Doug Cornelius .com

Bill Ives put together a list of business objectives for blogging and the types of business blog posts. All these seem applicable for objectives and types within an enterprise or inside a law firm.

With a week left before expiration of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, President Bush Signs 7 Year Terror Insurance Extension, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (TRIPRA). The Act extends the insurance program through the end of 2014.

The availability of terrorism insurance has been crucial for financing of buildings in New York City and other high profile buildings across the country.

Dennis Kennedy put up his annual tradition of The 2007 Blawggies: Dennis Kennedy’s Best Law-related Blogging Awards.

KM Space got the award for best new Best New Law-related Blog.

Really, it was an honor just to be nominated. But, I put together a short acceptance speech. I wanted to thank my wife for putting up with me and my children for still thinking I am cool. I want to thank Trudy Ernst, the Director of Knowledge Management, for encouraging me to keep it going. I want to thank the Marketing Department for not stopping me from blogging. I want to thank David Hobbie, of Caselines, for listening to my ramblings about blogging.

(The orchestra begins playing.)

I want to thank Dennis Kennedy and Kevin O’Keefe for their insight into blogging and lawyers in social media. I want to thank . . .

(And we go to commercial.)

Joel Alleyne put together a great piece on Social Networks – Why You Should Care. Joel draws a sharp distinction between social networks and social media. Social networks being the connections and social media being a method of communicating with a social network.

Joel puts together 10 ways to leverage social media. Four of my favorites are:

1. Use social sites for alumni.
   Instead of creating your own silo of internal alumni databases, use the social media where your firm’s alumni may already be.
2. Use social sites for recruitment.
   Stay in touch with young recruits. They will be more interested in real communication and interaction than slick videos.
3. Keep an eye on your brand on social media.
   Every law firm should be scouring the web and news sites for information about the firm. Every professional should be doing the same. It is easy to set up persistent searches on any of the major internet search engines.
4. Look for internal opportunities to use social media.
   These tools are inexpensive and easy to use. Setting up a wiki or blog is quick and easy. If it does not work, little time or money was spent. It is a “safe fail” project.

From my family to yours, I hope your 2007 was great and that 2008 will be better.

The California Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters inside a shopping mall when it handed out its opinion on Christmas Eve for the case of Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board and Graphic Communications International Union, Local 432-M (D.C. Cir.Ct.App. No. 04-1411, December 24, 2007). This case found permitted protesters to boycott one of the stores in the mall.

You may be familiar with the Pruneyard ruling from 1980 (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, affirmed sub nomine Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74). Under this case, California law permits the exercise of speech and petitioning in private shopping centers, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner rules adopted by the property owner. Essentially, the Pruneyard Court found that the shopping mall had become a public forum, replacing the streets and sidewalks of the central business district which, had been used for purposes of assembly and protest.

The Pruneyard case involved students soliciting support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against Zionism. The Fashion Mall case involved a group urging shoppers to boycott one of the stores in the mall. The Fashion Mall owner had crafted a series of regulations and permitting for protests. However, they did not allow for boycotts: “Prohibits . . . 5.6.2. Urging, or encouraging in any manner, customers not to purchase the merchandise or services offered by any one or more of the stores or merchants in the shopping center.”

Obviously this restriction on speech in the Fashion Mall’s regulations is not content-neutral and therefore subject to a higher level of scrutiny. “The Mall’s rule prohibiting speech that advocates a boycott cannot withstand strict scrutiny. The Mall’s purpose to maximize the profits of its merchants is not compelling compared to the Union’s right to free expression.” The Court concludes:

“A shopping mall is a public forum in which persons may reasonably exercise their right to free speech guaranteed by article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. Shopping malls may enact and enforce reasonable regulations of the time, place and manner of such free expression to assure that these activities do not interfere with the normal business operations of the mall, but they may not prohibit certain types of speech based upon its content, such as prohibiting speech that urges a boycott of one or more of the stores in the mall.”

This ruling is limited to California, as the California Supreme Court pointed out that the California state Constitution provides broader rights than the United States Constitution. But many other states also consider their state constitution to provide broader free speech rights than the United States Constitution, so the effect of this ruling may be felt by shopping malls across the country.

UPDATED: added updated link to case.

After my previous post on Government 2.0, I ran across the story about the British Monarchy adopting Web 2.0: Queen Elizabeth Launches on YouTube.

The British Monarchy have set up their own channel on YouTube: The Royal Channel.

Who would have thought that Queen Elizabeth would have adopted social media before my firm (or your firm)?

Stuck in the my in-laws basement, I came across Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) testifying in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on December 11, 2007 being replayed on C-Span.

Mr. Wales posed the analogy of a steak restaurant to a website. In the steak restaurant, the patrons will need knives. Since people have knives, they could stab each other. Therefore the patrons should sit in cages so they do not stab each other. Mr. Wales finds many websites that treat their patrons in the same way.

I found it interesting to hear the federal government struggling with Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 issues. There was a lot of discussion balancing transparency and privacy.

Senator Akaka (D-Hawaii) found it funny to hear his colleague Senator Lieberman using the Hawaiian word wiki.

There is more detail in these posts:
The Technology Liberation Front: Liveblogging (to tape) today’s e-gov hearing
Swordplay.tv: Senate Hearing Discusses Web 2.0 to Improve our Democracy

You can also see the webcast.

An example of how to use blogs inside the enterprise?
From Geek and Poke

The Wall Street Journal has an article in the C Section by Jennifer S. Forsyth and Kemba J. Dunham on real estate mezzanine loans: Real-Estate Investors Like View From Mezzanine Section.

If mezzanine investors think that it is a “no-lose bet” they are getting themselves in trouble. There is a higher return on mezzanine debt because it is riskier.

The senior mortgage lender will often set limitations on the ability of the mezzanine lender to foreclose on the borrower and take over control of the borrower. Typically this will include the mezzanine lender stepping into the guarantees of the now-wiped out guarantors.

Since the collateral is the equity ownership, the mezzanine lender steps into all of the liabilities of the borrower. This may mean that trade debt has piled up and other obligations may be outstanding.

Lastly, the mezzanine borrower is not going to default on the loan unless they think the value is gone. Inevitably, this means the mezzanine lender is not going to be made whole if they have to foreclose and take over the borrower.