Posted November 29, 2018, 12:50 pm CST
Shutterstock.com.
Friday, November 30, 2018
Criminal defense lawyer arrested for alleged threats against attorneys
Criminal Justice
A Louisville, Kentucky, lawyer who won a murder acquittal for a client earlier this month has been arrested in connection with alleged threats against two lawyers in his own child custody battle.
The lawyer, 51-year-old Brendan McLeod, was charged with retaliating against participants in a legal process, terroristic threatening and harassing communications, the Louisville Courier Journal reports. He was arrested on Nov. 16 and released on his own recognizance.
McLeod is accused of leaving threatening voicemail messages for the lawyer representing McLeod’s ex-wife, Mark Dobbins. In one message, McLeod said he was going to “strap one on you,” and in another he said, “I will come find you,” according to allegations cited by the Courier Journal.
McLeod also allegedly told a third party that he would kill Dobbins and lawyer Forrest Kuhn, who was appointed as guardian ad litem for McLeod’s children. He also allegedly told police that he wished both lawyers were dead.
McLeod’s custody battle was in the news in July when McLeod sued the judge who released his drug test results. McLeod claimed that the judge defamed him and caused “a whirlwind of gossip, looks, stares and whispers” in the courthouse when she failed to seal results showing he had tested positive for methamphetamine, WDRB.com reported at the time. The lawsuit has since been dismissed.
The drug test was on May 8, the same month that he represented a murder defendant who was convicted at trial. The public defender’s office had sought a mistrial in the case because McLeod visited a co-defendant in jail at around 2 a.m. during the trial, WDRB.com previously reported. The judge denied the motion.
This month, McLeod represented a murder defendant who was acquitted of burglary and murder but convicted of terroristic threatening. The Courier Journal indicates the verdict was on Nov. 19, while reports in the West Kentucky Star and Paducah Sun say the date was Nov. 9.
McLeod didn’t respond to the Courier Journal’s request for comment. His lawyer told the Courier Journal he hadn’t yet investigated the case and had no comment.
McLeod responded by email to the ABA Journal’s request for comment. “This is newsworthy?” McLeod wrote. “They even have my picture wrong,” he said of the Courier Journal.
Updated at 3:30 p.m. with comment from McLeod.
Cyber Monday dominated Black Friday in paid search spend, but AOV lagged
Source: NetElixir
Source: NetElixir
About The Author
Ginny Marvin is Third Door Media's Editor-in-Chief, managing day-to-day editorial operations across all of our publications. Ginny writes about paid online marketing topics including paid search, paid social, display and retargeting for Search Engine Land, Marketing Land and MarTech Today. With more than 15 years of marketing experience, she has held both in-house and agency management positions. She can be found on Twitter as @ginnymarvin.
Federal judge orders utility company to explain any role it had in causing California wildfires
Natural Disasters
A federal judge has ordered Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to reveal what role, if any, it had in causing the Camp Fire that destroyed the California town of Paradise and killed at least 88 people.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued the order on Tuesday in connection with his oversight of the utility company’s probation for a fatal 2010 fire caused by a natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California, report the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee.
Alsup said he wanted PG&E to explain any role it had in causing the Camp Fire, as well as all other wildfires in California since the company was sentenced in January 2017 in the pipeline case. Jurors had found that the company obstructed investigators and violated public safety regulations in connection with pipeline maintenance. The utility was fined $3 million and placed on probation; a probation condition included a ban on committing any further crimes.
Alsup asked what steps a court-appointed monitor in the pipeline case had taken to monitor and improve PG&E’s safety and reporting. He also asked the company to tell him what aspects of the pipeline judgment “might be implicated by any inaccurate, slow or failed reporting of information about any wildfire by PG&E.”
Several lawsuits have been filed against PG&E in connection with the Camp Fire. An earlier suit alleges the fire began when a high-voltage transmission line failed and ignited a vegetation fire. The suit says PG&E had a duty to maintain its aging infrastructure and could have satisfied its obligations by putting electrical equipment underground in wildfire-prone areas, increasing inspections, and developing protocols to shut down electrical operations in emergency situations.
Posted November 29, 2018, 2:20 pm CST
California National Guard photo.
Court removes judge from child rape case, citing opinion sarcasm and ‘personal animus’
Judiciary
A Pennsylvania appeals court has removed a judge from the resentencing of a convicted child rapist, citing the judge’s “demonstrated bias and personal animus” toward the defendant’s lawyer and the public defender’s office.
A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ordered the recusal of Judge Donna Jo McDaniel of Allegheny County in an opinion on Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports. She was kicked off the case of Anthony McCauley, who was convicted of rape of a child and other offenses for sexual abuse of a minor when she was 6 and 12 years old.
McDaniel made “gratuitous statements” and sarcastic statements about the counsel in an opinion and made a veiled threat implying that their challenges to her decisions could be harmful to other criminal defendants, the superior court said. In addition, McDaniel “continually refuses” to follow sentencing mandates from the superior court in other sex offender cases, the court said.
In one case, McDaniel had imposed consecutive, statutory maximum sentences that deviated from guidelines and failed to consider mitigating evidence, the superior court said. In another, McDaniel had relied on unreliable facts and misinformation and didn’t properly consider statutory sentencing factors.
In both cases, superior courts reviewing McDaniel’s sentencing decisions had written “highly unusual footnotes” indicating they were troubled with McDaniel’s biased decision-making process and her inability to impose individualized sentences for sex offenders, the superior court said in its Wednesday opinion.
McDaniel had initially sentenced McCauley in November 2014 to 20 to 40 years in prison. In the first appeal, the superior court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because it was unclear whether McDaniel had wrongly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence. If McDaniel did not impose a mandatory minimum, she should reimpose the original sentence, the superior court said at that time.
On remand, McDaniel held a “brief and inadequate resentencing hearing,” the superior court said. First, she said her first sentence was not a mandatory minimum. Then, she resentenced McCauley, but the sentence was not quite the same; McDaniel took two days off the 20-year term and four days off the 40-year term.
McCauley’s lawyer filed a motion for recusal, which McDaniel denied. The motion should have been granted, the superior court concluded.
“There is substantial evidence that the trial court judge demonstrated bias and personal animus against appellant’s counsel and the public defender’s office to such an extent that it ‘raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s ability to preside impartially,’ ” the superior court said, using language in a prior opinion.
The superior court said it was particularly troubled by “gratuitous comments” denigrating the defense counsel in McDaniel’s opinion denying the recusal motion. They included McDaniel’s assertions that:
• It appeared likely that the defense counsel had, “in a fit of pique,” made it her mission to disagree with every aspect of McDaniel’s decision.
• Sentencing challenges were “reflective of defense counsel’s assertion of her agenda over the best interests of her client.”
• Challenges to her decisions made McDaniel question the credibility of the defense counsel, which “is also harmful to other criminal defendants who may actually have meritorious claims.”
• The defense lawyer had engaged in a “coordinated effort” to attack her sentencing decisions with lawyers in the two other sex offender cases.
“We note that the trial court did not make these gratuitous statements during an emotional and stressful courtroom hearing where the trial judge is attempting to control the courtroom and momentarily loses her temper,” the superior court said.
“Rather, the trial court made these derogatory comments during the deliberative process of drafting an opinion. The trial court’s animus and hostility to appellant’s counsel and the public defender’s office appears to be deep, unwavering and demonstrates an unjustified bias against the public defender’s office.”
Posted November 29, 2018, 12:12 pm CST
Shutterstock.com.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Tennessee’s Duncan Law back in ‘substantial compliance’ with admissions standard
Legal Education
Duncan School of Law at Lincoln Memorial University in Knoxville, Tennessee, is now in “substantial compliance” with admissions requirements that fall under Standard 501, according to a recent decision from the council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.
The law school, which has provisional approval from the ABA, in April was found to be “significantly out of compliance” with Standards 501(a) and (b), which state that schools should maintain “sound admissions policies and practices” and not admit candidates who seem like they won’t finish law school or pass a bar exam.
The April public notice also stated that the law school was found to be out of compliance with Interpretations 501-1, 501-2 and 501-3. Interpretation 501-1 deals with academic attrition and an incoming classes’ academic credentials; 501-2 focuses on admissions policies and practices; and 501-3 states that a law school with a cumulative nontransfer attrition rate higher than 20 percent is not in compliance with Standard 501.
During its recent meeting in Atlanta, the council found that Duncan Law is now in substantial compliance, a term used for schools with provisional accreditation, with Standard 501(a) and (b) as well as Interpretations 501(1), 501(2), and 501(3). The decision is based on the record and information provided by the law school, and hearing for the earlier noncompliance finding is canceled, according to the November public notice. It states that Duncan Law remains a “provisionally approved” law school.
Duncan Law has been approved by the ABA since 2014, according to its most recent Standard 509 Information Report. Its median LSAT score is 148, and its median undergraduate GPA is 3.08. Out of its first-year class, Duncan’s nontransfer attrition percentage was 22.2 percent.
Gary R. Wade, a retired Tennessee Supreme Court justice, is Duncan Law’s dean. According to him, the school’s attrition rate for the 2017-2018 school year has dropped to 8 percent.
The school sees itself as being mission-based, he adds, and willing to take a chance on some students with lower LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs. To do that, and be in compliance with ABA accreditation standards, Wade says, Duncan Law has ended an admissions-performance plan that’s for candidates with LSAT scores between 139 and the low 140s. This year, first-year students had LSAT scores of at least 147, and undergraduate GPAs were no lower than 2.6.
Also, since last year, Duncan Law has refunded tuition to first-year students in the lower quartile of the class who leave through attrition during the first semester.
“The real key to success was to minimize attrition and focus on coaching up the students that are at risk,” Wade says.
Regarding bar passage rates, 45 Duncan Law graduates sat for the July 2018 Tennessee exam, and the pass rate was 73.33 percent, according to the state board of bar examiners. The law school’s Tennessee bar passage rate for 2017 was 72.22 percent, according to ABA data.
Updated at 4:27 p.m. to include the quote and information from Duncan School of Law’s dean.
Posted November 28, 2018, 2:50 pm CST
Trump’s lawyers were briefed on Manafort’s discussions with feds; are the conversations privileged?
Legal Ethics
A lawyer for Paul Manafort continued to brief President Donald Trump’s lawyers about his discussions with federal investigators even after Manafort agreed to cooperate.
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani acknowledged and defended the continuing arrangement in an interview with the New York Times. According to the Times, “The arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with the special counsel’s office when prosecutors discovered it.” The newspaper relied on two unnamed sources for information on the deteriorating relationship.
Giuliani said the cooperation provided valuable insights, and he cited one example: Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing, told him that prosecutors wanted to know whether Trump was aware of his son’s plan to meet with a Russian lawyer who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. Mueller “wants Manafort to incriminate Trump,” Giuliani told the Times.
Prosecutors in the special counsel’s office alleged on Monday that Manafort lied to the FBI and the special counsel’s office after he pleaded guilty in September to reduced charges of conspiracy. Manafort is President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, and the guilty plea related to his work for the former government of Ukraine.
The shared information is part of a joint defense agreement. Such agreements are not unusual in investigations with multiple witnesses. But typically any defendant who agrees to cooperate in a plea deal ends the agreement, the Times explains.
Manafort may have continued to share information in hopes of obtaining a presidential pardon, according to University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney who spoke with the Times.
Trump told the New York Post on Wednesday that he hasn’t ruled out a pardon for Manafort. “It was never discussed, but I wouldn’t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?” he said.
McQuade and other experts also have suggested that the information-sharing could amount to witness tampering or obstruction, if there is an aim to influence testimony, report the Washington Post and NBC News. The stories point out another ramification: Special counsel Robert Mueller may be able to learn about the conversations between legal teams because they are no longer covered by attorney-client privilege.
NBC News explains: “A joint defense agreement can only exist between people who have a common legal interest. Once Manafort began cooperating with Mueller, he ceased to have a common interest with Trump, a subject of the investigation. … Once people involved in litigation no longer have a common interest—even if they say they do, courts have ruled—the conversations are not protected.”
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers told the Washington Post he thought Mueller could defeat any claim for privilege if he seeks to learn about the conversations between lawyers for Trump and Manafort. A privilege claim would arise in the context of a grand jury subpoena.
NBC News analyst Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney, said she would seek the communications if she was in Mueller’s place. “If I were Mueller, I would be issuing subpoenas today to Rudy Giuliani and Kevin Downing, and anyone else involved in those communications, so they would have to explain under oath exactly what was conveyed.”
Giuliani said last month that Trump’s lawyers have joint defense agreements with 32 witnesses or subjects of Mueller’s investigation. One of the people with such as agreement is conservative author Jerome Corsi, the Daily Beast reports. On Monday, Corsi refused a deal offered by the special counsel’s office to plead guilty to perjury for allegedly lying about his conversations with Trump adviser Roger Stone about WikiLeaks.
Vance expressed concern about the extent of information-sharing, according to the NBC News story. “The whole idea that we are talking about a president having a joint defense agreement with 32 other people—because they are all under criminal investigation—is not normal, and we can’t let it become normal,” she said.
Posted November 28, 2018, 4:12 pm CST
Paul Manafort/Mark Reinstein (Shutterstock.com).
Do you always write briefs to the maximum length?
Question of the Week
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruffled some feathers with some proposed changes to its rules.
One of the biggest changes would be cutting the allowed length of reply briefs from 6,000 words to 4,500 words. Merit briefs also would face a lower word-count limit, going to 13,000 from the previous max length of 15,000.
“The reduction in the length of reply briefs is more drastic, proportionally, than the reduction in the length of opening briefs,” appellate litigator Roy Englert Jr. told the National Law Journal. Englert, a partner at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber, has argued 21 cases before the Supreme Court. “I’m surprised that the court cut so deeply, but I assume that something in the justices’ experience drove the change.”
Federal courts already had shifted word limits downward, so the changes at the high court aren’t unprecedented. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the late Justice Antonin Scalia have both gone on record urging lawyers not to feel compelled to write to the maximum length. In Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, Scalia and co-writer Bryan Garner urge lawyers to make their arguments succinctly.
In a 2008 interview with the ABA Journal, Scalia said, “The briefs are extensive here at the court—60 pages from the petitioner and the respondent. … It’s too much for some cases. And it’s up to the lawyer to know when 40 pages is enough. And, as we say in the book, the best lawyer will come in with 40 pages. And the judge will read every one of those 40 pages because he knows this lawyer. And this lawyer always stops when he knows he’s said everything that is worth saying.”
At the same time, when you’ve spent months or even years building a complex case, writing a shorter brief can mean having to leave out compelling arguments or details that you think could be persuasive.
So this week we’d like to ask you: Do you always write briefs to the maximum length? Do you take advantage of every single word you’re allowed, or do you think brevity is the soul of wit? And what do you think of the Supreme Court’s proposed word limits?
Answer in the comments.
Read the answers to last week’s question: What are you thankful for?
Featured answer:
Posted by Jackie: “I am grateful for all of the lawyers who want to do pro bono work, for all the clients who entrust us with their legal issues, and most of all, for my firm, which supports the dedication of all of the copious resources of our firm to public service.”
Do you have an idea for a future question of the week? If so, contact us.
Posted November 28, 2018, 5:00 pm CST
Image from Shutterstock.com.
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/do-you-always-write-briefs-to-the-maximum-length/
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
ABA president calls for improvements to immigration system, conditions of detention
Immigration Law
After a weekend of violence and controversy at the Southern border, ABA President Bob Carlson issued a statement and a letter calling for improvements to the U.S. immigration system.
Carlson’s statement, dated Tuesday, makes express reference to escalating tensions at the border before calling for “a comprehensive, peaceful resolution to our nation’s immigration challenges.” Specifically, it asks Congress and the White House to devote more resources to the systems for handling asylum claims.
“Our immigration adjudication system is underfunded and undermanned,” Carlson wrote. “Nothing should be done to impede access to counsel or diminish due process of law for people seeking asylum.”
The ABA has frequently called for expanded access to counsel in immigration court, where immigrants are not provided with court-appointed lawyers and the resulting needs are not fully met by pro bono help. The ABA House of Delegates also passed a resolution reaffirming its support for asylum seekers and refugees, in 2017’s Resolution 10B, and calling for an end to the federal policy of separating parents and children with 2018’s Resolution 10C.
The statement came one day after Carlson submitted a letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, highlighting the ABA’s concern that ICE appears to be abandoning efforts to use the most protective detention standards in nondedicated facilities. Those are jails that house ICE detainees but are not dedicated exclusively to immigration detention, such as county jails that receive federal payments to house detainees. Those facilities are using an earlier version of the detention standards, which Carlson said are less protective of detainees. In addition, he said, it would be best if there was one standard across the entire detention system.
His letter also raises concern that only the ABA and three other organizations were asked for comment on the detention standards. A broader group might create better rules as well as create more community support for the end product, he noted.
Carlson’s letter also noted that there are “long-standing and serious” concerns about the conditions of immigration detention, as well as substantial barriers between detained immigrants and access to legal help. That’s why the ABA opposes detaining immigrants except in extraordinary circumstances, he wrote.
“The ABA instead supports the use of cost-effective, humane alternatives to detention, for individuals who would otherwise be detained, that are the least restrictive necessary to ensure appearance in court,” he said. “For those who are detained, it is essential to provide uniform and consistent standards to ensure that all facilities housing immigration detainees are safe and protect detainees’ statutory and constitutional rights.”
The letter noted that the ABA has historically weighed in on ICE’s detention standards, going back to the days before ICE was established and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service was in charge of the standards. As with this time, the ABA’s comments centered on immigrants’ access to legal information and communications and visits with attorneys.
The ABA’s direct work on immigration detention and immigrant rights includes the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project in Harlingen, Texas, and the Immigration Justice Project in San Diego. Both are projects of the Commission on Immigration. Carlson noted that the ABA also maintains a legal help hotline for detained immigrants, which gets a significant number of complaints about conditions of detention.
Posted November 27, 2018, 4:26 pm CST
Shutterstock.com
ABA President Bob Carlson
Supreme Court returns conservation battle over dusky gopher frog to 5th Circuit appeals court
U.S. Supreme Court
A challenge to the government’s critical habitat designation for the endangered dusky gopher frog is going back to a federal appeals court for another round.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Tuesday that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans erred in its decision favoring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The 5th Circuit had ruled the service could designate private land to be the frog’s “critical habitat” even if the land was not a habitat for the species. The Supreme Court disagreed in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
“According to the ordinary understanding of how adjectives work,” Roberts wrote for the court, “ ‘critical habitat’ must also be ‘habitat.’ ” That meaning is also consistent with the statutory definition, Roberts said.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh did not take part in the decision.
The Supreme Court remanded the case for the 5th Circuit to define the word habitat. The court said habitat could, by the statutory definition, include areas where the species doesn’t currently live. But still unresolved is whether land can be a habitat even if it would have to be modified to sustain the species.
The Supreme Court also directed the 5th Circuit on remand to consider whether the government’s cost-benefit analysis of the designation was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. The 5th Circuit had wrongly determined the Fish and Wildlife Service’s analysis—which favored the frog—could not be reviewed by the courts, the Supreme Court said.
The dusky gopher frog lives underground in only four U.S. locations, all located in two adjacent counties on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. Fish and Wildlife had determined that a fifth location in Louisiana needed to be designated a critical habitat because of the danger that local events such as extreme weather could wipe out the entire species.
The Louisiana land is partly owned by a timber company, the Weyerhaeuser Co., which points out that the dusky gopher frog hadn’t lived there since 1965. The frog couldn’t live there now without some modification of the tree canopy, Weyerhaeuser says.
A report by the Fish and Wildlife Service said the critical habitat designation could impede development of the Louisiana site, costing $20.4 million to $33.9 million in lost development value. The service said those potential costs were not disproportionate to the conservation benefits of a critical habitat designation.
Posted November 27, 2018, 2:40 pm CST
Dusky gopher frog. Photo by U.S. Department of Agriculture, via Wikimedia Commons.
Two Christie allies to be resentenced in Bridgegate lane closures after partial reversal
Criminal Justice
Two former officials convicted in a scheme to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge for political punishment will be resentenced after a federal appeals court reversed part of their convictions.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia on Tuesday reversed convictions of Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly for violating the civil rights of people who used the bridge, report the North Jersey Record, NJ.com and the New Jersey Law Journal. The court left intact their convictions for wire fraud conspiracy and misappropriation of government resources.
Baroni was the former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Kelly was deputy chief of staff to then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Baroni and Kelly were accused of closing several lanes for four days in September 2013 to punish a mayor who didn’t endorse the governor for re-election. Christie has denied having advance knowledge of the plan.
Baroni had been sentenced to 24 months in prison, while Kelly had received an 18-month sentence.
The appeals court said Baroni and Kelly used Port Authority employees to do sham work to support their scheme, violating a law that bars misapplying the property of an organization that receives federal benefits. The Port Authority receives federal funding.
The court also upheld wire fraud conspiracy convictions based on allegations that Baroni and Kelly used emails to deprive the Port Authority of overtime pay for toll both collectors by falsely representing the lanes were closed for a traffic study.
But the court said the civil rights violations couldn’t be upheld because they were based on an alleged right to travel freely between states, which has not been clearly established.
A lawyer for Kelly pledged to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. A lawyer for Baroni said he and his client were “evaluating further appellate options.”
Posted November 27, 2018, 4:46 pm CST
George Washington Bridge.
Daily News: Echo Dot’s Black Friday, Small Business Saturday Online Sales, The Localogy Conference
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Justice Ginsburg returns to the bench after breaking three ribs
U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the Supreme Court for oral arguments on Monday after breaking three ribs in a fall in her office on Nov. 7
Ginsburg, 85, heard arguments in an antitrust case that contends Apple is monopolizing the app market, ABC News reports.
There was “no discernible difference in questioning style” by Ginsburg, according to a tweet by Robert Barnes, the Supreme Court reporter for the Washington Post. “Justice Thomas perhaps a bit more solicitous in making sure she departed without event,” Barnes tweeted.
At issue in Apple v. Pepper is whether people who buy iPhone apps can sue Apple over 30 percent commissions charged to app developers on exclusive sales through its App Store. A federal court had ruled that consumers can’t sue because they weren’t directly overcharged, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
The Supreme Court appeared ready to allow the lawsuit, according to NBC News, the Associated Press and Bloomberg News.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the only justice who appeared to clearly agree with Apple that consumers couldn’t sue, according to AP and Bloomberg.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that perhaps consumers should be able to sue if they were paying more than they should. He pointed to the federal antitrust statute that says “any person injured” can sue.
Posted November 26, 2018, 1:50 pm CST
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Justice RBG on the bench as oral arguments resume, broken ribs and all. No discernible difference in questioning style. Justice Thomas perhaps a bit more solicitous in making sure she departed without event
— Robert Barnes (@scotusreporter) November 26, 2018
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/justice-ginsburg-returns-to-the-bench-after-breaking-three-ribs/
Daily News: Reputation Management Dos and Don’ts, Black Friday Spending, Data Solutions
November 26, 2018 | Contributed by: Courtney Dobson
Here is today’s roundup of news related to local marketing and advertising, local media, technology, local commerce, consumer behavior and more.
Reputation Management Dos and Don’ts During the Holiday Season (November 26, 2018)
LSA Insider: “For businesses that are just starting out and have only a small number of customers, a single negative review or criticism on social media can be devastating. This is especially true for businesses who have too few positive reviews to balance out the damage.”
Google’s Backdoor Shift to a Social Network (November 26, 2018)
Street Fight: “Obviously, Google isn’t looking to create a Facebook-like social network in local or across search. But they seem to be adding more and more social features to local.”
Black Friday Attracts Large Sales And First-Time Buyers, Studies Show (November 26, 2018)
MediaPost: “Black Friday appeared to be a strong retail sales day despite bad weather in some parts of the country. Mastercard SpendingPulse predicts that Black Friday spending will be 40% larger than that of an average day in the 2018 holiday season.”
Brand Trust Matters… A Lot. (November 26, 2018)
Marketing Charts: “Two-thirds of adults in the US say that trust in a brand has a great deal (31%) or a lot (37%) of influence on their decision when making a big purchase, reports SurveyMonkey in recently-released research.”
MomentFeed Ranked as One of the Fastest Growing Companies in North America on Deloitte’s 2018 Technology Fast 500™ (November 26, 2018)
Business Wire: “MomentFeed’s chief executive officer, Robert Blatt, credits its innovative platform, which helps improve both paid and organic location-based consumer engagement as well as boost the visibility and drive increased traffic to individual store locations, with the company’s rapid growth.”
Using data responsibly doesn’t have to weaken marketing strategies (November 23, 2018)
MarTech Today: “In today’s diverse marketplace, businesses need data solutions that empower them to anticipate and respond to many circumstances and challenges.”
Speeding ticket turns into a possible 6-month jail term for St. Louis woman
Criminal Justice
A St. Louis woman who missed a court date for a speeding ticket in Missouri has spent 20 days in jail, but her sentence may not be over.
Precious Jones, 34, was going 120 miles an hour in a 70 mph zone when she was pulled over by the Missouri Highway Patrol, according to a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She had been traveling from St. Louis to Kansas City, but was pulled over in Lafayette County, a mostly rural area with a population of around 33,000. After she missed her August court date in Lafayette County, Jones paid the bond on an outstanding warrant for her arrest and called to receive a new court date. She hired a lawyer.
Jones pleaded guilty to a Class B misdemeanor in May, expecting to pay a fine. Instead, Judge Kelly Rose sentenced Jones to six months in jail along with two years of probation. The jail sentence would be suspended if Jones spent 20 days in jail on weekends. Jones asked if she could serve the time in St. Louis rather than Lafayette County, which is more than 200 miles away, but her request was denied.
Jones complied with just two glitches. She was an hour late one Friday in May because of a new job she had in St. Louis that required her to work until 6 p.m. A second time, in June, Jones’ car broke down and she didn’t make it to the jail on Friday. She did call to report the problem. The next day she arrived at jail and stayed the required two days.
Jones completed her jail time, took drivers’ education classes, performed community service and paid her fines, including a bill for the cost of her incarceration. She believed she had satisfied her obligations.
But the prosecutor, Kristen Hilbrenner, wants to revoke Jones’ probation because she was late to jail. The bid to revoke probation spurred another warrant for Jones’ arrest that carries a $2,500 bond.
Jones says the court and her lawyer both told her that by paying a higher fine, the speeding ticket wouldn’t carry points against her license. Court records outline the promise. But not everyone got the message; the points were counted and Jones’ license has been suspended. The Post-Dispatch points
“I don’t know what I’m going to do,” Jones tells the Post-Dispatch. “They are just not going to let me go.”
Posted November 26, 2018, 11:15 am CST
Image from Shutterstock.com.
Monday, November 26, 2018
Google showing zero results again for many time, calculations & conversions search results
Google has decided to show zero search results when they are confident that they are able to give answers that solve the searchers query fully. This is currently limited to many time, calculations & conversions search results. So searches that ask for math answers, what the time it is in specific locations and math conversions. Google always provides a link to “show all results,” which will lead to Google showing the search results.
When does Google hide the main search results? Google will only hide the main search results when the query is specific to time, calculations and conversions related queries. And even in some of those cases, if it is possible that Google thinks a searcher may want to get the search results, Google will default to show the search results.
For example, here is a search for :
Compare that to :
Google believes that some may be searches for the New York Times and thus shows all the search results by default.
These types of zero results also come up for conversions:
And they also come up for math:
Google’s statement. Google emailed this statement about launching this feature today:
As always, our goal with search is to help people quickly find the most relevant information. For queries where we have extremely high confidence that a user is seeking a calculation, unit conversion or local time, we will show a single result to improve load time on mobile. Since our initial experiment in February, we worked to remove ads and improve the triggering quality for this experience to be sure that we’re serving users what they’re looking for, and we will still provide the option to tap to see more results.Google tested this in March but pulled back the feature. Google tested showing no search results in their search results earlier this year back in March. There was a lot of unhappy people with the test, so Google stopped it after several days and said they will rethink these efforts. What didn’t people like? In some cases, when Google showed zero results it lead to some brands not coming up for their own name. It also stopped dating sites from coming up for queries like . There were many examples of where this search experiment failed and Google tried to resolve most of these. But in the case of , it seems Google rather just give you the calendar date and not help you find a soulmate:
Why does this matter? Clearly for sites that do time conversions, help with math problems or other conversion formulas, you may now be in really bad shape. Google won’t show your site for answers without an additional click. In addition, if you try to name your new company in the format of a time, conversion or math problem – you better make sure Google is able to show search results for that query. If not, it might be a while for Google to send you any traffic for people searching on your brand name.
Thank you. We also wanted to thank Sergey Alakov for spotting this in the morning and for a Google spokesperson for responding to us on a Sunday.
About The Author
Barry Schwartz is Search Engine Land's News Editor and owns RustyBrick, a NY based web consulting firm. He also runs Search Engine Roundtable, a popular search blog on SEM topics.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Google’s EU shopping comparison rivals say their situation is getting worse
Roughly a month ago European Commission (EC) competition chief Margrethe Vestager said that Google’s efforts in shopping search were making progress and that the company would likely be able to avoid additional antitrust penalties. However in a new open letter to Vestager, EU shopping comparison rivals argue that things are actually getting worse for them.
The backstory. In June, 2017 the EC fined Google roughly $2.7 billion for alleged abuse of market position in vertical (shopping) search. Following that decision, which Google is in the process of appealing, Google implemented a number of changes to provide “equal treatment” for rival Comparison Shopping Engines (CSEs) in Europe.
The major change Google made was to treat Google Shopping as a separate business unit with its own operating budget that would compete with other shopping sites to appear in Google Product Listing Ads (PLAs). It also said the business unit would operate at a profit. All parties would now theoretically compete on equal footing to appear in PLAs.
‘Harm continues unabated.’ According to the letter’s signatories, that’s not how things are playing out. Signed by the leaders of 14 CSEs, the letter states, “It has now been more than a year since Google introduced its auction-based ‘remedy’, and the harm to competition, consumers and innovation caused by Google’s illegal conduct has continued unabated.”
The letter argues there’s no material difference between the new approach and the previous system, which was found to violate EU antitrust rules, except that Google has to compete to appear in PLAs. However, the CSEs dismiss that change as “meaningless.”
The shopping sites object to the PLA auction itself, saying it compels them to “bid away the vast majority of their profit.” They dismiss Google’s participation in the auction, as an independent unit that has to achieve a profit, as “meaningless internal accounting.” They also argue that because users who click on their PLAs go directly to merchant sites and not the CSEs themselves, they have no opportunity to “derive value from the process.”
Rejecting the auction entirely. They also argue that the auction harms consumers because it is “all but eradicating” a “thriving comparison shopping market in Europe.”
The letter concludes that, “As long as placement is determined by auction rather than relevance, it makes little material difference whether competitors occupy none, some, or even all of the available slots. In all cases, Google is the main beneficiary of any profits derived from these entries, and consumers are the main losers.”
Without specifying a desired alternative approach, beyond implying it should be based on “relevance,” the group encourages the EC “to enforce its Prohibition Decision by rejecting Google’s non-compliant ‘compliance mechanism’ and demanding an effective remedy that adheres to the principle of equal treatment set out in the Decision.”
Why it matters. The outcome of Google’s appeal in Europe could still be a couple of years off. In the interim it will have to comply with the EC’s decisions. And while Google and its stock have mostly been impervious to even multi-billion-dollar fines, the CSEs’ letter could put pressure on the EC to compel additional changes in shopping search results or an entirely new approach in Europe, which would certainly impact everyone across that 28 country market.
About The Author
Greg Sterling is a Contributing Editor at Search Engine Land. He writes a personal blog, Screenwerk, about connecting the dots between digital media and real-world consumer behavior. He is also VP of Strategy and Insights for the Local Search Association. Follow him on Twitter or find him at Google+.
Judge strikes down federal ban on female genital mutilation, tosses charges against eight people
Constitutional Law
A federal judge in Detroit has dismissed charges of female genital mutilation against eight people in a decision that found Congress had no authority to ban the procedure.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Tuesday that Congress had no authority under the commerce clause to ban female genital mutilation because it doesn’t affect interstate commerce, report the Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press and the Associated Press.
Female genital mutilation is common in some parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, the Associated Press reports. In this case, the procedure is said to be part of a religious custom for girls in a Muslim sect called the Dawoodi Bohra. The intent is to keep girls chaste until marriage, and then to discourage adultery, according to one of the senators who backed the 1996 federal ban, then-Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada.
The government had made two arguments in support of the law’s constitutionality. First, prosecutors argued Congress had the power to pass the law under a treaty ratified by the Senate in 1992. The treaty calls on countries to provide civil and political rights to both men and women, and calls for the protection of minors on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Friedman found no logical relationship between the female genital mutilation ban and the treaty. And if there were such a relationship, Friedman said, “federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute.”
Friedman also turned aside the government’s second argument that the commerce clause gave Congress the authority to ban the practice. Female genital mutilation “cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be classified as an economic or commercial activity,” Friedman wrote.
Friedman cited a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Morrison, which struck down the federal Violence Against Women Act. The law created a private right of action for victims of crimes motivated by gender.
The government can’t distinguish female genital mutilation from other gender-motivated crimes of violence, and the Supreme Court found such violence is not economic and not part of the interstate market in Morrison, Friedman said. “As despicable as this practice may be,” Friedman said of female genital mutilation, “it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison.”
The defendants in Friedman’s case included Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, the Michigan doctor who allegedly performed the surgery on nine girls, and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, who allowed the surgery at his Michigan clinic. Also charged were four mothers who took their daughters for surgery; Attar’s wife, Farida; and a woman who assisted in the procedure.
Friedman left in place obstruction charges that carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison against Nagarwala, the Attars and one of the mothers. Nagarwala also remains charged with conspiracy with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, which is defined as intentional touching of another person under age 16 with the intent to abuse, harass or degrade the person, Michigan Radio previously reported. The charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Michigan is one of 27 states with laws that ban female genital mutilation. The law was passed too late to apply to the defendants in the case, the stories report.
Posted November 21, 2018, 11:05 am CST
The office of Dr. Fakhruddin Attar in Livonia, Michigan. The charges against Attar and his wife under a federal law banning female genital mutilation have been dismissed. They still face obstruction charges. (Photo from Shutterstock.com)
Navigating Showcase Shopping Ads this holiday season
When Google announced Showcase Shopping ads in 2016, two objectives were mission critical: to help shoppers discover what they wanted to buy and where they wanted to buy it.
Today, the ad format is still an important method used to capture shoppers using broad terms on Google. But the tech giant is doing more than just catering to upper funnel shoppers this holiday season. Recent updates have made Showcase ads appear for more specific queries while the addition of video is giving retailers a new, visual way to promote their brand.
A lot is happening in the world of Showcase ads ahead of the year-end retail rush. Let’s talk about Google’s latest updates, results we’re seeing, and what retailers can do to get the most out of Showcase ads during the holidays.
Here’s what is new
Showcase terms expand Showcase ads were initially released as ads displayed for generic queries. Recent data from Sidecar (my employer) has shown that they’re also moving down the shopping funnel as the holidays approach. In addition to broad search terms, Showcase ads are now rendering for more specific and branded terms. These terms, which now range from broad searches like “couch” or “sofa” to detailed searches like “KitchenAid mixer,” indicate Google’s willingness to test a wide range of search queries and determine the value of Showcase ads throughout the shopping journey. Engaging high-intent shoppers may lead to higher conversions and position Showcase ads as a full-funnel format. Top Showcase slot drives higher CTR Google last year revealed that Shopping ads appearing in the leftmost spot on mobile receive up to three times more engagement from shoppers than other positions. Showcase ads have seen similar results since launch. According to Google, the top Showcase slot drives 3.6 times higher than average click-through rate. Shoppers rely on Showcase ads to discover new products, and retailers who appear in the leftmost slot have more opportunity to engage with these shoppers. Video in showcase ads In September, Google announced a new addition called video in Showcase ads. This feature allows retailers to include a video of any length along with their Showcase ad. Video is a vehicle retailers can use to differentiate themselves and serve captivating visuals to get shoppers’ attention. Google was strategic with its release, too: The rollout of video comes just in time for the holiday season. Still a discovery-driven format? Look to the data Showcase ads may soon be an effective way to drive purchases and find new customers, but the data suggests they are still mainly an exposure play for retailers. We took a look at Showcase ad performance over a 16-week period between July and October 2018. The data, based on a sample of over 50 U.S. retailers, shows that impressions and engagements increased significantly while conversions stayed relatively flat over that time.
Both impressions and engagements began to tick up in mid-September, with each reaching peak values in mid-October. Conversions, on the other hand, remained static over the 16-week trial, never seeing more than a 20 percent week-over-week increase.
Google’s expansion of Showcase terms to include specific queries may help bolster conversions over time, but for now, Showcase ads remain an exploratory ad format.
Tactics to employ this holiday season
Use Showcase ads to increase exposure Discovery is key when it comes to Showcase ads. While it’s helped inform early-stage shoppers about new retailers and products, the expansion of Showcase terms targets shoppers in every stage of the shopping journey. Use Showcase ads to get your name and products in front of as many shoppers as possible. It’s a powerful format that helps shoppers get more acquainted with your brand and the products you have to offer. Whether your ads appear to low-intent shoppers in the research phase or high-intent shoppers ready to buy, being visible to a wide range of shoppers can only benefit your business. Keep an eye on specific and branded query performance The growing number of Showcase terms expands the playing field to include shoppers who are further down the funnel. While it remains unknown just how well specific terms in Showcase ads perform, retail marketers should keep a keen eye on specific and branded searches — especially during the holidays. Use query mapping to see which ad groups and keywords specific queries are being matched with. This will shed light on how well these lower-funnel searches are faring in Showcase ads. Stay close to shifts in performance from one campaign to the next and use this intel to inform spend on specific keywords. Know the difference between negating keywords in Shopping and Showcase ads When two or more Shopping campaigns promote the same product, a priority setting (low, medium, or high) can be set for each to determine which campaigns’ set of products should be bid on in auction. This setting can also help funnel certain keywords downward. The process of segmenting keywords is different for Showcase ads. According to Google, campaign priority is not compatible with Showcase ads. If you create a low-priority Showcase campaign that only contains keywords you negated from the high-priority campaign, the low-priority campaign will pick up many queries along with the queries negated from the high-priority campaign. Don’t look to your Shopping campaigns to inform your negative keywords for Showcase ads. Instead, simply negate the keywords you don’t want to appear for Showcase ads. Build a campaign tree that excludes underperforming products Showcase ads don’t allow you to bid at the product or product group level. Since this is the case, think about building a campaign tree to exclude certain products that don’t perform well. This will help you focus directly on promoting the products that move the needle for your business and achieve your Showcase ad goals. If you’re focused on generic query performance, for example, you may exclude high price tiers so you’re showing products that are more affordable and approachable to a wider variety of buyers. Use the search terms report to gauge the need for new ads Let your query performance inform your campaigns. In Google Ads, use the search terms report to determine which queries are driving traffic to your site and which queries are performing poorly. Running this report helps you gauge the need to create new Showcase ads. For instance, if you have a kitchen appliance ad or ad group and are seeing queries roll in for coffeemakers, it may be a good idea to build a separate ad specifically targeting coffeemakers. Develop a strategic approach to video content Video in Showcase ads will be an important vehicle in maximizing brand exposure. Before deployment, however, retailers should give their development process careful consideration. Think about how your business can benefit from the addition of video and what its purpose will serve in each of your Showcase ads. These factors should serve as the backbone of your video production strategy. Consider all that goes into the development of video for Showcase ads. From content ideation to creative execution, video requires collaborative thought from some resources. Create a content strategy for video that makes the best use of your time and team. These tactics can play a big part in getting the most out your Showcase ads this holiday season. With these actionable items in place, your Showcase ads are set to take on the holiday retail blitz and beyond.Opinions expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.
About The Author
Steve Costanza is the Senior Analytics Consultant of Enterprise Customer Strategy at Sidecar. He analyzes digital marketing performance and strategic direction for large retailers across verticals, focusing on data visualizations and advanced account segmentation. He is responsible for deriving meaning from numbers and determining how to use those insights to drive marketing decision making. Steve is especially close to Google's new innovations impacting Shopping and paid search. He has a master's degree in data analytics and contributes to Search Engine Land as well as Sidecar Discover, the publication by Sidecar that covers research and ideas shaping digital marketing in retail.
https://www.businesscreatorplus.com/navigating-showcase-shopping-ads-this-holiday-season/
Friday, November 23, 2018
Trump gives written answers on Russian interference to Mueller
Executive Branch
President Donald Trump has given written answers to questions about Russian interference in the election to special counsel Robert Mueller, the president’s lawyers said on Tuesday.
The questions don’t cover whether Trump tried to obstruct the probe into Russian interference, report the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
According to the Washington Post, Trump was asked whether he knew about the planned release of Democratic emails on WikiLeaks that were said to have been hacked by Russians. Other questions addressed Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who said she had dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Questions involve the time period during the election campaign; Trump’s lawyers contend the special counsel is not entitled to any information about executive decisions when Trump was president and president-elect, according to the Washington Post.
One of Trump’s lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, told the Post that Trump’s answers are “complete and detailed,” but “there’s nothing there I haven’t read in a newspaper.”
Giuliani is calling for an end to the special counsel probe, the New York Times noted. “The special counsel has been provided with more than 30 witnesses, 1.4 million pages of material, and now the president’s written responses to questions,” Giuliani said. “It is time to bring this inquiry to a conclusion.”
The Wall Street Journal notes that “a handful of prosecutors” recently left the special prosecutor’s office, an indication that Mueller’s investigation could be wrapping up.
Politico raises the prospect that Trump could be subpoenaed for information on obstruction. But one expert who spoke with the publication doubted it would happen.
“My hunch, at least at this time, the special counsel doesn’t need the president’s testimony,” said Jack Quinn, a former White House counsel under President Bill Clinton. Quinn believes Mueller gave the president a chance to testify “simply so that the president does not later complain about the special counsel’s further prosecutorial actions or the conclusions of his report when it is made public in one fashion or another.”
Giuliani told Politico that any subpoena would be resisted. “I wouldn’t argue that you can never a subpoena a president. I would argue that you can’t in this particular case because to subpoena a president you have a burden you don’t have with anybody else,” Giuliani said. “Because you’re intruding on his presidential time. You’ve got to show a real need for it. A real need for it in terms of developing your case and not a real need in order to try to trap him. Trapping is not a legal legitimate objective.”
Posted November 21, 2018, 9:10 am CST
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/trump-gives-written-answers-on-russian-interference-to-mueller/
Study: Local Shopping’s Built-in Advantages
November 21, 2018 | Contributed by: Greg Sterling
Consumer shopping habits have never been more complex than they are today, with shopping patterns now more fragmented and elusive than ever. And while some marketers believe (or want to believe) traditional shopping is dying, stores remain important for large numbers of consumers.
A recent study from Oracle Bronto revealed the reasons why.
The study, “In-store Shopping Behaviors,” found that 66% of consumers shop in-stores because they like to see, hold and try on products before buying them. Other reasons include not having to wait for products to be delivered (66%), enjoying browsing stores (51%), seeking advice from store associates (33%), in-store discounts (21%) and interacting with other shoppers (20%).
Notwithstanding these preferences, improving the in-store CX (customer experience) remains a top priority for 57% of marketers. Traditional retailers cannot take consumer store visits for granted.
They must focus on enhancing the store experience, whether it’s with mobile and location technologies or more basic things like inventory availability and streamlined check-out. In the current environment, retailers should be improving and refining the experiences that consumers care about most.
This data comes from an Oracle Bronto Study, “In-store Shopping Behaviors,” n=1,000 US consumers. To access the graphic above, click here.
https://www.businesscreatorplus.com/study-local-shoppings-built-in-advantages/
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Daily News: Local Shopping Advantages, Paid Search Trends, Retailers & Black Friday Store Visits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)