Now They're "Masters Of Marketing," Says A Marketer

For the self-proclaimed "lawyer marketers," tweets, books, and consulting gigs are never enough to pay the rent (or half the hotel room when he goes to conferences and asks if anyone wants to stay with him.)

The marketers tweet ideas and posts of others, write posts on "what lawyers can learn from (any non-law story)," congratulate each other on being congratulated by other marketers, and write books that only the most desperate, moronic lawyers find relevant. ("Use my real name in social media? Wow!")

So what to do?

Have another marketer package you up as a Law Firm Marketing Master.

Yes, that's right, an Australian lawyer marketer has put together a group of 10 5 of your favorite social media stars and in late February, well, the whole thing will launch. Yes, you'll be able to buy their "secrets" to growing your practice.

I don't know who the other 5 will be, but there will be 10, even though there's 5 now.

When I first saw the link to the "Law Firm Marketing Masters," I figured that some national association had knighted these twitter rock stars and epic thought leaders as "masters." But no, they are masters by virtue of....another marketer.

We are bringing the World’s best law firm marketing experts straight to you. The Law Firm Marketing Masters Series offers you real-time tools, techniques and strategies to build an extraordinary law firm. The content ranges from how to build a winning culture, right through to how to integrate a successful online marketing campaign, through the smart use of blogs and social media tools. Learn what the leading rainmakers are doing today to drive exponential growth in difficult times. The Law Firm Marketing Masters series gives you over 7 hours of audio content, as well as the book with loads of other exclusive information and offers.
This is Exceptional Real-Time Content

Exceptional.

But leading rainmakers? These are marketers. Which one of the 10 5 are rainmakers?

We wouldn't expect anything less than exceptional from one of the "masters," Adrian Dayton.

From the site:

Adrian is an attorney, author and internationally recognized speaker and consultant to some of the largest and most respected firms in the World

You remember Adrian? He was fired after 8 months as a lawyer, wrote a book on how lawyers can type on twitter, then admitted to me that he puffed his resume to sell himself, and now has convinced several, as he calls them "large law firms" to hire him to teach them how to blog and tweet, and game Google.

None of these clients care how he got to where he is, in fact, they don't ask. I recently spoke with a lawyer marketer about how the scum of the industry get in the door of respected law firms and lawyers and was told "you have no idea - lawyers don't ask questions."

And the lawyer marketers thank God for that. There's no money in having to answer to your past, especially when so much of it is made up.

There's also Larry Bodine.

From the site:

Larry Bodine needs no introduction. Now, the Editor in Chief of Lawyers.com, Larry is the World’s most recognized law firm marketing expert.

Says who?

Another marketer.

Larry recently shuttered his lawyer marketing consulting shop to become "Editor In Chief" of Lawyers.com, whatever that means. Larry doesn't like me much, because I wondered aloud why a long-time marketer like him would want to associate with the likes of Adrian Dayton. Larry seemingly is a fan of "organic" marketing, you know, non-social media marketing? He had a voice that wasn't part of the merry mix of happy "make money by tweeting" clowns. That changed. Can't beam 'em? You know the drill. So as that changed. he of course also became a big fan of Adrian, and as I saw it happening, I started wondering when they would join ranks.

There's also who the site refers to as "Law Firm Marketing Special Guest" Ari Kaplan, who is described as "one of the World’s leading Thought Leaders."

The site doesn't say who is producing this marketing package, so I went on a little search. At the bottom right of the site there is a link to "Law Firm Marketing." Clicking the link got me here.

Then I went to "About," which led me here.

Scroll down a bit and found a link to Multi-Award Winning Lawyer and Change-Agent Dan Toombs.

And here he is. Dan Toombs founded "grow your practice" in 2010.

You can sign up now so that when the product goes on sale you will be notified. I don't know how much it will be or who the other 5 "masters" will be, but get on board, sign up now, and grow your practice with the "masters."

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.

Because First You Have To Be Dead

Long before I signed a lease for my office space, the cleaning crew in the building was there, and I trust they'll be there long after I leave. There's a few things they do that keep them coming back every day as the sun sets. One, they clean the place. Two, you could leave a diamond ring, 2 Rolex watches and a stack of cash on the desk and it would be there the next day, and three, they have this policy where unless a box, container, or other thing on the floor that looks like it's garbage, actually says "GARBAGE" (I write "BASURA" because I actually know these folks), they don't throw it out. That's right, that empty cardboard box appearing to have no relevance or future, will remain in the middle of the hallway the next morning if there's no instructions on what to do with it.

Sometimes that fourth thing is a bit annoying, but sends the appropriate message - we have a job to do, and begging for forgiveness is not helpful at contract renewal time. You want the box thrown out, just say the word, literally.

In contrast, this philosophy that there's a hierarchy of authority in the business world was rejected at last week's "Marketing Partner's Forum." That's right, Sally in marketing, is on her way to becoming a "Marketing Partner." This group is just a few motivational conference quotes away from relevance in the 70% of law firms that don't have a "Marketing Partner."

The following platitude went viral in the conference twitter stream and I'm sure emptied a few tissue boxes:

@cindygallop: You heard @silviacoulter, #MPF12 peeps: BREAK THE RULES and ask forgiveness, not permission.

That's right, the marketers have had it with lawyers, especially when it comes to social media, saying no, "not for us," "not our image," "no," just "no." If the grey hairs, whose only significance was to grow a successful law firm, won't listen to the 28 year old social media star, well, they're going to just do their own thing, start pounding away on twitter and LinkedIn and blogging, and apologize later.

They don't ever discuss rules, especially when they say things like this:

Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants:

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:

(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;

(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and

(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

Now when it comes to rules, the marketers have an easy out - one, they don't apply to them, and two, they are seen as "scare tactics" by lawyers like me who constantly throw them in their face and, well, maybe hurt business. Anything that hurts business is wrong, and communist, and part of the past, and mean.

Marketing folks didn't have to swear to their state Supreme Court to follow some rules, they reject the constant droning of "be careful with social media," and reject any notion that anyone should be "scared" of the consequences of stupidity on the internet.

I responded that I thought their "seek forgiveness not permission," nonsense was a good way to get fired, to which one of the merry group of morons responded something about how you wouldn't want to work for someone that didn't "follow" that premise.

Who are these lawyers to tell the marketers how to run a law practice?

Of course the marketers would like my cleaning crew to take a page from them and just start throwing out boxes, then saying "oops," and there's really no example of how this philosophy (other than my mean, mean, rants) actually was detrimental to someone's career.

And then last night, oh no, ut oh, damn, not again:

The managing editor of a student-run news organization that covers Penn State resigned Saturday after the publication's Twitter account sent messages saying former coach Joe Paterno had died, according to a letter on the publication's website.

That's right, the kid woke up Saturday morning, probably threw back some badly needed coffee, some cold 2 day old pizza, went for a run, did a little homework, had some tweets pop up from the paper's twitter account about Joe Paterno dying, and this morning, well, he's out of a job.

Just like that.

Yeah, see, the problem was, Joe Paterno didn't die. The family spokesman (usually a family member or someone a cell phone call away in another room), never said he died, because he wasn't dead.

News about a death is sad, and even sadder when you hear about it while you're still trying to live.

He's not a marketer, but he's begging for forgiveness right now.

"I never, in a million years, would have thought that Onward State might be cited by the national media,'' his letter said. "Today, I sincerely wish it never had been."

Yeah, I know, you're just some local student-run paper at Penn State, and when you tweet something about the death of Joe Paterno, why think that anyone else may read it?

The kid had some help from some other, better known media outlets that couldn't be bothered with that old, dying journalistic concept of "verification:"

The incorrect information found its way onto media websites, including CBSSports.com, People.com and the Huffington Post.

CBSSports.com had run a photo of Paterno with a caption saying the longtime Penn State coach "loses his battle with lung cancer at 85.'' The blurb did not include the source of the information.

In an apology on its site, CBSSports.com said the mistake "was the result of a failure to verify the original report. CBSSports.com holds itself to high journalistic standards, and in this circumstance tonight, we fell well short of those expectations."

Oops. Sorry.

The now former editor did say something that's true, of which the perfect "verification" is his own stupidity:

"In this day and age, getting it first often conflicts with getting it right, but our intention was never to fall into that chasm,'' the letter said. "All I can do now is promise that in the future, we will exercise caution, restraint, and humility."

Caution, restraint, humility.

Not really exciting buzzwords like "thought leader," "game changer," "rock star" "evangelist," or "epic."

They're terms of the past, that have caught up with the future.

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.

Let the Legal Conferences Of The Stupids Begin

Now that the holidays are over, it's time for failed and former lawyers turned tech hacks and social media experts to gather and give each other hugs and remind each other that lawyers who have offices and wear suits are part of the past.

Of course I am here to give you all the conference information you need. First, let's talk about

Legal Tech NY!!!!!

Legal Tech NY, otherwise known as LTNY, (self described as the "most important legal technology event of the year" and otherwise known as LTNY!!!!!! on twitter because the children can't communicate in something that's not an acronym (LOL!!!)) is the precursor to the ABA Tech Show, which is where the non-practicing LTNY attendees go next if they haven't maxed out their credit card or mommy and daddy will foot the bill.

Besides the 394 hours of e-discovery seminars, here's a couple others to catch at Legal Tech NY, sorry LTNY!!!!:

iLove for the iPad: Tips, Tricks & Apps: "Another burning question that continues to occupy minds of the legal technologists and their clients worldwide is
“Laptop or Tablet?” In a can’t-miss briefing by experts, this session “iLove for the iPad: Tips, Tricks and Apps,”
addresses ways the iPad can serve as an effective mobile tool for legal professionals and how it can enhance their
workflow and communication.

eDiscovery in a Facebook world: Social Retention & Its Requirements

Growing & Retaining Your Client Base Through Technology & New Media

One of the high notes of LTNY!!! is that none (update: after tweeting incessantly "I don't know if I'm going to LTNY in a pouty effort to get a free ticket, one former lawyer has been substituted in) of the usual suspects of failures are speaking. Good job LTNY coordinators. It's about time some conference realized that former and failed lawyers shouldn't be put in front of practicing lawyers learning how to better their practices.

And coming up this week...

MPF12!!!!! (social media folks love exclamation points)

That's the Marketing Partners Forum: Driving Innovation in a Transforming Legal Marketplace. I know, but just stay with me here, I never knew Lucy the marketing girl was now called a "Marketing Partner" either.

This conference, having darkened my door in Miami, has all the buzzword seminars:

Social Media to Drive Revenue

The Future of Marketing: Redesigning the Way You Do Business In The New World Order (New World Order is of course, social media)

Aligning Brand with Strategy (always need a branding seminar)

Effective Approaches to Selling and Building Relationships (selling relationships? Is that like prostitution?

Reaching GCs Through Social Media (Translated: how to stalk the people that really want nothing to do with you)

Web Trends 2012

Where’s the Money? (This just made me laugh)

And of course, my favorite social media guru, Adrian Dayton, will be there selling his new book "how I convinced everyone that after 8 months practicing law I could tell BigLaw how to use LinkedIn and Blogs to bring in business," or something like that.

Adrian is moderating a panel, which in social media guru land means "I AM SPEAKING AT A BIG NATIONAL CONFERENCE." Bob Ambrogi, for whatever reason, has agreed to be on this panel.

Have fun everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

They Couldn't Wait (An Angry Rant, With Profanity)

As the 2011 holiday season grew closer, the social media and tech hacks got, as Elmer Fudd says, “bewy bewy qwyat.” Lawyers, real lawyers, turned their focus to family, travel, closing out their year, settling those last few cases, and the interest in buying into the salesmanship of former lawyers peddling social media and tech bullshit waned.

It was kinda nice.

But yesterday, the first day back for most lawyers, brought out the rash of shit that is the failed and former lawyers, and those with no business advising anyone in the legal profession, going on and on about why lawyers need to “get on board,” with social media and shiny toys. It was like they were holding their breath for 3 weeks and just couldn’t take it anymore. The flood gates opened – where was their next desperate lawyer looking to “harness the power of social media?” Where was the next broke lawyer looking to learn which Apple product they were required to have to “survive?”

There was this post about worthless garbage predictions about things with power switches and that post about how cool social media for lawyers is and the other 12 posts about which software lawyers “must” use in 2012 to survive. Most from former lawyers, who still wont admit they were failures in practice or just weren’t very good or interested in being lawyers. They now just want to tell you how to do it right.

I have a question for all of you – all you out of work failures with law degrees trying to play yourselves off as some authority on anything:

Why don’t you all just shut the fuck up?

You use your moniker as “lawyer” to try and convince the desperate among us, those looking for any website, toy, or marketing trick to help them “make money as a lawyer,” that you are their savior. There you are, ready, willing, and able to try and sell them on your lies that you somehow, after leaving your mediocre, or worse, failure of a law career, are worthy of taking money from your former brethren to help them reach wealth and fame doing the same thing you couldn’t do yourself.

You beg to speak at conferences and say nothing. You speak down the hall from conferences that never heard of you. You speak to 12 people and because someone tweeted about it, 30 people tell you how awesome you are.

You tell lawyers they need to “get on board” the same train you jumped off of years ago.

You are a fraud. All of you.

That’s why you stay close to each other, congratulating one another for doing nothing but stating the obvious. One of you is quoted by the other fraud and the other merry group of morons chime in with their “congratulations!”

Congratulations for what?

For the fact that another lawyer turned marketer fraud thinks you are worthy of their love?

You sit in the stands and pretend you know how to teach the players on the field what they need to do to be better.

But you were unable to stay on the field.

You stopped playing.

These players (lawyers) want to continue playing, they’re not looking for a career in failure.

So why don’t you get the fuck out of our profession in total?

Go. Stop taking money from lawyers to make them dumber, lazier, and more reliant on things that do nothing to better the profession.

You worsen our profession. You make money turning it in to nothing short of a group of document pushing, robo-typing, shiny toy addicts. You know nothing about client representation, being an “officer of the court,” or the high honor of having the license to advocate for a person, entity, or cause.

You are pathetic. And none of us that cherish the privilege we have been given to be officers in the third branch of government have any use for you.

Those that have a use for you, those lawyers too stupid to realize that paying you, listening to you, acknowledging that you are a member of our profession, are conspirators in your fraud. And should drive the bus out of town on which you are a passenger.

Go. Away.

Happy New Year.

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.

2012: The Year Lawyers Become Great Through Lawyering, Not The Internet

Analogize two new restaurants. One with a great website, pictures of the beautiful decor, private rooms and a great wine list, ability to make reservations online, and testimonials from customers like Julie R. and Bob W. It also has an active twitter account and Facebook fan page. "Like" them on Facebook for a free appetizer.

The other, located behind a hard to find strip mall, it only has 12 tables, and the website has a couple typos, with the only contact information being a phone number. It says "call for reservations."

In 3 months, the first restaurant goes out of business.

The food was terrible.

In 3 months, you may be able to get a reservation at restaurant 2 that's not at either 5:30 p.m. or 10:15 p.m.

The food is amazing. Everyone is talking about this place.

Everyone was also talking about restaurant 1.

Restaurant 1 thought they would balance the reality that the food sucked, with their awesome internet presence.

And this is what's going on in the legal profession.

Can't get a job? Create a persona on the internet.

No one is hiring you? Start blogging. Blogs are great for Google attention.

Going out and developing relationships will "take too long? Hire a social media expert to blast your mug and (trumped up) credentials all over the net.

Lawyers are being taught that being a good lawyer is second, or third, to marketing on the internet.

Now I'm not unrealistic, if you're doing a good job and no one knows about it, that's a problem.

The question is: who do you want to know about it?

As I ask lawyers frequently, "tell me if the best case you ever got was from the internet."

When the "I found you on the internet" call comes in, do you see dollar signs? Real, dollar signs?

We all use the internet for the same reason - to find the best deal, the cheapest price. Are you the best deal? The cheapest? Is that what you want to be?

My friend Kevin O'Keefe, (and he is my friend by function of him having bought me a beer and otherwise not giving a crap what I say about him nor taking it personally) who never misses an opportunity to (not so) subtlely pimp his blog sales company, tried to say the same thing, but couldn't help himself from encouraging lawyers to participate in the race to the bottom.

I was almost moved to tears that the leading blog salesman for lawyers would pen a post titled:

You have more than an opportunity as a lawyer in the new year : You have an obligation to be great

And it started off in typical fashion, the marketer paying required homage to the God of Marketing, Seth Godin:

Godin shared what he wrote 9 years ago that applies equally today.

Here's a question that you should clip out and tape to your bathroom mirror. It might save you some angst 15 years from now. The question is, What did you do back when interest rates were at their lowest in 50 years, crime was close to zero, great employees were looking for good jobs, computers made product development and marketing easier than ever, and there was almost no competition for good news about great ideas?

Many people will have to answer that question by saying, "I spent my time waiting, whining, worrying, and wishing." Because that's what seems to be going around these days. Fortunately, though, not everyone will have to confess to having made such a bad choice.

Great stuff. Now is the time to set your path, to stake your claim in your profession.

Kevin continues eloquently with Lord Godin's words:

The thing is, we still live in a world that's filled with opportunity. In fact, we have more than an opportunity -- we have an obligation. An obligation to spend our time doing great things. To find ideas that matter and to share them. To push ourselves and the people around us to demonstrate gratitude, insight, and inspiration. To take risks and to make the world better by being amazing.

Yes, yes, yes.

We, as lawyers, have obligations to do great things, to be "amazing."

Yes. Amen.

And then Kevin makes his (pitch) point:

While recent grads and lawyers who have been practicing for decades bemoan the lack of legal work and opportunities, other lawyers are running laps around them by harnessing the power of the Internet.

Curiously, as in most posts written by former lawyers-turned-marketers and social media experts touting their "trade," there is little to no specific examples. When marketers and social media "experts" are asked why they consistently leave out evidence of their claims, they harken back to their days as lawyers and say "would your clients want their names mentioned in a blog post?" They claim that the attorney-client privilege is somehow relevant to the marketer-desperate lawyer relationship. It protects them from having to admit that their claims are just that - claims.

So I don't know which lawyers are "running laps" around other lawyers by "harnessing the power of the internet."

I had a website and a blog long before the marketers darkened the door of our profession, and I have found that harnessing the power of lawyering much more enriching than harnessing the perceived power of the "where are all the cheap, unknowing and easily duped" clients.

But that's me.

Kevin continues:

The Internet has served as the great equalizer over the last decade. Lawyers have left established firms to chase their dreams of doing the work they want for the types of clients they want with the type of lifestyle they want. Other lawyers have carved out niche practices in larger firms, making them an asset to the firm, as opposed to a liability at the age of 45 or 50.

Lawyers have left established firms to chase their dreams of doing the work they want for the types of clients they want with the type of lifestyle they want?

Because of the internet?

See, I laugh at that, but I'm not Kevin's audience. His audience are those that actually believe that the internet is where their dreams start, and are bound to come true.

People have different types of dreams, I guess.

And then Kevin goes in for the kill (drum roll please):

Never before could a lawyer start a blog to demonstrate their passion, expertise, and care. Rather than a good lawyer taking decades, if ever, to build meaningful business relationships and establish themselves as a go-to lawyer in a niche area of the law, lawyers are doing so in a couple years through blogging.

That's right, the shortcut, the alternative, to developing meaningful business relationships over time and establishing yourself as a go-to lawyer, can be done in a couple years through....

blogging.

That's according to Kevin O'Keefe, of Lexblog (click link for information on how to buy "turn-key professional blog service.")

Kevin ends his post with Godin's question:

Why not be great?

I agree. But blogging doesn't make you great, it makes you a blogger. It may even make you a shitty blogger.

Lawyering doesn't make you great - it makes you a lawyer. Great lawyering makes great lawyers.

Unless you're selling blogs.

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.

A Generation Of Proud, Anonymous, Lawyers

The debate over privacy is dead. It isn't really, but apparently, in order to be "cool" on the internet, you must declare something "dead." The debate over privacy though is dead, as there is no privacy on the internet, or in smart phones, and anyone who cries about it, is a moron. Write something, text something, put anything on the internet or in to your phone, and assume someone not intended to see it, will. As lawyers love to say - GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

But the debate over anonymity is not dead, it is growing, and it is divisive.

I think anonymity is important. It's important when reporting a crime, and can serve other important purposes - like when the statement made can put someone in jeopardy of harm - real harm.

Anonymity is also important to those that are cowards. Without anonymity, blog comments would be vast wastelands of intelligent conversation and vigorous debate by people willing to put their name to their statement/argument/lucid thought. Instead, we get comments about people's appearance, ethnic background, and made up shit that is just written to generate a response.

Anonymity is also important to liars. Without anonymity, someone couldn't comment - without the fear or retribution - on a blog post or news article with something that the writer knows to be false.

Some of it is just silly, and some of it is downright scandalous.

When it comes to lawyers and law students, anonymity is simply pathetic. We are, or are going to be, members of the bar, advocates, leaders. Instead, we are no better than the flip flop wearing, basement dwelling, unemployed and angry citizenry who spend their days protected by their fake name or "Anonymous" on the internet, saying whatever they want, and claiming that they are simply fulfilling their patriotic duty under the First Amendment.

There are two reasons I am not anonymous. I am not afraid of letting people know what I think, and I don't come from an upbringing where I was led to believe it was appropriate to lie about people, and otherwise say things publicly without putting my name to it.

Not only is there a feeling that anonymity is OK today, people believe it is a God given right and dammit if they are going to come out of hiding and speak their mind. Anyone who doesn't think much of online fear-based anonymity, is a dangerous person.

So went the debate a few days ago between myself and a law student. The debate began when this anonymous law student was (like many anonymous keyboard tappers who have found a nice home at Above the Law (ATL)) upset about the new comment policy allowing columnists to decide whether to accept comments. I think the policy is stupid, (ut oh, are they gonna fire me?), I think that people who can't take it are pathetic, but it's the new policy.

This anonymous law student was telling one of the ATL columnists who invoked the policy to "rise above it" and continue accepting comments. I thought it hypocritical that an anonymous law student was telling a (not-anonymous) lawyer to allow comments (the bulk of course which are anonymous), so I stuck my nose in it, and here's the relevant portions of how it went:

First, this anonymous law student announces that a columnist has chosen to no longer allow comments, and then says:

@LawStudentDiary hiding isn't the answer.

Brian Tannebaum - But you're anonymous.

Then after the typical nasty shit that happens when someone like me tries to talk to someone like her, @lawstudentdiary says a couple interesting things:

You either allow people to be anonymous and thus be honest, or you have real people, who have to self-censor.

and

If no one was allowed to be anonymous, you wouldn't have hardly any commentators.

Then of course, as twitter goes, someone else jumps in and claims that this is about something much more important:

@clarinette02 @btannebaum @lawstudentdiary May I ask you : Who were the very first drafters of the US constitution? haven't I heard they were anonymous?

Yes, and I've had Tang, just like some of our Astronauts.

And then of course, I finally got the "you stupid old man" comment:

@LawStudentDiary @ @btannebaum Haha, okay. Most of the internet is anon. Some of your fellow ATLers are too. It's how things work. I'm sorry you don't get it.

That's me, Mr. he doesn't get it.

I do though. I get it.

I just don't like it.

I don't mind that people are allowed to be anonymous. There's no requirement for people to say who they are while mindlessly typing things that make total sense to them and the world in which they live. But this entitlement (there's that word again) that society has, that law students and lawyers have, that not only can I be anonymous, but I have to be because if anyone knew what I really thought, I'd be homeless or have the shit beat out of me, is disgraceful.

Think about it - you, reading this. Lawyer, law student. Is this what you wanted? To become an advocate and then spend your days in hiding on the world wide web, in fear not just of your own stupidity and hate, but more importantly, in fear of your cogent thoughts, ideas, perspectives on life?

That's who you are when you are anonymous - no one.

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.

An Open Letter To Legal Marketing Conference Organizers: Dear Morons,

It's getting pretty pathetic out there, and you, ALM, Lexis, and the other organizations serving the legal profession have been throwing together conferences for lawyers desperate to market themselves chocked full of a happy group of idiots as speakers.

Failed lawyers, lawyers who haven't seen a client in years, non-practicing lawyers whose ethics raise more questions than an episode of Jeopardy, losers.

Why are you putting these empty, unemployed, conference grasshoppers in front of lawyers? Why aren't you spending 5 minutes on Google checking these frauds out?

Do you actually sit in the room and listen to these people? Is it really worth an hour of some lawyer's time to hear that we used to ride horses to work and now we drive cars? Does that have anything to do with representing clients with legal problems? Does it matter to a practicing lawyer that the fax machine has been replaced by the scanner? Do we not know this? Is this earth shattering, worthy of a conference fee?

I know, I know, they'll speak for free, they seem to have important followings on twitter. They'll travel on their own dime. They begged to speak. It's cheap for you.

But do you ever wonder why an unemployed lawyer peddling social media or tech tips would fly a few hundred or even thousands of miles just to take a microphone for a panel discussion for an hour?

Are these the important "futurists" of the legal profession that you are happy to have your conference attendees pay good money to hear? Are you really OK having people spend a few hundred dollars, take a day or two off work, travel to another city, and all just to hear from a bunch of people who couldn't make it as practicing lawyers?

Do you have no shame?

This garbage should stop, and stop now.

I know the economy is in the crapper. I know you know that marketing conferences are all the rage and all you need is someone to say that social media is the future and that the iPad has replaced the stone and chisel. I know.

But wouldn't it be great to have one conference where none of these fakers were invited? Wouldn't it be awesome to have a conference where you could say "all our speakers actually represent clients and have real law practices and exist on a daily basis without praying to the Gods of Apple or social media?"

No?

Try it. Just once.

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.

The Tweet Heard 'Round The Social Media Marketing World

Before the unemployed marketers found a way to sell it for a living, and convince lawyers that clients were going to line up with every online "tweet" or "status update," no one thought of creating a fake persona for the purpose of lying to get business. No one thought of puffing qualifications, or, in legal terms, making shit up, in an effort to appear "experienced, aggressive," and here to fight for you 10 minutes out of law school.

When Facebook and twitter and other "social" media sites came online, the first thing people started doing, was talking to each other. When the marketers, unable to truly assist in "marketing" those that were qualified to be marketed started swarming, they made it a profession to help lawyers "create" an online image - true or not.

Lawyers are sheep. Proof? The most scammed segment of society as a result of "Nigerian" email solicitations and other "may I deposit millions of dollars in your account," jokes, are lawyers.

Want to make money? Convince a lawyer you can make them money. They will give you money. Doesn't matter whether you know how to make money. As a marketer told me recently in response to my wonderment how certain morons were given money by lawyers to give marketing advice - he said "no one asks about qualifications, no one."

So tonight, in the middle of watching the resident hucksters try and peddle their wares, I saw this from a social media marketer:

Separate Social Media From Marketing - Anthony J. Bradley and Mark P. McDonald - Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review. He he.

... we need to break out social media and talk about more than marketing and technology. Instead, we need to talk about what social media enables: the ability to collaborate in new ways — which is particularly important for business leaders interested in creating more collaborative, innovative, and engaging organizations.

Huh?

An executive may boast, "We have Twitter and SharePoint, and we're on Facebook." But if you were to ask the executive how social media is positively impacting business results, you may raise a significant issue. When social media is applied to marketing, it creates activity — and in marketing, activity is a good thing. But activity alone does not create business results.

Now wait just a minute?

You can't just type things on social media sites and things will happen?

...just because you've opened the door doesn't mean you've crossed the threshold into a new way of working, managing, and leading. To achieve those ends — we've described these as attributes of a "social organization" — it takes more than setting loose the technology and praying that something good will happen.

So wait, there has to be something behind your online fakery that is actually true?

We need to move beyond social media as a technology tool.

Now this article is basically saying that if the organization behind all the social media lights and sirens is not "social," then it doesn't matter.

Taken a step further, if your law firm, solo practice, reputation, credentials, don't comport with the crap you are spewing on the internet, then all you are doing is using a marketing tool to project something that doesn't exist.

And for some, that's OK.

If it's not, then maybe it's time to think about whether you should be spending more time working on who you truly are, then who you are on social media.












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.

Now Will Everyone Stop Believing The Hype Of Social Media Rock Stars?

I never heard of Trey Pennington. Apparently, the social media crowd loved him. He killed himself over the weekend. He suffered from depression.

To those that don't understand depression, it is (no pun intended) a deadly disease. I served on a non-profit board with a wonderful lawyer, loved by many, and just a great guy. He always offered to help on whatever project we were proposing, and was always glad to see you.

He hung himself one day.

Depression is not being sad, sitting at home complaining, or otherwise feeling sorry for yourself. It is a real, chemical imbalance, that can easily be hidden behind a smile and offer to help you create your dreams with a marketing plan.

There is this vicious debate raging on the internet now between those who say Mr. Pennington had "all these 'friends' on social media," so why couldn't he turn to someone for help? This is the argument being made by people who say the whole social media thing is a joke and that no one has many "real" connections - people they can actually call a "friend," against those that claim social media is the end all be all in life. The social media group - those who loved him, knew him, and say depression is a silent killer that only shows itself when it's too late - they want everyone to stop making this an argument about social media "friends."

The argument is pointless in this situation, and misses the mark.

While it's cute to argue that "hey, what about all those 'friends' on twitter, couldn't you turn to one of them," that's better left for revelations of financial desperation and other social problems. Depression transcends relationships, online or offline.

The real point of this story is something the social media rock stars will not discuss - the notion that someone's created brand on the internet is never the whole story.

Many social media rock stars have no jobs, no income, huge debt, and nothing more than a web presence and a following on twitter. You would never know that, because that's all hidden, no one asks hard questions (especially when faced with the promise of wealth and fame by someone who has neither), and it's a negative discussion which is prohibited by the happysphere on the internet who only respond to congratulations, thank yous and "you're so awesome" type compliments.

The lesson from Trey Pennington is simple - stop assuming that because someone created a web presence and says things that are attractive to you and seemingly can make your life better, that any of it is true.

It's usually not. None of it.

I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Trey Pennington, and hope that at least one of you reading this will realize that your shock is only due to your inability to face reality.

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.

Dissecting The Sales Job Of The Lawyer Turned Marketer

Why is a lawyer selling marketing advice?

Is it because they made a fortune in the practice of law and now want to cash in on the "secrets" to making money as a lawyer?

Or is it because they practiced as an associate for 8 months and then found a way to convince other lawyers there were secrets that could turn lawyers in to rainmakers?

Better question - are you asking these "lawyer-marketers" the hard questions about their credibility to sell this advice? Are you asking them for 10 references? Are you asking them to tell you about their practice? No, you're just interested in hearing how you can make money. That's all

I've said before that lawyers who want to hire marketers or buy marketing advice, tips, secrets, should only pay real marketing professionals - not lawyers.

Why?

Because most lawyers selling marketing advice have no track record of success as lawyers, (or won't talk about it - same thing), have run out of things to say, and never really had anything relevant to say except to puff their resume.

Remember the real estate infomercials? We actually thought the host was some wealthy real estate investor who make billions and now for $19.99 was selling us all his tips. It was crushing to learn he was making money only by selling books and videos at $19.99 a pop. We were so sad when we learned.

Not even respected publications are immune to the draw of the lawyer turned marketer.

An example: The National Law Journal, previously a paper filled only with news about the legal profession, lawyers, law, and court cases, has hired social media guru Adrian Dayton to write for them.

What they seem to ignore, is that he's really just writing for himself.

See, the audience of both the NLJ and young Adrian, is BigLaw. Adrian wants to teach BigLaw how to type on a computer using twitter and other social media sites. He claims to be able to help establish "high value relationships." To the desperate lawyer out there, that means "make money." Adrian never made much money as a lawyer, but let's move on.

Because that's what it's all about, isn't it? Just tell me how to make the money. I don't care who you are, or if you ever made any money, I only care that you claim you can tell me to make the money. I want your tips. I want your "secrets." I want money.

Recently, Adrian wrote "Are You Beer-Worthy?" Here, he claims this is a piece about lawyers who don't like to network.

Cue the first sales move:

Perhaps this is why introverts are drawn to the idea of social networking and business development through LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.

Then, we add a little international cred:

When I traveled to Australia and New Zealand in February to speak to a variety of organizations about social media, I often started my speaking engagements with an anecdote involving a can of Coca-Cola. After sharing this story a couple of times, and not getting much of a response, I realized that perhaps Coke wasn't the same icon in Australia that it was in the United States. So I asked a group of lawyers: What is the comparable soft drink in Australia?

Coke, Beer, are you ready for the marketing tip?

"Beer" came the reply from a lawyer who looked nothing like Crocodile Dundee.

Then we move to the "throw-away" tip as the lawyers turned marketers continue to try and find relevant things to say:

We tend to do business with people we know, like and trust — in that order. Beer-worthiness speaks to the question, "Is this someone you would like to have a beer with?" Is this someone you would enjoy talking to, strategizing with and taking a break with when you aren't in the heat of litigation? That's the type of person clients like to hire.

Yes lawyers, I know, you've never heard this. Yes, we tend to do business with those we know, like, and trust. I know, fascinating, isn't it? You've heard this what, 75,000 times?

Then, as we're trying to make sense of this "secret" of marketing, here comes another sales pitch, after a very, very important disclosure:

In full disclosure, I'm not a beer drinker, but in training and coaching lawyers all over the country about social media I have come to the conclusion that they can help break the ice, help start a conversation. But it ends there. Unless lawyers are willing to pick up the phone, make an appointment, grab a cup of coffee or hit the bar, they won't find traction in their social networking efforts.

Training and coaching all over the country, and in Australia and New Zealand.

Do you see "HIRE ME BIGLAW" between the lines?

Now of course Adrian is making the point that social media is not the end-all-be-all in networking, but not without a few words from our sponsor, if you know what I mean.

I have an idea for the NLJ to propose to Adrian for his next (sales job) piece in their austere publication.

How about, "How social media made me a rainmaker as a lawyer, my long track record of obtaining legal clients through on-line marketing?"

I'll be waiting to read it.

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.

Who's Who At Biltmore Who's Who?

One of the recurring themes of social media and the internet is "how stupid are people?" Every week there's a new scam and a new group of idiots crying "I had no idea" after their money is transferred from their bank account or credit card, or months after they hired that consultant to change their life for the better.

I have little sympathy.

There are two reasons people get scammed - one, they don't want to know the "road to wealth" or "you have been selected" scam is a scam, and two, they don't take the time to do the difficult work of checking the company or faux consultant out. Today's world is a world of desperation for wealth and recognition, and dammit, if someone is going to sell me a plaque that tells everyone I am somebody, I'm writing the check.

Initially, the honorees receive a card saying they have been nominated for inclusion in Biltmore’s prestigious registry of successful business and professional people. Others get an unsolicited phone call. Once a sales rep gets the “nominee” on the phone, out comes the persuasive, scripted pitch listing Biltmore’s benefits: a personalized plaque, help with producing a professional profile, a listing in Biltmore’s hardcover book and on the company’s website, and having Biltmore issue a news release “to all major search engines, including Google” lauding the honoree’s accomplishments. Also: two round trip airline tickets to one of 40 locations.

Then, the money: A lifetime membership in the social network costs in the neighborhood of $800, according to various complaints. Less costly platinum and gold memberships are also offered, as is a trial membership, which can be upgraded later, for approximately $200

Sounds good, even if the person selling the plaque is a known scam artist.

Meet who's behind door number 1 at Biltmore Who's Who:

The social media company — headed by former commodities broker Stephen Margol, who was banned for life from trading under a settlement with federal regulators — did not respond to numerous phone calls and a visit by The Miami Herald.

[Margol] induced customers to invest with Risk Capital by making false and misleading material representations and omissions during sales solicitation phone calls,” the settlement said. Their investors ended up losing most, if not all, of their money — $16 million between 2001 and 2003. Margol created Biltmore in the summer of 2005 — a year before his commodities ban became official.

But wait, there's more:

Florida’s Division of Consumer Services, the Better Business Bureau and various websites, including RipoffReport.com, have heard from a long string of customers about pushy sales tactics and allegedly unauthorized credit card charges beyond the initial charge.

And as all liars on social media try to mask the truth:

The vast body of negative reviews prompted Biltmore to engage in some online damage control, both on message boards and on Twitter, where the company has written “Not a scam” in its description field. But even that wasn’t quite what it seemed.

The avatar on the company’s Twitter account — a smiling young woman in a yellow polo — is a model whose image is lifted off the All American Clothing Co. website.

People always ask me, as if I picked the winning lotto numbers: "how do you find out all these things?" (I didn't discover the Biltmore Who's Who scam, as I don't take calls from companies like that because I'm not desperately looking for recognition from anyone who will sell it to me.)

Yep. That's where we are. Create the scam, scam the internet, and then scam the internet some more when the truth comes out.

Sound familiar?

By the way, the super-secret way I find out some of these things?

Ready?

I use this: Link

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.

No Adrian Dayton, Gaming Google To Create A Reputation Is Not What Lawyers Should Do

Adrian Dayton probably wasn't real happy when he Googled himself and found that the fifth entry wasn't a post written by one of his happy crew of social media fake experts. It was one of the posts I wrote about his background where he finally admitted his "work" on the 450 million dollar merger was nothing more than reading documents. (He still uses this "experience" in his bio though).

For those of you new to life, I've been writing about the wonderment of Adrian Dayton for a while now, bewildered how a 6 month lawyer could convince BigLaw that he is the answer to their rainmaking woes when it comes to social media. I've opened some eyes, and had my eyes opened by the ignorant lawyers out there who could care less who pretends to know how to build a law practice.

So what do we do when we see something on Google we don't like? Obviously if it's true, if it exposes our lack of experience or that we've been less than truthful about our background - we have to get rid of it. Someone may read it and, well, we can't have that.

So how do we manufacture our own reputation on the internet?

Yes people, I'm here to put on my social media/SEO hat (for free) and tell you out there that there is a way to game Google. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Google reacts to your name. It reacts to "strong" sites where your bio exists. The best way to game Google is to a) have posts written with your name in the title, and b) have people link to you.

The best Google profiles (and by that I mean your first page search results, not the actual "Google profile"), are those that are "organic." This means they were established through your blog posts, blog posts written about you, others linking to you, and other sites where your information exists like Facebook, LinkedIn or Avvo.com.

The game is played when you try to "push" down negative results. And the way you do that, if not many people have something good to say about you, is to write about yourself, and beg for links.

This is where a disturbing trend appears.

A while back, I was trying to establish whether another lawyer was actually practicing law and using the technology they were writing about daily and encouraging other lawyers to use. Questions were raised, and internet chatter began to revolve about the person's true background. As a result, this person wrote a self-promotional piece about who they "really are." I found this sad, as manufacturing a reputation is weak and small. Reputations are established by what people say and think about you, not what you say and think of yourself (unless you're a marketing hack lawyer who has created their own fake reputation to which no one but the naive can attest.)

This post I describe was the inspiration for Adrian Dayton's latest puff piece: "Who is Adrian Dayton?". Dayton obviously feels that his view of his background, including his "work" on the 450 million dollar merger, needs to be told, again, and would appreciate if you would write your own self-promotional piece and link to his. By linking to his, you help him with his goal, to have a better Google page. Since the only person telling the story of Adrian Dayton is me, he's got to tell his own.

So write about yourself, tell us who you really are, and help Adrian Dayton's Google Analytics.

This is what we've come to in our profession. Those with law degrees who self-admittedly "have no business practicing law," and are trying to earn a buck from practicing lawyers by playing the "I'm one of you" card, are out there manufacturing their reputations, and asking for your help.

Reputations are earned though.

Have you earned yours, or have you created it?

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.

Why Google + Is The Next Big Thing, And Other Moronic Stupid Dumbass Things People Say

There's nothing worse in today's tech important world than being on vacation with your family, enjoying time together, gathering memories, and then BOOM, something like Google + is created and lawyers everywhere are made to feel their practice will dissolve unless they jump on board.

And of course it's by invitation only. Like when you were 5 and you didn't go to Susie or Johnny's party unless you were invited?

So the invites were coveted, lawyers everywhere joined, tech hacks who don't practice law were spouting off hourly on the grand importance of our new Google +

I wasn't back 24 hours before I was presented with my invitation. I hadn't even unpacked yet and had nothing to wear to the big prom.

Today, I have 8, no, maybe 9 people in my "circles" on Google +. I think 7, no, 8 of them are people I am connected with on twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo, and 15 other sites.

But it's the next big thing.

While I was away I heard news about the creation of a new country (South Sudan), a phone hacking scandal that (may still) bring down a mammoth journalistic empire and not just one tabloid. I heard about economies crashing, wars raging, people rising up.

I return to America and hear that a new website is the "next big thing."

It gets old people. Toys, words on screens, they're compliments to our lives - not essential tools in our existence (unless you're selling that mantra to desperate lawyers who are willing to listen to any non-practicing idiot who smiles and sounds good).

Google + is a website, a place to collect the same damn people you've collected, to share the same stupid meaningless "10 tips to pissing in a toilet correctly" crap.

It isn't the next big thing, unless you're that small.

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.

Anthony's Weiner

Yeah, ha ha, funny title, laugh-a-minute. How many jokes can we make about the fall of Congressman Anthony Weiner, another Google disaster?

Weiner subscribed to the marketing cheerleaders cry that the internet is a fun place, where social media is nothing to be scared of Self-proclaimed twitter expert Adrian Dayton says: There are things to be afraid of in this world -- things you may never understand, like how to fix a carburetor, deliver a baby or mill wheat -- but social media aren't among them (editor's note: Dayton sells social media advice for a living, therefore, talking about the dark side isn't good for business).

But then there's people like me and others who poo-poo about the perils, the risks, and the consequences. Who was going to see his "private" chats with various women? Can't you just delete a tweet if you send in publiclly instead of private ("direct")?

His pronouncement that he will not resign, had a singular purpose - test the waters, see who would rise up and say "hell yeah - don't resign!" There were some. A few. But not enough. People like Anthony, but not enough to keep him in office. It's not the pictures, not the cheating, it's the lies.

He will resign within 2 weeks. His wife will probably leave him, as she rightfully left him standing at the podium yesterday, to cry about his "mistakes." Talking to a girl, not your wife, on the internet about getting a blow job is not a mistake. It may be stupid, but it's not a mistake.

Yes, Weiner "took full responsibility," only after he learned the gig was up. He didn't take responsibility, he was forced to acknowledge it. There is a difference.

Anthony Weiner is an example to those who spend their days looking for attention on the internet.

He's definitely made it to the first page of Google.

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.

We May Be, Maybe, Winning The War Against Scumbag Marketing Lawyers

It was like a dream come true. This past week I had the opportunity to speak at two separate conferences on the topic of ethics and online marketing. This was like open mic night - An hour at each conference of combining all my blog posts, tweets, and articles on the topic, and telling 300 people about the sewer that lawyers have made of the internet.

I talked about specific scumbags, yes I named the liars that sell to lawyers. I spoke about how we got to this point - by listening to scumbag marketers trying to and convincing everyone that the goal of a lawyer was not becoming a good lawyer - but getting juice for Google placement. I talked about spamming lawyers, and I spoke about the difference between what you can do, and what you should do.

This was the reaction tweet I was looking for:

@miquelle (who has no bio or name or information as to who it is)
@ social media ethics session @roiconference. This guy basically hates the Internet. A little extreme IMHO.

That response came from someone at the Radius of Influence Conference (ROI) (yes, ROI, for real people), where the theme is:

"The best attorneys, not the biggest advertisers, should get the best cases."

ROI is the brain child of Injury Board co-founder Tom Young (a national membership network of plaintiff attorneys committed to a more constructive way of marketing their skills). In simple terms - this is a group of PI lawyers fed up with the marketing game. When I walked in to the room, Tom was giving the keynote. He said things like "word of mouth," and "referral," and "passion." I knew then that this was not a place for the marketing scum that have permeated the profession.

Without hesitation, I will tell you that if you are a personal injury lawyer, no, strike that, if you are a lawyer who believes there is still room to grow your practice without giving in to the bullshit peddlers that want to sell you space on the internet, attend ROI next year. It's not cheap, but it's a conference where you'll take home a new non-internet sewer perspective on how to grow your practice.

Then I went over to Avvocating, Avvo's national conference in Orlando. As I walked down the hall, my excitement to give the same talk increased with every SEO, marketing, Google placement vendor table I passed. This would be a crowd that would be hostile to my talk. When I entered the room, the first thing I saw and heard was a guy in a Google shirt telling some lawyer the comparison between the "hits" to his website and his blog.

I gave the talk. No one walked out. As at ROI, there were some giggles when I spoke of ghostwriting blogs and tweets, and told everyone to never hire a lawyer for marketing or social media advice.

What fascinated me was that lawyers, both young and old, seemed interested in building law practices outside of faking it on the internet.

Many ask what my goal is in all of this. It is two-fold - one, to put out of business all the snake oil salesmen, and two, to change the message about what it takes to build a practice, even in 2011.

Why do I think we're winning? ("we" is the side of ethical and off-line marketing)

Out of 300 people, 6 told me that the best case they ever got, came from the internet.

Stay tuned.

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 Future Of Law: Better, Faster, Cheaper - Pick Which One You Want

If you practice law, go to law school, or just know that lawyers exist, I trust by now you've read the story of Joseph Rakofsky's representation in a murder case.

New details have surfaced.

He solicited himself for the case. If you don't know, lawyers can advertise under stringent rules, but are not permitted to solicit. They do, every day, but it's a violation of the ethics rules.

Rakofsky also quoted a fee 50-75% less of what the client was hearing from other lawyers. Nothing unethical about that, unless you are quoting the fee just to get the case, and refrain from telling the client that a. you've never handled a murder case, and b. you've never tried a case.

This is how some inexperienced lawyers get cases today - cut price and say as little as possible about your lack of experience.

Take for example one of the cornerstones of today's marketing lawyer - if you've only been out a few years, don't put your graduation date from law school or college on your website. (Stop laughing, internet marketers - yeah, we all know it's one of your "secrets.")

Sunday night a group of people not asked to speak at the ABA Tech Show in Chicago this week, had their own pre-tech show conference - Ignite Law. This conference selected 12 people, some practicing lawyers, to discuss the future of law - each speaker getting 6 minutes.

Of course, how a lawyer parading as an experienced criminal defense lawyer used tech and social media to create a false image of his experience and qualifications, was discussed profusely.

Actually, no it wasn't.

The marketers and tech types are still on an embargo on that topic. Not a word.

All the speakers did mention the New York Times piece by exonerated convict John Thompson that went viral yesterday where he wonders if the future of law will bring prosecutors to justice.

Actually, none of them mentioned that, and no one at tech show will mention that this week. As some hysterical attendee said last year "it's tech show, tech show, it's about tech, tech tech tech," etc...

If you're wondering what the future of law holds for all of us according to the speakers at Ignite Law:

As the ABA Journal summed it up:

Technology will push bar regulators to ease jurisdictional restrictions. More than 50 percent of clients will rely on consumer review websites like Yelp to find a lawyer. And iPads and other smart tablets will be as ubiquitous in firms and courtrooms as microwave ovens are in homes.

Lawyer Jay Shepherd is so certain the billable hour will be dead in 8 years that he announced to the sold-out crowd he is closing his practice to focus on a new venture, PREFIX, which teaches lawyers how to value and price knowledge and judgment.

Lawyer Jim Calloway probably assured himself he wont be invited back when he called for a return to old-school communication including handwritten thank-you notes and smartphone-free face time as two of the best ways to build client trust in the future.

His catchphrase 'What Would Grandma Do?' drew laughs.

Ha ha h......heh..h...

I wasn't invited to speak at Ignite Law, mainly because I didn't submit an audition package and beg people on twitter to vote for me, but if I did, and was selected, I would have said something like this:

The future of law will require lawyers to keep confidences of clients. It will require that lawyers understand legal issues and figure out ways to resolve client problems. There will be so many lawyers in the profession for the sole purpose of collecting clients through internet marketing, that it will be the rare lawyer who agrees to meet in a room with a client where the only technology is a glass to hold some water, a pen, some paper, and a professional interested in a face to face opportunity to discuss an important issue with a person needing legal services.

Witnesses will be called into courtrooms to testify about what your clients did, and you will be required to understand how to question them without the use of something with an on/off switch. You will also be required to explain your legal position through an analysis of the case law you obtained virtually or via the fax machine connected to the radio in your wireless car.

Because everyone will have a tablet-type device and ability to video conference with people through their sunglasses, the successful lawyer will be the one who gains a reputation for understanding how the law applies to a particular client's issue, and who has the ability to advocate a position through the connection of facts to current law.

I don't know what the future of the legal profession will entail, as I'm just a practitioner, not a palm reader. Like anything else, there will be a movement towards better, faster, cheaper.

Tech and social media marketing can definitely help you be two of those things.

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

What Will Always Matter In The Legal Profession

The internet flows with messages to lawyers about what they need to have to be successful. No more is it about cross-examination skills, negotiation skills, people skills - it's all about toys, apps, and placement on the world wide web. It's sad, and we lawyers have done nothing to attack the commoditization of our profession.

Mark Britton of AVVO frequently says that "if you are not on the internet, you don't exist." He tells the story of his search for a toy for a child. It didn't matter how many toy stores sold this toy, all that mattered was which merchant came up (on the first page of Google) and was a click away from shipping the toy.

Mark makes a good point, but his point is not inclusive. If you are not on the internet, you don't exist to those looking for products and services on the internet.

The internet is a wonderful source of information and merchandise, including information about services - like lawyers. At it's lowest common denominator, the internet is where people go to find the best deal on whatever they are going to buy.

If your goal is to be the best deal as a lawyer, then I recommend you put every single marketing dollar, dime, and penny into internet marketing.

This is not a criticism. We need low fee lawyers for clients. People need access to legal representation and if someone can do it, or claim they can do it, for $500 instead of $5,000, then the client should have that choice, we just hope they make an informed one.

But not every lawyer is in that market. Not every lawyer is looking for every client with a few dollars to spare.

And not every client is looking for a lawyer with the most toys, or best ability to get to the top (of Google).

So we come to my point.

Regardless of who is telling you otherwise, there are things about the legal profession that will never change, no matter how many toys Apple makes, how many social networking sites are invented, or how many tips and tricks exist out there to play the marketing game.

There are so many tech and toy related "10 tips," "5 tips," "20 things every lawyer needs to know," lists.

But here's what will always matter about the profession.

[1] Most clients come to a lawyer when they have a problem. They are looking for someone to understand the problem. People understand problems, toys don't understand problems. It will always require a person, to understand a problem.

[2] Cases and disputes are resolved between people. They will always be resolved with people talking to people. Always.

[3] Reputations of lawyers are not ever going to be determined by which lawyer has which toy or placement on the internet.

[4] Real clients with real problems will never hire a lawyer because of the toys they own, or the tech they use, ever.

[5] The best tech a lawyer can have is ears.

[6] Marketing may get you a call, or an appointment, but it will never get you a happy client.

[7] Happy clients will always be the best source of referrals, not Google.

[8] Even unhappy clients will be a good source of referrals, if their unhappiness is not viewed as your fault.

[9] Being on the first page of Google means just that, you are on the first page of Google. There are plenty of unethical, crappy lawyers on the first page of Google, and the clients will never know that until it's too late.

[10] Your ability to persuade a judge, jury, prosecutor, opposing civil counsel, client's boss, client's wife, or licensing board will never be determined by the success of your marketing.

[11] There will never be a toy or app that will make a client feel better about their situation. Only you, and your words and actions will ever make a client feel like they are in the right hands.

[12] Machines have no emotion, no ability to care, and they break. The best thing your client gets from you is your voice, after you use your ears.

[13] No one will ever become great merely because they own something.

[14] There is no app, toy, or marketing technique that will get you a "thank you" from a client for saving their life, or making it better.

[15] The amount of people you "know" on-line has nothing to do with you getting a client who needs a good lawyer.

So go, be on the front page of Google, "exist" on the internet, buy all the cool new toys.

There's a whole world out there that doesn't care about any of it, but they are looking for good lawyers.

Maybe like you.

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

A Lesson From Social Media/Tech Lawyer Evangelists: Do As I Say, Because I Don't Do

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend

As I continue to watch the sewer that has become social media for lawyers on the internet, I wonder why the real lawyers, the ones who practice law as a profession, haven't risen up and told the others to get the hell out.

Actually, I don't wonder that much, as there are plenty that will take advice from a non-practicing lawyer on the latest tech toy that will be a "game changer."

A new application ("app" for today's tech lawyer that can't use any words with more than 5 letters) was recently released for the iPad. You know the iPad, every lawyer MUST have one?

It's called TrialPad. Some folks right here in Miami developed it, and it's all the buzz.

The idea behind Trial Pad?

Litigators know that presenting evidence electronically is a winning strategy for large, high profile cases. But the cost of this persuasive presentation tactic was always prohibitive for smaller matters, and learning curve for available technologies was steep.

In response, legal tech evangelist and lawyer Nicole Black (who doesn't read anything I write because apparently I've been "globally filtered" out of her social media world from what I hear) wrote a review:

I tried it out a few times, but it wasn’t until I sat through a demo with the developer at LegalTech in Manhattan last week that I truly realized how useful this app will be for litigators.

Then she goes on and in part says:

Using TrialPad, you can simply and easily control the presentation of evidence to a jury. You can highlight and annotate documents in real time, drawing the jurors attention to important aspects of the document.

The TrialPad interface is intuitive and easy to use, making trial preparation and presentation more effective.

And of course, like all good tech evangelists that subscribe to my theory of the self fulfilling prophecy, she ends:

...mark my words, within the next 2 years, trial presentation software such as TrialPad on tablet computers will be the norm in the courtroom.

"Everyone will have one."

But here's the problem.

When you write about new tech being essential for lawyers, and you present yourself as a lawyer who is also a tech evangelist, you're going to get this type of question from let's say someone like... criminal lawyer Nicole Farnum, who asks:

@nikiblack have you used it yet?

Well of course she's used it, why else would she be saying how easy it was to use in a jury trial? Why else would she say it will be the norm in the courtroom? Why else?

@nicoleruns I've tested it out but I don't litigate at this point in my career, so I haven't used it at trial.

Oh?

Oh.

We'll get back to that in a minute.

As I said in the beginning of this post, play acting is a definition of hypocrisy, and there is no better place to play act than as a lawyer on the internet playing with shiny toys and social media.

My good friend and lawyer Adrian Dayton, who has decided his best offense against my continued questioning of his complete lack of rainmaking experience, is to crawl in to a hole and not answer any questions, was recently interviewed about his "career" teaching lawyers how to tweet and use other forms of social media to make money.



Now this is an impressive looking interview, even with the host not able to control his laughter at 1:41. It's always great to be interviewed. It gives you the "organic" following Adrian talks about so much. It makes a lawyer with 8 months experience in a law firm, look like someone we all should hire to give us rainmaking advice.

So I asked Adrian if this was an interview he was asked to participate in, or whether he paid for it.

No answer.

Why not?

He paid for it.

It's totally fake. It's play acting.

But it looks real.

When people with law degrees claim authority over anything in the legal profession, whether it be the toys of Apple, or the keys to social media, lawyer ears perk up. "We're one of you," they say. But they are nothing more than "passionate" about toys and tweets. They don't use any of them to practice law, and never will.

I have no issues with lawyers who don't practice law. Plenty don't, and have started businesses, work at charities, work in other professions, become President of the United States, or do nothing.

But to all those that left the practice and are using their "lawyer" moniker to play act and try to gain relevance and authority over real, practicing lawyers, I have some advice:

Shut the fuck up and go away.

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