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, 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

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

LegalX.net is one of the gazillion attorney search sites that seem to float about the web. You pay them a fee, and they add you to their directory while they try to hustle clients. Many of them seem to me to have questionable ethics. But this one, LegalX, has been trying to spam the comments of my blog like crazy over the last couple weeks. And it appears they are doing it to others.

Now I'm used to getting comment spam from various companies hustling gold, drugs and knickknacks of all sorts. And even on occasion from lawyers. But I've never been hit with this kind of persistence from a law firm or lawyer search company.

This is interesting on two different levels. First, attorneys that pay these marketers have entered into, what appears to me, an agency relationship. And their agents are sending out spam. But the attorneys are likely responsible for the acts of their agents. So the hundreds of law firms that LegalX appears to have taken money from are now associated with one of the most insidious practices of the web. Due to ethics rules that exist in some places for attorney marketing, ethics and lawyering go hand-in-hand. So when a firm outsources its marketing, it also outsources its ethics.

Second, I think that there is very little that is actually gained by the spam. There is no link juice, since comments on blogs are routinely set as "do not follow" so that Google doesn't give them any link love. Their pagerank doesn't benefit from the practice.

And some of the posts are one to two years old. This same drivel below, for example, was presented for comment in one of the Dr. Flea posts as well as one on the Million Dollar Advocates Forum:

It is essentially important for human beings to follow laws and orders without which a man can be brutal enough harm others. It can be easily mentioned that law plays a vital role in arranging the mob in a systematic manner. So, one should never fail to follow laws of any kind, concerning anything.

It also appears to have been spammed hundreds of times on other attorney blogs, which you can discover if you Google the first part.

Awhile back, I switched over from having open comments to moderated comments that need to be approved. I didn't want to do that, but it was the only way to keep the spam out.

In sum, LegalX appears to be engaging in a widespread spam campaign. When it comes to blogs, it's hard to think of more reprehensible conduct from a company.

Who is LegalX that has persuaded so many law firms to turn over their cold hard cash to them? Great question. Glad you asked. And I wish I had a good answer. Its website gives a Canadian address, 7018 14th Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia, but no names. Some further searching finds that it was for sale in October 2008 by an anonymous individual located in Los Angeles under the pseudonym "fargreater." Fargreater says that:

all seo optimization done by widecircles.com the advanced optimizers

Whether the site was sold to someone else that is doing the spamming, or it remains in this person's hands, I don't know. But it was also for sale (either still or again) just a month ago by someone named "Johnfa."

I also checked out the "blog" that is on the site. I put that in quotes because the one post I read, entitled "Medical Malpractice Happens," was in large part an unattributed rip-off (/MedMalHappens-LegalX.pdf) of this post by Patrick Malone at The Huffington Post.

Now cutting to the chase, who would want to hire a lawyer that has a mysterious company spamming for them? And yet, hundreds of law firms appear to be listed at their site. Most are likely to be unwitting dupes, though some may simply be turning a blind eye to the conduct. Either way, is that the type of lawyer someone would want? (Assuming that these lawyers have, in fact, paid to be listed on this site. Their advertising page says it is $349-489/year for a listing.)

If I were a stockbroker, I would not only mark this stock "avoid," but also the lawyers that paid them any money.

[Note: LegalX.net is the spamming lawyer site. But there is also a LegalX.com, which is a litigation outsource support firm with a Los Angeles phone number. While both seem to have an L.A. contact, I do not presume they are related.]

Update 12/22/09: In early December I received email from someone identifying himself as "Richard Cohen," claiming that his "organization" outsourced SEO and content writing to some other company and apologized for the spam. He never named the alleged outside company, and provided no address for himself and no means of verifying anything what he wrote.

He (if it is a "he") also demanded that I take down the LegalX logo. I refused, based on fair use and the First Amendment. He threatened me with a DMCA take-down notice. I told him to Google "Turkewitz Avis" and to be careful of the considerable downside of filing a DMCA take-down notice without a legitimate basis for doing so.

I think any lawyer that outsources its marketing to such a company is a fool, due to the risks of outsourcing marketing (and ethics) to others.

It's also worth noting that shortly after this email exchange took place at the beginning of December, comments started to appear on this post. There had been none from the time it was first posted on June 24, 2009 until December 7, 2009.

Labels: Marketing, Spam

Every blogger gets spam. I expect it from the various hustlers who permeate the web. But I didn't really expect it from a law firm. From a big law firm.

Labels: Law Practice, Marketing, Spam