February 25, 2011 by Kevin O'Keefe

Unbundling of legal media and publishing

Om Malik, a technology writer and founder of Giga Omni Media, penned an interesting piece this week about the unbundling of traditional media.

Malik sees the unbundling of traditional media as analogous to the unbundling of telecom brought about the 1996 Telecom Act. The unbundling of access to the telecom facilities owned by the local companies gave competitors access to the so called "last-mile" that led to a customer's house. The result was rampant competition from traditional telephone and Internet based services.

Now, per Malik, we're seeing the unbundling of traditional media as the Internet opens distribution platforms.

Many of us confuse the media companies as creators of media and content. In reality, their barrier to entry was ownership of distribution platforms. Just as telecoms of the past maintained their near monopoly by controlling the last mile of the network, the media companies maintained their money machine by controlling the distribution network: trucks, radio waves and television frequencies. The arrival of cable loosened their grip, but not as much.

Then came the Internet, which meant the distribution network was no longer under control of a select few. This saw the rise of new media entities such as CNET (now owned by CBS, an old media company.) And just as the distribution network was accessible to all, new open-source tools such as WordPress (see disclosure) came to market, making it easy for anyone to become a publisher of their own newspaper. With that began the great unbundling of the media business: something which continues today.

Rather than news, sports, entertainment, business, travel, food, and real estate generating advertising dollars for newspapers, advertising dollars are flowing to Zillow, Redfin, SBNation, DeadSpin, TechCrunch, GigaOm, and Yelp.

As Malik wrote last fall:

Because these new media are attuned to the needs of a new kind of information consumer, it’s hardly a surprise that media’s single largest source of revenues — advertising dollars — are getting sliced and diced in pursuit of this elusive, always transforming, info-savvy media consumer. Unfortunately, the media is used to selling page views, impressions and massive audiences: metrics as archaic as drinking on the job and smoking in a doctor’s office.

The impact on traditional media has been staggering.

In 2005, the newspaper industry had revenue of around $47 billion. Today, it is half that amount. The radio and television industry have gone through the same compression. TV advertising declined 21.2 percent from $52 billion in 2008 to $41 billion in 2009, and fell a further 12 percent in 2010 according to the Yankee Group.

Traditional legal media appears on the face of it to remain largely intact. But how long can that continue?

Aren't we seeing an unbundling of legal publishing with the growth of law blogs? The content being produced by leading lawyers is arguably better, more timely, and more widely discussed than legal articles and law reviews. That's not lost on the consumers of legal services and in-house counsel whose eyeballs are needed by traditional legal publishers looking to sell advertising and subscriptions.

Rather than distribution of primary and secondary U.S. law being limited to Thomson and LexisNexis, we've got innovative and profitable upstarts like Fastcase and Justia making the law more freely accessible.

That traditional legal research as well as law blogs, which are already serving as secondary legal authority, are being openly distributed on mobile devices, including viaTwitter.

It's hard to imagine legal publishing being immune to the impact that the unbundling of media is having on newspapers, book publishers and the like.

Martindale-Hubbell's been at best marginalized, and at worst destroyed, by people's access to information on lawyers and law firms via the Internet. It's also not enough to look up lawyers in a directory or a website. Consumers like the 360 degree view they can get on a lawyer via social media and social networking.

The LexBlog Network has grown to over 5,000 lawyers publishing on law blogs. And I'm still seeing firms reticent to blog because of ethical and image concerns. As those concerns continue to erode through education, we're going to see the floodgates open on legal blogging.

LexBlog and companies like us will be able to curate and highlight the best legal content and leverage new forms of social media to distribute content and connect lawyers with colleagues and potential clients. With ALM, LexisNexis, and Thomson no longer controlling the means of distribution, we can inexpensively deliver information and content in new ways -- ways in which people are becoming accustomed to receiving information.

ALM, LexisNexis, Thomson, and other traditional media companies are run by smart people and employ some talented folks. But to many people those companies look like they are trying to keep up and adapt, not lead the charge in new media. Those companies also have traditional business models generating revenue, business models (with heavy expenses) that are being challenged with new publishing and media business models.

We haven't seen the unbundling of the legal media to the extent we've seen it elsewhere. But it's only a matter of time. It'll be interesting to see how it will all shake out.

Tags:
Don't get left behind, get your own blog

Lexblog

Become a part of the conversation

LexBlog creates and maintains professional, turn-key blogs for law firms and businesses. For more information fill out and send this form or call 1-800-913-0988.

all information is required please
February 20, 2011 by Kevin O'Keefe

Law firms ought to follow Gates Foundation in messaging through journalism

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is using journalism to get its message out in in a big way. From Sandi Doughton and Kristi Heim in this morning's Seattle Times:

To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages. Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion pieces. Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to The Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.

We're talking big money for what the Foundation allots for 'policy and advocacy.'

Over the past decade, Gates has devoted $1 billion to these programs, which now account for about a tenth of the giant philanthropy's $3 billion-a-year spending. The Gates Foundation spends more on policy and advocacy than most big foundations — including Rockefeller and MacArthur — spend in total.

Why?

[T]o boost funding and focus from governments, businesses and other foundations for the battle against disease and poverty — particularly now, as Congress considers deep cuts in foreign aid.

I'm not suggesting that law firms put a third of their revenue into journalism grants to support causes fighting disease and poverty. I am suggesting that law firms take note of the power of journalism -- even citizen journalism that they could run on their own to advance causes they or their clients support.

Look at Food Safety News - FSN, the leading (if not only) publication looking at food safety issues. FSN is the brain child of Seattle Attorney Bill Marler and totally funded by his eight lawyer law firm, Marler Clark.

FSN is not a blog highlighting matters Marler's firm is involved in, but a full blown news site staffed with reporters and editors covering food safety matters in the U.S. and abroad. The goal of FSN is food safety advocacy and better food regulation.

With the advent of citizen journalism and the force it can generate, it's surprising that more law firms are not taking Marler Clark's lead in advancing their causes through journalism.

Large law firms supporting the social media and journalism efforts of pro-bono law organizations would be a start.

The latest push by Melinda Gates is to shift coverage from stories of despair to stories that show problems can be solved. Gates, Quoted by the Times, "People need to hear and see these success stories. In the U.S. media, too often you hear what is not working."

Why not start a news site supported by your large law firm highlighting success stories of pro-bono causes in your metro area?

Law firms obviously don't have the resources of the Gates Foundation to support and produce main stream media. But law firms certainly have it within their means to support, and perhaps run, citizen journalism sites advancing causes they and their clients support.

Lawyers and law firms have an obligation to give back -- to support efforts for good in our society. The support of cause driven journalism would an excellent way to do so.

Tags:
February 12, 2011 by Kevin O'Keefe

Search engine optimization driven journalism

AOL's acquisition of Huffington Post for $315 Million seems to have been driven in large part by Huffington Post's ability to publish content that was trending upward on Google search. Rather than report on the news, report on what people are looking for.

From the New York Time's Claire Cain Miller yesterday morning:

The Huffington Post has hired veteran journalists to beef up its news coverage. But a significant chunk of its readers come instead for articles like one published this week: “Chelsy Davy & Prince Harry: So Happy Together?”

The two-sentence article was just a vehicle for a slide show of photographs of the couple and included no actual news. But “Chelsy Davy” was one of the top searches on Google that day, and soon after the article was published it became one of the first links that popped up in Google’s search results.

It was an example of an art and science at which The Huffington Post excels: search engine optimization, or S.E.O.

Online publishers use software that look at activity on search engines; generate headlines based on it; and assign employed writers and freelancers to write corresponding articles or blog posts.

Perhaps this is the road to profitability for print journalism, but we're likely to end up with low quality content that's written to appeal to the search engines, as opposed to people.

Rich Skrenta, chief executive of the search engine Blekkom, told Miller:

S.E.O. is “absolutely essential." Still, it can turn into a “heroin drip” for publishers. They had this really good content at the beginning, but they realize the more S.E.O. they do, the more money they make, and the pressure really pushes down the quality on their sites.

The outcome, as reported by Miller, 35 percent of The Huffington Post’s visits in January came from search engines, compared to 20 percent for CNN.com.

No question writing about what people are looking for can produce valuable content. And I am not implying that Huffington Post does not produce any good content.

The problem comes when publishers produce content just to garner traffic, not to produce something of value. The latter ought to sound very familiar to law firms who publish blogs solely for search.

There is hope for quality content. Social media is increasingly more important in the distribution of content. The better the content, the more likely it will be shared via Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Google is also going to take sharing into effect in pushing content to the top in search.

And at the end of the day, people do remember who's offering value.

Tags: ,
January 22, 2011 by Kevin O'Keefe

Large law firms with brands to create media outlets online, bypass magazines and newspapers

The fact that creating and distributing content is getting cheaper -- "Look, Ma, no trucks, no printing presses!" -- has not been lost on major brands penned the The New York Times' David Carr this week in a piece entitled 'Publishing, Without Publishers.'

Luxury brands have always advertised in the likes of Vogue, Esquire and Architectural Digest and tried to impress their editors enough to get mentioned in the editorial pages, as well. But now companies like Richemont (owns Cartier, Piaget, Dunhill and Montblanc) are reaching out directly to consumers -- and cutting out the middlemen.

Steve Rubel, SVP of Digital for Edelman public relations, told Carr "Brands, especially those centered around lifestyle interests or luxury, are increasingly becoming media companies."

Reading Carr's piece I couldn't help but think of large law firms and the brands they've established.

Rather than advertise in mainstream magazines and trade publications, why not publish directly to in-house counsel, executives, and referring lawyers? Rather than have public relations and communications professionals pitching stories and lawyer's names to reporters and editors to gain editorial copy, why not publish directly to enhance the reputation of your law firm's lawyers and trusted and reliable authorities?

What brands might serve as at least food for thought for law firms?

  • NET-A-PORTER.COM, owned by Richemont, is the world's premier online luxury fashion retailer. Rather a typical e-commerce website, it presents its products in the style of a fashion magazine which is viewed by over 2.5 million women each month.
  • The Gilt Groupe, a bargain hunter's paradise for the luxury-minded, is adding editorial elements every day and watching visitors spend more and more time there.
  • Best Buy has been watching its in-store sales shrink under pressure from the Web and has responded with On, a digital mag-a-log with editorial content and advertisements from other brands.
  • One Kings Lane, an e-commerce company that sells designer home décor and furnishings, just acquired Helicopter, the hotshot design firm that helped start the well-crafted and much-missed Domino magazine, as well as doing work for mainstream publishers like The Wall Street Journal, Hachette, Time Inc. and Hearst.

I'm not suggesting that large law firms become a media company. But self publishing in ways that the Internet, especially mobile, enables, is a golden opportunity for law firms to leverage their existing brand.

Lawyers are the ones who get hired, not the law firm itself. But being part of a major law firm with a well known brand, enhances the lawyer's reputation and can make the lawyer more attractive.

It can be the same for publishing. Publishing with a major brand behind you (think Baker & McKenzie, DLA Piper, Jones Day, White & Case) is a leg up for lawyers and reporters who may be blogging or doing stories on a publication backed/branded by the law firm.

How might it be done?

  • Blogs are a start. Some large law firms have north of 20 blogs already. The number of large law firms with 10, 15, 20, or more blogs is going to grow significantly.
  • Law firm networks with a magazine like presence showcasing their lawyers who are blogging and micro-blogging. Micro-blogging via Twitter will serve as a legal information network of news and information being shared as well as a means for users to discover lawyers to follow.
  • Magazine like sites dedicated to a niche or industry with both original reporting supported by the firm and feeds from blogs and Twitter. Look at Food Safety News published by Seattle's Marler Clark, the nation's foremost food poisoning law firm.
  • Flipboard sections aggregating, under the law firm brand, specific blog, Twitter, Facebook, and Google Reeder feeds.

Law firms have a leg up over fashion ware or consumer electronic companies when it comes to publishing. As Adam Lavelle, the chief strategy office of iCrossing, the digital marketing agency owned by Hearst, told Carr, "....[B]rands that are authentic, not shameless or opportunistic, have a chance to create content that people will pay attention to."

With large law firms paying millions of dollars each on advertising, PR, and communications, it's only a matter of time until we see law firms creating their own online media outlets. Doing so will save money and leverage their brand.

Tags: ,
January 4, 2011 by Kevin O'Keefe

Legal content on iPad and tablets : What's the business model for publishers and law firms?

There's been wide discussion of late that although publication sales on the iPad took off at first, sales are now in decline. What's that mean for legal publishers? What's that mean for lawyers and law firms looking to distribute their blog content in mobile.

From a legal publisher's standpoint, ALM (American Lawyer Media) CEO Bill Pollak addressed the issue in a blog post yesterday.

There have been a number of articles and blog posts over the past two weeks about the failure of consumer magazines to do very well with their iPad apps. Although launched to much fanfare, sales of magazine apps by Wired, The New Yorker and others have been slow, and it looks like they are failing to gain traction among readers.

Since we are now beginning to design apps for our publications, I hope we'll learn from the experience of those who have been in this game for awhile. For one thing, an iPad app that is simply a replication of a print magazine won't serve the market. For another, existing subscribers are none too happy about paying an added fee for iPad access to the same content -- they want one subscription price to cover access to all of the brand's versions.

Fred Wilson, a Venture Capitalist and principal of Union Square Ventures, believes Web economics dictates. Publishing business models that have worked on the Web will dictate what's going to work when it comes to mobile.

I've been saying for a while now that I think mobile economics will trend toward web economics as the mobile web goes mainstream. In other words, the business models that work best on the web will ultimately work best in mobile.The corollary to that is that the business models that don't work well on the web will not work well in mobile in the long run.

And that includes tablets. There is some discussion in the tech blogs today about why iPad magazine sales have been disappointing. I don't understand why anyone would ever think that adding a presentation layer on top of web based content would make it something people would want to purchase when they are not willing to purchase the same content directly on the web.

Why would anyone pay for information and commentary they expect to get for free on the Web, asks Wilson.

A central issue with the Internet, no matter what device and presentation layer you use to access it, is that there is an unlimited amount of content available. Evan Williams calls it "a web of infinite information" in this chat with Om Malik. What is valuable is filtering and curation. Restricting access to content doesn't work. Someone else's content will get filtered and curated instead of yours. Scarcity is not a viable business model on the Internet.

Scary stuff for publishers of existing print based newspapers and magazines such as The Economist, The New Yorker, and ALM legal periodicals. Rather than people paying for easy access to your magazine and newspaper content on mobile, they'll be looking for other's content that's filtered and curated for free.

Apple's model of controlling distribution of content (magazines & newspapers) works for the indefinite future. But, as Wilson points out, Apple's period of being "the mobile platform" is ending and it's important to understand what that may mean.

I think it means the mobile is slowly but surely moving to a web model. And as that happens, it is important to think of it as one big web and lots of devices and software accessing it. Lots of devices means billions of devices accessing largely free content and applications with advertising and freemium and commerce and virtual goods and many other business models generating trillions of dollars for developers. Just like the web, but even bigger and more exciting.

What's that mean for lawyers and law firms?

You're in the media business in that you share your intellectual capital via blogs. You've led with content for client development for years, and that will become increasingly important with the iPad, and tablets.

If you think you've seen wide distribution of your content via the Web and blogs, you haven't seen anything close to what iPad, tablet, and other mobile devices are going to enable you to do as far as content delivery and distribution.

Your target audience of clients and influencers will expect to see the type of content you share on blogs for free. Properly filtered and curated, your audience's demand for free content may surprisingly put you ahead of traditional legal publishers, whether they be Thomson-West, LexisNexis, or ALM who are looking to be paid for their content.

As Wilson says, the onus is on developers and publishers like us at LexBlog to filter and curate the best in legal blog content and to build business models that support that. For you as lawyers and law firms, that's great - you get wide spread distribution to your targeted audience.

Exciting times ahead.

Tags: , , , ,
October 15, 2010 by Kevin O'Keefe

Will publishing go to all app, no browser, world?

Once you consume content in an app on an iPad, it's very tough going back to a browser environment.

An app is an eloquent, fast, and eye-pleasing way to read, view video, and share. Not to mention the ergonomics of holding a small iPad having it all over reading off a flat panel on a laptop or sitting at a desk and navigating with a mouse.

I'm confident I'm not the only one who loves this way of consuming content. The below points seem to confirm this and signal huge growth for the delivery of content (text and video) via apps.

  • Apple expects to sell 45 million iPads next year. That type of growth has to dwarf the growth of iPhones when they were released 4 or 5 years ago.
  • The iPad is now going to be for sale in Target and Walmart. The iPad is quickly breaking out of the personal computer/portable device world into the ubiquitous personal consumption world.
  • People who never wanted a computer (not into tech) are buying iPads and loving them. My creative director, Brian Biddle, told me his mother-in-law never used a computer, but loves her iPad. I expect there's going to be millions following her.
  • Bill Pollak, CEO of American Lawyer Media in New York City, shared that he is seeing fewer and fewer people carrying newspapers commuting in and seeing more ereaders and the like. Enough so for him to wonder if the day will soon come when we no longer see newspapers like we do today.
  • Microsoft is already talking of iPad wannabe's. Expect to see PC devices from Dell, HP, and the like that will only expand the app world ala what android has done for apps following the iPhone.
  • It's not the kids who are buying the latest in tech gadgets, it's the baby boomers in the 45 to 65 age group. Not only do these folks have more money to buy iPads and the like, but publishers and their advertisers will see the prime demographic for delivering content to them in this fashion.
  • More and more publishers are launching apps everyday. New publications are even being launched in app version alone.
  • Venture Capitalists are heavily funding new ventures ala Flipboard for the consumption of curated (blogs, Twitter, Facebook) content on the iPad. Expect similar funding for non-Apple operating system apps to follow.
  • The Financial Times did $1.3 Million in advertising last quarter from its app. Publishers will follow the revenue.
  • Amazon sold more books in digital form than in print last Christmas season.
  • Amazon's Kindle is now down to about $150 in price and you have to believe in time more than just books will be read on Kindles.
  • Wired Magazine will start delivering its magazine by annual subscription, as opposed to selling one edition at a time, on its app.
  • It will only be a matter of time before you buy a monthly or annual subscription to a publication's app (because it will be so good) and get the content for free.
  • Huge cost savings for publishers in paper, print, and distribution.

Sound nuts that publishers will forget browsers for delivery of content? Or that we'll move from browsers to apps for consuming content? Things change rapidly.

Publishers weren't clamoring to get their content online 14 years ago. 16 years ago we didn't have a browser. Most of you didn't even have a computer 14 years ago either. The idea of consuming huge amounts of content on a computer was a far fetched idea then - and maybe it is again,

My gut tells me we're moving to apps on iPad like devices to consume content. And that publishers, including LexBlog, will move in this direction for distribution.

What do you think?

Tags: , ,
June 19, 2010 by Kevin O'Keefe

NewsRack : Why publishers need to deliver for third party Apps

Newsrack RSS Reader iPhone iPadI bought an iPad the first day they came out. I'm not necessarily into new gadgets, but I am into the fact that the way we consume and share content is changing at lightning speed. I needed to see what the iPad signaled for the road ahead.

The iPad or iPhone without a good App delivering a positive experience is nothing. With a good App the iPad and iPhone are a wonderful ride.

One App I'm starting to really enjoy on my iPad and iPhone is an RSS reader called NewsRack developed by Berlin Germany's Ole Zorn, and his company, OMZ-Software.

With recent upgrades correcting a few bugs, I wholeheartedly agree with Zorn's description of NewsRack.

NewsRack is a full-featured RSS reader for your iPhone [and iPad] with a unique interface. Skim over the latest headlines on a beautiful rack of newspapers (only iPhone/iPod touch) or use the powerful classic view to read and organize feeds.

The feeds and articles in NewsRack can be synchronized with Google Reader, including categories and even your custom sort order.

With in-app email, native Twitter, Delicious and Instapaper support, it's easy to share the news you care about.

Look at a few screenshots as to why I like the NewsRack experience.

Here's the look as I open my feeds on my iPhone.

Newsrack

As I look at a folder of feeds - this one, legal blogs.

Newsrack screenshot 2

As I read a blog post from Scott Greenfield.

Newsrack screenshot 3

And as I share the blog post on Twitter directly from NewsRack.

Newsrack screenshot 4

We're moving from consuming content on a browser to consuming content on mobile devices, where we don't only view content, we share it -- and network and collaborate as a result. Innovative publishers no longer share content by pushing unwanted content on people, ala newsletters and alerts, but share content as a new form of media, networking, and collaboration.

Publishers need to be thinking about how they deliver to the iPad and mobile device experience via third party Apps like NewsRack for easy viewing and sharing, as opposed to building a portal experience via browsers or their own Apps.

Tags: , , , , ,
March 17, 2009 by Kevin O'Keefe

End of an era in Seattle : Sad day in journalism could signal new beginning for the American lawyer

Seattle PIToday marked the last print edition of Seattle's Post Intelligencer, a 145 year old daily newspaper with more than 217,000 subscribers.

Riding the ferry in this morning I read stories about the last day in the newsroom that began with an announcement that tomorrow's edition (this am's) would be the last print edition of the PI. Tears, hugs, and whiskey followed. A young couple ran from an ultrasound of their first child to be with the only co-workers they had known.

I read columns being being penned for the last time. Each columnist reporting how excited they were when they got a job offer from the paper 20 plus years ago. Must have been like getting that first real law job. The stuff you call Mom and Dad about, being they were the ones who worked to put you to school to become a professional and whom you always shared your joys with.

It was sad to think of an institution like your daily paper going out of business. Journalists and reporters who have played a key role in government and civic affairs losing their jobs with seemingly no where to get a job in a profession they cherished.

Imagine your law firm closing combined with the realization that lawyers are no longer needed. It's got to be just as shocking to those who have been employed by the PI for decades.

The local paper was something kids like me growing up in a small Midwest town held in awe. What could be a better first job than being the local paper boy? Even if it meant Dad helping find the papers to be delivered under 18 inches of snow or helping pull the sled so they could get to everyone's door before they woke.

As a lawyer, you must remember the first time you got a call from the local paper about a matter you were working on. I sure do. What should I say? Do I say I'll call you back so I have time to compose myself? Can I read what you're going to report before it goes to print? Isn't there a legal ethics rule which precludes me from saying anything that's not in a pleading?

And nothing was better than shooting the shit with the local beat reporter who covered local courts while waiting till midnight for a jury verdict. Wow, the stories a young lawyer like I heard.

As sad as it was reading this morning's PI, I was struck by where the PI is headed. They're going online with a staff of only 20. Rather than trying to cover all the news, the PI is going to rely, in part, on 100's of bloggers, both local and national.

Rather than an editor using their skill to cull the best stories, they'll use their skills to cull the best from citizen journalists. First, they'll identify the best bloggers and from there they'll select the best posts to be displayed in an online version of the PI.

Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University and leading commentator on new media whose blog is not to be missed, offered this this morning on our PI going online:

[T]he smart thing to do is not pretend that you have everything, but to link to the best that's out there. If you are better at linking to everything that is important, then that is a basis for user loyalty.

For you as lawyer, especially if you believe in the institution of the press, newspapers going online represent a huge opportunity. Rather than trying to get print with a quote now and then. Replace the local paper's coverage of the law with abbreviated legal coverage in your niche via a blog.

You get your own paper with your blog. In addition you offer blog posts to the online local paper via syndication, or better yet do a 'reader's blog' for the paper covering a point of law or legal question each week.

In a short time, you'll have local business associates coming up to you telling you how they like what you're covering. In time, friends in the grocery store will tell you how they liked one of your posts answering a consumer or small business law question.

Is this nuts? I don't think so. I've spoke to 3 lawyers in smaller towns (40,000 to 80,000 in size) within the last week who we agreed this was the way to go. A local 'law talk' if you will.

They'll have a blog which makes them real, genuine, and part of the fabric of their community. Something they and their family will be proud of. And something that establishes them as a lawyer and a friend. Something that will retain existing clients and get new ones.

So as saddened as I am about the PI this morning, I'm inspired by the opportunity I have to lead LexBlog, which employs 6 people with journalism degrees, to help and empower the next generation of legal reporters - the American lawyer.

Tags: ,
January 22, 2009 by Lisa Kennelly

Reporters live blogging trials: the wave of the future

Live blogging in courtrooms is no longer novel, and it's not going away.

It makes too much sense. As newspapers become increasingly Internet-savvy and social media-friendly, court reporting is an area that can especially benefit from blogging and social networking tools.

A perfect example can be found in the recent tax fraud trial of Cedar Rapids landlord Robert Miell. When the trial was moved to Sioux City, five hours away, Cedar Rapids Gazette reporter Trish Mehaffey saw the potential to provide her readership with up-to-the-minute coverage as well as make the jump to live blogging.

Fortunately for Mehaffey, the judge in question was U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, who is known to be liberal and tech-savvy. He granted her request to sit in the back of the courtroom with her laptop, posting live updates to an interactive blog.

"I allowed it because of my belief that we are the most mysterious branch of federal government and we need to find ways to be more transparent," Bennett said. "Further, federal judges need to use technology and to allow others to use technology to assist in educating the public about our work."

Mehaffey isn't the first reporter to live blog a trial, but she is one of few so far to get approval to do it in federal court. After her success with her first go at live blogging, she plans to do it for all her state court trials and any federal court trials she can.

"Some say it’s subjective," Mehaffey said, "but what live blogging does is give readers the chance to experience the live court action without being there. I’m not editorializing what’s happening. I’m still just the reporter of the facts. But I can describe what I see in the courtroom and hopefully make it intriguing enough for people to follow the trial."

The experience also allowed her to interact with readers, answering questions about court proceedings and legal terms. She received 500 comments for each day of the trial.

Mehaffey is aware of the criticism of live blogging, usually from lawyers who worry that it could prejudice the parties or influence jury members who could be tempted to read the updates. But, she said, the immediate benefits and positive reaction make the practice worth pursuing.

"It’s time the federal courts updated the policies and realize people want news in real time and they have to adapt with the changing times," Mehaffey said. "I’m not sure the security reasons are valid for not allowing electronic equipment and cameras into the courtroom. I understand not taking photos of jurors or of a protected witness but as for the argument that it’s distracting, it isn’t valid."

Mehaffey said she asked the jurors after the trial if she was distracting, and they said they couldn't even hear the sound of her typing.

The distraction issue was the main concern for Judge Bennett, who said he expects to continue to allow blogging in his courtroom and hopes his colleagues will consider allowing it as well.

The biggest benefit is, he said, "greater transparency and openness of the federal court, and real time fulfillment of the public's right to know what is going on in their federal court."

The ABA Journal also has an article on this particular trial, and Kevin has previously blogged here about lawyers live blogging in courtrooms (Denver Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeralyn Merritt) and a case study on live blogging a civil jury trial.

Tags: , , , , ,
January 20, 2009 by Lisa Kennelly

Legal Blogging Discussion Group Roundup: 1/20/09

More members on the LinkedIn Legal Blogging Discussion Group mean more new discussions covering topics from the specific to the basic. Some popular threads include discussions on how to get comments on your blog and a follow-up to the question of how blogging can help business development:

Go to LinkedIn to read more discussions, or to add your voice to the conversation.

Kevin O'Keefe is the moderator of the Legal Blogging group on LinkedIn. If you're already a member of the Legal Blogging group, join the discussions or start your own. If you're not yet a member of the group, you can request to join.

Tags: , , , , , ,

New Media Archives