Status of update for www.DavidFinn.com

in catagory:
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer...onomy/Legal_Services/Attorneys_and_Law_Firms/

I put in for a change from old website url:

www.davidfinn.com

to new website url:

www.dallascriminallawyer.com

Any news or help would be geatly appreciated. Thanks

There's no pending update request. I suspect it was declined.

Both of those URLs seem to point to valid sites. Because of this, when an editor encounters an update request like yours, he or she has to ask two questions:

1) Am I sure that this update request comes from someone responsible for the original website?

2) Would replacing the old website with the new one benefit the users of the ODP more than keeping the old one?

If the answer to either question is "No," generally the request will be denied and the old URL kept. If you really want us to list the new URL, take down the site at the old URL and put a redirect to the new site. So long as there are websites at both old and new addresses, it's going to be a judgement call on the editor's part whether to update or not.

Site has 301 redirect

Don,

Thanks for the advice. I never thought of the "responsible party" aspect. I assure you I am responsible for mister Finn's online marketing efforts. I had put a 301 redirect on the old site per the instructions so, in effect, both url's pointed to the new site. Perhaps I put the request in before I got that accomplished.

Also, the new site contains much more pertinent information to the end user. It is deeper and 10X more content-rich than the original.

Should I put in the request again? Would it be faster, more effective, or just plain necessary to have Mr. Finn request the change? Any advice is welcome.

if the 301 is in place, just go ahead and request the update again.

Isn't this the same attorney's law firm as http://www.milnerfinn.com, which is also listed in the same category?

Same firm

The structure in the firm is such that "you eat what you kill" so, although it is a group of lawyers, each has his own business. Kind of a mine, yours, and ours thing. One of the lawyers may practice family law, while another may do criminal law, etc.

I'm definitely not trying to deceive anyone. Judge Finn is a seperate entity. In fact, there can be inside competition for the same clients.

A masterful explaination if I have ever heard one.

Each company (not each group of alpha males, not each subpack of attorneys, not a subgroup consisting of the comany bowling & litigation team) is entitled to consideration for a listing.

In our world, milnerfinn.com would constitute the single listing that your company is eligible for. How you choose to "eat what you kill" (to use your words) within your law firm is of no interest to us.

One firm, one listing.

If you don't want milnerfinn.con to be the listing for your company, make the site go away, and then submit an update with the URL you choose. We don't accept affidavits in this forum, so we rely heavily on the physical evidence - meaning the website -- rather than posted statement in the forum.

In the interim, http://www.davidfinn.com/ is a strong candidate to be delisted.

Spectre,

Thanks for your time and for the deeper understanding. However, my explanation may not have been as masterful as I had hoped . Let me see if I can do better.

It is my understanding (I'm a web designer, not a lawyer), belonging to a law firm is like being part of an organization or holding company. Everyone has the same interests but each is out for himself.

Judge Finn is a seperate entity, he is a professional corporation unto himself, operating under David Finn P.C. Whereas Milner&Finn, the firm, is not.

It's like "Ford Motor Company" having a listing and "Joe's Ford Dealership" having a listing or the European Computer Manufacturer's Association having a listing and each of there charter members having a listing.

For my purposes, the MilnerFinn site could be delisted, but that is not my call. I do not work for, or have any dealings with, MilnerFinn. My company was hired by David Finn, P.C.

I definitely do not want to violate any policies and the two sites really are seperate and distinct. Is there some altering to either site that could rectify this? If Mr. Finn pulls his info off of the MilnerFinn site would that be a solution? Just trying to find a some common ground.

Please let me know your thoughts on what could cure this situation. And thanks again for your time and efforts.

I'm afraid I don't fully agree with spectregunner. However, there's a thread in the internal fora where I will ask which of us is correct.

I only brought this up because in this particular case the attorney is not a separate entity. He is not just one of the firms attorneys, he owns the firm or is part owner. Both should not be listed, especially in the same cat.

Just my

a note from David Finn

I hope this can add some light.

From the desk of David Finn:

The way Milner & Finn is structured is as follows:
We share overhead and some office expenses but we do not share revenue at
all. We each do our own marketing (with the exception of the firm
website)and we specialize in different areas of criminal law. I handle a lot
of federal cases, most of the lawyers in the firm do not. Some of the
attorneys accept court appointments, some of us do not.

We are not a partnership and we are not a corporation. Two of the lawyers in
the firm are on the lease- I am not. I could pick up tomorrow and start up
my own practice and there is no legal restraint on me doing just that.

It is really a loose-knit association or affiliation. There are no owners of
the firm. It's really just a group of lawyers doing their own thing from a
common office space. I have a secretary and the other guys have their
secretary. The value in calling this the Milner & Finn "firm" is that most
criminal defense lawyers are solo. We look more like a civil law firm, but
unlike a civil law firm, there are no owners, we don't share revenue, and
none of the lawyers draw a salary.

I hope this description helps.

Sincerely,

David Finn
Board Certified Criminal Defense Lawyer

Did we ever get a resolution on this?

Thanks for your attention.