David-

It’s http://www.deathandtaxesblog.com or jas-law.typepad.com — either will work.

-Joel

David-

It’s http://www.deathandtaxesblog.com or jas-law.typepad.com — either will work.

-Joel

Joel,  Thank you for taking the time to give your thoughts on weblogging and marketing.  I think we are in agreement on many of these issues.  It will be interesting to see how your experience changes as your weblog ages.  I bet you’ll want to keep posting.  What is your URL?  I’d like to see your weblog.
best wishes,  David

Joel,  Thank you for taking the time to give your thoughts on weblogging and marketing.  I think we are in agreement on many of these issues.  It will be interesting to see how your experience changes as your weblog ages.  I bet you’ll want to keep posting.  What is your URL?  I’d like to see your weblog.
best wishes,  David

I started blogging about four months ago (first post: February 26). Thus far, I have acquired three clients who found me via my blog (I do estate planning, probate and residential real estate work). Some thoughts about related matters:

1. I’ve had a lot of interest in my blog, both in terms of potential clients and in terms of the media, but it hasn’t translated into a ton of clients — yet. I’m going to evaluate after 6 months and after a year to see if it’s something I should continue to do.

2. I could make up reasons for why I do it, but mostly I blog as a marketing tool. And I view blogs as a marketing tool not because the experts say I should, but because it makes sense to me as a way of distinguishing myself — as a skilled lawyer and as a human being — to potential clients. But I think it’s obvious that we currently have no idea whether blogs are the most effective or efficient means of legal marketing. All we have are anecdotes, and the idea — usually promoted by people trying to sell blog-related goods and services — that this is “the next big thing.”

3. I spend at least 30 minutes a day on my blog, probably more, and I blog 7 days a week.

4. I don’t pretend to know how much time should be spent blogging, but I don’t know how Kevin can reconcile saying that lawyers have a “moral obligation” to blog with saying it’s OK for lawyers to hire people to blog for them (or it’s OK to spend almost no time blogging each day, since all you have to do is throw up links to other sites). I realize that the guy is an advocate, and is trying to drum up as much business as he can, but at some point he starts to sound like somebody who’s selling Amway.

5. Of course, you could say that I’m too self-interested to discuss the ghost-writing of blogs. What I have right now is (a) time to write, since my practice is fairly new, and (b) a sense — whether inflated or not — that I’m a pretty good writer and a pretty good attorney, and that these skills will translate into business for me in the future.

I started blogging about four months ago (first post: February 26). Thus far, I have acquired three clients who found me via my blog (I do estate planning, probate and residential real estate work). Some thoughts about related matters:

1. I’ve had a lot of interest in my blog, both in terms of potential clients and in terms of the media, but it hasn’t translated into a ton of clients — yet. I’m going to evaluate after 6 months and after a year to see if it’s something I should continue to do.

2. I could make up reasons for why I do it, but mostly I blog as a marketing tool. And I view blogs as a marketing tool not because the experts say I should, but because it makes sense to me as a way of distinguishing myself — as a skilled lawyer and as a human being — to potential clients. But I think it’s obvious that we currently have no idea whether blogs are the most effective or efficient means of legal marketing. All we have are anecdotes, and the idea — usually promoted by people trying to sell blog-related goods and services — that this is “the next big thing.”

3. I spend at least 30 minutes a day on my blog, probably more, and I blog 7 days a week.

4. I don’t pretend to know how much time should be spent blogging, but I don’t know how Kevin can reconcile saying that lawyers have a “moral obligation” to blog with saying it’s OK for lawyers to hire people to blog for them (or it’s OK to spend almost no time blogging each day, since all you have to do is throw up links to other sites). I realize that the guy is an advocate, and is trying to drum up as much business as he can, but at some point he starts to sound like somebody who’s selling Amway.

5. Of course, you could say that I’m too self-interested to discuss the ghost-writing of blogs. What I have right now is (a) time to write, since my practice is fairly new, and (b) a sense — whether inflated or not — that I’m a pretty good writer and a pretty good attorney, and that these skills will translate into business for me in the future.

Thanks for sending me the article link and continuing this conversation, Kevin.  I thought this comment and the article deserved a post in response.

Thanks for sending me the article link and continuing this conversation, Kevin.  I thought this comment and the article deserved a post in response.

This morning’s New York Times, in an article about making money by blogging Technology > Many Started Web Logs for Fun, but Bloggers Need Money, Too” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/technology/19blog.html”>reports a California lawyer has generated incredible new business by publishing a blog for the last eight months.

J. Craig Williams, a lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., began his Web log, MayItPleaseTheCourt.net, in August. He said his postings, which focus on his particular area of law, have brought him hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of legal business.

That’s hundreds of thousands of dollars – six figures – in new business in less than a year folks. This type of evidence should begin to silence those who say lawyer blogs do not work as a means to market the lawyers services.

I agree with the New York Times report from BloggerCon II, a blogging conference held at Harvard over the weekend, that most people who publish blogs do not do so for money. But last I heard, practicing law was a business. As with any business, marketing is important. If there is a more cost effective means of lawyer marketing than running a blog site on the Internet, I have not seen it.

This morning’s New York Times, in an article about making money by blogging Technology > Many Started Web Logs for Fun, but Bloggers Need Money, Too” href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/technology/19blog.html”>reports a California lawyer has generated incredible new business by publishing a blog for the last eight months.

J. Craig Williams, a lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., began his Web log, MayItPleaseTheCourt.net, in August. He said his postings, which focus on his particular area of law, have brought him hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of legal business.

That’s hundreds of thousands of dollars – six figures – in new business in less than a year folks. This type of evidence should begin to silence those who say lawyer blogs do not work as a means to market the lawyers services.

I agree with the New York Times report from BloggerCon II, a blogging conference held at Harvard over the weekend, that most people who publish blogs do not do so for money. But last I heard, practicing law was a business. As with any business, marketing is important. If there is a more cost effective means of lawyer marketing than running a blog site on the Internet, I have not seen it.

Very interesting discussion. On the one hand, one might consider it to verge on the unethical for a lawyer to purchase content from an unknown ghost-writer and present it as her own, but surely there are ways and means to avoid that – surely it all depends on how the information is presented. Further, perhaps the point should be made that partners are known to publish associates’ articles as their own. In some countries moral rights in copyright law go some way to minimise that and partners I’ve worked for always acknowledge co-authorship, but it still happens elsewhere. Again, whether it’s “right” or “wrong” probably depends on presentation. We all know, for example, that a footnote in an article thanking Jane Blogs for assisting with an article probably means she at least substantially wrote the piece. I personally would not purchase content as doing so would erode the personalised nature of “my” blog, but I doubt there any absolutes here. As regards the question of how successful law blogs might be in attracting business, two additional points would seem to be these: first, blogs in the legal community are still in their infancy, so a lack of plentiful empirical data is not surprising; secondly, I wouldn’t treat a blog as the b-all and end-all of legal marketing (and I’m not suggesting that anyone above does) but as a potentially very useful supplement to other avenues of marketing. Remember also that the partners and corporate counsel of the future, unlike many of those living today, will have grown up in the technological age; blogs and all other sorts of technology will be second nature to them. I remember having to research legal issues without computers; today I’d be lost without them. I’ve found legal blogs which are very helpful, such as one on the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. There’s every reason to think budget-strapped in-house counsel do or will do likewise, provided the blog in question is good quality, focussed and topical – characteristics that our target audience are well qualified to guage.

Very interesting discussion. On the one hand, one might consider it to verge on the unethical for a lawyer to purchase content from an unknown ghost-writer and present it as her own, but surely there are ways and means to avoid that – surely it all depends on how the information is presented. Further, perhaps the point should be made that partners are known to publish associates’ articles as their own. In some countries moral rights in copyright law go some way to minimise that and partners I’ve worked for always acknowledge co-authorship, but it still happens elsewhere. Again, whether it’s “right” or “wrong” probably depends on presentation. We all know, for example, that a footnote in an article thanking Jane Blogs for assisting with an article probably means she at least substantially wrote the piece. I personally would not purchase content as doing so would erode the personalised nature of “my” blog, but I doubt there any absolutes here. As regards the question of how successful law blogs might be in attracting business, two additional points would seem to be these: first, blogs in the legal community are still in their infancy, so a lack of plentiful empirical data is not surprising; secondly, I wouldn’t treat a blog as the b-all and end-all of legal marketing (and I’m not suggesting that anyone above does) but as a potentially very useful supplement to other avenues of marketing. Remember also that the partners and corporate counsel of the future, unlike many of those living today, will have grown up in the technological age; blogs and all other sorts of technology will be second nature to them. I remember having to research legal issues without computers; today I’d be lost without them. I’ve found legal blogs which are very helpful, such as one on the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. There’s every reason to think budget-strapped in-house counsel do or will do likewise, provided the blog in question is good quality, focussed and topical – characteristics that our target audience are well qualified to guage.

Thank you for giving us a unique perspective, and taking the time to put it together.
 
Being in a very diplomatic mood, I shall make no comment on your disclaimer acronym, except that I hope you don’t have to use it often.  For more general purposes, you might want to think about TMIOHW (Trust Me, I’m Only Her WebMaster).  (Sorry, I spent too many years policing against acronym abuse while in government.)

Thank you for giving us a unique perspective, and taking the time to put it together.
 
Being in a very diplomatic mood, I shall make no comment on your disclaimer acronym, except that I hope you don’t have to use it often.  For more general purposes, you might want to think about TMIOHW (Trust Me, I’m Only Her WebMaster).  (Sorry, I spent too many years policing against acronym abuse while in government.)

First, my disclaimer: IANALBIMTOAIDHWW
(I Am Not A Lawyer, But I’m Married To One And I Do Her Web Work.)

I am actually in the process of creating a blog for her, specifically to develop business for her solo practice. Why? Two specific reasons:

1. She already has an informative website, which *has* generated paying clients. Blogging seems like an easy way for her to keep updated and current information of interest to potential clients on the site, without using me as a go-between like we do now.

2. She is listed on both Findlaw.com and Lawyers.com and does get business from both. One of them, I don’t recall which, offers a “newsletter” service, that lets you put your firm name/branding on a generic collection of articles and send it out to clients. This seems, to us, disingenuous to say the least. We figured that she should instead offer original content (or links to resources) in the form of a blog.

It seems to me that the idea of “ghost written” blog content is very similar to the service we rejected. I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical or inappropriate. As Ken (I think) mentioned, there is a service in getting good information out to people. This is especially true with the law, which frightens a lot of laypersons.

What struck my wife and I as wrong is passing that work of as your own. She simply wanted to have a more real and genuine relationship with her clients and potential clients. We felt that paying for “canned” content wasn’t the way to establish a trusting professional relationship.

Personally, I think client relationships seem to be one of the most neglected areas among her colleagues/peers. In the past year, my wife has had clients buy her cookies, candy and send flowers (along with prompt payment :) all for being so conscientious and communicative. As one of her peers remarked, “Hell, I can’t get half my clients to pay on time, let alone send me flowers!” I wonder why?

Since I don’t practice law, I could be speaking from my bum… and certainly there are variations in different practice areas. But as we crank out more and more lawyers, and the legal profession becomes even *more* cutthroat, I think those practitioners who have a good handle on *real* customer service will end up eating the lunch of those who just “buy content” to jump on the bandwagon. We’re banking on it…

-Dave!

First, my disclaimer: IANALBIMTOAIDHWW
(I Am Not A Lawyer, But I’m Married To One And I Do Her Web Work.)

I am actually in the process of creating a blog for her, specifically to develop business for her solo practice. Why? Two specific reasons:

1. She already has an informative website, which *has* generated paying clients. Blogging seems like an easy way for her to keep updated and current information of interest to potential clients on the site, without using me as a go-between like we do now.

2. She is listed on both Findlaw.com and Lawyers.com and does get business from both. One of them, I don’t recall which, offers a “newsletter” service, that lets you put your firm name/branding on a generic collection of articles and send it out to clients. This seems, to us, disingenuous to say the least. We figured that she should instead offer original content (or links to resources) in the form of a blog.

It seems to me that the idea of “ghost written” blog content is very similar to the service we rejected. I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical or inappropriate. As Ken (I think) mentioned, there is a service in getting good information out to people. This is especially true with the law, which frightens a lot of laypersons.

What struck my wife and I as wrong is passing that work of as your own. She simply wanted to have a more real and genuine relationship with her clients and potential clients. We felt that paying for “canned” content wasn’t the way to establish a trusting professional relationship.

Personally, I think client relationships seem to be one of the most neglected areas among her colleagues/peers. In the past year, my wife has had clients buy her cookies, candy and send flowers (along with prompt payment :) all for being so conscientious and communicative. As one of her peers remarked, “Hell, I can’t get half my clients to pay on time, let alone send me flowers!” I wonder why?

Since I don’t practice law, I could be speaking from my bum… and certainly there are variations in different practice areas. But as we crank out more and more lawyers, and the legal profession becomes even *more* cutthroat, I think those practitioners who have a good handle on *real* customer service will end up eating the lunch of those who just “buy content” to jump on the bandwagon. We’re banking on it…

-Dave!