Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
These pump & dump 2.0's are getting popular cause they work so well from this otherwise useless, worthless "company". Looks like another one today & will dump before eod or Monday. Watch for it.
Salami, salami, baloney
As to the patents & trials, this baby is toast. That's how it will play out anyway, imo. Trials & appeals will go on for another decade, during which time, this will likely be subpenny. Then, unfortunately, the only redeeming value, imo, will be to try to day trade the little pumps & bumps. I think that's all it'll be good for & very risky. Melba toast dipped in milk. This I bad for me & y'all. That's the way the pennies roll. It costs more to make a penny than a penny is worth. Much the same w/vplm. Boo-hoo
Apple, T & Twitter all couldn't care less about vplm & never have. Not then not now. Most get that. Lol. Mr Market does also, lol. Duh
Lol, that post is 9 yrs old! What's your point? How dumb is that? Hahahaha
Wednesday, February 23, 2022 1:13:52 PM
Re: None
Post#
108416
of 108433
Looks to me like the next regularly scheduled pump & dump 2.0 is in progress. So predictable
YEPPER!
Like I said!
And once again, just as I predicted yest, the dump is complete. Duh
Looks to me like the next regularly scheduled pump & dump 2.0 is in progress. So predictable...
From the timing, my guess would see it back down to about 1.1 by days end or tomorrow. Watch & see
There will never be a settlement. There will never be a buyout. Very slim possibility of some scaredy cat vsp purchasing a license, but pretty unlikely. It is decreed! No settlements, no buyouts, no how, no way, no time. I've been saying same for years & yrs & been right in the face of many many predictions to the contrary. And I will continue to say it & it will continue to be true for days, weeks, months & years to come. Minimum 9 more yrs. More possible.
youbeenhad
Looks like I missed posting on 2:22:22, 2-22-22, by 22 seconds
The irony is that vplm cannot even hit the 2's on twoper twosday. Pitiful. Nothing but two's twoday, all around the world, regardless of date format but crummy vplm can't hit 2 cents after 25 yrs.
Nope, sorry... I decided it, that's the way it is & that's all there is "two" it... The proof of that will come along. As sure as February has 8 palindromes, incl 7 in a row as of twosday, plus 1 on groundhogs day, is as sure as there's no infringement. You're welcome, my gift!
Infringement has never been shown and will never be proven. Seen enough...
You're right & you're welcome. Remember, infringement can never be proven, imho.
There are no infringers. They do not exist.
Infringement has never been shown & can never be proven.
Being valid does not equate to infringement. Smarter ppl still have trouble w/that concept. The smartest ppl not only get that, but also know that all patents are valid or they wouldn't be a patent and that has zero to do with need, efficacy, value or infringement. Doink.
And the smartest ones know what the process really is, ie, not the pipedream, mirage, illusion...but a cleverly contrived fiat share printing & selling machine, which derives most of its income from the terribly dilutive fire sales they have regularly (private placements @ 1/2 cent or less. Shame on the less than smartest.
The smarter ones know that the smart ones need to get smarter...
The smartest money sure ain't being put here. 4 year downtrend, 97%
Mr Market is the smartest of all & he gives vplm a thumbs down
The smartest ppl know it's all a long, drawn out pipe dream based on unproven patents, unpublished tests & over a decade of no sales, no licenses, no true interest, no partnerships, no deals, no real offers, many lies, false promises, no proof of infringement, no monetary gains from many lawsuits, $600k loss in court, armies of lawyers most quit, thriving Voip service industry long before vplm patents, etc, etc, etc.
And how BRAVE of us eh? I mean look at how much we are sacrificing by not selling at a penny (a tad over)... Gee, we could be instant "hundredairres" or "thousandairres" or whatever..
I held my orig shares tight for a long time until I went from 2¢ to 7 or 8 ¢ avg & then I sold enough to recoup all my losses & a decent profit then I've held onto the rest ever since (approx 5 yrs or so). I'm not sellin a single share until I see at least 50¢, otherwise they can rot for all I care after what the digi-phony-ca/vplm/Emu organization has put me thru. The purpose of vplm patents, it turns out, is to suck canal water!
There ARE peeps who would sell for a nickel, maybe a few.....but not me. Fiddy cent or bust!
I want my 50¢ and I want my Maypo!
No. I want my .50 & I want my Maypo too
Where's my damn 50¢? I ain't askin for much...
Vplm doesn't have to worry about anything as they are already at the bottom of the barrel looking up and it's so far they can't see the the top just like we can't see the edge of the universe. Help ain't on the way, it's too far away.
Cryin won't help them, prayin won't do them no good. Cryin won't help them, prayin won't do them no good, cause when the sub penny takes, mama there's no place to go.....
More monkey wrenches are coming soon to a vplm theater near you. Maybe even a few left handed ones.... They will bring more tears & ship jumpers. Even the rats will jump...
The below 2 articles show that if somehow, vplm should ever receive any favorable infringement rulings, that would be followed by yet years more of appeals based on the judges forum selling. & judge shopping, esp for NPE's (patent trolls)...
.............................................
"Patent Progress
Forum Selling and Judge Shopping—How Two Texas Districts Compete For NPE Cases
by Josh Landau • September 24, 2020
Judge Gilstrap of the infamously NPE-friendly Eastern District of Texas used to handle one out of every four patent cases in the entire United States. The Eastern District as a whole handled more than 40% of all patent cases nationally, despite only having about 1% of the nation’s population.
After the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland, which reined in rampant forum-shopping, that number dropped significantly. Judges in the Eastern District have certainly done their best to hold onto cases, however. Even after TC Heartland, the Eastern District continues to see approximately 10% of all patent litigation.
But patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs, didn’t have to go very far to find their next home. Enter the Western District of Texas. After Judge Albright took the bench in 2018, he immediately set out to attract patent cases to his court, with tremendous success. In fact, one in five patent filings this year is estimated to wind up in the Western District of Texas, and according to a new paper, more than 85% of those cases were filed by NPEs.
Almost all of these cases will be heard by Judge Albright.
“[T]o compete for litigants, courts must adopt rules or procedures or make rulings that blatantly benefit plaintiffs, who choose the forum.”
In a new paper entitled Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases, Profs. Jonas Anderson and Paul Gugliuzza argue that this is an example of “forum selling” or “court competition.” Judges Albright and Gilstrap “are in the midst of a vigorous competition to attract patent cases to their courtrooms.” And in order to “compete for litigants, courts must adopt rules or procedures or make rulings that blatantly benefit plaintiffs, who choose the forum.”
Anderson and Gugliuzza set out four facets of Judge Albright’s courtroom that form the core of his approach to attracting plaintiffs—”fast track” trial scheduling that “essentially eliminates the prospect of PTAB review”, “staunch refusal” to transfer cases out of the district, unwillingness to stay cases, and “questionable interpretations and applications of binding appellate case law on the issues of venue and patent eligible subject matter.” This approach, which Anderson and Gugliuzza characterize as “tilting the field in favor of patentees”, is backstopped by the Western District’s case-assignment process, ensuring that any case filed in the Waco Division will be assigned to Judge Albright.
“Judge Albright’s procedural practices are designed mainly to process cases as quickly as possible—except when it is defendants who want a quick dismissal on eligibility grounds.”
Anderson and Gugliuzza also detail Judge Albright’s problematic approach to patentable subject matter. In particular, they describe his refusal to address eligibility before claim construction and his lack of substantive analysis of eligibility in his eligibility decisions. In one example, Slyce Acquisition, the order addressing defendant’s motion to dismiss on eligibility grounds “contain[ed] no actual analysis of whether the patent in suit satisfied the eligibility requirement”—even though it “devot[ed] nearly ten pages to the topic of eligibility.” This is just one example of his unwillingness to apply Supreme Court eligibility precedent. Anderson and Gugliuzza also describe a series of orders that Judge Albright used “to send additional signals to patentees that their patents are safe from quick eligibility invalidations in his court.”
“Judge Albright’s overwhelming and instantaneous success at attracting patent cases to Waco should concern observers of the federal courts— including Congress.”
The net result of all this, per the paper, is the Western District “winning the competition for patent cases”—and that success is “largely the result of Judge Albright’s appeal to patent plaintiffs—especially non-practicing entities.” And, while the paper does not address this directly, such a success is likely to breed imitation. Similar procedural approaches may arise in other district courts where judges wish to attract patent litigants. The Eastern District of Texas continues to try to limit transfers of cases and to minimize the number of stays issued, perhaps as an attempt to win back litigants who have moved to the Western District of Texas. Combined, more than 30% of all U.S. patent cases filed in 2020 were filed in the Eastern and Western Districts—more than were filed in the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York combined.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Anderson and Gugliuzza suggest two reforms that would mitigate the court competition concern—random assignment of cases to the judges within a district, rather than within a division, and basing venue on the division in which a case is brought, rather than the district. The first reform would prevent plaintiffs from selecting a specific judge by distributing cases out across all of the judges in a district, while the second reform would prevent plaintiffs from filing in locations with no real nexus to the defendant simply because the defendant might have operations in a different portion of the district, potentially half a state away.
As the Anderson/Gugliuzza paper notes, “[t]hese solutions are common sense and simple to implement. If courts will not make them on their own, Congress or the Judicial Conference should require that they do so.”
Meet the Western District of Texas—NPEs Certainly HaveMay 27, 2020In "Blog Posts"
Trouble In Plaintiff’s Paradise?October 30, 2020In "Blog Posts"
One Case, All The Problems: VLSI v. Intel Exemplifies Current Issues In Patent LitigationMarch 15, 2021In "Blog Posts"
Tags:court competition Eastern District of Texas forum selling forum shopping jonas anderson judge albright judge gilstrap judge shopping paul gugliuzza western district of texas
Joshua Landau
Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues. Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.
Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues. Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan. Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.
Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.
..........................................
"Federal Judge Seeks Patent Cases
Duke Law Journal, Vol. 71, p. 419, 2021
79 PagesPosted: 15 Oct 2020Last revised: 26 Oct 2021
Jonas Anderson
American University - Washington College of Law
Paul R. Gugliuzza
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
Date Written: October 26, 2021
Abstract
Imagine the following advertisement popping up on Craigslist: "FEDERAL JUDGE SEEKS PATENT CASES! (Waco) — Former patent litigator, recently appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, longs for the intellectual challenge of a good patent fight. Can promise special procedural rules, efficient discovery, and speedy trials. Dismissal, stay, or transfer of case extremely unlikely. File in Waco and get the patent court you've always dreamed of!"
That probably seems bizarre. Still, and startlingly, it accurately portrays what’s happening in the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. One judge, appointed to the Western District only three years ago, has been advertising his courtroom through presentations to patent lawyers, comments to the media, procedural practices, and decisions in patent cases as the place to file a patent infringement lawsuit. That advertising has succeeded. In 2016 and 2017, the Waco Division received a total of five patent cases. In 2020, nearly eight hundred patent cases—more than 20 percent of all patent cases nationwide—were filed there.
The centralization of patent cases before a single judge, acting entirely on his own to seek out patent litigation, is facilitated by the Western District’s case filing system, which allows plaintiffs to choose the specific judge who will hear their case. These dynamics—a judge advertising for patent cases and plaintiffs shopping for that judge—undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, make the court an uneven playing field for litigants, and facilitate the nuisance suits patent trolls favor. Two common-sense reforms would reduce the harms of judge shopping: (1) district judges should, by law, be randomly assigned to cases, and (2) venue in patent cases should be tied to divisions within a judicial district, not just the district as a whole.
Keywords: patent law
Another favorable signal Judge Albright sent to patentees was in one of his more recent opinions expounding upon eligibility law, denying the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss on eligibility grounds in Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte-Visual Conception Ltd. 259 Doubling down on his earlier, blanket refusal to decide eligibility without first conducting claim construction, the opinion in Slyce Acquisition gave several reasons why deciding eligibility is, volume 260
262 In support of this assertion, Judge Albright cited commentary by noted skeptics of the Supreme Court's reinvigoration of the eligibility requirement, including Paul Michel, a former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, 263 as well as a pair of dissenting opinions by Federal Circuit judges
Given the [Federal] Circuit's holding and guidance in MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, the Court denies Defendants' motion without prejudice and directs it to refile its motion, if it so chooses, after the issuance of the Court's claim construction order
Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte-Visual Conception Ltd, p. 19 - 257
Posted: 2019-10-22
FAMOUS LAST WORDS!!!
"This is a SURE THING!"
Winning, winning, winning, Winning...
Let the farts be with you!
Vplm can never get those shares "back" because they never lost them, they were simply frozen. So in keeping with the theme of everything else, once again they simply maintain what they never lost. Same deal with the IPRs, they never lost anything or gained anything, just maintained. And for those who talk about the increase value of the shares now, the same increase would've occurred if the shares had not been frozen. Again, no loss, no gain, just maintained. Same thing with all the court cases, they go on & on & on for years and produce nothing but dismissals w/o prej & more & more court dates, judges & venues.
Same with patents & shares, they never get anywhere, they just maintain.
Those that keep buying will never be short on toilet paper
What I said is that I am the 1st and only one here on this board to introduce the term monkey wrenches (and Moncky wrenches) and to use it many times. No one else did. That's a fact. My stuff is copied here all the time & it's flattery. Save your checks, they'll be needed.
I never said "ONLY on a lawyers own website.
I never attacked the vplm law team.
I didn't fall into any "google trap". The OP requested to Google hudnell so I did (even tho I've long known all about hudnell.
I attacked no one & no thing. I simply provided a pertinent article that relates. As to the serving the dollars aspect pointed out that's in the article, a full read also reveals the objective & fair methods used as well. In fact I had stated that the article pointed out both the negative & positive aspects of the optimization sought and provided. That said, I guarantee the most important aspect is money after all is said & done. In a case like vplm, there has been an army of lawyers and they undoubtedly appreciate the steady income over long periods of time more than how much they believe in the patents.
"Here is what I was talking about, no one mentioned super lawyer in today’s conversation just talking about tier 1 law firms.. let’s keep the monkey wrenches at bay.."
..............................
Above is the only part of your post read. I'm not interested in the rest. I didn't say you said anything about the superlawers term. I simply did what you said & Googled Hudnell. The 1st site that came up was one of the Hudnell sites & it was talking about "Superlawyers" plus here on this board I have heard the Superlawyers terms thrown around alot, thus I felt my response was appropriate. I also had clearly stated that I had no problem with Hudnell. I did what you said to do & immediately what came up was getting into the Superlawyers thing so I very appropriately posted what I found to be a very fair & balanced article which related, in general, to how lawyers & ceos & other pros use SEO firms to showcase their clients and in some cases, as the article pointed out, the lawyers pay money to be rated higher on the listings.
That's my point & I'm it reading the rest of what you posted so don't bother. Once again I posted something pertinent & appropriate RATHER THAN YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF "THROWING MONKEY WRENCHES". All that is, is copycat stuff as I'm the only one that has ever mentioned monkey wrenches here, so use you own material not mine.
Also, regardless of the terms Superlawyers or "Top tier, I believe in most, if not all cases, those kinds of terms, monikers, titles, etc, are usually found on the subjects websites, written either by themselves or more likely some SEO firm. That's fact & I've every right to point it out when someone directs others to "just Google it". All I did was add some specific info to go along with whatever the readers find when they just Google something. And again I STATED THAT I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH HUDNELL SPECIFICALLY & HAVE NEVER SAID A WORD AGAINST HIM. I ALREADY LONG AGO DID PLENTY OF DD ABOUT HIM & KNOW WHAT KIND OF LAWYER HE IS.
The article also got into how fairly they are chosen as well as the negative aspects.
Incorrect AGAIN. I didn't say anything to confuse anyone. All I said was go to their website to be told about the superlawyer thing. That's where the whole superlawyer thing originates. It's all about SEO. And I didn't say anything negative about Hudnell. All I'm saying is that "googling" a term does not necessarily produce the truth about a lawyer or a firm or anything for that matter.
Me stating that the positive info is usually found on the subjects own website or is often the result of monies paid for SEO and to be placed higher up on lists.....is NOT a monkey wrench thrown in to confuse. It's just facts. My opinions are fair & balanced. The truth about the whole super lawyer thing can be found here, below:
........................................
WORK WITH US
Home » Industry News » Putting Super Lawyers on Your Website: Tactic or Tacky?
JAN 11, 2018 | READ TIME: 9 MINUTES
Putting Super Lawyers on Your Website: Tactic or Tacky?
Written by:
Author Photo
Xxxxx xxxxxxx staff
It’s one of the most frequently searched queries by attorneys in the United States: what is the Super Lawyers award, does anyone care about it, and does the designation belong on your website?
With any oft-asked question comes a million answers, and you’ll find replies in either extreme online. Some blogs feel very strongly that anyone who’s earned a Super Lawyers badge ought to put it on proud display. Others think it’s a meaningless and self-congratulatory boast, bordering on tacky.
Wading through all these opinions requires an investigation into their source. Look deep enough and you’ll often find a financial motive for feeling strongly anti or pro. Online attorney ratings is big business, after all.
It’s our feeling that whenever there are extremes of opinion, the truth usually sits somewhere between. So today, we’re going to get into this question, but we’re less interested in a “yes” or “no” answer than in a rationale.
(That said, don’t worry… if you’re looking for an easy yes or no, we’ll do our best to give you one at the end.)
As an attorney web marketing agency with no larger corporate parent, we don’t have a horse in this race. We work with many attorneys who are Super Lawyers — and many more who aren’t — but we don’t have any sort of kickback arrangement with Super Lawyers or their competitors.
Frankly, we’ve built a lot of law firm websites, and we’ve chosen to include this type of attorney rating badge on some while leaving them off others. It all depends on the firm — how they feel about Super Lawyers, how their clients might feel about it, what the local competitors are doing, and how that firm has positioned itself in terms of a USP (Unique Selling Proposition).
There are pros and cons. We’ll explore both of those. But first, let’s clarify what Super Lawyers is (including its sister designation, the Rising Stars award) and dispel some of the confusion about how it works and how important the program is.
What Is Super Lawyers? How Does It Work? Is It a Scam?
Super Lawyers is one of many attorney rating websites purporting to distinguish “the best from the rest” among U.S. lawyers. In its own words:
“Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.”
There are plenty of other services that attempt to do the same thing (read our thoughts on Avvo reviews), but Super Lawyers is significant because:
It’s one of the most popular attorney rating websites.• It’s owned by Thomson Reuters, the same corporate powerhouse that owns Westlaw.• It employs a unique approach for determining which lawyers rate well. (They even have a patent on the process!)• It appears on a lot of law firm websites, leading other lawyers to think it needs to be on theirs too.
Not everyone can earn recognition as a Super Lawyer. In fact, no more than 5% of the practicing attorneys in each state can be added to the registry each year. But the honor seems slightly less selective when you realize that not all lawyers are really in the running – only those whose names get submitted.
The selection process begins with a round of nominations, most of which are sent in by fellow attorneys. To its credit, the organization goes to great lengths to try to keep that process fair. For example:
You can’t nominate yourself, nor can you pay your way into consideration.
If you’re nominated by someone in your own law firm, that nomination is weighted differently and needs to be supported by someone outside the firm too. Ditto nominations from non-lawyers (such as your marketer).
Super Lawyers maintains a research team tasked with assigning point values to nominated attorneys based on independent / objective criteria (e.g. honors, certifications, whether the attorney has been published, etc.). The same team has authority to find its own candidates too, whether they’ve been nominated or not.
Attorneys who have previously earned high Super Lawyers ratings get to make the final decision.
So it really wouldn’t be fair to call Super Lawyers a racket or a scam. Those words go too far. Even the New Jersey Supreme Court agrees with that. Look no further than this 2008 court decision, which Super Lawyers is pleased as punch for you to read. (It’s on prominent display on their website.)
“[The Super Lawyers selection process] is a comprehensive, good-faith and detailed attempt to produce a list of lawyers that have attained high peer recognition, meet ethical standards, and have demonstrated some degree of achievement in their field.”
“Suffice to say, the selection procedures employed by [Super Lawyers] are very sophisticated, comprehensive and complex.”
“It is absolutely clear from this record that [Super Lawyers does] not permit a lawyer to buy one’s way onto the list, nor is there any requirement for the purchase of any product for inclusion in the lists or any quid pro quo of any kind or nature associated with the evaluation and listing of an attorney or in the subsequent advertising of one’s inclusion in the lists.”
But while you can’t pay your way onto the list, you can pay your way to a higher spot on the list. (That is, attorneys who pay for premium placement get increased visibility on the Super Lawyers site.) The program is a for-profit enterprise, owned by a major corporation, and so the whole process is ultimately about making Thomson Reuters money, however fair its methodology may otherwise be. That makes it different from some other honors. The Nobel Peace Prize this is not.
What About Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars?
Rising Stars is a separate list, still maintained by Super Lawyers, but its honorees must meet the following criteria:
The attorney is younger than 40 years of age
The attorney has been in practice for 10 years or less
The attorney otherwise meets the criteria necessary to be designated a Super Lawyer
Whereas the broader Super Lawyers list is limited to 5% of the practicing attorneys in each state, Rising Stars is even more selective. It’s limited to 2.5%.
To Decide Whether You Should Include Super Lawyers on Your Website, First Clarify Your Goals
Having laid out how Super Lawyers works and whether it’s “legit,” let us now turn to the question at hand: does the designation (usually expressed in the form of a colorful digital badge) belong on your law firm website?
To answer that, first ask yourself: why does anything go on your website? Why do you even have a website?
Those answers are easy: to get clients, to strengthen your brand, to edge out your competitors, and to communicate your USP.
In other words, the goal is to grow your firm and make more money.
Your website isn’t about bragging. It’s not about your biography. To put a sharp point on it, it’s not about you… or at least it shouldn’t be. (More on that in a moment).
So this whole conversation about whether to include Super Lawyers on your website comes down to this single inquiry: does it help your website do its job of growing your practice by getting you bigger cases and better clients?
Us Messaging vs. You Messaging: Which One Is Super Lawyers?
At Juris Digital, we consistently preach the idea that your law firm’s marketing messages should always be about the client instead of the lawyer.
It’s the difference of:
“Us” messaging (“We have so many degrees, so many wins under our belts, so much experience…”)
“You” messaging (“You will probably have a hard time getting a fair settlement from the insurance company by yourself, but an experienced lawyer with a record of success can use effective strategies to get you what you deserve.”)
The second message is so much powerful than the first, even though both emphasize the importance of experience. The distinction is in to whom it is important.
Which of these messages does the Super Lawyers distinction communicate?
Arguably, you could position it either way.
The mistake would be to make it the focus of your messaging, wherein the Super Lawyers badge becomes all about you. “Hire us because we’re Super Lawyers!” doesn’t directly connect with the client’s experience.
This is better: “Your chances of maximizing compensation are better when you’re represented by a lawyer who knows how to negotiate claims with your best interest in mind. That’s how attorneys make a difference. We believe our clients have gotten bigger financial recoveries because we combine passion with experienced-based strategy… and that’s how we became one of the few firms recognized by the Super Lawyers program.”
The latter gives context to the Super Lawyers designation and makes it part of a narrative the client can relate to and understand.
So it isn’t so much about whether you include a Super Lawyers listing on your website as how you include it.
Check Your Jurisdiction’s Latest Ethics Opinions Too
A quick caveat: if you think mentioning Super Lawyers on your website might get you in trouble with your state bar, stay away from it altogether.
To date, we aren’t aware of any state ethics boards that have prohibited attorneys from putting a Super Lawyers badge on their website. But several states (most notably New Jersey) have issued strict guidelines for doing so.
In Jersey, for example, it’s okay to note that you were selected by the Super Lawyers organization for inclusion on its published list, but you can’t simply call yourself “a Super Lawyer” without further explanation. (That’s important because we’ve seen a lot of lawyers calling themselves just that online, without any fine print.)
Even if you make the clarification on your own site, you could get in trouble by including the Super Lawyers designation on LinkedIn or other social media forums lest you follow the rules to a T there too.
In Connecticut, there’s an ethics advisory opinion that talks about the importance of clarifying which practice area Super Lawyers recognized you for, among other things.
And the ABA published a study back in 2011 that detailed the ethical problems that could arise in other jurisdictions.
These are just examples, and it’s always possible that other ethics boards could issue new and different opinions in the future. So keep an eye on those rulings, and in the meantime, err on the side of careful and thorough wording… or otherwise don’t mention Super Lawyers at all.
(By the way, while we’re on the topic, you might want to read our guide to six common ethics mistakes lawyers make in their online marketing. There are some lifesavers there.)
Gut Instinct: How Does Super Lawyers Make You Feel? Icky or Proud?
An important consideration in all this is your own personal reaction to the Super Lawyers brand. Did you feel proud when you or your colleagues were selected? Did other people in your own life seem impressed? Do you, personally, think the distinction means something?
We find that different lawyers answer those questions differently. If you respect the honor and are genuinely proud to have it, we aren’t about to tell you not to promote it. By all means, put it on your site! Be proud! It is something!
By the same token, if it doesn’t sit well with you, don’t feel like you must broadcast it or else you’re committing a marketing sin. We promise: you’re absolved.
Super Lawyers and SEO: Who Benefits More… You or Them? Or Both?
SEO cuts both ways when it comes to Super Lawyers. Their site can send some traffic your way. There are prospective clients out there who visit attorney rating websites to look for a lawyer. When those sites link to your firm, that brings in leads and also adds some backlinking value to your quality score in Google’s algorithm.
But by putting a Super Lawyers badge on your website, you might be helping Thomson Reuters just as much as they’re helping you (if not more). Unless modified, the embed code they send along with that badge will link your site to theirs.
The danger there is that you could actually send traffic away from your site to SuperLawyers.com, where your client-to-be could discover another local lawyer (perhaps one who is paying for premium placement) and hire them instead.
We’re not convinced that’s going to happen on a regular basis, mind you. Most of your leads will see the badge, some will be impressed by it, but how many will care enough to click and start browsing for other lawyers?
Still, if it happens even once, that could be once too many. What if it’s the million-dollar case that got away?
It’s worth noting that SuperLawyers.com does very well on Google, consistently earning a high rank in local search results. Better to be listed there than not. Then again, just because you earn the Super Lawyers distinction doesn’t mean you have to plaster it on your own home page. In other words, they can link to you even if you don’t link to them.
So there isn’t a clear-cut answer as to whether SEO goes in the “pro” or “con” column for Super Lawyers. Call this one a draw.
Looking for a Yes or No Answer?
At the end of the day, there probably isn’t a clear-cut right or wrong answer to the question in our headline. But we promised an easy “yes” or “no” for those looking for one. So here it goes…
Yes. By all means, if you’re a Super Lawyer, say so. But (surprise, surprise… a caveat):
Don’t make too big a fuss over it.
Couch it in a “you” narrative, not in “us” language
Think twice before linking to SuperLawyers.com from your own site
Be super careful about the language you use with respect to the ethics rules & opinions in your jurisdiction
Make sure any reference to Super Lawyers on social media includes the same context/disclosures required by the ethics rules
Never make the Super Lawyers designation the focus of any webpage on your site.
Some perspective: no law firm will either rise or fall solely on the basis of a Super Lawyers badge.
Hire xxxxx x xxxxxx to Manage Your Law Firm’s Digital Marketing Strategy
If you’re wondering whether to include Super Lawyers on your website, what you’re really wondering about is how best to market your legal services online.
As it happens, digital marketing for attorneys is exactly what we do at Juris Digital (the only thing we do, in fact), and we’re very good at it.
There’s a reason we’ve earned the top spot on Google for attorney SEO, and it’s the same reason we’ve gotten so many of our other clients to the top of Google too.
We know how to build attorney websites and use digital strategies to make law firms grow. Find out what we can do for you.
That's right. Go to their own website & they will tell you how top tier gold they are. Same as going to Sawyers website & going to the Emu's website. Lol
I've always said that flat headed screwdrivers were invented by flat headed people. And then they created vplm...
Vplm has become little more than a flatline...