Connect with us

Finance

Collaborative Divorce or Cooperative Divorce?

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

Introduction

“Collaborative divorce” is the new buzz word in family law practice. Its proponents enthuse about better and less costly settlements, greater client satisfaction, fewer accounts receivable, and less stress in the practice of law, than they can achieve through a conventional approach to family law disputes. How realistic are these claims? What are the down sides of “collaborative divorce”? Does the concept of “collaborative divorce” present ethical pitfalls and possible malpractice minefields for the unwary practitioner?

Lawyers who participate in the “collaborative divorce” movement use methods borrowed from more established alternative dispute resolution procedures to resolve family law disputes without litigation. However, unlike more accepted dispute resolution procedures, in “collaborative divorce” the lawyers and their clients agree that they will not engage in formal discovery, will voluntarily disclose information, and will settle the case without court intervention of any kind . They assume a duty to inform the attorney for the other party of errors they note in opposing counsel’s legal analysis or understanding of the facts. If they are unable to settle the case, both lawyers must withdraw from representing their respective clients and the estranged spouses must start over with new counsel.

Good Lawyers Routinely Practice Cooperatively

Even the most enthusiastic supporters of “collaborative divorce” concede that the concept of settling cases rather than litigating them is hardly novel. Capable family law practitioners have always directed their effort and creativity toward reaching agreement rather than duking it out in court. It isn’t news to anyone that litigation is expensive – sometimes prohibitively so – and that the most satisfactory settlements derive from skilled negotiation between capable counsel rather than a court-imposed resolution of disputed issues. How does the idea of “collaborative divorce” differ from what experienced practitioners do as a matter of course?

Courtesy. The commitment of lawyers and parties to treat each other courteously is not a new one. Capable attorneys consistently endeavor to work cooperatively with opposing counsel to identify and value assets, set and meet scheduling deadlines, and otherwise facilitate resolution of the case. They respect legitimate positions taken by the other party and encourage their clients to be realistic and respectful as well. They are willing and able to compromise, and they are creative in crafting acceptable resolutions of disputed issues. “Collaborative divorce” supporters intimate that their process is unique because lawyers commit that they will not “threaten, insult, intimidate, or demonize” other participants in the divorce process. Good lawyers don’t do that now. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, which historically has provided a model for good practice nationally, has promulgated “Bounds of Advocacy” that set a high standard for professional courtesy and cooperation.

Emotional cost. “Collaborative divorce” proponents say their process is designed for parties who don’t want to go to war and who don’t want “to hate each other for the rest of their lives.” This description fits the vast majority of family law clients, including most of those whose cases end up in court. Clients almost always care about the emotional cost of adversary proceedings, and about the impact of the divorce action on their children and other family members. To suggest that people who really care will give up the protections provided by court oversight is to do a vast disservice to most of our clients.

Financial cost. “Collaborative divorce” supporters want to reduce the costs of the process by streamlining the discovery process. This also is not a new idea. Good lawyers have always sought to keep formal discovery to a minimum, to share costs of appraisals, to stipulate to values, and to cooperate in other ways to keep costs down. Many experienced practitioners routinely utilize mutually agreed upon short-form interrogatories, four-way meetings, joint telephone or in person conferences with experts, and other such collegial arrangements.

As the above analysis indicates, the goals espoused by “collaborative divorce” lawyers do not differ in degree or in kind from the goal of the vast majority of the family law bar. Most lawyers try a cooperative approach first. Most lawyers agree – and most of their clients concur – that resolution of issues by settlement is preferable to litigation. And in most cases, lawyers and their clients resolve disputed issues by agreement and do not resort to the courts.

The Limits of Collaboration

Despite the most concerted efforts of capable counsel, we all know that not all cases settle, and those that do settle sometimes don’t settle easily. All of us have encountered the frustration of the last-minute, courthouse steps agreement, after completion of all the work and stress of trial preparation. Why is it that some cases don’t settle until the very last minute, and some cases don’t settle at all?

Unsettled Legal Issues. Legitimate reasons to resort to litigation are not always evident at the beginning of a case. Much appellate work involves issues the existence of which – or at least the seriousness of which – did not surface until significant discovery and negotiation had occurred. Where the law is unsettled or where counsel genuinely disagree about the appropriate interpretation and application of the law to the facts of their case, it is not only reasonable but necessary to ask the judge to intervene. Cooperative counsel can reduce the complexity and expense of litigation by limiting contested issues, stipulating facts where possible, agreeing in advance to the admission of exhibits, declining to engage in delaying tactics, and other behavior that is both practical and considerate. Lawyers can commit themselves to conduct the proceedings without animosity and can counsel their clients to be courteous to the other side. But the court has the last word on interpreting and applying the law.

Reality Testing. All clients say they want a “fair” result and many of them genuinely mean it. But they may have a very self-absorbed definition of “fair.” Many years ago Leonard Loeb, whose wisdom and example have greatly influenced the development of a civilized standard of practice for family law attorneys, pointed out an important truth: “Sometimes the hardest negotiation you have to engage in is the one with your own client.” A client who simply cannot see the broader picture despite counsel’s best efforts may require the reality therapy of a temporary order hearing, or a pretrial with the judge, or a deadline for responding to formal discovery, in order to be capable of backing down from an unreasonable stance so settlement negotiations can proceed.

Scheduling Orders. We have all represented a left-behind spouse who does everything possible to avoid or at least delay the divorce, or a party who is preoccupied with business affairs or other family problems and just can’t get around to dealing with the work and decision-making implicit in the divorce process. If one party would prefer that the marriage continue, or if completing the action is not a priority, the court may need to facilitate progress in the case by issuing a scheduling order and setting deadlines. Counsel can cooperate by being reasonable and courteous in setting initial deadlines and in agreeing to extensions where necessary. The process need not be – and usually is not – antagonistic.

Financial Disclosure. A client may, deliberately or inadvertently, fail to disclose assets without the rigorous attention to financial detail that formal discovery entails. Surely we have all had the experience of finding forgotten assets when a client produces the records necessary to back up his or her interrogatory answers. In other circumstances, the client and/or counsel may need the assurance of due diligence in discovery in order to be comfortable with a proposed settlement, especially where the estate is complex or the assets are substantial.

Stability. Then there is the personal factor: divorce presents a significant life crisis for most of our clients, and we see them at their most vulnerable and most needy. The commencement of a divorce action is often accompanied by anxiety, guilt, an danger, and may throw a family into chaos. If one party’s antagonism toward the other is so overreaching that he or she is unable to proceed rationally and courteously, interim court orders may be the only way to achieve a level of stability that permits collaborative discussion of the long-term issues presented by the case.

In each of the above situations, the legal system provides structure and finality, and often sets the stage for the ultimate negotiated resolution of the matter. Court processes, rather than being an impediment to settlement, often facilitate it.

The Effectiveness of a “Collaborative Divorce” Approach

Do “collaborative divorce” techniques provide an effective response to the above limitations? Unfortunately, they do not.

Reality Testing. A client whose sense of “fair” is out of kilter with that of the other party and the lawyers will defeat the collaborative process, and both sides will have to incur the expense and delay of starting over with new counsel. Reality testing through a temporary order hearing or a pretrial with the judge is not an option in “collaborative divorce.” The lawyer representing a difficult client must either advocate for the client’s unreasonable position or take a public position adverse to the client’s view. An attorney cannot ethically make either of these choices, The first is at least arguably frivolous; the second violates the requirement that we advocate diligently for our clients. Proponents of “collaborative divorce” have not provided a solution to this ethical dilemma.

Delay, Expense, and New Counsel. A client who wants to stall progress in a “collaborative divorce” can do so indefinitely, until the court threatens to dismiss the action and the party wishing to proceed must then retain new counsel to request a pretrial. Again, both sides incur the expense and delay of bringing a new attorney up to speed. The attorneys who know the facts and have established rapport with their clients cannot continue to be involved. How can this result benefit anyone?

Diligence. Lack of due diligence in discovery may subject the attorney to a malpractice claim [see Helmbrecht v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 122 Wis.2d 94, 362 N.W. 2d 118 (1985)], may violate the ethical requirement of diligent representation, and may make the client uneasy about signing on the dotted line. In complex cases and cases in which there is a disparity in the spouses’ respective familiarity with or involvement in financial affairs, the security of formal discovery is not available to help resolve “collaborative divorces.”

Timely and Efficient Court Intervention. If there is sufficient antagonism that experienced counsel are unable to negotiate an agreement, or if one party refuses to comply with an agreement, court intervention is necessary. Under the “collaborative divorce” approach, both lawyers must withdraw just at the time that an attorney who knows the case is most effective.

Malpractice Issues

In collaborative divorce, the parties and their respective lawyers sign a single contract, at least arguably creating obligations of each lawyer to the other attorney as well as to both clients. The collaborative law contract puts each lawyer in privity with both parties and with opposing counsel, creating a basis for contract claims to which an attorney is not exposed in standard practice. Moreover, the collaborative divorce contract assumes, though it does not specifically state, that each client completely waives his/her attorney’s obligations to maintain client confidentiality and not to inform the other party or lawyer of his/her legal, factual, or strategic errors. Yet, the contractual commitments required for “collaborative divorce” eliminate these obligations and substitute in their place obligations to disclose and to inform that are at least theoretically actionable either as contract claims or negligence (malpractice) claims.

Assume that Attorneys A and B and their clients have agreed to proceed with a “collaborative divorce.” Attorney A makes a mistake that disadvantages client A and benefits client B. If Attorney B fails (deliberately or negligently) to correct the error, can client A sue Attorney B for malpractice? If Attorney B corrects the error, to his/her own client’s detriment, can Client B sue Attorney B for malpractice? Does the existence of a “collaborative divorce” contract provide a defense to malpractice? Does it increase malpractice exposure by permitting each party to sue both lawyers?

If, unknown to Attorney A, Client A fails to provide full financial disclosure and thus disadvantages Client B, can Client B sue Attorney A for malpractice? Can Client B sue Attorney B for failing to take steps to discover the omission? Can Client A sue either or both of the attorneys for malpractice if the nondisclosure was inadvertent and would have been discovered through standard formal discovery, and if the effect of the error is that the judgment is vacated and litigated with new counsel with Client A held liable for Client B’s additional costs?

If Attorney A fails to spot an issue that would likely be resolved in Client A’s favor, does Attorney B have a duty to raise the issue? If Attorney B fails to do so, can Client A sue Attorney B for malpractice? If Attorney B raises the issue, can Client B sue Attorney B for malpractice?

Have you notified your insurance carrier? How will you pay for breach of contract litigation and possible judgments against you that your malpractice insurance does not cover?

“Collaborative Divorce” May Increase the Cost of Divorce

“Collaborative divorce” is marketed as a cost-saver for clients, but is it really? We all know that settlement is less costly than litigation. The issue is not whether “collaborative divorce” is less expensive than litigation, but whether it permits participants to spend less than they would if they employed more conventional settlement approaches. Most lawyers try informal discovery first and proceed to interrogatories or requests for document production or depositions only where informal attempts have failed or where the information provided is suspect. Most lawyers schedule contested trials only after repeated attempts to arrive at negotiated settlements. Most lawyers genuinely believe that better and more creative settlements can be achieved through negotiation and creative planning rather than through a court-imposed resolution. Virtually no good lawyer chooses litigation as the first and best option.

In a conventional divorce, the lawyer who has worked up the case, who knows the client and the facts, and who understands the interpersonal dynamics of the case, can use this knowledge base to proceed if necessary to a litigated conclusion. In “collaborative divorce,” if negotiations fail the clients have to begin again with new counsel and pay a new lawyer to learn the complexities of the case. If the clients have a relatively simple financial situation, they probably can’t afford to pay twice. If they have a complex situation, the time and expense necessary to duplicate or recreate the financial analysis and valuations will likely be outrageously high. In some cases, clients may save some money, though there is no evidence that “collaborative divorce” is less costly or less time-consuming than any cooperative settlement approach. In other cases, however, overall costs will skyrocket, and the time it takes to complete the process will be significantly extended because of the duplication of effort entailed by substitution of counsel. And while “collaborative divorce” proponents suggest that its practitioners will have fewer uncollected accounts, one may reasonably question whether clients who are forced to change lawyers will fully pay both sets of counsel.

Is “Collaborative Divorce” a Better Process?

Advocates of “collaborative divorce” say that clients are motivated to learn problem-solving strategies because there are no “court threats.” In some cases that may be true. Experienced attorneys know, however, that with many clients it is precisely the ability to schedule court dates and set deadlines that provides the impetus for settlement. Cases often settle only when delay is no longer possible and the time for gamesmanship is over. We’ve all had the experience – probably on both sides – of dealing with a client or opposing party who stubbornly sticks to a position until trial is imminent. Clients who employ more efficient problem-solving strategies do so in most cases because they understand that they will get the best results that way, and a contested trial date need not be scheduled in order to negotiate a settlement. There are no “court threats” because they are able to resolve their differences without the looming specter of a contested divorce. Moreover, where the bargaining positions of the respective clients are unequal – one is more financially experienced, or more legally knowledgeable, or simply more intimidating – the reality of “what the judge will likely do if we go to court” may be crucial to a fair settlement.

“Collaborative divorce” supporters also claim that clients are “more satisfied” with the results achieved with the collaborative approach. It’s not news that clients are more amenable to and more willing to comply with the terms of an agreed settlement than one that is court imposed. But what is the evidence that clients are “more satisfied” with a collaborative settlement than with a settlement reached through conventional cooperation and negotiation?

“Collaborative divorce” proponents contend that the process offers a way to practice law that is “more positive, more challenging, more rewarding, and more fun” than conventional practice. This is simply not the case for those of us who have historically settled most of our cases creatively, without having to give up the option to litigate if negotiations break down, or to dodge ethical issues, or to assume additional malpractice exposure..

Cooperative Divorce

The attorneys who are spearheading the “collaborative divorce” movement have adopted this idea with the best of intentions. They are looking in good faith for a more humane and less stressful way to deal with the sturm und drang of marital dissolution. They are legitimately frustrated with the waste of time and duplication of effort that goes into simultaneous settlement negotiations and trial preparation. They want to make a hard time easier for their clients and for themselves.

We can work toward these goals without running afoul of ethical rules, increasing malpractice exposure, and refusing to use the available resources of the court system appropriately to facilitate negotiated settlements wherever possible. Let’s call it “cooperative divorce.”

The “cooperative divorce” practitioner would:

Respect all parties and counsel and treat all participants courteously.

Respond promptly and in a straight-forward way to requests – both formal and informal – for information. (No paper bags full of unsorted documents, receipts, and junk mail in response to a request for production of documents; if you need an extension of time, explain why and ask for it rather than leave the opposing attorney to guess when he or she will hear from you, etc.)

Cooperate with rescheduling requests, requests for extensions, and the like as a matter of common courtesy. Everybody needs a break sometime.

Tailor information requests to the information needed for each specific case, rather than sending blanket, form discovery documents or routinely scheduling depositions without a specific purpose.

Educate his or her client about the other party’s rights and perspective, rather than simply supporting the client’s position regardless of its merits or the realities of the case.

Encourage the client to take a broad view and consider relationship issues. Help the client focus on the issues that can be resolved within the legal system and discourage justification of the client’s bad behavior on the basis of the estranged spouse’s total lack of redeeming qualities.

Prepare seriously for settlement negotiations; do the homework that is necessary to conclude the case. Run after-tax cash flow schedules and marital balance sheets; put together comprehensive parenting plans, update financial statements – as if the case were going to trial instead of a negotiation session. Too often we contribute to delays by being unprepared to negotiate effectively.

Keep his or her word. If a cooperative lawyer commits to provide information or a document draft by a certain date, he or she does so or makes a courtesy call to explain an unavoidable delay. If a cooperative lawyer makes a proposal in negotiation, he or she does not renege on the proposal on the table and retreat to a more favorable position for his or her client.

Use the legal system as a resource to help settle the case if appropriate.

Understand the rich menu of alternative dispute resolution resources and recommend their use as appropriate.

Maintain a civil and courteous approach. If litigation is necessary, stipulate where possible, cooperate with the admission of exhibits, accommodate the other side’s expert witnesses, and advocate for his or her client without becoming antagonistic.

Most good lawyers do most of these things most of the time. But we all slip up on occasion. Committing to “cooperative divorce” avoids the problems of “collaborative divorce” and improves the practice of family law.

Thanks to Gary Young, Allan Koritzinsky, Linda Balisle, and Margo Melli for their input and support of the “cooperative divorce” concept.

This articles provides general information only and is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. Nor does this article imply any attorney client relationship. This article is for informative purposes only and may not apply in your state, please consult an attorney in your area.

google news
Advertisement

Finance

Benefits of Bing and Yahoo Pay Per Click

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

With today’s very competitive online marketing, it is important that a business creates a strong marketing effort to build qualified traffic to their website. Pay per click marketing is one great way of advertising on the Internet. It can bring a steady flow of traffic that can result to potential leads and new sales. Over the years, it has been proven profitable, especially if the business is targeting a segment of audience. Adding Bing and Yahoo to your Google pay per click marketing is worth considering.

Pay per click campaign is based on keyword selection specifically designed to revolve around search terms that are relevant for the site. They are normally the ads that show up at the top and right corner of a search page. Generally, search engines do not charge when displaying these ads, but when a visitor clicks on the ad or the link which lands back to the business’ site, only then, is the advertiser charged.

All throughout the pay per click marketing world, Google is leading all other search engines with their 67% market share. However, what most advertisers do not realize is that with the growing amount of traffic on Google, also comes a number of competitors, still making it hard to hit on search result targets.

So, what is the alternative? Over the last couple of years, Bing and Yahoo pay per click have emerged as Google’s number one competitor. Although, Yahoo’s market share only comes up to 11.6% and Bing’s to 16.7%. When combined, they total of over 30% and this can still make a dent with Google’s share. And for any advertisers who overlooks these numbers could be ignoring a large population of potential customers.

Other advantages of Bing and Yahoo pay per click, include:

  • Pay per click with Bing and Yahoo does not cost as much as with Google. – Many advertisers say that taking Google as their host for paid search is a complete campaign suicide, mainly because of their high costs. Relevant keywords being bid with Bing and Yahoo do not cost as much as $2 to $5 per click as with Google. For instance, one of the most expensive keywords in Google includes “insurance,” “loans,” “mortgage,” “trading,” which usually ranges from $30 to $50 per click. So, if you run a business about loans and need to bid on “house loans” keyword, a business can pay as much as $3500 a month for that particular keyword alone with Google. However, Bing and Yahoo give much more reasonable prices. They have the lowest cost per click, even with the most expensive keywords in AdWords that normally ranges from $0.10 to $2, but still lands in the first pages. More so, they offer long-tail keywords of four or more words, but still at a very reasonable price bid.
  • Bing and Yahoo have demographic advantages. – Although recently, Bing removed their feature to target ads by gender and age as they say they improve it to become more accurate. Bing and Yahoo still have a statistical advantage because 58% of their users are women, and their audiences are from an age group of 35-45 and 55-64, which are definite age groups that can afford to buy as much in the Internet. Furthermore, this is probably because Bing is owned by Microsoft, and they normally put default web browsers that come with the computer a user has bought, not unless of course, if they are tech savvy and knows how to change web search engines in their computers.
  • Bing and Yahoo allow their users to import campaigns from Google – most advertisers admit that they are always having a hard time running separate campaigns in Google, and with Bing and Yahoo as they do their best to update each. Now, AdCenter with Bing and Yahoo allows users to import their campaign from AdWords with Google, without even exporting a single file. This is perfect for advertisers who do not want to spend time editing, exporting, and re-uploading spreadsheets from one account to another.
  • Bing and Yahoo pay per click does not run on Internet Explorer alone – Recently, many adCenter users of Bing and Yahoo requested to expand their service outside Internet Explorer. Now, pay per click may also be run through Mac and Chrome users, including all other web browsers.
  • Bing and Yahoo for mobile – paid search through Bing and Yahoo is made easy as they launched Bing on mobile devices through WAP or GPRS connections. Not only will users enjoy “Find My Location,” applications, as well as driving directions and maps, but they will also be able to search for new information through their smart phones, and this means that pay per click campaigns will reach a much wider audience.
  • Bing and Yahoo have representatives to talk to for free, 24/7. – Microsoft has dedicated customer representatives who are specifically assigned to help Bing and Yahoo AdCenter users, even those that are starting with their Bing and Yahoo ads. They have a range of topics that they can help with, from starting up, to billing, managing campaigns, editorial questions, and campaign reports. In fact, they are even open to suggestions and comments, which is the main reason why Microsoft brought about the freedom for users to use their Bing pay per click campaign on other web browsers. More so, these representatives are always active in social media, so it could be easy to reach them in Twitter or Facebook.
  • Cross-Platform Analytic Reports – With Bing and Yahoo’s adCenter report, it becomes easy for users to compare keyword performance for their pay per click campaign with other search engines, so that they can make the most of their budget.
  • Potentially Better Return of Investments – any pay per click campaign is useless if it does not get positive results. Numerous advertisers have vouched that adCenter pay per click campaigns through Bing and Yahoo drove more traffic than keywords run with AdWords of Google, which significantly gives a better return on investment.

Even with the 67% market share of Google, if combined with costly prices for their pay per click campaign, and with their other seemingly flaws, Bing and Yahoo still strike as a better alternative to Google, and as they make a dent to Google’s ad campaign, soon more and more advertisers will realize the benefits and power of what Bing and Yahoo can offer with the increase of their sales and rapid growth of their business.

Additional Resources

  • Pay Per Click on Bing
  • Pay Per Click on Google
google news
Continue Reading

Finance

Top Three Attributes of the Car Accident Lawyer You Should Retain

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

Car accidents, including motorcycle and truck accidents, are serious business. They happen every day and, even if you’re the safest driver in the world, they can still happen to you. If you suffer serious injuries from a car, motorcycle, or truck accident, it is vital that you first speak to a car accident lawyer before you reach any settlement with the insurance company, which would like nothing more than to pay you the least amount possible. However, choosing the right lawyer is not as simple as the decision to consult with one. Here are the top three attributes that you should look for in a prospective car accident lawyer to retain.

Expert

One of the most critical attributes to look for in a prospective auto injury lawyer is whether he or she actually specializes in car, motorcycle, and truck accident law. As an injured accident victim, you will be relying on lawyer you retain to maximize your recovery from the insurance company. Do yourself a big favor and make sure you retain a lawyer who specializes exclusively in representing auto accident victims.

There are many attorneys in each state practicing personal injury law. However, personal injury law can cover a wide-range of injuries. You don’t want a personal injury lawyer that handles a wide variety of personal injury lawsuits. You want a lawyer that specializes exclusively in car, motorcycle and truck accident law; someone who day-to-day represents auto accident victims.

For example, if needed heart sugary, would you want a general surgeon operating on you or a heart surgeon? Retain a lawyer specializing in representing auto accident victims. This can make a significant difference in how much you recover from the insurance company. You do not have to worry about expert auto lawyers being too expensive for you, because they generally do not charge hourly fees but, rather, a contingency fee.

Experience

The second most critical attribute to look for in a prospective car injury lawyer is his or her experience level. It’s not just a matter of being an experienced lawyer, you want an attorney who is very experienced in representing auto accident injury victims.

Following a car accident, the injuries you sustain may change your life drastically. Now is not the time to put your life and the way you are able to lead it in the hands of a rookie. Try to find a car accident attorney with at least five years of experience, ideally someone with experience representing car accident victims against the same insurance company. Consult with a seasoned lawyer who has many years of experience going up against the insurance companies.

However, it’s not just a matter of experience in car accident law. You want an attorney with years of trial experience, because your case may require going to trial.

Success

Finally, when considering a prospective car accident lawyer, you want to make sure he or she has been successful in the past and in the present. There is no point selecting a specialized lawyer with years of experience if he or she has not been successful against the auto insurance companies. It should not be difficult finding out how successful your prospective car lawyer is in representing auto accident injury victims. Just ask! If he or she has a proven track record of success, they will tell you and give you examples. Ideally, they will have been successful for past clients with similar injuries that you have sustained in the car accident.

In the end, you want a car accident lawyer who is an expert, experienced, and successful with respect to auto accident law in your state. Do not settle for anything less. There is absolutely no reason why you would need to.

google news
Continue Reading

Finance

Sales Force Automation Software: Business Need

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

Sales Force Automation Software was a major challenge before some decades that is successfully superseded by our techno-giants. The entire business community was longing for a system that could control; and monitor the track of sales and marketing activities. Things were getting tougher for an executive or an entrepreneur to manually handle the entire sales process and organizational activities. Moreover, the interaction with the clients was worsened. The answer to all those worries came in the form of this Software.

Streamlines Sales tasks

Sales Force Automation Software basically is another name for Customer Relationship Management Software. Its prime motto is to provide one-to-one interaction of organization executives with their customers. The primitive form of this Software was just for maintaining contacts. But rapid advancement of technology and rigorous endeavors from the technocrats has made it capable of overpowering the entire sales stage.

Online Sales Software handles all the sales tasks easily and gives you accurate sales reports on time. It is easy to use software which fulfills all the needs of the organization. It saves the precious time of the sales team and sales managers.

Web Based Technology

Online CRM Software encompasses cloud computing technology to perform the sales force automation. From Cloud Computing, we basically mean data to be stored in servers that are remotely located and are connected through network. Cloud Computing uses the SaaS module to provide this technology. SaaS stands for Software-As-A-Service. That means, the software needs not to be installed at the client’s computer. It is hosted from a remote server and its complete package can be accessed from there itself.

This Software has sorted out most of the problems faced by the entrepreneurs handling small to big organizations. Its easy usability, portability and anywhere operable flexibility have proved its worth over the previously launched hosted application.

Some Benefits of Online CRM Software over the premise hosted software are:

1) Premise hosted need to be installed to a computer. Thus it gets system specific. You can’t avail the software once you change the software. It can be used anywhere and at anytime, you can access the software any time you required.

2) Online CRM Softwares are cost effective. Whereas premise hosted software are much costlier than that.

3) There is a lot of extra IT infrastructure needed to successfully run premise hosted application. Whereas online application provide all kinds of functional service on a remote access basis.

4) The entire data load in case of premise hosted is upon your system. So, any time, there are chances of data crash and hardware failure. While in case of cloud computing, entire data load is upon the server. So your system is always safe from the impending dangers.

google news
Continue Reading

Finance

Addition To The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 Proposed By HSE

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

It was only in 1983 that Asbestos (Licencing) Regulations introduced the requirement for companies or individuals working with asbestos coating or asbestos insulation products to possess a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) licence.

Another twenty years elapsed before the 2003 Regulations instructed that the relevant authority must be notified of the details to any asbestos work which required a license, at least 14 days prior to the commencement of work. The Control of Asbestos Regulations, 2006 unified all previous prohibition and licencing regulations into one comprehensive reference document.

Following correspondence with the European Commission, the HSE is presently in consultation on plans to once again modify aspects of the 2006 Regulations. The aim is to more accurately reflect current levels of health risk concerns to companies and organisations who come into working contact with chrysotile white asbestos, estimated to be still present in a half a million premises around the UK.

Despite the continuing asbestos awareness campaigns of HSE, inconsistency of working knowledge and methods by construction firms and premises owners to the necessary actions required when first inspecting site building, encountering, containing and disposing of asbestos material.

Despite being banned from the 1980s onwards, white asbestos continued to be used in insulating materials such as wall board, wall coatings and cement products found in a wide variety of commercial and domestic building applications.

Currently, there are two existing categories of asbestos work:

1. Licensed asbestos work

2. Non-Licensed asbestos work

Currently, non-licensed work is exempt from requirements to:

– Notify work with asbestos to the relevant enforcing authority

– Carry out medical (respiratory) examinations

– Maintain registers of work (health records)

– Hold an asbestos licence

– Have arrangements to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies

– Designate asbestos areas

While the licensed asbestos work category remains unchanged, HSE propose to modify non-licensed asbestos work by introducing additional measures for short duration exposure to ‘friable’ ( fragile and disintegrating) or ‘damaged or degraded’ asbestos. A new category of asbestos work is to be introduced in addition to the two existing categories.

3. Notifiable Non-Licensed Work (NNLW).

Work under this new category will be exempt from requirements to:

– Hold an asbestos licence.

– Have arrangements for accidents, incidents and emergencies.

– Designate asbestos areas.

However, work under the new category will require employers to:

– Notify their work with asbestos to the “relevant enforcing authority”.

– Carry out medical (respiratory) examinations.

– Maintain registers of work (health records).

HSE propose that requirements for notifying work with asbestos, health records and medical surveillance will not apply where:

a) Exposure of employees to asbestos is sporadic and of low intensity.

b) It is clear from the risk assessment that the exposure of any employee to asbestos will not exceed the control limitwhere the work involves –

(i) Short, non-continuous maintenance activities in which only non-friable materials are handled.

(ii) Removal without deterioration of non-degraded materials in which the asbestos fibres are firmly bonded in a matrix.

(iii) Encapsulation/sealing of asbestos-containing materials which are in good condition.

(iv) Air monitoring/control, and the collection /analysis of samples to confirm whether a material contains asbestos.

Existing regulations do not specifically require the asbestos to be ‘non-friable’ or ‘non-degraded’ and the European Commission also seems to require a respiratory examination of industry personnel every three years due to uncertainty of not will knowing if there has been an encounter with asbestos in ‘notifiable’ situations.

Throughout the twentieth century and right up until the present day, dangers of asbestos exposure were continually ignored by building trade personnel or building owners. As a result, joiners, plasterers, plumbers, electricians and other operatives would be constantly at fatal risk of inhaling deadly asbestos fibre dust, which remains permanently embedded within the linings of the lungs and would develop into asbestosis disease or the malignant incurable cancer, mesothelioma.

The first asbestosis symptoms would not appear until some 15 to 50 years later, often at an advanced stage when prognosis would be between 4 to 18 months.

In the UK, the number of deaths from mesothelioma has risen to 2, 250 in 2008 and over 2,000 diagnosed cases are recorded each year.

google news
Continue Reading

Finance

Outsourcing Your Plastic Surgery Marketing

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

As a plastic surgeon you set yourself apart from other doctors. Every day you prove your expertise and skill by sculpting and shaping clients into the people they want to be. That is why it is a good idea for you to do what you do best and let marketing experts do what they do best. Hire a professional plastic surgery marketing team and let them increase your client base.

What an SEO Professional Can Do For You

An internet marketer is skilled at optimizing your website for higher search engine ranking. The whole idea behind marketing is being seen and a professional knows how to get you seen better than anyone. He has spent years creating ways to grab the attention of the consumer. Just as you have spent years perfecting your skills.

It would take you just as long to learn how to successfully market your business. You didn’t learn how to be a plastic surgeon just by watching the techniques on television or by reading a few books. You learned hands on with the guidance of a professional. A marketing expert learned in much the same way.

Don’t Try to Do Everything

When you try to do everything on your own you end up stressing out and making mistakes. A few plastic surgery marketing mistakes can cost you quite a few clients. But, if your stress causes mistakes in your practice, then you are really in trouble. You could even lose your license. Outsourcing your marketing strategies takes away all of that stress.

A marketing expert can create a social media marketing campaign, an email campaign, create online videos and a slew of other effective promotional techniques to get your name out on the internet and a high search engine ranking. An SEO expert knows how reach a targeted audience that have already shown an interest in having plastic surgery.

Another good reason for hiring a professional is that the industry is constantly evolving. Once you think you know everything about plastic surgery marketing, things change. The techniques that worked yesterday may not work today. A professional marketer stays on top these changes and changes with them.

People like getting instant answers and that is what Google is all about. They just type in what they are looking for and in an instant they see over a hundred thousands results. If your website is down near the one hundred thousand mark, no will click on your link. If you are in the top five, you will have much more success. A marketing expert can get you into that top five.

google news
Continue Reading

Finance

How to Stop Being Resigned to Living With an Alcoholic

Avatar Of Rajesh Khanna

Published

on

google news

Alcoholism is an illness that can be much harder for those living with an alcoholic than it is for the alcoholic. Those with an alcoholic parent or spouse know the hardship of constantly worrying that their loved one will drive while intoxicated, sell personal valuables in order to finance their habit or go on a binge and disappear for days.

For many living with an alcoholic means constantly worrying about paying the bills, having to clean up after their alcoholic loved one, looking out for various signs of alcoholism, dealing with abuse, and even being unable to sleep from fear of what will happen next.

Instead of allowing or becoming resigned to the situation you must fight back. This is the only way to ensure better future! Use these top 5 tips to make a positive change to your live.

1. Take an honest look at the alcoholic: Recognizing the line between social drinking and alcohol abuse is not always easy to identify. Although an individual who only drinks a few glasses during the weekend might not be considered an alcoholic, anyone who drinks to the point that it affects their regular life can be considered to be abusing alcohol.

Talk to the alcoholic parent or spouse. Sit down and ask them why they drink. Discus worrying symptoms that indicate alcoholism such as drinking to the point of blacking out, needing to drink to feel better about their life and feeling ashamed over their drinking habits.

2. Let the alcoholic accept the consequences: To get out of resignation, let the alcoholic experience the negative consequences of drinking and do not let yourself take on responsibility for their actions. When living with an alcoholic do not call in for them if they miss work, never purchase alcohol for them, do not help them to bed or cleaning up the empty bottles after they have been drinking. To stay out of debt and get them to see how bad the situation has become do not buy alcohol for them or give them money to buy more.

3. Accept the reality: To change your life with an alcoholic parent or spouse, you need to accept the reality. Do not live in denial or make excuses for the signs of alcoholism being displayed. You should also not feel guilty or try to threaten or bribe them into giving up alcohol. Instead, deal with your own emotions, because this is the only thing you have power to control.

4. Do not engage: When living with an alcoholic, you are likely to notice that when heavily drinking they may start arguments, throw items around, or become verbally abusive. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into playing mind games or involved in fights! Make sure your spouse experiences being loved by you but detach yourself from the situation. If needed, leave the house for a few hours or go out with friends. By not accepting the outburst and bad behaviours they will see even faster that they need help.

5. Get Support: The road to recovery will not happen in just a few weeks or months. For some the process can take years! To get the emotional support needed to recognize and treat the signs of alcoholism therapists, support groups, online forums and even eBook systems can be accessed.

These treatment methods are enormously helpful for both the alcoholic and the individuals living with an alcoholic.

google news
Continue Reading

Trending