Good points, TPB — except on John Steele’s analysis (you’d be a very easy grader on law exams).  I expect lawyers and law professors to be relatively precise in applying a definition to a particular set of facts — especially, when they’ve been thinking about it for a few days.   John did not say “can be.”  He was instead very emphatic about Ben Cowgill and his Legal Ethics Blog:

“[Ben] is an ethics specialist who does respondant-side discipline work. So while it’s not a direct pitch for clients, it’s an advertisment just as surely as many big firm marketing pieces are.”

Good points, TPB — except on John Steele’s analysis (you’d be a very easy grader on law exams).  I expect lawyers and law professors to be relatively precise in applying a definition to a particular set of facts — especially, when they’ve been thinking about it for a few days.   John did not say “can be.”  He was instead very emphatic about Ben Cowgill and his Legal Ethics Blog:

“[Ben] is an ethics specialist who does respondant-side discipline work. So while it’s not a direct pitch for clients, it’s an advertisment just as surely as many big firm marketing pieces are.”

I don’t think JCW was entirely wrong in saying that blawgs are advertising, in that they _can be_ advertising, but not that they are such at all times. Kentucky needs to rethink its position; that’s a silly one to take. If all blawging is advertising than why is not all print-based writing? If I do an article for the NJ Lawyer, is that advertising?

Common sense, along with individualized analysis, should rule the day.

I don’t think JCW was entirely wrong in saying that blawgs are advertising, in that they _can be_ advertising, but not that they are such at all times. Kentucky needs to rethink its position; that’s a silly one to take. If all blawging is advertising than why is not all print-based writing? If I do an article for the NJ Lawyer, is that advertising?

Common sense, along with individualized analysis, should rule the day.