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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

As I read a blog post from Scott Greenfield.

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

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

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).

Rex Gradeless: I joined Twitter on November 17, 2008. Hearing about effective uses of Twitter, and social media technologies, made me want to learn more about this service. Initially, Twitter looks bizarre and confusing. After a few minutes, you begin to understand how it works. I joined Twitter because I enjoy learning new things. Choosing a career where I would always be learning new things has always been important for me. That's one reason I went to law school.

Lisa Kennelly: How did you build your extensive following?

Rex Gradeless: I am best known for sending links to others. I send about 15-20 useful, or interesting, links a day to those following me. These links range from topics including (but not limited to) social media, web 2.0 technologies, lawyer tech tips and legal marketing with social media. From there, I began to talk with those in the legal community and build relationships. People enjoyed my links so much that I quickly gained, and have maintained, a substantial following in the legal community. I now average about 200 new followers per day. Maybe it's my smile?

Lisa Kennelly: What have you learned/gotten out of it that you didn't foresee?

Rex Gradeless: The response was overwhelming. I needed to create a blog as a home base for Twitter fast! Most bloggers went from blogs to Twitter whereas I went in reverse! The blog has been incredibly successful. The legal community has help shaped the blog via suggestions from Twitter. This collaborative process is only possible because of social media services like Twitter. Also, the legal community on Twitter is great. They share both their professional and personal sides on Twitter. I appreciate their mentorship more than they will ever know. They don't teach this stuff in law school!

Lisa Kennelly: What has been most rewarding about using Twitter?

Rex Gradeless: The most rewarding part about Twitter is helping others and building relationships. Through my extensive network of followers, I have been able to refer people to lawyers. I can send out a request and get 5 people willing to help in seconds. That's the power of social media. Those in the legal community cannot afford to miss this opportunity. I get to help the legal community learn more about social media and be taught by them as well. The people I have met are astounding. The legal professionals encourage me and give me advice for launching my legal career. I now email some of them on a regular basis.

Lisa Kennelly: How has LexTweet affected your Twitter use (if at all)?

Rex Gradeless: With LexTweet, Kevin O'Keefe has created a place for the legal community to hang out. The site offers a way for viewers to listen in and follow what the legal community is saying. Also, for the new professional to social media, the site offers a listing of those in the legal community so users can follow members of the community that match their interests. I use LexTweet to keep track of what my colleagues are saying and to look for new ones to connect with.

Lisa Kennelly: Do you think it has helped your post-law school job prospects?

Rex Gradeless: Yes. Since using Twitter I have increased my network exponentially. I have been offered a few jobs I was not interested in but will be interviewing for others soon. Because of social media, I have sent four resumes to law firms and lawyers upon their request. These lawyers are from all across the country and they are seeking new litigators. Social media technologies are my hobby; finishing my last semester of law school and beginning my career of serving others is my priority. Hopefully, I will continue to increase my network and obtain a litigation position using these social media technologies. My interview day is every Friday so please tell others to look me up @rex7!

Interested in hearing more? Recent LexBlog Q & A posts:

• Neil Squillante, publisher of TechnoLawyer [5.23.08]
• Bill Pollak, legal published pro and CEO of ALM [4.25.08]
• Mario Sundar, community evangelist and blog editor for LinkedIn [4.24.08]
• Kevin Livingston & Dennis Pfaff, the editorial team behind Thelen's Climate Law Update [4.17.08]
• Anita Campbell, editor-in-chief of Small Business Trends [4.15.08]
  

Or, see our full list of legal blog interviews.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The news is full of stories this year end about the impending bankruptcies of retailers, newspapers, auto manufacturers, banks, and a host of other businesses that have been the mainstay of corporate america for the past 100 years or more......This downturn will be marked in history as the time where many of the business models built in the industrial era finally collapsed as a result of being undermined by the information age. Its creative destruction at work. It's painful and many jobs will be lost permanently. But let's also remember that its inevitable and we can't fight it. Technology and information forces are unstoppable and they will reshape the world as we know it regardless of whether or not we want them to.

The same will be true for traditional legal research, legal directories, and legal periodicals. Martindale-Hubbell, West/LexisNexis legal research, and American Lawyer Media are going to see dramatic changes in their businesses. Some business units will fail and good people will lose their jobs.

The legal industry is getting a pass of sorts for the time being.

• Older lawyers running law firms fight change.
• Lawyers in general feel they are above the fray - 'others may be harnessing innovative technology, but we're dealing with the law. Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, LinkedIn? We're proud to say we're a non user.'
• Courts have not adopted ways to cite free case law and blogs as secondary sources.
• Businesses in the legal industry who do not understand Web 2.0 and social media support with advertising moneys hard copy legal periodicals.
• Though legal blogs are flourishing, there may not be the quality of legal content online we see from the general publishing industry.

As Fred says, the economy in general is killing companies, but it's the Internet which is effecting digital darwinism.

Clearly the economic downturn is the direct cause of most of these failures but I believe it is the straw that broke the camel's back in most cases.

The internet, now closing in on 15 years old in its mainstream incarnation as the world wide web, is in many cases the underlying cause of these business failures.

Bits of information flowing over a wire (or through the air) are just more efficient than physical infrastructure.

Free legal research is coming. Blogs will be widely cited in briefs and court decisions. Online publications and curators of content which we have not heard of will have more subscribers than many legal publications of today. 5 to 10 years from now yellow page and Martindale-Hubbell listings of lawyers will likely be gone.

It's inevitable. The legal industry is not going to be immune from the business failures we see all around us.

Russ Stanton, editor of the LA Times, in an email to Jeff Jarvis: 'Given where we were five years ago,” he email, “I don’t think anyone thought that would ever happen. But that day is here.' I'll add to Jarvis' Amen to that.

Key to the success, in addition to a crack online editorial team? Blogs.

When I became innovation editor in January 2007, only four of our 49 blogs were produced by our staff, and those blogs accounted for only 2% of our site’s total monthly traffic. Today, we have more than 40 blogs, all but six of which are produced by our staff, led by Top of the Ticket, our presidential campaign/politics effort started by Andrew Malcolm and Don Frederick. Technorati now ranks Ticket in the top 60 blogs on the internet. At last count, about half our newsgathering staff — more than 300 professionals — are contributing to our blogs. In several of our traditional print sections (California, Sports, Books, Health, Travel), the entire staff is participating in that section’s main blog. That, in turn, has been acknowledged and valued by our readers. Today, our blogs account for 16% of our total monthly page views.

The second part of the Times secret sauce is education of its staff.

With some help from our HR folks, we’ve set up a 40-class curriculum on how to expand the skills our staff needs in these key areas. The most popular classes so far are learning the software program for posting to the web, headline writing to improve SEO, how to shoot and edit video, and 360-degree storytelling, taught by Aaron Curtiss, our innovation editor.

As I shared last week, blogs are now mainstream. Both for the media and for companies selling services or products.

For law firms, blogs will be acknowledged and valued by your target audience of clients, prospective clients, and the media (other bloggers and main stream media). Rather than continue to kick out your lawyer's intellectual capital in white papers, articles, newsletters, and alerts, why not steal a page from the LA Times playbook for success.

I'm known as an 'information yearns to be free' guy across the net, but as I talk to more people who have had success selling access to content, I'm becoming more open to the idea. Especially when I visit with guys like Broc Romanek, a lawyer, who's one of editors at TheCorporateCounsel.net. Understand Broc's working with a company, with multiple people, and in a full time gig.

In the case of some of the lawyers, there's some meat on the bone. They've been practicing law for years. They're widely respected in their state or nationally in niche areas of the law. They have an appreciation of the type of content that should be freely available on a blog and that for which the premium value may warrant charging for. They have a broad following. And they've thought through the delivery mechanism for the premium content.

Other lawyers haven't got to the second minute thinking through the idea. They have not a clue about web content, or for that matter how the Internet and blogs even work. They're looking for a quick way to make money because they saw someone else do it. Lot's of luck to you guys.

Pat Thornton, a new media journalist, Web developer, and publisher of The Journalism Iconoclast, sheds some light on the issue in his post 'News organizations need to upsell users.'

The idea that news organizations should charge for basic content on the Web is repugnant.

It’s a losing proposition. It’s a terrible, terrible idea. And journalism is filled with terrible ideas right now.

But that doesn’t mean news organizations can’t charge for content. Far from it. Rather, news organizations need to create upsell features.

Pat shares a number of ideas, that though not directly applicable to lawyers, provide excellent food for thought as to what you need to be thinking of if you're going to start charging.

• Content is one upsell area. ESPN Insider, for a paid subscription, offers scouting reports on every player, in-depth trend data for games, and AccuScore predictions on various aspects of upcoming games.
• Another could be business listings. For instance, a local site should offer every business and restaurant a free listing but also offer premium features for a price.
• Want to be able to upload coupons each week to our Web site? Premium feature. Want an in-depth, easily changeable menu for your restaurant? Premium feature. Want a blog to interact with your customers? Premium feature.
• Basic classifieds for individuals should be free, but we can still sell people on premium features. Want your listing to stand out with custom features, we’ll sell them to you.

I agree wholeheartedly with Pat, 'If we’re going to ask people for money, we have to create value. Basic content isn’t that.'