Lawyer blogs and trust : The discussion continues

Law blogs trustThe 'experts' findings that the public does not trust bloggers is drawing real life stories from bloggers that conflict those findings.

I posted a couple days ago referencing Bill Ives' post about how people do trust the person whose blog they read. Bill continues the discussion this morning referencing a couple situations.

One is Associate Harvard Professor, Andrew McAfee, writing on the value of a blog, who credits his blog for his reputation in the IT field that led to his selection as number 38 on the top 100 Most Influential People in IT by Ziff Davis.

Andrew also highlights another example, that being his Facebook friend, Paul Levy, the CEO of Boston’s Beth Israel Hospital.

He (Paul) brought up the same point - that he can blog on issues he cares about as much as he wants. If the topic is of broad interest and his posts are good, they’ll continue to be read and can help shape thinking on the issue. It occurred to me that without a blog, his ability to do this is greatly reduced. Because of his position he might get to write a single opinion piece in the Boston Globe, and I guess his staff could continue to send out PR releases, but that’s about it. His blog greatly amplifies his voice.

And from New York criminal lawyer Scott Greenfield, who's become a trusted legal commentator (whether he'll admit or not):

...It's all about credibility. Who has it and why. There are three primary types of credibility, attributed, ascribed and attained. A snitch, for example, is endowed with attributed credibility, because a cop somewhere says that the snitch is trustworthy. The credibility of the cop is attributed to the snitch, even though the judge doesn't know the snitch from a hole in the wall.

Lawyers have ascribed credibility. We are licensed professionals, having passed a bar exam and been given the imprimatur of the state to be competent to represent people. Our legal opinions, therefore, are theoretically credible by virtue of our education, licensure and status.

But the best credibility is attained. It means we've earned it through our efforts to be credible, to be worthy of someone's belief. After scrutiny of our actions, comments, thoughts and analysis, readers have come to the conclusion that we can be trusted to be accurate and thoughtful. To borrow from John Houseman, we obtained our credibility the old-fashioned way; We earned it.

Sure there are going to be blogs published by folks offering little of value and who don't know what they are doing. For all I know they may be the majority of bloggers.

We even have lawyers and legal marketing professionals who think blogs are nothing more than a tool to achieve high search engine rankings. They don't give a dam whether they're offering anything of value or whether they get their work from a sign on the urinal wall or a blog - 'Just make my phone ring.'

But we have some wonderful lawyers who over a period of time have built up a relationship of trust with their readers. A relationship that is going to serve the lawyer and the public for years to come.

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

Does the public trust bloggers?

The answer to that question breaks along the same line as when people are asked if they trust congress. The answer is no, but they trust their own congressperson by electing them again and again.

The net's been a buzz this week about a recent Forrester report posted by Jeremiah Owyang finding the public doesn't trust bloggers as much as other sources when commenting on products or services.

The problem with the survey's findings is the question asked, 'Do you trust bloggers?'

What what if the question had been, as suggested by Joshua Porter, 'Do you trust bloggers who you read regularly/subscribe to?' Of you course you do. Why else would they read them?

Bill Ives cites two commenters to Jeremiah's post to further make the point. From Jon Montjoy:

Contrary to what you may imply, you are trusted by many of your readers. You've earned this trust by being transparent, by being consistent, by slowly building a reputation, and by the multiple channels in which someone can learn about you.

And from Kate Carruthers:

I think that you are confusing two categories. Of course people don't trust a generic category called 'bloggers' But they do trust people they 'know', and in these days of social networking 'knowing' someone may mean you have never met them in real life. But if a relationship of trust & authenticity has been developed between you & them, then they could trust a blogger.

Thousands of people read my blog. They must trust something I say. I'm not that entertaining.

People put their butts on the line at least once a month asking me to speak in front of large groups. Just received invites to speak at the Texas Bar Annual Conference and to keynote at a Wisconsin Bar Association Conference. I don't know any of the people who invite me. They're reading my blog. If they didn't trust what I was writing, would I get an invite?

Law firms, from solo's to the largest in the country, call me for advise on blogging. The same firms subscribe to LexBlog's blog service. No other way those folks know me than my blogging.

Read the surveys, but don't leave your common sense behind.