Yes, I am on Facebook, and Twitter, and I have a document on JDSupra and scribd.com. I also joined the ABA clone of Facebook, but it’s currently a pain in the ass, and until it becomes more user friendly, I’ll just watch from afar.
There’s a bunch of “social media” sites right now, but for the purpose of lawyers, I’ll just offer my thoughts on Facebook and Twitter.
Background
If you see no value in these sites and think they are “stupid,” that’s fine. Stick with your “brick and mortar” practice, your expensive “it pays for itself” yellow pages ad, and your occasional cocktail party where you stand around and complain about how you “hate these things.” Go, practice like its 2002.
And let me say this: These are my thoughts. If you are on either of these sites, especially twitter, you will find that about every 6 minutes someone posts an article about what you should or should not be doing. Go ahead and read them, but one thing I've learned pretty quick is that everyone has a different opinion of how and how not to use these sites.
In that light, my first thought is do what you think is appropriate for your practice and lifestyle. You can go crazy listening to everyone's opinions and trying to mold your social media experience into what others think you should do.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
If we were at a carnival, Facebook would be the merry-go-round, and Twitter would be the roller coaster.
FACEBOOK
Facebook is a great place to catch up with old friends, like real old friends you haven’t heard from in 25 years. It’s a place to post vacation and kid pictures and watch bored housewives and the party crowd pass “virtual” drinks, cupcakes, and play games with their “friends.”
Some people believe that every single picture they take needs to be uploaded to Facebook. I may upload a picture or two of something, never believing that even my "friends" want to see 65 pictures of anything going on in my life. I'm also careful about my kids. I think I've posted one grainy shot of one of my kids and that's it. I'm a criminal defense lawyer, no need to show the world my kids. You can get swarms of invitations to play games and participate in real silly crap. I block or delete all of it.
Of my friends on Facebook, I have old school friends, lawyers from all over the country, law students, and others who have something in common with me. I do not "friend up" every single person who wants to connect with me, especially if they have nothing in common with me, are "just getting started" on Facebook and just "want to meet people," or look like they have little redeeming qualities. I always check the "Info" tab to see if they have a job or some purpose in life other than being on Facebook.
I update my status once or twice a day, and am usually careful not to let everyone know every single detail of my location, especially if I am out of town. My blogs are fed into my Facebook page, and I occasionally post a link to a story on the internet of interest. It may be about law, wine, or social media.
TWITTER
Twitter is text messaging on steroids. You are limited to 140 character messages and they come at you 24/7. You can post a picture, but it’s not a constant occurrence like on Facebook. You gather “followers” and “follow” others, watching their conversations, joining in, and sending out “tweets” about everything from your latest blog post, to what you are drinking, to questions about absolutely everything. Most “tweets” contain links to something. The use of twitter is a constant subject of debate. The best advice is to mostly be offering information and help, and not just focusing on gossipy conversation or "tweeting out" mostly personal details of your every step.
Which leads me to my list of “thoughts” about Facebook and Twitter:
[1] Use both, know they are different, treat them as different worlds. Do NOT sync your Twitter status with Facebook. Just look at status updates on Facebook that are from twitter and you'll understand what I mean. It's like speaking French in a Key West bar.
[2] Keep it professional. You are now on the internet even when you are sleeping, out of the country, in court, meeting with a client, wherever and whenever. Don’t act like an idiot.
[3] While you're keeping it professional, get personal. Lawyers can be boring. If you are one of those lawyers with no life outside of law, stay off these sites. If you have a hobby or can talk about something else but law, join in the conversation. Let people know who you are, not just what you do.
[4] Google tracks your Twitter posts. Nothing more to say here.
[5] On Twitter, use your real name or a name that explains what you do. I use MIAMICRIMLAW on Twitter. I don’t follow people who’s name is sexygirl69 or fjkdhjs.
[6] If you are going to be on these sites, THEN BE ON THESE SITES. Don’t ignore them. The more you converse, the more you are known in each world. Answer messages, respond to questions. Remember, you’re a lawyer, you “never know” where your next client is coming from.
[7] Facebook and Twitter are the new business cards. Instead of asking for a card, ask “are you on Facebook/Twitter?" Even those that are embarrassed, will admit they participate on one site or the other.
[8] Don’t follow or friend someone you don’t know and cannot tell why they are trying to connect with you. Remember, you are letting people into your “world” on the internet. Be careful.
[9] On the other hand, if someone doesn’t want to accept you as a “friend” on Facebook or “follow” you on Twitter, don’t worry about it. People have different philosophies about all of this, respect it.
[10] Prospective clients, employers, opposing counsel, and judges are using these sites. Don’t ever forget that, ever.
[11] Recognize others’ achievements, good news, and milestones. Both of these sites go beyond the initial connection.
In the end, remember one thing: whether it's Facebook or twitter, you are putting yourself into the "stream of conversation" on the internet. Think about how you want people to perceive you, and behave in that fashion.
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
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Marquette LAW (Not Lawyer) School
Recently, a member of The Florida Bar Board of Governors was telling me he wants to begin a conversation about what our law schools are doing to prepare graduates for the "real world" of lawyering.
You know, mundane things like getting and dealing with clients, running a small practice, handling judges who could give a crap about all the law you learned, and communicating with dip shit lawyers.
We discussed that the biggest objection would come from law professors who believe that law schools should not participate in this "clinical" type education. Why teach a law student how to use their degree to represent people when you can educate them on the history of the Rule Against Perpetuities, and encourage them to participate in the wholly irrelevant law review?
Actually, I take that back. Law Review is relevant in that BigLaw loves it and law schools love when their graduates go work for BigLaw.
So I was fascinated today when two of the wisest bloggers in the criminal defense blawgosphere, Mark Bennett and Scott Greenfield picked up on a comment posted at the Marquette Law School Faculty Blog by Marquette (we teach law, not lawyers) Law School Professor David Papke in reference to a post on Gideon's blog
"We don’t want law school to be lawyer-training school. When we cave in to demands of that sort from the ABA and assorted study commissions, we actually invite alienation among law students and lawyers. Legal education should appreciate the depth of the legal discourse and explore its rich complexities. It should operate on a graduate-school level and graduate people truly learned in the law."
When I went to law school, my school had the highest Bar passage rate in Florida. Professors lamented that Stetson was a "3 year Bar Examination review course." I thought "that's OK with me, I need all the review I can get." I also participated in trial team, which was poo-pooed by the law review and moot court (read: appellate argument) group.
This argument has been around forever, and will continue.
Teaching law is important, so are lawyers.
In medical school we teach students about the body, its organs, how it works, how it reacts to certain factors, and what causes disease and sickness. Then the "doctors" do a "residency" where they focus on the practicalities of "doctoring."
In law, we give "lawyers" a degree, that they can immediately frame, hang up in an office and greet unknowing clients. The law school having "done their job." Some law schools embrace clinical programs and practical education, others, believe that a practicing lawyer is evidence of the failure of the law school's education.
Apparently the people trying cases and arguing motions are not well versed in the law.
They're just lawyers.
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
You know, mundane things like getting and dealing with clients, running a small practice, handling judges who could give a crap about all the law you learned, and communicating with dip shit lawyers.
We discussed that the biggest objection would come from law professors who believe that law schools should not participate in this "clinical" type education. Why teach a law student how to use their degree to represent people when you can educate them on the history of the Rule Against Perpetuities, and encourage them to participate in the wholly irrelevant law review?
Actually, I take that back. Law Review is relevant in that BigLaw loves it and law schools love when their graduates go work for BigLaw.
So I was fascinated today when two of the wisest bloggers in the criminal defense blawgosphere, Mark Bennett and Scott Greenfield picked up on a comment posted at the Marquette Law School Faculty Blog by Marquette (we teach law, not lawyers) Law School Professor David Papke in reference to a post on Gideon's blog
"We don’t want law school to be lawyer-training school. When we cave in to demands of that sort from the ABA and assorted study commissions, we actually invite alienation among law students and lawyers. Legal education should appreciate the depth of the legal discourse and explore its rich complexities. It should operate on a graduate-school level and graduate people truly learned in the law."
When I went to law school, my school had the highest Bar passage rate in Florida. Professors lamented that Stetson was a "3 year Bar Examination review course." I thought "that's OK with me, I need all the review I can get." I also participated in trial team, which was poo-pooed by the law review and moot court (read: appellate argument) group.
This argument has been around forever, and will continue.
Teaching law is important, so are lawyers.
In medical school we teach students about the body, its organs, how it works, how it reacts to certain factors, and what causes disease and sickness. Then the "doctors" do a "residency" where they focus on the practicalities of "doctoring."
In law, we give "lawyers" a degree, that they can immediately frame, hang up in an office and greet unknowing clients. The law school having "done their job." Some law schools embrace clinical programs and practical education, others, believe that a practicing lawyer is evidence of the failure of the law school's education.
Apparently the people trying cases and arguing motions are not well versed in the law.
They're just lawyers.
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
Labels:
LAW School
A Londoner Looks At Pathetic American Lawyer Advertising
Londoner CharonQC, A Public Defender blog author Gideon and I were trading website and YouTube video links to some comical and crappy lawyer advertising. This inspired my good friend Charon to write this post containing 3 examples of what I call "the best argument against lawyer advertising."
Here's my favorite:
Enjoy.
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
Here's my favorite:
Enjoy.
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
Labels:
Lawyer Advertising
Saturday, December 20, 2008
See You In A Few
I'm taking a few days off, and I hope you are as well.
Please enjoy the music.
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
Please enjoy the music.
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
Labels:
My Attorney Bernie
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Bill Hodes Sends An Email About Lawyer Ethics
Bill Hodes, former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a co-author of The Law of Lawyering, and colleague of mine in the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, gave me permission to post this slightly revised email, which he recently posted to the APRL Listserv:
Is our concern about the conduct of lawyers more properly thought of as a matter of ethics or a matter of morals?
I have always thought that many commentators have it exactly backwards as
concerns the terminology to be used-while agreeing that terminology matters.
Consider these four sentences, each of which I believe to be correct.
1. In the 1950s and 60s, before the Supreme Court decided the Bates case,
it was almost universally accepted that lawyer advertising was unethical.
2. In the 1950s and 60s, before the Supreme Court decided the Bates case,
virtually no one thought that lawyer advertising was immoral.
3. Virtually all lawyers agree that it is perfectly ethical to secure the
acquittal of a defendant who is known (to the lawyer) to be factually
guilty, by employing technical and tactical moves that do not involve lying.
4. Many lawyers have moral qualms about securing the acquittal of a
defendant under the above circumstances.
To me, this means that the term "ethical" is best understood as "comporting
with professional ethics norms," whether in law or journalism or the
profession of arms. The term "moral," on the other hand, applies to human
conduct generally, and asks whether the conduct is "right" or "wrong,"
according to some coherent system of distungioshing between the two. (And I
am not a moral relativist; some moral schemes are so deeply flawed as to be
immoral themselves.)
It wouldn't bother me to add the reminder-often or even always-that when we
are speaking of "ethics," we are speaking of "professional" ethics. And I
do not tarry long on the enforceability issue either. In my view, the ABA
Model Rules are not "law," and not enforceable as such, but when the highest
court in a jurisdiction adopts a Code or a set of Rules along the same
lines, those are the law of the jurisdiction, and they are enforceable if
the REQUISITE "shall or shall not" language is present. Rules of morality,
on the other hand, are enforced only by peer pressure, community shaming,
and-most of all, I hope-by the drive for self-respect. (Along the same
lines, the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers is not "the law" either,
but many of its tenets are adopted as the common law of many jurisdictions,
in which case they become enforceable in the courts of those jurisdictions.)
I think we can and must teach the content of the rules of professional
ethics to young lawyers, and also the common law and fiduciary principles
that will govern their lives as lawyers. Moral values can be inculcated,
perhaps, but not taught, other than by example and seriousness of purpose.
But I agree most of all that all lawyers should conduct themselves in accord
with the ethics of our profession, because that is the right thing to do!
Bill Hodes
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
Is our concern about the conduct of lawyers more properly thought of as a matter of ethics or a matter of morals?
I have always thought that many commentators have it exactly backwards as
concerns the terminology to be used-while agreeing that terminology matters.
Consider these four sentences, each of which I believe to be correct.
1. In the 1950s and 60s, before the Supreme Court decided the Bates case,
it was almost universally accepted that lawyer advertising was unethical.
2. In the 1950s and 60s, before the Supreme Court decided the Bates case,
virtually no one thought that lawyer advertising was immoral.
3. Virtually all lawyers agree that it is perfectly ethical to secure the
acquittal of a defendant who is known (to the lawyer) to be factually
guilty, by employing technical and tactical moves that do not involve lying.
4. Many lawyers have moral qualms about securing the acquittal of a
defendant under the above circumstances.
To me, this means that the term "ethical" is best understood as "comporting
with professional ethics norms," whether in law or journalism or the
profession of arms. The term "moral," on the other hand, applies to human
conduct generally, and asks whether the conduct is "right" or "wrong,"
according to some coherent system of distungioshing between the two. (And I
am not a moral relativist; some moral schemes are so deeply flawed as to be
immoral themselves.)
It wouldn't bother me to add the reminder-often or even always-that when we
are speaking of "ethics," we are speaking of "professional" ethics. And I
do not tarry long on the enforceability issue either. In my view, the ABA
Model Rules are not "law," and not enforceable as such, but when the highest
court in a jurisdiction adopts a Code or a set of Rules along the same
lines, those are the law of the jurisdiction, and they are enforceable if
the REQUISITE "shall or shall not" language is present. Rules of morality,
on the other hand, are enforced only by peer pressure, community shaming,
and-most of all, I hope-by the drive for self-respect. (Along the same
lines, the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers is not "the law" either,
but many of its tenets are adopted as the common law of many jurisdictions,
in which case they become enforceable in the courts of those jurisdictions.)
I think we can and must teach the content of the rules of professional
ethics to young lawyers, and also the common law and fiduciary principles
that will govern their lives as lawyers. Moral values can be inculcated,
perhaps, but not taught, other than by example and seriousness of purpose.
But I agree most of all that all lawyers should conduct themselves in accord
with the ethics of our profession, because that is the right thing to do!
Bill Hodes
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
Labels:
Bill Hodes
Saturday, December 6, 2008
If You Are What You Say You Are, A Superstar, Then Have No Fear.....
OK, this is odd.
Big-Time New York Lawyer Marc Drier was arrested for, uh, saying he was another lawyer.
Now I don't like to give advice here, but I'll take a leap.
DO NOT IMPERSONATE OTHER LAWYERS.
One other thing, DO NOT IMPERSONATE OTHER LAWYERS ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY LOOK NOTHING LIKE YOU. Exhibit 1.
From amlaw:
Toronto police arrested Dreier, 58, Tuesday on a charge of fraudulent impersonation. The arrest came after Dreier allegedly entered a meeting involving Ontario Teachers and a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group as Michael Padfield, senior legal counsel for investments at Ontario Teachers, according to spokespeople for the companies and a document obtained by The Am Law Daily.
A Fortress employee at the meeting "observed suspicious behavior by an individual and immediately alerted Ontario Teachers staff," company spokeswoman Lilly Donohue says.
Above The Law had it first, and has an update here and here.
Important note: The firm's holiday party is cancelled.
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
Big-Time New York Lawyer Marc Drier was arrested for, uh, saying he was another lawyer.
Now I don't like to give advice here, but I'll take a leap.
DO NOT IMPERSONATE OTHER LAWYERS.
One other thing, DO NOT IMPERSONATE OTHER LAWYERS ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY LOOK NOTHING LIKE YOU. Exhibit 1.
From amlaw:
Toronto police arrested Dreier, 58, Tuesday on a charge of fraudulent impersonation. The arrest came after Dreier allegedly entered a meeting involving Ontario Teachers and a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group as Michael Padfield, senior legal counsel for investments at Ontario Teachers, according to spokespeople for the companies and a document obtained by The Am Law Daily.
A Fortress employee at the meeting "observed suspicious behavior by an individual and immediately alerted Ontario Teachers staff," company spokeswoman Lilly Donohue says.
Above The Law had it first, and has an update here and here.
Important note: The firm's holiday party is cancelled.
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
Labels:
Marc Drier
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)