Real Lawyers Have Blogs : Law Blogs, Blawgs, Law Firm Marketing

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.

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

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:

• How to get comments: London solicitor Shireen Smith asks for advice on how to boost reader presence on her IP Brands Blog.
• Wait! Blogging Works!: Chicago attorney Mark Herrmann's posted a discussion topic last week on blogging as a tool for business development, referencing a Drug and Device Law blog post on the same. After much discussion and debate in the blogosphere, he follows up (and clarifies) with a new discussion topic and corresponding blog post.
• Subscribing to blogs: North Carolina attorney Donna Ray (Berkelhammer) Chmura asks the group for help with feeds; bloggers weigh in with their preferences.

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Those on Twitter might know Rex Gradeless better as Rex7, the profuse tweeter of links on a variety of topics, many of them social media-related. He also has almost 6,000 followers after just under two months on Twitter, good for a No. 1 ranking on LexTweet.

Rex is a strong supporter of the power of social media, with the evidence to back it up. "The most rewarding part about Twitter is helping others and building relationships," he says. "I can send out a request and get 5 people willing to help in seconds."

Rex also blogs at Social Media Law Student, though unlike most bloggers he started on Twitter first and then founded a blog afterward. In his day job, he's a third-year law student at Saint Louis University School of Law. We caught up with Rex via e-mail for this LexBlog Q&A to ask him about his extensive following, what his job prospects look like post-Twitter and what he's learned that they don't teach in law school.

See our e-mail exchange with Rex (after the jump).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes all it takes to get motivated to blog is seeing what else is out there – both the good and the bad.

That was the case for Iowa real estate lawyer Patrick Burk, an attorney/partner with West Des Moines law firm Brick Gentry P.C. When he decided to start blogging at Iowa Dirt Lawyer, it was because he saw not only a conversation he wanted to join but also an opportunity to raise the bar of some of the blogs out there.

"I decided to begin a blog with a little push from my partner Rush Nigut," Burk said. "I held off out of fear I wouldn't give it the time it deserved, but began reading some really good and, frankly, some really bad law blogs and decided I might actually have something to contribute."

It's hard to go wrong emulating Nigut, whose Iowa business employment and franchise law blog Rush on Business has been around since March of 2006 and has made him one of the most well-known lawyers in Iowa.

"I don't need much of a sales pitch to encourage those around me to blog," Nigut said. "I have experienced some incredible success from my blog and others around me have seen that. For those that have the commitment to keep it up and the desire to succeed, it's a natural fit."

All three of the Brick Gentry lawyers who have started blogs – Iowa immigration lawyer Austin Kennedy's Immigration Law Report is the other – say that the rewards of blogging are immediate and tangible.

"The most rewarding part of blogging is publishing a new post and then having prospective clients call you in response to the post," Kennedy said, "to discuss the possibility of hiring you."

Nigut called blogging "much better than yellow page advertising.

"I have always believed that word of mouth referrals were the best way to build a law practice," Nigut said. "My law blog has been the next best thing. It allows people to get a sense of how I might handle their situation and whether I am the right lawyer for them."

For Burk, who is new to blogging but enthusiastic about the potential of his blog, adding his voice to the blogosphere has only added to his engagement in the other blogs that originally inspired him.

"The community interaction has been great," Burk said. "As my awareness of blogging increases so does my appreciation for good blogs. From construction law to criminal law and back to real estate, there are some great thinkers out there."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month I was invited to present on a panel at next month's LegalTech New York put on by Incisive Media, the owner of American Lawyer Media (ALM).

In that LegalTech is one of the premier legal technology events of the year, I readily accepted. It was an honor to be invited. I was to appear on a panel in the trek on how to use 'Web 2.0 Technology to Gain a Strategic Advantage for Your Practice.' The person from Incisive went so far as to say they were really excited to have me on the panel.

A week or 10 days ago the organizers of LegalTech called and for the first time told me that as LexisNexis is the sponsor of the panel, LexisNexis must give final okay on presenters. I took that as formality. I'm known as open commentator on products and services in the legal industry, but criticism of companies has never resulted in my being un-invited from presenting.

This morning I get a call from an Incisive Media employee that they're very sorry but that the panel I was invited to speak on was full. They 'didn't know what to say,' but were 'very sorry.'

I responded that it appears that LexisNexis, the sponsor of the panel, did not want me on the panel because of my recent commentary on LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell so bumped me. I doubt they ran out of chairs. Their response was basically 'can't comment on that, there's a lot of politics involved.'

I'm sure my comments have kept me off programs before. And I'm sure it's happened to others as well.

It's not a Kevin O'Keefe ego thing. I'll go to LegalTech and enjoy the camaraderie and the networking. I'll probably attend the session I was to present at. But there's a much more important question.

Does LexisNexis, via the position it holds in the legal industry, curtail innovation in the legal industry? Consider these points.

• LexisNexis is one of, if not the largest, sponsors of legal industry conferences and events.
• LexisNexis may be one of the largest advertisers in Incisive Media - American Lawyer Media publications and one of the largest sponsors of LegalTech.
• Any innovator in the legal vertical knows that to openly criticize LexisNexis will result in your being blacklisted from speaking engagements at events sponsored by LexisNexis.
• Innovators without huge advertising budgets like Martindale-Hubbell require the exposure speaking provides them.
• Innovation in other industries comes in part from open debate and discussion, often at conferences highlighting the innovators and their ideas.

LexisNexis should begin to realize that criticism from commentators like me is a good thing. You sure don't learn anything from the guys that say you're doing everything great.

Before LegalTech 2008, I challenged LegalTech to do more to empower bloggers to blog live from LegalTech. Monica Bay, editor of ALM's Legal Technology News, commented to my blog post that she was puzzeled by criticsim of ALM in that she viewed the company as a pioneer in legal blogging.

I responded to Monica the same way I still feel.

When I post criticism it is meant to promote discussion and possibly action on innovative items. Generating such discussion improves services, to the benefit of customers and the vendor, which in this case is the ALM.

An open conversation on the Internet involving customers, commentators, and innovative corporations seeking to improve their products and services by the taking part in this conversation is key to an industries growth. With the Web today, marketing is in fact a conversation. And this conversation and debate can be done in a constructive way.

I have an excellent relationship with Monica Bay. And though it's admittedly the result of Monica's work, LegalTech is going all out for bloggers this year. Bloggers are getting complimentary passes and reserved space up front in each seminar room.

Shame on LexisNexis here. For chilling some entrepreneurs from bringing needed innovation to the legal industry. And for giving the appearance you are unduly influencing Incisive Media, which as the leading legal press, should be free of your influence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

My name is Lisa Kennelly and I'm a former sportswriter who's left newspapers and joined the LexBlog team. I'll be bringing you some interviews and news tidbits, as well as links to hot discussion topics from the Legal Blogging group on LinkedIn.

Here's a topic over at the Legal Blogging group that Kevin has blogged about in the past, one that continues to be relevant as more lawyers and professionals expand their online presences: How to get the most out of Facebook.

Like publicity, any social networking is good social networking. But is Facebook a worthwhile time and energy investment to get business or drive blog traffic? Or is it still primarily, as one group member questioned, a "cyber-leisure spot"?

If you're already a member of the Legal Blogging group, join that discussion. If you're not yet a member of the group, you can request to join.

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

Bill Pollak, CEO of Incisive Media North America (parent to American Lawyer Media), and I have been exchanging thoughts on Twitter the last couple days about journalists leaving main stream media (MSM) to go solo. The discussion was precipitated by my views that legal publishing, like we've seen with newspapers, is going to see some upheaval.

I see opportunities for journalists who've lost their jobs or are at risk to do so to start their own online publications. Focusing on a niche provides an opportunity to earn close to or in excess of six figures. I have friends doing so in Seattle. Not only is the potential income greater than working in MSM, but the future is more secure. Being in control of your destiny beats the insecurity of not knowing when your publication will begin layoffs and looking for a new job.

Bill, coming from MSM and someone I have a lot of respect for, questions whether someone can do six figures from online publishing alone and sees a lot of risks.

This morning I ran across a News Entrepreneur Boot Camp being hosted by University of Southern California / Annenberg School for Communication in conjunction with Knight Digital Media. They're looking for digital entrepreneurs with great ideas for community news and information initiatives in the public interest.

Why are they conducting the camp? "Traditional news organizations are floundering as business models collapse and audiences are increasingly turning to alternative news and information sources."

Look at what they're going to cover. This is the stuff journalists need to know how to today.

• Identifying the best business model for sustained success.
• Developing a sustainable business plan.
• Marketing and audience development.
• Content production and management models.
• Legal and tax issues.
• Identifying capitalization sources.
• Developing and implementing revenue and advertising strategies.
• Successful social networking models.
• Selecting and implementing technical platforms.
• Understanding and using metrics.

Digital entrepreneurism is real. Sure there are risks. But everything we do is full of risks. Holding onto the past for as long as you can hoping you'll still have a job is risky.

Veteran journalists. Recent grads. There are tremendous opportunities in journalism today. They lie online and require an entrepreneurial bent. Because most people are afraid of change/risk and don't want to learn new things, the opportunities are even greater for those willing to be bold.

You may not see yourself as an entrepreneur, but if you wish to follow your dreams of a rewarding career in reporting and publishing, digital entrepreneurism is the way to go.

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

As part of excellent Twitter discussion this morning on the future of legal media, Rex Gradeless, a third-year law student at Saint Louis University, pointed out a pending motion seeking permission to Internet broadcast from the courtroom.

Professor Charles Nesson and his team of Harvard Law students have filed a motion to broadcast courtroom coverage of an RIAA trial. Nesson is defending Joel Tenenbaum, who has been sued by the RIAA for $1,050,000 for allegedly downloading and making available 7 songs in a shared folder when he was 17 years old.

Nesson's reasoning:

The judicial process is essentially an exercise in civil discourse. Given the keen interest of the diverse parties following this litigation closely, and the potential learning value of this case to a broad audience beyond, this case presents an ideal instance in which judicial discretion should be exercised under the auspices of the rule to admit Internet to the courtroom.

Per Zeropaid, who reported on the development:

It would certainly be an interesting step forward for the judicial process and solidify the public nature of our courts system in the 21st century. Many cases have a very real impact on us all, yet distance and accessibility prevents us from observing them first hand.

Allowing the case to be broadcast on the Internet would be an important milestone for the judicial process and would no doubt reassert the publics' role as observers of the administration of justice in this country.

Exactly. This is the future of legal media.

Like citizens reporting on what is going around them and having it broadcast on CNN, lawyers and lay people will report from the courtroom on cases of interest to them. The Internet broadcasts will be empowered and spread to a wider audience by legal publishers, broadcasters, and curators of legal content.

Access to America's courtrooms is key to our democratic society. It's shocking as a lawyer to see how much the public does not know. Powerful information and facts disseminated in courtrooms across the country everyday never reach the public.

The Internet and evolving Internet publishing and broadcast tools are the key to providing the public meaningful access to public information they are effectively deprived of today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Martindale-Hubbell, dealing with a crisis to a core element of their product offerings (lawyer ratings), showed the legal industry they are ill equipped to participate in social media.

Martindale-Hubbell did respond to Internet discussion (blogs and twitter) that the company may be eliminating its long standing lawyer ratings. Despite laying off all of the commpany's ratings specialists, Martindale says it has Big Plans for Martindale-Hubbell Ratings.

Problem is that Martindale-Hubbell responded with a blog post that is little more than marketing spin and refused to participate in Internet discussions with its customers. From the language in a National Law Journal article reporting on the subject, Martindale issued the same response as a 'written statement' to the media.

Look at some of the language in the Martindale blog post. Could you imagine someone who understood blogging and social media using puffery like this?

• Industry's most complete, objective and reliable ratings.
• Broad and ongoing transformation of [company] offerings.
• We are very excited about this new, robust ratings...
• [I]nformation only Martindale-Hubbell is uniquely equipped to provide.
• [M]oved to a team support structure for more effective and efficient ratings services to clients.
• To provide even more focus, we will name a new VP/ Product Champion of Ratings...
• We are adding a product marketing team for a more consistent flow of information and wider communication and we have expanded the current responsibilities of our inside Ratings Support team.
• [R]est assured we are still committed to our rich ratings tradition...
• [W]e still consider our ratings to be the gold standard in the industry...
• We've got big plans for Martindale-Hubbell Ratings - stay tuned.

And then for Martindale to say:

...[W]e continue to communicate with clients about all of the changes at Martindale-Hubbell, and as recently as last week we communicated our new ratings support strategy.

Doesn't look like Martindale communicated news of the changes to Heather Milligan, director of marketing at Los Angeles-based Barger & Wolen, whose blog post first reported the lawyer ratings specialists layoffs. Milligan received an email directly from one of the fired ratings specialists, a group she described for the National Law Journal as 'long-term lifers with Martindale-Hubbell.'

In addition to blogs, Twitter discussion on Martindale's possible elimination of ratings, and Martindale's value in general, was rampant.

The only Twitter response came from Jon Lin, Director of Product Management at Martindale-Hubbell.

I don't represent Martindale here, just myself, so you won't hear too many MH views. Sorry to disappoint.

The response to Martindale's traditional PR response has not been kind.

The National Law Journal, responding to Martindale's statement, acknowledged 'Martindale-Hubbell ratings have been highly regarded in the past,' but reported 'These days, though, general counsel can check out attorneys a lot more easily than in the past via Google, the Internet and blogs.'

New York Attorney Scott Greenfield, whose blog is one of the most widely read on the net, says it's anyone's guess what Martindale-Hubbell means in saying it's 'fully committed to continuing the ratings, plus a whole lot of other new initiatives that will bring transparency by practice area, narrative feedback and validated data from third parties that provides examples of an attorney's experience.'

After cutting through the rhetoric, I believe that this means they fired all the ratings people and replaced them with marketing people, who will now spread out across the country to bring us transparency through marketing. After all, there is no better way to "meet client needs" then sell them stuff.

There's a dozen or more negative blog comments about Martindale and its ratings by lawyers at Greenfield's and my blog posts on the subject.

And the response to Martindale's statement from lawyer influencers on Twitter has been equally unkind to Martindale.

• Big Plans for Martindale-Hubbell Ratings? Nice if they could speak English, not 'corporate talk.'
• I, too, have pulled my ad from Martindale-Hubbell. An entire year, NO clients and only a handful of visitors.
• I pulled my Martindale-Hubbell subscription last year. They've become as relevant as a paper map in a car with GPS.
• Who cares @ Martindale-Hubbell? Doubt any client of mine has ever heard of it or seen it.
• Martindale-Hubble's AV rating for me has never done a bit of good. Results for clients counts!!

After Martindale's response do I expect them to continue ratings? Sure.

But what we've seen here is a total failure of a company that wants the legal profession to believe Martindale is a leader in client development for law firms.

If LexBlog was the brunt of negative Internet discussion it would have been a four alarm fire for us. I would have been actively posting on my blog, commenting on other blogs and using Twitter to get the truth out. I would never have considered sending a 'written statement' filled with PR spin to the National Law Journal and also allowing that to served as a blog post. And after doing so, I would not have considered ignoring ensuing Internet discussion.

Informed client development companies today know you can't have someone who is at the core of the company's offerings (Director of Product Management), respond to Twitter discussion about your company's products with a 'you won't hear company views from me.'

Sure it's hard for large companies to adapt to social media and the transparency the Internet demands today. But strong corporate leadership requires staying abreast of changes and developing new policies. It requires a realization that marketing today requires participating in a conversation with your customers. Martindale-Hubbell has failed here.

Upon seeing Martindale's response, I was originally going to just update my original post. But I feel an obligation to comment on a company's failures when the company wants American lawyers to see them as a leader in Web 2.0 and to charge accordingly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (13)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link