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

I was going to post this am lauding lawyers for well done blogging and encouraging them to continue the cause. Then Scott Greenfield to the rescue with his post challenging practicing lawyers to keep blogging.

I suspect that there's a wave of burnout happening amongst the trench people.  Without any big news, something to grab their attention and make them want to write, they're getting tired of sitting at the computer.  It's not like the spirit of Kevin O'Keefe resides in each of us.  Some need extra motivation to get their mojo working.

With that in mind, I pose a challenge to my brethren in the practical blawgosphere.  Unless you want to see the lawprofs and nutjobs (note that they are two separate groups in my mind) seize control, fight.  No, you don't have to post as much as I do.  I just like to write.  It's my therapy, but it doesn't have to be yours.  Just don't let inertia take hold.  Once you walk away from the computer, it's hard to get back into the flow.

The practical blawgosphere is one of the best things that's happened to the discussion of criminal law.  We've sparred with one another, agreed with one another, but expanded the understanding and debate far beyond anything that existed in the old days.  New lawyers can come online and learn from the mistakes that old lawyers made.  My personal depth of understanding has increased enormously thanks to the insights of others.

Don't let this fade away.

We have so much to gain as a profession and a society by encouraging those lawyers who blog to keep blogging and by encouraging lawyers who don't blog to take up the cause.

Look what we receive personally, as a profession, and as a society from lawyers blogging.

• We make the law more accessible. Who is better equipped to the share practical legal information than lawyers practicing in a niche area of the law? Answering common questions. Sharing what we've seen on blogs and in the news sharing our insight and commentary. It's great stuff never before available.
• Blogs make us better lawyers by allowing us to reach out to experts in our field and collaborate with them. If I'm a recent law grad in New York whose heart is in doing criminal defense work, I can follow leading criminal defense law blogs. I can reach out to guys like Scott Greenfield as a mentor. I tried to do that as a young lawyer but it took trips across my state to legal conferences (when I could afford them). I tried to find mentors, but it was tough and intimidating to collaborate with leading lawyers. Blogs break down those barriers.
• We showcase ourselves and other lawyers to those in need of legal services. Whether a corporate executive or a single mom who's deadbeat ex is refusing to pay support, those in need of legal services can see the lawyers who care about what they do and see their thinking in action.
• Many lawyers love what we do. Why not a way a to share what you love and get positive feedback from like minded lawyers and the public. It's good for the psyche.
• Blogging lawyers are improving the image of our profession. Sending $3,000 to Martindale-Hubbell for an online listing of your two person firm does nothing to improve the image of our profession. Same for buying sponsored links at Google, or putting up a website that's little more than a shrine to the firm's laurels. Good blogs are educational based, they're focused on information, not on us as lawyers. They're everything good about the legal profession.

We ain't blogging about movies, knitting, or sports. As lawyers, we're blogging about about something that's a lynchpin in a free and democratic society. The law is at at the heart of what allows our America society to function. And the law does not function unless lawyers rally to the cause of making the law accessible, explaining how it works, and taking pride in our profession.

Carry on with the cause guys. Keep the fire of blogging alive. And encourage your fellow lawyers to take up the cause. You're making our society a better place.

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

The '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.

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

1. Rob La Gatta: First off, what do you enjoy most about blogging?

Scott Greenfield: The best part of blogging is being a small part of an enormous conversation on things that interest and matter to me. Whether it’s local or worldwide, and amazingly it sometimes goes worldwide, and whether it’s with laypeople or renown[ed] scholars, everybody gets a seat at the table for the chat. It’s incredible what you can learn.

2. Rob La Gatta: What has been the biggest challenge you’ve faced – either personal or professional – since you became a blogger?

Scott Greenfield: It was surprising to learn how many people read, or at least learn about, the things you post. For me, this has included judges before whom I’m trying cases, who make sure that I know that they know that I was critical of them in the past. That little comment slipped in with a wink will remind you that you had better be prepared to live with your opinions expressed online because they will eventually come back to bite you in the butt.

3. Rob La Gatta: I got the impression through your post on the ABA 100 list and the subsequent discussion in its comments page that you don’t blog just to market yourself. Is this an appropriate assumption to make? If so, why do you blog?

Scott Greenfield: Not only do I not blog to market myself, but I find the idea of self-aggrandizing blogging to be offensive. It defeats the purpose of blogging, to have the freedom to express your views on subjects that matter, as well as assuring that you offer nothing that anybody else will want to read. Nobody wants to read posts about what a wonderful lawyer you are or how brilliant you are. If you’re brilliant, show it by posting substantive pieces.

My blogging is solely for fun. I would (and did) write regardless of whether blogs existed because I feel a desire (compulsion?) to express myself that way. I’m a news junky and seem to have an opinion on a lot of subjects. Writing allows me to get it out, and blogging allows me to have others let me know what they think of my views.

4. Rob La Gatta: Where do you see all this going? Do you believe that legal blogs are a fad that will come and go, or do you think they're reshaping the way lawyers do their job (and if so, how)?

Scott Greenfield: Legal blogs are in their infancy at the moment, but I don’t think they are just a fad. On the other hand, I would anticipate that 90% of the blogs that lawyers start will be abandoned within a year. It takes a lot of work to maintain a blog that people want to read, with a steady, reliable stream of substantive work. The notion that you can start a blog that says nothing, or post every 6 weeks, or write only about what a terrific lawyer you are, and anybody is going to want to read it is simply wrong. The only thing that brings people back is substance, and substance takes effort.

I doubt that blogs will “reshape” the way lawyers do their job. They will provide a new, hopefully more interesting, way to keep abreast of new developments, but they are unlikely to have any great impact on the practice of law.

I do think, however, that blogs are gaining in credibility and influence, and may ultimately have a significant impact on both public and judicial thinking. Blogs are suddenly being cited in opinions, and are influencing mainline media stories. This is huge. There is still a long way to go to establish real credibility, but I think this may be the lasting influence of blogging.

5. Rob La Gatta: If you could provide one bit of advice for a lawyer new to the blogosphere, just starting his or her first blog, what guidance would you give them?

Scott Greenfield: It’s all about substance. If you want anyone to care about what you have to say, then have something to say. But keeping up a blog with substantive posts takes a lot of effort. So if you aren’t having fun, or think you’re going to see some direct financial correlation with your blogging, you’re going to burn out quickly and be very disappointed. So either have fun with it or find a hobby more suited to your interests. Blogging isn’t for everyone.

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