This is a story about Eric and Jack, who both blog about the law with an eye on topics that are enlightening, ennobling, or at least entertaining.
By now you’ve probably heard about Eric Turkewitz, who wrote an April 1st post in his NY Personal Injury Law Blog announcing he was the new Whitehouse blogger. He recruited other legal bloggers to echo the post, so they could punk unsuspecting political bloggers who type first and check facts later.
The stunt captured a wider set of dupes than expected. In fact, none other than the New York Times ran with the story. Suddenly, the little geeky joke was everywhere. Here’s Turkewitz’s explanation of the stunt.
Why the hell would I go to all this trouble for an April Fools’ stunt?
I’m glad you asked: Lawyers often deal with misery. Peoples’ lives can be forever changed in a fraction of a second in an accident. Divorce. Child custody. Bankruptcy. Arrests. There is no real end to the chain of human misery that clients bring to the doors of practicing attorneys.
Eric’s explanation matches my own for blogging. Personal injury law is how people and families attempt to recover when they “become statistics” though no fault of their own. I hear about explosions, poisonings, fraud, catastrophic medical errors, and — toughest of all — kids whose lives will be forever framed by the careless act of another. I understand the need for a joke, and I try to provide some of that here. In my opinion, lawyers with character rock. I’m fortunate to know more than a few of them.
Can’t a Lawyer Make a Joke?
After the joke, the recriminations began. After all, reminded Jack Marshall of the EthicsAlarms blog, lawyer advertising is highly regulated. Counselor Turkewitz misrepresented himself, and the codes of legal conduct are not suspended on April Fools’ Day. This both put Turkewitz’s professional livelihood and reputation at risk and made Mr. Marshall the target of vitriol for being a complete April Fools’ Grinch.
New Haven law firm Stratton Faxon sued Google for selling competitor ads triggered by searches on their name.
Specifically, they alleged that these ads interfered with the firm’s business relations with clients, were an unfair business practice under Connecticut state law, and resulted in unjust enrichment. Read the details on Lawyers and Settlements.
Note the total absence of any trademark claim in the allegation, which is the core of all other current AdWords suits. The suit was a novel attempt to use lawyer advertising regulation to ensnare Google at the state level.
The judge in Connecticut didn’t buy in to this approach. The state judge sided with Google in a motion for judgment and tossed the case on jurisdiction, citing that the claim should be filed in federal court.
However, rather than refile in federal court, firm partner Michael Stratton says he doesn’t intend to pursue the matter any further.
“Our objectives had been achieved,” Stratton says. “Nobody dares buy our name from Google AdWords at this point.” (source, ABA Journal.)
Google also expressed satisfaction with the courts ruling. But all’s well that ends well, as a recent check showed that competitors are no in fact longer buying the firm’s good name. So, as some have famously said, “Mission Accomplished”.
Eric Goldman posted case wrap-up and the a list showing the disposition of other AdWords cases over here.
State bars are struggling to figure out how to regulate everything from keyword advertising to chat-room participation to marketing done by intermediaries. There is little consensus, and sometime bar associations head in new and surprising directions.
Consider the ruling by the South Carolina ethics body that lawyers who claim or edit profiles on their party sites then become responsible for future content posted there by others. The ruling explicitly includes peer endorsements, the service’s own ratings, and client comments: three things the laywers aren’t directly in charge of.
I don’t need to tell you, its a tough time to be a young lawyer. This dark send-up of lawyer advertising suggests that the economy may bring our best and brightest to promote themselves using desperate measures. This sketch is from Almost Live a local comedy show based in Seattle. As you can imagine, Aurora Avenue has the reputation you might expect from the skit.
AdAge proclaimed Clorox’s move to hire a social media attorney as “Testament to the Importance of Twitter and Facebook“. Like much of traditional ad media, AdAge is rushing to show it gets social media and is relevant.
This made quite a forward-looking headline, but the joke is on AdAge. Clorox scored some free ink, while AdAge got to affirm how aware it is that social is the next big thing. But as described, the attorney job seems pretty traditional.
The attorney’s primary duties are to clear and procure intellectual property rights regarding production and distribution of advertising, including Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Recording Artists issues, consumer privacy, and video licensing. That sounds like a media attorney, perhaps with an online orientation, but not much different than what you’d find at any big advertiser.
How about online brand protection? Or using social listening to reduce liability? Or extending the brand in virtual worlds? But clearing rights with SAG and video licensing are just old media duties in service to the social.
Legal Marketing articles describe marketing with social media in vague terms. “Start a blog”, “listen”, “create good content”. This isn’t new stuff, heck, over the weekend even the Pope told Priests to Blog. Its time to get real about social media and law firm marketing.
So here are seven meaty examples of one law firm, Sokolove Law, doing its legal marketing with social media. There they go, connecting with prospects and personally building trust with visitors, while sharing the firm’s expertise to benefit the larger community.
Social Marketing on Law Firm Websites:
Increasingly social media is becoming central to the law firm’s websites.
Parents of children with birth injuries often can’t imagine their child grown up and how they will overcome disabilities such as Cerebral Palsy. Sokolove Law’s site ChildRC is publishing a five-part series on going to college in a wheelchair. This is a totally different view of college life, which is not as accommodating as we might assume it should be.
YazTalk is a socially driven website and Facebook presence that connects women with concerns about this medication with each other and the firm’s expertise.
And Sokolove Law’s Melissa Hayon is a social worker who builds relationshiops through its Mesothelioma Cancer website and the broader community of those battling this disease.
Congratulations, and thanks to you, Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye, the law firm several hundred of you have helped hector, has pulled down the images we called the worst advertising ever.
It was amazing to see some of you commenting them on their site with Google Sidewiki, and advocating in social media for what amounts to a bit of a karmic wake-up call.
Our friends at the Child Law Blog gave us collectively a nice hat tip….
Nothing will stop the defense bar from its relentless pursuit of clients, including bad taste. Thanks to the watchful eye of the UsefulArts.us blog, the Texas defense firm of Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye has been exposed for creating an unfortunately much-needed child pornography defense practice. This in and of itself is not so objectionable, but the now-removed “just or about to be abused-child” images used on the firm’s website to promote this specialty are.
Back in the day when I was studying Lay Epistemology, a theory in social psych, Margaret Hagen held a lot of the cool in Boston University’s psychology department. She is the type of researcher who is rigorous, sarcastic, and unafraid to bite the hand that feeds her. Which means she’s fun and a smart read.
In her book, Whores of the Court, she holds that while psychology can measure specific capabilities such as cognition and perception, it enters the realm of “witch doctoring” when it attempts to peer in to souls and predict complex human behavior. Curious? Download a PDF of the book free.
The legal axiom of always doubting the testimony of children is sound: research shows that child psychologists were worst than random chance at determining when a child was lying.
Your feeling that courts are overly confident in expert testimony is well founded: in two of three cases psychological professionals incorrectly predict which violent criminals will repeat their offenses.
I’ll be back to sharing my own views on the law and online marketing tomorrow. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy Professor Hagen’s indictment of expert psychological testimony.
I’ve blogged about firms finding growth by starting innovative gaming practices or going deep into biotech. But not all legal innovation is for the good.
The defense firm of Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye has gone and started a kiddie-porn practice. And what better choice of imagery for attracting child porn defendants than….yes, wait for it…… a guilty looking woman-child showing some skin.
(Please share your comments on this below.)
Here’s their copy, which again, I submit to the tender mercies of your comments:
An accusation of child sexual assault, abuse or molestation can be life-altering. Without the help of an experienced defense lawyer, you may face lengthy imprisonment and mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender.
There are also the personal costs. Your reputation and standing in the community may never be the same. Your family relationships may be damaged permanently. With this much at stake, can you afford to hire an attorney who is anything less than extremely well-versed in both the legal and personal aspects of these cases?
Would anyone care to speculate on which “personal aspects of these cases” counsel may have been referring to?
In the court of bad advertising, can you plead insanity?
But wait, here are two more…..Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye proceeds to go totally off the ranch with these other case types.
Plaintiff Intimidation Our Specialty?
Hey, Sara-Lou, Daddy’s seeking a defense lawyer, how about these guys?
Would anyone like to send this firm a message?
Its simple to do. See my earlier post on Google sidewiki, and go type what you think of this firm’s advertising on their home page.
Their third web ad goes even further in stupid and tasteless bad advertising…
A 50-person law firm with a national practice in asbestos litigation found that the text of its Elder Law website was copied verbatim as the basis for a new site for a firm in another part of the state. The plaintiff firm, Brayton Purcell, filed suit claiming copyright infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and misappropriation.
The two-person defendant firm, San Diego-based Recordon & Recordon, argued that it hired a company to construct its website, and that it was unaware that the content was stolen from a competitor without its knowledge.
They further argued that the case had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction, as the firm doesn’t maintain offices or staff within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court. Without a business nexus in Southern California, they claimed, the case should have been originally filed in Northern California.
The court ruled that since very few competitors exist in Elder Law, the copied site had been “expressly aimed” to compete with the plaintiff firm.
As glad as I am to see plagiarizing law firms held accountable, I must admit that dissenting Judge Stephen Reinhardt has a valid point:
“… express aiming” in these circumstances leaves every website operator vulnerable to the possibility “he will be hailed into far-away courts based upon allegations of intellectual property infringement, if he happens to know where the alleged owner of the property rights resides,” Reinhardt noted “[d]ue process and basic principles of fairness prohibit such an expansive exercise of personal jurisdiction.”
What if the facts were the same, but the companies were within different national boundaries? Would mere knowledge of a competitor create a sufficient nexus for the website owner to be tried in a foreign court?
Though the original verdict may have been from the wrong court, it was the right decision. Recordon & Recordon was found “one-third responsible for the copyright violation” and ordered to pay $24,000 in statutory damages and nearly $37,000 in fees and costs.
This is a story about Eric and Jack, who both blog about the law with an eye on topics that are enlightening, ennobling, or at least entertaining.
The uniformly wonderful Georgetown Law prof, Rebecca Tushnet, 
Congratulations, and thanks to you, 
Back in the day when I was studying 
