In a special, post-Thanksgiving edition of the reader mailbag, I’m going to try something a little different. What follows is a real email sent to me recently, no changes, paraphrasing or edits. I post it because the author states up front that he wanted to comment on a post in which comments were closed, and so sends it to me by email instead. I responded by inviting the author to post it in the comment to a subsequent post addressing the topic, but he didn’t do so. However, having once stated that he wanted to make his thoughts public, and given the nature of his thoughts, it struck me as something that ought to be put out there.
The letter is very critical of me, but substantively so. It’s not the usual, “you’re ugly and you dress funny” stuff. I’m accused of a variety of things, ranging from hypocrisy to elitism to holding myself out as better then others. Since this isn’t the way I view myself, I was curious to learn whether I come across this way in general. I’m sure some will think so, there being a broad array of people who read stuff like Simple Justice on the internet with a similarly broad array of sensibilities, but some of you read Simple Justice with some regularity (though each of you should read every post everyday) and have a good sense of what I’m doing here.
This is an experiment, perhaps one of the stupidest I’ve ever tried. But one never knows unless one tries. We will all find out what comes of this together.
It doesn’t matter what I think about the letter. People tend to be fairly poor judges of themselves. So this is posted to offer others the chance to express what you think. Since I’ve never been reluctant to offer critical thought any much of anything, I have no reason to expect you to be any different. Let ‘er rip.
Mr. Greenfield,
I recently read your exchange with Mark Merenda. I am writing you directly because you closed the comment thread. First, I pay Mark’s company to help market my firm, and I consider Mark to be a friend. He was a friend for three years before I paid him a penny, and he gave me a pile of free advice in that time without ever asking anything in return.
Also, I want to point out that I bear you no personal ill will. If we met in person, I would shake your hand and buy you a drink. But, you attacked a friend of mine. And, by making it a lawyer/non-lawyer thing, you intentionally framed the debate in a way that prevented Mark from defending himself. So, without all the fluff and fanfare, here is my response…
Your attack on Mark was undignified and demeaning to the legal profession. You engaged in baseless name-calling and – surprisingly for a lawyer – you did not present any argument to support your position. It was simply a tantrum. Because you completely failed to support your point, I had to read some of your other writing to get a feel for your position on these matters. Based on the statements on the main pages of your website, I think I have a pretty good feel for where your anger is coming from.
In a nutshell, it appears that you believe you are significantly better than other attorneys, and you dislike lawyer advertising because it frustrates your ability to advertise your superiority free from other “lesser” souls making competing claims.
Meanwhile, you happily claim on your website that you have appeared as a legal expert on television shows. Mr. Greenfield, I can tell you from firsthand experience that television shows rarely use legal expertise as the primary factor in selecting guests. I have seen many, many legal experts selected on looks, whether they’ve published, or simply the fact that they were counsel of record in a case that caught media attention. Merely appearing on television, one time or twelve, is not indicative of legal ability. Yet, you cite that on your website as a factor. Many attorneys would consider that to be misleading and undignified.
Even more disturbing, you actually write on your website that you are better than other attorneys and would get a better result for your clients. Many states actually prohibit those kinds of statements. I know that a good many lawyers would find them wholly undignified. I have a dear friend and mentor, retired New York Judge William Lawless, who wrote much of New York’s evidence code back in the 1960s. I had a conversation with Judge Lawless where he went on at length describing the harmful effect of lawyers competing on quality of result.
I will summarize Judge Lawless’ argument as it relates to your area of practice. Mr. Greenfield, you diminish the legal profession, because your advertising gives the public the impression that the criminal justice system doesn’t determine guilt or innocence. Rather, the result of the legal system is to determine who has the best lawyer, and then reward that person. The legal profession suffers when people believe that an acquittal can be purchased simply by hiring a better lawyer. The converse is true as well. The legal system suffers when people believe that innocent people get convicted simply because they didn’t have a better lawyer.
Indeed, these things happen. But, they are tragedies of justice, not marketing opportunities.
So, rather than bemoan the sad state of legal marketing, I would suggest you take a look in the mirror and recognize that you are participating in the activities you claim to dislike. The only difference is that you feel entitled to your message.
In the end, it is merely ego. You have personally decided that you are good enough to advertise, while others are not.
As for Mark Merenda, I hired his firm precisely because he could help our firm craft the high image we were looking for. He has never suggested I do anything undignified or unethical. He has never suggested that I do something so crass as to compare myself to other lawyers. He has simply suggested that I take the high road and teach others about the ways I can help them. I would suggest that you do the same.
Sincerely,
David Allen Hiersekorn
Attorney and Counselor at Law
There is one condition that I’m placing on comments, if any. Recognize that this writer has shown the guts to stand up for friend, speak his mind directly and sign his name to his criticism. Whether you agree or disagree, I ask that you respect the fact that he has demonstrated the highest degree of integrity in how he has presented his views. Like them or not, I do.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I respect him taking the time to write you. In fact, I’m writing you a letter right now. He does though need to meet you in person if he thinks you were selected to be on TV for your looks. That was an irresponsible comment and should be corrected immediately.
He certainly has a point about talking heads who pontificate on TV about cases they know nothing about. He also has a point about your ego as it comes across in print. But your ability to be prolific and have something to say on most subjects of interest, from the vantage point of having been there, is why I continue to read regardless of whether I agree with you.
However, I whole heartedly agree with you about lawyer marketing in general. As has been practiced in the last 20 years; on late night TV adds, the TV guide lawyers before that, and now the internet; has destroyed any degree of respectability the profession enjoyed almost 40 years ago when I started.
Throw in the hourly fees these big law types have been getting for work that is questionable at best and often done by interns(that’s theft in my book); the class action idiots who advertise nationally and then farm out everything, never walking into a courtroom; law has attracted too many greedy, ethically challenged to the profession (it is not a business). In my opinion, many of those kids who would choose law for idealogical and service oriented reasons are finding other occupations. Good people have been forced to market just to stay alive.
I certainly wouldn’t choose law again. If we keep spouting 1st Amendment to justify our greed, and can’t find a way self regulate the profession, we face legislative regulation that none of us want. That places the continuing viability of the whole justice system as we knew it, in dire question.
Unfortunately, there is more wrong than right in Rumpole’s world.
I think it’s generally a fair critique. Of course you think you’re significantly better than other lawyers.
And of course you’re marketing yourself. Privateers like us market and will market. Show me a lawyer who doesn’t market himself, and I’ll show you a lawyer on salary.
Saying “no marketing, period” makes it difficult to argue that there is a line that should not be crossed.
You have a strong sense of truth and falsity. Telling the truth (meaning not just the facts but also suggesting the correct inferences from those facts) is important to you. Lawyers who seem to be taking advantage of public misconceptions (like “ex-prosecutor = good” or “high profile = good” or “TV lawyer = good”) in order to get business offend you.
Which brings us to Judge Lawless’s argument that you diminish the legal profession. I think that’ll make a good blog post; look for it today.
I have often gotten a sense of a definite ego on your part and a kind of ugly method of attacking those who disagree with you. That said, I completely agree with jigmeister that this is a an interesting and incredibly prolific blog and is one of only two that I try to check daily, so my speculation that you and I would probably not get along personally has little effect on my feelings about the blog.
The marketing thing seems to be one that really inflames the emotions and has become somewhat of an obsession of yours. Of course, it is one of the subjects covered here that I have the least interest in since I get my clients the old fashioned way–I’m appointed to them. Nonetheless, the argument of Lawless paraphrased in the above letter is patently ridiculous. Essentially: “marketing that informs people of the fact that the quality of your representation effects the outcome of your litigation is bad because it CORRECTLY gives people the impression that the legal system is not perfect and that innocent people can be convicted for crimes they didn’t commit as a result of mediocre representation.” Isn’t that something that, say, an innocent person whose freedom is on the line should know in choosing their lawyer?
I’m still having a very hard time understanding why seemingly intelligent people cannot differentiate between websites and blogs.
Market on your website, not on your blog.
Lee hits the nail on the head in his criticism of the esssence of Lawless’ argument. That said, I think you have been over-the-top in your criticism of the marketers you’ve criticized. People like Grant Griffiths (who btw I am not associated with), and I presume this Mark Merenda person, have emphasized marketing in a dignified way, e.g., blogging in a way that contributes in a substantive way to the conversation on other law blogs and provides genuine information of value to prospective clients. You have apparently hit upon this formula on your own without the help of marketing professionals, and more power to you for that. But it seems you should applaud the efforts of marketers like Grant Griffiths who are emphasizing to newer attorneys hungry for business and less established than you this more dignified way of blogging and marketing. You seem to have a problem more with the subjective intent presumably behind the provision of such substantive and objective content rather than with such content itself. That, imho, is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You have demonstrated integrity by publishing on your own blog such a cogent criticism of your position, one that indeed implies a measure of hypocrisy on your part.
Perhaps posting this email indicates that maybe, just maybe, you recognize that maybe your passionate criticism of Mark Merenda was over-the-top and therefore wrong. The default position should be a presumption in the good faith of others in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. If you come to or have already come to the conclusion that your heated denouncements of others were wrong, ill-advised, or based upon insufficient evidence, you should say so.
Lee,
Quite right.
BTW, to be fair I should say that I ultimately decided not to go with one of these well-known legal marketers, in part because he had specific recommendations about how I should focus my blog for marketing purposes that to me felt constraining. Instead, I’ve decided that I want my blog (which is not up and running yet) to be more idiosyncratic and congenial to what I want to talk about, even at the potential cost of some marketing punch (and I am not convinced that going about it in this way will ultimately be less effective from a marketing standpoint anyway).
Something is getting lost in this discussion. I don’t mean to speak for Scott, but I believe the issue is that we should be teaching lawyers to be LAWYERS and encouraging them to do more LAWYERING, especially in the criminal justice system where many lawyers come because they think it’s easy work. They sell out the clients quickly due to the low fees they’re getting and because their practice is a shallow one based on advertising and “packaging” up the otherwise empty suit. As a wine lover, I can tell you that most people buy wine based on the label, without knowing anything about what’s in the bottle. The same analogy can be made for lawyers who produce beautiful ads and marketing tools. My best marketing tool is my clean suit, combed hair, organized file, prepared argument, respect from the court and prosecutor and court staff. That’s what built my business. First you become a good lawyer, then you do everything else, not the other way around.
What he said.
But I think a newer lawyer needs to do both simultaneously. Otherwise, if he doesn’t market somehow, he’s likely to go bankrupt. Does a lawyer have to have achieved some certain amount of experience before he is entitled to market? Moreover, I think actively blogging can contribute to some extent in the process of becoming more knowledgeable and therefore a better lawyer.
Because every lawyer until now, in the history of time, who doesn’t have a billboard or an ad on TV has gone bankrupt.
Yep, that’s it.
John, the short answer is yes, but I know that is somewhat unrealistic. Your question summarizes the entire problem in the legal “profession” today – it has become nothing different than what we are accused of being – car salesman. Lawyers should not be a marketed commodity, but for example in Florida where we have 80,000, there has to be competition via cheesy ads and marketing because if not, the otherwise worthless lawyers will not get any business, and of course, we cant have that. So yes, in my humble opinion, you must have achieved something to market it in the legal profession, otherwise you are nothing more than a salesman selling a product.
He lost me at “clean suit”.
Orthogonally: there are things we aren’t doing but should be to help the next generation of criminal defense lawyers (who are exiting law school with a whole lot more debt than I ever had) get started.
Cheezy ads disgust me as much as the next lawyer. We’re talking about dignified and honest marketing. Take me for example. I was on law review and my published student article (on a non-criminal law subject) was rather controversial and distributed to every member of the U.S. House of Reps by a congressman. That’s an achievement of sorts, isn’t it?, and I describe the article and post it on my website. I have recently, in part because of my increasingly libertarian views, become more interested and focused on criminal defense. However, I have yet to take a criminal case to trial, although I have obtained some quite favorable plea bargains. The reason I haven’t taken a case to trial is not because I’m afraid to do so, but because the limited amount of cases I’ve had thus far have not called for it. That may change in the near future with a client accused of attempted murder. I’ve filed a motion to dismiss by reason of collateral estoppel that I think is very strong on the merits. If that motion is denied, we’ll most likely be going to trial. If that happens, I’ve enlisted the aid of an experienced criminal defense attorney in my office building to co-counsel with me. My client, believe it or not, is aware of my relative inexperience in the criminal law field, but has a lot of trust in me because I’ve demonstrated that I care deeply about his case and have worked hard on it. In short, I know that I’m a good lawyer despite my relative inexperience in the field. Everybody has to start somewhere. Some attorneys who’ve been around a long time can do very well solely on referral business. That won’t work for me. I think I’m entitled to let potential clients know I exist, so long as my marketing efforts are not misleading.
John, it sounds like you have the right philosophy. There is nothing wrong with telling the public what makes you different. The problem is that most people hire lawyers, especially criminal lawyers, for the wrong reasons. They hire them because they are “former prosecutors,” or “available 24/7 (aren’t we all?), or “aggressive.” It’s all crap, but the public, especially the “first time offender” public, buys into it. There is also a nasty subcuture of our criminal defense profession that bad mouths other attorneys with lies, steals cases, and take cases they have no business taking. The only thing you can do is take the high road, always.
First, I commend Scott for posting my email and inviting comment that could be critical of him. That shows a very high level of integrity.
For the commenters criticizing Judge Lawless’ position set forth in my letter, please direct those criticisms at me personally. I thought my email would be private, and I mentioned the judge on that basis. While I am not upset that the email was posted, I would prefer that the judge not be dragged into this.
As it relates to advertising that you are better than others, I believe that the critics here have missed the point. It isn’t merely a matter of advertising quality leads to outcome. Rather, it is advertising that innocent people get convicted if they don’t have a lawyer who is good enough. Meanwhile, wink, wink, a really good lawyer can get you acquitted, even if you committed the crime.
Whether this actually happens is beside the point. The integrity of the justice system is premised on the assumption that, as a matter of course, it does not happen. And, when it does happen, the appeals and writs procedures are there to provide a remedy.
Now, if an attorney is concerned about this problem, there are dozens of ways he can address it. However, converting it into an advertising message is – to me – somewhat crass and diminishes the integrity of the justice system.
Now, to be fair, I believe Scott has the best of intentions. From everything I can gather, it appears that Scott’s message is sincere and not a contrivance. He saw a bunch of morons with marketing budgets making claims that they couldn’t back. And, in an attempt to save the public from those morons, he advertises that he is better than they are in a way that matters.
But, my original point still stands. Scott cannot argue against legal advertising when he is neck deep in it. His message causes damage to the legal system. To illustrate my point, let me reframe the issue slightly. If Scott’s message is true, then that means that indigent defendants, who generally get lower quality lawyers, are not really receiving the protections promised by the Sixth Amendment.
In the end, the message boils down to “the legal justice system is broken, so hire me.”
Now, to circle back to my original reason for writing, I don’t begrudge Scott’s message, per se. Rather, I think he isn’t so lily white on the advertising issue that he can call Mark Merenda a “whore” and direct him to find the nearest gutter. That comment, frankly, was quite a bit hypocritical and, ultimately, that’s all I’m really saying.
Well, Scott, according to the Fun Junk Science Test of the Day: You “are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.”
See for yourself: http://www.typealyzer.com/
Whether factually guilty people get acquitted and factually innocent people get convicted may be “beside the point” in third-year-probate-lawyer bizarro world, but it’s very much the point in the criminal-defense trenches.
Many defendants (indigent and moneyed) are getting the protections promised by the Sixth Amendment only because the courts have set the Sixth Amendment bar so low.
If the integrity of the justice system is based on the assumption that the system accurately finds the truth and fairly dispenses some sort of objective Justice, then the integrity of the justice system is based on an assumption that is demonstrably false. The emperor, in other words, has no clothes.
Maybe, like the value of the stock market, the credibility of the American justice system is overdue for a correction. You and the judge may not like the idea of people seeing the system for what it is; it might offend your sense of dignity that lawyers would disclose the deep and long-lasting flaws in the system. But I think I speak for my brother and sister criminal defense lawyers when I say, “the people should know!”
The legal system is broken, so hire Scott.
Ok, David, I was going to let slide the fact that you’re a lawyer (for the last 3 years?) whose practice consists of estate planning for individuals with a “net worth of over $25 million.” But now you’ve decided to circle back in and continue talking about something you have absolutely zero knowledge of, so kindly STFU. On what do you base your claim that indigent indigent defendants receive lower quality representation? Nothing? Gotcha.
The criminal justice system in this country is FUCKED. Unfair to defendants generally and more so to those without means (most of all those who are misinformed enough to HIRE a low quality attorney whose representation will be considerably worse to that of your average experienced and dedicated public defender). Give me one reason why this is something that a person whose LIFE IS ON THE LINE should intentionally be kept in the dark about when deciding how to proceed in their representation? To protect the integrity of the system?
The system is without integrity and one of our duties as criminal defense attorneys, is to remind people of this loudly and often. I’m sorry if it doesn’t comport with the fantasy world you and most of the public will yourselves into believing in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but this is the case. The quality of the representation one receives effects the outcome. The quality of the prosecutor effects the outcome. The quality of the judge effects the outcome. These are things you would know if you had any experience in any kin of litigation whatsoever. Maybe you do know this. Is your premise that this should be “our little secret?”
So, directed at you personally: your argument is both wrong and silly and you are unqualified to make it in the first place.
Lee, why attack me personally? The quality of my argument does not depend on my experience or anything related to me. The argument stands on its own. Perhaps, a better lawyer would recognize that. Furthermore, the subject matter under discussion is legal ethics and advertising, not criminal law.
I shouldn’t have to repeat myself to explain things I’ve already said to someone who is attacking MY abilities. But, your lack of basic reading comprehension skills leaves me no choice. I very clearly said that the system has flaws, and that criminal lawyers should do something about it. However, turning it into an advertising message is probably the least productive and least honorable of them.
And, again, I’m not saying that advertising this way is inherently unethical or immoral. I am saying that someone who chooses to throw the legal system under the bus as a means of filling his own wallet probably shouldn’t be calling other legal marketers names like “whore.”
Of course, I said all these things in the original post. I might have to repeat them six or seven times before you grasp the very simple point I’m making. I certainly hope not. I’d rather engage in a discussion that approaches something like an exchange of ideas. But, instead, you based virtually your entire post on a misunderstanding of what I clearly stated.
I’ll tell you what. Instead of taking pot shots at my experience, why don’t you just try to keep up with the actual discussion?
Now, I will respond to the one substantive point you tried to make – that is, I have no basis for claiming indigent defendants receive lower quality representation. On this point, I will admit that my language wasn’t crystal clear. I was basing my comment on Scott’s message and, in that light, I meant that public defenders were generally less qualified than Scott, not less qualified than the lawyer population in general.
Finally, to answer your question regarding why defendants should be kept in the dark – I haven’t suggested any such thing. Again, the issue is whether Scott can rightfully object to lawyer advertising. If Scott were to put out the general message that selection of a lawyer is important, and defendants should make sure that they choose a lawyer with a particular amount of experience or education, that would be one thing. But, when Scott uses that message to say that defendants should hire SCOTT, well, that’s just plain ol’ advertising.
I’m sorry you can’t figure that out.
Mark,
Please read my response to Lee below. This isn’t about the legal justice system. It’s about legal advertising and whether a lawyer who chooses to advertise in a way that trashes the justice system can turn around and complain about other lawyers’ messages.
Still, I’m not saying Scott is a bad guy. I’m saying he is throwing stones from the porch of his glass house.
Indigent defendants generally get lower quality lawyers?
That tells me all I need to know about you.
First, I think it took some level of guts to publish this e-mail (even if the e-mailer is now being subjected to abuse by commentators on a secondary issue.)
You do come across as arrogant, somewhat uncontrolled and self-indulgent in some of your abuse of commentators, Is it your right? I suppose.
As a law student, the reason I read your blog is because you frame issues in a way which makes me think differently and that is because of your years of experience. It is the benefit of your experience which attract me to your blog. I don’t mind if it is couched in a certain arrogance. I suppose it comes with the territory,
The only time I get disturbed reading what you write is when you slam other people and your recent personalized attack on a commentator was totally self-indulgent without any regard for those you may have attacked and insulted by association. The posts that immediately followed were also more about your ego then anything based in real fact or understanding.
You call this ‘your home’. Fine. And you seem to have some playmates who will defend your every action.Another well-established defense lawyer who doesn’t need to market and a public defender who gets his clients handed to him. But this last week or so your postings were morbidly fascinating, like watching a car crash. You just kept on going. You were the gift that kept on giving.
I’m still going to read your blog because when you talk about what you know best, criminal defense work and analysis, few can touch you.
When you go off on your tangents and out of your area of real knowledge,I lose interest because you assert yourself strongly without any factual basis and it diminishes your credibility, at least for me.
Given your historical response to comments like this (‘I don’t care about you’ and ‘leave’; ‘My blog is not for you’,’ I don’t need readers like you’.) I’m sure this will be dismissed.
Hah. Nice one.
Playmates? For someone who’s here to tell Scott that he was wrong for going off on someone he didn’t know, you sure took a condescending tone toward someone you didn’t know.
Here’s what I “defend”: Scott’s right to write whatever the hell he wants. Just like I’m pretty sure he’d defend my write to blog about whatever the hell I want. Just like I’d defend your right to keep skipping posts that don’t interest you.
David brought up the integrity of the system; David dropped his late friend the judge’s name.
“The legal profession suffers when people believe that an acquittal can be purchased simply by hiring a better lawyer. The converse is true as well. The legal system suffers when people believe that innocent people get convicted simply because they didn’t have a better lawyer.”
Pretty clear.
I did try to move the discussion of the “secondary issue” of whether the people should believe what is in fact true, profession be damned, but he came back to it here:
“Meanwhile, wink, wink, a really good lawyer can get you acquitted, even if you committed the crime.
The integrity of the justice system is premised on the assumption that, as a matter of course, it does not happen. And, when it does happen, the appeals and writs procedures are there to provide a remedy.”
Pretty clear. (In his next comment, of course, David crawfished.)
I suspect that David explains to potential probate clients how they might benefit from hiring him, but I am not prepared to comment on probate law, and I know I’m not.
One thing I’ve noticed about the criminal justice system, though, is that anyone who has ever seen an episode of Law and Order thinks he’s an expert.
Nobody who’s spent any time defending people has any illusion that the justice system has any integrity, much less that appeals and writs provide a remedy when a person is wrongfully convicted (much less wrongfully acquitted).
If pointing out to a tyro that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in my particular area of expertise, that the system is broken and that the people need to be told it is broken is “abuse”, then I am and will remain an abusive sumbitch.
The lack of quality in your argument and your basis to even be involved in the discussion is related to your lack of experience (i.e., zero) in the field of criminal law.
If you were someone whom I thought had some basis to make some of the claims you made or who had actually given any of this any thought other than wanting to respond to feeling his friend had been attacked (something I do understand and I am not here to defend or take any side on the Scott vs. Marketers argument), I might take you more seriously. Instead, you’re just another ignorant person opening his mouth to opine on something he knows nothing of, which is personally irritating to me and when you’re talking about something that is very personal to those of us who actually have some involvement in you should not be surprised when we respond personally. My post above was as restrained as I could be.
Gideon, I’ve commented on this elsewhere, so I’ll be brief. I meant that most PD’s are lower quality than Scott Greenfield claims to be. I can see that I should have spelled that out better, as you aren’t the only person to read it the way you did.
Interestingly, I wasn’t referring to YOUR responses as abusive.
But in the last three paragraphs of your recent response you make a powerful argument in defense of one’s area of expertise and the fact others should not discuss authoritatively that which they do not really understand. Might this not apply to legal marketing? To disparage a whole industry and those who participate in it without really understanding it is no different if you are not an ‘expert’ in the field. And that’s what Scott did.
“If pointing out to a tyro that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in (my) particular area of expertise….” That’s what Mark Merenda did and and Scott ‘ became an abusive sumbitch.’
Seeing some distasteful blogs and bus placards made him an expert on lawyer marketing and he nuked the whole industry, those who already have and would utilize their services and in very large part hard-working lawyers who are solo practitioners.
Again, his blog, his rules. I still give him serious credit for acknowledging maybe this just isn’t his area of expertise, even if it is one he has a strong opinion about. He simply took it too far. If he sat down with a legal marketing expert or two and actually listened to what legal marketing is he might understand things differently, just as if David sat in a room full of defense lawyers, private and public, he might form a different view of the criminal justice system in America.
Lee, you’ve had two bites at the apple, and you still haven’t mustered a single logical argument. Instead, you continue to fling personal insults and pretend that you are advancing your position.
And, where do you get off claiming my argument lacks quality? Your own argument would be more at home on a grade school playground than on a forum for lawyers.
Absent the bluster, your argument condenses to: (1) I don’t practice criminal law; (2) public defenders are, on the whole, at least as good as those in the private defense bar.
Those would be excellent points if they had ANYTHING at all to do with the matter at hand. But, they don’t. You are apparently reacting emotionally and not rationally.
I’ve said over and over again that I am speaking of the impression that Scott’s marketing message creates in the mind of the general public. The question is the propriety of that message and, more importantly, whether someone promoting that message has a right to call another legal marketer a “whore.”
But, rather than engage on the topic at hand, you serve up a red herring with tartar sauce.
So, here it is. Lee, you lack the intellectual horsepower to evaluate my arguments. You lack basic reading comprehension and fundamental logical reasoning skills. Perhaps if you took me seriously, you might bring a greater degree of intellectual ability to our discussion. Unless you choose to engage on the actual topic of this discussion, I don’t much care to continue rolling in the mud with you.
One more thing: are you saying (in this comment and that below) that Scott’s disapproval of bad lawyers if directed solely at public defenders?
If so, I think that may be your spin on it.
I’m going to make this easy.
Assume the system is flawed. A lawyer can do two things in response. He can try to change the system. Or, he can incorporate those flaws into his marketing message and use them to enrich his personal bank account.
Again, without judging either approach, I think the question boils down to whether someone who chooses the latter approach – i.e. using the flaws as a marketing message – is justified in disparaging legal marketing and calling someone who helps lawyers market a “whore.”
At bottom, that has been my point from the beginning.
If so, then it’s a lousy point.
You may, for all I know, be a nice person, superhumanly competent in your specialty, kind to your Mom, and able to execute a double squeeze with elan and style … but it’s a lousy point.
Which is almost always the case for arguments that start with an excluded middle (and boy, does yours).
I was thinking that I needed to make some comment here — the, err, differently-clued person who took the shot at some folks who post here as “playmates” kinda trolled me in; I’m so weak-willed — and you did make it easy; I didn’t even have to get into the unstated assumptions you rely on.
You had used the plural in reference to abusive responses; I didn’t see any other than Lee’s, so on the poker-table theory I figured that I must be the other perpetrator.
Recently Carolyn Elefant tweeted a JDSupra article about the ethics of legal internet marketing. I went eagerly to read it, and was disturbed to find that it was about internet marketing ethics, without even a nod to legal ethics.
The marketers have a stake in selling us their wares, no matter how harmful those wares are to the customers.
The discussion of legal marketing ethics needs to be driven by the legal ethics experts and not by the marketers.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I promise you that I don’t need you to “make this easy.” You were very clear in your email to Scott — “The legal system suffers when people believe that innocent people get convicted simply because they didn’t have a better lawyer.” The legal system suffers when people believe what is true.
You were equally clear in your response yesterday at 5:35 — “The integrity of the justice system is premised on the assumption that, as a matter of course, it does not happen. And, when it does happen, the appeals and writs procedures are there to provide a remedy.” The integrity of the justice system is premised on a false assumption.
You wrote some stupid things that you now wish you could take back; I understand that.
But instead of taking the truthful and honorable way out — “you’re right; criminal law is not my field, and I overstepped; that’s beside the point: the point is that criminal lawyers shouldn’t tell the ugly truth about the criminal justice system in order to attract potential clients” (it’s still a stupid point, but at least you’d be honest and wrong), you blame your readers for reading what you have so clearly written.
I’ll give you some free advice, seasoned trial lawyer to rookie . . . “attorney and counselor at law”: when you’re trying to communicate and people don’t receive the message you intended to send, it’s not their fault but yours. With all due respect, when you blame your audience, you come across as a total asshat with a small-caliber mind.
With all due respect, you don’t get to tell me that I’m making a lousy point. I wrote a private email to Scott Greenfield after he called a friend of mine a “whore.” My point was directed at the insult. If it’s a lousy point, that’s only because it was a lousy insult.
Actually, well, I kinda do.
And, no, it’s a lousy point because it’s ill-thought-out. I’d say it’s poorly expressed, but that kinda goes with sloppy thinking; there’s no way to express it well. Best you can do is to disguise the sloppy thinking.
You didn’t.
Why do you assume that those who work with lawyers and help them with their marketing don’t work within the ethical requirements of the legal profession? And it is an unfortunate assumption.
And if legal marketers also have an independent code of ethics why does this disturb you? Because in order for your argument to stand those who are engaged in this type of work helping lawyers (and the public) can’t have ethics because they ‘have a stake in selling us their wares), no matter how harmful those wares are to the customers’?
Maybe you should have this discussion with Gerry Riskin or Michelle Golden or Stephanie West Allen. You don’t come across as someone who is adverse to learning and I’m sure they’d be happy to talk with you about what legal marketing really is.
Oh, and simply because I am currently a law student one should not assume that I’m not someone who has long ago waved good-bye to my 40’s in the rear-view mirror. And given this, in relationship to my experiences, it’s fair to say that would make both you and Scott ‘rookies’, if not in law, at least in life.
And I’m not in the marketing field. I just don’t like unsubstantiated arguments especially from those who are trained to give them.
I unabashedly market myself without anyone else’s help. So I have limited data on the ethics of internet marketers; I cited the bulk of it in my comment.
Marketers are a step farther removed from our clients than we are; they can have ethics that don’t take into account the same things that lawyers should account for. Such was the evidence of the article recommended by Carolyn.
I’m sure you’re older than me. Probably not older than our spry host, though — he’s really really old.
Mark,
I would agree with the general premise that, when a message is misunderstood, it is generally the fault of the communicator. But, honestly, I don’t think that is what’s going on here.
Rather, I think it is the fact that the majority of the folks on this list are criminal defense attorneys and that part of my message offends that crowd. I think, in retrospect, the gravitational pull of the offensive portion is so great that you guys are missing the larger point that I’m trying to make. If I’m guilty of error, it was in underestimating the emotional power of what was, to me, an offhand comment.
Still, there was a day not too long ago when lawyer advertising was required to be “dignified.” That term was defined expansively and advertising that impugned the integrity of the legal system was certainly seen as beyond the pale. My earlier quote from Judge Lawless actually came up in that context. He and I were discussing how far things had come since 1972.
What I didn’t say (and probably should have) was that Scott’s message would have been seen as highly offensive in the pre-advertising days. I honestly believed that point would be understood by anyone reading my comments. Apparently, it was not.
Moreover, I think it was pretty clear from my post and my following comments that I was speaking of the impression the message would create in the minds of the general public, not with the actual state of affairs.
In point of fact, I did a six-month externship at a California appeals court, and I worked on a dozen or so criminal appeals while there. Since graduating law school, I have had two criminal trials and won both. I also have one writ of habeas corpus under my belt. While that does not make me an expert in criminal law, not by any means, it does give me a feel for what goes on in the justice system. I would agree that it’s broken.
But, again, that isn’t the point. The point is the fact that Scott has used the sad state of affairs as a marketing message. Even if I am as wrong as you think I am, that doesn’t change the fact that Scott has based his marketing campaign on the fact that the system is flawed. And that uncontroverted point is the premise for my argument. Say what you will about the rest, it doesn’t diminish my point.
Scott is in no position to complain about legal marketing. He has chosen a message that would have been considered offensive in the not-so-distant past. Certainly, his message is not in keeping with the “dignified” style of marketing accepted in the old days. I have made that same point at least a dozen times so far, and nobody has even responded to it, let alone refuted it.
Now, I will respond briefly to the attacks on my abilities as a lawyer. I have been asked to speak for local and national groups and receive high marks when I do. I have spoken before organizations of attorneys, accountants, financial advisors and bankers. I have served as a co-author, editor and co
What a nasty letter!
Whoever wrote that letter is one hell of a sore loser. If he can’t take constructive criticism without resorting to such ad hominem, vile attacks, he’s in the wrong profession. As Ben would say, “If your head is wax, don’t walk in the sun!”
And by voluntarily publishing this letter (against your interest and without any possible benefit to you) you proved him 100% wrong. Q.E.D.
“I think it is the fact that the majority of the folks on this list are criminal defense attorneys and that part of my message offends that crowd.”
Wait David, I thought we misunderstood your point and that you weren’t even saying what we thought you were. Now, that was your point, but not your main point.
David, in point-of-fact, while your friend may not be a whore, you’re an asshat.
In point of fact, you haven’t done two criminal trials, much less won them. Here is a link to the public site for information on Orange County criminal cases. Link to the two trials you completed to acquittals and, on my honor, I will ask Scott to delete every comment I’ve made on these posts and send you $100. It is not a bet, just an offer. If you can do that, I will send you $100.
You are a 3rd year lawyer who graduated from an unaccredited law school with a terrible reputation, and practices estate planning law for rich people. You cite unimpressive and unverifiable accolades and credentials and expect people to overlook your absolute lack of ability to argue a point. For fuck’s sake, you’re a lawyer. Even if you slipped up and made a stupid point, you should be able to defend it articulately and competently. Instead, you’ve vacillated between denying you said what you said, saying it wasn’t your main point, saying it was a valid point and saying the people attacking you and your argument (and yes, I’m doing both, you obnoxious ignorant piece of shit) are just overly emotional and not thinking rationally.
I had really hoped you would have taken my advice to STFU (shut the fuck up). You didn’t. You kept coming back. And kept coming back. And you’re still here. And you’re adding nothing. Some people might enjoy this kind of mindless back and forth on blogs. I don’t and it is part of my general aversion to them. So now, if you hadn’t noticed, you’ve pissed me off. So tomorrow, I’m going to call my three friends who work in estate planning in Orange County and tell them what an asshat you are. I’m going to do that at 5, unless you can point us to some evidence that you tried two cases to acquittal. Hell, if you just slink off back to your pathetic little niche in our profession and never come back here or to Bennett’s blog, that’ll be good enough for me.
Lee,
It’s probably not a good idea for you to drink heavily before posting to a public website. How about you start with posting your full name? I would love to explore your credentials.
As for the links to the criminal matters, I can’t help you, nor would I even if I could. Both were juvenile matters for children of clients.
One case that I can link was tried before legal blogger J. Craig Williams sitting as a pro tem, although it was only a traffic infraction. It was a red light camera ticket, and I beat it on a motion to exclude the photograph and video on a combination of hearsay and confrontation clause grounds.
To the point at hand, interestingly, others seem to have read my comments to mean exactly what I’m claiming. See, for example, Now, either this guy is misreading my comments, or you are.
You are also not being even remotely fair regarding my credentials. Trinity is state accredited, not unaccredited. I was accepted to ABA accredited schools but chose Trinity because I was interested in the school’s bioethics program (which has a VERY GOOD reputation, by the way). Plus, at 30 years old with a wife and child, I had to keep my full-time job through law school. UCLA just wasn’t in the cards for me. I passed the Bar in 2002, although I did not start practicing until 2005. I spent the intervening time studying advanced estate planning under some of the best attorneys in the country.
If you actually have three friends in the estate planning profession (or three friends, period), then you will likely find out that I have a solid reputation in the field. I have recently spoken before the Orange County Bar Association Real Estate Section and the California Society of CPAs. I am scheduled to speak at a national estate planning event in February. I am a consulting author in the CEB publication on Durable Powers of Attorney and Advance Health Care Directives being released this month, as well as a co-author for the WealthCounsel Wealth Strategies Initiative. That publication was edited by Tom Ray (author of the ABA publication, “Charitable Gift Planning”) had only 12 authors, all of whom are recognized authorities in the field.
This may be difficult for you to swallow, but I don’t play according to type. Sure, I’m a relatively new attorney from a small school. But, I really am quite good at what I do. I’ve put in an enormous amount of time educating myself, and I’ve been extremely lucky to have some of the best guys out there take an interest in helping me develop my career.
You’re wrong about me. You’re wrong about my argument. And, well, you’re just wrong.
A traffic violation is not a criminal trial and pro tem’s don’t hear criminal trials in California. Anything else?
You’re also now making false claims about when you passed the bar. You were admitted to the California State Bar in July of 2005.
Lee, are you really that stupid?
I said I passed the Bar in 2002 and then spent three years studying before I started practicing. 2002 plus 3 equals 2005.
Of course, if you had even basic reading comprehension and logic skills, you would realize that I didn’t claim to have been “admitted” in 2002, and that passing the Bar does not lead to admission until the person actually takes the attorney oath and submits it to the Bar. Inasmuch as a specifically stated that I spent three years studying before I started practicing, you’d think that you might not jump to conclusions based on facts you can’t possibly know anything about.
I graduated from law school in May 2002 and I passed the California Bar Exam on the first try in July 2002. I can prove that fact quite easily.
Lee, your comments are libelous, and they are provably false. I would highly suggest that you retract them (all of them), because you’ve now pissed me off to the point that I’m willing to do something about it. And, you’ve given me all the ammo I need.
David, I’m trembling. Tell us again about your two criminal trials?
So this pregnant woman living on Arthur Avenue takes her 6 kids to Mass one Sunday and listens to the Priest give a sermon about the evils of birth control and after the service, walks up to him and says:…………….
I’m not providing the punchline because both of you should be bright enough to figure it out. Now, if I may, a few observations even though I think that most of this discussion has been much ado about nothing.
Lawyers market/advertise to obtain clients and so the purpose of their “message” is to have the potential client believe that the advertising lawyer can obtain a better result for him/her than other attorneys. The personal injury lawyer will obtain a bigger settlement, the DWI lawyer will get you off, the immigration lawyer will get you a green card, the divorce lawyer will make sure you get all the assets and so on and so on. There can’t be a clear line between the advertising which is “dignified” and the advertising which is not. All private attorneys who have websites clearly are marketing/advertising and it would seem that most professionals
(even Drs. “Z” and Tush for those readers who ride the subways) believe they have not crossed the line while their competitors clearly have.
Those who are not criminal defense attorneys still have a right to express their opinions as do those who are not estate planning attorneys. Those who try cases for clients who have no choice but to use an assigned attorney have just as much right to say their piece as do those attorneys who have been selected by clients who made a careful and reasoned decision on who to hire. If only criminal defense attorneys can comment on other criminal defense attorneys then only football players have the right to have an opinion on a football game.
To quote the war hero shrimp boat captain, that is all I have to say about that.
Lee, no. You’re an anonymous coward.
And you’re a notorious idiot. I win. Good night and good luck, David Hiersekorn, Orange County high net worth individual estate planning attorney (hope that helps with your marketing).
Lawyers Against the Blawgosphere
Over the past year, we’ve had a number of “run-ins” with lawyers who were clearly unfamiliar with the blawgosphere, how it worked and how best to accomplish their purposes.
Lawyers Against the Blawgosphere
Over the past year, we’ve had a number of “run-ins” with lawyers who were clearly unfamiliar with the blawgosphere, how it worked and how best to accomplish their purposes.