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

Communications, solicitations and advertisements are areas that may be covered by state ethics regulations regarding lawyer's online networking.

Doug Cornelius points out that ethics opinions in two states may limit what lawyers can do in social media and social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn or LawLink.

A Nebraska opinion (pdf) says a lawyer may advertise in internet-based lawyer directory if, among other things, 'no recommendation is made as to a particular lawyer.' An Oregon opinion (pdf) goes so far as to say a 'Lawyer is responsible for content that Lawyer did not create to the extent that Lawyer knows about that content.'

Following this logic, Doug believes lawyers need to monitor what is being said about them in social networking/social media sites to make sure that there are no endorsements or recommendations of their legal services.

Sounds archaic not to allow consumers of legal services to comment on the service of a lawyer they may have used. But I'm not sure legal ethics rules on advertising ever had the public's interest in mind.

These opinions also fly in the face of services like AVVO, a lawyer ratings website, and Martindale-Hubbell, which is now offering client reviews of their attorneys.

A strict conservative interpretation of legal ethics rules so as to hide the ball from consumers of legal services is misguided. Why shouldn't the public have at least the same right to consumer feedback when selecting a lawyer as they would have when buying a new dishwasher? We're all going online looking for reviews when selecting a service or product. Let's move the process of selecting a lawyer into this century.

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

Lawyers are foolishly getting sucked into a discussion of whether lawyer blogs should be regulated as lawyer advertising and, if so, how. The latest example is an article in this morning's Chicago Tribune that Lawyers Face Right to Blog.

The article provides a nice discussion on the ethics of blogging and possible restraints quoting lawyers from around the country, including myself. But rather than jump into such a discussion, why not just recognize that this discussion itself is nuts.

Blogs are just a different medium of communication. Lawyer communications take place in person or via mediums such as the phone, mail, fax, email, websites, and now blogs. We do not need separate ethics rules governing each medium of communication. The same rules apply when talking in person as on a blog.

Sure, many lawyers like to get into esoteric arguments splitting hairs as to the difference between different communication mediums. That's just one of the many ways lawyers prove they left their common sense behind the second year of law school.

Put some things in perspective. I'm sure there were lawyers debating the ethics of using phones. Some lawyers used them when first invented and did a more effective job communicating with people. At the same time I'm sure there were other other lawyers debating the ethics and looking for their state's ethics body to say yes, it's okay to use the phone.

In 1996 when I put up a Web site to market my law firm, I loaded it chock full of helpful questions and answers for injury victims and their families. I worked with AOL to develop on line chats with lawyers and consumers.

I participated everyday in message boards at AOL and then created my own so other lawyers and I could help people. I created 4 listservs so the best lawyers in the country could interact with people in need of straight talk on personal injury, medical malpractice, workers compensation, and employee rights matters.

I didn't give legal advice (just general information for education purposes), didn't do anything where a reasonable person could argue there was an attorney client relationship, didn't saying anything misleading, didn't solicit work, didn't violate conflicts rules, and did not do things which result in blowing client confidences.

At the same time, lawyers were saying why the heck would anyone need a website - and of course that ethics rules would prevent websites and all the things I was doing to try and help people. Heck some 'experts' were saying law firms with web sites would have to put 'controls' on their websites so they could not be viewed in states where the lawyers did not have a license to practice.

I took two positions. One, I was going to follow existing ethics rules. As part of doing so, I read everything I could on the issue and sought the counsel of ethics experts. And two, that lawyers were put here to serve people. I just could not believe ethics rules would prevent me (and a very dedicated team in my law office) from serving people who were starved for practical legal information.

The outcome? We built a virtual law community of legal articles, message boards, chats, listservs and the like covering numerous areas of the law. We moderated the community to make sure that existing ethics rules, not new rules governing virtual law communities, were being complied with. It's now incorporated into Martindale-Hubbell's lawyers.com.

Not once did I stop to ask for permission from a state's ethics governing body nor did I spend a lot of time worrying about them clamping down on what were doing. Neither I nor the thousands of lawyers who proudly participated in that community were ever the subject of an ethics grievance for the work we were doing to help people.

Of course there were the Chicken Littles running around then saying the sky was falling and it's happening all over again with the advent of lawyer blogs.

It's this Chicken Little mentality and the discussion generated from it that is attracting news coverage on the ethics and lawyer blogs debate. Covering a story that no one in the their right mind could believe (lawyer ethics rules preventing lawyers from sharing helpful information with the public?) is highly entertaining. And of course plays into all the articles which cast lawyers and our profession in bad light.

Let's just tell it like it is. We do not need new ethics rules addressing blogs written by lawyers and judges who don't know the first thing about blogs or for that matter communicating with real people via the Internet. And that this cat is out of the bag - lawyer blogs are here to stay. Lawyer blogs break down the barriers between non-lawyers and lawyers, share helpful information with the public, help people evaluate lawyers, and are improving the image of our profession.

No ethics body is going to put a lid on lawyer blogs. Any lawyer who fears they may is screaming the sky is falling.

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

As part of addressing the ABA's National Legal Malpractice Fall Conference this month in Phoenix, I've been asked to develop a list of items law firms should consider in a law firm blog policy.

Here's what I have so far, broken down into elements for each an internal firm policy and ethics policy. Let me know what you think by commenting here or by email. I'll pull together the final list and perhaps even take stab at a sample blog policy - something larger law firms are regularly asking for.

Note that the list gets a little broader than bare-bone policies and into a checklist of items to consider. This way a lawyer or legal marketing professional may feel comfortable that they have addressed the relevant issues when making the case for blogs to the law firm's management.

For Internal purposes of law firm

• Identify who may blog
• Identify technology issues and how they will be addressed
• Software platform to be used
• Graphic design and development
• SEO - search engine optimization
• RSS feed management
• Maintenance of platform, particularly addressing comment and trackback spam issues
• Hosting
• Upgrades - who stays abreast of advancing technology and tests upgrades?
• Backup
• Training & follow-up issues
• Who trains lawyers and staff?
• Who oversees blogging?
• Identify branding as firms or individual lawyers
• ID ownership and who is speaking
• Clearly label copyright
• Blog copy
• General information and alerts closer to email newsletters/alerts?
• Entering into blog/social media discussion by following relevant RSS feeds and referencing in blog posts?
• Posting policy
• Individual lawyer(s) role
• Marketing's role
• Commenting policy
• Generally should allow
• Software set to moderate so comments are approved before go live
• What comments will be allowed?
• Who approves comments?
• Consider impact of Section 230 of Communications Decency Act
• PR and communications
• What, if any, PR and marketing will be done to promote blog?
• How will networking with other bloggers and media be addressed?
• Who responds to media requests of bloggers?
• ID processes for unforeseen issues - probably already in place

Ethics Issues

• Follow existing protocols of firm
• Determine if specific blog rules exist in your state
• May wish to file 'screen shot' of blog with ethic's governing body
• Follow existing states ethics rules, particularly web advertising rules

Technorati Tags: blog policies, legal ethics

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

Lawyers are foolishly getting sucked into a discussion of whether lawyer blogs should be regulated as lawyer advertising and, if so, how. The latest example is an article in this morning's Chicago Tribune that Lawyers Face Right to Blog.

The article provides a nice discussion on the ethics of blogging and possible restraints quoting lawyers from around the country, including myself. But rather than jump into such a discussion, why not just recognize that this discussion itself is nuts.

Blogs are just a different medium of communication. Lawyer communications take place in person or via mediums such as the phone, mail, fax, email, websites, and now blogs. We do not need separate ethics rules governing each medium of communication. The same rules apply when talking in person as on a blog.

Sure, many lawyers like to get into esoteric arguments splitting hairs as to the difference between different communication mediums. That's just one of the many ways lawyers prove they left their common sense behind the second year of law school.

Put some things in perspective. I'm sure there were lawyers debating the ethics of using phones. Some lawyers used them when first invented and did a more effective job communicating with people. At the same time I'm sure there were other other lawyers debating the ethics and looking for their state's ethics body to say yes, it's okay to use the phone.

In 1996 when I put up a Web site to market my law firm, I loaded it chock full of helpful questions and answers for injury victims and their families. I worked with AOL to develop on line chats with lawyers and consumers.

I participated everyday in message boards at AOL and then created my own so other lawyers and I could help people. I created 4 listservs so the best lawyers in the country could interact with people in need of straight talk on personal injury, medical malpractice, workers compensation, and employee rights matters.

I didn't give legal advice (just general information for education purposes), didn't do anything where a reasonable person could argue there was an attorney client relationship, didn't saying anything misleading, didn't solicit work, didn't violate conflicts rules, and did not do things which result in blowing client confidences.

At the same time, lawyers were saying why the heck would anyone need a website - and of course that ethics rules would prevent websites and all the things I was doing to try and help people. Heck some 'experts' were saying law firms with web sites would have to put 'controls' on their websites so they could not be viewed in states where the lawyers did not have a license to practice.

I took two positions. One, I was going to follow existing ethics rules. As part of doing so, I read everything I could on the issue and sought the counsel of ethics experts. And two, that lawyers were put here to serve people. I just could not believe ethics rules would prevent me (and a very dedicated team in my law office) from serving people who were starved for practical legal information.

The outcome? We built a virtual law community of legal articles, message boards, chats, listservs and the like covering numerous areas of the law. We moderated the community to make sure that existing ethics rules, not new rules governing virtual law communities, were being complied with. It's now incorporated into Martindale-Hubbell's lawyers.com.

Not once did I stop to ask for permission from a state's ethics governing body nor did I spend a lot of time worrying about them clamping down on what were doing. Neither I nor the thousands of lawyers who proudly participated in that community were ever the subject of an ethics grievance for the work we were doing to help people.

Of course there were the Chicken Littles running around then saying the sky was falling and it's happening all over again with the advent of lawyer blogs.

It's this Chicken Little mentality and the discussion generated from it that is attracting news coverage on the ethics and lawyer blogs debate. Covering a story that no one in the their right mind could believe (lawyer ethics rules preventing lawyers from sharing helpful information with the public?) is highly entertaining. And of course plays into all the articles which cast lawyers and our profession in bad light.

Let's just tell it like it is. We do not need new ethics rules addressing blogs written by lawyers and judges who don't know the first thing about blogs or for that matter communicating with real people via the Internet. And that this cat is out of the bag - lawyer blogs are here to stay. Lawyer blogs break down the barriers between non-lawyers and lawyers, share helpful information with the public, help people evaluate lawyers, and are improving the image of our profession.

No ethics body is going to put a lid on lawyer blogs. Any lawyer who fears they may is screaming the sky is falling.

Technorati Tags: legal ethics

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