In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. You’ll notice some differences this year, as we return to the categories we first ranked in 2014. This year, we’ve changed the way we do our methodology slightly, to reflect feedback from our readers and the law school community. We’ve also redesigned our look, to make it easier to navigate and compare various schools. But as always, Law Street Specialty Rankings are built to blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs.

This year’s law school specialty rankings were compiled by Anneliese Mahoney, Alexis Evans, Celia Heudebourg, Gabe Fernandez, James Levinson, Josh Schmidt, and Marcus Dieterle.

1. New York University School of Law: 99 Points

Jobs: 19/20

Job prospects for students at NYU are some of the best in the country. There are also great opportunities for students to gain vital career experience–for example, NYU Law is home to a Business Law Transactions Clinic.

Classes: 25/25

NYU offers a wide selection of courses for students interested in business law. The curriculum draws from the campus’s location near New York City’s financial district to incorporate real-world opportunities. Students can also take relevant courses at the prestigious Stern School of Business.

Networking: 15/15

In addition to business law symposia, NYU has held events on topics like class action litigation and international business law. NYU also utilizes social media to help keep its alumni in touch after graduation.

Extracurriculars: 15/15

 NYU Law offers several great extracurriculars for students interested in pursuing a career in business law. The school has the Law and Business Association and Journal of Law and Business. Students can also participate in various moot court competitions.

Location: 15/15

It’s no surprise that NYU Law, located in the world’s preeminent financial hub, received a perfect score for its location.

Other Rankings: 10/10

New York University’s Law School got the highest possible score in this metric because of its frequent appearances on other business law rankings.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law appeared first on Law Street.

While the federal government has often struggled to control drug usage, including drugs ingested via snorting like cocaine, it’s not often that officials have to make a call on snorting chocolate powder. But since Legal Lean, an Orlando-based business, recently created a product called Coco Loko, that’s exactly what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may need to do.

The name Coco Loko is actually a play on Four Loko, an energy drink and alcohol mix that was banned in 2010 and deemed a public health concern. Coco Loko shares plenty of similarities with its namesake, including the energy drink aspect. The fine, brown cacao powder contains taurine and guarana, which were both identified as dangerous substances in Four Loko. The energy-boosting benefits are another commonality between the two products, Legal Lean founder Nick Anderson said.

Anderson said that snorting the powder creates “almost like an energy-drink feeling, like you’re euphoric but also motivated to get things done.” The effects normally last between 30 minutes and one hour, Anderson told the Washington Post. The product, which hit shelves in June, is being marketed as a drug-free, non-addictive way to get a buzz and an energy boost.

An important distinction for the curious is that cacao powder is the purest, least processed form of chocolate while cocoa powder is the refined powder commonly found in American stores, according to One Green Planet.

Legal Lean and Anderson first became interested in developing the product after learning of the trend that was beginning in Europe. The mixture was popular in European nightclubs, culinary institutions, and even among cyclists, according to Daily Mail. Anderson said that while he was skeptical at first, he tried snorting powder and thought “this is the future right here.”

Soon after, Anderson invested $10,000 to create his own version and spent the next 10 months searching and testing for the right recipe. By June, Anderson had the right mixture and Coco Loko was on the shelves even without approval from the FDA up to this point. One tin of powder, which contains 10 servings, sells for $24.99, according to the Washington Post.

One issue that the FDA faces is that this is uncharted territory; no one really knows the risks of snorting cacao powder, Dr. Andrew Lane, director of the Johns Hopkins Sinus Center told the Washington Post. Lane expanded:

There are a few obvious concerns. First, it’s not clear how much of each ingredient would be absorbed into the nasal mucus membranes. And, well, putting solid material into your nose — you could imagine it getting stuck in there, or the chocolate mixing with your mucus to create a paste that could block your sinuses.

A spokesman for the FDA said the agency would need to “evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use” before making a decision. So, for now, the product can be sold even without FDA approval.

Concerns also circulated that snorting the powder could lead customers to try other drugs, but Lane said he isn’t particularly worried about that. The FDA has not decided if, or how, it will regulate consumption. Since the product is comprised of mostly chocolate, obviously a legal food, the powder may be challenging to federally regulate, according to U.S. News and World Report. 

Sales have increased in recent months according to Alex P. of Exclusive Distributors, which helps spread the product nationwide. “It’s not flying off the shelves or anything, but people are definitely curious,” Alex, who did not release his last name, told the Washington Post. Anderson’s brother, a rapper who goes by Bezz Believe, claims to have helped popularize the product by his own usage and its appearance in his music videos.

For now, snorting the cacao powder is more of a silly niche than the fad that swept Europe over the past year. Its popularity remains minimal, but interest has grown in Houston and Atlanta, according to the New York Post. Now that an American-based product has been introduced into the market, popularity could increase. As popularity increases, more attention will be paid to how (and if) the FDA opts to regulate the product.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Snorting Cacao Powder Become Popular? The FDA May Need to Decide appeared first on Law Street.

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, in a $1.8 billion deal, the Canada-based fast food company Restaurant Brands International (RBI), acquired Popeyes, one of the largest chicken fast-food chains in America. The deal is expected to close in April.

“With this transaction, RBI is adding a brand that has a distinctive position within a compelling segment and strong U.S. and international prospects for growth,” RBI CEO Daniel Shwartz said in a statement. “As Popeyes becomes part of the RBI family we believe we can deliver growth and opportunities for all of our stakeholders including our valued employees and franchisees.”

This acquisition makes Popeyes part of the RBI “Family of Brands” that includes Burger King as well as the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons. RBI is majority-owned by the Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital and was formed in 2014 after the Burger King and Tim Hortons merger. Since the merger, Burger King has expanded around the world with much success.

The deal seems to be good news for Popeyes investors and shareholders. Since news of the deal emerged, Popeyes stock has been soaring, according to Business Insider.

While the deal is being applauded as a good business call by RBI, some people are calling foul, bringing up the fact that RBI has been a prominent perpetrator of tax inversion, which will become even more significant now that RBI is making strides toward becoming one of the largest fast food companies in the world.

Tax inversion is a way for companies to dodge American corporate tax by rerouting their revenue to a so-called “tax haven.” In the Canadian-based RBI’s case, the Burger King merger with Tim Hortons allowed for Burger King’s revenue to be taxed at the Canadian corporate tax rate rather than the American one, which, according to CNN Money, was projected to save Burger King shareholders over $800 million in capital gains taxes and the company itself about $400 million in corporate tax.

Projected tax savings for Popeyes have not been reported yet, but, according to ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke, being a smaller firm, Popeyes’ tax savings are probably going to be much smaller than Burger King’s. However, with the new Trump Administration, questions about tax/corporate inversion have been growing, as the administration is expected to take a much different approach towards quelling its effects than the Obama Administration did.

Per ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke:

Inversions were all the rage in corporate management in the second term of the Obama administration, which sought to curb them through new Treasury Department rules. The bankers who helped complete those deals raked in close to a billion dollars in fees for their assistance.

Republicans in Congress are widely expected to gut the Obama-era restrictions on inversions. President Donald Trump’s administration has signaled it would prefer to slash the U.S. corporate tax rate rather than combat corporate tax avoidance through regulation — even though rates are not what drive American-made companies to pretend they live somewhere else.

Pyke cites a report from Reuters that looked at six companies that were known to have completed or were in the process of completing “inversion-type” deals. The report finds that, while the U.S. corporate tax rate is high, many large companies use elaborate strategies to cut tax costs, which reduce the effects of the country’s 35 percent statutory rate and allow companies to pay well below the actual rate. These elaborate loop holes within the U.S. tax code suggest that companies may be practicing tax inversion for a variety of incentives offered abroad, which shows that “Washington’s current debate over business tax reform may be too focused on the statutory rate, neglecting effective rates and the incentives that companies have to shift profits abroad.”

As Pyke points out, President Donald Trump and many other Republicans still prefer to slash corporate taxes to stop companies from making tax inversion deals. Trump has frequently stated that he will lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

On the Bloomberg Politics show “With All Due Respect” in November 2015, Trump said that “other candidates don’t even know what corporate inversion is. I do know, I really know,” Trump said. “You are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries because of corporate inversions. What you are going to do is lower the taxes bring the money in and they are going to use that money to build and do things in the United States.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chicken With a Side of Tax Inversion?: A Look at the Popeyes Sale appeared first on Law Street.

Every year, millions of pilgrims from around the globe trek to Mecca to complete the hajj–the sacred pilgrimage that all Muslims must complete in their lifetime if they are able. The hajj presents massive economic opportunities for the tourism and travel industry. The Saudi economy, which is scrabbling to find other sources of revenue besides oil, has always benefitted from the influx of pilgrims, so much so that revenue from the pilgrims makes up an estimated 3 percent of Saudi Arabia’s GDP.

Pilgrims pay for flights, accommodation, phones, souvenirs, guides, and ground transport, making hajj tourism an incredibly lucrative industry. Families who own property always stand to make money as they can rent out rooms or their entire home to pilgrims for a week. For some, the rent they charge during hajj season can sustain them for months or even until the next hajj. Some travelers sleep at the Grand Mosque rather than paying for a room but most will choose to rest in the “tent city” of Mina where the average pilgrim can find a tent for $500 a night (while a VIP can pay several thousand dollars per night for a luxury tent). Saudi Arabia has actually come under fire for not operating Mina year round as a site for refugees. Using Mina as a refugee camp would lift a great burden off of nations that are currently struggling to support their refugee populations, but it would mean the Saudi government would have to sacrifice part of its hajj profit margin–an act it likely does not feel is worth the risk.

As air travel becomes less expensive, a greater number of people can afford to make the pilgrimage and spend lavishly once they arrive. Saudi retailers who have always counted on the hajj to temporarily boost sales now look to expand the luxury market so that they can maximize sales to the wealthiest pilgrims. Saudi Arabia stands to make as much as $8.5 billion off of the 2016 pilgrimage–but that is a step down from past profits. There are only an estimated 1.86 million pilgrims coming to Mecca this year, as opposed to the almost 3 million who have come in past years. The pilgrims who do come for the hajj are now usually on slimmer budgets–“slim” of course being a relative term considering the average pilgrims will spend over $4,500 on their trip.

This fall, pilgrims from different religions across the world will track routes such as the Camino de Santiago in Europe, the trek to Mount Kailash in Tibet and the Char Dham in India–but none of those routes generate the massive amount of revenue that the hajj does within a matter of days. None of those routes are as fundamental to a national economy nor as closely monitored and regulated as the hajj is in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi economy is now inextricably linked with the hajj–and while there is no sign of the number of pilgrims drying up anytime soon, small drops in attendance can throw off the Saudi economy for a year at a time.

The concept of an entire fiscal year depending on a single week is something we might see in small cities and towns that hold popular festivals (think Telluride or Cannes) but it is rare for an entire country to rely on a cultural event to carry it through the next 11 months. Imagine if the hikers who trekked the Appalachian Trail each September generated 3 percent of the United States’ GDP–our economy would suddenly feel much more precarious depending on the weather, the resource available for those hikers and advertising of the trail to maximize the number of people who hiked it. The drop in the number of pilgrims this year may feel infinitesimal, but if it continues to decline in the future, Saudi Arabia may find itself sitting at the edge of  a steep financial precipice.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post How Does the Hajj Impact the Saudi Economy? appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the financial crisis, many have grown to dislike and mistrust Wall Street and the financial services industry. Well, a new working paper may validate some of those feelings, particularly when it comes to financial advisers.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota found that roughly 7 percent of financial advisers have a misconduct record–ranging from selling their clients unsuitable investments to fraudulent behavior. But the paper’s most striking findings relate to what happens after a financial adviser commits misconduct and how that shapes the industry as a whole. The researchers used the BrokerCheck database to look at the disclosure records of financial advisers from 2005 to 2015.

For most young people, the thought of hiring a financial adviser seems as foreign as hiring a lawyer to write your will; figuring out how to file your taxes may be much more pressing than making a plan for retirement. But the report’s findings offer some important insight into the role of financial advisers as well as customers who tend to fall victim to misconduct.

The researchers looked at only six of the 25 disclosure categories in order to focus specifically on fraud and misconduct. They also included pending disputes in order to avoid including disclosures that may be dismissed in the future. While the range of misconduct varies, it does tend to be significant. According to the data they analyzed, the median settlement for misconduct was $40,000.

The paper has four major findings altogether:

1. Roughly 7 percent of nearly 650 thousand registered financial advisers have misconduct records based on data from 2005 to 2015.
2. Advisers with a record of misconduct are more than five times as likely to commit future misconduct than the average adviser.
3. While about half of advisers who commit misconduct lose their jobs afterward, 44 percent are reemployed within a year and firms that tend  to hire these offenders also have high rates of previous misconduct. The researchers go on to note that these firms may even “specialize in misconduct.”
4. These firms also tend to serve people who have relatively low levels of education, high incomes, and the elderly. Existing research indicates that these individuals have lower levels of financial literacy and may have a harder time identifying misconduct or fraud.

When unpacking these findings two important points emerge. First, companies can be surprisingly strict when it comes to misconduct, often firing employees who commit abuses. But at the same time, those who do lose their jobs often manage to stay in the industry, though on average they go to less prestigious companies and take a pay cut. The firms that tend to hire people with a misconduct record also have issues with misconduct themselves.

FINRA created the disclosure system and the BrokerCheck database to improve transparency for customers looking for financial advisers, but the researchers found that despite consumers’ ability to look up the record of potential advisers, misconduct continues at higher levels than you might expect. They argue that this is likely because some customers are less sophisticated than others and may not know how to find or interpret certain disclosures.

Researchers compared the locations of these advisers with Census Bureau data. They found, “Misconduct is more common in wealthy, elderly, and less educated counties… The latter two categories have generally been associated with low levels of financial sophistication.” While these findings are not definitive and don’t prove causation, the connection between where fraud happens and those vulnerable to it is particularly striking. Ultimately, the researchers concluded:

Our findings suggest that a natural policy response to lowering misconduct is an increase in market transparency and in policies helping unsophisticated consumers access more information. Several recent efforts by regulators, such as the establishment and promotion of FINRA’s BrokerCheck website, have been along these lines.

FINRA, the independent regulatory authority that oversees financial advisers and much of the financial industry, has been taking steps to improve transparency and the industry’s culture, but these findings suggest that misconduct and fraud remains a significant problem for the financial advice industry.

The financial crisis was a formative period for most Millennials, so it’s clear why many young adults have moved away from more traditional financial advisors. Millennials tend to gravitate toward different, often tech-based, solutions for financial planning rather than hiring someone for advice. That, coupled with the unique financial burden placed on new adults, puts Millennials in a notably different financial situation with different goals than what their parents and grandparents might have. Based on the findings of this working paper, that skepticism may be warranted.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should We Trust Financial Advisers? appeared first on Law Street.

Before it entered the world vocabulary as the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” the name “Isis” was already relatively ubiquitous. Usually referring to Isis, the Ancient Egyptian goddess of nature, childbirth, healing, and magic, the word has been used for retail shops, restaurants, and even baby names. But in its current context, it has caused a lot of issues for those people who used the “Isis” name for completely peaceful reasons.

Take for example Isis Books & Gifts in Denver, Colorado. The business specializes in spiritual books and products from a variety of world religions. Last weekend, it was vandalized for the fourth time in recent months when a brick was thrown through the sign outside. Owner Karen Charboneau-Harrison explained that she didn’t exactly know the motivation of the vandal, saying:

We’re all very heartbroken (about the Paris attacks) so I don’t know if somebody walking down the street just saw our name on the sign and kind of lost it for a moment and threw a rock through it. Or if it was an ignorant person who actually thought this was a bookstore for terrorists, I don’t know.

But this isn’t just a problem for Isis Books & Gifts. There’s a California-based Isis pharmaceutical company, which is considering changing its name. There’s also an Isis Collections in New Jersey that specializes in wigs and hair pieces, and a bridal shop in California. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, there are 270 products or businesses who use the name “Isis” in the United States alone.

TV comedy “Archer” removed the name of the spy organization, ISIS or the “International Secret Intelligence Service,”  that its title character works for from the show, and even rerecorded some lines from earlier seasons to erase it completely.

Then there are all of the people (overwhelmingly women) named Isis, usually after the Ancient Egyptian goddess. Last year in the U.S. alone, there were just shy of 400 babies named Isis. One of them, Isis Anchalee, from San Francisco tweeted that Facebook recently shut down her account after it was flagged as fake or offensive.

Facebook thinks I’m a terrorist. Apparently sending them a screenshot of my passport is not good enough for them to reopen my account.

— Isis Anchalee (@isisAnchalee) November 17, 2015

With these controversies in mind, some are pushing to stop calling ISIS by the acronym, instead arguing for the term “Daesh” or “Islamic State.” The use of ISIS seems popular, however, and not about to go away anytime soon, so hopefully people realize the very important distinctions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bad Luck: The Struggle of a Business Named “Isis” appeared first on Law Street.

Law degrees are undoubtedly expensive, difficult to complete, and very time consuming. After finishing the requisite three years in law school, students might start to reconsider their intended career field, which can seem quite daunting and somewhat limited. Being a lawyer can be very rewarding, although it can also be a very stressful and intense job. Fear not, graduates, as contrary to popular belief, it turns out that there are a plethora of opportunities for those who hold law degrees besides practicing law. Attending law school gives students a wealth of knowledge and expertise in a multitude of areas, all of which can all of which can be utilized in some very interesting and unexpected jobs. In a world where it seems like society is rife with lawyers but with few available jobs, it is comforting to know that there are other options for those who either don’t make it practicing or realize that they wish to pursue something entirely different. While not all of the following jobs are as lucrative as being a lawyer at a top firm, they can still lead to some very compelling professions.

People who receive J.D.s acquire plenty of skills in the process, such as learning persuasive writing, argumentation skills, critical thinking and analysis, public speaking, counseling, and researching. These skills can be applied in a variety of settings, not just in a typical legal environment. While some of these options are still within the realm of the legal field, others are very different, so if you wish to make an exit from practicing law, you do still have some viable choices.

Professional Writing

One of the most valuable skills acquired in law school is learning how to become a strong writer. Did you know that some of the top writers in the industry first started their careers by attending law school? A surprising amount of lawyers have launched successful careers within the writing field, many of them choosing to focus on the subject of crime in their works. A few notable authors who also hold the title of J.D. include John Grisham, Meg Gardiner, and Scott Turow. Each of these novelists first dappled in the field of law and then later gained international fame for their thriller pieces. Even if you don’t want to write long, extensive novels, you can still write for the masses by becoming a freelance writer or a blogger like Kat Griffin who launched corporette.com. Journalism is also a possibility, since lawyers learn how to investigate and problem solve through their schooling and careers, so this can be translated over to professions within the communications sphere, such as reporting. Becoming a literary or media consultant could also be an option where you can offer your legal knowledge for the production of books, movies, and television shows.

Business

If you would like to go in the route of the corporate sector, then there are many potential opportunities for those who hold law degrees to work in major companies or to even become entrepreneurs. People with law school experience could find promising careers in finance, such as being chief operating officers, chief financial officers, or human resources directors. One former attorney credits her background as a lawyer with helping her to achieve success in the entrepreneurial sphere, since her education helped her to better understand and negotiate contracts within her business. These positions include many different areas, and so they give lawyers a chance to experience a wide array of fields in one setting while utilizing the many skills they learned in law school.

Government

If you’re interested in the political route, then having a law degree is always a good option. Many of our presidents, past and present, were first top lawyers in their respective cities, such as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Getting involved in politics of course requires a deep understanding of the law, and so first becoming a lawyer while building your political career from the ground up can lead to a prolific career. Having a law degree also could be a segue into working for the government or a federal agency, where lawyers are often in demand. Lawyers learn how to become expert negotiators and mediators through their training, both of which are crucial skills if one would like to work for organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations or the Central Intelligence Agency.

Entertainment

Many lawyers have gained fame by putting their oral and presentation skills to use in the world of entertainment. One of the anchors of “The Today Show,” Savannah Guthrie, started out her career by first obtaining a law degree. “Judge Judy” is a popular television show that is based off of the real life proceedings of Judge Judy Sheindlin in her courtroom. The founder of TMZ.com, Harvey Levin, was first a lawyer before creating his popular celebrity gossip website. Star Jones also was a lawyer before she became one of the hosts of the popular talk show, “The View.” Many actors also received their law degrees before making their big debuts in Hollywood, such as Gerard Butler and Rebel Wilson. If you prefer to be behind the scenes, then maybe you could be an agent for those in the spotlight by acting as their advocate.

Other Options

Lawyers are perhaps most relied upon for giving advice to their clients, and so this tool can be transferred to a variety of other fields. Lawyers could make careers out of becoming legal counselors on multiple different platforms, such as with nonprofit organizations or major companies. Others choose to teach after receiving their law degrees, a job which can incorporate almost all of the skills needed to be an effective lawyer. Given how much lawyers are forced to analyze when examining cases and legal arguments, their skills can be put to good use in a public policy analyst or policy strategist position.

Whether you are a recent law school graduate, have a couple of years of legal practice under your belt, or have been in the field for a few decades, it’s never too late to try your hands at something different if you become tired of your job. The many skills learned in law school can aid lawyers in many different tasks in various careers. If you had the work ethic and determination needed to complete law school, then you can likely hone in on these abilities and use them towards almost any career you desire. In the end, the possibilities are endless for those who possess law degrees.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unexpected Jobs You Can Get With a Law Degree appeared first on Law Street.

Standing out as a young entrepreneur can be difficult. There are many small steps budding business men and women can take to bring themselves closer to being successful in the field. Some strategies are as small as keeping up on current events, but others take more time and effort. From the small tips to the more significant tips, here’s a list of the Capitalista’s pointers for being a successful young entrepreneur.

Know Every Aspect of Your Industry and Then Some

Know more about your industry than just the two biggest names in that field. Maybe the little guys will be more helpful in your search. All entrepreneurs should brush up on their knowledge of the tech field. Pretty much every company today has some tech-related component. Observing and understanding your target audience’s technology habits will help you reach them better. Lastly, make sure the business you build is right for you. Does your company mesh with your personal life? Does your business have its own niche? These are all things entrepreneurs should consider before delving into the market.

Be prepared to dress for success

Sometimes the key to success starts with the way one presents him or herself to others. Entrepreneurs should always be prepared to look the part of a strong, successful businessperson, even if a suit isn’t part of their daily wardrobe. Stay prepared by keeping some vital items in your closet. For women, that could include a pair of flat shoes, a pair of dress pants and a simple button-up. For men, a clean suit, shirt, and tie will usually do. These items may be useful when you least expect it, and on a moment’s notice.

Keep Up with Current Events

What better way to connect with others than to discuss the trends? Knowing what’s going on in the world — whether it be news, pop culture, or business — is a great way to start conversations with fellow entrepreneurs. Networking is imperative for entrepreneurs, as it helps create and maintain relationships with potential partners, vendors, or even customers. Attend local trade association events, reach out to other local business people and community leaders, and participate in online discussions. Use your knowledge of current events and trends to foster these relationships.

Learn to Accept Criticism

A young entrepreneur who can accept constructive criticism exhibits his or her strength as a businessperson. Though women are more likely to receive criticism in the workplace, they should never allow these critiques to hinder their entrepreneurial spirit. Furthermore, entrepreneurs should learn to become their own harshest critics. Kelsey Ramsden, a $50 million entrepreneur and founder of four companies, says wise entrepreneurs are capable of judging themselves without bias. This means successful entrepreneurs are honest with themselves about their capabilities and maintain realistic goals.

Starting and growing a business is not an easy feat to accomplish. Oftentimes, finding funding is one of the hardest parts. In order to get a leg up on your competitors and learn about how to grow your idea, read “How Does the JOBS Act Help Millennial Entrepreneurs?”

Just remember, that in order to succeed as an entrepreneur, young entrepreneurs should keep these tips in mind to strengthen their businesses and their careers.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Capitalista’s Tips for Young Entrepreneurs appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s some gross and weird racism to start off your Wednesday: a gun range in Arkansas has declared that it is a “Muslim-Free Business.” Jan Morgan runs the Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, and is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment (although apparently not the rest of our Bill of Rights). She also subscribes to a particularly paranoid form of logic.

According to Morgan, the decision to ban Muslims from her business was based on an encounter in which:

Two Muslims walked in to my range last week with Allah Akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little English, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns. Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.

First of all, what in the world is an “Allah Akbar” ring tone? Allah Akbar is a phrase that means, essentially, “God is the Greatest.” It’s used in prayer or in times of distress. The name of the Libyan national anthem is similar — “Allahu Akbar” — but I highly doubt that’s what this woman was referring to. Was it just the phrase “Allah Akbar” over and over again?

On a more serious note, Morgan very well may have been concerned by the behavior of these two men. My guess is that the encounter she’s describing has been a little over exaggerated, but let’s pretend that it’s not. She and her customers may well have been concerned, and if they broke a reasonable rule that she’d created at her business — for example, having a valid ID — she had every right to refuse them service. Gun range owners do have the discretion to turn away people who seem, for example, drunk, or mentally ill. But that’s an individual decision based on the customer in question, not a blanket one.

Where the huge disconnect comes in, is that this apparently prompted her to ban anyone who is Muslim from her gun range, which makes about as much sense as banning all men because those two she encountered happened to be male. Or banning all young white men, because they are the most common to partake in mass shootings.

Morgan goes on to justify her paranoia and splendid racism with a list of nine reasons. Some are your garden variety xenophobia, but there are some standout examples of logical fallacies as well. Here’s a fun one:

In the 14 hundred year history, muslims have murdered over 270 million people. Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

I enjoy how she starts this statement off with how not all Muslims are terrorists, but concludes that that doesn’t really matter. And she’s right, you can’t tell someone’s religion just by looking at them, so I’m assuming this leaves Morgan a couple choices: either ask her customers’ religion before they enter her business, or profile anyone who fits her definition of what someone who is Muslim looks like. Either is offensive, degrading, and inappropriate.

Also included in Morgan’s manifesto are random comments about Sharia Law coming to the United States, which no one can really prove, and lots about the violence of the “Koran.”

Morgan will have a suit brought against her by the ACLU. The executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, Rita Sklar, explained, “It’s unconstitutional, it’s illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It’s a violation of the right to religious liberty.”

Morgan, though, seems to have some support. If you want to really depress yourself, check out the comments on any article about this issue, or the Twitter mentions. That bothers me more than one crazy wingnut banning Muslims from her business, because it reminds me that so much of the country thinks this way.

Finally, Ms. Morgan claims she is a supporter of the Second  Amendment, but I think she needs a reminder of what the Second Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And let’s put all arguments about the Second Amendment aside for a minute here, because although I have conflicted feelings about what it actually means, there’s one thing in there that’s crystal clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There are no caveats in there. This is in an Amendment to our Constitution, a document that tells us that all men are created equal. Not all Christians are created equal, or all white people are created equal, or all Americans. Everyone. While Morgan does own a private business, her love of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that it’s right to ignore the rest of the document. The Bill of Rights isn’t multiple choice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [John Biehler via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Woman Bans “Muslims” From Her Gun Range appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly referred to as ISIS, has been making some interesting moves lately. Namely it’s gotten into the movie business.

Last night, ISIS released a video “warning” the United States about what would happen if we send troops to Iraq to combat its growing influence. The graphic video is below, should you be inclined to watch it.

For those of you who choose to skip over the video, here’s a brief summary. The beginning features a lot of gratuitous explosions, eventually it shows American soldiers struggling, then we get treated to some fuzzy shots of the White House. Eventually, the “title” of the movie flashes on the screen: “Flames of War: The Fight Has Just Begun” and then the words “Coming Soon.”

This is, of course, just a few weeks after ISIS released videos depicting the slaughters of American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

Terrorism is a very difficult thing to define — there are still academic arguments over how exactly to delineate terrorist groups from other actors. But at its most basic form, terrorism does have to include some kind of “terror” — that’s the whole point. It often targets non-combatants, such as civilians. It’s often, but not always, aimed at democracies where the members of the democracy have the ability to appeal to their government. ISIS did not kill James Foley because it wanted him to die, it killed James Foley in an attempt to incite “terror” in the American public. That’s all the intent it needed right there. Again, this is not meant to serve by any means as any sort of dispositive definition, but more as context for my next statement: the video released last night by ISIS was downright brilliant.

The whole point of terror is to scare, intimidate, and coerce. And with that trailer, ISIS was able to do just that, at minimal cost. It didn’t break any laws, it didn’t kill anyone, it didn’t have to go on a violent campaign. ISIS literally had a couple guys with decent computer skills sit there and do that, and then leaked it to the internet. While one could argue that it wasn’t a terroristic act in the strictest sense, it was certainly a facet of a larger campaign. ISIS has figured out how to reach as many people in its goal audience as possible. It’s literally creating clickbait for social media. Not to be glib about the fact that ISIS is one of the largest terrorist threats to the U.S. right now, but it’s literally employing Buzzfeed-like tactics to scare the American populace. And, the scariest part is that it seems to be working.

ISIS hasn’t just mastered social media when it comes to releasing creepy videos, it’s also using it in other ways. It’s created message boards and chat rooms for recruiting purposes, including in the United States. Given that a handful of western-born fighters are known to be among ISIS’ ranks, the kind of access it has is scary. It’s also dipped into other tactics that seem to be more out of a business/PR handbook than a terrorist group’s goals, including an online store that sells clothing and memorabilia.

ISIS knows what it has to work with, and its tactics are scarily modern. The group sort of flies in the face of what I think many people think of when they think of “terrorist.” Many in the U.S. see terrorists as radical, backward people. And don’t get me wrong, ISIS is beyond radicalized. But much more concerning than its radicalization is that it’s alarming modern. As the United States continues to develop its plan to work against ISIS, we need to keep that in mind.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nile Livesey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coming Soon to Theaters Near You: ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

The legal industry is changing and law schools are no exception. Applications and enrollment are both down, and the value of the traditional legal education with its current price tag is the subject of continual debate. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Law Street Specialty Rankings blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs.

Entertainment Law
Full List: Top Law Schools for Entertainment Law
—
1. Southwestern Law School
2. Columbia Law School
3. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
4. UCLA School of Law
5. USC Gould School of Law
6. Fordham Law School
7. NYU School of Law
8. Villanova Law School
9. Vanderbilt University Law School
10. Stanford Law School

Environmental & Energy
Full list: Top Law Schools for Environmental & Energy Law
—
1. Lewis & Clark Law School
2. New York University School of Law
3. Pace University School of Law
4. Georgetown University Law Center
5. The George Washington University Law School
6. UC Berkeley School of Law
7. Tulane University Law School
8. UMD Francis King Carey School of Law
9. Harvard Law School
10. Stanford Law School

Business
Full list: Top Law Schools for Business Law
—
1. New York University School of Law
2. Harvard Law School
3. Columbia Law School
4. Northwestern University School of Law
5. University of Chicago Law School
6. Fordham University School of Law
7. Georgetown University Law Center
8. UCLA School of Law
9. Loyola University Chicago School of Law
10. Yale Law School

Healthcare
Full list: Top Law Schools for Healthcare Law
—
1. Loyola University Chicago School of Law
2. Georgetown University Law Center
3. University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
4. Case Western Reserve University School of Law
5. Georgia State University College of Law
6. Harvard Law School
7. Yale Law School
8. Boston University School of Law
9. University of Houston Law Center
10. University of Virginia School of Law

Intellectual Property
Full List: Top Law Schools for Intellectual Property
—
1. The George Washington University Law School
2. University of New Hampshire School of Law
2. Santa Clara University School of Law
4. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
5. New York University School of Law
6. The John Marshall Law School
7. Columbia Law School
8. Fordham University School of Law
9. University of California Berkeley School of Law
9. Stanford Law School

—

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno. Click here to read the 2015 Law School Specialty Rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Specialty Rankings 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Business law programs attract thousands of students across the country each year. These curriculum tracts prepare the next generation of lawyers for a a wide variety of niche areas from business transactions to securities regulation. The top law schools in this field bring together practical experience, expert instruction, and connection to top-tier professionals in the discipline to prepare students for this highly complicated and demanding career field.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law, and click here for the methodology used.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law.

Featured image courtesy of [Nguyen Hung Vu via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [Jonathan71 via WikiMedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #1 New York University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Chensiyuan via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #2 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Drew Garaetz via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #3 Columbia Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Alanscottwalker via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #4 Northwestern University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Matthew G. Bisanz via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #5 University of Chicago Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [William Ward via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #6 Fordham University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #7 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Coolcaesar via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #8 UCLA School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Amerique via Wikimedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #9 Loyola University Chicago School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Pradipta Mitra via Wikimedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #10 Yale Law School appeared first on Law Street.

“You may not know them, but data brokers know you,” Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairwoman Edith Ramirez said at the release of an FTC report about the data broker industry. Data brokers know where you live, what you buy, what medical conditions you have, your background, interests, and even the names of your kids. It sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, so it is no wonder most Americans have no idea the thriving market for their personal information even exists. Here’s everything you need to know about how data brokers collect your information, what it is used for, and what protection you have.

What are data brokers?

Data brokers are companies that compile and resell or share the personal data of consumers. The FTC released a report on May 27, 2014 examining nine companies in the industry: Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future. These companies derive a whopping $426 million in annual revenue from their products.

The information set held by these companies is massive. Acxiom estimates it holds roughly 1,500 pieces of data per consumer. Another broker dwarfs Acxiom with 3,000 data points for nearly every U.S. consumer. One broker is said to maintain about 700 billion aggregated data elements and adds more than 3 billion pieces of data each month. Another database has information on 1.4 billion consumer transactions alone, such as credit card purchases. Watch an in-depth look at data brokers by 60 Minutes below.

Where do data brokers find their information?

Contentions with the data broker industry arise from the fact that information gleaned does not come directly from consumers. Data brokers garner a lot of information from publicly available sites. A site relaying U.S. Census data can provide information regarding local demographics and real estate value. These firms get additional information from voter records, tax records, court records, mortgages and property information, driving records, and numerous other avenues. Companies can scour social media sites, such as LinkedIn, for any publicly-available information. Data brokers also gain a lot of information from card loyalty programs, credit cards, and advertising agencies that may follow a user’s online activities. If you recently bought a subscription to Forbes Magazine or purchased a new dress from a catalog sent to your home, these data brokers will know. By compiling all this information, brokers begin to paint a profile of you, including your age, race, income, social security number, religion, political affiliation, criminal history, movie preferences, gun-ownership, gym membership, and hobbies.

What is this data used for?

Individual data points are compiled to form a profile of potential consumers who can then be targeted for specific products. The information allows companies to more accurately target consumers for advertising campaigns and gain information about consumer preferences. The FTC report shows that data brokers usually package data into two forms:

1. Data elements: Age, family, and interests.
2. Data segments: Compilation of interests used to to create a list of people with similar characteristics. Here are some examples of these list segments: “African-American Professional;” “Allergy Sufferer;” “Bible Lifestyle;” “Biker/Hell’s Angels;” “Plus-Size Apparel;” “Twitter User with 250+ friends.” Other categories include people with high cholesterol or those interested in novelty Elvis items.

Data brokers then use this information to create various products in three different categories:

1. Marketing: This includes mail, email, telemarketing, mobile, and TV campaigns. To target consumers, marketers use a process called “onboarding.” Onboarding allows marketers to load offline information, such as magazine subscriptions or store loyalty cards, into cookies that digital advertisers use to target consumers. Cookies are stored in a computer’s browser and allow advertisers to promote their products on numerous Internet services.
2. Risk Mitigation: This includes identity verification. These products use analytics to help banks comply with “know your customer” identity verification requirements under the USA Patriot Act. Products also include fraud detection to track patterns of attempted fraud. For instance, these products can track how long an email address has been used or whether a delivery address matches a listed consumer.
3. People Search: This includes products generally intended for use by individuals. Products can search for someone’s criminal record, ancestry, phone number, telephone history, or social media information. Most come in the form of fee-based search products.

Does the data make our lives easier?

Many people would agree that products that help to verify one’s identity are a good thing. Companies that can link consumer purchases to personal information like an address, phone number, and email drastically reduce chances of fraud. Some also see personalized advertising as a good thing. Say you are a senior citizen. Rather than scrolling through the Internet and seeing ads for baby strollers or discounted student loans, you might see ads for healthcare services. Targeted advertising means you receive information and discounts for things you actually use instead of products with no relevance to your life. Ideally the more information data brokers have about you, the more they can target your individual tastes. While each individual piece of data has little benefit, the aggregation of this data by data brokers is immensely beneficial to companies doing market research to improve and tailor their products.

How are data brokers changing political campaigns?

The use of personal data is not limited to what you buy. In the 2012 elections, campaigns contracted with political data brokers to match voting records with cookies on computers. Voter registration lists have long been used to target voters. Combined with more information, these lists now take a powerful form in the digital arena. Political microtargeting allows campaigns to utilize information from data brokers to deliver a specific message to a target demographic. Data can help campaigns decide which voters are most likely to respond to a specific ad or which groups need to be targeted with a specific message. Candidates can target registered Democrat or Republican voters with online ads and can even target based on how much the individual has donated to campaigns before.

President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign was among the first to use big data to its advantage. The 2012 team assembled an analytics department five times the size of that in its 2008 campaign. Some insights into the use of data in Obama’s 2012 campaign:

• As TIME describes, the team discovered that East Coast women between 40 and 50 were not donating as much as hoped. This demographic was the most likely to hand over cash for the chance to dine with a gravitational celebrity. The campaign’s solution? A fundraising drive with the prize being a dinner with Sarah Jessica Parker.
• The campaign used data to predict how much money they would get from each fundraising email. They also used demographics to determine which groups would be most responsive to an email signed by either Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, or Joe Biden.
• The campaign bought data from brokers regarding the television-viewing habits of Ohioans. The campaign was able to combine lists of voters with lists of cable subscribers and then coordinate the information of watching habits. Using this information, they targeted campaign ads to specific demographics at the exact time these niche voters were watching TV. This led to the campaign buying airtime in shows like Sons of Anarchy and the Walking Dead rather than traditional news programming. Watch for more on the use of big data during Obama’s reelection campaign below.

Little information is disclosed on just how much data campaigns can access. Inevitably the collection and effective use of data will play a huge role in the 2016 presidential election, but not all consumers are happy with that. The regulation of the use of data for political purposes raises questions of free speech and privacy. Others claim microtargeting actually offers more privacy, since the data does not include names or physical mailing addresses. It may be hard, however, for consumers to opt out of political advertising. Even lists like the National Do Not Call registry have exceptions for political campaign calls. According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania, 86 percent of Americans said they did not want political advertising tailored to their interests.

What are the problems with data brokers?

There is a certain “creepiness” factor to data collection without consumer consent. Target tried to market products to new parents by identifying them even before the baby was born. Data showed that pregnant women purchased products like cocoa butter and calcium tablets. Target began sending targeted mail to these women. But instead of finding it helpful, the women found the fact that Target knew they were pregnant to be unnerving.

Others worry about the effects of outdated data. Consumers have little access to immediately change what information that brokers have on them, such as an address change or marriage. This means people could potentially be prevented from making a purchase solely based on outdated information. Outdated information becomes more offensive when the deceased remain on data broker lists and continue to receive offers in the mail. Some women revealed stories of experiencing a miscarriage yet continuing to receive insensitive mailings from Gerber and American Baby Magazine.

Companies that have such specific information about segments of consumers may take advantage from the data. An example from the FTC looks at the case of a consumer labeled to be a biker enthusiast. This person might get more coupons for motorcycles and gear, but they could also see higher insurance rates if companies use this information to conclude this individual engages in risky behavior. Watch a Congressional hearing on the industry’s issues below.

An Acxiom presentation to the Consumer Marketing Organization in 2013 indicates further issues with potential discrimination. Acxiom placed customers into “customer value segments.” Data showed that while the top 30 percent of customers add 500 percent of value, the bottom 20 percent actually cost 400 percent of value. The bottom 20 percent call customer service numerous times and cost the company in returns. The company would be better off ignoring these customers altogether, and data brokers can help companies to identify these costly customers. These high-cost customers could then face higher prices or poor service without even being aware they are discriminated against.

Do people have any protection?

The problem most people have with the collection of data is that they have no say in it. They are not aware when information is being collected, nor are they in control of what it is used for or if it is correct. The resale and illegal use of the data is prohibited. Data brokers also suppress protected lists such as phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.

Some data brokers do try to protect consumers. Some voluntarily remove information regarding children and teens from their data. Others provide ways to edit and review what data the broker has on you. Acxiom uses aboutthedata.com for this very purpose. Epsilon allows consumers to review information, but reviewing the information costs $5 and requests can only be made by postal mail. Trying to review information collected by every broker is extremely time consuming. Watch for more on how to protect yourself below.

No laws require brokers to maintain the privacy of consumer data unless it is used for prohibited purposes. Federal law protects the confidentiality of medical records. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) restricts the search of information when determining eligibility for employment, credit, or housing; however, most data does not fall under the scope of FCRA.

What is the FTC pushing for?

The FTC report recognizes the immense value of data brokers to both companies and consumers; however, the FTC has offered the following recommendations to improve the industry and bolster consumer protection:

• Create a central database where consumers can see what information about them was collected. The database should also allow consumers to opt out from the data collection.
• Require brokers to list their data sources.
• Increase industry visibility and consumer awareness.
• Comprehensive legislation to prevent the discriminatory use of data. For instance, some categories infer sensitive statistics. “Metro Parents” are single parents primarily high school-educated handling the stresses of urban life on a small budget. “Timeless Traditions” are immigrants who speak some English but generally prefer Spanish.
• Adopt a series of best practices, including better protection for minors, improving data security, preventing unlawful discrimination, and restricting collection to only needed data.

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and other groups attacked the FTC report. In an interview with the Washington Post, Stuart Ingis of the DMA said, “You’d think if there was a real problem, they’d be able to talk about something other than potential” abuses.

The data broker lobby is very powerful. Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Edward Markey (D-MA) led the regulatory push by proposing the DATA bill on February 12, 2014, requiring data brokers to be transparent about the information they collect. But considering the fact that political campaigns benefit from data broker information when targeting voters, it is unlikely there will be new legislation on data brokers in the near future. In the meantime, expect data brokers to know much more about you than you know about them.

Resources

Primary

FTC: Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability

Ed Markey: Markey, Rockefeller Introduce Data Broker Bill

White House: Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values

Senate: A Review of the Data Broker Industry

Additional

Yahoo: FTC Wants More Transparency for Data Brokers

Data Privacy Minitor: FTC Report Seeks Congressional Review

Privacy and Security Law Blog: “Getting to Know You, Getting to Know All About You”

Washington Post: Brokers Use Billions of Data Points to Profile Americans

ProPublica: Everything We Know About What Data Brokers Know About You

Slate: What Do Data Brokers Know About Me?

CNN: Why Big Companies Buy, Sell Your Data

New York Books: How Your Data are Being Deeply Mined

Pulitzer Center: Consumer Data Privacy in Politics

Time: Inside the Secret World of the Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win

ProPublica: Everything We Know So Far About Obama’s Big Data Operation

AdWeek: Confessions of a Data Broker

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Big Business of Big Data appeared first on Law Street.

The possibility of government regulation of noncompete clauses in the business world has been a hot topic in recent months – especially throughout the tech industry. Now it seems that the debate has expanded to an array of other smaller industries, including the ever-so-competitive camp counseling field.

According to the New York Times, 19-year-old college student Colette Buser was passed over for a summer counselor job in Wellesley, Mass. in fear that nearby LINX camp would sue. Apparently Buser had a noncompete clause tucked into her contract from the previous summer, which prevented her from working within ten miles of a LINX location. According to the Times, everyone from “chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company’s rivals.”

LINX tried defending its actions to the Boston Herald, claiming that its training methods are just as crucial as the confidential intel that tech companies using noncompetes have. LINX President Joe Kahn said that the company uses these clauses because they train employees using unique methods and have seen counselors get hired mid-summer as babysitters. “Much like a tech company would be protective of their technology and proprietary information, we’re protective of our customer information,” said Kahn.

Buser is not the only person who has been affected by noncompete clauses recently. According to the Boston Herald there have been plenty of other instances where former employees found themselves in trouble because of a noncompete clause.

• A student trying to intern at a tech firm was requested to sign a one-year noncompete.
• A Massachusetts man whose job involved spraying pesticides on lawns was asked to sign a two-year noncompete agreement.
• A Boston University graduate was asked to sign a one-year noncompete for an entry-level social media job at a marketing firm.
• Phil Poireir, a pastor at a Megachurch in Seattle, was let go because he refused to sign a noncompete contract.
• A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete, which prohibited him from working at any salon in neighboring towns for a year.

In McKinnon’s case, he was forced to live on unemployment benefits for months. “I almost lost my truck, I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me,” McKinnon told the Times.

From the employer’s perspective, noncompete clauses make sense. The company has invested its time and money into training its employees, so it would only be logical to protect those investments. But it seems that some companies are taking it a bit overboard. Can one hairdresser really cause a business to flop? What does it say about your company if you’re trying to scare your employees to stay committed? These are the questions that businesses need to ask themselves when they put noncompete clauses in their employees’ contracts.

Many noncompete clauses put people like Daniel McKinnon out of work for weeks and even months at a time. MIT professor Matthew Marx thinks that people should have the freedom to come and go as they please. “There was a saying at the Silicon Valley startup where I worked, ‘You never stop hiring someone.’ They can go where they want. People are free to leave and start companies if they’re not happy,” Marx said.

Over the past year there has been a 60 percent rise in departing employees who face lawsuits from their former bosses for breaching these agreements, the Wall Street Journal reported. These disputes lead to long, drawn out court battles that impede productivity on both sides of the disagreement.

Many legislators are trying to bar noncompetes in various states throughout the country. State Representative and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Lori Ehrlich,  contends that noncompetes are hurting growth in our economy by “decreasing working mobility and squelching startups.”

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that will make it easier for workers in all types of industries to move from one job to another with ease by banning noncompete agreements. These agreements seem to cripple employees’ ability to be innovative, leaving them befuddled and frustrated with their inability to advance.

While the fear that former employees may take confidential information is understandable, companies should sue if, and only if, the former employee is caught doing so, not beforehand. Should their personal knowledge be considered company information? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

Currently, only California and North Dakota ban noncompete clauses according to the Herald. So if you are working for a company and you have a brilliant idea for a new startup, you can go to California or North Dakota and the judge will not honor the agreement. Since startups in North Dakota aren’t exactly booming, I would look to the Golden State.

— Trevor Smith Featured Image Courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to be a Camp Counselor? Better Check Your Noncompete Clause appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia Law is taking big steps toward strengthening its Program in the Law and Economics of Capital Markets, and it’s doing so with the help of a very good friend. On June 4, the school received a three-year grant from the NASDAQ OMX Educational Foundation, which will fund the advancement of the program by supporting the production of a seminal treatise on capital markets regulation and the development a more comprehensive website.

So what’s the big deal? The average tuition for one year of law school is $41,985, according to lawschooltransparency.com. This inflated tuition has contributed to a downward trend in law school enrollment nationwide. But if innovative cross-disciplinary programs like Columbia’s capital markets regulation course are introduced, students might be compelled to pay more now to earn more in the future.

My colleague Matt DeWilde wrote about the University of Arizona’s tuition decrease and how the cut incentivizes students to attend three-year programs at cheaper tuition rates; however, three years with a smaller price tag still costs more than two. But there’s more that law schools could do than just slash prices. If law schools across the nation were to lower tuition and continue offering versatile courses like Columbia Law is doing, we could end up with better educated lawyers. The most valuable aspect of programs like this one is a student body that actually cares about the subject. Legal grads could become more proficient legal advocates with the help of partnerships like Columbia Business and Law and NASDAQ.

The Program in the Law and Economics of Capital Markets is jointly based in the Columbia Law School and the Columbia Business School. The first of its kind, it focuses on three main goals:

1. To further develop the Capital Markets Regulation course and its materials in order to allow other institutions to take advantage of them.
2. To draft a seminal treatise on capital markets regulation.
3. To unite professionals through the Fellow Workshops to promote discussion of legal regulation of capital markets and economic forces that drive regulation.

The grant allows Columbia Law to continue providing courses in the up-and-coming field where business and law collide, without augmenting tuition. The program is directed by three seasoned scholars, Professors Merritt B. Fox, Lawrence R. Glosten, and Edward F. Greene. In my interview with Professor Fox, he said that anywhere from 50 to 80 students enroll in the main course. By 2016 he and Professor Glosten hope to complete the seminal treatise, which will be the first text on capital markets to be used as a professional reference and teaching material for legal practitioners, market participants, and scholars.

Publishing the seminal treatise means facilitating the course at other institutions, which is just what this nation needs. Fox said the University of South Carolina School of Law will implement a capital markets regulation course in the upcoming school year, and that readily available materials of a hard text would stimulate other universities to adopt courses in the subject.

Another resource the grant will support is the NASDAQ OMX Fellow Workshops program. The workshops connect students with “experts from the legal and business academy, government, industry and legal practice for high-level discussions to the legal regulation of capital markets and the economic forces that shape markets and the regulatory environment.”

Most of the workshops are recorded and published on the program’s website. Students can use the workshops to network with the professionals in the field. “If someone became interested we would be able to connect them with one of the speakers in the program,” Fox said. Networking is a key aspect for aspiring lawyers in a time when the legal job market is rocky.

Due to low employment rates for legal post-grads, Columbia Law’s capital markets program will give participating students a new edge. And who doesn’t love being a little ahead? The combination of easily accessible materials and networking opportunities provide students with the upper hand in the post-graduation job hunt. With the support from NASDAQ, the program is sure to continue breaking ground in the blossoming field.

Congratulations, Columbia Law! Your capital markets program is sure to kick butt in a new era of legal studies.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Luis Villa del Campo via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Business Partnership Gives Columbia Law an Edge Over the Competition appeared first on Law Street.

A new law recently implemented in New York City is a significant step in the right direction for improving the rights of workers.

On April 1, 2014, an updated paid sick leave law took effect. The measure requires businesses with five or more employees to provide sick leave to employees caring for themselves or their relatives. After taking office, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that paid sick leave would be extended to cover more employees in the city, and he was now fulfilled that promise. Because of the law, 1.2 million more workers in New York will have paid sick leave, many of whom work low to minimum wage jobs.

Skeptics worried about the possible negative effects the new policy would have on businesses. Some small business owners were worried that they wouldn’t be able to afford paying for their workers’ sick leave. Yet when the law took effect, it did so without a commotion. There were no voiced complaints or protests. This silence bodes well for the law’s success and sustainment, and can perhaps pave the way for more progressive labor legislation. And for Mayor de Blasio, who has already faced a setback in failing legislation to raise the minimum wage, granting more residents of the city paid sick leave is a substantial victory.

So what allowed for this measure to be successfully implemented without protest?

Businesses found the law to be reasonable.

Since the law did not take effect immediately, businesses had time to check their budgets to see how offering paid sick leave to employees will impact their profit. While businesses may lose a little money to offer five (or more) sick days a year for employees, the cost of this is not exorbitant. Moreover, business can take comfort in the fact that they do not have to allow an employee paid sick leave until after he or she has been on the job for more than three months. This provision of the law allows time for trust to develop between an employer and an employee, which will lower the risk of an employee’s taking advantage of paid sick leave.

Many people believe that extending paid sick leave to more employees is fair.

One small business owner, Shiv Puri, reflected on the importance of paid sick leave while he worked on Wall Street. He noted that his staff should receive the same benefits as employees as he has been given. Additionally, a poll by FindLaw found that 71% of respondents across the country were in support of extending paid sick leave. In New York and across the United States, the extension of benefits such as paid sick leave are gaining support for being fairer to all employees. Despite the people that had vocalized their concerns before the law took effect, there are many others who support the measure.

Businesses can also benefit from giving workers paid sick leave.

Employees who work low earning jobs know that money is hard to earn and therefore every shift is crucial to supporting themselves. Many have had to make the choice between going to work feeling ill or staying home to care for themselves. Employers don’t want sick workers on the job: they are less productive and can infect co-workers and even customers. Allowing a few days of paid leave will keep sick workers at home, which is ultimately good for business. Additionally, employees who receive more benefits from their employer will feel better treated and will translate how they feel about the job into their work ethic. Providing paid sick leave can also make workers more productive, another benefit to businesses.

It just makes sense.

People that earn low wages already have a harder time making ends’ meat. Why is it then that our system extends more benefits to the people that receive higher salaries? The point of benefits such as paid sick leave is to assist employees, but the people who need the most help are those who work low and minimum wage jobs, because they have a harder time as it is affording basic necessities. Of course, good benefits are a nice incentive for businesses to entice qualified candidates to work for their company. But these benefits can also be used to encourage those in minimum wage positions to stay on the job and to attract more workers to fill open positions.

The law makes New York, the most recent of more than twenty cities and states that have mandated paid sick leave for employees of certain businesses. With the success of the policy’s implementation in New York, perhaps more places in the US will adhere to this just principle.

[NY Times] [HRE Online] [In These Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Paid Sick Leave in NYC: It Just Makes Sense appeared first on Law Street.

My boyfriend and I have been binging on The Food Network lately. The show Restaurant: Impossible, to be exact. It’s amazing. The perfect combination of food and drama. Maybe it’s the fact that we’re both trying to be better about food (resolutions blah blah blah) or maybe we just get some ridiculous satisfaction out of watching a guy with a faux pretentious accent yell at people about garnishes. Whatev. It’s our thang. Don’t judge.

But in all seriousness, the show did get me thinking. For those of you who haven’t seen it, here’s a synopsis: Robert Irvine is the host and an executive chef who roams around the country saving restaurants that are about to shut down. It’s great. There are tears at the end. But anyway, I was really shocked at how some of these businesses were being run, and the reasons that the owners were finding themselves in this impossible (pun intended) situation. There was literally an Italian restaurant that ran out of pasta. There was another place that only served canned food. All of the owners were disgruntled and close to personal and financial ruin.

The restaurant biz aside, there are lessons to be learned here. I write about startups and going out on your own. I write about how many great kickstarter and crowdfunding opportunities there are now. But today we’re concentrating on the basics. You might have a great idea for a business, but there are things that you need to do before you turn this idea into a very expensive reality.

1. Mind your own business. You have to know your business before you start it. Not just your store, your website, your personal effort, but the ins and outs of the industry as a whole. How would you start a knitting store without knowing how other knitting stores function? Is there a place for you in the market? Is the market doing well for your industry? Are you taking a brave and awesome step, or setting yourself up to fail? Know these things.

2. Do you know what you’re doing? Beyond knowing about how other businesses with models like yours are doing, you have to know how to do the every day functions your company would require from you.

3. Your costs. One thing all the people on the show have in common is that no one has a handle on their finances. They all think that starting their business would help them save money…which is almost never the case, especially within the first few years. It’s true that it takes money to make money. Are you hiring employees? Do you need office supplies? Computers? Produce? Electricity? Whatever your business is, you’re going to need things. And these things cost money. Know your startup costs, how you’re covering them, and how you’re moving forward.

4. Your environment/clientele. Are you selling fishing gear in the middle of the desert? Think about your location, and whether or not your idea will fit. If it will be a struggle from the get-go, rethink. There are enough hardships within the first year that you don’t want to add more to your plate. Next, think of the best way to reach your clients. Who are they? What kind of promotional efforts will they respond to? You have to know who you’re marketing toward.

And if you do open a restaurant, make sure to do a good job because you don’t want this guy yelling at you, do you?

Robert Irvine, Restaurant Impossible host and bicep extraordinaire, courtesy of Loren Javier via Flickr.

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Business: Impossible appeared first on Law Street.

In 2011, a couple of friends concocted a plan. What if they could buy a beer company? Why not?

After (we assume) throwing a few back, the pair decided it would be a great idea to take to social media to figure out if they could raise the $300 million it would take to buy Pabst Blue Ribbon. They managed to raise $200 million with the promise of free beer and stock options. Inventive? Yes. Illegal? Incredibly. At a recent Bloomberg Law event on the JOBS Act, Karl Kilb said that the point of the changes to the rules regarding funding is to find investors who not only understand but can withstand the risks involved.

It’s been a year since Obama signed the JOBS Act, and things are still being ironed out. How will the act, which provides start-ups and other businesses more options to access capital and an ease of communication with investors, fit in with laws regarding investor protection and compliance? A panel of lawyers discussed this at at Bloomberg Law’s event.

And Twitter. I was surprised that among the suits, name tags, and legal jargon, there was a heavy flow of communication around social media. The takeaway? Not only is it here to stay, but it’s a game changer.

The JOBS Act takes into consideration the fact that people have communication literally at their fingertips by considering how social media affects IPOs. Will tweeting to investors still be classified as confidential? There are so many questions that the abundance of new communication tools create.

As an entrepreneur myself, I know the thing that all people starting a business venture come to know: It is always more expensive than you hoped. Not sometimes. Always. The act initiates a way for start-ups to take their big ideas and cast a wide net over a large pool of investors. Great in theory. This coincides with the popping up of countless crowdfunding sources. These new methods to gain capital just might add fuel to the fire of countless ideas and create jobs. However, we have to figure out how to navigate the potential legal mine fields because they muddy the waters that the SEC is working to preemptively clean up.

This is a discussion that is fueled with opinions and flooded with debate. One thing is certain, though. The name of the new game is #balance.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Featured image courtesy of [Talk Radio News Service via Flickr]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post #TheJOBSAct appeared first on Law Street.