Compliments of Mark Anderson of Andertoons
Bid-for-Placement: what does it mean? Why do we need it?
A bid is a sum of money that a lawyer offers for the opportunity of talking to a client, to receive his contact information and discuss his case (the minimum amount you can bid on is 6 law dollars).
It’s important to remember that a lawyer’s bid on a case determines where in the list of competing, “bidding” lawyers their profile will be displayed to the clients, who posted the case. The profile with the highest bid will be displayed first and the lowest, respectively, the last.
Why should a lawyer bother to write an outstanding biography and why is it the most important part of the lawyer profile? It’s so simple!
A bio is a snapshot of a lawyer’s professional experience:
who they are,
what they do,
specialist expertise and
examples of client work.
A good biography “sells” their expertise to potential new clients.
What is an Elevator Pitch?
An “Elevator Pitch”, also known as an elevator speech or statement, is a short summary used to quickly define a person, product, profession or organization and its Value Proposition. The name “elevator pitch” conveys that the person who is delivering the message has about the same time that it takes the typical elevator to go from the ground floor the top floor to convince their audience about their proposal. A well designed elevator pitch should be between 30 and 60 seconds.
How to Write a Good Elevator Pitch
The “Elevator Pitch” on Legal Bistro is five lines (500 words maximum) of text that are displayed to potential clients in what we call the “Short Profile Preview”. This is the very first thing that a potential client will see about you and your law firm so you should give a lot of thought to what you would like to say.
Do you need a lawyer but are intimidated by the legal process? Are you concerned that professional legal services may be financially out of reach? Perhaps English is not your native language and you are having trouble finding a qualified attorney with whom you can effectively communicate. Don’t worry, if you answered yes to any of these questions you are not alone.
We built Legal Bistro because we were inspired by the contribution that Lending Tree made to the process for finding a mortgage lender. Lending Tree used the power of the Internet to bring online competition in the mortgage application process. Equally important is that Lending Tree’s website has helped consumers to better understand the process of applying for a home loan. We hope that Legal Bistro can achieve similar results in the legal services market.
When Lawyers Compete, You Win!
The single biggest reason why consumers love our service is because Legal Bistro facilitates lawyers competing online to serve the client. Our Company motto is that When Lawyers Compete, the Client Wins! Frankly, we believe that both lawyers and consumers win when the competitive playing field has been leveled.
Are you happy with the current Return on Investment (“ROI”) for your online legal services marketing dollars? Are you spending too much of your time qualifying leads? Do you know anything about the visitors to your law firm’s website besides their IP Address and the date and time of their visit? More specifically, are you being provided with case specific facts that will help you evaluate their legal needs?
If you have answered yes to some or all of these questions then perhaps you will appreciate why lawyers love Legal Bistro.
YOU ARE IN CONTROL
You decide what cases you see based on the Practice Groups, Case Types and Tag or Key Words used when defining your Areas of Practice.
In a recent article written by Eriq Gardner entitled: MPAA Suffers Legal Setback in Big Copyright Decision is said that a social video bookmarking site, myVidster was sued by the owner of gay erotica. The case aroused interest of such big organizations as the MPAA, Google and Facebook. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeal has passed on a decision in a case dealing with copyright infringement on the Internet.
The appellate circuit has vacated an injunction issued against myVidster in a unanimous decision Thursday in Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter authored by Circuit Judge Richard Posner. That permitted myVidster users to post embedded links to video streams.
Hence, Posner has disallowed claims against website operators alleged to be facilitating copyright infringement.
Flava Works sued Margues Rondale Gunter, the operator of myVidster in 2010. The injunction was issued that the website wasn’t eligible for safe harbors under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act because the site hadn’t acted beyond minimum requirements.
Gunter appealed the decision and it bacame one of the hottest cases around.
Such companies as Google and Facebook maintained that the «continued development and progress of web technology» was at stake with the need for more clarity on direct and secondary liability. The Rights-holder advocates as MPAA pointed to performance rights and concepts like «willful blindness» and supporting strong action against «an unlicensed on-demand, Internet-video service that generated advertising and other revenues by attracting an audience for infringing content.»
Posner compares myVidster to a «telephone exchange connecting two telephones» and states that the website is just connecting the server that hosts the video and the computer of myVidster’s user. However, myVidster is bypassing the pay wall of the erotica company by offering access to an embedded video. The judge analyzes that as «stealing a copyrighted book from a bookstore and reading it.»
Posner doesn’t see any evidence that myVidster is participating in violation of performance rights. MyVidster displays only adresses of videos hosted elsewhere on the Internet and according to the judge’s believes, Gunter «isn’t increasing the amount of infringement.»
However, the case goes forward and myVidster operators may be found to be infringers at the end of the day, according to MPAA statement.