Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Swimming pools are among the most popular amenities in apartment complexes. On hot days, residents flock to these features to cool off, socialise, and burn energy. Sadly, however, they are also the scene of many devastating events.
From slip and fall accidents to accidental drowning, there are a number of things that can go wrong in a communal swimming pool. Understanding how to determine liability for these events is important. If you or someone you love has been harmed as the result of a poorly maintained swimming pool, it may be possible to seek compensation.
By offering swimming pools as communal amenities, apartment complexes are able to increase their marketability. Features like these help buildings attract qualified tenants more rapidly, and they even make it possible for property owners to charge higher rents. However, these benefits do not come without risks and responsibilities.
There is additional risk associated with offering water features, and a number of important steps that must be taken to mitigate this risk. Among these are:
Absent of these efforts and others, complex owners can often be held liable for the injuries and damages that residents sustain when using these features. It's also important to note that when residents bring guests into the swimming area, any guests that sustain swimming-related injuries while on the premises may be able to seek damages as well.
There is additional risk associated with offering water features, and a number of important steps that must be taken to mitigate this risk.
Often, when people think of the dangers associated with swimming pools, many immediately consider drowning. Surprisingly, however, there are a vast range of accidents that can occur around large bodies of water, slick surfaces, and tiled or concrete walls that may be used as launching pads for jumping or diving. In addition to drowning events, common swimming pool accidents include:
From water with excessively high levels of bacteria to unenforced diving rules, errors in mismanagement and poor supervision, general negligence of communal water features can lead to a host of problems. When filing claims, residents and their guests must show that their illnesses or injuries are the result of insufficient efforts on the part of property owners to ensure overall premises safety.
Even when property owners and their management teams do their due diligence in ensuring that swimming areas are safe and that pool users are not engaging in dangerous behavior, people can still get harmed. In these instances, injuries usually occur because residents simply aren't following the posted pool rules and warnings.
[ymal]
For instance, when pools are not sufficiently deep to accommodate jumping or diving, vaulting off the side of the pool could result in leg, back, neck, head, shoulder, and other injuries. Drinking while swimming or otherwise under the influence greatly increases the risk of drowning.
If property owners can show that tenants failed to obey pool rules, and that pool rules and safety warnings were clearly posted, the related premises liability claims against them can be deemed invalid.
Freely offering swimming pool access to tenants entails a considerable amount of risk. By posting proper signage, placing limitations on non-resident guests, and creating a swimming area that's clean, well-lit, and secured, building owners can limit their likelihood of facing costly liability issues.
When tenants do not adhere to pool rules and ignore other signage alerting them of potential hazards, they are unlikely to receive compensation for any losses or damages that are sustained while using these features.
Karen D. Fultz-Robinson, Esq. and Johanna Sheehe, Esq. of Sheehe & Associates, P.A., give Lawyer Monthly an analysis of the state of AOB legislation in Florida.
Assignment of benefits agreements has been the bane of the property insurance industry’s existence because of perceived fraud, overcharges, and resulting litigation leading to increases in insureds’ premiums and disgruntled homeowners. Recognising these abuses, state legislatures and governors across the country are taking action to protect insureds from unscrupulous practices and slow the flood of lawsuits related to these assignments. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies sets forth its support of legislation which prevents abusive assignment of benefits practices here.
In the State of Florida, the crux of the discontent surrounding litigation involving assignment of benefits (“AOB”) claims is Florida Statutes, Section 627.428(1), a one-way attorney fee statute which awards attorneys’ fees to an insured, or their assignee, when they prevail against an insurance company. In 2019, the Florida Legislature passed Florida Statutes, Section 627.7152, which attempts to protect insureds and curb perceived abusive tactics and exploitation of the attorney fee statute by limiting an assignee’s ability to recover attorneys’ fees. In the wake of its enactment, litigation has swirled around the question of when the new statute applies.
In the homeowners insurance industry, assignment of benefits agreements arise when subsequent to a loss, an insured signs an agreement with a contractor wherein the contractor agrees to perform certain work and the insured agrees, among other things, to assign the right to receive his or her insurance proceeds (the benefits) to the contractor. In other words, the insurance company will be directed to pay any insurance proceeds directly to the contractor, instead of the insured, for work performed or to be performed at the insured’s premises.
In the wake of its enactment, litigation has swirled around the question of when the new statute applies.
Disputes arises when the contractor demands payment from the carrier, but the amount billed is considered excessive because, for example, the work was not performed by the contractor, the work is deficient (according to the insured), or the insured elects to not retain the contractor to perform the work originally estimated. Some insurance companies take steps to combat and prevent perceived injustice to its insureds, such as adding the insureds’ names to the payment check to ensure the insured is aware of when payments were issued to the contractor, denying payment if the contractor failed to produce proof of workmanship, or conducting line item deletions if billing statements included inappropriate charges such as mortgage processing fees or supervisory costs that were not justified or are contrary to the coverages made available by the applicable policy. In response to the insurance companies’ activism, contractors have initiated litigation throughout the state of Florida against insurance carriers to collect purportedly outstanding expenses and invoices.
The cost of protracted and voluminous litigation financially impacted the insurance industry which trickled down to its customers by way of an increase in premiums (this report details the exponential growth of AOB litigation leading to legislative reform). In an effort to obtain relief, the insurance companies turned to the legislature for help. After years of lobbying on both sides of the political aisles, in July 2019, Florida enacted Florida Statutes, Section 627.7152 which was the first time in years when the AOB saga was reeled in and an attempt was made to take control of the runaway train in the real property insurance arena.
In terms of application, subsection 13 of the statute states that it applies to “an assignment agreement executed on or after July 1, 2019.” However, the Governor expedited the enactment of a portion of the statute, subsection 10, making that subsection effective on May 24, 2019 through House Bill 337. This subsection is specifically related to the entitlement to and recovery of attorney fees and provided the sole method for an assignee’s recovery of attorney fees, in place of Florida Statutes, Section 627.428. Section 627.7152(10) states, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, in a suit related to an assignment agreement for post-loss claims arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, attorney fees and costs may be recovered by an assignee only under s. 57.105 and this subsection.”
[ymal]
In the spring of 2019, AOB lawsuits skyrocketed in anticipation of the enforcement date of the new statute. One of many questions that remain hotly contested is whether assignees are entitled to an award of their attorney fees in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 627.428 for suits filed after May 24, 2019. There is a fundamental disagreement as to when the new statute applies. Some insurance carriers maintain that any suit filed after May 24, 2019 is subject to the new statutory fee provisions set forth in subsection 10, which became effective on that date through HB 337. Assignees disagree and argue that pursuant to subsection 13, the statute cannot apply retroactively to assignments executed before July 1, 2019. The tension between subsection 10 and subsection 13 of the statute is currently playing out in courtrooms across the state.
Adding to the inquiry regarding retroactivity, several courts have echoed constitutional due process concerns raised in Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 878-79 (Fla. 2010) and determined that the operative date is not the date the suit was filed or the assignment was executed, but the date that the insurance policy was issued. These courts have concluded that the award of attorneys’ fees will be considered pursuant to the new statute (627.7152) only in cases involving insurance policies that were issued and/or in effect on or after July 1, 2019. See, e.g., Procraft Exteriors, Inc v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 219CV883FTM38MRM, 2020 WL 5943845, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2020), JPJ Companies, LLC v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 9:19-CV-81696, 2020 WL 264673, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2020), reconsideration denied, 9:19-CV-81696, 2020 WL 1043798 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020); Apex Roofing and Restoration v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 19-CA-3760 (Fla. Lee County Cir. Ct. Oct. 15, 2019).
The legal landscape related to AOB litigation remains in a quandary despite the Florida Governor’s direct intent to accelerate the attorney fee section of the new statute. This issue will be closely followed as litigation regarding insurance policies and AOB agreements pre-dating May 24, 2019 and July 1, 2019 continue to work through the courts.
Australia’s antitrust regulator on Tuesday blocked an undertaking from Google parent Alphabet Inc that sought to appease its concerns over Google’s planned $2.1 billion acquisition of Fitbit.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) expressed scepticism towards the Fitbit deal in June, warning that Google’s purchase of the wearables and fitness company would give it access to a significant amount of customers’ data, potentially damaging competition in health and online advertising markets.
Under its proposed undertaking, Google offered to not make use of certain user data collected through Fitbit and Google wearables for advertising purposes for 10 years, with the possibility of extension if the ACCC saw fit. It also said it would provide third parties with access to certain user data collected through the devices for 10 years, as well as maintain support for interoperability with Android devices for the same period.
However, the ACCC rejected the undertaking, stating that it continued to have concerns about the potential for Fitbit’s non-Apple rivals to be “squeezed out” of the wearables market due to their devices’ existing reliance on Google services. The regulator also noted that several other competition authorities, such as the US Department of Justice, had not yet made a decision on the viability of the deal.
“While we are aware that the European Commission recently accepted a similar undertaking from Google, we are not satisfied that a long-term behavioural undertaking of this type in such a complex and dynamic industry could be effectively monitored and enforced in Australia,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims in a statement.
[ymal]
Google has faced legal challenges from the Australian government on a number of key issues, including a proposed law that would force Google and Facebook to pay for news on their platforms sourced from local media outlets. If the law is adopted, Australia will become the first country in the world to impose such a measure.
The ACCC said it would continue its investigation, setting 25 March 2021 as a new decision date.
Guy Phillips, Vice President International Business at NetDocuments, offers Lawyer Monthly his advice for firms looking to optimise their productivity and value in a changed industry.
The aphorism ‘time is money’ is particularly true for law firms. In fact, productivity is critical to a lawyer’s success. However, surprisingly, an average law firm could be losing out on £2.7 million of lost revenue every year due to lack of productivity.
In a recent analysis of Thomson Reuters’ State of the Legal Market report, a top law firm stated a barrier to achieving productivity is manual processes taking up a lot of time. According to another report, more than 48% of a lawyer’s time is spent on a mix of continuing education, office administration, billing tasks, configuring technology, and collecting on accounts, with only a third of their time spent courting clients for the firm. So how can law firms boost productivity at a time when working practices for many have changed considerably over the last 12 months?
Most of us have repetitive tasks that need doing. However, it is not often that these tasks end up taking almost half our time. And as important as these administrative tasks may be for running the business side of the firm, many of them can be automated.
With pressures driven by COVID-19, ensuring productivity (and revenue) is not wasted is more important than ever. This is particularly vital as fixed fee billing is becoming more common. With pressure to do ‘more with less’ due to the wider economic slowdown, clients are scrutinising where their spend is going and demanding greater predictability when it comes to fees. Firms therefore cannot afford to waste time on the mundane tasks such as scanning, attaching and searching for documents. As we head into 2021, lawyers must ensure they are as efficient and productive as possible.
With pressures driven by COVID-19, ensuring productivity (and revenue) is not wasted is more important than ever.
It’s not just profits that could be damaged from lack of productivity. If lawyers are spending too much time on tasks that could easily be automated, they risk burn out and becoming de-motivated. As an industry already threatened by burnout, this is something that needs to be addressed. Lawyers want an environment that allows them to use the skills and knowledge they have spent years developing during their legal education.
Digital tools can play a huge role in improving business processes and helping to decrease the manual workload. Ultimately, giving lawyers more time to focus and utilise their skills, knowledge, and expertise to provide strategic and valuable advice for clients.
So how can you choose the right tools to help deliver the productivity promise? Before adopting a new piece of software there are three critical considerations to keep in mind: anywhere access, software integrations, and legal workflows.
[ymal]
By carefully selecting the right technology with a focus on access, integrations and workflow, firms will be able to automate tedious tasks. This will be key in increasing overall productivity, helping firms to prosper in an era of rapid change. Not only driving efficiency, reducing burnout, and boosting profitability but also building better relationships with clients. As clients expect an exceptional level service with competitive fees, they are also becoming aware of the tools that are used to help drive this. This makes it even more imperative for firms to be equipped with technology to demonstrate that they can deliver the best level of service to employees and clients alike.
UK courts have insisted that operations in Tier 4 areas of England will continue as normal despite expanded restrictions having been rolled out over the weekend.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service stated that buildings in Tier 4 areas will continue to operate in accordance with typical coronavirus-secure guidelines, and that there are currently no plans to change scheduled hearings. Individuals involved in keeping the justice system running, or fulfilling a legal obligation such as jury service, will be allowed to attend court and travel even if their area is subject to Tier 4 restrictions.
“Courts & Tribunals will continue to operate as they have in recent months, including in Tier 4 areas,” justice minister Chris Philp tweeted on Sunday. “This is because Justice is an essential service and tens of millions of £s have been spent in the last few months making Courts & Tribunals Covid safe”.
The safety of courts continues to pose an issue, as it was found on Friday that 17 people had tested positive for COVID-19 following an outbreak at Oxford Combined Court Centre. HMCTS stated that the court building had been “deep cleaned” and could resume normal operations.
Following the discovery of a new strain of COVID-19 in England that may be as much as 70% more infectious than the original virus, the UK government has rushed to respond. While more than 30 nations have blocked travel from the country pending a plan to deal with the new strain, the “Tier 4” lockdown level has been introduced in England as a more severe level of restriction on top of the previous three-tier system.
[ymal]
Under Tier 4, non-essential businesses including shops, hairdressers, and leisure and entertainment venues are required to close, with residents in affected areas urged to stay at home save for exercise or travelling for the purposes of education or childcare.
Roughly 17 million people in London and in parts of the south east are now subject to Tier 4 restrictions following their introduction on Saturday.
Johnson & Johnson has issued a recall of its baby powder products after the US Food and Drug Administration learned of the small amounts of asbestos that the products contain. You might be thinking that trace amounts of asbestos can't be too bad.
However, the World Health Organisation says that no small amount of asbestos exposure is safe. Trace amounts of asbestos can trigger asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer.
Throughout the scandal, the company has dragged its feet. Johnson & Johnson announced that it would stop selling baby powder on May 19, 2020, within the United States and Canada. This announcement comes even after the company began the recall of 33,000 bottles in October 2019. Why did it take Johnson & Johnson another eight months after the recall to announce the discontinuation of the product?
The company reportedly sat on the knowledge that asbestos found in its baby powder could kill for decades. Corporate executives from the company have known about the dangers since the late 1970s, unsealed documents revealed. Over 40 years, they have fought with a dangerous misinformation campaign.
In particular, the FDA recalled the bottles from lot #22318RB. They didn't recall another lot because they tested it and didn't find asbestos. Many retailers didn't feel reassured, and companies like Walmart, Rite Aid, and CVS removed all of the 22-ounce bottles from shelves, not wanting to take risks.
Trace amounts of asbestos can trigger asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer.
Johnson & Johnson didn't admit fault even when they decided to stop selling the baby powder. Instead of confessing that they made an atrocious mistake, they instead claimed that they would stop selling the baby powder because of low sales and the COVID-19 pandemic. The company never cited the asbestos in its products as the reason. They called it a market withdrawal or product discontinuation, rather than a recall.
One pharmaceutical litigation expert noted how the discontinuation of the baby powder could lead to further lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson. There are many people who still haven't heard the news that their baby powder can cause cervical cancer. When the company decided to discontinue its baby powder, this led to more people learning of the problem.
Those who developed cervical cancer and learned of its link to asbestos could choose to file a lawsuit. Many law firms see this as blood in the water, and they will come swarming in for a piece of the action.
Many lawyers could use the fact that Johnson & Johnson pulled the product from shelves as evidence of the dangers. You have three things that will help litigation against Johnson & Johnson:
[ymal]
All three of these things will improve the chances that the company will enter talks for further settlements. Johnson & Johnson was reportedly aware of the product’s cancer risk, which only exacerbates the problem. The company sat on this knowledge without acting to keep consumers safe.
For years, Johnson & Johnson has insisted that the company's baby powder products remain safe. While the recall of baby powder was done voluntarily in 2019, Johnson & Johnson never admitted that the talcum powder was unsafe. The recall is simply the latest bad news for the company. It also faces legal claims over other products, like its opioids and metal-on-metal hips.
A healthcare giant, Johnson & Johnson faces over 100,000 lawsuits in total from all of its products. This could lead to some hefty litigation costs, and the baby powder has already cost the company $2.2 billion.
Abdulali Jiwaji, Partner at Signature Litigation, takes a look at recent lawsuits involving the Quincecare duty and the body of case law that is gradually building up.
In scenarios of financial distress, particularly with a fraud and insolvency overlay, actions to recover money are often targeted at third parties. The most attractive targets are those with deep pockets, such as banks.
Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 set down that a bank must use reasonable care and skill in executing payment instructions on behalf of customers. So, a bank must refrain from executing a payment instruction if the bank has been put on inquiry, i.e. it has reasonable grounds for believing that the instruction is an attempt to misappropriate the customer's funds. This was not intended to be a high standard, and the court recognised that a banker is normally entitled to assume that a director of a corporate customer is not attempting to defraud the company.
The past 12 months have seen a flurry of cases involving claims of breach of the Quincecare duty. A number of interesting points have emerged from these recent cases.
The FRN was seeking to recover $875 million held in an account with JPM which JPM had transferred to third party entities. The FRN alleged that JPM had been put on inquiry as to whether those transfers were part of a corrupt scheme. Critically, JPM had filed six suspicious activity reports with the National Crime Agency in respect of the instructions, and had received consent from the NCA to make the payments.
The Court of Appeal decided that the case should go to trial. The Court said that it would be possible in theory for an entire agreement clause to exclude the Quincecare duty, but that would have to be very explicitly drafted. In this case, the entire agreement clause in the relevant depository agreement did not prevent the Quincecare duty from arising. Neither did related exclusion clauses assist JPM.
In scenarios of financial distress, particularly with a fraud and insolvency overlay, actions to recover money are often targeted at third parties.
The Court was not attracted to an argument that JPM should be allowed to rely on an indemnity requiring the customer to indemnify the bank against third party claims. It would be extraordinary if a contract could be interpreted to have the effect that a customer, being the victim of fraud, should compensate the bank that had facilitated the fraud's perpetration.
Daiwa made payments of around $200 million from a Singularis account to various entities on the instructions of AS, who was the sole shareholder of Singularis. When Singularis went into liquidation, the liquidators made claims against Daiwa to recover those payments. The High Court found that Daiwa had acted in breach of its Quincecare duty because of obvious signs that the payments were fraudulent and for the benefit of AS.
On appeal, one of the key arguments relied on by Daiwa was that Singularis was a one man company, such that the fraud of AS should be attributed to Singularis itself. The Supreme Court held that Singularis was not a one man company, as it had a number of directors. The Court emphasised that the purpose of the Quincecare duty is to protect the customer against this type of fraud, and that it would denude any practical value of the duty if it was disapplied in cases where it was most needed. It was also not open to Daiwa to plead illegality on the part of Singularis because that would undermine the policy of requiring banks to play a role in combating money laundering.
The liquidators of SIB were asserting claims against HSBC for its role in making substantial payments out of various SIB accounts (in excess of £100 million). HSBC was seeking to have the claims dismissed at an early stage.
[ymal]
The court held that there was a valid distinction to be made in cases where the claimant is insolvent. In the case of a solvent claimant, if a bank pays money out and that results in a genuine discharge of debts owed by the company, that makes no difference to the company's net asset position. However, in the case of an insolvent company, paying out significant monies depletes the funds which may have been available for liquidators to pursue claims. The court refused to strike out the claims.
Here, an allegation of breach of Quincecare duty was made against WF, a payment services provider. Following a fraud, the claimants transferred £140,000 into M's account with WF, which was misappropriated. The claimants were looking to bring a derivative action on behalf of M against WF, including on the basis that WF was in breach of its Quincecare duty. The court dismissed WF's application for summary judgment on a number of grounds. On the application of the Quincecare duty, the court was willing to accept that the Quincecare duty could be said to apply to a payment services provider. It also followed the approach taken in Singularis, that knowledge held by the fraudsters should not be attributed to M, and that the issue of attribution should be considered in the full context at trial.
In these cases, there will be real focus on the steps taken by banks in respect of money laundering flags and suspicious transaction reports, and how they have dealt with any tensions between that process and their Quincecare duties owed to customers. Banks also need to be alive to the risk that allowing payments may help to perpetuate a long running fraud, such as a Ponzi scheme. We now have a significant body of case law emerging.
The further decisions in the pipeline for next year will inform the extent to which claims against banks will be viable in cases of fraud and insolvency. In the current climate, this is going to be very important in framing the remedies available to stakeholders, such as shareholders and liquidators, when dealing with the aftermath of fraud.
Online stock trading service Robinhood has agreed to pay a $65 million fine to resolve allegations that it misled customers about an order routing arrangement that cost traders millions of dollars, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced on Thursday.
The SEC charged the company with failing to disclose the "receipt of payments from trading firms for routing customer orders to them, and with failing to satisfy its duty to seek the best reasonably available terms to execute customer orders."
This failure caused clients to complete trades at prices that were less than optimal for them, to Robinhood’s benefit, the SEC claimed. Overall, customers netted losses of around $34.1 million between October 2016 and June 2019 – even after accounting for the savings gained from not paying a commission – while Robinhood falsely claimed on its website that its execution quality matched or beat that of its competitors, the SEC said.
“Robinhood provided misleading information to customers about the true costs of choosing to trade with the firm," Stephanie Avakian, enforcement director at the SEC, said in a statement. “Brokerage firms cannot mislead customers about order execution quality.”
Robinhood settled the case without an admission of guilt and agreed to retain an independent consultant to review its policies and procedures involved in its customer communications, payment for order flow and best execution of customer orders.
[ymal]
"The settlement relates to historical practices that do not reflect Robinhood today,” said Dan Gallagher, Robinhood’s chief legal officer. “We recognise the responsibility that comes with having helped millions of investors make their first investments, and we’re committed to continuing to evolve Robinhood as we grow to meet our customers’ needs.”
The settlement comes a day after a Massachusetts securities regulator accused Robinhood of using aggressive tactics to attract inexperienced investors and failing to prevent outages on its platform.
Ten US states, led by Texas, have filed suit against Google parent Alphabet Inc, accusing it of working with Facebook to unlawfully boost its “monopolistic power” in online advertising.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the states accuse of Google of breaking antitrust law by allowing its own exchange to win ad auctions even when others bid higher and overcharging publishers for ads. The suit also accuses Google of working with Facebook to unlawfully stifle competition.
Google and Facebook are each other’s largest competitors in online ad sales, controlling half of the global market between them. Texas’s antitrust complaint points to a publicised deal the two companies made in 2018 to give Facebook’s advertiser clients the option of placing ads in Google’s network of publishing partners, alleging that Google also gave Facebook undisclosed preferential treatment in return for Facebook backing down from supporting competing software.
“As internal Google documents reveal, Google sought to kill competition and has done so through an array of exclusionary tactics, including an unlawful agreement with Facebook, its largest potential competitive threat,” the lawsuit said.
The nine states that joined Texas in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah. All have Republican prosecutors.
A Google spokesperson said the company will defend itself from the prosecutors’ “baseless claims in court.”
[ymal]
“Digital ad prices have fallen over the last decade,” the spokesperson said. “Ad tech fees are falling too. Google’s ad tech fees are lower than the industry average. These are the hallmarks of a highly competitive industry.”
In a separate lawsuit launched against Google on Wednesday, which seeks class action status, online publishers Genius Media Group and The Nation alleged that they lost revenue due to Google’s dominance in online advertising and demanded that Google divest part of its ads business.
The big law firms spend big to get noticed by purchasing ad space on TV, billboards, radio, the sides of buses, and more. So what is a smaller firm supposed to do in the face of ad blitzes by bigger firms? The answer is digital marketing.
Digital marketing is a worthy investment for law firms of all sizes, but it can be especially effective for small- and medium-sized firms. There are many reasons why, including the fact that digital marketing is more cost-effective and more focused than the shotgun blast approach of a big ad campaign. If that sounds like something you want for your firm, then you should seriously think about how law firm SEO services can help your business expand its reach.
There are several different ways in which digital marketing can be an asset to your firm. So let’s take a look at them.
If you want to increase traffic to your website, then digital marketing gives you a number of different tools to do so. SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) can help your website to rise in the rankings on search engines so that it is among the first ones that people see when they type in certain search terms related to your practice. Since most people search for websites online, and since people tend to click on the websites that rank the highest, SEO can give your website greater visibility.
Other tools that you can use in conjunction with SEO includes PPC (Pay Per Click). These are the websites that show up at the top of the page with the word ad beside them and appear before the organic search results. Some law firms think that PPC campaigns are a waste of time because they result in a lot of clicks but few worthwhile leads, but that is because they were not properly optimised. When a PPC campaign is well run, thoroughly researched, and carefully monitored, it can yield impressive results.
[ymal]
A good social media campaign can also drive traffic to your website because it allows you to give your law firm a more human feel. That does not mean you need to open an account on every social media platform and take part in the latest challenge. It simply means using social media to make your firm come across as more relatable and personable, which can help to grow your brand into one that people can trust.
Sure, visitors are great, but it doesn’t matter if they don’t become clients. Fortunately, digital marketing can help people to visit your website and can help to keep them there. It does so via attractive, user-friendly design and with great content. It takes a few seconds before someone decides to stay on or leave a website, so good design and fast load speeds help to encourage them to stay. Meanwhile well-written, relevant, and informative content will keep them on your site because it will let your visitors know how your law firm can help them.
When you are able to get and keep the attention of your visitors, there is a greater chance that will be converted into leads. And once you get a lead, you can turn them into a client by responding to their phone call or customer form promptly. A swift response to a visitor is highly likely to turn them from a potential client into an actual client. That is also why personalised email campaigns and good chat software are vital components of digital marketing.
As you can see, digital marketing can help your law firm in a variety of different ways. It can attract visitors to your site, turn those visitors into leads, and turn those leads into clients. And you do not have to spend a lot of money in order to get those results. So get in touch with a digital marketing agency to learn how they can help your law firm reach its maximum potential.
