Editors of the ABA Journal today announced they have selected Mendelson’s Musings as one of the top 100 best websites by lawyers, for lawyers.

That’s pretty cool, especially since I don’t focus all of my efforts on the legal profession.  But to quote them:

“Mendelson’s Musings drew our admiration this year when Boulder, Colo., lawyer/venture capitalist Jason Mendelson tackled a weighty project: Law Firm 2.0. Over a 10-month period, Mendelson discussed frustrations with start-up lawyers, re-architecting law firms and what clients need to do to get law firms to implement change.”

Now comes the fun part, as I can be voted best in category.  If you like to vote for me, please go here. 

Thanks to all of you who support my efforts here.

I am not sure if I have to issue a silly FTC disclaimer along with complimenting one of our portfolio companies, but I do have to say that I love Lijit. 

This isn’t something new, mind you.  We made the investment quite some time ago, but today I was reminded of another reason why it’s such a powerful platform.

I was reading my weekly stats report that shows how many people are reading my blog, where the traffic is coming from and what my most searched terms are.  I find the information illuminating and highly entertaining. 

Last week:

1. The top search that brought readers to my blog was “drummer jokes.” In fact, my drummer joke post is now 8 in the Google ranking.  Interestingly, my post was done back in April and it’s a total “one off” post.

2. As expected, there is always healthy traffic surrounding my Law Firm 2.0 thesis.  Last week the search term “lawyer layoffs” was a big director of traffic to my blog. 

3. As far as what people are searching for while on my site, I was surprised to find that the name of my high school band director and the name of a fellow high school percussionist were searched for.  If you were that person, email me.  I’ll set you up. 

Also, searches included FAS 157, How to get a Job in VC and other topics that I’ll have to take up (again) in the near future given the popularity of the subjects.

So thanks Lijit for showing me what my audience is interested in, instead of what I assume they are.  If you are a publisher and not using this FREE platform, what are you waiting for?  Let me know if you want a hookup.   

And for the guy who searched “AT&T sucks” on my blog, all I can say is “I agree.”

Several of my Seattle friends pointed out that Senator Dodd has proposed changes to the regulations that govern angel and VC investments.

Every time a VC or angel investor participates in a venture financing, there is a Reg D statement that is filled.  Currently, it’s a federal file that you file with the feds and then each of the states involved (company domicile, investor state, etc.) accepts the Reg D form. This is good because companies only have to pay to comply with one set of rules, rather than many.  The Dodd legislation would repeal the existing federal preemption of state regulation over “accredited investor” securities offerings. States would then, presumably, have to come up with their own rules and standards. 

It is important to have uniform regulation of securities offerings.  Otherwise the costs increase for everyone as startups are required to comply with differing state-by-state laws.  As state laws drift away from each other, eventually this might include startups having to hire multiple legal counsel.  It’s simply a waste of good capital, unless you are a lawyer who wants to make more money.  (In all fairness, the folks who pointed this all out to me ARE lawyers and aren’t concerned with billable hours, rather their clients). 

I am not sure why Senator Dodd would want to change this.  I have no experience in anything going “wrong” with the current regime.  It has been around for decades and the system works well.  There is no compelling reason to add these new costs to the companies and their investors.  I’d like to know what is driving this proposal. 

If you agree, there is an online petition.  Please sign at http://gopetition.com/online/32354.html.

Today, I was asked through AskTheVC the following question:

‘”Why don’t VCs tell you the reason why they don’t invest? Any feedback would be useful. It’s just plain rude.”

I figured that this is really a personal question, so I thought that I’d post on my personal blog, as I certainly can’t speak (or even guess) the response for the entire VC industry.

I say “no” all the time.  (My partner Brad talks about “saying no” in a great post here).  In fact, I say no to over 90% of what I’m invited to invest in immediately.  On top of this, I get several to many emails a day regarding investment opportunities. 

Time is a resource that I don’t have nearly enough of.  Therefore, if your company is not doing something that we’d invest in, I feel the best use of my time is to send a quick email saying that it’s not right for our fund.  For me to give feedback on your idea, business model, team, etc. seems arrogant given that I haven’t spent any real time evaluating your company.  I’m not trying to be rude, rather, I don’t feel qualified to give you opinions on something that I’ve only taken a short gander at.  Unfortunately time constraints don’t allow me to deeply look at companies that aren’t right for our fund. 

For the other 10% of things that I spend time on, I do try to give some meaningful feedback, but sometimes it’s easier than other times.  Sometimes, there are one or two things that I have strong opinions about which I’m happy to share.  Sometimes, there are things that I’m seeing with our own portfolio companies that are relevant to your company that I may want or not want to share with you.

Lastly, one thing that has always been tough for me to deal with is when the main issue with the company is the entrepreneur(s) themselves.  It’s not easy for me to say “I wouldn’t invest in you” and I try to stay away from that, because people change and improve over time.  But there are times when the opportunity doesn’t involve an entrepreneur that excites me and thus my feedback, generally, is lighter.

I’m sure there are plenty of VCs out there that are rude out there.  I try not to be and hopefully succeed more often than not. 

Definitely one of the funniest things that I’ve seen in a long while – Twitter “responds” to criticisms about its service.

Thanks to our friend Phil Weiser, who is at the US Department of Justice for the next couple of years, Brad, Amy and I were invited to watch the Bilski oral argument at the Supreme Court.  If you don’t believe me, here is a picture of Brad and I on the steps of the courthouse (wearing suits, no less). 

Having been a lawyer, I’ve always held deep opinions about the Supreme Court, many of which were obliterated today.  I’d always imagined that the justices would be old, out of touch, disengaged, dry and not be able to really explore the weight of the issues in oral arguments given only one hour is allocated per hearing. 

If we go to the scorecard:

Old: yep

Out of touch: definitely not

Disengaged: absolute not, so long as you don’t count Justice Thomas who looked like he’d rather be elsewhere and never said anything

Dry: no:  Justic Breyer was cracking jokes, but Chief Justice Roberts is not exactly a humorless judge

Exploration: perhaps most surprisingly, an hour was more than enough

Final Tally:  Jason’s Preconceived Notions: 1, New Found Opinions: 4

For those of you who don’t know, the Bilski argument addressed whether or not business methods are patentable.  Anyone who follows my blog knows that I staunchly favor the abolishment of business method patents and also feel that most software patents are contrary to proper innovation policy.  The judges allowed the Bilski camp about 2 minutes of uninterrupted argument and then launched directly into questioning.  What was impressive was how direct and well prepared they were as they explored the key elements of the issues surrounding business method patents.

To me, it was apparent that the justices had grave concerns about the validity of these types of patents.  In fact, when the rebuttal from the government came (on the side of getting rid of business method patents), the justices pushed him on why software should be patentable.  The lawyer representing them (Malcolm Stewart) ducked and weaved as best as he could, but it felt like the court would have thrown out both business method patents AND software if he had stood up and said “they should go too, your honor.”

My bet is that business method patents are gone.  What will be very interesting will be their language regarding software patents, as software validity wasn’t part of the case, but clearly on the justices’ minds.

All in all, I was massively impressed with the mental horsepower of the court and their ability to parse a very complicated subject in a short amount of time.  Justice Breyer stood out as really engaged, but they all (but Thomas on this particular day) were impressive individuals.  Thanks Phil.  This was really a treat. 

One item to note:  if you get the chance to go to the Supreme Court, their cafe is mostly forgettable.  Don’t get the French dressing.  Way too much sugar.  (Picture of Phil and I below at the cafe).

Are you a lawyer who doesn’t want to work at a law firm anymore but who still wants to work on really interesting transactions?  Shareholder Representative Services (SRS) is looking to hire someone to work as a stockholder representative on its transactions. 

They’re getting a lot of new deals and need another person to help manage the workflow. The job is perfect for someone with big law firm experience who likes the cerebral challenge that comes with M&A but is looking for something outside of the law firm environment. 

SRS works with the top VCs and attorneys on some of the highest profile private M&A deals in the country, so you’d be networking with the best in the business.  Specifically, they need someone who can review and negotiate the transaction documents, negotiate the terms of their engagement, and manage any issues that may arise after closing. 

Ideally, the person would work in Colorado, but San Francisco is an option too.  Minimum of 4 years of big law firm experience required, preferably with at least some M&A experience. 

If interested, send a resume to Paul Koenig at pkoenig@shareholderrep.com.

Yesterday, I held office hours at the bunker and was fortunate to meet several new entrepreneurs and re-connect with some old acquaintances. 

The best part of the afternoon, however, was a visit by Rick Levine, co-founder and chocolatier of Seth Ellis Chocolates.  Rick decided to drop by and bring some chocolates for me to try.  The first was obvious on sight – a peanut butter cup style chocolate treat.  I took a bite and said “this is the best peanut butter cup that I’ve ever had.”

There was just one thing:  there are no peanuts, nor peanut butter in the best peanut butter cup that I’ve ever had.  Rick’s cracked the code.  A gluten-free, nut free, organic and compostable packaged cup treat that blows away anything that I’ve ever had. 

He had both milk chocolate and dark chocolate varieties, too.   Yum yum.  Rick, GREAT job.  Go out to your local grocer and pick yourselves up some.  And for those of you with nut allergies, rejoice in being able to enjoy one of life’s great treats:  chocolate and "peanut” butter. 

I’m not sure how I missed this song when it came out, but I’m glad that I found it now. 

Whatever. 

Thanks to my friend Steve Tonsfeldt, one of my most trusted musical discovery folks as well as an incredible M&A lawyer for passing along.  See, I don’t hate all lawyers, despite rumors to the contrary.

I have another set of open office hours coming up – this Thursday, November 5th.  If you are interested in getting together, you can sign up here.  The TechStars bunker is where I’ll be and I hope, that like last time, I’ll get to meet some new friends.