Day: December 28, 2011

A senior procurement officer with Sydney Water, in charge of vetting contracts and assessing conflicts of interest, is under investigation after she was found guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer.

Harinee Thurairajah, who was also working as a private solicitor, was publicly reprimanded and fined $5000 after a prosecution by the Legal Services Commissioner this month.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal also ruled her behaviour had been dishonest.

”We found that the respondent was frequently evasive in oral evidence, gave inconsistent evidence and at times lied. She was an unreliable witness” the tribunal found.

Ms Thurairajah was found to have obstructed and misled an investigator with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner seeking to carry out an audit on her Pitt Street practice.

Ms Thurairajah, 38, is no stranger to cases involving misleading evidence. In 2003, her father was found guilty of swearing an affidavit which misled or attempted to mislead the Supreme Court.

She had represented her father in the ADT proceedings in which he was found guilty of professional misconduct in a case involving a will. Thambipillai Thambithurai Thurairajah, now aged 84, was also publicly reprimanded and fined.

Her own troubles started when, in April 2009, the Legal Services Commissioner sent her a letter seeking information regarding complaints by two clients, but she failed to respond.

In May, a second letter threatened an audit if she failed to reply. She did not respond and the city office of her legal firm, Thurai Rajah Lawyers, was closed. Ms Thurairajah put off appointments and went on sick leave from Sydney Water for pain in her right hand from August to December of that year.

She resumed full-time work in June 2010 and the audit of her practice was finally carried out in September 2010, nearly 1½ years after the initial contact. The judgment does not mention what the audit found or what her clients had complained about.

The Commissioner had initially sought to have Ms Thurairajah struck off the roll of solicitors, but withdrew the request during the hearing.

In another case in the Supreme Court, her mortgage provider recounted that she did not return calls. Company records also note that mail from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the city address of her legal firm were returned last year.

Ms Thurairajah has been working for Sydney Water since April 2008 and has been listed as the primary contact for several Sydney Water tenders.

The Sydney Water managing director, Kevin Young, said the organisation would conduct an internal investigation.

“Until this process is complete, we are unable to comment” Mr Young said.

(Sourced from SMH, G Jacobsen, 28/12/2011)

Twitter user is being sued by his former employer for $US340,000 for taking his 17,000 followers with him when he changed jobs.

How much is a tweet worth? And how much does a Twitter follower cost?

In base economic terms, the value of individual Twitter updates seems to be negligible; after all, what is a Twitter post but a few bits of data sent caroming through the internet? But in a world where social media’s influence can mean the difference between a lucrative sale and another fruitless cold call, social media accounts at companies have taken on added significance.

The question is: Can a company cash in on, and claim ownership of, an employee’s social media account, and if so, what does that mean for workers who are increasingly posting to Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus during work hours?

A lawsuit filed in July could provide some answers.

In October 2010, Noah Kravitz, a writer who lives in Oakland, California, quit his job at a popular mobile phone site, Phonedog.com, after nearly four years. The site has two parts – an e-commerce wing, which sells phones, and a blog.

While at the company, Kravitz, 38, began writing on Twitter under the name Phonedog-Noah, and over time, had amassed 17,000 followers. When he left, he said, PhoneDog told him he could keep his Twitter account in exchange for posting occasionally.

The company asked him to “tweet on their behalf from time to time and I said sure, as we were parting on good terms” Kravitz said by telephone.

And so he began writing as NoahKravitz, keeping all his followers under that new handle. But eight months after Kravitz left the company, PhoneDog sued, saying the Twitter list was a customer list, and seeking damages of $US2.50 a month per follower for eight months, for a total of $US340,000.

PhoneDog Media declined to comment for this article except for this statement: “The costs and resources invested by PhoneDog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of PhoneDog Media LLC. We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.”

Kravitz said the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, was in retaliation for his claim to 15 per cent of the site’s gross advertising revenue because of his position as a vested partner, as well as back pay related to his position as a video reviewer and blogger for the site.

The lawsuit, though, could have broader ramifications than its effect on Kravitz and the company.

“This will establish precedent in the online world, as it relates to ownership of social media accounts” said Henry J. Cittone, a lawyer in New York who litigates intellectual property disputes. “We’ve actually been waiting to see such a case as many of our clients are concerned about the ownership of social media accounts vis-a-vis their branding.”

Cittone added that a particularly important wrinkle is what value the court might set on the worth of one Twitter follower to a media company, saying the price set could affect future cases involving ownership of social media.

“It all hinges on why the account was opened” he said. “If it was to communicate with PhoneDog’s customers or build up new customers or prospects, then the account was opened on behalf of PhoneDog, not Mr. Kravitz. An added complexity is that PhoneDog contends Mr. Kravitz was just a contractor in the related partnership/employment case, thus weakening their trade secrets case, unless they can show he was contracted to create the feed.”

These situations are likely to arise more often as social media tools like Twitter, Google Plus and Facebook continue to become a way for company representatives and customer service employees to interact with fans and irate customers.

JetBlue, for example, often answers customer queries via Twitter, although its official policy is to not respond to “formal complaints” on Twitter.

Other issues may arise when companies hire popular Twitter users partly because of their social media presence. For example, Samsung Electronics hired the outspoken blogger Philip Berne to review phones for the company internally.

Berne uses his personal Twitter account but often posts explicitly about Samsung products and his opinions on the phones he has tested. He cleared his Twitter account with the Samsung public relations department, he said, and he owns it.

“Their stance was that I am entitled to have and express an opinion, but I am not a Samsung representative, and I should make it clear that any opinions are my own and not those of my employer” Berne said. In general, social media experts advise companies to tread with caution when it comes to account ownership.

Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at the Columbia Journalism School and the author of Sree’s Social Media Guide, said smart companies let social media blossom where it may.

“It’s a terrible thing to say you have to leave your Twitter followers behind,” he said, talking specifically about media companies that may employ popular Twitter writers. “It sends a terrible signal to reporters and journalists who care about this, and this will make it less attractive to recruit the next round of people.”

He said that many industries had policies that required sales staff to leave their Rolodexes behind, but that these policies were as relevant to social media as Rolodexes are to the modern office. After all, social media accounts are, almost by definition, personal.

He also said that the average Twitter account had less clout than many might think.

“The value of the individual users is very hard to quantify,” he said. “It’s dangerous to overestimate the value of an account to an organization and underestimate what it means for an individual.”

Kravitz said he was confused.

“They’re suing me for over a quarter of a million dollars,” he said. “From where I’m sitting I held up my end of the bargain.”

(Sourced from The New York Times, 28/11/12)