control of the board by
failing to provide either a detailed business plan for the company going
forward or a contingency plan that identifies a qualified and credible
new management team should management continuity become an issue.”

“…The dissident has also come to the table without clearly demonstrating
that major downside risks had been thoroughly considered and, to a
reasonable extent, could be managed by the dissident following the
election of a majority slate. Said another way, the dissident may have
overreached by nominating a majority slate.”

Commenting on the Glass Lewis and ISS reports, which both recommend
Deckers stockholders vote on the WHITE proxy card, Deckers issued
the following statement:

The recommendation from Glass Lewis to support ALL of Deckers’
highly qualified director nominees shows that Glass Lewis recognizes
Deckers’ significant progress and stockholder value creation under the
current Board and management team and reaffirms that Deckers has the
right Board and the right strategy to deliver value for all stockholders.

We are pleased that ISS has recommended that Deckers stockholders vote
on the WHITE proxy card. The Board recommends that stockholders
elect ALL of Deckers’ highly-qualified and experienced director
nominees—John M. Gibbons, Karyn O. Barsa, Nelson C. Chan, Michael F.
Devine III, John G. Perenchio, David Powers, James E. Quinn, Lauri M.
Shanahan and Bonita C. Stewart.

ISS states that it cannot support Marcato’s dissident slate due to two
main factors: (1) the fact that robust contingency planning is missing
from Marcato’s case and (2) the risk of whole board replacement would
very likely be disruptive to stockholder value.

ISS later states, “The potential downside risk of losing all board
continuity—especially the potential of losing management continuity at
the beginning of the company’s highest-volume, make-or-break sales
season without the reassurance of a competent team-in-waiting—outweighs
the risk of allowing the incumbents to attempt implementation of the
company’s current plan for another year, and therefore is simply too
great to justify direct support of the dissident.”

The Deckers Board and management team have a proven track record of
taking decisive action to position Deckers for enhanced stockholder
value. Under the guidance and oversight of the current Board, Deckers
continues to successfully execute its transformation strategy by
streamlining its cost structure, optimizing its retail strategy,
focusing on profitable growth and executing the most significant stock
repurchase program in our history. This transformation is already
driving results, and Deckers is positioned as a stronger and more
focused company.

In contrast, Marcato is pushing a short-term agenda that will not only
disrupt our momentum, but will also risk Deckers’ health and
sustainability. Replacing members of the Deckers’ Board now with any of
Marcato’s nominees—all of whom are unvetted and lack the relevant
experience critical to our business—would be damaging and destructive.

This is a crucial moment for Deckers in the midst of one of the most
dynamic retail environments in history. The markets recognize that our
transformation is working and is the right path for Deckers. Our Board
continues to be a significant agent of change in this transformation. We
firmly believe Deckers has the right Board, the right strategy and the
right management team to continue executing on our transformation plan,
drive stockholder value and position Deckers for continued success.

On November 27, 2017, Deckers announced that it intends to appoint at
least two new independent directors prior to its 2018 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders (expected to be held in September 2018) in keeping with its
commitment to meet the needs of its consumers, win in the marketplace
and deliver value to stockholders. The appointment of new directors will
coincide with an equal number of retirements from the existing Board.

Deckers reminds stockholders that their vote is extremely important, no
matter how many shares they own. The Deckers Board unanimously urges
stockholders to protect the value of their investment by using the WHITE
proxy card to vote “FOR” ALL of Deckers’ director nominees. The Deckers
Board advises all stockholders to simply discard any Gold proxy card or
other proxy materials received from Marcato. Instead, to follow the
Board’s recommendation, stockholders should use the WHITE proxy
card to vote “FOR” all of Deckers’ director nominees.

THE ANNUAL MEETING IS FAST APPROACHING!
PLEASE VOTE TODAY
BY TELEPHONE OR BY INTERNET, USING THE WHITE PROXY
CARD!

If you have questions, need assistance in voting your shares, or wish to
change a prior vote, please contact:

INNISFREE M&A INCORPORATED
Stockholders Call Toll-Free:
(877)
750.0625 (from the U.S. and Canada)
or
(412) 232.3651
(from other locations)

Remember, please simply discard any Gold proxy card that you may receive
from Marcato. The Deckers Board does not endorse any of Marcato’s
nominees and urges you to NOT submit any proxy using Marcato’s gold
proxy card, even as a protest vote. A withhold vote on Marcato’s Gold
proxy card will revoke any earlier proxy that you have submitted to
Deckers.

About Deckers Brands

Deckers Brands is a global leader in designing, marketing and
distributing innovative footwear, apparel and accessories developed for
both everyday casual lifestyle use and high performance activities. The
Company’s portfolio of brands includes UGG®, Koolaburra®, HOKA ONE ONE®,
Teva® and Sanuk®. Deckers Brands products are sold in more than 50
countries and territories through select department and specialty
stores, Company-owned and operated retail stores, and select online
stores, including Company-owned websites. Deckers Brands has a 40-year
history of building niche footwear brands into lifestyle market leaders
attracting millions of loyal consumers globally. For more information,
please visit www.deckers.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the
meaning of the federal securities laws, which statements are subject to
considerable risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements
are intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking
statements include all statements other than statements of historical
fact contained in this press release, including statements regarding
Deckers’ future strategies and cost-reduction initiatives. Deckers has
attempted to identify forward-looking statements by using words such as
“anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,”
“plan,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” or “would,” and similar
expressions or the negative of these expressions.

Forward-looking statements represent management’s current expectations
and predictions about trends affecting Deckers’ business and industry
and are based on information available as of the time such statements
are made. Although Deckers does not make forward-looking statements
unless it believes that it has a reasonable basis for doing so, Deckers
cannot guarantee their accuracy or completeness. Forward-looking
statements involve numerous known and unknown risks, uncertainties and
other factors that may cause its actual results, performance or
achievements to be materially different from any future results,
performance or achievements predicted, assumed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Some of the risks and uncertainties that may
cause Deckers’ actual results to materially differ from those expressed
or implied by these forward-looking statements are described in the
section entitled “Risk Factors” in Decker’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, as well as in its other
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Except as required by applicable law or the listing rules of the New
York Stock Exchange, Deckers expressly disclaims any intent or
obligation to update any forward-looking statements, or to update the
reasons that actual results could differ materially from those expressed
or implied by these forward-looking statements, whether to conform such
statements to actual results or changes in Deckers’ expectations, or as
a result of the availability of new information.

¹ Permission to use quotations neither sought nor obtained.
²
Permission to use quotations neither sought nor obtained.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171201005644/en/

Go to Source

(Reuters) – Over 30 technology companies including Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) and Facebook Inc. (FB.O) on Friday urged a U.S. patent court to disregard drugmaker Allergan Plc’s (AGN.N) contention that its transfer of some of its patents to a Native American tribe shields them from the court’s review.

Two trade groups comprised of tech industry leaders argued in a joint brief submitted to the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the board has the right to review the validity of patents covering the dry eye medicine Restasis that Allergan transferred to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in a deal announced in September.

“This panel’s statutory authority to review whether the Restasis patents were properly granted as a matter of federal law does not and should not depend on the identity of the patents’ owner,” said the trade group.

Allergan is arguing the tribe’s sovereign status means the patent review board, an administrative court, has no jurisdiction over the transferred patents. The tribe agreed to exclusively license the Restasis patents back to Allergan in exchange for ongoing payments.

Many technology companies have praised the patent court, saying it is a low-cost and efficient way to cancel dubious patents used to bring abusive lawsuits. They fear that, if upheld, Allergan’s strategy could be widely adopted and used against them.

The case before the patent board stems from a challenge to the Restasis patents brought by generic drug companies led by Mylan NV (MYL.O). Generic makers had been blocked from selling their own versions of the blockbuster medicine until the patents expired in 2024.

But a federal judge in Texas already invalidated the Restasis patents in a separate proceeding, rendering Allergan’s tribal deal effectively meaningless. The company had said it did not object to federal court review of its patents but felt the administrative process was unfair.

Despite that ruling, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hearing arguments on whether it must accept Allergan’s tribal immunity argument.

A group of prominent law professors, including Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California at Berkeley, submitted a brief on Friday siding with the tribe and Allergan.

“Far from being a scheme to shield patents from review, the agreement from the Tribe’s perspective is part of its economic development plan,” the academics said. “The Allergan-Mohawk contract reflects exactly the sort of economic entrepreneurship that Congress has been urging upon tribes.”

Go to Source

Glass Lewis Recommends that Deckers Stockholders Vote “FOR” ALL
of Deckers’ Director Nominees on the WHITE Proxy Card

ISS Acknowledges Significant Risks of a Loss of Board Continuity in
Recommending that Deckers Stockholders Vote on the WHITE Proxy Card

Deckers Brands (NYSE: DECK), a global leader in designing, marketing and
distributing innovative footwear, apparel and accessories, today
announced that leading proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis & Co. (“Glass
Lewis”) and Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) recommend that
Deckers stockholders vote on the WHITE proxy card for Deckers’
highly qualified and experienced director nominees at the 2017 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders to be held on December 14, 2017.

Glass Lewis recommends that Deckers stockholders vote “FOR” ALL
of Deckers’ director nominees on the WHITE proxy card. In its report,
Glass Lewis stated¹:

“…[w]e ultimately come away with the sense that the current Deckers
board has a firm handle and deeply engaged understanding of the
opportunities and challenges facing the business and how to address them
in a timely and sustainable manner.”

“…[w]e believe Marcato has failed to establish a sufficient case for the
extensive, majority board change it has sought throughout this proxy
contest. In our view, the Company appears to have the right board and
plan in place for Deckers at this pivotal juncture for both the Company
and the retail and branded products industry.”

“The Company’s strategic and cost savings initiatives implemented both
before and since Marcato arrived on the scene have begun to show
positive results in terms of margin improvement and growth. Thus, now
does not appear to be an appropriate time for shareholders to support an
overhaul of the board proposed by a shorter-term shareholder advocating
an alternative plan that is centered on dismantling the strategies put
in place in recent years by the current board and on more aggressively
pursuing cost savings, store closures or other financially short-sighted
initiatives, all of which would likely derail the progress made by the
Company and potentially be value destructive.”

“We find the board’s strategy to be prudent and well-reasoned and we are
encouraged by the recent positive results as the management team has
begun to execute on the Company’s plan. We also consider the current
board to have the requisite and relevant assortment of skills and
experience among its members to continue to oversee a proper direction
for the Company, recognizing that the board intends to appoint at least
two new directors with additive skills within the next year.”

“Further, while we see no case for shareholders to support a board
overhaul, we also see limited — if truly any — cause for shareholders
to seriously consider using this opportunity afforded by Marcato’s
nomination to support incremental board changes.”

In making its recommendation, ISS stated²:

“…The dissident has failed to justify its control of the board by
failing to provide either a detailed business plan for the company going
forward or a contingency plan that identifies a qualified and credible
new management team should management continuity become an issue.”

“…The dissident has also come to the table without clearly demonstrating
that major downside risks had been thoroughly considered and, to a
reasonable extent, could be managed by the dissident following the
election of a majority slate. Said another way, the dissident may have
overreached by nominating a majority slate.”

Commenting on the Glass Lewis and ISS reports, which both recommend
Deckers stockholders vote on the WHITE proxy card, Deckers issued
the following statement:

The recommendation from Glass Lewis to support ALL of Deckers’
highly qualified director nominees shows that Glass Lewis recognizes
Deckers’ significant progress and stockholder value creation under the
current Board and management team and reaffirms that Deckers has the
right Board and the right strategy to deliver value for all stockholders.

We are pleased that ISS has recommended that Deckers stockholders vote
on the WHITE proxy card. The Board recommends that stockholders
elect ALL of Deckers’ highly-qualified and experienced director
nominees—John M. Gibbons, Karyn O. Barsa, Nelson C. Chan, Michael F.
Devine III, John G. Perenchio, David Powers, James E. Quinn, Lauri M.
Shanahan and Bonita C. Stewart.

ISS states that it cannot support Marcato’s dissident slate due to two
main factors: (1) the fact that robust contingency planning is missing
from Marcato’s case and (2) the risk of whole board replacement would
very likely be disruptive to stockholder value.

ISS later states, “The potential downside risk of losing all board
continuity—especially the potential of losing management continuity at
the beginning of the company’s highest-volume, make-or-break sales
season without the reassurance of a competent team-in-waiting—outweighs
the risk of allowing the incumbents to attempt implementation of the
company’s current plan for another year, and therefore is simply too
great to justify direct support of the dissident.”

The Deckers Board and management team have a proven track record of
taking decisive action to position Deckers for enhanced stockholder
value. Under the guidance and oversight of the current Board, Deckers
continues to successfully execute its transformation strategy by
streamlining its cost structure, optimizing its retail strategy,
focusing on profitable growth and executing the most significant stock
repurchase program in our history. This transformation is already
driving results, and Deckers is positioned as a stronger and more
focused company.

In contrast, Marcato is pushing a short-term agenda that will not only
disrupt our momentum, but will also risk Deckers’ health and
sustainability. Replacing members of the Deckers’ Board now with any of
Marcato’s nominees—all of whom are unvetted and lack the relevant
experience critical to our business—would be damaging and destructive.

This is a crucial moment for Deckers in the midst of one of the most
dynamic retail environments in history. The markets recognize that our
transformation is working and is the right path for Deckers. Our Board
continues to be a significant agent of change in this transformation. We
firmly believe Deckers has the right Board, the right strategy and the
right management team to continue executing on our transformation plan,
drive stockholder value and position Deckers for continued success.

On November 27, 2017, Deckers announced that it intends to appoint at
least two new independent directors prior to its 2018 Annual Meeting of
Stockholders (expected to be held in September 2018) in keeping with its
commitment to meet the needs of its consumers, win in the marketplace
and deliver value to stockholders. The appointment of new directors will
coincide with an equal number of retirements from the existing Board.

Deckers reminds stockholders that their vote is extremely important, no
matter how many shares they own. The Deckers Board unanimously urges
stockholders to protect the value of their investment by using the WHITE
proxy card to vote “FOR” ALL of Deckers’ director nominees. The Deckers
Board advises all stockholders to simply discard any Gold proxy card or
other proxy materials received from Marcato. Instead, to follow the
Board’s recommendation, stockholders should use the WHITE proxy
card to vote “FOR” all of Deckers’ director nominees.

THE ANNUAL MEETING IS FAST APPROACHING!
PLEASE VOTE TODAY
BY TELEPHONE OR BY INTERNET, USING THE WHITE PROXY
CARD!

If you have questions, need assistance in voting your shares, or wish to
change a prior vote, please contact:

INNISFREE M&A INCORPORATED
Stockholders Call Toll-Free:
(877)
750.0625 (from the U.S. and Canada)
or
(412) 232.3651
(from other locations)

Remember, please simply discard any Gold proxy card that you may receive
from Marcato. The Deckers Board does not endorse any of Marcato’s
nominees and urges you to NOT submit any proxy using Marcato’s gold
proxy card, even as a protest vote. A withhold vote on Marcato’s Gold
proxy card will revoke any earlier proxy that you have submitted to
Deckers.

About Deckers Brands

Deckers Brands is a global leader in designing, marketing and
distributing innovative footwear, apparel and accessories developed for
both everyday casual lifestyle use and high performance activities. The
Company’s portfolio of brands includes UGG®, Koolaburra®, HOKA ONE ONE®,
Teva® and Sanuk®. Deckers Brands products are sold in more than 50
countries and territories through select department and specialty
stores, Company-owned and operated retail stores, and select online
stores, including Company-owned websites. Deckers Brands has a 40-year
history of building niche footwear brands into lifestyle market leaders
attracting millions of loyal consumers globally. For more information,
please visit www.deckers.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the
meaning of the federal securities laws, which statements are subject to
considerable risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements
are intended to qualify for the safe harbor from liability established
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking
statements include all statements other than statements of historical
fact contained in this press release, including statements regarding
Deckers’ future strategies and cost-reduction initiatives. Deckers has
attempted to identify forward-looking statements by using words such as
“anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,”
“plan,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” or “would,” and similar
expressions or the negative of these expressions.

Forward-looking statements represent management’s current expectations
and predictions about trends affecting Deckers’ business and industry
and are based on information available as of the time such statements
are made. Although Deckers does not make forward-looking statements
unless it believes that it has a reasonable basis for doing so, Deckers
cannot guarantee their accuracy or completeness. Forward-looking
statements involve numerous known and unknown risks, uncertainties and
other factors that may cause its actual results, performance or
achievements to be materially different from any future results,
performance or achievements predicted, assumed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Some of the risks and uncertainties that may
cause Deckers’ actual results to materially differ from those expressed
or implied by these forward-looking statements are described in the
section entitled “Risk Factors” in Decker’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, as well as in its other
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Except as required by applicable law or the listing rules of the New
York Stock Exchange, Deckers expressly disclaims any intent or
obligation to update any forward-looking statements, or to update the
reasons that actual results could differ materially from those expressed
or implied by these forward-looking statements, whether to conform such
statements to actual results or changes in Deckers’ expectations, or as
a result of the availability of new information.

¹ Permission to use quotations neither sought nor obtained.
²
Permission to use quotations neither sought nor obtained.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171201005644/en/

Go to Source

Attorney Steve W. Sumner once again selected for “Best Law Firms in America” by US News & World Report

Greenville, SC (PRWEB) November 30, 2017

Attorney Steve W. Sumner has been named a “Best Law Firm 2017” by U.S. News & World Report. Sumner is a DUI and criminal defense attorney serving Upstate South Carolina.

The U.S.News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm.

Lawyers also voted on expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, whether they would refer a matter to a firm, and whether they consider a firm a worthy competitor.

In addition to lawyer and client feedback, law firms were asked to provide us with general demographic and background information on the law firm and attorneys, and other data that speaks to the strengths of a law firm’s practice areas.

Sumner currently represents clients in over 25 courts in Upstate South Carolina. These courts include Greenville, Anderson, Spartanburg, Pickens and Laurens counties; as well as the city/municipal courts of Greenville, Anderson, Spartanburg, Simpsonville, Mauldin, Greer, Fountain Inn, Easley, Clemson, Central, and Laurens.

In 1997, Sumner opened his own practice as a criminal defense attorney, with a special focus on defending clients accused of DUI, Felony DUI, all driving offenses and drug cases. He graduated from the USC School of Law in 1992 and served as a state court prosecutor from 1992 to 1994. His primary case load consisted of prosecuting DUI, Felony DUI, Reckless Homicide and Traffic offenses.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/12/prweb14965022.htm

Go to Source

Browse more on » Publishing/Information Services, New products/services

LexisNexis® adds a new module on Competition Law in its Lexis® Practical Guidance portfolio

End-to-end practical legal guidance solutions help law firms and corporates increase productivity, improve practice efficiency and maximize billable hours

Tweet

Gurgaon, Haryāna, December 1, 2017 /India PRwire/ — Content and technology solutions provider LexisNexis® launched a new practice area in its Practical Guidance portfolio with Competition Law to provide detailed procedural guidance on the anti-competitive practices along with the compliances and procedure required to initiate and carry out any competition case before the appropriate Commission or Court of Law. Content for the Lexis® Practical Guidance Competition Law practice area, the fifth in the series, covers an insight on the competition practices in EU & UK as well.

Mr. Shreesh Chandra, Senior Director, Content Creation & Acquisition, LexisNexis India-South Asia said during the launch, “The Competition Act, 2002 provides the main statutory framework that defines the typical anti-competitive practices prevailing in Indian markets. The Act not only defines anti-competitive practices but also prescribes a robust mechanism for the competition regulator to assess and even pre-empt such market distortions through an elaborate procedure for inquiry and investigation to collect evidence.”

The Competition Law module discusses the concept, remedy and the compliances required to avoid ‘Anti-competitive Agreements or Cartels’, ‘Abuse of Dominant position’ and ‘Combination or Merger Control’. Further, the objectives of the Competition Act are achieved through the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which has been established by the Central Government with effect from 14th October 2003. The CCI is mandated to achieve these objectives through a process of inquiry, which is followed by the process of investigation i.e. collection of evidence, carried out by the office of Director General (DG). This module also discusses the legislative procedure before the CCI and the appellate authorities, including Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

Authored by a panel of respected law firms with diverse backgrounds and areas of specialization, such as Cyril Amarchand & Mangaldas, Economic Laws Practice, Trilegal, Khaitan & Co., AZB & Partners and Nishith Desai Associates, Vaish Law & Advocates, it gives legal practitioners the tools to access comprehensive and up-to-date information with practical aids to execute tasks.

During the launch Mr. Vikesh Dhyani, Director Marketing & Innovation, LexisNexis India-South Asia, said, “Lexis® Practical Guidance solution is the first of its kind in India and follows on from successful launches in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, China, Hong Kong and Singapore. It provides users with online access to guidance material and authoritative commentary authored by expert practitioners in their field. It also includes checklists, legislation, relevant case law, step-by-step processes, document forms and precedents, flowcharts and direct links to useful external content. It empowers our customers to quickly get the right answers and guidance even in unfamiliar areas of law thereby boosting their productivity significantly.”

More information about Lexis® Practice Guidance is available at http://www.lexispracticalguidance.in/competition-law.php

Know more about Lexis® Practical Guidance at http://www.lexispracticalguidance.in/

Get Access to Free Trial at http://www.lexispracticalguidance.in/trial-form.php

Notes to Editor

About LexisNexis®

LexisNexis® Legal & Professional (www.LexisNexis.co.in) is a leading global provider of content and technology solutions that enable professionals in legal, corporate, tax, government, academic and non-profit organizations to make informed decisions and achieve better business outcomes. As a digital pioneer, the company was the first to bring legal and business information online with its Lexis® and Nexis® services. Today, LexisNexis® Legal & Professional harnesses leading-edge technology and world-class content to help professionals work in faster, easier and more effective ways. LexisNexis® Legal & Professional, which serves customers in more than 175 countries with 10,000 employees worldwide, is part of RELX Group plc, a world-leading provider of information solutions for professional customers across industries.

Go to Source

The world of law can sometimes seem like Hogwarts: hard to penetrate, hard to understand (even if you get a glimpse inside) and seemingly hidebound in tradition.

Slowly, but inevitably even the law is seeing disruption. Many aspects of entry level / recent law school graduates have been slashed by technology. Young law firm associates once spent hours poring through documents and deposition transcripts to find references, now optical scanning technology provides answers in seconds. That formerly lucrative model (bill associates out to clients at a far higher rate than what you pay the associates) is no longer readily available to law firm partners.

Other areas of law practices have seen change. Offshoring, long a strategy in other industries, has been adopted by law departments for simple matters like contract renewals.

One of my former employers used a perfectly acceptable company in India for such matters, the time zone differential gave us overnight service.

One of the most disruptive moves for both law firms and the in-house law departments that hire the firms is now being caused by Bodhala. Created by former Kansas politician and Harvard Law graduate Raj Goyle, Bodhala is the first platform that unlocks the power of big data and machine learning to equip law departments and firms with the evidence required to efficiently make critical business decisions.

I recently spoke with Goyle about how Bodhala is bringing law into the 21^st century. The law is an industry that “is just now realizing the abundance of unstructured data available for use. Bodhala is the only platform that can take the mass quantity of data, analyze it, and provide actionable, easy-to-use insights.”

Goyle and his partner Ketan Jhaveri are Co-CEOs and Harvard Law School buddies from a couple decades ago. Jhaveri came up through a traditional white shoe law firm and a Department of Justice position, whereas Goyle moved in a “more circuitous route.” The more they looked at the business of law, the more the pair discovered about this half a trillion dollar global under the radar industry. “It is like furniture,” observes Goyle. “Someone said to me last week that the law lacks an operating system.”

Bodhala has essentially invented the field of legal data science.

The legal market and world in which it operates is changing rapidly. No longer can the General Counsel at a corporation tap their friends for outside counsel work.”

Goyle pointed out that he is married to an equity partner at Proskauer Rose LLP, the global law firm founded in 1875, now with 700 employees spread across thirteen offices. Goyle explains, “we understand the pain of the firms and the law departments; the C-suites at corporations are now expecting their law department to function as a business, and transparency is needed. Zero-based budgeting is where major corporations are heading, so no longer can the General Counsel run his department as a black box.”

Goyle pointed out an anachronistic aspect of the law. Whereas basic economic theory posits that only in a monopolistic market does the supply side set the price, “in the law for 50 years you have had a massive supply pool, but price is still set on the supply side.” In other words, law firms were successful in setting and raising prices for decades.

Bodhala’s insights empower in-house legal departments to accurately forecast legal spends and evaluate potential outside representation for significant matters, without bias. Simultaneously, Bodhala allows law firms of all sizes to compete for available business on the merits of performance, not relationships, and effectively plan for the new world of value-based pricing. With the data available to the law firm, the firm can present empirical data supporting the firm’s value to the client. And it is data which allows in-house corporate legal departments to analyze and visualize their needs, and optimize their expenditures. For eons, the General Counsel could only look at invoice, with no ability to apply analytics to uncover anomalies or inefficiencies.

As a former General Counsel, I recall receiving one page bills from a white shoe law firm that essentially stated “monthly services rendered, total $78,000.” Even as a fresh faced law school graduate years earlier, my law firm monthly time sheets ran to four pages of detail. But that analog invoice was not readily mushed into a pile of data from which insights could be drawn.

Today Bodhala can lay such an invoice into a huge data set which tracks 5000 law firms and millions of matters, to establish baselines and readily identify outlier activity. Of course, a mountain of data does no one any good; it is Bodhala’s analytics which gives Goyle confidence in the continued growth potential of his company.

Bodhala’s business model is SaaS (software as a service), with an annual subscription based on volume. With clientele on both sides of the equation, Bodhala is able to look at both buyer and seller data, and thereby enhance the product. The classic network effect is a positive consequence.

Goyle pointed out that lawyers love to see their work as bespoke, but the company’s pattern analysis melts that snowflake mentality. As to the company’s ongoing hurdle of skepticism, Goyle sees the ongoing changing of the guard as smoothing the existing speed bumps (my mixed metaphor, not his). He also mentioned that the investor community has been leery of the law as the industry is slow to adapt.

But the law has always been slow to change, and that is perhaps the essence of precedent. Many observers agree that technology leads, a business model follows and the law tries to catch up. Evidence of that progression is everywhere, from the invention of the videotape recorder (the studios went to the Supreme Court to battle Sony’s Betamax, a fight the studios are glad they lost) to the innovation of MP3 (which the record companies tried to litigate out of existence, only to lose years and customers in a debilitating  battle of Whack-A-Mole until Spotify emerged).

But in the case of the business of law, the half trillion dollar market is overdue for disruption.

Bodhala is helping lawyers with their white shoes and heads in the sand.

Go to Source

Last year, I wrote a piece addressed to SEO companies showing how much they were spamming Google Maps and giving the industry a bad reputation. If I worked at Google, this type of stuff would make me hate SEO companies and have no desire to help them.

Lately, I’ve been seeing this same level of spam (or worse) in the legal industry. If you’re an attorney or a marketing agency that works with attorneys, this article is for you.

Personally, if I were looking to hire an attorney and trust my money and my life to someone, the last place I would look is Google, due to my knowledge about how unreliable the information is and how fabricated the reviews are. Let’s get into some specifics.

Fake reviews

Attorneys often complain about how hard it is to get their clients to leave reviews. I get it. Someone rarely wants to publicize who they hired to help them with their divorce or admit that they had to hire a criminal lawyer. This does not, however, excuse what attorneys are doing to get reviews in spite of this.

One common trend amongst attorneys currently is review swapping. Although sites like Avvo might have sections that encourage peer reviews, they do a good job of separating them so that consumers realize they are not reviews from clients.

Google has no such distinction and is very clear in their guidelines that reviews should be about the customer experience. Attorneys you are friends with all around the country do not count as customer reviews. I say this because so far, every review that fits this scenario that I’ve reported to Google has been removed.

In addition to violations of Google’s guidelines, quid pro quo attorney review circles may violate attorney ethics rules. According to Gyi Tsakalakis, a digital marketer with a focus on law firms:

Per the ABA Model Rules, with limited exceptions, lawyers aren’t supposed to give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services. The quid pro quo nature of some of these review circles could be construed as a violation of this rule. At the very least, these communications could be interpreted as misleading, which is also prohibited by most states’ rules of professional responsibility.

There also could be legal implications to review swapping. In addition to it being against Google’s guidelines, it could also get you in trouble with the FTC. In an article I wrote on fake reviews earlier this year, Brandon J. Huffman, attorney at Odin Law, mentioned:

The FTC looks at whether you got something of value in exchange for your review. The thing of value is usually cash or a free product of some kind, but the positive review you receive is also something of value. So, this is really no different than a typical paid-for review under the regulations. Businesses would need to disclose that they received a positive review in exchange for their positive review.

Review swaps aren’t the only thing that can get lawyers in trouble with their state Bar Associations. A variety of fake review tactics are likely to lead to sanctions, such as having your employees pose as clients to leave reviews or paying someone to write fake reviews. Indeed, many law firms are just flat-out getting fake reviews posted.

Recently, in looking at the top 20 listings that ranked for personal injury lawyers in a major city in the USA, I found eight that had fake reviews (40 percent).

Fake listings

The most common practice for attorneys who want to rank in several cities is to create listings at virtual offices. When these are reported, Google has been pretty good at removing them. However, attorneys (and their marketing companies) are getting smart at this stuff and have found ways to trick Google My Business support into thinking their fake locations are real locations.

These are also clearly false, or at least misleading, communications about the lawyer’s’ services — a clear violation of attorney ethics rules.

Fake photos

I have experienced this one many times. An attorney will submit photos on their listing that “prove” they exist there, even though the address belongs to a virtual office service provider. These photos are often:

• photoshopped.
• signs that were taped to a wall, only to be removed after the photo was taken.
• photos of a completely different location.

I actually visited an office recently that an attorney was using for a listing on Google. The photos of the signs that he posted did not exist there in real life. So he was willing to actually show up at the office and tape signs to the wall just to “show” Google that he is really at that location. There is a word we use in my circles to describe this type of thing — and it’s called lying.

As business author Stephen Covey says:

The more people rationalize cheating, the more it becomes a culture of dishonesty. And that can become a vicious, downward cycle. Because suddenly, if everyone else is cheating, you feel a need to cheat, too.

Using other attorneys’ addresses

This is another tactic I’m seeing on the rise in the attorney world. One attorney will get another attorney to accept the postcard from Google My Business so they can get an “address” in that town. Usually, they aren’t competition and practice different types of law, so there isn’t any negative impact on either party. This is also against the guidelines, and when caught, will be removed by Google.

I’m seeing more and more videos being used as evidence on the Google My Business forum to help prove businesses don’t exist at the address they are using. User Garth O’Brien posted another clever idea as a comment on an article by Mockingbird Marketing:

I was aware of a local law firm that did this in Washington. Their competitors called up each city and pointed out that law firm had a physical presence within their city. They inquired if that law firm was paying B&O tax in each city. The law firm was not, so each city called up and asked them to fork over some tax money. That law firm quickly erased each profile for every city [where] they did not have a physical presence.

Keyword stuffing

The final tactic I see being used frequently is keyword stuffing. It’s an old trick that still works well. If you want to rank higher on Google, just shove “Best Attorney Ever City Name” into your business name field in Google My Business.

The problem is that Google will remove the keywords when they catch you. I have also seen them recently suspend a listing for an attorney who wouldn’t stop doing it. Currently, this guy has no ability to edit or control his listing on Google.

Summary

If you are sick of the spam you see in the legal industry, please to continue to report it on the Google My Business forum. I urge you not to let these people get away with the tactics they are using. Also, no matter how tempting it is — never join them!

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.

Go to Source

Go to Source

SAN DIEGO, Dec 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Injury Law Group, a personal injury law firm in San Diego, made public today that it plans on opening up a new North County office in San Diego. The firm has been steadily growing its client base and deemed it necessary to open up a new North County office to better serve the needs of its North County clients.

San Diego Personal Injury Attorneys at Injury Law Group to Open New Office in North County San Diego

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a35e3546-0eb8-4e99-9f63-dbc62ccaded4

The firm currently has two offices: one in downtown San Diego, and one located about halfway between downtown and North County. Until now, the Carmel Valley office has served North County residents. However, with the growing number of clients, including North County clients, the firm made the decision to open up a new office in North County.

No longer will it be necessary for North County clients to make a 45 minute drive from the northern part of the county to Carmel Valley. They will have a local office within 15 minutes of their home. San Diego Personal Injury Attorney at Injury Law Group says, “We recognize the needs of our clients to hand-deliver certain documentation to our office, and certain clients don’t have a fax machine or scanner and their only way to deliver documents to us is by hand. Some clients were delaying getting documents to us because of the long drive from North County to Carmel Valley.” The firm hopes that with the new location in the northern part of the county, clients will be able to promptly deliver documents, thus enabling the firm to better serve its North County client base.

With three offices serving the entire county, including offices downtown San Diego, Carmel Valley, and North County, the firm will be easily accessible to all injured victims throughout the county. The firm will be one of the few law firms in the county that is accessible from any location with just a short 15-20 minute drive.

Injury Law Group is an accident law firm in San Diego, California with two offices located in the county. Their contact information is as follows:

Injury Law Group
101 W Broadway Suite 300
San Diego, California 92101
1 619-255-3900
https://www.injurylawyersandiegoca.com/

Copyright (C) 2017 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go to Source

SAN DIEGO, Dec 01, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Injury Law Group, a San Diego personal injury law firm, has announced to the public that over the past year it formed new relationships with physical therapy providers throughout the San Diego area. The firm, which previously had working relationships with six physical therapy offices throughout the county, added four more physical therapy offices giving its clients a choice of 10 different physical therapy offices throughout San Diego county.

Car Accident Lawyers At Injury Law Group Form New Relationships With Physical Therapy Providers

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/9fa9daac-2987-4863-8707-b6f6ca7acaed

The firm’s physical therapy coordinator explains, “Although the offices we worked with covered most of the county, we had a few clients who could not get off work before 5:00 p.m. and could not go during their lunch hour because the closest physical therapy location was 20 minutes away from their workplace.” This had been an existing problem for the past year, but the firm was cautious in forming new relationships with physical therapy providers because they wanted to ensure that their clients always received the best possible medical care. After extensive research, the firm was able to find four additional physical therapy locations that met the firm’s standards for excellence and they successfully formed relationships with those providers.

Now, any client of the firm can go to physical therapy before or after work, or even during their lunch break. No matter where they are, they will have access to a physical therapy location that is within minutes of their home or office. This ease of access to physical therapy will allow the car accident clients of the firm who are suffering from neck and back pain to attend their physical therapy sessions as ordered by their physician, enabling them to make a quicker recovery. The firm’s principal San Diego car accident lawyer is thrilled that the firm can provide the highest level of medical care to all of its clients wherever located in the county and believes that this truly sets the firm apart from other law firms in the area.

Injury Law Group is a firm of car accident lawyers San Diego, California with two offices located in the county. Their contact information is as follows:

Injury Law Group
101 W Broadway Suite 300
San Diego, California 92101
1 619-255-3900
https://www.injurylawyersandiegoca.com/

Copyright (C) 2017 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go to Source