Some personal injury lawyers continue abuse of legal blogs
I'm a lawyer. I copy and paste stories of jury trials detailing horrific injuries and large dollar verdicts from online newspapers to my blog. I don't necessarily represent any of the parties to the lawsuit.
I just cut and paste the text in entirety without changing or summarizing anything. I don't add any commentary or insight. I don't know anything about Internet marketing but I hear this is a good way to get to the top of Google.
You can see I am more than qualified to represent you or a loved one who's been injured as a result of another's negligence.
Sounds nuts, but that appears to be what the lawyer publishing this personal injury law blog is saying. Look at his latest post.
Maybe the guy is a decent lawyer, but the only thing we know he can do is hit the CTRL+c for copy and CTRL+v for paste on his keyboard.
Am I the only one sickened by this type of marketing? As a plaintiff's trial lawyer of 17 years I tried to uphold the image of our profession at all times. Including with my Internet marketing. This kind of crap is awfully disappointing.
Kevin:
By linking to him, you have helped him. Why not use a re-direct such as TinyUrl if you want people to see it? That way, the site gets no SEO benefit but you can still show people the example.
Kevin
I'd be interested in your thoughts on what type of content a personal injury blog should maintain. Clearly, there are many "blogs" that simply cut and paste accident stories. And then there are a few blogs like Eric's that don't contain any regurgitation posts. I do notice that the LexBlog personal injury client in Dallas has a lot of regurgitation stories (though probably not merely cut and paste) with some substantive posts thrown in.
What do you think works to both get good rankings and to convert visits to clients?
Keep up the good work.
Brooks
Good point Eric, changed to tinyurl. Though by getting people to see the joker, we may be pointing the sleazy type of marketing he does. The average Internet user ought to be turned off by his approach.
Brooks, good question as to what to cover in a plaintiff's trial lawyer blog. I'll do a post on it by the end of the day.
But briefly, 3 things I suggest. One, any legal updates (there will be few). Two, short answers to questions that are routinely asked by both potential new clients and existing clients - not faq's, but real life q & a. Three, enter into the conversation going on among bloggers and reporters covering the niche you focus on. By exchanging commentary with thought leaders, you'll enhance your reputation.
Hasn't the lack of authenticity has always been a problem with *some* lawyer marketing? Some rise above, and some lower themselves doing anything that will drive work.
The web has always been a snapshot of our greater society. For every lawyer willing to hand out a business card at the scene of an accident offline, there's an equivalent party spamming the hell out of the search engines online. At least we have Google running these guys into obscurity on the web. :)
But ya, it's frustrating.
Kevin, as a new member of the plaintiff's lawyer blogging world, I have to say I agree with your thoughts. I am in the process of "finding my voice", as they say, on my blog. Just cutting and pasting articles provides no benefit to either potential clients or others out there. As just an infant in this world of blogging, I find I am more drawn to those who provide incite, even if I disagree, then just merely recite what anyone can find by just pulling up the local paper or the New York Times.
It seems to me that the bottom line is that if your marketing, in any form, is boring, then it won't be noticed for long.
Just cutting and pasting is boring and most folks will see right through it.
On the other hand, don't forget that the ONLY reason, in my view, to blog, have a website, etc. is to get your site positioned well in the search engines. Whatever your "reputation" in the blogosphere is, well, that doesn't necessarily translate into cases. So lets not confuse the fight for SEO dominance with what's "right" in terms of blog etiquette.
That all being said (not very well, I'm sorry), I do agree that those who blog intelligently, understanding SEO, the blogospher and, as Kevin points out, the "conversation already running through your prospects head" will "win" at the marketing game (provided that, in the end, you are not boring and lame like most blogs and websites are.)
Finally, don't be lazy... one can almost always find a "teaching point" in a news article and commenting on a news article, and adding your "voice" in terms of a bona-fide teaching point, does well all around.
Ben Glass
Fairfax, VA
www.BenGlassLaw.com
www.GreatLegalMarketing.com
Its plagiarism.
Kevin:
In your post on what makes a good blog, you might want to include something else: Original content and news not found elsewhere. Those stories that I have done like that are clear favorites.
Finding them, of course, is another matter.
Type "west virginia car accident law" in Google and the guy comes up # 5. Not bad--- start a free blog, cut and paste, and get a # 5 ranking in Google. It took me 3 years to get to # 5 on Google without a free blog. I agree though, Eric, be original.
I don't know whether coming up #5 is good for him or not. He looks like an idiot in what he's doing. And in trying a fair amount of cases to juries, I've found lay people to be a pretty good judge of a lawyer's character. This guy's character speaks for itself.
Mr. OKeefe,
Do you not have anything better to do than to criticize my blog? If you don't like it, then don't look at it. Not all of us can afford $5,000 a month to buy the back of the phone book.
For us personal injury peons, a free blog may be our only option at marketing ourselves. Furthermore, as a solo practitioner, it is hard enough to find time to update a blog. My goal is to comment on articles and recent events as it pertains to the law, but I don't have as much time as you do to sit around and write articles for my blog.
I also maintain a criminal defense blog, which is my primary blog. Usually I spent the time that I can find on that blog - which, mind you, makes me no money. Rather, every time I do comment on something, it pisses someone off who either confronts me on the street or writes me hate mail.
You are the one to cast the first stone, yet your entire blog is a solicitation for your business. You derive satisfaction out of calling me an "idiot" and attacking my character. It sounds like you have some insecurity issues. For such a veteran attorney, you sure sound immature. Anyone who resorts to name-calling is lacking in substance within their own character.
At least he finally blogged in his own words following this post.
And if he has no time to "sit around and write articles," then why does he have more than one blog?
Actually my last post was yesterday, before I became aware of these posts about my blog. I have blogged plenty in my own words, just not every post. Regardless, who made Kevin Okeefe God? Who is to say that I cannot cut and paste articles, commenting on some, but not on others?
Now if you will excuse me, I have a jury trial tomorrow and do not need to waste any more of my time here...
No God here John, but I'm a fair judge of sleazy Intenet marketting. And using injury victim's names and details - folks you don't respresent - so you can grab a bigger ad in the yellow pages (now defined as Google) is sleazy in my book. Let alone that you're violating copyright laws by copying a news story in entirety.
That was not my intent Kevin. I did not approach my blog in bad faith as you suggest. We are not all experts in internet ethics and marketing. For someone starting a blog, discussing and posting recent news events and articles seems like a good thing to do. My goal was never to increase the size of my internet yellow pages ad. However, you have a good point that it may not be a good idea. Therefore, I will reform my posts accordingly.
I'm impressed both that Kevin was able to flip John and that John was able to be flipped. It is a credit to both of you.
Thanks for mentioning that Ron. John was far bigger than a lot of lawyers, especially with my comments about his blogging practice being perhaps a little harsh.