Bob Ambrogi made clear in his talk last week that the future of legal journalism is founded on law blogs. Law blogs, rather than treaditional legal journalism and reporting, are now the primary source for legal news, information and commentary.

Law blogs whose content is now being aggregated and curated by LexBlog into a meaningful network of content and contributors segregated by channel, industries and topics. And which content is distributed via the Web, email and social media. 

Rather lawyers, law firms and some legal tech companies hiring public relations and marketing agencies to get them in what they perceive as the news, these organizations are creating the news with their niche blog publications.

No gate keepers. No relying on reporters whose publications are often behind behind pay walls.

Sadly, the vast majority of legal technology companies have chosen not to participate this legal journalism of today. 

If there any one group spending a lot of money PR and marketing an attempt to get coverage, while at the same time producing so little of their own journalism,. it’s legal tech companies. The same legal tech companies heavily represented at Ambrogi’s talk on the future of journalism – founded on the contributions of companies just like them.

Legal tech companies regularly tell me “We’re going to hire someone to handle our blogging and social media, then we’ll be covered. As if a 25 year old employee with no domain expertise on your technology and its role in the industry is going to help.

A credible alternative would be to look at doing six to twelves pieces a year and have those pieces flow into LexBlog and across social media.

You’ll pick up each a company profile page, a personal profile page and a page for your independent publication – a publication indexed on your domain, not LexBlog’s domain.

Need a platform and an independent publication site, LexBlog can do it for you. But we’ll do all of the above, including circulating your commentary, for free.

If this is too hard, then you should revisit why you have a company to start with – or at a minimum question whether you understand news and marketing today.

  • Six to twelve posts a year. That’s six to twenty hours a year.
  • Posts of 400 to 750 words, no one is looking for 1,000 words, unless it’s necessary to get your point across. This is true journalism, not some lengthy word count that marketers are encouraging companies to do for SEO. 
  • Share what you’ve been reading and what it means; answer common questions; share what transpired at a recent conference. We’re not talking seminal brilliance here, it’s what you already know and are observing.

We’d all be the richer having legal tech entrepreneurs as legal journalists. Lawyers, law firms, other tech companies, conference/show coordinators and investors. All better informed, advancements through ensuing discussion and educated buyers.

Straight talk from the people in the know with no intermediaries, whethe those intermediaries are marketing or PR professionals packaging the message for legal tech companies or third party publishers. 

Legal tech companies would be light years ahead. Trust, relationships, and spending much, much less and getting much more when it comes to brand awareness and business. 

Legal tech company could have their own publication for $600 to $1000 a year (LexBlog prices) and have their insight and commentary further reported and syndicated by a publication headed by the dean of journalism and legal tech reporting, Bob Ambrogi.

There’s an awful lot of PR and marketing professionals chasing Ambrogi – and guys like me – to get coverage on behalf of the legal tech companies they represent. Some, unfortunately, with shallow messages that do more to hurt ther client than help them. 

Seems so simple, but legal tech companies, their founders and their marketing/Pr agencies are always reluctant to enter the world of citizen journalism.

What a missed opportunity. 

The future of legal journalism is here and that future has arrived in the form of, according to Bob Ambrogi, its Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, addressing a standing room only audience of about hundred and fifty in Chicago last Thursday evening.

Speaking at the Chicago Legal Innovation and Tech meetup at Skadden, Ambrogi’s passion and vision were keenly on display. If there were any doubters of his message, Ambrogi pushed them over the top with his down to earth conviction in what he was telling us – from his personal start in legal journalism through today.

Ambrogi always wanted to be a journalist. The problem was that the year he started journalism school was the same year as Watergate — and Woodward and Bernstein. Everyone and their brother wanted to be a journalist.  To his surprise, Ambrogi’s application letters to the New York Times and the Washington Post went unanswered. 

Planning to head to journalism grad school, someone told Ambrogi that would be waste. He ought to go to law schoool, because the law was part of everything. 

Though Ambrogi practiced law for a few years, he followed his passion for journalism to found the publication, Lawyers Weekly. A publication with a national circulation that I subscribed to while practicing law in Wisconsin.

To think that I’d some day be working alongside the guy running the publication would have been pretty far fetched.  

Ambrogi went on to lead and run a host of legal publications, newspapers and newsletter services with American Lawyer Media (ALM). The guy was Editor-in-Chief of the National Law Journal.

As successful, profitable and wide reaching as these news publications were, like newspapers, they’ve hit on hard times. Less publications, fewer reporters and editors and far less coverage, per Ambrogi.

As with other industries though, the Internet presented new avenues for legal reporting. But were they the answer? 

LexisNexis owned Law360,  providing sound legal reporting, leaves us with this screen, said Ambrogi, everytime we click to reach their stories from search or social networks. Legal news is behind a pay wall, just as LexisNexis required with previously open contributions on

Other alternatives such as Lexology and JD Supra require publishers and reporters (the lawyers) to pay to run and circulate their reporting. Distasteful to a reporter at heart like Ambrogi, and preventing legal reporting for lawyers who don’t have the money to pay for circulation.

The best and most compressive legal reporting is taking place on law blogs, per Ambrogi. Law blogs have become the leading source of legal information, news and commentary on countless topics. Search for legal news and information and you find blogs.

However there was no where that pulled all of this content from law blogs together. No where to find the blogs, the bloggers and their organizations. 

Though in its infancy as a legal news and commentary site, Ambrogi sees LexBlog as the future. Aggregated and curated legal news and commentary for delivery from law bloggers, worldwide.

You could see the pride in this veteran journalist when he told the audience that there were already 22,000 legal bloggers contributing to LexBlog – with a profile page for the blog, blogger and organization for everyone of them.

Best of all, from Ambrogi’s standpoint, was that it was all free and all open. When Ambrogi threw this slide up to say free profiles and free and open access, the response from audience members was “No way, what’s the catch, you can’t sustain that.”

Ambrogi, and I’ll confess myself included, loved the desire of audience members, many of whom were leading law professors, entrepreneurs and practicing lawyers, to learn more.

They sensed what Ed Walters, the co-founder and CEO of Fastcase, reported first hand – the LexBlog network represented the largest newsroom in the history of legal journalism. 

Perhaps more than the legal bloggers and LexBlog, it’s Bob Ambrogi delivering us the future of legal journalism. And why not.

Ambrogi’s the dean of legal journalism in an age where legal tech and innovation, exactly what he personally covers day to day, is driving the future.

If the cold of New York City weren’t enough, I am headed for another round in Chicago for the rest of the week.

ABA TechShow is what’s in store. Entrepreneurs and innovators on both sides of the aisle.

Startup and emerging growth tech companies run by entrepreneurs on one side. On the other side, lawyers operating smaller firms, who by necessity to effectively serve real people and crack the financial nut, are entrepreneurs in every sense of the word.

I’m at home with these folks. I practiced as a trial lawyer 280 miles up the road in Wisconsin for almost 20 years. I was an entrepreneur as a lawyer and have been an entrepreneur for the last 20 years in legal tech companies.

Having a beer, sharing a meal, and doing business with these women and men who are shaping the law as the law relates to the vast majority of Americans, consumers and small business people, is the stuff that life – and real law – is made of.

Rather than being dominated by large companies, some of whom totally pulled their support from TechShow, large law firms and corporate legal shops (all of which have fine people), as is the case at other legal tech conferences, there’s something real and entrepreneurial about the crowd at TechShow.

Rightfully so, call it innovation and legal tech with large law and large corporations, but it’s not not the same sort of entrepreneurship as where the mortgage and credit card bills are on the line. 

Please look me up if you want to meet, discuss blogging/digital publishing or grab coffe or a pint. I’d welcome meeting, I am not near as bad as some of the large legal publishers may say I am. (Email or text/call, 206-321-3617)

I’ll be there Wednesday through Saturday afternoon. In addition to meetings and me interviewing some of you, here’s some of what I’ll be up to.

Also want to catch up with legal bloggers, including law student bloggers, to capture your experience with blogging for a new show I am starting. 😉

Technologist and the founder of blogging, Dave Winer, blogged this week that if he were the CEO of The New York Times he would start a blog hosting service, with Times branding.

People would know, per Winer, that this is blog space, not editorial space. Blogs would be sources, from which the Times editorial people would be encouraged to quote.

Winer would also recruit people whose ideas were valuable enough to be otherwise quoted in the Times to begin to blog – or at least offer them a blog.

There would be a central place for the aggregation of all the blog posts with the ability to subscribe to individual blogs, all under reader control. 

Winer’s description of a New York Times blog hosting service sounds a lot like LexBlog and where we are going.

We have the service – more expansive than hosting alone. Had it for 15 years.

The last year plus we begin to aggregate and curate the blog posts coming from now over 20,000 legal bloggers.

With Bob Ambrogi, as Editor-in-Chief and Melissa Lin, as Associate editor, on board we’re know working on how we frame the reporting of legal news and commentary – with these bloggers being the sources, I suppose.

Though I have always had a problem with Winer’s reference to bloggers being the source.

No question bloggers are the boots on the ground, often with expertise and passion on what they’re covering. But they feel like more than someone to just quote. They are the reporter, the best and, often, the only source – they are the reporter, not a source to be quoted by a reporter or editor. 

When Winer was reporting/blogging from a national political convention almost 15 years ago, I didn’t need an edotorial person to get me his stories or to quote them, I read them direct.

Perhaps others needed Winer to be sourced for his story to get out. And perhaps legal bloggers need to be sourced for their stories to get out.

Semantics aside, a blogging service, with an aggregation and curation component, is definitely needed today to get us the reporting we need on any subject. Reporting is not there otherwise. 

In Winer’s case, to get us the news that a democracy needs to function. In the case of a LexBlog hosted legal blogging platform and network, for legal news, information and commentary to get out there to both advance the law and make the law more accessible. 

I’ve long looked at LexBlog as empowering legal journalists around the world. I like Winer’s thinking here, even if we’re not in total alignment.

There was recent discussion on Twitter and LinkedIn as to the ideal length of a law blog post.

Lost in the noise was what is real law blogging for business development. A conversation.

Listen first to what the people you want to engage/meet are saying/writing and what is being said/written about them. Then blog about what they are saying/writing or what is being said/written about them. They’ll engage you in return.

You may find the people and organizations you’ll want to engage like this will be the influencers of a lot of people that you want to reach – reporters, bloggers, respected social media users, conference coordinators, association leaders and corporate leaders. 

My company has generated a lot of business from my blog (company was in fact built from my blog), but most of our customers did not find me from my blog posts nor had they ever read my blog.

My company and I built trust and a reputation through blogging, or perhaps better called, networking through the Internet.

Networking in person I have never measured the amount of words I used in talking with people as a measure of success and I’ll not do so online – though I have a problem going long in each case.

I understand there are other purposes for blogs, or for writing on blog software, that being reporting and long form analysis – that’s great and it works for many purposes – including, if done right, building a name and relationships resulting in business development.

If you’re chasing stats, clicks, likes, comments as the true measure of success and developing a word count strategy to get these, things can get confusing. Things also get noisy if you listen to all the marketing advice about the perfect way of doing this or that on the Internet.

Say what you need to say in engaging people, often not your clients and prospective clients, to engage people strategically, and move on.

It’s a fun and rewarding way to blog. 

Bob Ambrogi reported this morning that Axiom, a global legal services company providing legal professionals and technology to legal departments in the largest companies in the world, is going public.

Made me wonder who were the “alternative” legal service providers of today. Companies like Axiom or traditional law firms?

After all, Axiom already has 2,000 employees across three continents.  

A few weeks ago, Frank Ready of Legaltech News reported that Elevate, providing consulting, technology and services to major corporations and law firms, worldwide, is considering purchasing a UK law firm and going public, following the recent acquisition of two companies.

From Elevate’s founder and executive chair, Liam Brown:

We’d rather bring in public company capital so that the management team can continue to control the strategy and direction and growth of the business.

When companies such as Axiom and Elevate were started, they were viewed as alternatives to the way legal services had been provided by traditional law firms. They were labeled and are still called a “Alternative Legal Service Provider (ALSP).” 

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of ALSP’s today. They include LegalZoom down to smaller companies with Apps delivering legal services to consumers and small business people. Services that law firms could either not provide or not provide in the manner consumers expected services in an Amazon next day delivery world.

Thomson Reuters reported last month that ALSPs comprise $10.7 billion of the market for legal services, a compounded annual growth rate of almost 13% percent compared to just two years ago. The ALSP market is projected to grow by 25% over the next few years. Significantly greater growth than the traditional legal services market. 

Rather than label ALSP’s being the alternative, why not call a law firm an alternative legal service provider also. 

On one side you have any argunbaly more expensive, inefficient and tech deficient model run by law firms. 

On the other side we have companies driven by delivering services as efficiently and cost effectively as possible by leveraging innovation and technology in a fashion not hamstrung by the way it’s been done. 

I may be a bit cynical. There are many fine law firms delivering valued services. It appears though that the venture capital and public capital markets view what’s been labeled an alternative model as one that corporations, worldwide, will use an awful lot of for legal services. 

It was Justin Kan, who has raised over $65 million from the likes of Andreessen Horowitz, for his legal services company, Atrium, who said something to the effect, that when he found an industry model based on being inefficient, he wanted in. 

Ambrogi asked Cisco Chief Legal Officer, Mark Chandler, about ALSP’s in a recent edition of Ambrogi’s LawNext podcast. Ambrogi, paraphrasing a bit, relayed to me on Facebook, that Chandler  “doesn’t like the word “alternative.” He is open to any legal services provider who will offer him good quality and good value for the money.”

Law firms, Axiom, Atrium, Elevate, LegalZoom, and consumer legal serveices apps companies, they are alternative legal services providers today.

I am becoming more and more cognizant of the diversity of legal conference panels – especially tech and innovation conferences.  

Sadly, diversity when it comes to the inclusion of women on panels is lacking. This is particularly striking when many of the conferences are put on for large law professionals and in-house counsel, both of which come from organizations championing diversity 

Eight years ago I chaired a couple conferences for PLI (Practising Law Institute). The first thing I received was PLI’s diversity policy. Permission was needed if you were not going to comply with the policy’s terms. PLI runs hundreds of programs with thousands of faculty each year. 

Last week I saw the below tweet from Bob Ambrogi, LexBlog’s Editor-In-Chief and Publisher, who was attending the Association of Legal Technologist (ALT)’s CtrlAltDel Conference.

Manel, as I found out while attending this year’s ALM Legalweek Show when commenting about an all male panel to a fellow attendee, refers to an all male panel. I found out from the same person that Wanel refered to an all white man panel – this would appear to qualify.

Two out of three panels all men. Made me wonder what the make up was for the speakers/panelists for the entire conference.

I checked out the agenda which listed the speakers and panels. Only 4 of the 24 speakers and panelists for the two day conference were women (17%). 

An embarrassment and a slap in the face to women.

And this from an organization that bills itself on its about page, in part, as “A collaborative “think tank” of people with diverse backgrounds focused on solving real-world problems.” (emphasis added)

I shared what I saw in a tweet.

These tweets from Ambrogi and I drew discussion (much more from Bob’s tweet) from leaders in the legal profession, virtually all agreeing with the comments on the lack of diversity here.  73 people liked Ambrogi’s above comments on the lack of diversity.  

ALT responded on Twitter a couple days later, after the conference.

I saw offering the panels up on a first come basis irregardless of diversity as an acceptance of lack of diversity — or maybe facilitating it. 

The response was that the tide is coming. 

Markedly better than ALT, but still with room to grow was Inspire.Legal, held ten days earlier, listing only 10 women among their 27 moderators (27%) on the schedule of the one day event.

Inspire had a separate listing of panel moderators on their website promotion of which 16 of 50 were women (32%).

Curious about ALM’s Legalweek f/k/a Legaltech held the same week as Inspire, I found 72 of the 165 speakers and panelists were women (44%). Pretty good.

I also learned confidentiality that ALM was doing what it could to diversify beyond just women (admittedly all I discuss here) to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and the other differences which make us unique. 

My companies, causes and programs have been far from perfect as to diversity. 

But as we move forward talking of innovation and technology, we need to expect and demand diversity in legal conferences and programs. Afterall, it’s the legal system which champions and defends diversity.

Perhaps it would help to call out programs lacking diversity, asking of the diversity of a panel and conference before agreeing to speak or serve as a panelist or question attending a conference lacking diversity.  

The conferences and the causes represented by the groups here are good. My purpose in posting on diversity was for awareness and asking for leadership on diversity by program and conference leaders — and all of us.

What a hashtag coming yesterday from law blog pioneer, legal tech veteran and now law professor, Dennis Kennedy.

Kennedy used the hashtag in a blog post as his solution to a growing problem legal professionals face when writing for third party publishers – #blogfirst.

I’ve been rethinking my approach to publishing articles in publications. To my horror, I’ve seen links to hundreds of my old articles take people to “file not found” or other 404 pages. Other articles are now behind subscription or pay walls, or can be read only as you navigate through ad mazes.

That was never what I wanted. I don’t think any author would ever want that. I want as many readers as possible.

Then we have people finding a reference, and previous working link, to one of the articles you did for a third party publication in another article, presentation materials or a blog post. They coming knocking.

At best, in most cases I at least have my last draft that I submitted for publication still in my archive. The good news is that most of my articles don’t need much editing. The bad news is that these drafts are all I have to send people, including a recent potential client, as a copy of an article they can’t find instead of the working link I (and they) expected. I’m the one who looks like I don’t know what I’m doing when I send people to a dead link to my own article.

Kennedy is not alone. Bloomberg Law has deleted articles from in-house counsel, AmLaw, in a deal with LexisNewxis, has placed behind a paywall previously open access contributions from leaders in the law, and the ABA, by re-doing their website, has made content virtually disappear.

Website developers apparently look at getting a new website up with some content and looking good as the end goal. Neither the website developer nor the organization or company for whom the website was being done knew what they were doing when it came to digital publishing or cared a lick about it.

Kennedy’s new approach is to #blogfirst

For new articles that I write not done as a favor for an editor or under contract, I will publish first as a blog post. I call this #blogfirst. The post will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). People can use the post as they wish, only with attribution and only for non-commercial purposes as defined under the license. If someone wants to publish the post or a portion of it in their publication, they can contact me to discuss and we can reach mutually-agreeable terms.

Like me, Kennedy will post a somewhat edited, usually shorter, version of his blog post on LinkedIn. I post the same edited version of my post on Facebook. 

I’m with Kennedy that this a workable approach for publishers. And if it causes some extra steps or difficulties for you as a publisher?

…[T]he blame for that lies solely on your publisher colleagues, who seem to have forgotten that it is authors that provide the content that brings the audience that brings the dollars, and that authors deserve better treatment of their published articles than I’m currently seeing and experiencing.

Kennedy’s touching on a bigger deal than many lawyers, law firms, web developers and marketing professionals appreciate. 

The law is a breathing entity. Advances are made through dialogue, citations and discussion. 25 years ago libraries were filled with books preserving hundreds of years of legal dialogue and citations.

Imagine what would have happened if we took the the numbers off the spines of half of the books. Or randomly picked out volumes and cut out 50 pages with a scissors. 

That’s exactly what is happening here with people not appreciating that law blogs are the American Law Review, journals and articles of today.

I look forward to talking more with Kennedy about #blogfirst and asking for his input as LexBlog charts a path to some method of permanent archiving and citation for law blogs. 

Legal blogging is often referred to as content marketing. 

But watching the depth and breath of the law blog posts on our network, I continue to see legal blogging as something so much more important.

Not only has legal blogging democratized legal publishing, but legal blogging represents a body of secondary law. 

I was speaking to a communications and outreach person with a major law school today regarding a project or two. Our discussion got into the significant role that legal bloggers play in our society.

The law exists not only in codes and regs, but in our interpretation of that primary law. The law is alive and continues to evolve and be shaped by this ongoing interpretation.

This interpretation of the law coming from those in the law, ranging from the judiciary’s deciding cases to legal professionals developing secondary law through their writings. 

Traditionally, secondary law – legal insight and commentary – came from the “learned lawyers” who had access to publishers. It was only a few practicing lawyers and legal academics who wrote for journals, reviews, and books. The amount published was minimal, especially as it came to niches in the law.

Legal blogs democratized such publishing, it’s open access now. All legal professionals, via blogs, have access to digital publishing and the ability to create secondary law or, at a minimum, insight and commentary on the law.

Not only did the numbers publishing increase, but the depth and breath of the publishing increased.

Lawyers practicing in niches by area of law and by jurisdiction for the first time shared what was between their ears. Reporting and commentary that has gone on to shape the law.  

I read an article today about Mosul blogger and citizen journalist, Omar Mohammed. Wanting to counter ISIS portrayal of Mosul as a city of death, Mohammed began to publish the ‘Mosul Eye’ to cover the city’s recovery, history, culture, women, health, and education. 

“I care a lot about the future of Mosul,” Mohammed told a reporter for the Deccan Herald. “I believe we are in the movement and have a long way to go. Only when you believe in your individuality, is when your nation can actually succeed.”

The power of a passionate and individual citizen journalist. Something never possible before blogs. Check out Mohammed‘s blog, it’s impressive. 

Blogging lawyers certainly don’t risk their life as Mohammed does in Mosul, but their belief in their individuality as a citizen journalist and commentator on the law is so important to the evolution of law in this country and the public’s understanding of the law.

Not to worry about the law blogs of such citizen journalists and legal commentators working as a marketing tool.

Published lawyers, the lawyers with a name, never worried about getting work back in the the day of limited access to publishers.  It’s the same for the citizen journalists and legal commentators of today – the law bloggers.   

I have been asked by law school professors, placement officers and students for best practices on blogging.

Here’s 17 tips that I believe will make for a more successful law student blog. Expect the number to change as I think of things I missed.

  1. Establish a goal you want to accomplish through blogging. Saying I blogged is not the accomplishment of a goal. Rather than legal writing, set a goal of understanding how to network through the Internet by the time you graduate from law school. Commit to building a name for yourself and building professional relationships through blogging. Such goals land you internships, clerkships and a job doing what you want to do for whom you want to work for upon graduation.
  2. Focus on a niche you can get passsionate about. Blogging on a niche will not limit you from pursuing long term goals later on. Blogging on general legal issues or on a blog focused on too broad of a niche will not work. You’ll not be able to identify influencers in a niche. You’ll not get your blog posts cited or shared. You’ll not build a name nor relationships and you’ll find it difficult or impossible to learn how to network through the Internet.
  3. Find and follow the influencers and thought leaders in your niche and follow what they are writing or blogging about – blogging lawyers, reporters, association leaders, law professors, or even fellow law students, no matter where any of them are located. 
  4. Subscribe to their blogs and publications, ideally via a news aggregator (Feedly is a free, easy to use and the most widely used by legal professionals). A news aggregator will save you a lot of time. Twitter can also be used to follow news and commentary in your niche by following the influencers.
  5. Understand what true blogging is. Summaries of case law, legal developments and legal news on a niche may work for some practicing lawyers, but a law student, and most lawyers, would be advised to look at blogging as a conversation. Listening is more important than writing.
  6. “Listen” to what the influencers are writing and engage them in your blog posts by referencing what they are “saying,” perhaps by citing a block quote and offer your take, why you shared what they wrote or what you learned from their writing.
  7. Let the parties you cite know that you did so. You may do so via an email or via sharing your post on Twitter giving a hat tip (h/t) to the Twitter handle of the party cited. This is the engagement – and it’s also how you draw attention to you and your blogging.
  8. Publish your own individual blog. Blogs with groups of law students or blogs done as part of a class will limit you from learning how to blog, from understanding how to network through the Internet, limit you from building a name and limit you from building relationships.  A law student group blog will be less followed and less cited.
  9. Title the blog, itself, just as you would title any publication, indicating that the blog is published by you. Your blog is every bit a publication. Blogging has democratized publishing, be part of it. 
  10. Get a domain that you own. This way you control your publishing and your body of work. Influence as a legal professional is measured, in part, through their writings – and influence from digital writings is measured by the age of one’s domain and the citations and shares of one’s writing.
  11. Publish on WordPress. WordPress is by far and away the leading content management solution on the web, running 70% of sites with a content management system. Using a managed WordPress host, whether or LexBlog (free turnkey blog solution for law students), will solve a lot of headaches.  
  12. Blog posts are best written in a conversational tone, as opposed to in the style of a legal brief. Blog as you talk.
  13. Blog posts need not be long. 400 to 500 words can be sufficient, though be guided by what you “need to say” to make your one point, more than a particular length. A post of about 1,000 words may be required in some cases, but be cognisant of people reading and sharing on mobile devices.  
  14. Blogging as a law student need not take a lot of time. A blog post every other week would result in over 20 posts in a year and 40 to 50 posts in two years of law school. A post should take two hours or less. Many lawyers take less than an hour to publish a blog post.
  15. Blogging is learned only through trial and error. In law school we learn to do things as perfect as possible – and not to act until we’re ready to be perfect. That won’t work in learning to blog. Subscribe to other blogs, see how they blog, observe the style of the bloggers and reporters you follow, and get started knowing you will blog bad, but for only so long. You will feel uneasy when you start blogging, every legal profession does.
  16. Share your blog posts (or portions of them) on social media (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook), assuming you use the medium, not for the purpose of dissemination, but for engaging people with a relevant interest. Social algorithms lead to engagement, help you build a name and help you nurture relationships.
  17. Legal ethics do not prevent you from effective blogging nor the effective use of social media. 

I hope this is of help and know that as a law school, law professor or law student, we at LexBlog are here to help you.