A Young Lawyer Rages Against All This "Ethics" Crap

Back in June (which is a lifetime ago in the blawgosphere), Scott Greenfield wrote about young Rachel Rodgers.

His motivation for the post was my tweet of what Greenfield referred to as a "cheerleading post" on solo practice.

A brief history on solo practice:

Used to be that lawyers would work for someone and then go solo. Now there's no jobs so lawyers are going from law school graduation, right to the computer to create their law firm twitter account and Facebook fan page, and presto - a practice is born with an "experienced, aggressive" attorney. Today we fake it until we make it, as the marketers encourage young lawyers to do.

Back to the post.

It was a post about all the wonderful things about solo practice, and it highlighted Rachel:

The 2009 Cardozo School of Law graduate spent a year clerking for a judge and then decided to start her own firm while working a part-time job at a law firm. She was laid off after they ran out of work for her to do, but her unemployment gave her the push she needed to dedicate more time and effort to building her practice.

OK. Sounds good.

By working from her home in Phoenix, Ariz., and using her website as her storefront, she manages to keep overhead costs less than $500 a month. Her virtual office allows clients to log into her website and, like a bank’s secure online system, send information back and forth between her clients.

Nice, for those clients who don't want to meet their lawyer face to face, don't want an office to visit, don't want to see where and how their files are being managed, and completely trust the confidentiality and total complete rock solid privacy of the internet.

“There have been times when I’ve woken up in the morning and I have new clients,” she said. “They’ve found me online somehow and I’ve never had any interaction with them, but now they’re my clients. It’s pretty sweet.”

New clients, no interaction with them. OK.

Rodgers is catering to other people like herself— burgeoning first-time entrepreneurs, some of whom have been laid off due to the poor economy.

Clients who have been laid off. They are signing on to hire a lawyer over the internet for what, exactly?

And of course: She... maintains a blog, writes on other blogs and stays active on her Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Cue the tribute to the almighty social media:

“Twitter has helped me be on the cutting edge. I know what’s going on right when it’s happening,” she said. “Also I work in my office by myself most days, so it’s like these are my coworkers. That’s who I interact with throughout the day. It helps me not to be so lonely.”

The cutting edge of what? Weather? Plane crashes? What exactly, please tell us unknowing, old, stick in the mud lawyers, what is going on "right now" on twitter? Did Justin Bieber fart again?

And of course, when we talk solo these days, we never find Solo Practice University too far away, an online collection of lawyers (practicing and non practicing and even one who is referred to as a "practicing attorney" but isn't, but who cares?) and social media consultants ready to teach solo practice over the internet.

Rodgers credits her success to the confidence she gained from the clerkship and to Solo Practice University, a subscription-based website founded in 2009 that offers video, written and audio tutorials for prospective or current solo practitioners.

Must be why Solo Practice University went into a frenzy tweeting out Rachel's rant yesterday.

So after this post appeared, Greenfield wrote about it and took a minute to discover this solo practice wonder kid.

Now remember, this was June.

He found this about the 2009 graduate:

Rodgers has her law office in Arizona, though she's not admitted to practice law there.

She claims: Rachel has developed expertise in various areas of alternative dispute resolution including negotiation, mediation and arbitration.

Then Greenfield wondered whether she actually practices law, you know represents clients, those things that lawyers do?

He asked this because he found this on her site:

Want to Go Solo?

Are you a law student looking to start developing a strategy to go solo upon graduation?

Are you a new law graduate having trouble finding employment?

Are you a lawyer ready to go solo and wondering what area of law to practice?
Would you love to have your own practice but not sure how to obtain clients?

I am contacted every week by law students and lawyers who are struggling due to a tough job market and are wondering how they’ll pay off their loans, practice the type of law they always hoped to and have the type of lifestyle they always wanted. I have spent the last two years researching, planning and then building my own unique law practice and have been able to bring it to a place of profitability while also meeting my lifestyle needs. I believe that you can do the same.

I Can Help!

You can build the law practice of your dreams and I can help! I provide consulting sessions for lawyer-entrepreneurs wanting to set up their own innovative, tech-savvy law practices. For many lawyers (especially recent law grads), entrepreneurship is the only way that they will be able to practice law and do so in a way that fits their lifestyle and philosophy. I understand this dilemma as I am also a recent law grad. I will help you develop a strategy and actionable plan to get your solo practice off the ground.

Now that was June. It's August. Since June, I haven't heard Rachel's name. Apparently though, she's been getting very very mad about things she's read.

So she basically went on a hysterical rant that the happysphere of online lawyers blew kisses to, while others questioned what she was talking about, and told everyone who is not a young lawyer looking for the magic bullet to shut up about ethics and go to hell, meanies:

Let me start off with a warning that as I write this column I am angry. I’ve decided enough is enough and am now willing to address this issue, and the attorneys who do what I am about to describe, head on.

Then she asks a bunch of questions:

Why would young lawyers be against being ethical? Because we have an online presence? Because we, dare I say it, actually market our practices to potential clients? Because we have the nerve to start law practices after completing law school and passing our state bar? Or because we practice law in a non-traditional way?

I can answer that.

No Rachel, because lawyers like me have caught many "fake it til you make it" young lawyers lying about their experience in order to get both clients to hire them and lawyers to use them as consultants. That's unethical.

It's not unethical to claim that 2 years after graduating law school a lawyer can help other lawyers build the practice of their dreams. It's merely ridiculous bullshit that only the naive and desperate would believe. But it's not unethical.

Rachel is also mad (but is afraid to say at who) because:

I have been accused by ‘more experienced’ colleagues’ of being an unethical attorney simply because I practice law online or because I practice law in a state where I do not live...

No dear, you were accused of PRACTICING LAW IN A STATE WHERE YOU ARE NOT ADMITTED. HAVING AN OFFICE SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE BAR OR NOT HAVING AN OFFICE IN A STATE WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN OFFICE.

That's unethical, if it's true. I'm sure it's not. I'm sure she'll be here in a few minutes to explain, as will her happy following of fans.

Rachel's rant includes some prolific statements, like:

Well, too bad! Too bad that you do not understand.

Then there's:

What further toasts my muffins about the so-called unimpeachable ethics of some highly critical, experienced attorneys is that they themselves could certainly take notes from younger attorneys about professional ethics.

Rachel's rant against old rigid lawyers who fear the iPad and too much coffee at Starbucks while researching the newest social media site, then reveals the point:



In conclusion, my point is this: Experienced attorneys stop trying to scare young lawyers half to death with your scary ethics anecdotes about lawyers who were disbarred or suspended due to unethical behavior.

Scary ethics anecdotes.

Like stories of young lawyers who took on cases for which they had no business taking and got disbarred? Like stories of young lawyers who didn't know how to maintain a trust account and got disbarred? Like stories of young lawyers who were suspended for lying about their credentials?

Boo.

Rachel, listen, like you (say), I get calls "every week" from young lawyers with ethics questions. I answer them. I never "scare" them in to not opening their own practice. Never.

Social media has created a new level of "truth," in general, and in the practice of law. Old lawyers are not to blame, young lawyers are not to blame. Generalities never work.

But the truth, Rachel, is that the current state of the legal economy has caused young lawyers who can't get jobs to blow their brains out on the internet, practice in non-traditional ways, and lie, yes, lie to get clients. People do weird things when money is on the table.

And when a young lawyer calls me after committing an ethics violation because they "didn't know" they couldn't do what their marketer or online work at home lawyer consultant told them, I always wish they would of called me before they screwed up.

So I could scare them.



Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Former BigLaws Have Pinnacle Level Knowledge, Maybe

This "Solo is the new Soho" post is making it's way around the blawgosphere. Lawyers are passing it on as a "must read." I wonder if some of them read the article, or just the title. It's always nice to jump on a trend.

I guess some of those passing it on arehappy to be passive in watching the former BigLaw PR machine get to work, to the detriment of solos everywhere.

The post is written by Bob Ambrogi, a man I well respect as an author and blogger.

His "Soho" theme is described as:

"If solo practice was a neighborhood, trendy restaurants would be opening next to long-established pizza parlors and coffee shops. A small art gallery would be setting up shop next to the old corner bar. Apartment buildings would be turning into co-ops and young urban professionals would be snapping them up. As big firms slice jobs, solo is suddenly hip, it seems.

Bob goes on to say what we all knew would happen:

"The National Law Journal reports this week that starting their own firm is becoming layoff option number one for many lawyers who see pink slips coming their way."

Then I'm stopped dead in my tracks:

Technology consultant Ross Kodner has come up with a name for this new breed of large-firm refugees who start their own firms -- the BigSolo. "These folks aren't ordinary solo practitioners in the way we've come to think of the category ... BigSolos have pinnacle level substantive knowledge in their single chosen practice area," Kodner says.

What? Is this the beginning of the former BigLaw PR machine? "Hire us as solos, we're better than what's out there."

I'm all about survival, but this continuation of lawyers eating their own does nothing for our reputation in the world.

Anyone who thinks there is an advantage to hiring a former BigLaw-turned-solo-out-of-desperation, who has never even made their own coffee, put paper in the copy machine, set their own deposition, interviewed a new client, negotiated a fee, written a letter, is, well, probably a typical gullible potential client all caught up in the wonder of it all. "Ooooh, you used to work in one of those big firms?" "I want you!."

After a few hours of outrage over this asinine comment, comments to the post confirming my perception of what was said, Ross Kodner explains he was taken out of context.

And he was, kind of.

Ross explains:

".....the quote doesn't accurately present my view and definition of BigSolos, as is evidenced by some of the comments to your post. The full "SmallLaw" column from Technolawyer.com is at http://blog.technolawyer.com/2009/02/smalllaw-bigsolo.html. At a minimum, it's critical to finish the thought you posted - where I said that while a BigSolo might have "pinnacle" level substantive knowledge, most have little or no knowledge of running a law practice as a business. And to address one of the commenters, I did NOT mean to imply that ALL BigSolos have "pinnacle level knowledge." The ones I've worked with do seem to be at that level, however."

Ross, I'm still confused.

What is "pinnacle level knowledge?" How does one get that at BigLaw and not in solo practice, or is that not what you are saying either?

Are you saying that a 10 year solo practicing in a specific niche is not at the level of the 10 year former BigLaw who practiced in a specific area?

I understand your full comment was not printed in Bob's post and the important point that former BigLaws have no idea how to run a practice was left out. However, I am still wondering about this "pinnacle level knowledge."

The way I see it, this is just the beginning of the former BigLaw PR machine that is directed at trying to convince an unknowing public that now that the former BigLaws have arrived in our world, we are blessed.

Finally blessed with lawyers with "pinnacle level knowledge."

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

A Reader Sees Hypocrisy On Going Solo

Hey:

You've done several recent posts that seem to encourage solo practice, contrary to your advice to me when we first met. Personally, as one of those people "you reading this from a couch, or a Starbucks, lamenting why no one thinks you're entitled to a career," I've considered it. But let's be real: there are a lot of barriers to entry. Even in the otherwise heartwarming story you posted the other day about the guy doing foreclosure defense, the punch line is the legislature just made it much more difficult for him to get paid.

How about writing a post that explains some of the basics of learning your trade--CLEs? treatises? Setting up your business structure, bank accounts, malpractice insurance, good practices etc?

Busted.

So let me see if I can get myself out of this mess.

First, as to the second part of the reader's email: Here's a bunch of posts I've written on solo practice.

To sum it up:

First figure out what type of law you want to practice.

I know when I say that, most of today's law school graduates respond: "But I never went to law school to become a certain type of lawyer, I just went for the paycheck at the end. Whatever type of law that is - that's what I want to practice."

As to the first part, no, I don't advocate solo practice out of law school. I also don't advocate that if you cut yourself and are bleeding, that you urinate on the cut to sterilize it. However, if you have no other options, it's probably better that you do that, then allowing yourself to become infected. Exploring the option of solo practice, rather than playing video games while waiting for Oprah to start or hoping someone at Starbuck's notices you typing feverishly on your laptop and offers you a job, is the better move.

If you explore the solo path, and it doesn't work for you because you don't feel competent to go solo, or it doesn't interest you because you believe the hype of BigLaw that solos are somehow less of a lawyer than those who pray to the mahogany and billable hour God, then here's my advice: If you went to law school to get a job and you cannot get that job, get another job. Yes, do something else. While I know that most lawyers are perceived to have no other interest than law, I bet there is something else you can do, even if it's not exactly what you wanted to do. I know that is a foreign concept to those who feel entitled to a specific job, but it's better to pay your bills, then have someone else pay them while you wait for the job that you thought was guaranteed at the end of your 3 year yellow brick road.

Thanks for writing (and I won't tell anyone that you are doing other things to pay the bills right now, it offends those who won't).

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Does The Bar Pick On Solo Practitioners?

This question has been pending for years. It's also a discussion not limited to Florida.

My opinion, state Bar associations do discipline solo practitioners more than big firm lawyers, and for good reason.

About a year ago Mike McKee over at the Cal Law Blog addressed this issue.

He mentions several reasons, but two that I believe are at the cornerstone:

"Solos and small-firm attorneys make up 70 percent or more of all lawyers in America and, therefore, by sheer numbers alone rack up more discipline cases."

"They also tend to represent unsophisticated clients who don’t understand the legal system and file more complaints."

Here's the deal, big firm clients tend to be....big firms, corporations, highly sophisticated people who use lawyers as a matter of course and have no use for the Bar discipline process. They'll sue if the lawyer's mistake is significant, not look for a discipline case that will not bring with it a monetary judgment.

Solo practitioners mostly represent small business people or individuals who have mroe direct contact with a particular lawyer and are more sensitive about fees and communication. Big firm clients know their lawyer as the name of the firm, not the name of the lawyer.

Additionally, solo practitioners tend to be less organized and subject to missing filing deadlines and court appearances, and many times take on too much work to concentrate on the client's needs.

So for all the conspiracy theorists, the answer is yes, state Bar associations do discipline solo practitioners at a higher rate, just not for the reasons you may think.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

Selling Solo Practice

Solo Practice "University" (SPU) queen Susan Cartier Liebel is "grumpy" that a law firm is offering $10,000 as a salary for a lawyer.


Susan asks:

Has the legal market become so bad that lawyers are actually considering taking a 'full-time associates' position which pays $192.30 a week….before taxes?

Um, Susan, I assume since you sell the dream of solo practice to young desperate lawyers you are aware that many of them can't get a job, anywhere, for any amount of money.

And here comes the sales pitch commentary on the low-paying job:

I once heard someone say that most people are not afraid of failure so much as they are afraid of success. At first blush I'm sure many of you are shaking your head and saying, 'hell no. I want to be successful. No doubt in mind. I just need the opportunity and I'm there.'

Success, opportunity, oh dear, wherever can I find this success and opportunity?

That's really what we do think. We want to be successful. We also fantasize about everything we will do with that success (which usually means having a certain amount of money to buy those things symbolizing our success – whatever that is. Maybe food?)

Success, fantasize, money, tell me more.....help me....

But most people are not trained on how to achieve success. We are trained to want and we are trained to be employees and travel a well-worn path to get 'somewhere' known and seemingly safe. And for some this is exactly what is wanted, to follow a well-worn path with guideposts and guaranteed results. It's also why in practically every industry and profession people are panicked because the well-worn paths are no longer leading to success but to no place even resembling the mythical land of promised success.

Training...wanting.....panicked....mythical land of promised success.... I can't take it anymore...tell me how to make money, to be successful, to have........

That is why I had to comment on the latest buzz which is about a legal job posting on Boston College of Law's job site for full-time law associates paying $10,000 per year.

That is why? What is why? Oh, here it is....drumroll......

We are so ingrained to believe employment by another is the answer that we don't realize (nor are we told) there are other ways!

Yes! There are other ways! Is it...is it going solo? Can you help me Susan?

Now Susan wants "to be fair" about this $10,000 job, so here's the whole story:

In addition to $10K per year, the Gilbert & O’Bryan job posting also notes: 'This is an excellent position for a new lawyer or someone returning to a legal career, and a good place to learn how to practice law with real clients. … Benefits include malpractice insurance, health insurance, employer paid clothing allowance and an MBTA pass. Former employees have gone on to prominence in other firms, government and private practice.'”

Learn how to practice law with real clients? Health insurance? Clothes? Transportation? Don't you get that all when you sign up for SPU?

Susan still doesn't like it: "I'm deeply offended by the law firm who doesn't respect fellow lawyers enough to offer a living wage."


You see, the less firms out there offering jobs, offering anything, the more desperate young lawyers become, and the more desperate they become, the more willing they are to jump on the internet and pay for advice.

SPU is a website that sells courses to lawyers that want to go out on their own. They've had "professors" teaching things like blogging for profit (Former Professor Grant Griffiths who was disbarred for taking money from a trust set up for children prior to taking his new gig at SPU), and adoption (taught by a lawyer later arrested in a baby selling scam)

Susan's also been generous enough to give a forum to a young lawyer whose ethics were under the microscope for silly things like not having an office where she practices.

Jobs at law firms are bad things to SPU, as they cause lawyers to decide between buying advice on the internet, or learning to practice with real lawyers.

Susan has good news though about going out on your own, and I'm sure she'll put this in writing for you when you sign up for SPU:

"I'll wager you'll earn more than $192.30 per week before taxes. And you'll certainly get a lot more 'experience' putting your degree to use on your terms without losing your dignity."

Yeah, I wonder how? maybe by...charging less than other lawyers? That's OK, right? It's just not OK for a law firm do to the same thing when offering a job.

"On your terms," isn't that what all young lawyers yearn for - doing what they want, how they want. Of course there's no examples anywhere on how that could be a collosal mistake, or at least when we're selling advice on the web we quietly avoid mentioning it.

Gotta protect your business.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.


Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Stop Bashing BigLaw?

My friend Eric Cooperstein over at Lawyerist wants us to stop bashing BigLaw.

Why?

He says : "I am a solo and if large law firms crash, I am going to end up covered in dust."

He acknowledges "biglaw has a reputation for some qualities that give the law a bad name — high fees, leveraging associates to increase partner salaries, huge billable hour requirements, and lousy work / life balance, to name a few of the popular gripes."

"But biglaw suits some lawyers," he rightly states.

He notes that small firms/solos have their good and bad:

The smalls, in contrast, love to tout their personalized attention to clients, reasonable fees, individual autonomy, and great work / life balance. But not all smalls are good at bringing together the myriad of skills it takes to run a law practice. Most smalls practice some form of “retail” law: criminal, family, personal injury, workers comp, small business, real estate. Often the clients are high maintenance and the income stream equally unstable.

Eric is right that "individual clients; these folks need smalls," and that:

"A large company with millions of dollars on the line looks for a brand name, the vetting of associates and partners, and the ability to quickly put together a team of lawyers to tackle major litigation or a huge transaction."

Then he tries to put this all together in a tied with a small bow on why "we need each other."

He says Biglaw has conflicts and needs to refer out clients and cases. He also says that:

"Biglaw’s corporate clients are managed by people — who get divorced, have too much to drink before driving home, get into accidents, etc. Many of those matters need to be referred out. Smart lawyers refer clients to good lawyers they know who are reasonably priced and will treat the client well — like smalls."

He also says we need each other because:

"Biglaw attorneys are a great source of referrals for smalls. Also, when a case comes in that is to big for a small to handle, the small firm needs to bring in some muscle. Obscure questions may arise in a client’s case that need special expertise that can be found only at a large firm. Relationships with biglaw are a two-way street."

I've written about Biglaw here countless times. I never worked in Biglaw. They weren't hiring law students that wanted to be criminal defense lawyers (still aren't) because they tend to have that one "white collar" lawyer who mainly has associates review documents (bashing). Biglaw doesn't practice "street level" criminal defense, as Eric correctly notes," and they're not interested in law students who want to go to court (bashing). My 3 years in the public defender's office was worth more than 10 in Biglaw.

Biglaw is not all that old. The first big firms didn't come around until the mid-twentieth century. Now they're all in debt, trying to survive. (bashing)

I agree with Eric that law exists on two levels - there are those that need Biglaw and those that need small law. But I think Eric misses the reason Biglaw gets bashed.

Biglaw, as an institution, looks down on small law. (bashing) They tell their new associates that "this" is the way you practice law. They call us "some solo practitioner," and for the most part do everything they can to convince a client to stay with the firm even for the smallest matter. Why? Because they are scared that if one of their clients goes to a small firm or solo, they may understand that they don't need 4 associates on their case. (bashing)

When I write about Biglaw, some anonymous commenter (same idiot) always says it's because I have Biglaw envy. Anyone who knows me, my practice, my 3 rejections of merging with Biglaw, and my referral sources (Biglaw firms) knows that isn't the case.

The truth is that I think Biglaw as an institution does a disservice to the young lawyer. Disagree? How many laid off Biglaws are out there that after a few years in the firm, have no idea how to practice law? This is how Biglaw rolls. Don't teach the lawyer too much about start to finish type practice so they feel they can't leave and go out on their own, or go anywhere else.

So I agree with Eric, he makes some great points.

But I don't feel bad for what's happening now in Biglaw. Clients are becoming more frugal, smarter, and those firms have to come down to earth. No more french maids ironing napkins (true story).

So no Eric, you won't collapse along with Biglaw. There will always be a client who needs a good lawyer to help them.

Regardless of what Biglaw thinks. (bashing)

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

Two Keys For Solo Success - Carolyn, Elefant

Carolyn, if only I could hug you right now. Your newly published e-book From Biglaw to Yourlaw is nothing but a bundle of truth that every single BigLaw lawyer needs to read, and read now.

A masterpiece, that can be read in 10 minutes.

It begins "I want you to set aside the propaganda you've heard on either end - whether it's (1) the negative stereotypes about solo practice that you've been fed in law school or by your bosses or colleagues or (2)(I love this) the false promises of four hour workweeks and gazillion dollar practices that legal marketing experts and gurus hawk to desperate lawyers."

She continues: "Clients are beginning to reject the concept of paying premium fees for large firm services........ You can stick around (at Biglaw) and watch your firm evolve backwards into a dinosaur...."

She smacks the scam artists in the mouth: "....beware the marketers and gurus hocking their wares...... they'll try to convince you that you can work four hours a week and earn millions...solong as you purchase their special $10,000.00 silver bullett marketing program."

She destroys the notion all Biglaw firms tell their associates, that solo practice is "not the way to practice law:" "...Skadden, Arps, and Flom were a trio of lawyers who couldn't find jobs at big white shoe law firms....."

I'm not going to ruin your few moments of absorbing this great new e-book by quoting more of the spectacular information written there. I will just say that if you are a Biglaw, period, this is a must read.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

The Inspired Solo, Disbarred.

For those new around here, or new to the wonderful world of lawyers selling their marketing skills on the internet, I'm what's known as a bully, asshole, dinosaur, buzz kill, cog in the wheel of attempts to peddle garbage, guy who exposes the sewer that is the world of lawyer marketing on the internet.

In order for any of this to make sense, some history is important.

When I first started talking with people on twitter, one night I received what is called a "direct message." That's a private message between two people. The message asked if I knew the person I was publicly talking with was disbarred? Disbarred? No, of course not. In fact, the person's bio said that he left the practice of law because he was so interested in teaching lawyers how to blog. Why would anyone blatantly lie about why they left the practice - why not just say "I no longer practice?"

After reading the disbarment order, I wondered why any lawyer would hire someone with this background to teach them how to do anything practice-related.. 

So I wrote about it. 

Yeah, I know, defamation. I get threatened weekly, always by people that have never read the law of defamation. You have to have two things, a reputation, and damages. Usually both are a problem for these folks. Oh, and I what I say has to be false as well, that's always the problem for them. They don't like the truth, but it is, the truth.

It was then I realized that lawyers don't ask questions to anyone that claims to be able to make them money. Apparently, no one knew about this, or those who knew weren't willing to say anything. He was on his way to being a faculty member of Solo Practice University and then apparently the CEO who like Taylor Swift said she never ever ever ever knew about it, got the news....and well, that was that.

I confirmed this with a lawyer-marketer I know. Lawyers don't ask the hard questions like "why don't you practice anymore?" Or: "How many clients have you brought in to your law practice with social media?"

And then I found more of them - people who were a little free with their bios. Some I found, others found me through other lawyers passing it along - too afraid to mention it themselves. Some reaction was fascinating - lawyers telling me they didn't need me to write about the scum of the profession as they needed no protection. You know, like the protection lawyers don't need from Nigerian e-mail scams? (most victims are lawyers.)

Once I found a lawyer still trolling for business on the internet, even though she was facing charges of mortgage fraud (to which she pled guilty) and was disbarred. When I asked her why she was doing that she asked me if I would leave my partner hanging if that happened to me? You know, her law partner needed to make some money (and why did I have to ruin everything?) She now calls herself a "real estate law...rockstar," and uses only a part of her name, as the complete name brings up things that maybe her new friends in her new world don't know.

The internet is omnipresent, but a great place to hide.

Well when that issue came up of the lawyer facing mortgage fraud charges, The Inspired Solo chimed in, Sheryl Sisk Schelin. Her blog is gone now, as is her law license. 

We'll get back to that in a minute - the law license part.

Sheryl called me a bully. I of course had never heard of her, so I did a quick Google search and discovered her law license was suspended in what's called an "interim suspension." The order says it's for failure to complete CLE requirements.

Sheryl said she had a health issue. Maybe that's why she didn't complete her CLE.

But then Sheryl was disbarred.

Matter I

Respondent was retained by ten clients to file bankruptcy actions on their behalf.  Respondent accepted payments from the clients, including, in many cases, court filing fees, in excess of $15,000, but failed to perform any meaningful work on the cases or to diligently represent the clients and pursue their actions.  Indeed, respondent never actually filed a bankruptcy action on behalf of any of the clients.  Respondent failed to respond to telephone calls and emails from clients and failed to keep them reasonably informed of the status of their cases.  Respondent also failed to refund to the clients that portion of the fees and costs that was not yet earned or incurred because respondent had converted the funds for her personal use.  Finally, respondent failed to return the clients' documents and other materials in their files.

Matter II

A client endorsed and returned to respondent a settlement check in the amount of $2,000.  Respondent cashed the check but failed to disburse any proceeds to the client.  Respondent also failed to communicate with the client about the status of the settlement proceeds or about the client's pending case.

Matter III

On July 10, 2008, respondent was retained to represent a client in a civil action.  Respondent agreed to represent the client on a contingency basis in addition to a $1,000 fee.  The client also paid respondent $350 for filing fees.  Respondent failed to keep the client informed regarding the status of her case and failed to respond to the client's emails, faxes, text messages or telephone calls.  Respondent informed the client that an additional $1,200 to $1,500 may be required for personal service.  The client requested a written explanation of the additional fees.  However, respondent failed to send the client a letter of explanation regarding the additional fees.  Respondent failed to refund the client that portion of her fees and costs that was not yet earned or incurred because respondent had converted the funds for her personal use.  Respondent failed to diligently represent the client in the civil action.

Matter IV

Respondent was paid $500 by a client to represent the client in a wrongful termination action.  Thereafter, respondent informed the client that due to the loss of respondent's electronically-stored information, respondent may have miscalculated the filing date for one of the client's statutory claims.  Respondent also informed the client that due to the miscalculation error, respondent would represent the client free of charge and pay all costs of litigation.  However, respondent failed to file any actions on respondent's behalf regarding the wrongful termination claim.  She also failed to refund the $500 retainer fee, as she had agreed to do.  Respondent failed to diligently represent the client in the action and failed to perform any meaningful work on the case.  Respondent also failed to timely respond to the client's telephone calls and faxes and failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the case.

Failure to Respond

Respondent was served with notices of full investigation in each of these matters, but failed to respond or otherwise communicate with ODC in response to the notices.

Did you buy her "Twitter for Lawyers" book? Did you buy her advice, her consulting services? Did you want to be an "Inspired Solo?" Did you look all wide-eyed like you do when you watch those people on infomercials sitting on beaches in exotic places with the waves crashing behind them?

Have you ever asked that former lawyer turned social media marketing expert about their law practice - about their former law practice? Is the prospect of money that enticing that you just don't want to know the truth about what's behind the great and powerful Oz?

I do hope that Sheryl's health issues are resolved, although it doesn't appear the South Carolina Bar disbarred her for that reason.

I know this because I spent 5 seconds typing in to a keyboard.

And now you know.

Do you care?

Will it affect the way you approach these former lawyers turned "I can make you money" marketers?"

Eh.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Can We Talk About Our Profession, Just For A Minute, Please?

If you spend any time on the internet these days, you are led to believe that if lawyers don't start buying better iPad-type devices and finding a better, cheaper, faster way to sell documents, they will go broke.

Yes, "the legal profession is changing," but hasn't it been changing since day one?

Lawyers used to be created by people "reading" the law. Then they invented law schools. Law schools had full time professors. Then they started having practicing lawyers teach a class or two. Law used to be read in books housed in libraries, now it's read on computer screens and accessed from websites. BigLaw hasn't been around forever - most (many deceased) partners in old big law firms began their careers with storefront offices. Now most lawyers start solo, and stay solo.

But one thing has not changed - people still need lawyers.

Most of the posts on the net today are whine-fests, collections of thoughts from crying babies telling the "dinosaurs" to get with the program or die.

Then there is Jordan Furlong. Although he's wrong, he does know how to write without sounding like a basement-dwelling unemployed child.

I'd read his recent trilogy if I were you. Not because I agree with it, but because it's (wrong and) well written.

Jordan starts his trilogy with noting the "drawing cards" for Google Ventures in their acquisition of Rocket Lawyer, an online platform for getting legal documents to clients:

...ease, accessibility, affordability, user-driven, user experience. They have nothing to do with the intelligence of the lawyer or the quality of the legal offering and everything to do with the manner in which clients find and access legal services. As I’ve said before, convenience is the new battleground, a fight for which law firms still haven’t even shown up.

So we begin with the notion that there are clients out there looking for 7-11. It's not about the quality, it's about the ability to run in and out quickly and get a "sandwich." May not be a great sandwich, but it's a sandwich, and it's easy and affordable.

Jordan says that companies like Rocket Lawyer have created a client-facing document assembly system that provides channels to licensed lawyers who can review the completed documents and answer more complex questions. He says that Law firms have had the capacity to create these services for years, but they’ve been unwilling or unable to risk changing the nature of their business.

Jordan concludes the beginning of his trilogy with the goal of companies like Rocket and Legal Zoom:

So they have converted the legal advice process and legal document assembly system into marketing and business development opportunities for lawyers. And they have one simple goal in mind: to replace the law firm as the primary platform by which clients find and engage with lawyers.

OK, so the goal is to replace lawyers with sites that sell legal documents.

Got it.

A point that Jordan makes is that if lawyers don't find a way to compete, they will lose, and lose big:

The real story is that firms are buying these new products and services, not selling them. They’re taking marching orders about their use, not issuing them. They’re accepting the new realities of the marketplace, not inventing them. Law firms are now drifting to the periphery of the marketplace, trading places with technology-driven outsiders whose own importance increases daily. Law firms, whether they realize it or not, are settling into a new role: sources of valued specialists called upon to perform certain tasks within a larger legal system that they did not create and that they do not control.

Law is partly a business. The rule of business is that there is always someone out there trying to do it faster and cheaper than you. Those claiming to do it "better, faster, and cheaper," usually find clients who don't care that much about "better" until they realize "faster" and "cheaper" wasn't what they really wanted.

Jordan's take on the role of document selling in the legal profession is a good read, but it misses an important point: Law is also a profession. Down the street from your local 7-11 is a regular everyday grocery store, with the produce manager that knows what type of tomatoes you like to buy, and down the street from there is the gourmet market that special orders the smoked meat you like to eat on Sundays.

There is room for every type of lawyer, and there always will be. Jordan marginalizes the profession when he says: We need to understand what technology is doing to legal services and either adopt that technology, adapt to the client expectations it’s creating, or leave.

I am not "we," and I didn't become a lawyer to sell documents online. Yes, I know, my practice area will never adapt to that type of service. But yours doesn't have to either. My clients want to come to an office and have a private conversation. They want to be greeted by Evelyn, and they want to feel that there is a place where their legal needs are being serviced other than a computer or coffee shop.

There is still a place for lawyers to decide what type of lawyers they want to be, not which type of convenience store they want to operate.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Silence Of The Lambs

Lawyers at their core are advocates. They speak out. They take positions. Some take on cases and clients that are controversial, tough, and unpopular. Others toil in the background, but represent clients nonetheless.

The others are not lawyers. They are businessmen and women with law degrees who check under their fingernails throughout the day to make sure there's not a speck of dirt. They work "in" the legal profession, so they say, as they try to make a buck off their brethren with their consulting, marketing, and books.

Staying silent is a marketing tactic these days. Anyone in the blogosphere or on social media has seen the fear that defines today's marketing lawyer. The scared silent ones are not here to advocate, opine, or take a stand for anything - they are here to create a personal brand - to make everyone like them, to enjoy their irrelevancy in the Happysphere.

And so young Joseph Rakofsky has filed suit against 74, no 75, no 76, no, wait, between 74-80, and more to come defendants known simply as "the internet."

In response, "the internet" has spoken.

Since the filing of the lawsuit by Joseph Rakofsky, real lawyers everywhere have weighed in.

So I checked around to see what some of the "others," those with law degrees who are in the business of selling to and writing for lawyers were saying about this lawsuit.

Surely Susan Cartier Liebel, head cheerleader of Solo Practice University, where lawyers pay to learn about, well I don't know what they learn because I'm not a student, would have something important to say about this young solo's collapse:

Nope.

And social media "expert" Adrian Dayton, who calls himself an "experienced corporate lawyer" after a total sum of 8 months at his law firm. Here's what he had to say:

Which Movie Does Your Law Firm’s Social Media Policy Most Closely Resemble?

Kevin O'Keefe, who sells blog platforms to lawyers?

Facebook for lawyers : Wonderful relationship building medium for business development.

Larry Bodine, one of the premier lawyer marketers in the country? Surely he would want to comment on the biggest marketing fiasco in recent history?

Love it or hate it, Avvo.com is a force to be reckoned with in Law Firm Marketing

Niki Black, the queen evangelist of tech for lawyers who occasionally writes advice posts for young lawyers?

Well, maybe young Joseph needs a Droid: Droid Apps for Lawyers

The "others" have made sure to say nothing. It's not an accident. It's intentional. They would never weigh in on something this controversial. It's not good for business, for the "personal brand." Maybe they'd get sued and then that would be just so awful, wouldn't it?

They've decided that staying out of real legal issues, issues of the day that are controversial, is better for their brand. Their relevancy exists only to those who think they are fabulous, and that they hold all the secrets of tech, marketing, and social media. They have their own vision of their importance to the legal profession.

Those of you who remain silent, congratulations. I'm sure your personal brand is meaningful. To whom, I have no idea.

Fear has its use but cowardice has none.
- Mahatma Gandhi


Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Solving Your Last Minute Super Bowl Wine Issues

Yeah, this is really a post about wine. It's not only Sunday, but Super Bowl Sunday. I'm ditching Meet the Press for the local public radio jazz station, debating whether to read the paper, and having little interest in writing about the latest social media scamming lawyer on the internet, injustice of the Bar or debating how technology can change your life.

Let's talk wine.

You've got the chips, the wings, the meat is ready for the grill, the beer is chilled, and you just realized your collection of crap wine that people brought you at your last party 4 years ago may not suffice. That, or you know nothing about wine and fear you may open something that makes the wine snob at your super bowl party say "you have any beer?"

Don't worry. I will take care of you. I always do. I will give you recommendations, and all in a price range that will make the unemployed millenial and faux wino not think twice about running to the grocery store.

First though, a confession:

I don't think wine goes with football.

But on to the pairings and recommendations:

In general:

[1] Do not open more than 2 bottles (one white, one red) for every 10 people.

[2] Let the white warm up for 20 minutes before drinking.

(Every time I say this, some whiny girl says "but I liiike my white cold.") I know, because you've never tried it when warmed up a little. I'm not talking room temperature - although that will bring you in to a new dimension of taste - I'm talking about it not being consumed right out of the refrigerator. The flavor of white wine is enhanced when it's warmed up a bit. So be a little patient.

[3] Open your reds at 3 p.m.

Even your cheap reds will taste a bit better - even if they're still terrible because you're too cheap to buy something decent.

[4] Don't open expensive wine unless you have people that appreciate good wine.

Be cheap, and be proud. Nothing is worse than opening that $50 California Cab you brought back from Napa, only to watch your idiot friends and family pour it like they're getting soda from a fountain and trying to fill it to the top, and then saying "it's OK" when you ask if they like it.

If you have a bunch of non-wino's coming over, save the good stuff, screw them. You'll be happier. Trust me on this.

[5] No bottom shelf magnums



No matter how cheap you want to be, can we please stop with the Woodbridge and Frontera magnums?

Please?

[6] This last general recommendation is a little trick I use if you're putting out really good wine and want to have more than a glass for yourself. So keep it between us.

When you invite people over for sports, they generally like to have a cup they can easily hold and put down and pick up. Wine glasses do not provide the same ease of use as let's say, a Solo plastic cup.

Give your guests a Solo cup and offer them a soda or beer, or mixed drink. THIS IS IMPORTANT - have a bottle of vodka or rum in clear view. Get them filled up and then you can make your move.

Don't put out any wine glasses, and put the "good bottle" in an accessible but not -so-close-to-the-crowd place. You grab a wine glass and pour some. People will see this as "you're drinking wine," and generally won't ask for a glass. Obviously offer some to that one or two winos at the party.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON WINE:

[1] Albarino



This Spanish white is rich and goes fantastically (not sure if that's an appropriate wine term) with flavored chips. I highly recommend pairing with the Tostitos Tequila Lime Chips.



Albarino is generally $10-$13

[2] Riesling

You just can't have a plate of shrimp and crackers and hummus out without a few bottles of this crowd pleaser. Women love it, guys won't admit that they do to, and the bottles are muy cute.

You can find a great Riesling for $10. Look for some from Washington State.



This Washington Hills Riesling is $9 at Total Wine.

[3] Sauvignon Blanc - FROM NEW ZEALAND




You like grapefruit? Citrus? you have $15? Get some. This is where the screwtops shine. Kim Crawford (Costco), White Haven. You will thank me profusely.

[4] Pinot Noir



I'm not a big pinot fan, so when I like it, trust me it's good. Belle Glos, maker of $40 and up pinots, graces us with their entry level Meomi. $18. (Costco). You'll love it.

[5] Bar-b-que?

Zinfandel.



Spicy. Interesting. Great with that slab of ribs you've been dousing in spices for 2 days.



Zen of Zin is about $10. It's ok, not great, but fine for the crowd. By the time they're on the Zin, hopefully they've had enough where it doesn't matter. Good Zin can cost $25 or more. But be careful with Zin. As with any wine, I'm not a big fan of buying from producers that make more than two varieties of wine. Stay away from producers that make five types of wine, and Zin.

Enjoy!

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Would You Advise Your Child to Take on $150k in Debt to Go to Medical School?

Like flies on shit, the internet is full of non-practicing lawyers who are available, for a fee, or a speaking engagement, or a link to your blog, to tell you exactly how to successfully run a law practice - just don't ask them about theirs.

Then there is Carolyn Elefant. A real lawyer, with a real practice, and real advice for real lawyers with real issues.

Her latest post, hit a nerve with me.

She asks: Would You Advise Your Child to Take on $150k in Debt to Go to Law School?

I hate this question. I think it answers itself. More about that in a minute.

Seems a law student called the Solo By Choice Author recently and asked about starting a practice right out of law school:

Yet as we talked more, however, it seemed that the student had another, more basic question on his mind: whether to go further into debt, to the tune of $150,000, to obtain a law degree or to cut his losses.

Another, more basic question on his mind. Translated: Am I ever going to make enough money to pay back my loans?

He then asked Carolyn if she would have gone to law school "knowing what you do about the today’s economy and job prospects in the legal market."

Carolyn gave the answer that any real lawyer gives to that question. The answer that shows she went to law school to be a lawyer - not just to get a job that paid well.

For me, answering yes was fairly easy for a couple of reasons. Foremost, I really like practicing law. Corny as it sounds, I cherish my law degree and revel in being part of a profession that, as imperfect though it may be, is also comprised of amazing people with amazing stories. After twenty-two years in, I still get a thrill when I step up to the podium to argue an appeal. I still marvel that a lowly solo like myself can do stuff that matters, whether it’s preventing a multi-million dollar pipeline company from condemning my clients’ property (and winning attorneys’ fees to boot) or helping a financially troubled homeowner hold on to his house just a little bit longer or just showing up. Most of all, I’m amazed that with nothing more than my law degree and stubborn persistence, that I’ve been able to build something – a law firm out of thin air and on my own terms.

Like practicing law? Part of a profession? Thrill when I step up to the podium? Do stuff that matters?

Now whenever I talk about law students, I get the same silly responses - that I don't know what I'm talking about, that the law professors and hiring partners I speak to are all wrong - there is no sense of entitlement, and not every law student is in law school is there to get a "job."

I know that - so save your comments.

There are plenty of law students in school today that want to be lawyers. They went to law school to become prosecutors, appellate lawyers, family lawyers, public interest lawyers, and just generally to help clients in any given area resolve disputes.

But there is no denying that a significant amount of students are in law school for the sole purpose of getting a job that pays well. They could care less what they do, and for whom they do it. They invested six figures, and dammit, they want their six figure "job."

My answer to Carolyn's question is simple - if you want to be a lawyer, really want to be a lawyer, you shouldn't even be asking the question. If you are there to get paid back for your loan investment, drop out now and learn a trade or start a business, or get another degree. The profession doesn't need more empty suits who are there for the cash. We have enough of those.

Carolyn's decided to ask herself how she would advise her children on taking on $150,000 debt to become a lawyer:

The truth is, it’s hard to say. I suppose I’d start by suggesting that they avoid or limit debt to begin with, either by finding ways to work through school or perhaps choosing a less expensive law school that wouldn’t limit their opportunities. Then, I remind them that choosing law as a path to financial stability isn’t so much an option as it was back in my day.

Choosing law as a path to financial stability isn’t so much an option as it was back in my day.

Back in your day Carolyn, and back in my day, law students weren't graduating with an option of a six figure salary. It was the proliferation of the six figure salary that drove law school applications up. Is that a result of passion for law, or a desire to serve clients?"

I don't think so.

Continuing with the type of corny answer that the "where's my job, where's my six figure salary" law student laughs at, Carolyn says:

Still, if my daughters are committed to practicing law or have a feeling, after exploring other options that it’s right for them; if they’re passionate or excited about the prospect of serving clients – solving their problems and changing their lives or seeking justice and if they’re willing to be absolutely dogged in doing whatever it takes to succeed, then I’d tell them to go for it. I think.

Committed? Passionate? Excited? Serving clients? Seeking justice?

Justice?

Oh man.

Here's my question: Why don't we ever ask whether we would advise our children to take on $150,000 in debt to go to medical school?

Medicine is a profession. Doctors have the option to make good money, and like law, some do, and many don't. But we never debate the loan issue when it comes to doctors.

And it's because medicine will always be a profession, while law has more and more become a dumping ground for college graduates looking for a good job.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Jeena Belil Wants To Talk To Those Freaking Out At BigLaw

Attorney Jeena Belil is one of my favorite people I've never met. We converse on twitter and have very similar philosophies on the practice of law.

Jeena has penned this post, that anyone thinking of going solo must read.

She begins:

"You may be working in a law firm right now and silently freaking out over what is to become of your job, but you may not have to. Now may be the perfect time to go solo. I did, and I’ll never go back. It can be done."

Read it.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

A Tale Of Two Emails From Young Lawyers, And A Request

Today I saw an email sent to a young lawyer I know. The email was requesting to meet with the lawyer to discuss a job (a job that wasn't available). Lawyers get these all the time. New graduates send cover letters with resumes saying they want to work for the firm, not having a clue whether the firm is hiring. Most just hope for a response (which this guy got.) Most would love the ability to meet with a lawyer (which this guy turned down).

Yeah, the young lawyer responded that he had no job to offer, but sure, the young lawyer could come in and meet him and talk about a possible set up where Mr. Jobless could have his own practice, share space, get some work, etc... It wasn't a job, it was an opportunity (note: Mr. Jobless actually mentioned the word "opportunity" in his email, but as you'll learn from reading Mark Bennett's post on the email, his idea of an opportunity was a paycheck. He couldn't get that, so he said "thanks, but no thanks."

There was debate in the comment section to Bennett's post about whether this kid was just bat shit stupid or deserved understanding because he made it clear he wanted a "job" and not an opportunity to at least sponge off some lawyers for a while while trying to make a few bucks. Hell, it's the internet, everyones got an opinion and where ever you fall on this, I really couldn't give a crap.

Later in the day, I myself got an email. Here are the relevant portions:

Mr. Tannebaum,

Could I fire off some questions to you?  I would like very much to enjoy the practice of law, but am at something of a crossroads as to how to do so...  

Specifically, I'd like to go solo, and am not sure where I should, what I should practice (I studied criminal and IP in law school), or how to balance it all and still have a personal life.  I don't know. . . Because I know it sounds odd, I will say that part of my problem is that I left the state I went to law school and am in a whole new network. I won't hound you or anything. . . just thought I'd give it a shot.

Reading the tone of this email, I wonder what this kid would do if I invited him to come meet me at my office for a 5 minute conversation and no promises? Sure, he makes clear he wants to go solo, but he's not sure he can make it and would probably take a job if offered. He would at least jump at the "opportunity" for a meeting.

So while I'm going to respond to his email directly, I'm asking you to help him. Give him your best advice. I think he deserves it. I think he'd appreciate it.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of  Defending The Lawyer Before The State Bar          

Are You A Great Lawyer, Or A Great Marketer?

Over at Simple Justice, Scott Greenfield continues to wonder whether we are trying to create a new generation of great lawyers, or great marketers.

He's a bit frustrated. He, like me, knows that on twitter and other social networking sites, there are those that parade as lawyers, who have no clients. There are those who parade as the answer to all those wanting a "profitable" career, who have specious backgrounds not worthy of any lawyer's time.

When I started practicing 15 years ago, a senior criminal defense lawyer told me what he learned at the outset of his career - "do a good job for your client and the calls will come."

We no longer teach that philosophy. We teach that there are too many lawyers and getting clients is more about "slick" then it is about substance.

We have lost the notion that in order to market yourself, you must first be good at what you do. By encouraging solo out of law school, we are saying that being a good lawyer is irrelevant to just about anything. No, I don't agree with solo out of law school, even if it means you have to volunteer for a while with a lawyer in order to learn how to "practice law." Law school doesn't teach you how to be a practicing lawyer, and it never will.

The public, mostly hiring lawyers for that first and only time, know no better. They like what they see and hear, and hire. Those that seek referrals from other lawyers pale in comparison to those that read a colorful ad with a pretty picture, or listen while watching Matlock to the lawyer saying he will "fight" for me.

Social media is an opportunity for two things: It allows good lawyers to converse with others and develop new relationships with debates, blog posts, and other discussions. It also allows those that are barely "lawyers" or those that are parading as the answer to all that is "marketing, to create an online presence that is, well, a complete lie.

Lawyers are important to society. So are marketers.

According to wikipedia, "marketing" is defined by the American Marketing Association as the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.

"That have value."

Value.

Lawyers that have "value."

Value to clients, or value to a marketer?

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

A New Blogger The Marketers And Starbucks Lawyers Missed

According to those worshipped on the internet these days, lawyers only blog for profit, and working in an office is a sure fire road to nowhere. We are in a marketing sewer and all lawyers are to follow the lawyer in front of them down to the pile of shit called the internet, typiing away for the sole purpose of business, and working from their dining room table when Starbucks kicks them out.

Lawyer Joe Scura must have been out the day the unemployed former nothing lawyers were busy scamming other lawyers young and old in to thinking that working alone from home and blogging for clients was the only way to riches and fame.

His website and blog violate about every marketing rule that exists.

Fasten your seatbelt marketing scum - here's Joe out of the box on his website:

Joe Scura opened his first law office in 2009

2009! You idiot! Rule number 1 - never, NEVER say how long you've been out unless it's more than 5 years.

What the marketers would have told Joe was to start with:

Joe Scura is an experienced criminal defense lawyer that will fight for your rights for a reasonable fee.

The Virtual Office crew (who of late have insisted this is the future of law) drops out of Joe's world at the second sentence, where he says:

This office is devoted to providing exceptional representation to real people faced with real legal problems

Then there's his first blog post:

Two Years In Solo Practice

There you go again Joe, being all honest and transparent and just violating every rule of sleezy marketers.

A better title would have been: My Advice To Young Lawyers After Years In Private Practice (2 is plural after all.)

Joe continunes with the first reason he writes this post:

I would like potential clients to know who I am and where I’m coming from.

Oh man Joe, you want them to know the truth about you? Really?

Here's more bad news: Joe went to law school not to make money, but: with the goal of becoming a criminal defense attorney

And while I want you to go to Joe's blog and give him the many hits he obviously doesn't care about, here's a clip of what to expect (so the "how to make money fast like today as a lawyer" crowd doesn't waste their time.)

If I could stress one point here, it would be “just work”. You could spend hours in your office tweaking your website, tweeting, answering questions on AVVO, (all of which I’ve done btw) but if you want to be a young solo the most productive thing you can do to build your practice is develop skills as an attorney and do good work

Welcome aboard Joe, and congratulations on your first "Like," from me.

h/t: Mark Bennett

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.