Do you feel at a loss or intimidated or repulsed by the thought of using social media? Like it or not, social media sites are a new means of communication, which we cannot ignore any more than we can ignore email. The fact is social media, if used properly, can be an effective, professional, and personal tool. If you are not using these sites currently, take a few minutes to see why you should be using social media and what you can do efficiently and effectively to save time, learn more and even advance your career. 

The new IOM report, Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach, again emphasizes the difference between how scientific panels go about making a causal inference and the approach too often approved of by credulous judges often insecure about their own ability to think critically and mesmerized by the jargon-laden pronouncements of credentialed experts. Beginning on page 82 under "Hierarchy of Studies" and followed by "Categories of Evidence" the report does a great job of detailing what counts as evidence and the methods and criteria used by organizations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, the World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research in going about collecting, assessing and weighing evidence when making causal judgments. They even put together a helpful summary of the classification systems (see Appendix C, "Classifications Systems Used in Evidence Reviews" at page 312).

Here are a couple of takeaways:

(1) "The criteria aim to be explicit about the weight, or relative importance, given to studies in humans and in animals or other experimental systems"; and

(2) "Strong and consistent positive epidemiologic evidence in rigorously conducted studies is prima facie evidence that the substance is a risk factor." You will quickly note upon reviewing the summary of systems of causal inference that none support anything like the notion embraced by the court in Milward v. Acuity that an expert weighing a subset of the data (each piece of which is either weak, irrelevant or inconsistent) upon the scales of his personal scientific judgment can by "reasoning to the best explanation" reliably reach a causal inference  - especially in the complete absence of any epidemiological evidence to support it. Indeed the "atomization" of evidence decried by the Milward court and those in the "public health movement" who promote mass tort litigation is exactly what IARC, IOM, NTP, EPA and WCRF/AICR do - they assess each piece of evidence, they do it transparently, they do it according to rules laid down before they even go looking for the evidence and then they weigh what's left; again, according to weighting systems that are explicit, consistent and established before the first piece of evidence is examined.

The idea that knowledge comes from scientists taking a "holistic approach to the data" and applying their personal judgment to it is, to be blunt, hooey. That may be a way to arrive at a testable conjecture but without the conjecture passing a test of its predictive power (e.g. a rigorous epidemiological study) it remains nothing but a bald, personal opinion with no foundation beyond the ipse dixit of the expert who induced it.

 David Oliver is managing partner of the Houston office of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease. His practice focuses on civil litigation involving allegations of injuries due to exposure to chemicals or pharmaceuticals; he holds degrees in both chemistry and biology. Read more of David’s work on his blog: Mass Torts: State of the Art. You may contact David through the firm’s website at www.vorys.com.

During this holiday season, DRI would like to take the opportunity to thank all of our bloggers and readers for 2011.

Postings on the DRI Blog were provided by DRI members representing nearly every substantive law committee and practice area! Your efforts have provided quality content and food for thought for your fellow DRI members and the legal community.  

We would also like to thank our officers, board of directors and committee leaders, as well as their companies and firms. The time and effort you sacrifice on behalf of DRI are greatly appreciated.  We look forward to working with all of you in the coming year!

Look for new content on the DRI Blog beginning on January 3, 2012.

Thanks again to all of you and we wish you a safe and happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year!

I got an e-mail the other day telling me that I should read an article published by the ABA.  Normally I ignore such messages, but this one caught my eye.  The title of the article was “Not One Legal Secretary Preferred Working with Women Lawyers.”  Hummm.  I thought.  So I read it.

On Friday, October 28, 2011 the ABA Journal posted this article in their online content. 

This article is based on a study called “If you become his second wife, you are a fool: Shifting paradigms of the roles, perceptions, and working conditions of legal secretaries in large law firms.”  The full study is available at this link. The problem is that the ABA’s article, in my opinion, is a complete mischaracterization of the study.

On October 31, 2011, a group of women attorneys including the President of California Women Lawyers, Georgia Black Women Lawyers, and others had a phone conference with ABA Editor, Allen Pusey.  Those on the call ultimately demanded an apology and a retraction.  At the time of this writing, neither has happened.

On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Forbes published a piece about women demanding an apology from the ABA.  

Two days later, on Friday, November 4, 2011, the ABA ran another article, basically saying the original article did women lawyers a favor by pointing to the fact we are discriminated against, and we don’t like to talk about it, so we got angry.  That is my summary. Read it and decide for yourself.

I am not a member of the ABA.  I dropped my membership and I am glad I did.  I think both articles should be retracted immediately.  The title of the initial article is inaccurate.  The study actually states that 47 percent of those surveyed had no opinion as to whether they preferred to work for male or female partners or associates.  With almost half of survey respondents expressing no opinion, it is a distortion of the results to say that “not one” legal secretary preferred working with women partners.

Additionally, the article gives the impression that the survey heavily emphasized the issue of legal secretaries working with women partners.  Such a survey on its face is insulting and feeds into gender stereotypes.  We do not (and should not) read about surveys regarding working with partners of particular religious affiliations, ethnicities, or sexual orientations.  While the study surveyed legal secretaries on a wide range of issues, two thirds of the ABA article focused on only one issue, secretaries working with women partners.  By strongly focusing on the survey results dealing with legal secretaries working with women lawyers, the article misrepresents the substance of the underlying study.  It gives disproportionate attention to but one of many issues addressed and in so doing continues to perpetuate negative stereotypes of women lawyers.  

Legal secretaries play an important role in law firms, and surveying how that role has evolved during the past 50 years is a worthwhile endeavor.  The ABA Journal’s emphasis on one aspect of that study does a disservice to legal secretaries as well as the women lawyers with whom they work.  I hope you will join me in writing to that organization asking for a retraction and apology. If you are interested in more background information or the steps certain women lawyers groups are taking, please let me know.  I am proud to be a DRI woman and I am proud to be on its Women in the Law Committee.

We must be doing our jobs as products defense attorneys if this is what the plaintiffs' bar is beginning to resort to. This story was featured in the ABA Journal and I found it quite amusing. It appears that Arkansas attorney, Joey McCutchen, is on a campaign against Toys R Us due to the store's decision to sell a talking children's doll that Mr. McCutchen claims speaks profanity. As part of his campaign against the store he has produced a YouTube video that he alleges is "proof" that the doll speaks the phrase "crazy b-tch", as opposed to the "realistic baby sounds" the doll is advertised to be able to make. The dolls were being sold in Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee. In the video he urges Toys R Us to cease selling the dolls. While the article does not mention whether Mr. McCutchen plans on commencing suit, if the viewers' comments on the video provide insight as to a potential jury pool, let's hope for his sake he does not. 

The Technology Committee has several publications available on counseling and advising clients on technology issues, and ways to use technology more effectively and efficiently in your practice.  On the Committee’s homepage, N. Kane Bennett has an article entitled Don’t Get Caught Operating Without a License.  Kane’s article focuses on software licensing issues, the consequences of business owners using unlicensed software or improper use of software, and guidance on advising clients on the best ways to prevent software compliance audits or enforcement actions for improper software use.

Robert Chapski has an article entitled Embracing New Technology and Avoiding Its Pitfalls.  Robert’s article offers several tips on how to both use technology in different areas of your practice, and how use technology to manage your work, rather than allowing the work to manage you.

The most recent edition of eNews, the Technology Committee’s newsletter, is also available.  You can access the full newsletter here.  The newsletter features several articles addressing the effective use of technology, including:

Lauren Bartlett’s article Using Technology to Maximize Productivity and Trim the Proverbial Fat.  In her article, Lauren takes a look at using nontraditional methods of communication and new approaches to capturing dead time to increase productivity and minimizing costs for law firms and clients.  The article includes a discussion of using Internet conferencing to meet with clients, expert witness, and local counsel in diverse locations, using mobile billing applications to track and capture billable time from your mobile phone, and using voice-to-text services to simplify written communication through your mobile phone.

In Two Tools for Improving the Efficiency of Your Legal Research, Craig Reid discusses two add-ons, or extensions, for the Firefox web browser that will help you to streamline your online research and the writing process.  The first, CiteGenie, is an extension that automatically creates citations to cases, statutes, regulations, and many secondary sources in the Westlaw and Lexis databases, and helps simplify the process of online legal research and writing.  The second, Zotero, is an extension that allows you to capture and organize webpage images to simplify online research.

Finally, Kevin Reynolds has written The Effective Use of PowerPoint or CorelPresentations During Opening Statement and Closing Argument.  Kevin offers practical tips for using these presentation tools in trial, including strategy tips on when to disclose the use of the presentation, and advice on executing the presentation in trial, when it matters most.

Dale Carnegie provided his tips on How to Win Friends and Influence People more than seventy years ago. (See http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html#two). If he were to speak at a DRI Seminar today, I think he would add this advice: “Get Involved.”

Regardless of the Committee, there are numerous opportunities for attorneys to become involved in DRI. I was reminded again of the benefits of becoming involved when I attended the DRI Drug and Medical Device Seminar in New York earlier this month. There is always a feeling of collegiality among friends at that Seminar. One of the best ways to get involved is to attend the Committee’s business meeting at the Seminar in May or the Committee’s meeting at DRI’s annual conference. Take time to introduce yourself to the Committee Chair and Co-chair. Volunteer to write an article or to post a blog for the Committee. Introduce yourself to the Committee’s Publication Chair and offer to contribute. Reach out to other attorneys on the Committee and get to know them. As you do, you will get to know many wonderful attorneys and you will increase your own professional network. Get involved!

I just returned from the DRI Young Lawyers Committee http://www.dri.org/open/Committees.aspx?com=0240 leadership meeting in Chicago, and I have to say that DRI and defense bar appear to be in good hands looking towards the future. Nowadays, there are articles about law school graduates and young attorneys expecting to be coddled as they enter the work force, after all, they are the generation where everyone got a trophy. That is not the case with the 40 young attorneys I spent the afternoon with.

The meeting presented reports from 21 different initiatives and subcommittees ranging from the committee's annual seminar to a Supreme Court committee that organizes a swearing in ceremony at the Supreme Court of the United States to Diversity efforts to Women Attorney mentoring. The leadership is diverse, welcoming and definitely hard working.

These young attorneys and the thousands of other members of the Committee are the future of the defense bar. Many will go "in-house" and become General Counsel. Some will become judges and most will become successful private practitioners. In large part, they will be successful because of the skills they develop in their practices, the education and training they get from DRI programming, and the relationships they build through this committee and, as they call it "Big DRI."

Young lawyers that are starting out need a home outside their firms. The DRI Young Lawyers Committee is a big house with many rooms. Join, get involved -- from what I saw, you won't regret it.

R. Mattthew Cairns
Gallagher Callahan & Gartrell
cairns@gcglaw.com