The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Five Tips to Consider for Enforceable Website Terms of Service

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

According to the attorneys at Griesing Law, a website's terms of service (sometimes abbreviated ToS or called terms of use) are the rules and disclaimers that users must agree to in order to use a company's website. Terms of service should not be legal boilerplate, but rather should contain custom legal language informed by your company's business model.

Terms of service provide significant legal protections and are meant to form a binding legal contract between the owner of a website and the site's users. Often, such terms will include permissible use of the website, where the company can be sued, limitations on liability, modifications to statutes of limitations and choice of law. Accordingly, they should be carefully drafted. However, well-written and thought-through terms of service are not enough. Under the law, businesses must also make sure that users have "actual knowledge" of the terms and a "meaningful opportunity" to review them before they are enforceable.

Online retailer Zappos learned this the hard way after hackers stole its customers' private information and a number of those customers filed class actions against the company. Zappos’ terms of use included a provision requiring that all claims against it be resolved through arbitration and restricted class actions. However, Zappos’ terms were easy for website users to overlook and the court refused to enforce them. Using Zappos as a guide, and according to Dina Leytes, there are five ways to increase the likelihood that a court will consider your company's terms of service fair to users and enforceable:

1. Use clickwrap not browsewrap terms.

Courts typically enforce terms contained in a "clickwrap" as opposed to "browsewrap." A browsewrap agreement simply states that by browsing the site, website users agree to the website's terms of service. Zappos attempted to bind its users with a browsewrap agreement. In most cases, the better choice is to have clickwrap terms, which require users to affirmatively assent to the terms of service by clicking an "Accept" button before they can create an account or make a purchase through the website.

2. Make the terms conspicuous.

The court faulted Zappos for using a link to its terms that was inconspicuous, buried in the middle or bottom of every Zappos webpage among many other links. The link was the same font, size and color as most other insignificant links, so it was easy for the court to envision users visiting the site and never even noticing the terms. Avoid this problem by setting the link to your terms of service apart from other links on your website, and in a larger font size and different color. Within the terms of service, make significant provisions like an arbitration clause bold, capitalized or both.

3. Keep terms out of pop-ups.

Providing users a "meaningful opportunity" to read the terms of service does not require that users actually read the terms, only that users be given the opportunity to read them. Avoid using a pop-up as a device for making users view the terms of service. This practice is likely to backfire. Many users have a pop-up blocker set on their browsers, so the terms of service will go unseen.

4. Require users to scroll before clicking "agree."

The Zappos website did not direct users to its terms of use when creating an account or making a purchase. Requiring users to also scroll through the terms before agreeing to them provides further evidence that users had a fair chance to review them.

5. Do not be unfairly one-sided.

All contracts require some mutuality of obligation to be enforceable. Yet the Zappos terms of service gave Zappos the sole right to change its terms, including the arbitration clause, at any time and without notice to its users. Thus, while the terms bound users to arbitration in Nevada, they gave Zappos the right to demand users to arbitrate or litigate when and where Zappos saw fit. The court ruled that this provision made the entire terms of use an illusory contact and therefore none of the provisions were enforceable. A "savings clause" may help maintain enforceability if the terms contain an arbitration provision and you also wish to reserve the right to litigate claims. A savings clause states that while the business reserves the right to litigate, if a website user brings a claim for arbitration, the business cannot then modify the arbitration clause after the fact to avoid that arbitration.

Proving Website Users Had Notice of Terms of Service

In addition to these precautions, it is helpful to consider other ways you may prove to a court that users had notice of and consented to the terms. Since websites are constantly updated, keep copies of previous versions of your website in case you must prove enforceability against a user who consented to a prior iteration of your terms of service. The law in this area is constantly developing. Website terms of service should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are enforceable. And don’t forget that law firms have an obligation to maintain copies of their marketing for a certain number of years, which in Pennsylvania is two years.

In addition to terms of service, websites that collect or track information about users should also have a privacy policy.

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., an integrated marketing and public relations agency with a niche in legal marketing. A former trial attorney, she is the author of Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers. Rubel and her agency have won many awards for legal communications, PR, media relations, website and graphic design, strategic planning, corporate philanthropy and leadership. She maintains a blog, is a contributor to National Law Review, The Legal Intelligencer Blog, AVVO Lawyernomics and The Huffington Post. You can find her on LinkedIn or follow her on Twitter. For more information, go to www.FuriaRubel.com.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Monday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is defense counsel arguing that a letter to an expert’s employer written by a defense attorney in a medical malpractice case was not “sinister.” As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, plantiffs counsel said that such an action casts “great doubt on the sanctity of the litigation system” and should be sanctioned by the defense attorney being disqualified from representing her client in any retrial, disgorging fees and paying the plantiff’s costs in litigating the sanctions motion.

Also above the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the First Judicial District is clearing homicide cases at a faster rate than new prosecutions are being filed. This comes after the court had faced an increasing backlog in such cases.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that a Philadelphia judge has said a dispute between Penn State and its insurance company stemming from the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal should be litigated in Philadelphia.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has let stand an $8.75 million products liability verdict.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Insight on Diversity column on Page 5, Virginia G. Essandoh writes about the Rainmaker Mentor Program and its impact.

In a Law Technology News column on Page 7, Robert J. Ambrogi writes about maintaining ABA ethics while using social networking.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Monday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is a Philadelphia jury awarding $78.5 million in the case of a child who has cerebral palsy because of a loss of oxygen during a delay in her delivery. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the verdict against Pottstown Memorial Medical Center in Montgomery County is the second-largest medical malpractice award in Philadelphia since 2000.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a teenage defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and is likely to be deported to his native Pakistan. Mohammed Khalid, 18, is the youngest person in the country to be arrested on terrorism charges.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes about three hormone-replacement therapy rulings that favored the defense.

Also below the fold on Page 1, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius is set to add two foreign Dewey & LeBoeuf offices, according to a source for Legal affiliate The Am Law Daily. The offices would be in Kazakhstan and Moscow.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that an expert witness has won judgments against the law firm that hired him and the professional group that suspended him.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Antitrust Law column on Page 5, Carl W. Hittinger and Lesli Esposito write that the floodgates have opened regarding antitrust and health care.

On the Law Technology News page, a predictive coding order is drawing caution and excitement, and Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis have released corporate counsel tools.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Thursday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is an Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruling that Internet service providers must disclose the names of their subscribers who are accused of using a file-sharing site to copy a pornographic movie. As reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes, with no 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals standard for balancing the right to anonymous speech against discovery, the court adopted a five-point test used by the 2nd Circuit.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that records related to the safety of natural gas pipelines are not public, according to a ruling by the Commonwealth Court. A three-judge panel reversed a determination by the state Office of Open Records that had directed the Public Utility Commission to turn over records to a Wall Street Journal reporter.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Ben Present writes that a federal magistrate judge has tossed an injured man’s plea for punitives in an accident where he alleged the driver that hit him “looked at” his cellphone. The court held that looking at or using a cellphone while driving could not support a claim of “reckless indifference” or an “evil motive.”

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Jeff Mordock writes that a Delaware Supreme Court judge has approved an order retroactively applying spousal testimonial privilege to a same-sex couple who were married in California in 2008. Their partnership was not legally recognized in Delaware until the state’s civil union law went into effect earlier this year.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

As it is Thursday, this week’s Young Lawyer column is on Page 5, as Elizabeth F. Collura writes about leveraging document review work into a permanent position.

In a Business Law column on Page 7, Nevena Simidjiyska writes about practicing law in an international world, discussing the importance of U.S. export control compliance for clients.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Supreme Court Tosses MySpace Case

By Zack Needles
Of the Legal Staff

Less than two weeks after hearing arguments on whether messages posted on a MySpace page could be considered communication with a specific group of people, the state Supreme Court has determined allocatur was “improvidently granted.”

The court issued a one-line order dismissing the case on Monday.

At the March 7 oral arguments for Commonwealth v. Scott, lawyers sparred over whether defendant Khalil Scott's MySpace postings, one in which he appeared to identify himself as a gang member, were enough to constitute a probation violation. In another post, Scott said "Free Quil and Joe" – two apparent gang members, according to the allocatur grant. He also posted rap lyrics to his page.

Scott's attorney, Robin S. Forrest of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, told the justices that her client's MySpace postings had not violated the terms of his probation, which forbade him from communicating with fellow gang members.

Meanwhile, William G. Young argued for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office that the "whole purpose of a social media network is to communicate with friends" and that some of Scott's postings were written in shorthand only fellow gang members would be able to decipher.

The state Superior Court had previously affirmed a Philadelphia trial judge’s ruling that that Scott’s postings did in fact violate the terms of his probation.

Pinterest for Lawyers: Marketers Say Waste of Time and Copyright Issues Uncertain

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

According to Law Technology News, “A new report from ALM Legal Intelligence finds that after years of showing only tepid interest in social media, the legal industry is beginning to recognize the significant-and multipronged-value that blogs and social networking sites can offer.” With each new social media site comes questions about strategic usage, ROI, ethics, copyright laws and so much more. After my last post, "Pinterest for Lawyers: Legal Marketing or Waste of Time?", I shared a link with my networks on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and LinkedIn. There was a lot of conversation and commentary – especially with the Legal Marketing | Grow Your Practice LinkedIn Group as it relates to marketing strategy and copyright issues. In fact, an article came out on March 9, 2012, from Ragan’s PR Daily titled "Pinterest and legal issues: Read this before you pin anything". I suggest you read it.

As it relates to law firm marketing, Mark Zamora, an attorney in Georgia said, “I'm a strong lean to Pinterest being a waste of time for lawyers. At some point, you have diminishing returns, a limit to your day, and work to do.” He concluded by saying that adding Pinterest and Google+ would cause him to “wave the white flag of surrender.”

LeAnna Easterday of a Web marketing firm in Kentucky agreed with Zamora about the overwhelming laundry list of "must-dos," but added that “if you're hoping to rank well in the Google search engine, you may want to push Google+.” She said, “Google is emphasizing even low quality G+ content over other non-G+ content in search results.” She’s absolutely right.

Neither marketers Rebecca Palumbo (Chicago) or Tim Piazza (Indiana) would recommend Pinterest as a marketing tool for law firms. Piazza doesn’t believe Pinterest is effective for lawyers. However, he does share some thoughts about how Pinterest engagement could be successful for those who choose to jump on the bandwagon. He advises users to “create new content that has a higher potential for being shared by the mostly female audience on Pinterest.” Palumbo generally advises that lawyers should focus on blogging and “other social media opportunities that will give them a much stronger return on investment.”

One of the most compelling reasons why lawyers may want to avoid Pinterest for the time being is its terms of use, which say that Pinterest's members are solely responsible for what they pin and re-pin.

"You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services. Accordingly, you represent and warrant that: (i) you either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services or you have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary to grant to Cold Brew Labs the rights in such Member Content, as contemplated under these Terms; and (ii) neither the Member Content nor your posting, uploading, publication, submission or transmittal of the Member Content or Cold Brew Labs’ use of the Member Content (or any portion thereof) on, through or by means of the Site, Application and the Services will infringe, misappropriate or violate a third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, moral rights or other proprietary or intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, or result in the violation of any applicable law or regulation."

According to Business Insider, users must have explicit permission from the owner to post everything. There are many blogs and other articles weighing in on how to manage copyright issues on Pinterest. PC World has an excellent article outlining the copyright issues but, as of yet, I don’t see a clear solution.

I agree with my legal marketing colleagues that for now, there is too much uncertainty about Pinterest for lawyers and law firms to add it to their marketing mix. But, as with all marketing strategy, this opinion can quickly change depending on the terms of use and other changes in the social media environment. If you would have asked me five years ago if law firms should engage in Facebook, I would have said an emphatic no. But Facebook has become an excellent marketing tool for SOME law firms (it’s not a one-size-fits-all tool) so stay tuned as the social media marketing environment continues to evolve.

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., a strategic marketing and public relations agency with a niche in legal marketing. A former trial attorney, she is the author of Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers. Gina and her agency have won many awards for legal communications, PR, media relations, website and graphic design, strategic planning, corporate philanthropy and leadership. She maintains a blog, is a contributor to National Law Review, The Legal Intelligencer Blog, AVVO Lawyernomics and The Huffington Post. You can find her on LinkedIn or follow her on Twitter.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Friday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is a lawsuit filed by Elliott Greenleaf & Siedzikowski against a former partner and his new firm, Stevens & Lee. Reporter Gina Passarella writes that Elliott Greenleaf is suing former Harrisburg officer managing shareholder William R. Balaban and two associates who quit Jan. 31 and Feb. 1 to join Stevens & Lee. The suit alleges that Balaban installed software on the firm’s computers that allows him to have continued access to the firm’s files through the “cloud.”

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes about a panel discussing forum in mass torts. It has become an important issue recently as the forum in which plaintiffs and their lawyers select to bring mass torts in pharmaceutical and asbestos litigation has taken center stage, including the state Supreme Court’s recent rejection of drugmaker Bayer’s request for the court to exercise its jurisdiction over the most convenient forum for several drug products liability cases brought by out-of-state plaintiffs.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Dan McCormick writes that Villanova graduate and San Diego Padres CEO Jeffrey Moorad is giving $5 million to his alma mater for the creation of a sports law program. Also on Page 3 is a report that Widener University School of Law is among the first battles in a campaign of litigation over alleged deliberate fudging of law school graduate employment statistics.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Litigation column on Page 5, Harrie Samaras and Judy Weintraub write about the dispute resolution clause in mediation.

On Page 7 is today’s Law Firm Technology column, going over 10 important steps to help minimize cybercrime exposure in your firm.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

November Rain: Business Vignettes From a Lawyer Who Has Peeked Into Hundreds of Offices

By Julia Claire
Special to The Legal

In my law firm days, the lawyers and I snickered at the HBS management “tips” on the elevator “captivate” screens. Was the nation’s premier business school getting their material from kindergarten and Office Space? Now, managing business development and operations for Hire an Esquire — which helps law practices locate, manage and pay contract and local counsel — I
interface with an average of 10-20 law practices a day from solos to national firms. Equally simple advice seems to distinguish the thriving practice from the veteran lawyer still chasing $75 dollars in court.

From cold, introduced, conference, follow-up and customer satisfaction calls to coffee, in-person and virtual meetings, I have spoken with hundreds of key decision makers in both thriving and struggling practices. Patterns emerged differentiating the two, which taught three key lessons:

1) Dale Carnegie Was Right:

Many solos, founding or equity partners, and office administrators were friendly and personable — even when I was cold calling and they weren’t interested in Hire an Esquire. Quick chats with these decision makers generally revealed a bustling practice. They didn’t remind me that I was a “sales call,” although a certain kind of attorney did.

These attorneys expressed disappointment that I wasn’t a client or a referral and then volunteered that they didn’t have enough work, let alone anything to outsource. A few partners who begrudgingly took my call upon insistence of a client seemed equally desperate for business. Their tone made it clear that they were too busy to talk to me, but their words said that they didn’t have enough work for their full-time attorneys. Local counsel arrangements were reserved for law firms that would potentially reciprocate or send referrals. Like the many other people they come into contact with daily, I was also a potential source of recommendations and business. How many other prospective clients and recommendations did they regularly repel?

2) Work Smart and Delegate:

Talented support staff can impact revenues as significantly as associates. There is a wealth of business and tech savvy tucked away in law offices. I observed office administrators and paralegals proactively seeking out successful technology and business strategies to cut costs and increase business. Simultaneously, they deftly managed distractions and minor issues, freeing attorneys to focus on billable work.

Even the practices of charismatic lawyers suffered from poor organization and delegation. Although they frequently had more business than they could handle (hence why I was in their offices) they still wasted time on details their admin was capable of performing: the most basic decisions, managing the firm Hire an Esquire account, non-substantive communication with clients and filing. Files covered their desks and window ledges; frequent interruptions and unfinished or overdue tasks plagued their office. Rainmaking skills that could have resulted in a profitable practice and more leisure time were thwarted by micromanagement.

3) Technology is Your Friend:

Firms that marketed to the general public with clean, simple and sleek websites were busier than those with heavy homepage text and boxy frames. Law firms providing services to the general public that frequently popped up as Google ads were sufficiently busy and in need of extra attorney power that sometimes the office administrators excitedly called me back the same day that I sent an introductory e-mail.

By November, I used these initially unintentional discoveries to selectively target firms that were sufficiently busy to need our service. Requests for more information about Hire an Esquire jumped to ~30 percent from ~5 percent of decision makers contacted. Of those not interested, firms that stated that they were busy but preferred other systems to handle frequent work overflow went from ~12 percent to ~60 percent.

Lawyers know there are infinite exceptions to rules. Volume sales strategies require gross over-generalizations and practice management is a highly personal choice based upon equally personal values and factors. Still, I couldn’t help but repurpose the grueling hours I spent in “sales” for the benefit of my fellow attorney–entrepreneurs that wish to begin - or expand - a law practice.

*Top photo courtesy of the Zartorialist under the Creative Commons License http://www.flickr.com/photos/acousticskyy/4021374505/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Julia Claire is a co-founder of Hire an Esquire, which enables law firms and legal departments to locate, manage and pay local and contract counsel with ease online. In addition to practicing law, she has taught legal writing as an adjunct professor in Temple Law’s International LLM Program and as an online lecturer at Quimbee.com

Think Different: What the Legal Community Can Learn from Steve Jobs

I’ll spare an industry that only recently abandoned Word Perfect another Steve Jobs eulogy detailing his “visionary” hardware and software design feats. Instead, I will say that we should look to Jobs for precedent. The public outpouring for Steve Jobs is not grief for the death of a man who created little computers and music machines. It’s a sense of gratitude and loss for one of the few remaining public figures who had big ideas—and could execute them.

Jobs filled a role otherwise absent in the modern American political and economic landscape. Spaces crowded with people of ordinary and small desires who produce accordingly: corporations only looking to quarterly earnings, banker drones creating wealth on paper with visions that don’t extend beyond the four corners of a yearly bonus check, and a Congress with the long term vision of a dog. Elected officials who roll over at the sight of next election season and pant eagerly in anticipation of lobbyists’ financial bones represent a source of national embarrassment, not leadership. So, a man with a desire for perfection, even if sometimes maniacally so, who produced small things that represented big ideas became a role model.

The world of law now resembles that of Welch, Wall Street and Washington, more than that of Jobs. Law firms focus on profits per partner. Law schools are concerned with revenue and enrollment rather than creating great lawyers. They lure students with numerical maneuvers, impressive even by Wall Street’s credit-default-swap-derivative-cocktail standards. Like the SEC, the ABA has let it all happen with a combination of limited regulatory power and coziness with the entities it regulates.

What law lacks is a leader that can inspire lawyers and clients. The tech industry of Jobs’s youth  resembles modern Big Law culture more than today’s Petri dish of creative genius. And just like the days of the Home Brew Computer Club, many are currently tinkering with the user experience for clients and lawyers. Currently, they are dismissed, just like Steve Wozniak when he presented Hewlett Packard with the prototype of the first Apple computer. What could the average person do with a computer? Yet today, consumers (and even some mayors) wait in line to buy its latest incarnation.

And, Apple wasn’t the only company to realize that treating people like adults while providing them with a sophisticated, fun and slightly educational experience is wildly profitable. Look at the regular long morning lines at Starbucks where people wait to spend $4 on coffee. Witness the bouncer at certain Whole Foods in Manhattan. The privilege of spending $100+ on 2 small bags of groceries can be designed so well that it warrants a gatekeeper. What is the similar magical formula that can transform legal services into a product that is useful, improves the life of the everyday client and inspires loyalty? Legal services may never be as exciting as iPhones. But, those who find a way to re-imagine the practice of law, to inspire clients and lawyers alike by packaging the complex and delivering it in an elegant, simple and perhaps even fun package will be the visionaries, or perhaps the Apple of the legal industry’s eye.

Julia Claire  is a co-founder of Hire an Esquire (hireanesquire.com), which enables law firms and legal departments to locate, manage and pay freelance attorneys with ease online. In addition to practicing law, she has taught legal writing as an adjunct professor in Temple Law’s International LLM Program and as an online lecturer at Quimbee.com.

Using LinkedIn to Build Professional Relationships

By Gina F. Rubel
Special to the Legal

Where do you stand on LinkedIn usage?

"I have a personal LinkedIn account and ...
a. I actively update and manage."
b. it is managed for me by marketing."
c. I rarely use it."
d. I don't remember my login."

Or, e. "I do not have a personal LinkedIn account."

The majority of lawyers that I've polled have a LinkedIn account and rarely use it, or they do not have a personal LinkedIn account. For those of you who answered the question with letter A, kudos to you. For those of you who answered with letters B, C, D or E, it's time to get with the program.

LinkedIn is the most well-established and professional social networking platform on the Internet. It was designed for professionals and continues to maintain a level of business integrity unseen by all of the other social networking platforms. It is an online directory of professionals that is highly visible in search engines.

There are various ways to use LinkedIn to build relationships; here are a few tips.

Build a Robust Profile
Take the time to set up a detailed profile. Be sure to include the words "attorney" and "lawyer." This will help people find you when they search using one term  or the other. Include your areas of practice, the cities and states within which you practice and the types of problems you solve for your clients. Then schedule time to update your profile once every three months for 15 minutes to a half hour. This will keep your content relevant and fresh.

Connect
Take the time once a week for 15 minutes to send invitations to people you know. There are a few ways to find them: use the search tool and look up names of people you know; connect your LinkedIn profile to your e-mail database and let it search for people you know; search the people connected to companies where you've worked or with which you do business; search for other alumni from the schools you've attended; search for other members of organizations to which you belong; and search the profiles of people you're already connected to, to see who you know that they're connected to.

Share Content of Value
Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn is not a platform to share your family vacation photos or social agenda. Rather, it is a great platform for sharing articles you've written or read that may have value to your target audience, events that you may be attending or where you may be speaking, industry statistics, relevant business news and more. Be sure to join and actively engage in groups where you can target your shared content even more specifically.

Answer Questions
As a professional, you have knowledge that can be helpful to others. While being careful NOT to provide legal advice online, you can still answer questions and provide value to others.

Remember that people do business with those they know, like and trust.

Gina F. Rubel is the owner of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., a public relations and marketing agency with a niche in legal communications. A former Philadelphia trial attorney, public relations and marketing expert, she is the author of Everyday Public Relations for Lawyers. Rubel and her PR and marketing firm have won numerous awards for legal communications, public relations, media relations, web and graphic design, strategic planning, and leadership. She maintains a blog at www.ThePRLawyer.com, and you can find her on LinkedIn  or follow her on Twitter.  For more information, visit www.FuriaRubel.com.