JasonEFF's dashboard

Thanks for the tip! Matt – MatthewTGrant, on July 25, 2008 19:46

Matthew, in case you haven't done so yet, kindly log a support ticket at http://twitter.com/help explaining your situation. You'll probably get a response faster that way.

Thanks, JasonEFF, and I get the distinction between copyright and trademark, though, apparently Twitter gives us some recourse on the trademark front. Thanks again, Matt – MatthewTGrant, on July 25, 2008 16:46

Actually, part of the Twitter Terms of Service states:

"6. We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames."

(Under General Terms on http://twitter.com/tos )

Also, as a quick tip, DMing can't be turned "off", but you can only DM people who are following you. :)

Hey -- Good luck contacting them; I'm sure if you get in touch you can negotiate something. However, I should point out two things in terms of legal rights to a name:

1) You can't copyright a name; you can only trademark a name.
2) Even if your company has trademarks on the name Aquent, that doesn't prevent other people from using it on the Internet legally. It only prevents them from selling the same products as you in the same markets. Or, if it is a very famous name like "McDonalds" or "Coke", from diluting your brand name in a commercial setting.

Since a Twitter handle is not usually commercial, it is unlikely that you have any rights to stop this personal legally. That said, as I mentioned, if you get in touch with them, you could potentially convince them to use a different name or join your team!

Best,
Jason

Interesting. Since the privilege sits with the client and not the attorney, I think most would see a client's voluntary publication of the information as a waiver. But you raise a good point about whether the fact that the firm sets up its own section of GSFT could raise ethical issues. Again, I weigh on the side of no, as long as the lawyers warn their clients both on the website and directly in their communications and marketing that confidential information is privileged and can lose this protection under certain circumstances, such as unrestricted publication on a public forum. – JasonEFF, on June 02, 2008 01:00

Actually, I made the original post when testing the new Help Center app. The original point was that the help center would be more useful if it was more than a portal to the Get Satisfaction Web site. But I'll leave that discussion for the Help Center discussions. This has generated a much more interesting discussion.

Agreed. One interesting twist to this would be whether an ethics board would see Get Satisfaction as substantially different from a discussion board, blog, or other social media. I see two potential scenarios: (1) somebody unassociated with a law firm creates a company listing for the firm and firm employees decide to participate and (2) the firm sets up its own listing or claims a listing on Get Satisfaction. The difference is the extent to which the firm places its imprimatur on the activity. Because this is marketed as a help board, might an ethics board not see participation as tacit encouragement to post questions and problems and if a client does so and thereby divulges confidential information, could the firm or participating professionals be held accountable?

Paul, I think someone created the True Legal Partners section 3 months ago (as is dated by the "Welcome" post) and didn't really think about this, perhaps were just listing companies they knew about. I think in this case it is rare that a question would be suitable to a public forum such as this, yes.

As well, if someone just wants to get a professionals opinion, that is usually charged for as time is valuable. Of course, if some professional(s) decided that time was not valuable and opened a public system of inquiry into legal things that, while easy for a lawyer to help with due to experience, are impossible to Google... that could devalue the time of other lawyers (provided this public system was popular enough to actually increase the supply of good legal advice and decrease its value).

But seriously, asking a question on here could ruin your case. That's probably why no one has done so yet. Of course, I could be confused about what True Legal Partners actually does.

Paul: This is a great topic. A lot of professions, like law, operate on the assumption of confidentiality. But, of course, lawyers speak in public all the time -- at conferences, in court, to the press, at continuing legal education workshops. So I think there is a lot that lawyers can say publicly about how they practice law. In fact, many lawyers are now blogging publicly, so that's another example of a more open, public approach to professionalism.

I agree, though, that one should not discuss specific cases on open forums, like GSFT, as it risks losing the protection of attorney-client privilege and violating the duty of confidentiality. However, beyond case-specific posts, I think lawyers can surely post hypotheticals and opinions, as well as referrals and other help on how to find more information on legal problems. They can also help clients and potential clients understand how to get the most out of their lawyers for the money they pay.

As to your specific question about removing posts, I think it would be bad form for GSFT to take anything down that was posted because at that point, it is part of the public record. Any privilege in those communications has already been lost, so removing them would not revive it. Alternatively, I think it is best to warn clients about many kinds of public disclosure can potentially waive privilege, whether on here or in email or anywhere. That kind of education is critical in the digital age for any client, not just those that use this service.

It's now fixed for me! Using Leopard/Firefox.

Hmmm.... I just checked my New Requests page and was able to accept the ones I wanted just fine. I'm using Firefox. Is it still not working for some of you?

Working for me now. Thanks!

Just worked for me, too! Firefox on XP.

Yay! It's working for me now on both MacBook (Firefox) and iPhone (Safari)! Thanks guys!

sorry crystal and blaine, but it still isn't working for me either.

Still not working for me, either.

hmm. i just got an email saying it is fixed, but it's still not working for me. our tivo is acting up too, though, so maybe it's me.