Real Lawyers Have Blogs : Law Blogs, Social Media, Twitter

"The Standing Committee on Advertising [of the Florida Bar Association] has reviewed the networking media, and issues the following guidelines for lawyers using them."

Whew, I was wondering when someone would get around to reviewing all of the social media and social networking sites on the Internet as well as review all the various methods of engagement and interaction that come with them.

A lot of lawyers like me were out here in the wilderness of social networking and social media relying solely on our common sense, good judgment, and existing ethics guidelines for guidance on how to ethically use the Internet today. What a foolhardy approach.

Now we have the all knowing wise men and women of the Florida Bar's 'Standing Committee on Advertising' commanding as of January 10, 2012, that:

Invitations sent directly from a social media site via instant messaging to a third party to view or link to the lawyer’s page on an unsolicited basis are solicitations in violation of Rule 4-7.4(a), unless the recipient is the lawyer’s current client, former client, relative, or is another lawyer.

And commanding:

Pages of individual lawyers on social networking sites that are used solely for social purposes to maintain social contact with family and close friends [presumably Facebook], are not subject to the lawyer advertising rules.

And commanding

If access to a lawyer’s Twitter postings is restricted to the followers of the particular lawyer, the information posted there is information at the request of a prospective client and is not subject to the lawyer advertising rules...

Let's get this straight. I am a lawyer using LinkedIn. I accept offers to connect from local business people. I get to know people via LinkedIn via Groups, Answers, and the like. I send a non lawyer an 'InMail' via LinkedIn, which includes by default a link to my LinkedIn page, asking to connect via LinkedIn and an offer to get together for lunch or coffee sometime and that's solicitation.

And when using Linkedin, a professional network not used solely for social purposes to maintain social contact with family and close friends, I cannot say anything that's deceptive or misleading, but on Facebook it's okay?

And on Twitter, it's all fair game as far as violating advertising rules so long as I'm misleading people on a Twitter account which I set so only my followers can see my Tweets.

This is the sort of nonsense bar associations get into when compelled to establish ethics rules pertaining to social media and social networking.

There are no ethics rules that apply specifically to 99% of a lawyer's social activity. But when it comes to the Internet, bar associations throw common sense over board and come up with stuff like this.

Why don't we have a rule that specifically applies to a lawyer introducing themselves to someone at a networking function and asking the person to have coffee sometime? Why don't we have rules that specifically cover clipping out an article from a news journal and forwarding it to someone? Why don't we have rules that specifically apply to birthday cards used mainly for social purposes?

Because lawyers on committees creating ethics rules understand those concepts and see how silly it would be to create ethics rules applying specifically to such activity.

But when it comes to something like the Internet, which many bar committee members don't understand, they feel compelled to pass foolish rules to protect the public which understands more about the Internet than the bar committees. Go figure.

I look forward to getting down to Florida to have my picture taken next to the complete set of commandments on the two stone tablets.

Hat tip to Heather Morse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been much discussion of last week's decision dismissing a criminal case against a man accused of stalking and harassing a religious leader on Twitter.

As reported by the New York Times' Somini Sengupta (@SominiSengupta),

The government had accused the defendant, William Lawrence Cassidy, of harassing and causing “substantial emotional distress” to a Buddhist religious leader named Alyce Zeoli. He had posted thousands of messages about her, some predicting her violent death. He lived in California, she in Maryland.

In his 27-page order (pdf), Judge Roger W. Titus wrote that “while Mr. Cassidy’s speech may have inflicted substantial emotional distress, the government’s indictment here is directed squarely at protected speech: anonymous, uncomfortable Internet speech addressing religious matters.”

Lost in the discussion was Judge Titus' analogy to the colonial time, when the Bill of Rights was written.

A blog, he said, is like a bulletin board that a person of that time might have planted in his front yard. “If one colonist wants to see what is on another’s bulletin board, he would need to walk over to his neighbor’s yard and look at what is posted, or hire someone else to do so,” he offered.

With Twitter, he went on, news from one colonist’s bulletin board could automatically show up on another’s. The postings can be “turned on or off by the owners of the bulletin boards,” he wrote. In other words, one can disregard what is posted on a bulletin board. “This is in sharp contrast to a telephone call, letter or e-mail specifically addressed to and directed at another person,” he concluded.

Like Hanni Fakhoury, (@HanniFakhoury) a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I like the distinction the judge drew between speech on a public platform, versus through e-mail or telephone.

Blogs and Twitter are today's open forum for discussion. Unlike an email or telephone call, blogs and Twitter are open discussion for all to comment on, discuss, and engage. They're free speech at the finest.

This is a district court decision, not a ruling from the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. Nonetheless, UCLA Law Professor, Eugene Volokh (@VolokhC), a well respected scholar on free speech and the net, told Sengupta on the decision, “This is an area where there has been very little case law, it is likely to be quite influential.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If I had a buck for every article or comment I read about state bar associations limiting or outlawing the use of lawyer bogs, I'd be a rich man.

The latest scare comes from the Washington Posts's Catherine Ho (@WapoCat) who warns that Virginia lawyers who blog about their cases as national and local criminal justice issues, beware: the state bar may come after you for inappropriate advertising. The article went so far to say the case could set precedent fo other states's limiting lawyer blogs.

Bar authorities contend the blog [by Attorney Horrace Hunter] constitutes advertisement and should include a disclaimer saying it's an ad. Hunter argues the blog is news and commentary, and the bar's attempt to get him to tack on a disclaimer is a violation of his First Amendment rights.

The Bar says one purpose of a website is to market the firm and attract business so any blog discussion is an ad. Perhaps, but that would apply equally to sitting on civic boards, writing articles, or participating in seminars, all such activities that are conducted by lawyers to attract business. It's what we do as contributing lawyers and citizens.

At some point, of course, limits on free speech come into play when something is deemed commercial speech, including lawyer advertising. Prescribed activity under lawyer advertising, even blogs, if classified advertising, include:

• Lawyers cannot say anything false or misleading.
• Lawyers cannot say they are a specialists unless so certified in certain states.
• Lawyers can not use testimonials in some states with the implication that they could obtain similar results for you.
• In same states a small disclaimer that the website is an advertisement must be placed at the bottom of the screen.

Let's be a little practical here - even if it means no sensational stories for publications like the Washington Post. There there is no record of disciplinary action against Virginia attorneys regarding blogging dating back to 1999. We have 7,000 lawyers blogging on the LexBlog Network and none have been sanctioned anyway. Not a big risk here with lawyers who blog.

In fact, if the Washington Post wanted to write a true story about the impact of lawyer blogs, why not write a story on the positive impact lawyer blogs are having? Law blogs are making the law more accessible to consumers and business people. People can find a good, caring, and passionate lawyer they can trust via a lawyer who blogs. Blogging lawyers are marketing in ways they can take pride in and improve the image of our profession. Lawyers and industry experts are networking in ways to advance our law for the good of Americans.

And on the practical side for lawyers, God forbid we lawyers have to accept something like blogging as being lawyer advertising. I don't agree with the approach, but all it would mean is the label of Attorney Advertisement in the footer of a blog screen and avoiding the above activity prescribed by attorney advertising.

Placing a small text reading "Attorney Advertising" on the footer of the web screen is not a big deal. We do that on hundreds of LexBlog Network Blogs. Not at the bottom of each post, but at the bottom of the screen, near where the copyright and ownership are disclaimed. Not a big deal at all.

And if you're a betting person on where this case is going, look at what the experts are saying, as reported by the Washington Post.

• Rodney Smolla, a leading First Amendment scholar, president of Furman University in South Carolina. and former dean at Washington and Lee University School of Law who filed a brief before the state bar on Hunter's behalf, said Hunter's blog resembles journalism more than advertising. I don't think the mere fact that a lawyer has been involved in a case means everything a lawyer says about it is an advertisement for future clients. Lawyers talk about their own cases all the time, in public settings, publications ... and members of the public are able to take that speech for what it's worth.
• The American Bar Association's Commission on Ethics recently said no new restrictions were necessary to regulate lawyers' use of technology and client development, and that prohibiting Internet and other electronic advertising would "impede the flow of information about legal services to many sectors of the public.
• Robert O'Neil, founder and former director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and former president of the University of Virginia: Hunter's blog is not misleading, and called the bar's standard on disclaimers "excessive." That strikes me as overkill Pretty innocent stuff like Hunter's [blog], I don't think that's regulable.

More sensational press from a reporter at major publications. The outcome is a chilling effect on lawyers looking to do more to help people through blogging. That's a shame.

Hat tip to @ronfriedmann

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I've been asked by lawyers around the country to comment on the story in this month's ABA Journal about how dangerous social media is for lawyers.

Reading the article penned by Steven Seidenberg, I couldn't help but think back to the lesson I learned talking to reporters as a young lawyer. The underlying mission of newspapers and magazines is to sell copies.

Create sensational stories, you'll attract more readers. In these days of social media, the more sensational and controversial the story, the more the story will be shared and blogged on.

The ABA Journal has a record of supporting blogging and other forms of social media. Seidenberg, an attorney with over 20 years experience as a legal affairs journalist, has a nice record of legal reporting.

But the story title, 'Seduced: For Lawyers, the Appeal of Social Media Is Obvious. It’s Also Dangerous,' feels pretty sensational.

And you lead off with these three examples of lawyers getting in trouble using social media as evidence of how dangerous social media is?

• Florida Attorney Sean Conway, in a effort to expose what he thought was the denial of a right to a speedy trial, blogged that Broward County Court Judge Cheryl Alemán is an "evil, unfair witch," "seemingly mentally ill" and "clearly unfit for her position and knows not what it means to be a neutral arbiter." Is it any surprise that the Florida Bar concluded Conway was guilty of making false or reckless statements regarding the qualifications or integrity of a judge and engaging in professional conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice?
• Illinois Attorney Kristine A. Peshek's revealing confidential client information while blogging about cases she was working on cost Peshek her job as an assistant public defender in Illinois. Surprise?
• North Carolina Judge Carlton Terry Jr. was publicly reprimanded by the state's Judicial Standards Commission because Terry, after becoming a Facebook friend of an attorney appearing in a case before the judge, exchanged Facebook comments with the attorney regarding the proceeding before the judge. Substantive ex parte communications?

No question Seidenberg goes on to address some dilemmas regarding a lawyer's use of social media and draws some interesting commentary from ethics authorities. Some of it practical insight, some legal ethics theorizing.

I just question the title and tone in which this article leads off. Why not a more reasoned approach? Are the above examples of lawyers and judges getting into trouble in their use of social media the rare exception and evidence of a gross lapse of judgment or a regular occurrence?

Sure there are ethical rules that will prescribe certain activity by lawyers in their use of social media. Some authorities and bar associations believe that ethic's rules need to be re-written to cover social media.

Others such as Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at NYU Law School and is a member of the ABA's Ethics 20/20 Commission, believe ethics rules ought not to change with innovation in technology. "Many of the rules are at a high-enough level that they can be applied to new technology without revision."

I'm in the Gillers' camp. I am also in the camp of looking at the issue from a practical standpoint.

The stories cited by Seidenberg are the very rare exception. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lawyers are using social media. These lawyers are aware of the ethics canons that govern their behavior at all times, including in the use of social media, and use their good judgment to remain in compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Former Seattleite and now social media manager for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Shannon Paul, has a wonderful post on the '3 Myths Stopping Regulated Biz From Embracing Social Media.'

By regulated industries, Paul is generally referring to businesses in finance/banking/securities, health care (insurance/hospitals/doctors), pharmaceuticals, government agencies themselves, spirits and insurance (property/casualty).

Add the legal industry to the list Shannon. And it's not only the American bar Association, state bar associations, and state supreme courts prescribing legal ethics rules, it's also law firms' internal compliance teams and general counsel regulating the use of social media.

The myths and facts:

Myth: We can't do anything creative or innovative because rules won't allow it. In this case, they usually refers to the government, regulating body or even the company's own internal compliance team.

Fact: There are always ways to figure out how to achieve your end result in a creative way AND stay within the regulatory guidelines.

Myth: Our industry regulations are worse, or more restrictive than other industries.

Fact: Each regulated industry has its own set of unique challenges, but many of the most frustrating elements are common amongst all regulated industries, and even those that are not regulated. Success at becoming a social business is challenging for all businesses. Regulated businesses often have the luxury of recognizing what some of the rules of engagement are for them as they wade into the social web. Unregulated businesses often stumble without rules to guide them in how they approach this new medium.

Myth: We must wait for our regulating body to tell us what we can and cannot do before we begin with social media.

Fact: Most regulatory bodies actually look to guidance from those they regulate when drafting new rules. The opportunity for outreach in defining the guidelines proactively often exists. Companies that sit and wait miss out on the opportunity to help steer regulatory bodies in a way that supports their business. Many regulated businesses could also begin to listen and track online conversations around their brand, and examine web traffic from social sites -- there may be some insight, or valuable feedback out there that could inform everything from future product development, campaign development, safety issues, customer service opportunities, sales opportunities and so on. 'Doing social media' doesn't always mean creating a Facebook page -- the value here isn't in the tools themselves, but in how you use them.

Paul's thoughts on working with social media in a regulated arena are most welcome in light of the recent rhetoric from both sides in the legal blogosphere following the September Paper released by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20.

There is something incredibly rewarding about helping a business navigate the rules brought by regulation in a way that helps them embrace this new dialogue-driven style of communication to connect them with customers and other stakeholders in a meaningful way, yet also respects the notion that most regulations are intended to protect consumers -- never forget that.

I suspect that there's much more in common than most will concede between those advancing social media in our legal profession and those charged with regulating lawyers use of social media. We just need to look at the myths and facts and embrace dialogue, as opposed to diatribe.

As a heads up, Shannon Paul writes about how social media amplifies and aligns with marketing, public relations and other business objectives in her Very Official Blog. It's an excellent read and one that's been in my RSS feeds for quite a while.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bench & Bar of Minnesota, the official publication of the Minnesota State Bar Association, joined the forces of lawyers, conferences, publications, and associations who are scaring lawyers from using social media. Perhaps not on purpose, but by emphasizing the risks of a lawyer using social media over the rewards they're having that effect.

Look at the article published today in Bench and Bar of Minnesota entitled 'Social Media for Lawyers.'

Sounds good. I'm a Minnesota lawyer looking to learn more about blogs, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook. Starting off the article tells me about the popularity of exactly these forms of social media. Even tells me that social media can be a resource for learning information and demonstrating my expertise in a particular area of law. Can't wait to read.

What do I get? Red flashing lights in the form the of risks in using social media.

• Inadvertent Attorney-Client Relationships
• Confidentiality
• Conflicts of Interest
• Communications and Advertising
• Unauthorized Practice of Law
• Improper Contact and Misconduct
• Duty of Candor

Certainly those are legitimate questions and concerns. No sane lawyer is looking to create liability or act unethically in their professional and client development activities.

And no one, especially me, is saying the Internet is an 'ethics free zone' for lawyers. Client and professional development requires that we act ethically as lawyers whether networking at a conference at a golf resort or networking on LinkedIn.

Abigail Crouse and Michael Flom, both principals of Gray Plant Mooty, an excellent law firm based in Minneapolis, wrote the article. Gray Plant already blogs and is considering expanding its social media presence.

I'm sure Flom and Crouse did not intend to scare fellow Minnesota lawyers from blogging or using social media. I also don't know what the editor charged with this story told the authors. It may have been to do an article on the risks of social media. Crouse has expertise in employment law and Flom is extensively involved in legal ethics and lawyers' professional responsibility.

But if I'm young solo practitioner doing family law in Marshall, I'm thinking twice about starting a family law blog after I read this article. A blog that was going to be dedicated to serving the people of Southwest Minnesota struggling with divorce, support, and custody issues. A blog that would connect me with leading family lawyers in the Twin Cities and nationally for mentoring and professional growth.

From speaking on blogging and social media around the country, I sense that lawyers have a keen desire to learn how they can leverage the power of social media. For client development and for professional growth.

There will always be a lawyer or two in the audience who grills me on the perils of social media. Rather than dismiss the ethical issues and liability risks, I explain how lawyers use social media in an ethically permissible fashion. How lawyers conduct themselves in a manner that does not risk undue liability.

I also explain that the situations where lawyers have gotten into trouble using social media are very few and very far between. That though lawyers may hear of the sensational, it's the sensational that makes for good news - and that the sensational is the exception not the rule.

As an editor, conference coordinators, author, or speaker, you're highly influential. Please temper your discussion on the risks of social media. Sure talk risks. But the rewards to lawyers using social media are so great. Mention them.

• In social media lawyers are looking at an opportunity to listen to and engage people in a real and transparent way.
• The legal profession has an opportunity to improve its awful reputation. Rather than bar associations talking of improving our reputation and doing a 'law day' a year at the local mall, we could have local lawyers with practical expertise on all sorts of areas of law sharing their insight and answering common questions on topic-centric blogs.
• Lawyers with limited marketing budgets could get work the old fashioned way. By networking. By building relationships. And by building a reputation as a trusted and reliable authority. Sure beats thinking you have to compete with 1-800-Injurylaw pasted on the side of a metro bus.
• Lawyers can use social media and social networking to connect with leading lawyers in their area of the law - no matter where those lawyers are located. They'll be given the opportunity to network with and learn from lawyers they could have only dreamed of meeting.
• Lawyers could go after the type of work they really want to do - the stuff they have a passion for - and do it for the type of clients they want to serve. Beats feeling trapped doing what's needed to be done, like it or not, to keep the wolves away from the door.

No more 'pitfalls and perils' articles and presentations. Let's talk about what's really going on. Let's recognize the risks while emphasizing the rewards.

Do that and we'll improve the lives of lawyers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (11)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I shared yesterday, the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has taken no action to date limiting a lawyer's use of blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other online client development tools. If the Commission does take any action, and it's far from clear that it will, it's going to be a few years before we'll see any amendments to the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Commission outlined the matters it's considering in its Paper of September 20 (pdf). What is the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 considering re law blogs? Not much.

From the Paper:

1. Under what circumstances should the Model Rules of Professional Conduct govern a lawyer's participation in blogs, given that such activities often have both an advertising and non-advertising function?
2. Should the Commission draft a policy statement for the House of Delegates to consider or a white paper that sets out certain guidelines regarding lawyers' use of blogging? Alternatively, or in addition, should the Commission propose amendments to Model Rules 1.18 (duties of confidentiality and conflict of interest re prospective clients) or 7.2 (advertising of legal services) or the Comments to those Model Rules in order to explain when these activities might trigger ethical obligations under the Model Rules? If so, what amendments should the Commission offer?
3. If lawyers leave comments on blogs, are those comments subject to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? Should the Commission offer a policy statement or white paper that sets out certain guidelines regarding lawyers' use of such activity? Alternatively, or in addition, should the Commission propose amendments to Model Rules 1.18 or 7.2 or the Comments to those Model Rules in order to explain when such activity might trigger ethical obligations under the Model Rules? If so, what amendments should the Commission offer?

That's it. Not much, if anything, to be worried about.

• Should blogs be governed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct? I am not aware of any lawyers on The LexBlog Network of over 3,500 lawyer authors who don't already believe legal ethics rules apply to their blogs. The Commission's telling lawyers that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct apply to blogs is telling us the obvious.
• The Commission may draft some guidelines or Comments to the Model Rules in order to explain when blogging might trigger ethical obligations under the Model Rules. Okay. I don't know any lawyers who don't already believe blogging triggers ethical obligations.
• The Commission may draft some guidelines or Comments to the Model Rules in order to explain when a lawyers leaving comments on a blog might trigger ethical obligations under the Model Rules. Okay. I don't know any lawyers who don't already believe leaving comments on blogs triggers ethical obligations.

There's been a bit of hysteria on the blogosphere that the ABA may be outlawing blogs and other online client development tools. There's nothing to it.

Law blogs are here to stay and the ABA and its Commission on Ethics 20/20 is not considering action to limit or curtail blogging by lawyers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There's been a flurry of online discussion the last couple weeks regarding the American Bar Association's so called attempt to curtail a lawyer's use of the Internet for client development. The discussion is the result of a paper issued by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20.

As a result, I'm being asked what, if any, implication the ABA paper has on the publishing of law blogs. The answer is none.

In August 2009 the American Bar Association announced the formation of the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20. The Commission was formed to review legal ethics rules and regulation in light of technological advances and globalization in the legal profession.

Over a year later, on September 20, 2010 the Commission issued a Paper announcing that the Commission was examining a number of legal ethics issues arising from lawyers’ use of technology, including issues arising from Internet-based client development tools.

The goal of the Paper was twofold.

1. To describe several issues that the Commission has identified in this context.
2. To elicit comments by December 15, 2010 on possible approaches that the Commission is currently considering.

The Commission made clear that it was taking no positions in this Paper. The Commission merely wanted to elicit comments on the issues in order to facilitate the development of reports and proposals that the Commission plans to draft during the next two years.

That's it. A Commission. A Paper. No positions taken. Comments requested. We'll hear more in 2013.

Furthermore, neither the ABA nor the Commission have any authority to promulgate ethics rules governing lawyers behavior. That's the province of individual state bar associations and state supreme courts, depending on which governs lawyers in respective states.

Two years from now the Commission could suggest that the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct be amended. Amendments which presumably would take a year or two for the ABA to adopt. Before any lawyer would be impacted by any such amendments, individual states would need to adopt the amended Model Rules.

Even if new ethics rules are passed regarding blogs, and that's no sure thing, we're likely looking at four or five years before we'll see them.

It's true that the Commission is examining lawyer's use of blogs. But the issues the Commission is considering relative to blogs are minimal. The proposed amendments relating to Blogs the Commission is considering are also minimal.

Even if there are ever amendments passed regarding lawyers use of blogs, and that's no sure thing, lawyers current use of blogs is not going to be impacted in any significant way. More on this point in an upcoming blog post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A blog post this last week from Attorney Peter Thompson's Maine Injury Lawyer Blog:

Reported in the Portland Press Herald, October 22, 2010

HARRISON -- Police in Harrison, Maine, say one teenager has been killed and three other people injured in a car crash.

Eighteen-year-old (I've deleted name included by Thompson), of Oxford, was a passenger in a Chevrolet Trailblazer whose driver lost control rounding a corner and crashed into trees.

McLendon, who was in the back seat, died at the scene. A second passenger, 20-year-old Jacob Hill, of Waterford, was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries. Another passenger and the driver, a girl whose name wasn't released, were hospitalized with serious injuries.

The auto accident specialists at Peter Thompson & Associates have handled thousands of similar claims and recovered millions of dollars in compensation for our clients. We specialize in providing excellent customer service and quick results. For more information, contact Peter Thompson & Associates at 1-800-917-1784 or read more on our website www.Peter-Thompson-Associates.com on our car accident practice page.

Gee Pete, that blog post must have taken some deep thought on your part. Borrowing the name of an eighteen year old who was tragically killed because someone told you if you scrapped stories from newspapers for your blog that your website and blog will come up higher in the search engines.

I wonder how this recent high school grad's parents feel about what you're doing Pete. But what do you care? You're just a personal injury lawyer out to make a buck.

Not to be outdone, Attorney Gregory Baumgartner penned 'Truck Driver Killed in Fire' on his Texas Truck Wreck Attorney Blog.

Baumgartner, or someone on his behalf, paraphrases an Austin American-Statesman newspaper article about a truck driver killed in an accident adding the following paragraph to conclude his blog post:

Greg Baumgartner is a Texas truck accident lawyer and the founder of the Baumgartner law firm, which is dedicated to helping injury victims seek civil justice. For a free- no obligation consultation with a Texas semi truck accident lawyer call the Baumgartner firm.

In addition to be being schooled on paraphrasing truck accident stories, Greg has learned to link the phrase 'Texas semi truck accident lawyer' in his blog post to his website so as to improve the search engine results of his website.

Where's the pride in being a lawyer? Where's the pride in serving legal professions as a provider of law firm website and blog solutions?

I've personally been on both sides of this equation. I was a plaintiff's trial lawyer representing injury victims and their family members for 17 years. I proudly served as a board member of my state's trial lawyers association and as a sustaining member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now 'American Association for Justice').

I used the Internet as a plaintiff's trial lawyer for almost three years ('96 to '98) as a means of client development. I answered questions of injury victims, injured employees, and distressed employees on AOL. Not knowing a thing about Internet marketing, people liked what I was doing to help them and similarly situated people. As a result, work came.

In 1999 I left the practice of law to begin helping lawyers connect with clients and prospective clients via the Internet in a real and meaningful way. First with a virtual law community that upon being sold to LexisNexis has been incorporated into Lawyers.com. Then with LexBlog to provide lawyers a more effective means to network through the Internet so as to build more intimate relationships with clients and prospective clients and enhance their reputation as an authority.

I don't share this to impress you, but to impress upon you that there is a better way to obtain work as a plaintiff's personal injury lawyer. And that it's well within your reach. As a lawyer -- and as legal website and blog solution provider.

I've screwed up now and again as a much as the next guy. But on giving lawyers a bad name, I'm doing my best that it that does not happen when it comes to the Internet.

We'll not have blogs like the above personal injury law blogs on The LexBlog Network. And I'll continue to call out such lawyers now and again in an effort to get such lawyers to change their behavior for the good of our legal profession.

I'm asking you to join me as a lawyer to steer clear of less than reputable Internet marketing. I'm asking you as legal marketing professionals and website/blog developers not to condone such behavior of your client lawyers. You need not enable such behavior.

Let's stop tasteless and unprofessional legal marketing. For the good of our legal profession. And for the public we have chosen to serve as lawyers.

Can I count on you?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link