“Somehow these impersonal computer programs have taken over, using microchips for matching,” Block said. “And I kept hearing from professionals that they did not want their photos and profiles on the internet for all the world to see.  So I decided to start something that would be personalized and private.”

In August of 2009, Block founded We Matchmake in Dallas after months of research and focus group meetings.  Block, a former litigator at Winstead, currently owns a legal recruiting firm.

“I figured that matching lawyers to law firms utilizes the same principles as We Matchmake: Honesty, Thoroughness, Professionalism, Confidentiality and Networking – all in the name of making great matches,” said Block.

We Matchmake sets itself apart by providing background checks, privately showing photos of potential dates to clients, and being very affordable.

Block hired Tina Griffin as the Director of Matchmaking. Ms. Griffin joined We Matchmake after 11 years as a Recruiting Coordinator with Jenkens & Gilchrist and Hunton & Williams. She is 37 years old and married with 4 kids.

“We have quickly gained a group of clients that is amazing,” says Griffin. “These are successful, attractive people of all ages that are busy and just need a little help.”

We Matchmake attracted hundreds to its Launch Party at the Stoneleigh Hotel in September.  Their office is located at 2911 Turtle Creek in Dallas, Texas next to The Mansion on Turtle Creek.

For more information, contact Randy Block at randyblock@wematchmake.com and 214-497-5004.

http://www.wematchmake.com/

Facebook Page

]]> http://www.youngtexaslawyer.com/?feed=rss2&p=1694 1 http://www.youngtexaslawyer.com/?p=1681 http://www.youngtexaslawyer.com/?p=1681#comments Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:41:09 +0000 Robert Abtahi http://www.youngtexaslawyer.com/?p=1681 We have discussed social networking in many forms here at YTL, and Above the Law has a fantastic article about social networking horror stories. Below are some excerpts and we recommend you read the full article. You generally should not say anything on these sites that you wouldn’t scream in public, but you should also protect yourself by limiting the friends you accept and making sure your privacy controls are rock solid. Also, make sure your friends know what profession you are in and that they are discrete in the pictures they upload of you and statements they make on your wall. All of this is easier said than done but, if you are going to use these types of sites then you don’t really have a choice. Also, never forget Rule #1: don’t be dumb.

• Don’t go on your blog and call your judge an “Evil, Unfair Witch.” Florida attorney Sean Conway wrote about a post about Judge Cheryl Aleman over at JAABBlog, and the First Amendment did not come to his rescue. He was reprimanded by the Florida bar and fined.

• Don’t blog about the details of your cases and clients, and refer to the robed one as “Judge Clueless.” Illinois assistant public defender Kristine A. Peshek used her blog, “The Bardd [sic] Before the Bar – Irreverant [sic] Adventures in Life, Law, and Indigent Defense,” as an outlet for 19 years of pent up resentment (excerpts here). It brought more release than she intended. When it was discovered, she was fired.

• If you’re on a jury, don’t blog about it. It can get you suspended from practicing and fired AND fined $14,000, like Frank Wilson of California.

• Don’t ask the judge to suspend your trial for a funeral, if you’re actually planning on partying all week. Especially if the judge is your Facebook friend and gets your partying status updates.Texas Judge Susan Criss will tattle on you to the American Bar Association, though she will leave your name out of it.

Dr. Robert Lindeman and his attorney found out about this the hard way in May of 2007. Lindeman was blogging under the alias “Flea” about his experience as a medical malpractice defendant during the trial. The plaintiff’s attorney discovered his true identity and exposed the blog on the witness stand, the case immediately settled.

After conducting extensive due diligence on opposing parties, follow up by clearing up any questions during depositions to prevent an ambush at trial. It’s also fair to assume that your opponent will be conducting a similar search of your client’s online presence. Make sure you ask your clients about all of their online activity and conduct a thorough review prior to filing any type of legal action. Risk management of such pages becomes an important issue the more readily personal information becomes available on these sites.

Important evidence can be found on social networking sites, but make sure you ask properly. There are some very serious ethical concerns and consequences regarding the use of these sites by attorneys. Preparation and awareness about these sites is an absolute must for both your client’s sake and the case.

In Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Guidance Committee has issued a recent opinion regarding an attorney’s proposed investigation of a witness’s Facebook page. The lawyer tried to use a third party to send a friend request to the witness with the hopes that the witness would accept it and the lawyer could use the third party to gather information about the witness for impeachment. The Philadelphia Bar essentially shot down the idea and labeled it deceptive. Taking the behavior outside the context of the internet should help get the answer to any ethics questions regarding social networking sites. If you trick a witness into befriending a third party in real life then you’ve definitely crossed the line and therefore to do so on Facebook is essentially the same.

Just last week, The Wall Street Journal released a list of rules for “professional conduct” amongst its staff members. The list included a host of policies regarding the use of online activities on social networking sites. Also last week, the Fort Lauderdale City Attorney issued a memorandum warning the mayor and other elected officials to stay off of Facebook and avoid having any type of website if possible. In his memo he wrote:

It is a simple fact that the state of the law is lagging woefully behind the state of the art in communications technology. This presents unique challenges in following the intent and the letter of these laws regulating public meetings and communications of local government.

It’s only a matter of time before law firms begin the same practice, if they haven’t already done so. As we’ve stated before, keep a close watch on your behavior on such sites. Make sure you aren’t the one for which a new rule will be written. If you wouldn’t do it in person, don’t do it on the web.

The energy you convey will often be reciprocated. If you’re polite while telling the waitress that she messed up your order then you’ll get a simple polite solution to your problem. If you’re rude when you call the court clerk to ask a question then you will likely get a rude response back and may end up making an enemy for life. Those that get what they want are usually the ones that can stay calm and cool even when the person on the other end is losing it.

Lose your cool once and you might end up with a nasty reputation that not only precedes you, but will make your life considerably more difficult when it comes to needing favors. Look at the person in your office that treats the secretaries and legal assistants the worst and you’ll often find them shocked that they aren’t getting any help from the very people they mistreat. The people you work with are just that, people you work WITH, not people who work FOR you. I’m not saying be a pushover, but there is a fine line between being a professional and being a professional jerk. So keep it calm, simple, and polite to get the results you desire. Be a professional.

While we’re on the topic, you should clean up your Facebook or MySpace pages. Reputation is everything, people will and do judge you.

The defendants ignored emails from the mortgage providers attorney and failed to appear at an October 3rd court date. They had practically disappeared, except in the world of online social networking. Like over 140 million others, the defendants had Facebooks accounts.

A judge in the Australian Capital Territory’s Supreme Court deemed that the Facebook accounts contained enough personal information about the defendants to establish that it was a sufficient method of service after the couple could not be reached by any other method of service.

It’s only a matter of a time before we see a similar situation in the United States. Afterall, isn’t it more likely that an active Facebook user will check their Facebook account rather than checking the newspaper when service by publication is granted. Afterall, you can track a Facebook message and you can even see when it’s been read by the recepient. As the internet becomes a more valuable method of communication for everyday citizens then we are likely to see similar changes in the law.