Maybe someone that knows Latin can help me. I'm looking for the proper way to write "Let the Lawyer Beware!" much the way the buyer must beware (caveat emptor). An online dictionary tells me that consultus is the Latin for legal expert, and from which consultant is derived; though jurista seems like a possibility and it also looks and sounds better.

So this post has nothing to do with being afraid of lawyers, but rather, as a warning to those with the juris doctorate.

Frankly, I've always hated the use of Latin phrases in the law, as it always seemed pretentious. My usage is usually de minimis, limited to res ipsa loquitor and a few other well known phrases. But if using Latin helps save someone from outsourcing their marketing (and ethics) to others, it will be a good thing.

Why write on this again? Because I'm featured in the ABA Journal this week, in an edition that deals with online activities, Wired! The article is part of The Business of Law section, entitled Search and Deceive, and dedicated to comment spam and the problems hiring marketers for law firms. (Kevin O'Keefe is featured also, and as you can see from the picture they used, he's clearly more photogenic than yours truly.)

Their piece is inspired by Martindale-Hubbel's use of comment spam that I wrote about late last year (Martindale-Hubbell Apologizes For Blog Spam; Suspends Spammer; Promises to Answer Questions)

The essence of the article is this:

With the proliferation of social media forums and fly-by-night legal directories, lawyers need to be even more cautious when they enlist the services of outside sales and marketing firms to improve website traffic and search engine rankings.

The many problems with FindLaw, of course, equally apply, but the FindLaw postings occurred after the original article was written.

It's good to see these problems now leaking out of the legal blogosphere to mainstream legal publications.

But I still need that Latin phrase. Though I'll accept Middle French, Middle English and any other dead language. Anyone? Bueller? (Yeah, I know, like he'd ever know Latin...)

Labels: Marketing

FindLaw continues to have problems with its so-called law blogs. Today's problem: Their writer doesn't appear to know a damn thing about law.

Why does FindLaw continue this charade of having blogs by producing crap content?

From its Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog (coded "NoFollow" so it doesn't get Google juice) comes this mega-screw-up of a headline:


Oy. That's what happens when non-lawyers try to write law blogs. Legal terms get thrown around willy-nilly without the writer knowing what they are doing.

It's always been one of my pet peeves in newspapers when I see a headline declaring that someone was found "innocent" of a crime. Criminal juries, of course, don't determine innocence. (Nor do civil trials.) Criminal trials just determine whether the prosecution sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But at least when I see newspapers do it they aren't conflating the criminal with the civil.

Memo to writer Emily Grube who continues to churn out this awful dreck at the behest of her employer: This was a civil trial and you used the language of the criminal world by waltzing into the guilt-innocence issue. That's a whopper of a mistake, as we say in legalese.

But it's clear this wasn't an inadvertent mistake, because it continues in the content with this gibberish:

It took the jury less than an hour to find that Dr. Robert Stratton was not guilty of providing poor emergency room care to Dennis J. Kowalick.

Civil juries don't determine "guilt." That is a criminal law term. The civil jury in a malpractice case will determine negligence. And I can't believe anyone would hire a writer for a law blog when that writer didn't understand such fundamentals.

FindLaw obviously continues this crap because it thinks it will get SEO juice. These "blogs" are merely ads designed to dump as many SEO friendly terms onto the web, quality be damned. And if FindLaw need to use a dead child for its self-promotion, well so what, because the ends of self-promotion and making money are more important than anything else, right?

I assume that no one at FindLaw cares, since they've permitted this stuff to go on for months now. I would have thought that its professor-contributors from Writ: Anthony Sebok, Marci Hamilton, Michael Dorf, Carl Tobias, Sherry Colb, Joanna Grossman, Neil Buchanan, and Julie Hilden, to name a few, would have raised a ruckus since they are now associated with these shitblogs. Perhaps they don't care either.

If FindLaw can find professors to write Writ, you would think they could find a lawyer or two to write blogs. But then, FindLaw would have to actually give a damn. Marketing appears to trump all else and remains the holy grail; produce quantity and not quality.

As Scott Greenfield discusses, anyone can have a blog, but not everyone should.

The wonder of it all is that there are lawyers that actually outsource their marketing to FindLaw. I assume that they remain utterly clueless as to what this company does in their names, though if they find out they could save a bundle (and their reputations) by taking their business elsewhere.

And a final obligatory note: You don't have to be a lawyer to write a law blog, as Walter Olson shows at Overlawyered and Point of Law.

More:
Are FindLaw's "Blogs" Tainting Its Clients, Commentators and the Profession of Law? (1/4/10)

Labels: FindLaw, Marketing

Today I have a guest blogger that shows you how to save thousands of dollars a year. Those savings take place if you made the mistake of hiring FindLaw as your law firm's marketing company (or are contemplating doing so).

The company hit my radar big time, of course, when FindLaw decided it would be fun to rip-off my blog name. A deeper look discussed how FindLaw's "Blogs" were tainting not only its clients, but its professor-commentators and the profession of law as a whole.

Today's guest is a former sales rep that left on less than amicable terms because he couldn't make an absurd sales quota selling a product that was so heavily over-priced. Today he has his own company. The financial analysis of FindLaw's offerings now follows:
-------------------------------------------------------
By James Eichehberger
(co-owner of Swell Sites, a small, Minnesota web design company)

There's been a lot of chatter, mostly disgust, around the ethics and quality of FindLaw's blogs as well as what I'll considerately call a lack of creativity in naming them. I'm sure that this, like the linking scandal of 2008*, will evoke a variety of reactions from people involved in the legal marketing community. The great majority of lawyers will read these posts and feel self-assured in the fact that they don't do business with FindLaw.

However, I'm afraid that current FindLaw customers will have one of two reactions. Some will look at it as an issue that is isolated to the blogosphere, and therefore doesn't effect them and their products with FindLaw. The second group will realize that, whether or not they have their names posted on these blogs, this is yet another incarnation of FindLaw's questionable ethics, and it's time to move.

So the question for current FindLaw customers (the group that is willing to acknowledge that their reputations are at stake) becomes how do you transition out of your current site and retain some of what you've already paid for? To that end, I've put together a group of questions that can jump-start the idea that you can indeed rescue your website from being held hostage and save thousands of dollars a year.

1. What am I really getting from the FindLaw Directory?

In reviewing traffic reports with your sales rep or account manager, it's common to see the traffic delivered by FindLaw rolled into one big number. To be clear, there are two distinct elements that bring traffic to your website from FindLaw. First, your FindLaw profile, (which will typically include "pview" in the URL on your traffic report) and then any directory placements, which can run from $30 to upwards of $1,000 per month. [Ed. note, FindLaw links coded as "nofollow" to avoid giving link juice.]

It's important to understand the average price per click that you are paying for traffic from FindLaw's top listings. In many cases, those coveted clicks from FindLaw cost well beyond $100 each. Tracking how many of these clicks actually convert to contacts by following the pages they access on your site is a very easy task with many common (and free) traffic programs. It's troubling that FindLaw's traffic reporting is unable to follow these users and show conversion for this extremely expensive traffic.

2. Why am I paying monthly for my website?

There are really two answers to this question, depending on where you are in the life of your website with FindLaw. FindLaw websites are billed monthly, so the idea is that they take the cost of a website and prorate it over 12 monthly payments. So if you are in the first 12 months of your contract, it can be argued that you are still paying for the creation of your website.

Outside of those 12 months is where the math gets blurry. The monthly rates don't change (significantly, anyway) based on the length of the contract, and what you get in terms of content or SEO doesn't really either. Unless you are engaged with your website to the point of calling to ask what you are eligible for on a quarterly basis, your website just gets more and more expensive the longer you keep it with FindLaw. A former FindLaw General Manager said on his way out (before having moved back over to West) that the best way to get real value from a FindLaw website is to buy one and then cancel it as soon as possible.

3. What do you get beyond the initial development of your site?

That's a question that FindLaw was trying to answer the entire 5 years that I worked there, and to my knowledge, they still haven't figured it out. If anyone reading this can tell me of an experience where they received real value outside of the initial development of a new project I'd be interested in hearing about it. My guess is that most FindLaw customers will struggle to recall ever being proactively helped with their sites. They will tell you about "refreshes" which are additional content opportunities, but they are not easy to set up or completely clear on who is eligible.

The service is supposed to include additional search engine optimization (SEO) work, but at the time I left, they could also just have someone from the SEO team "audit" the site, and then determine whether or not they wanted to work on it. Same thing with content; unless you ask about the schedule, and then give specific direction on what content you'd like written, you likely will not get any. I'd liken the whole situation to trying to write step by step instructions on how to tie a shoe. Tying a shoe is easy, but when you try to tell someone else how to do it, it becomes infinitely more difficult than if you had done it yourself.

4. What elements of my FindLaw website do I actually own?

Here's where there is actually some good news for FindLaw clients. There are three basic elements to your site:

Domain Name
This is the the name that brings up your site. Regardless of whether you owned that domain name before you purchased your site, it IS yours. At any time, for any reason, you can request that the ownership of your domain name be transferred to an account under your name. That gives you the ability to keep a site up and running should you decide to move away from FindLaw in the future. It also protects you from them holding on to it should you get into any type of a dispute over your contract term, cancellation date or total amount owed to the company. Your domain name is the online version of the front door to your law firm...your law firm should be the sole owner and controller of that domain name.

Content
The content on your site that was "custom written" is yours to keep. Because you directed the writing of this content, and it was written about your firm, it is yours. The content includes the meta data which is a large part of their search engine placement strategy. Transferring your content, as well as the 3 or 4 lines of coding aimed at search engine placement, onto a new server space will typically yield the same, if not better, results on Google.

Not ALL of the content belongs to you. If you have any FAQs, eNewsletters, Practice pages or practice centers, those are actually leased from FindLaw. Re-publishing that content on to a new hosting space is a violation of the contract and licensing of the content.

Design
The design is owned by FindLaw, but can be purchased for a fee defined as 4% of the annual value of the website. So if you were paying $12,000 a year for your site, buying the design and all images used would typically cost about $500. For that cost, you get a disc or a link to download all of the HTML files and graphics that made up your site. What you get isn't going to be easily rebuilt by a novice, but someone with a general knowledge of websites could reconstruct it in 2 to 6 hours, depending on the complexity of the design and number of pages.

5. How much should I expect to pay for a website from FindLaw?

There are hundreds of variations, but a template, 8 page site tends to run about $500 a month on a 12 month contract. So at a minimum, the site is about $6,000.* The second year monthly fees typically drop to about $350, so a 24 month stint with FindLaw with an 8 page website will cost right around $10,000.

This price increasing over time with the relatively low service level in the second year and beyond, is really where the opportunity to save some real money comes in to play. If you already have a FindLaw website, there are several ways to get it set up on your own hosting space. Attorneys who are very web savvy may be able to handle the migration themselves. If you are not very comfortable with web development it may be far more efficient to hire someone to do it for you.

6. How much does it cost to get my FindLaw site rebuilt on another platform?

There is no perfect answer for this, but you should expect to pay somewhere in the range between $1,000 and $4,000 depending on the size and complexity of your website. Whether you are setting up a new website or working to get your FindLaw site migrated, here are a few things you're going to want to make sure have been taken care of (in no particular order):

a. XML Sitemap Submission
b. Traffic Reporting that shows where people are coming from (a counter is not enough)
c. Domain validation through Google (available in their Webmaster Tools)
d. Meta Data on each page of your site that you would like included on Google
e. Keyword rich content that reflects the approach and feel, not just the practice area, of your law firm.

I hope this information is helpful to people who are looking to gain a better understanding of exactly what they purchased from FindLaw, or looking to start up or advance their web marketing. I hope none of this came across as "axe-grinding" but at the same time, the reason that FindLaw can continue to get away with these other questionable projects is because there are thousands of lawyers who are paying thousands of dollars for what's basically a trumped up web hosting plan.
-------------------------------------------------------

*Ed. notes:

1. For more info on the prior scandal with FindLaw selling links, see FindLaw gaming Google, and possibly scamming lawyer customers? Also see: Is the FindLaw Story Getting Distorted? where former FindLaw reps out the company's disreputable policies in the comments.

2. This blog and my firm's website were built by a small provider for a fraction of the cost of FindLaw's services. The idea that lawyers would pay such ridiculously high rates to build a website, and then pay hundreds of dollars more per month to host it, is bizarre.

All the content on my two sites (for better or worse) comes off my keyboard.

Labels: FindLaw, Guest Blog, Marketing

J'accuse.

In looking at FindLaw's new gaggle of so-called "blogs" that are little more than crappy search engine fodder and client solicitations, I struggled to find the right word to describe them. The ramifications of these crap-blogs are important, because FindLaw is now tainting their clients, diminishing the stature of their vaunted professor-commentators, and lowering the level of discourse in the legal profession as a whole. And because this is likely to be a source of discussion going forward, it also means these so-called "blogs" need an appropriate name.

Just as the two-week holiday started, I noted that FindLaw ripped-off the name of my blog, recently creating their own New York Personal Injury Law Blog. (Link coded as "nofollow" to avoid giving Google juice). But the problem, as noted by others, isn't just that they ripped off my name, but that they did so with unadulterated dreck. That was one of many new, similar sites that they created.

To be clear, dreck-bloggers aren't interested in creating good content, they simply regurgitate local accident or arrest stories and place a call-to-action link at the bottom. Posts are filled with buzzwords to game Google that, if coupled with the call-to-action for a recent event, places them firmly in the camp of Solicitation 2.0, a subject I dealt with two years ago. Put bluntly, many of these dung-blogs are electronically soliciting clients. E-chasing, for lack of a better word.

In this posting, for example, FindLaw re-writes the story of a local accident that killed four and injured two, and in just the third sentence its author spits out:

If speed was the factor that caused this collision, then the families of the victims (and the surviving victims themselves) could hire a New York injury attorney to sue the person responsible.

The author made sure to name each of the deceased, provided two separate links back to the list of lawyers that pay FindLaw, and included a call-to-action. (If you have suffered a personal injury...blah, blah, blah.) There is, of course, no natural audience for such a "blog." The postings do not allow for comments, nor is there any attempt at creativity or analysis.

An example of how FindLaw prostitutes itself to the alter of Google -- FindLaw's prior reputation and quality writing in its Writ commentary be damned -- is in the "about" section. They place 97 words in two sentences of which a remarkable 37 are keywords, to come up with this contorted piece of SEO "writing":

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog covers news and developments in the area of personal injury and tort law in New York state, and New York City specifically, and helps to connect people with New York injury lawyers. The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is intended to serve as a resource for people working through a personal injury issue in New York, or those who are interested in New York personal injury and tort law generally, including New York personal injury attorneys who wish to keep up with the latest news developments.

[Note: I wrote about the problem of keyword clutter previously in I Hate My Website.]

As Scott Greenfield puts it at FindLaw Plays Dirty (where he warns others of FindLaw stealing their well-known blog names):

These aren't blogs, of course, in the sense that we understand them. There are mere names designed to trade in on search engine keywords, and capitalize on Findlaw's SEO ability to get their scam blogs higher than yours on the search engine's first page.

And as Sheryl Sisk puts it in Findlaw vs. NY Personal Injury Law Blog: The Opening Salvo:

Let's be clear. This isn't a case of innocently or mistakenly adopting a geocentric keyword-rich blog name. Findlaw's not staffed by idiots. They knew what they were doing.

What are the consequences of FindLaw's folly in creating such sites? 1) it demeans the lawyers that paid them for listings, who are now associated with the scat-blog; 2) it diminishes the work of the professor-commentators at Writ that they currently use; and 3) it brings down the legal profession as a whole by legitimizing such conduct. Let's take these one at a time:

First, it demeans the people that hired this once-prominent company to market for them. Marc Randazza, on seeing Findlaw's mierda-blogs, wrote in Findlaw, are you really that douchetastic?:

They hired a milquetoast writer to author a milquetoast blawg for the sole purpose of selling ad space to sh*tty lawyers who can't develop a reputation on their own.

Ouch. Now I happen to personally know some of those lawyers on the FindLaw list, and know that they are fine lawyers. I'm sure they had no idea that FindLaw would associate garbage with their names when they hired the company as their agents.

But you know what? Others don't know that. And by creating a turd-blog and associating it with those lawyers, potential clients will come to the exact same conclusion as Randazza. And they will believe that those otherwise reputable lawyers agreed to be part of this ugliness.

And Randazza has more (he always does):

Here's a rule of thumb... if a blog post ends with "for more information, contact the lawyers at Douchestein and Dickwadbaum," then it is an advertisement, but, it isn't advertising the lawyer's services. It is advertising that lawyer's stupidity, desperateness, and cluelessness. I would advise any potential client who sees a "blog" that ends its posts that way to turn around, run away, fast as you can, and do not look over your shoulder.

To the lawyers that paid money to FindLaw: You've just been sucker-punched. You outsourced your marketing to FindLaw and this is what they created for people to find you. Worse still, some of FindLaw's posts may qualify as electronic ambulance chasing. We're talking serious ethical issues here with e-chasing, and I wonder who the lucky lawyer will be that becomes the test case. When you outsource your marketing you outsource your ethics.

Second in line to get clobbered are the professor-commentators on its roster, such as Anthony Sebok, Marci Hamilton, Michael Dorf, Carl Tobias, Sherry Colb, Joanna Grossman, Neil Buchanan, and Julie Hilden, to name a few.

All of their work on FindLaw's Writ has now been instantly devalued and diminished by being associated with the BS-blogs that FindLaw created. Once upon a time it was a feather in the cap to be published by West's FindLaw. Not any more. Do they care?

The professor-commentators now stand side-by-side with Emily Grube -- the author who appears at several of the sites despite the fact they vary both by practice area and jurisdiction-- whose bio says she is a "writing specialist" with "experience correcting papers created by freshmen to graduate students."

Perhaps it's understandable that FindLaw couldn't hire more lawyers to write about the law, given this tight job market with firms now at capacity, actively recruiting and unemployed attorneys so difficult to find. It's not required that a law blogger be a lawyer of course, as Walter Olson of Overlawyered and Point of Law demonstrates, but it just makes it a lot easier to recognize and discuss relevant legal issues.

It's worth noting that many others stood up and took notice of FindLaw's ugly conduct -- during a holiday week, no less -- including: FloridaLegal, Molly McDonough (ABAJournal), BlawgWhisperer (ABAJournal), Ron Coleman, Kevin O'Keefe, Nicole Black, Don Cruse; Lawrence Koplow; Tim Hughes; Copeland Casati; Ryan Daniels; Lydia Bednerik; Kevin Underhill; Gerry Oginiski; A Reasonable Suspicion; and Roy Mura. Some of those folks, also happen to have prominent blogs that FindLaw might rip-off next.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly for the legal profession as a whole, FindLaw may have taken a smallish problem with a haphazard smattering of phony "blogs" that have popped up over the years, and given them (and newcomers) cover to act in the same unprofessional manner. Instead of raising the bar of discourse for lawyers they have lowered it. For if one of the pre-eminent names in the legal field thinks it's OK to create a farkakte-blog (and you may have to hit that link unless you know a smattering of Yiddish), what message does that send to other lawyers? To the public? Is FindLaw now so desperate for business, so fearful of Martindale-Hubbell, Avvo and Google Scholar, that they are willing to race down to the muck and tarnish us all?

Greenfield wrote that:

For those of you who have placed their reputation in Findlaw's hands, be prepared to be tainted by the company you keep.

But I think it is actually worse than that. While such dirt-blogs were previously confined to desperate lawyers here and there, FindLaw now opens the floodgates sewergates for lawyers to create slime for the web, for if it's good enough for the once-vaunted Thomson West, it's good enough for them.

Now if I could only find a good word to describe FindLaw's number-two-blogs and their ilk. I know there's a good one out there someplace. When others find that word, I'm sure it will hit the fan.

Labels: Attorney Ethics, FindLaw, Marketing

I thought I was done blogging for the week, but I just learned that FindLaw, another one of those "venerable" names in the legal biz, has swiped my blog name. I kid you not.

They've created The New York Personal Injury Law Blog (all links here coded as "NoFollow"). The person that allegedly writes it, "Emily Grube," doesn't even show up in the New York directory of attorneys when I checked. She also writes the Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog, The New York Criminal Law Blog, and who knows how many others that are in start-up phase.

And, surprise, surprise, when you read the "articles" that are written they have a link at the bottom with the "call to action" to contact one of the lawyers that pay FindLaw to promote and advertise for them. As it happens, I know many of those on that list, and some are friends of mine. And you can bet your last dollar that I will let them know what FindLaw is up to, and they can decide for themselves if this is the type of conduct that they approve of.

How pathetic is FindLaw, anyway? Last year they were busted for selling links on their editorial content. Two weeks ago Scott Greenfield danced all over them for using the names of local criminal defense attorneys in their spammy solicitation to him.

Of course, one may try to say that my blog name is merely descriptive. But after three years of blogging and, I think, a fair amount of recognition across the legal blogosphere, it has taken on a distinctiveness all its own. I thought about sending them a note to alert them of my site. But then I realized that if they didn't already know about my site, then they were really just too pathetic to believe. I mean, what lawyer would start up a blog without checking to see if the name was being used?

Find Law, which is owned by Thomson West, is an agent for the attorneys that pay them money for promotion. I suspect that these good folks just assumed that Find Law would act in ethical, proper ways and not try to sell links or steal blog names. But this is what their agent has been up to. Do law firms really want to be associated with a company that acts in such a swarmy way?

FindLaw, I'd like you to meet Martindale-Hubbell, both of whom seem not-too-far removed from LegalX and a bazillion other sites hustling their way across the web without seeming to care about their reputations.

They've ripped off my name now. Is yours next?

(Hat tip to John Hochefelder who found the "blog" and let me know)

Labels: FindLaw, Marketing, Martindale-Hubbell

Apparently, yet another one of the many accident attorney search companies failed to get the memo: If you drop comment spam in my blog I will give you more than you bargained for. Reading the "Notice to Spammers" in the sidebar would have been helpful.

So Accidents Direct, a company I never previously heard of, appears to think it would be nice to come over to my little piece of property here and put graffiti on my house.

Notice to those lawyers that are thinking of hiring Accidents Direct: If you outsource your marketing to this outfit, then you run the risk of outsourcing your ethics to a spammer. That is probably not what you want to do.

Oddly enough, this is a U.K. company, so they also appear to be wasting money by trying to trash my site.

But perhaps the worst part is that the spammer, who identifies herself as "Catherina," elected to insult me in the process, starting her spam with this:

your blog is awesome and informative. Our service is also similar, I hope it will be useful to your visitors too....

Gives me shudders.

If enough people out the spammers, whose conduct further hurts the reputations of attorneys, then fewer people/companies will spam.

Labels: Accidents Direct, Marketing, Spam

Martindale-Hubbell previously reported that it suspended a company that sent comment spam to blogs, of which mine was one. They also offered a full accounting of the episode.

Today they confirm that the spammer has not just been suspended, but that they "have subsequently stopped working with them." At my invitation, they have now given an accounting of the incident.

What follows is an email from Derek Benton, Director of International Operations at Martindale Hubbell International on the subject. My comments follow his email:
-----------------------------

"In late September, the UK Martindale-Hubbell team hired an agency to help us drive traffic back up on our co.uk. site. SEO was a core component of this program as a new directory structure for the site had caused significant issues with our organic rankings. It was our understanding that we would get to approve everything the agency did on our behalf, however unfortunately in this instance that did not take place. The agency we worked with, or an agent acting on their behalf, unfortunately posted some garbage comments without our knowledge.

We do not condone spamming under any circumstances, and once we discovered that these generic posts had gone out we immediately instructed the agency to halt all work on our behalf, and have subsequently stopped working with them. As we mentioned, we have also requested that the agency provide us with a list of all blogs affected so that they can be contacted individually.

Bottom line: we take this as seriously as you do. There's absolutely NO long term benefit to us from spamming sites. One way or another it's going to fail you in the end. We're here for the long haul, and are fully aware that there are no legitimate short cuts. We've learnt an important (and somewhat painful) lesson about working with 3rd parties, but we're confident that it's one that will help us in the long run, even if it stings a little right now."
-----------------------------

There are two interesting things about this episode. First, that Martindale-Hubbell says it is common practice to outsource attorney marketing to others, and second, that MH seems frantic after having been knocked off its #1 perch by upstart Avvo.com.

First to the outsourcing: In the Q&A that I did with Benton was this exchange about outsourcing their own work to British company called Conscious:

ET: After MH outsourced to Gilroy's company [Conscious], did Gilroy outsource it elsewhere?

DB: Yes he did. Outsourcing is a common practice to help reduce labour costs.

As I've intoned before, attorney ethics and marketing are deeply connected. So when marketing gets outsourced, so do ethics. But the acknowledgement by MH that it is "common practice" for the attorney search services to, in turn, subcontract out the marketing they were hired to do, means that attorneys hiring a marketing company essentially run the "common" risk of their ethics being outsourced to low-cost mystery marketers.

Is that where you want your ethics to go, to the lowest bidder in the SEO marketing world? Because that appears to me to be part of the "common practice."

It's also worth noting that the "experts" in the attorney marketing world include disbarred or inexperienced attorneys.

Who, exactly, can you trust, when even the largest of attorney search companies feels it's OK to send your ethics to the low bidder?

The second thing worth noting is the desperation of MH to reclaim its top spot in the attorney search arena as they worry about becoming an endangered species. Because there are beaucoup bucks to be mined from people that will -- notwithstanding the risks of outsourcing their ethics to strangers hired on the cheap -- ask others to advertise for them without understanding the ramifications.

If you hadn't noticed, Avvo appears to have surpassed MH's lawyers.com in the number of unique visitors they get each month. One of those two companies isn't happy about that.

Of course, if you look at Avvo's site, you'll see that it is missing the "attorney advertising" mark that New York says is mandatory for attorney web sites.

It's like the wild west out there.
-------------------
Addendum 12/18/09 from Denton via email:

Eric - Thank you for giving us the opportunity to tell our side of the story. Unfortunately, in your accompanying commentary you asserted that "Martindale-Hubbell says it is common practice to outsource attorney marketing to others." That is not at all what we've said or done. The agency we hired was engaged to provide SEO services to our co.uk. site -- not to fulfill any marketing services for lawyers.

My response: SEO and attorney marketing are interrelated.

Labels: Attorney Ethics, Marketing, Martindale-Hubbell

Martindale-Hubbell, the 140 year old attorney directory company, has responded to questions raised after it's agent was caught sending spam to law blogs. Among its promises are a full public accounting for the incident(s) and an attempt to notify all of the law blogs that were defaced by its spammer.

Earlier this week I noted that MH was spamming my blog. MH subsequently acknowledged that they outsourced marketing to another company that spammed blogs, and also offered to answer questions about the incident.

The questions/answers below were too long for comments, and are presented here. Responses comes from Derek Benton, Director of International Operations at Martindale Hubbell International:


ET:     If MH claims to be a leader in social media, why is it outsourcing the social media to others?

DB: In this case we were outsourcing our SEO to an agency, just as we outsource plenty of other Web pieces. The team in the UK (MHI) recently changed to a new CMS [ed: content management system] and as a result we saw a drop off in traffic to our co.uk. site.  To quickly address the issue, we hired an agency in late September to help bring our traffic back up to pre-CMS deployment numbers.  We didn't have the bandwidth on our team to do it ourselves. We hired the agency with the understanding that we would approve everything and that has not been the case.  The agency's understanding was different.  We are now discussing why there was a miscommunication. All SEO work with this vendor has been halted whilst we investigate.

ET:  After MH outsourced to Gilroy's company, did Gilroy outsource it elsewhere?

DB:  Yes he did.  Outsourcing is a common practice to help reduce labour costs.

ET:  Will MH make the results of its internal investigation public, so that others can learn from it?

DB:  Absolutely. We'd be happy to have somebody do a guest blog post on the matter here if you'd like?

ET:  Will MH identify the blogs that were defaced by Gilroy's company? Because they have that information for you. (Gilroy's site includes this feature: "We offer the following link building submission service ... if you want it, we'll give you a screenshot for each submission. This way you will know the job has been done really well."

DB:  I can't answer this on behalf of another company, but will try to find out. The quote and link you used above actually relates to their directory submission service, so I don't know whether the screenshot applies in this instance.

ET:  Will MH follow-up with each of the blogs that were defaced?

DB:  Per the above, if we can identify them, absolutely.

ET:  I note on your blog that MH is holding a webinar on social media, which is "a series of online events bringing together some of the legal profession's top social media evangelists to share their knowledge and tips on the practical uses of social media." (Irony noted.) Will you be using this experience as a teaching moment?

DB: We've certainly learned from the experience, yes.  That said, our webinar series is more about bringing experts together to discuss key issues than it is about us (MH) broadcasting our opinions. We're not for a minute defending spamming, nor have we ever done so, I'm not sure whether there's a teaching moment in there.  Don't spam is about the extent of it.

Labels: Marketing, Martindale-Hubbell, Spam

Martindale-Hubbell has apologized for blog spam left on my site, using the comments area of my prior post for that purpose. MH has also agreed to publicly answer questions about the incident.

According to Derek Benton, the Director of International Operations at Martindale Hubbell International, it is not the company's policy to spam blogs, but that "it appears that a vendor acting on our behalf may have done so." That vendor/spammer is a British marketing outfit called Conscious Solutions, whose Sales and Marketing Director, David Gilroy, posted in the comments yesterday to take responsibility for what happened.

Conscious Solutions claims on its home page that part of its mission is "search engine optimisation and other online marketing techniques helps drive more revenue into your firm." Does spamming law blogs drive revenue to MH?

After apologizing, Gilroy went on to write that "we do look for opportunities to comment on blogs, but the comment you identified should NEVER have been posted on ANY blog...."  In other words, it is the clear tactic of the marketers to run around and comment on blogs for the purpose of dropping links.  Bloggers, of course, see our comment areas as forums for discussion, not as walls for graffiti.

Why drop links in the comments of an old, popular post? It surely can't be for readers, since the post is two years old. It can, therefore, only be intended to increase Google Pagerank.

Note to Gilroy: Comments on this blog, and oh so many others, are coded as "nofollow." Nofollow is the direction to Google not to give any Google juice to the link. It is my understanding that this is the default on Blogger and many other popular blog platforms. I also expect that, with your expertise is marketing and search engine optimization, you already knew that. So you are not only defacing blogs with spam, but you are also wasting the money of the people that hired you.

[Addendum: Google's Webmaster Central Blog just posted on this subject: Hard Facts About Content Spam, h/t Richard Hornsby]

But let us return to Martindale-Hubbell, since they hired Gilroy's company. MH's Benton  went on to say in the comments that  "We're in the process of getting to the bottom of what happened so that we can do everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again. In the meantime the vendor has been instructed to stop all activity on our behalf."

My opinion here is that suspension isn't enough. Defacing law blogs is clearly reprehensible. All the more so since MH is in the law blog business.

The only way to stop blog spam is to publicize the names of the lawyers/companies that hire them. I have that policy noted in the side bar to the right.

There is no choice for MH but to fire the company, and to do it publicly. Because that is the only way to stop the practice. Marketers/spammers should know that they will lose business by spamming, not gain it.

Now on to the last part of Benton's comment, where wrote that he would be "more than happy to address any other questions you might have, either here or via email at derek dot benton at martindale dot com."

I prefer to do it here, in public, because I know my blog was not the only one defaced. And a public accounting of what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it from happening again, is ultimately healthy, even if temporarily painful.

So here are my questions:

1. If MH claims to be a leader in social media, why is it outsourcing the social media to others?

2.  After MH outsourced to Gilroy's company, did Gilroy outsource it elsewhere?

3.  Will MH make the results of its internal investigation public, so that others can learn from it?

4.  Will MH identify the blogs that were defaced by Gilroy's company? Because they have that information for you. (Gilroy's site includes this feature: "We offer the following link building submission service ... if you want it, we'll give you a screenshot for each submission. This way you will know the job has been done really well."

5.  Will MH follow-up with each of the blogs that were defaced?

6.  I note on your blog that MH is holding a webinar on social media, which is "a series of online events bringing together some of the legal profession's top social media evangelists to share their knowledge and tips on the practical uses of social media." (Irony noted.) Will you be using this experience as a teaching moment?

Labels: Marketing, Martindale-Hubbell, Spam

Once upon a time Martindale-Hubbell was a leader in the legal field. They had big impressive looking books with the names of lots of lawyers in them that BigLaw firms paid lots of money for so that they could put them on their shelves. They gave fancy ratings to lawyers that people in corporate law departments actually thought was important.

Wikipedia's entry on M-H, which I suspect M-H checks religiously to guard against defacing, starts this way:

Martindale-Hubbell is a venerable brand in the legal community, known for being the defacto source for finding and connecting lawyers with other lawyers around the world since 1868.

And several days ago, this "venerable brand in the legal community" apparently left comment spam on one of my posts. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

The comment, at first blush, didn't look like spam. It didn't have a dozen links in it and talk about gold or cheap drugs you can buy on the web. The writer actually strung words together into sentences.

The sentences, however, had nothing to do with the post. Nothing. Nada. Zip. And it was on a post that was two years old. And the exact same sentences appear elsewhere in comments on other blogs and link back to the same M-H site.

The writer left the message on a popular post of mine from October 9,2007, entitled Don't Post This Letter On The Internet! That post was a classic that had the Dozier Law Firm trying to copyright its cease and desist letter to prevent it from appearing on the web. Dozier threatened to sue anyone that posted it. Public Citizen called his bluff, posted it, invited Dozier to sue them, and Dozier, to the extent I could tell, ran away from the challenge with his tail between his legs. There's a gazillion posts on the subject.

So what did M-H write last week in response to that old subject? Here it is in its entirety:

Being a representative of a law firm, reading an article and blogging and commenting on legal issues has always proved to be useful. To some extent, information given on such blogs and the comments and articles has benefited the victims facing complexities in term of legal issues and helps us also update our knowledge of what is happening around and what all complexities we should expect from our future cases.. It provides a great platform to discuss experiences and share knowledge.

In other words, M-H posted gibberish that was discernible as gibberish if you read the actual post or cared about the posting of nastygrams.

How do I know it was M-H that dropped the comment spam in my post? Because they added a link that brings you to the M-H "International Directory" at this url: http://www.martindale-hubbell.co.uk/. This is one of the many Find-A-Lawyer sites on the web.

Could this have been someone impersonating M-H? Potentially. I did, after all, write about a local defense lawyer that sued someone just last week for impersonating him and writing outrageous things. And one commenter did warn me of the potential for impersonation by rivals when I announced my policy of outing comment spammers.

But if this was a rival of M-H impersonating it, hoping I would write a post flaming the hell out of M-H, s/he would expect M-H to subpoena Google to get the information on their identity. In other words, that individual would have to have rocks in his or her head. And as between an impersonator on one hand, and a falling legal legend using spam to desperately claw its way back to relevancy on the other hand, my guess is the more obvious and logical choice: Spam. It fits with the theory of Occam's Razor, in that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

And here is the spam as it appeared elsewhere when I Googled the first sentence: /Martindale-HubbellSpamSearch.pdf). But but when I checked one of the links, to Legal Practice Pro, I found yet a different piece of pablum [ed: subsequently removed] that also brings you to the same M-H site:

I love to read such informative articles. It is good to know what went wrong in which part of the world .. even in distant places, where we do not ever plan to physically visit, we visit there virtually and analyse the complete scene. Thanks for this piece of information to add to my experience! To share my other experiences too, recently, I have come across an article on how efficiently law firms get you the justice, which otherwise, sometimes, gets next to impossible. While reading, I realized how important it is to contact a lawyer whenever you get stuck with any legal related issues. And a family lawyer does not in any way decreases the importance of keeping an international law firms directory handy.

More gibberish. And do you know what happens when you Google one of those sentences? Do I really have to tell you it turns up yet more comment spam? Here is my search result: /Martindale-HubbellSpamSearch2.pdf. How many different pieces of spam M-H uses to camouflage its conduct is not something I know, but I think it's safe to guess that it doesn't stop here.

Martindale-Hubbell has been swirling down the bowl for some time now. The Internet basically destroyed their business model. Their ratings system is toast. The company's death announced by bloggers.

Despite these problems, M-H boasted last week on its blog (what, you didn't know they had a blog?) that it had received an award for "Excellence in New Communications." The award was given for "innovative organizations that are pioneering the use of social media..." which gave me a good laugh, but I suppose some might consider spammers to be pioneers.

Is it possible to go lower than a spammer on the web? Probably, but I haven't seen them use pornography to market the law firms that have hired them.

So what does this mean? It means that the most "venerable brand in the legal community" is now using one of the lowest forms of Internet "marketing" that exists: This is the cyber-equivalent of trespassing on someone's land (their blog) for the sole purpose of plastering its advertisements. Nice.

I've written befefore about attorneys that outsource their marketing also outsourcing their ethics. This happens when one of the bazillion attorney search search sites that have popped up are hired to do promotion for lawyers. The lack of care when it comes to ethical violations or other abhorrent conduct can happen regardless of whether the search site is large or small. (See also, FindLaw's scandal with respect to selling links.)

When it comes to protecting your reputation, this is one simple rule for lawyers to follow: No one cares as much about your reputation as you do. So when you entrust others to do your work, you are virtually guaranteed a lower standard of care.

Now here some questions for lawyers that use Martindale-Hubbell and give the company some of their hard-earned money:

1. How would you rate M-H?

2. How do your clients feel about spammers?

3. Since you've hired M-H as an agent to market for your law firm, how do you feel about your agent being a spammer?

Update:  In the comments, David Gilroy, the Sales and Marketing Director of a British marketing outfit called Conscious Solutions takes responsibility for spamming on behalf of Martindale-Hubbell. This, of course, leaves us with more questions than answers, including the question of why M-H is outsourcing its marketing if it claims to be a leader in the field.  And yes, the link I provided is coded as NoFollow to insure that no Google juice goes to this company.

I assume that the response came in from Gilroy because someone at M-H was alerted to my post and forced this guy to throw himself under the bus. As of 8:25 pm when I write this update, however, I haven't heard anything from M-H as to why they hired this company that has been spamming law blogs.

Labels: Marketing, Martindale-Hubbell, Spam

Five months back there was a Metro train crash in Washington DC, and I watched from a distance to see who/how/where/when the web would be used by lawyers to find victims. And one of the things we saw was that one of the gazillion attorney search firms that infect the web was soliciting clients. Given that these search firms are agents of the lawyers, that raised the problem of attorneys using the web to solicit.

Thus was born this little formula in June: outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics. This wasn't, by any means, the first time I'd appreciated the problem of outsourcing marketing, having written about the ethics of attorney search services two years ago:

The implications of attorneys outsourcing advertising to a third party that may be acting unethically represents an area of law that is unexplored by many ethics committees.

The implications of being the test case are not pretty, and there after now five lawyers in Connecticut feeling the heat, as the state tries to decide if they violated local ethics laws by paying referral fees to the non-attorneys at a site called TotalBankruptcy.com. Some of the discussion goes to differentiating between a mere advertisement like a Google ad, and a "referral" from a search site after it takes in information from the consumer and then spits out a name.

For more on that, you can read Carolyn Elefant (in defense of the five), Scott Greenfield (calling the search service a cancer in the legal profession), Mark Bennett (suggesting disbarment, not saving), Josh King (the rules are unconstitutional), Larry Bodine (looking at the attorney who filed such complaints in 47 states) with both Bob Ambrogi and Colin Samuals doing extensive analysis of all the commentary.

It sucks to be a test case. It's one of those things lawyers should aspire to avoid.

It wasn't my intention to coin a phrase regarding this kind of stuff six months ago when I wrote about the train accident and the solicitation, but several others have now picked up that theme so it's worth expanding on.

When lawyers outsource their marketing to others -- be it a "search engine optimization" company, an attorney search company, or some hybrid -- they are hiring agents to do their advertising. Agents. We learned about that stuff in law school. The concept has a long and deep legal history. The web didn't make it go away.

And when it comes to the web, these are five things that those agents might be doing in your name that can get you in big trouble on the web, because attorney ethics are deeply intertwined now with marketing:

• You are accused of sharing legal fees with non-lawyers (See Connecticut Five, above).

• The agents solicit clients in violation of ethics rules (See Metro train crash incident);

• They could spam blogs with your firm name;

• They could scrape content from other blogs (or news sources) and post it as yours, thereby violating copyright laws in your name,

• They could circumvent rules by engaging in ethics laundering.

It's interesting to note that simply going out and hiring a high-profile marketing company won't necessarily help you. For instance, Avvo is one of those find-a-lawyer sites, that also has reviews of attorneys. They've made a big splash and are as tech-savvy as anyone. Yet, if you go to their site, which now looks for attorneys to pay $49.95/month for "enhanced" visibility, you will find that they appear to violate one of New York's ethic's rules that went into effect in 2007.

Which rule does Avvo appear to break? The requirement that "attorney advertising" be placed on their home page, a failure that I noted hit many firms at the time it was implemented. Does an attorney search site need to have that mark on it? I would think so, as they are acting as the agents of the lawyers that hired them.

So what's the downside to all this? Well, the lawyers that hire others to do their marketing might find that company violating copyright law (content scraping) or ethics rules and subject them to litigation. Litigation can be long and expensive.

But it's actually a lot worse than that because litigation takes time and money and many don't want to do it unless they absolutely have to.

Blogging, however, takes very little time and very little money. And if you piss off just one blogger with ethically and legally dubious behavior, s/he might write about you. And put your names in the headlines. And that blogger might have some readers who are also bloggers....And the effect is felt as soon as Google happens to index those blogs; which is to say if they are active bloggers, immediate. When potential clients Google you, the results can be painful.

Litigation can be so passe.
---------------------------------
The list of blogs that have agreed to expose the lawyers that engage in comment spam has been moved to this link: New Spam Comment Policy for Law Firms (You Will Be Exposed)

Labels: Attorney Ethics, Marketing

Traditional lawyer advertising may be branching out in very nontraditional ways. The Buffalo-based personal injury firm of Cellino & Barnes is known for its very extensive advertising campaign in western New York, with billboards and TV commercials galore (as well as ethics troubles, Matter of Cellino).

But in trying to make inroads downstate, they've invaded one of the local hockey arenas: The Nassau Coliseum. And they've done it by sponsoring a welcome home message for an Iraqi war veteran, not the type of advertising NY metro area residents are accustomed to, since we usually see subway ads, radio and TV.

My Nassau County Bureau Chief, a personal injury guy, reported to me last week to me that he saw this at a recent Islanders game:

Last night at the Islander game -- best personal injury lawyer advertising I've ever seen. Between the second and third period. Flashed on the screen is "Home from Iraq." White army style jagged edge lettering with a couple of army stripes on a military green background. Announcer announces back from Iraq is the American hero. The soldier, at the game, is flashed on the screen and waves to the crowd. The screen pans back to the Home from Iraq lettering and in smaller letters in the lower right hand corner is "Cellino & Barnes."

Was the advertisement effective? Well, this was the response:

This got a bigger round of applause than the Islanders on their way to their fourth straight win of the season. Those guys know what they're doing.

I have mixed thoughts on this. We start with the premise that the vast majority of ads for personal injury attorneys suck, and consist of "If you or someone you know has been injured..." types of blather. It's damaging to the profession and damaging to the clients, a fact that can only be appreciated when picking a jury and watching eyes roll when you tell them it's a personal injury case. So any ad that doesn't come within that wretched format is, by definition, a better ad. The bar for quality is set very low.

From there you move on to the issue of whether this is a cynical exploitation of our troops. But this type of tribute doesn't appear to be any different in concept from the Super Bowl ads run by Anheuser Busch in 2002 with Clydesdales walking across the Brooklyn Bridge and going down on one knee before the skyline of New York, or its 2005 ad of troops moving through the airport to the applause of bystanders.

On the whole, even with the cynicism in my mind regarding exploitation, I'd have to say that this is effective advertising. It doesn't say anything about the skills of the attorneys, of course, but nor do the Anheuser Busch ads tell you what Bud tastes like.

Labels: Marketing

I'm getting tired of seeing spam in the comment area of my blog that comes from law firms and attorney search services. So if it comes in again I'm going to write a fresh post about them. I've done this a couple of times before but now I'm going to make a policy of it.

While I expect this nonsense from the drug hustlers (findrxonline seems to love spamming me) and the gold sites and others, I don't see that I can really do much about them except keep the comments moderated and simply reject them.

But law bloggers can do something about the law field spammers. Because unlike the other sites, these folks generally have very little Google juice and should actually care about their reputations. So if a few blogs decide to out the spammers, this could have a pretty big effect on the firms. When their names are Googled by potential clients, the potential clients will see that they are spammers. And it will no doubt cause them to stop.

If it is the crappy search engine optimization companies that they hired that are doing it on their behalf, without their knowledge, then the attorneys will still suffer. Lawyers are responsible for the acts of their agents.

I came up with this little rule about lawyer advertising when it comes to solicitation, but it applies equally well here:

Outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics

Perhaps, if enough bloggers do this then the lawyers that get busted for this kind of slimy stuff will fire the people responsible. And if enough SEO companies are fired by their clients for having done this in their name, then the tactic will be used less often. I'm not so naive as to think it will stop, but if it gets cut in half that would be a huge victory.

You've been warned.

Addendum:  The spammers are not just hired by free-standing marketing companies devoted to search engine optimization, but have been hired in the past by attorney search services both large (Martindale-Hubbell) and small (LegalX).

These are some of the blogs that seem committed to outing the malfeasors, in hopes of cleaning up the lawyers' part of the web so that our collective reputation doesn't sink further:

• Scott Greenfield's Simple Justice

• Mark Bennett's Defending People and Social Media Tyro

• Popehat

• Ron Miller's Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog (re: Denver Motorcycle Lawyer Comment)

• Mike's Crime and Federalism (re: Bradley Johnson, Seattle Spam Lawyer)

• South Florida Lawyers (Let's Meet Jason Diamond, Ticket Attorney!)

• Roy Mura's Coverage Counsel (Outing Blog Content Spammers, Starting with All States Public Adjusters)
  

I'll continue adding to this list as I become aware of other posts on the subject.

Labels: Marketing, Spam

A relative told me something that I already knew: That I had been selected as a personal injury Super Lawyer. They knew because it had been published by the New York Times.

Yeah, well, kinda sorta. But not really. Super Lawyers is a supplement to the magazine; an advertising supplement. You don't have to pay to be listed, you only pay if you want your name displayed prominently in a large box or page with a story about you that looks like news. Sort of an advertisement within the advertisement. I think the marketers call it an advertorial. I declined their offer to pony up big bucks for such an honor many months ago.

But now comes the other issue: What, exactly, do I do with this "honor"? Is this really an award to put on your wall or display on your website? Or is it a faux-award? A pseudo-faux award? A mockery of a pseudo-faux award? A mockery of a sham of....OK, you get the idea.

I have mixed feelings about this. The company that puts out the information says the lawyers are vetted before they appear. So if we are vetted, then perhaps this really is something to be proud of?

But what kind of vetting actually takes place? Super Lawyers claims on their website that:

Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with third party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis.

Of course, they never asked me to evaluate any of my peers. And I don't know anyone else that was asked to do an evaluation. (Update: Now I do.) They have a full page of words on their website to describe their process, but it doesn't seem very revealing to me. They have a "research department" that assigns "point values" to different criteria.

I must confess that this all seems pretty meaningless to me. If you want to know if I'm good at what I do, it seems you would have to read a brief I've written, read a deposition I've taken or perhaps watched a trial. Even if a lawyer comes in second at trial, an observer might still be able to gauge how comfortable s/he is inside the well of the courtroom. Everything else is, shall we say, hearsay. Inadmissible.

But that little logo sure looks nice, doesn't it? And it would look great on a website if someone were looking for counsel. (Though not so good if a juror should see it and conclude I was thoroughly full of myself.) And I can't just say that Super Lawyers is making stuff up, because I could be very wrong about that. I just don't really know. And they don't really reveal the way they do their analysis, despite all the words they use to talk around the issue.

So what will I do? I don't really know yet, though putting it on my website (the website that I hate) and then linking that "honor" back to this post showing my complete ambivalence might be one option. At least it would educate the legal consumer a bit about those that put such things on their sites or on their office walls.

And I am also left with the impression that this is a notch above being in the Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Of course, that didn't really set a very high bar.

See also:

• New Jersey Law Journal report potentially misleading (Super Lawyer Blog)

• N.J. High Court Weighs Proposed Easing of 'Super Lawyer' Ban (NJLJ)

• Superlawyers with Cheese, Please (Simple Justice, 9/23/07)

• NJ Stupidly Outlaws "Super Lawyers" and "Best Lawyers" (Larry Bodine, 7/23/06)

------------------
Update: Super Lawyers was sold in February 2010 to Thomson Reuters, which might tend to give it more legitimacy, though it isn't without its problems regarding conflicts.

Labels: Law Practice, Marketing, SuperLawyers

Last year I wrote about a start-up called "Sue Easy" that I branded as one of the worst lawyer ideas ever. And given the proliferation of attorney marketing sites out there, that was saying a lot.

But now it appears that the site is up for auction. I can only think of one reason to hold a public auction of a company like this, and that is that it was a miserable failure. One can only hope.

But not to worry. Surely many more people who want to make a buck by trolling for clients will try other avenues. And just as surely, some lawyers will follow those trolls without thinking that by outsourcing their marketing to others that they are outsourcing their ethics.

I get the sense when looking at my email (begging for links or spamming my comments with links), and seeing all the marketing folks out there on Twitter, that there are more people interested in marketing for cases than there are people willing to actually do the work. This is, of course, a skewed perspective from being a blogger and reading much of what goes on in the legal blogosphere. I've never seen any surveys on the subject, but I would guess that most lawyers don't even have a website. And with a million lawyers out there in the U.S., but only about 1-2,000 active blogs, I realize few are active online (at least in public).

But it is this vacuum that also allows the SueEasy's of the world to garner attention and tarnish whatever is still left of the good name of the legal profession, which I fear isn't much. So it is good to see them dry up and blow away. May the same now happen to WhoCanISue.com and any other crappola sites that are similar to them, whose sole reason for existence is to be a front company for others.

See also: Running SueEasy Turned Out to Be Not So Easy (Carolyn Elefant @ Blog Watch)

Labels: Attorney Ethics, Marketing