My Final Words on Blogs, "Blads" and Other Forms of Legal Marketing

Certain legal bloggers led by a couple of people I hold in moderately high regard, are ticked off about what they see as a proliferation of Blogs that are not conversations but are in their not so humble opinions "advertisements". These "BLADS" are annoying to them because:

1. they aren't about substantive issues they are more along the lines of "Hey, hire me I'll set you free."

2. They do not add to the quantum of knowledge or foster discussion about the law and,

3. They ( these "Bladders") make it look like lawyers who blog are hucksters.

I concur with both points 1 & 2 and I understand that those types of blogs are not really helpful. I will also not allow spammers to leave messages and I will not allow "nonsense" on this site.

I vehemently disagree however with the third reason that is put forth against "Blads." I do not see how these Blads effect how anybody else looks at me or my blog, any more than allowing Homosexuals to get married makes my marriage look cheap.

I do not consider my blog a "blatant marketing blog" and I too don't like the "Call me and get out for free" bloggers. On the other hand, I have no problem with someone who occasionally says on his blog, "Hey I do this type of work and I would like your case if you have one." I have said that in the past on here but not recently. In fact I think it is a duty of the bar to let people know there are honest good and hard working lawyers willing to take cases on.

Now I also don't have a problem with the guy who writes for the love of teaching. In fact that is what led me to blogging. I just think that guys who do that, who aren't teachers and who then take cases from the blog, need to realize that the blog is a marketing tool. A well written blog tells people a lot about the author, a lot more than the client learns about a lawyer from solely reading a website or a yellow page ad.

Look, I like Jazz. I like that Coca Cola sponsors Jazz at Lincoln Center. I like that they don't come on before every song and say "Have a Coke while you listen to Wynton blow that horn and smile." I am also aware that if I buy a drink at JALC, I am going to get a Coke product. Now I may buy a Coke product if I am outside of JALC, just because they give money to a cause I care about. Their subtle marketing in that situation works. That type of marketing is not the same as the Coke Commercial during American Idol. One is sublime, the other is in your face.

Now, I don't know of any real blogs, indexed and respected blogs, blogs that have been cited by other lawyer's blogs, that are no more than advertisements for their authors services. I get newsletters all the time from colleagues that talk about their wins and analyze the legal news and mention themselves in the article. I don't consider that sublime, but I don't think it is advertising either, it is in a in between state.

Finally take a look at one of my favorite blogs, DUI Blog by Larry Taylor. DUI Blog is one of the most informative blogs about a single subject that I have ever read. To that end, in the upper right hand corner of Larry's blog is a picture of him as a talking head on Court TV. If you click it, it brings you to a page that says Larry Taylor is the "Dean of the DWI Bar". Isn't that marketing and maybe advertising?

And what of the blog of that great anti-marketer from the Big Apple Mr. Scott Greenfield himself? I notice he still has not explained why I am a marketer but he is a writer, when his blog links directly to his webpage and he even tells readers that reading the blog doesn't equal him giving legal advice, but if you pay him then you may have the advice. Come on, is that not a fairly blatant attempt to say "Look, if you like what I write, this is how you hire me?"

And what of Mr.Bennett's banning any blog(ger) that has a so called "Call to action" on it (The outright "If you want to hire me, click here and it will take you to my website)? I am not offended by this type of blog and I will link to a commentor who has such a blog, as long as his blog posts have some value in explaining the law to lay readers or lawyers. If you have something to say, then I am willing to let you let others know you have something to say by allowing NAY encouraging you to comment here.

Frankly I am tired of this fight. It isn't my fight. I don't care what others are doing on their blogs. I am doing what I want on mine. My blog is a conversation. Anybody who wants to add to that conversation is welcome to do so here. I am aware that what I write is being read by my adversaries, my enemies, as well as my friends family and clients. It is also being read by writers and newspeople. I guess it is being read by potential (and I hope future) clients.

They can follow me on Twitter but they cannot log onto my website from my blog.Does that make this less of a marketing tool than Greenfield's or Taylors blogs? No. It is just a different degree.

Nevertheless, I am going to brag about my victories and whine about my losses. I am going to grab my soapbox and hope it holds me up as I say whatever the "You KNOW WHAT", I want to say. I will let others do that too as long as it is not a flame post, or a spam post, or some type of rubbish that only spammers know why they put it there.

If that means that Greenfield, Gideon, and Bennett don't want to blogroll me, then fine. If they do, that is fine too. Oh and if you leave a comment on my blog, I won't edit away and I won't attack you. That goes for BLADDERS as well as for all the rest of the "non-admitting marketing attorneys who write blogs but delude themsleves into think they are writing for a law review."

The only non-marketing lawyer-blogger I know of, is the person who writes Blonde Justice. She is anonymous. after all the garbage about this topic, I now know why...

You can follow me on Twitter, by going to Twitter.com/thatlawyerdude. Try it, you may find you like it. Oh yeah, please go to the ABA Top 100 Blogs and vote for Blonde's blog, she wants to win, and I like it when Blonde is happy.

More Lists From That Lawyer Dude: Ten Poignant Final Photos and Two Lists of Important Blawgs. On One You Can Vote For Your Favorites!

This is a quick hit. I was sent the link to this site after my blog roundup on Sunday. I love lists. I don't know why. While I was looking around, I saw this list of the last photo's taken of famous people. Though they did not know they would die soon after taking these pictures, there is a haunting aura about them as we know what is about to happen. I don't like to be maudlin, but I liked these portraits very much. What do you think? Have you thought about what you would like to do in your Final Photo?? I

Let me know what you think your's will look like in the Comments Section below.

While we are on the topic of Lists, Two Lists came out yesterday featuring the best of the law Blogs or BLAWGS.
One by E-Justice is called "The Top 50 Internet & Digital Law Blogs"

You will see some duplication with the "Top 100 Blogs of 2008" by the ABA Journal Law News Now. If you go on the site, you can vote for your favorites. I am following about 35 of those blogs in my RSS feed (I use Google Reader for law and news, and Opera Feeds for everything else.)

Do Not Support Mother's Against Drunk Drivers: That Lawyer Dude Responds to a Request for Financial Support

My friend Bob Kraft is a great lawyer and great and giving guy. Why just a few months ago I paid good money to get his rear-end out of jail on bail, as a fund-raising gimmick for MDA.

Bob is a man who not only gives his time and money, but his name to charities. That is why I hesitated to respond when he posted a plea for money on his blog P.I.S.S.D. (Personal Injury Social Security Disability Blog). (Further proof that not only is he a good guy but has a warped sense of humor.)

After thinking about it for a while I decided I could not let it go, so I posted a reply. I repeat it here in case any of my other readers are thinking about wasting valuable charity dollars on a group known as Mother's (they aren't) Against Drunk Driving, a now multi-million dollar fraud on the American public.

Robert I love you but you have got to stop drinking the kool-aid with this one. MADD has gone so far off course that even its own founder won't have anything to do with it.

Money to MADD goes to paying the over-inflated salaries of its humongous staff. A staff by the way which perpetuates itself by making false claims about how many real innocent lives are taken each year by Drunk Driving.

MADD makes more than Fifty One Million Dollars ($51,000,000) a year and pays its executive director over a quarter million dollars a year. Most Executive directors of charities earn far far less. Staff for MADD is nearly 45% of its budget.

Additionally it has one of the lowest efficiency rankings in the Charity Navigator's rankings. (www.charitynavigator.org) Over-all it only has a rank of 2 out of 4 stars. The American Institute of Philanthropy gives it a "D" (A+ is the highest).

The continue to perpetuate that drinking and driving is a crime (Drinking and driving intoxicated is a crime) and they continue to try to lower the BAC for legal driving where in fact there has been little proof that .08 is an accurate figure for such a criminal charge. They also support laws that are designed to keep people charged with DWI and DUI from having lawyers and laws that are designed to further shore up their view that alcohol should be a banned substance.

MADD as presently constituted is nothing more than a lobbyist group they are corrupt and they publish false and misleading studies. They are at the front of a movement to keep real science out of the courtroom so as to support their positions and salaries.

NO BOB do not be fooled. MADD IS NOT A CHARITY WORTHY OF YOURS OR ANYONE ELSES "SUPPORT".

If you wish to follow me on Twitter, log into www.twitter.com/thatlawyerdude. Please be careful, Twitter can become an addiction.