Lawyers & legal professionals speak : Law Blog is still needed with Twitter
Despite Twitter proving to be a very effective client development tool for lawyers, I shared 7 reasons why a lawyer still needed a blog. I also asked legal professionals on Twitter why they thought a blog was still needed even though the lawyers were using Twitter.
Here's the response from legal professionals around the globe on why a law blog is still needed.
- Delaware business litigation lawyer Francis Pileggi (@fpileggi): easy to search one's body of work.
- Emma Lee, marketing assistant at London's Lawson West LLP (@Emma_Lee1) Twitter's here today and over by tomorrow. A blog builds authority and brand.
- Connecticut employment lawyer Dan Schwartz (@ctemplawyer): Because most people don't have a clue about Twitter; it's tough enough for them to understand a blog.
- Kitsap County, WA lawyer Sara Lingafelter (@theclimbergirl) Still need a quality, keyword rich blog to draw search engine traffic. + the masses are coming to twitter but aren't here yet.
- Ontario, Canada business lawyer David Canton (@davidcanton): Because a blog has more substance, is more personal, less fleeting, a better long term resource, & you can't say much in 140 c.
- Richard Wood, accounting manager at Seattle's Summit Law Group (@woodi68): Keeping a blog is still critical. Twitter is fine for merely sharing other content, but difficult to create original content.
- International law marketer Lance Godard (@lancegodard): Tweets create desire, blogs satisfy it. Ex: u can read @guykawasaki ppt on innovation, but watching him give it completely diff.
- UK law librarian/information officer James Mullan (@jimmy1712): solicitors still blog because the medium suits them e.g. sitting down and carefully drafting something.
- Mike McBride, Ohio blogger and litigation support specialist, (@mikemac29): If Twitter ever goes under, what are you w/o your own blog? AND Twitter is not "you", it can be part of your online presence but it's not a home, and blog for more than 140 chars...
- Dallas business and employment dispute lawyer Rob Radcliff (@robradcliff): 140 characters is not sufficient to address legal developments important to clients or serve as a client resource.
- Milwaukee trial lawyer and jury consultant Anne Reed (@annereed): (1) Twitter conversation itself churns up thoughts that seem to need more than 140 characters. So, as in yesterday's post, I sometimes blog *because* of Twitter.
- New York Intellectual property attorney Kelly Talcott (@kdtalcott): Tweets are the icing. The blog's the cake. You need both to offer something your readers will digest.
- Chicago intellectual property lawyer Evan Brown: (@internetcases) Writing 140 characters at a time has its virtues but sometimes issues need thorough treatment. That's where blogs still fit in.
- Seattle construction attorney Doug Reiser (@DouglasReiser): twitter is a persistent conversation between a community - a dialogue. blogging is a presentation of select ideas for others.
- Jason Milch, vice president of public relations for Chicago firm Jaffe Associates, (@jasonmilch): simply, because not every subject can be explored in appropriate detail in only 140 chars. Too obvious?
- Landon Harlan, Obu Internet Marketing, (@landonharlan): People hire lawyers for their opinions, legal or otherwise, and a blog allows the lawyer to communicate more personally.
- Iowa business lawyer Rush Nigut (@RushNigut): Because expertise is not demonstrated in 140 characters.
- Lee Stranahan, writer, artist and filmaker, (@Stranahan): I think blogs still have a place...and how well can lawyers really navigate in 140 characters?
- Matt Fankhauser, Salt Lake City law firm marketing director (@MattFankhauser): To create enough content to be found by clients that is easy to get to via search or typing in a web address, without a login.
- Texas appellate lawyer Todd Smith (@dtoddsmith): Twitter conversations occur on level that's not possible with blogs. You trade the character limit for instant interaction.
- @averageatty, who blogs at 'a blawg for the rest of us': not everything can be expressed in 140 characters or less.
So you asked twittering, blogging lawyers why blogs are necessary so you could post this on your blog and tweet about it? Why not ask those lawyers who don't blog/twitter about the benefits of being dis-Web2.0-connected (and, yes, there are benefits and highly successful lawyers in that category). Not a criticism, but this seems a little like preaching to that proverbial choir (and using that choir to draw traffic to your blawg business).
Thanks for the comment Matt. Point well taken.
But the best lawyers to have a perspective on the matters are the lawyers who twitter and blog.
When the phone was invented, the majority of lawyers resisted its use. Ethical concerns, liability concerns, concerns that it's use would be unprofessional, and concerns that it would be distracting to the way they did business.
How could someone have asked lawyers who had not used a phone for legal work and client development about issues pertaining to use of a phone in practicing law? They'd have no context.
I am not saying that blogs and twitter are going to be as prevalent as a phone, though they may (look at how lawyers resisted email), but the only lawyers to get counsel on such an issue are the users.