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.
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.
Can the Land Patent Help You Stop Property Tax Bills Lawfully?
The government gave away land as a benefit to the people and in accordance with the Constitution of America. But how it is in reality? Unfortunately, people know very little about either Land or their land rights today. Alan Kreglow tried to explain the whole concept of “land patents” and “property taxes” in his article entitled: Regain control of your land through a Land Patent process.
According to the History, the Treasury Department under President George Washington issued Land Patents granting absolute ownership of unclaimed lands within the states. That patent was a contract between somebody and the United States, which is superior to any other claim on the property. Alan Kreglow says, these Land Patents represented absolute ownership, including both appurtenant rights and hereditary rights:
1) the intangible Land (boundaries from center of the Earth out):
2) the tangible Real Estate (dirt, trees, etc.).
All together is known as “Allodial Title”.
Alan Kreglow claims that “Landowners” do NOT pay property tax. You pay, if you hold title by recorded deed. In this case you own “real estate” (appurtenances to the land), but in law, real estate is not “Land” (the boundaries themselves and all the empty space inside the boundaries). You are just a “tenant” on the land, not an owner, because the land patent is not accepted, what means that the OWNER of the land is missing.
In a recent article posted on The Employment Law Group Blog entitled: Federal Jury Awards Whistleblower $3.5 Million in Alaska Retaliation Case, is reported that a federal jury awarded Paul Blakeslee $3.5 million because of the illicit activity of his former employer. As it was proved, Shaw Environment & Infrastructure Inc fired Paul Blakeslee for reporting suspicious dealings by a manager of the company’s maintenance work on Alaskan military bases.
According to Mr. Blakeslee’s lawyers, the verdict included $2.5 million in punitive damages becoming so one of the largest judicial decisions in an employment case in Alaska history. It also may happen that after supplemental awards by the court, the final value of the verdict will pass $4 million.
Shaw Environment & Infrastructure Inc is a Louisiana-based contractor for the U.S. Army. The jury came to the conclusion that Shaw Environment & Infrastructure Inc fired Paul Blakeslee for reporting that the other manager was billing the Army at inflated rates for equipment leased from his own company. Shaw Environment & Infrastructure Inc stated the firing was independent, but the jury called it retaliation and said it violated the False Claims Act.
The question of discrimination was also raised in the court. As Mr. Blakeslee was 71 at the time he was fired, the jury accused Shaw Environment & Infrastructure Inc of age discrimination against Paul Blakeslee.
Forensic Linguistics is the study of the language of law and legal process. It also includes the language of 911 calls, the police and the courtroom, and the language that is used in trials as evidence.
LanguageAndLaw.org describes Forensic Linguistics as the methodology that solves crimes. It comprises many areas that relate to crime, both solving crime and absolving people wrongly accused of committing crimes. Some of these areas include:
- Voice identification (also called forensic phonetics)
- Author identification (analysis of the personal writing style; also called forensic stylistics)
- Discourse analysis (analysis of the structure of spoken or written utterance)
- Linguistic proficiency
- Language analysis (determining the suspect’s native language)
- “Linguistic veracity analysis” (determining whether a speaker or a writer was being truthful)
One of the best forensic linguists in the USA is Dr. Robert Leonard. He has a wide experience in his field of expertise. For instance, he has been retained by both defendants and prosecutors to consult and/or testify in criminal cases involving murder, espionage, and other felonies, and he has consulted and/or testified for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases involving trademarks, plagiarism, libel, malpractice, and the meaning of contracts.
The following video briefly describes Dr. Robert Leonard’s technique on how to implement the theoretical knowledge of Forensic Linguistics into practice, i.e. Sherlyn Hummert murder investigation.
Reuters reported today that Authorities Charge Swiss Banker, Attorney in Tax Probe. Federal authorities charged Stefan Buck and Edgar Paltzer with one count of conspiracy for allegedly helping American clients hide millions of dollars in offshore accounts in order to avoid paying taxes. The indictment was filed in Manhattan Federal Court on Tuesday.
The indictment stated that Stefan Buck is the Head of Private Banking at Swiss Bank No. 1 and is also a member of the bank’s executive board. Edgar Paltzer is a partner at a Swiss Law Firm and was admitted to the New York Bar in 1988. Further investigation by Reuters showed that Bank Frey lists Stefan Buck as its head of private banking and a member of its executive board on its website.
What’s really interesting about this case is why it drew the attention of the Federal Authorities.
In March 2009, Swiss bank UBS AG (UBSN.VX) agreed to pay $780 million to settle charges brought by the Justice Department. The oldest Swiss bank, Wegelin & Co, pleaded guilty in January to helping wealthy Americans evade taxes and was sentenced to pay nearly $58 million in penalties.
According to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, which brought the charges, Niederer Kraft & Frey saw an increase of 300 percent in U.S. taxpayers as clients between the time of UBS’s settlement and Wegelin’s indictment in February 2012. Around $938 million, or 44 percent, of the bank’s $2.1 billion in managed assets as of September 2012 was held by U.S. taxpayers, prosecutors said. Buck and Paltzer opened and managed undeclared accounts for U.S. clients who had been informed by other Swiss banks that they had to close their accounts there.
So if you are planning to deposit some or all of your assets offshore in a Swiss Bank Account where client privacy has always been of paramount importance, you may wish to consider the significance of this case. It certainly seems that the Justice Department is becoming more successful in piercing the International Privacy Veil.
The problems seem to be mounting for former KPMG Auditing Partner Scott London. On April 11, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a press release.
The SEC alleges that Scott London tipped Bryan Shaw with confidential details about five KPMG audit clients and enabled Shaw to make more than $1.2 million in illicit profits trading ahead of earnings or merger announcements. The two men had met at a country club several years earlier and became close friends and golfing partners. London has said that he provided the inside information about his clients to help Shaw overcome financial struggles after his family-run jewelry business began faltering in the economic downturn. In exchange for the illegal trading tips, Shaw paid London at least $50,000 in cash that was usually delivered in bags outside of his Encino, Calif. jewelry store. Shaw also gave London an expensive Rolex watch as well as other jewelry, meals, and tickets to entertainment events.
Further details can be found in the complete SEC Complaint.
Criminal charges for insider trading were then brought by the Federal Bureau of Investigation saying he gave a stock-trading friend inside information about his firm’s clients in exchange for cash, jewelry and expensive dinners. The prosecutors version of Mr. London’s activities conflicted significantly with London’s statement that the information he gave his buddy was sparse and that his involvement in the stock trades was minimal.
Mr. London was arraigned and is free on $150,000 bail. Harlan Braun, defense attorney for Scott London, has said that he expects his client to plead guilty at a hearing set for May 17th.
KPMG LLP Chairman and CEO John Veihmeyer issued the following statement upon reviewing the criminal complaint filed against former partner Scott London.
What’s particularly odd about this case is the fact that Scott London freely admitted sharing inside information for profit in his first interview with the FBI, SEC and U.S. Attorney General and the fact that immediately following his arraignment his attorney made a public statement that his client intends to plead guilty. Despite these unusual circumstances, Defense Counsel has also publicly stated that he does not expect his client to face any jail time?
So how is this possible? If convicted of all charges, Mr. London faces a prison term of as long as five years. The current environment is that federal prosecutors have been pushing hard for the past several years for white collar criminals to get hard time for insider trading. Having already admitted publicly to sharing inside information with his golf buddy, what leverage does Mr. London possibly have with the Feds to avoid spending several years in jail?