awyers are turned off from blogging by all the gimmicky and inauthentic legal blogs out there.
A lawyer dropped me a note that I had given him much to think about in that he had written much to share with the public, but had no medium on which to publish.
In response to my last post on LinkedIn, he shared,
“I’ve resisted blogging largely because something about most of the legal blogs I’ve seen seems inauthentic and gimmicky. It was hard to see how I could publish information in a real, genuine manner that wasn’t merely a ploy to generate revenue.”
Lawyers seeing what I’d call spam blogs – content written for lawyers, not by them, solely to achieve search engine rankings, as opposed to real and authentic insight written by a lawyer – are turned off.
Most lawyers go to law school to join a noble profession that enables them to serve people.
When it comes to publishing helpful insight and commentary, lawyers expect other lawyers to publish in a real and authentic fashion.
When you look at what “blogs” have become, I can see why lawyers don’t want to be seen as part of the crowd that calls what they do as blogging.
When the Open Legal Blog Archive goes through legal blogs, state by state, it’s finding well over half to be “spam blogs.”
Lawyers are now the exception when they use legal blogging to personally engage people, to help people and build relationships and a name.
Good thing it’s much like a jury trial. Jurors, in this case the public, can distinguish the authentic ones from the inauthentic.
I’ve been thinking lawyers might be deciding not to blog because of all the the inauthentic blogs. Turns out to be the case..