The first feature being sold in in what FindLaw was selling lawyers as a 'SEM (search engine marketing) Advantage' product is described in FindLaw sales literature as 'Inbound Linking,' including links from FindLaw Properties (FindLaw.com, LawyerMarketing.com, and LegalConnection.com).

Seems to me that if you buy a law firm a website, which in FindLaw's case may cost $15,000 to $25,000, that you shouldn't then have to buy links to get SEO so your website can be seen effectively on Google via FindLaw's SEM Advantage program at a cost of upwards of $2,500 per month.

Should we take the word of an organization who is in direct competition with the organization they are accusing? Honestly…this is so silly and I am shocked that this guy has mouthed off as long as he has without a proper smack down. Kevin – Seriously, STFU, you are a capitalist liar in pursuit of nothing more then selling your next deal!

"Perform Search Engine Optimization to increase your legal blog's ranking and keep you up there: We'll hardcode your site for better performance, plus teach you techniques to easily optimize whenever you add content".

So I see you are an expert at gaming google too. Ow I love when the truth comes out..its always so perverted!

Heck yes LexBlog's turnkey blog solution competes with FindLaw. The rest of the world knew that for the last 5 years without taking Sunday afternoon off to do an analysis of the 'industry of law marketing' like you did.

Maybe if you got to the 10th minute in your analysis, you'd have discovered I've been commenting on effective Internet legal marketing of all kinds, including mixing it up with more than one company and lawyer, since 1997 - that's back when you were playing T-ball.

Before you forget make sure you drop that email to the Wall Street Journal explaining how Dow Jones competes with Thomson Reuters, FindLaw's parent company. The Wall Street Journal reported these 'false accusations' as well.

'Capitalist liar.' Boy, those are some strong words coming from someone who does not want to disclose who they are or let us know where I have misled anyone.

As for when you're going by 'James,' sure LexBlog uses technology that works well to get content well indexed on Google. Getting content well indexed, if you didn't know, allows it to be found effectively on relevant searches - it's part of SEO work.

Who wouldn't use Web standards/CSS development to perform better on Google than the old tables & cells web development? Who wouldn't use Google site map technology so that a blog gets indexed effectively? Who wouldn't use a system that displays blog titles in title and header tags?

If those things are considered gaming Google by guys like you, who probably wouldn't know proper website & blog development and ethical SEO if it hit you the face, then lock me up.

If I'm FindLaw, I'd be out talking about this issue myself, as opposed to having surrogates like this guy carrying my water. Having people like James/Jamers speak on your behalf damages the image of our legal profession big time.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone in my comment here. Maybe I should have just concluded cheap shots like the above don't merit a response. I'm still learning.

I'm loving this series of posts. For me some of the most entertaining I have read in a long time. Keep "mouthing off"

Competition in the blog world is good for all.

Findlaw makes no effort to put no follow tags, so it's selling links IMHO. By the way, if you don't buy Firmsite, you don't get the links.

Obiously, Findlaw doesn't want to give away linkjuice unless you buy a Firmsite. That is selling links IMHO.

Absolutely stellar post. I LOVE it when the big guys get popped, and they Should have seen it coming. I hope their 'legal contract' covered them well, cause you know they're going to get sued.