Most experiments fail, and from that we learn what doesn’t work. I was extraordinarily fortunate in that my experiment worked, far beyond my wildest expectations. Some might be surprised to learn this, but those would be people who failed to apprehend the nature and purpose of the experiment. I will explain.
When I started Simple Justice in February, 2007, I did so as an outlet to write my thoughts about news, law, whatever struck my fancy. I started that day with two readers, one of whom was forced to read. I knew nothing about the blawgosphere, not even what a decent blogging program would be or what a good blog should look like. There were a couple of other lawyers, friends of mine, who blogged, and they noted the existence of my blog on theirs.
Over time, more people read. I remember the first time I had 100 readers. I was astounded that 100 people would spend the time to read my ramblings. I was flattered. Some comments started appearing, and I enjoyed discussing the things I wrote about with these commenters. They were mostly other criminal defense lawyers, and we would banter and spar over issues. It was great fun.
Then other blawgs started linking to my posts, and more people read. When I saw 500 people read my posts in day, I was blown away. Then 1000. Then 2500, Then 5000. Then 10,000. Then more. My posts were linked by other blogs, some well established and well known, others brand new. I saw blogs come and go. I welcomed many, panned a few. But I always wrote whatever struck my fancy, and if someone else felt it was worth a link, great.
My voice has been the same since I started. I have opinions on things and say them clearly. If I have no opinion, I didn’t write about it. But as the numbers grew, the people who came here changed. Some were lawyers, most not. Some were regular readers, most day trippers. Many people who showed up had their own agendas, which didn’t happen to be my agenda. Some were, in my opinion, dangerous or antithetical to my views.
The comments grew as well, often to unmanageable proportions. In the beginning, they were part of an interesting conversation. Over time, they changed. Half the comments were interesting. Half were idiotic, self-serving, inappropriate or spam. In the beginning, I spent time trying to talk to people whose ideas were not really worthy of discussion. Over time, I tired of the effort. Still the comments kept coming, the spam, the ignorance, the deceitful. My tolerance grew increasing short.
Then there were the law students and young lawyers, who tend to be more computer literate than older guys like me, and who would play the Socratic Method game in the comments, challenging or arguing every point of nuance from their eager but inexperienced perspective. At first, they were cute, but they could be very demanding and often misunderstood that I was a lawyer, not their law professor, and had neither the time nor inclination to spend all day answering their questions. They could be quite a handful.
On top of that, I was deleting thousand of spam backtracks a day, ranging from the basic sale of drugs to correct erectile dysfunction to claims of videos of sex with animals. This too grew tiresome.
Still, each day I sit down in the morning with a cup of coffee and write about the things that interest me. There’s no one in my library telling me what sells, what will interest others, what will make me look particularly attractive. It’s just the same stuff that I started writing on day 1 in February, 2007. But much has changed externally since then.
What readers rarely think about is that I, as the blogger, have access to information that you don’t. I know how many people are reading a particular post or topic. I know where they come from, how they got here and how long they remain. There are posts I write that I believe are truly insightful and important, and they are read by experienced criminal defense lawyers and a handful of non-lawyers of remarkable intelligence and interest. These posts usually received a fraction of the read of some other posts, which tended to be more cutesy, insipid or trendy. The ones that required a greater level of knowledge and thought were never my most popular posts. But they were my favorites.
A short time ago, someone told me that I was being unfair in my attitude on my blog. It was no longer my prerogative to post what I chose, or be intolerant of commenters. I was informed that my blog had grown so large that it had taken on a stature beyond me. I now had a responsibility to my readers. When I wrote something critical, many others would read it and it would be treated very seriously. When I slammed someone in the comments, it sent shockwaves through the blawgosphere. Suddenly, this was not about an old time lawyer spending a little time writing up his thoughts.
Simple Justice was an institution, and as an institution, I had a duty to the public, I was told. I denied it vehemently.
But I needed to test this accusation. Was this still about an old-time lawyer, sitting in the early morning writing his thoughts down with a cup of coffee at his side, or was this an institution with responsibilities beyond his control? This was the experiment.
What I found was that Simple Justice no longer reflected my purpose in creating and perpetuating it. Others now imposed their purposes on it, projecting their expectations and judging whether I met them. People who read this blog think that I’m supposed to satisfy their wants and desires, both in content and tone. Others project their psychological needs on me, assuming that my blog exists to perform some public function, whether marketing or educational or informational, because that’s their understanding of what blogs are here for. And they are critical of me because I’m not adequately satisfying them.
While I still don’t know that this makes Simple Justice an institution, it is definitely inconsistent with my purpose for writing. I never sought anyone’s approval of what I wrote or why. Some of it disheartens me deeply. Other angers me, demanding that my purpose must be the same as theirs, when there is no overlap whatsoever. The issues that concern me don’t concern you? So what? There is nothing here that suggests that it’s about you. You think my views are foolish, wrong, simple, ignorant? So what? There is nothing here that suggests that I seek anyone else’s approval.
This is a blog. You don’t pay for it. No one makes you read it. The opinions expressed are those of one person. There’s no staff lurking in the background turning out post after post to generate advertising revenue. I get no advertising revenue. There’s not a dime to be made from Simple Justice. Whether you read it or not is of utterly no consequence. I wrote for 2 people exactly as I write for 10,000.
For those who cannot imagine a world where a lawyer would just write for the hell of it, thereby projecting their own views that this must be a marketing vehicle, boy have you got it wrong. Aside from the reality, that the nature of my clientèle doesn’t lend itself to marketing in the blawgosphere (or on the inherent, I might add), I have never gotten a single case that I’ve taken as a result of this blog. How about that, marketers? That doesn’t help you to sell your wares, does it?
I’ve gotten hundreds of phone calls for free advice, asking for pro bono representation, for low rent criminal defense that falls far outside the nature of my practice and from people who wanted to know why they
should have to pay a lawyer if they’re innocent. There is absolutely no financial gain to be had with this blog. Zero. I did refer some case to other lawyers in other parts of the country, so they benefited, but I never even got a bottle of wine in return as a thank you. That’s lawyers for you.
Yet I have law students and rookie lawyers lecturing me on what I’m doing here, and what I should be doing here. This is fascinating. I love the new criminal defense lawyer who has yet to try a case explaining marketing life to me, with perhaps the best line in the experiment.
You have apparently hit upon this formula on your own without the help of marketing professionals, and more power to you for that.
I’ve hit on nothing. I just wrote. His view of the world is so myopic, so distorted, that he can’t envision a purpose untainted from his. It’s a formula.
Other comments profile my psyche as seen from my posts. What is described as ego, or arrogance, is more appropriately described as hubris. Who am I to publish my opinions so notoriously? What gives me the right to say the things I say? I admit this. It’s an occupational hazard of being a criminal defense lawyer, the type who has tried cases. If anyone needs further explanation, then you aren’t ready to understand.
But then, if you think your opinion is worth publishing, start a blog. No one’s stopping you. I’m certainly not. Start it, write whatever you think appropriate, and adopt an egoless tone if that’s what suits you. It’s cool with me, not that you need my permission. Perhaps you have great ideas and will have millions of readers. Great for you. Give it a try. It must be easy if I can do it, especially without the help of marketing professionals.
Still other comments presume to state how my thoughts on subjects, notably the suggestion that I’m better than public defenders. This is about as far from reality as could be, and reflects wholesale assumption and ignorance of what I think and what I’ve written on the subject. It’s fine that a reader doesn’t know what I think, since no reader is obliged to read everything I write, but to put words in my mouth that are wholly wrong is another matter. It reflected only the commenter’s mindset, not mine. This needed to be straightened out. A commenter’s cluelessness doesn’t change what I think.
And then there are other comments, most notably by Lee, a California PD. I don’t know much more about Lee, except that he reads fairly regularly and doesn’t like me. Lee and I disagree about a lot of things, but Lee’s comments show a depth of experience in this practice that makes his thoughts worthwhile. I like Lee, even though he thinks I’m wrong much of the time. But others who don’t bring Lee’s experience to the table don’t add to the conversation what Lee does. I’m sorry if this hurts your feelings, but many of you just add nothing. You’re not Lee.
When I finally got around to reading other people’s blogs, I stumbled upon another old-timer, Norm Pattis. I learned that people either loved or hated Norm, because he held nothing back. I loved Norm. Norm burned out on blogging. Norm and I talk to each other about it from time to time. I think Norm understands what has happened to Simple Justice. I’m not sure how many other people do, but the number would be very small.
You new lawyers, the ones who are all hyped up on formulas and marketing yourselves “with dignity” would probably give your left nut to have the number of readers who come to Simple Justice every day. So go do it. Regardless of how wrong you think I am in my crusade against lawyer marketing, I can’t stop you. Why should you care what I think?
But there is one aspect of this that has eluded almost everyone. I didn’t go trolling the internet looking for legal marketers to malign and harass. They came here. The “attack” that has raised such ire from the marketing crowd happened in the comments on my blog. To readers, this distinction likely means nothing. To me, it meant everything.
They came because there were readers here that they wanted to touch, because they feared that my opinion would smear them in too many eyeballs. How ironic that little old me, who has hit on the “formula” and manged to gain all those eyeballs without the help of marketing professionals, can strike fear in the hearts of the very people who would sell their services to others to gain eyeballs. You would think that they would have all eyes on them. After all, they are the marketing professionals.
No one told the marketers that they could use Simple Justice as a platform to make their pitch, over and over and over. I allowed it to a point, but that wasn’t enough for them. That’s when my intolerance kicked in and I reacted. For those who “suspect” that my publishing the letter was some sort of apologia for my reaction, you are mistaken. If my purpose really is, as you believe, to market, then perhaps I would do damage control. Then again, I would be disinclined to make enemies in comments, or post long emails from young probate lawyers that make me look pretty awful.
It doesn’t matter whether any of you comprehend this or believe me. Even some close friends in the blawgosphere, people who I’ve helped out along the way and supported when they needed a hand, have expressed doubts as to my purpose and took issue with my prickly demeanor. Others have remained silent on the issue, apparently unwilling to get bloodied in the mêlée.
So this is why my experiment has been a smashing success. I’ve leraned that Simple Justice has gone far, far astray of its purpose, an outlet for me to write about things that interest me. Nothing more. I will continue to write about things that interest me whenever the mood strikes. I will continue to respond to comments in whatever way I chose. I will continue to take the position in which I believe, even if it’s unpopular or, God forbid, boring to others. Simple Justice will no longer be an institution. Just a blog.
Post Script: I don’t know how many readers will make it this far, but of the ones who do, some will feel that this is a blatantly self-indulgent post (not to mention boring to them). It is indeed self-indulgent. Everything about Simple Justice is self-indulgent. That’s why I write. I’m not you, and I don’t chose to be you. I have no plans on letting any reader define me or my purpose. If you still don’t get it, then you never will. And if you never want to read Simple Justice again, I’m fine with that. But thanks for your help with my experiment.
I was going to write about Giant’s wideout, Plaxico Burress today. I’ve decided not to. Maybe I’ll post about something else tomorrow. If I do, it will be whatever strikes my fancy, just as it was on day 1. With that in mind, a musical interlude.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott,
I hope that you do not consider me a person who did not want to get involved in this debate. I have many thoughts on all sides of this issue and have been trying to sort through them so that I can write something more meaningful. Much as I dislike group speak (which is unfortunately, one direction where I see the law blogosphere and the new generation of lawyers headed), I have also benefited (financially and reputationally) from blogs and would be a hypocrite to begrudge others those benefits. So when I am through sorting through the complexities of carbon trading systems and spending time with my family, watch for a post at my blog.
Ah… a blogger after my own heart. I’m going to award myself another honour for reading the entire post – and I may well have a glass of Rioja as well.
Having fun with mocking our Prime Minister at the moment…. shall continue to do so… along with many others.
Cheers.
Great post. It should serve as a reminder to all who write. Since I haven’t been a regular reader until recently, I haven’t seen all of what you’ve talked about here, but I find it amazing that people would make the comments to you that you mentioned. By that, I don’t mean that I don’t believe you; I mean it blows me away that people feel justified in that.
While I’ve been told — and hope it’s true — that a blog will help me grow my practice, I hope I still manage to write what matters to me, as you have. (And I hope I can be half as prolific!)
Stay true. Keep writing. Your posts are interesting and that’s good enough for me!
I wasn’t Carolyn, and understand that you are in a particularly unique position in the blawgosphere. But I do look forward to your thoughts and will most assuredly watch for your post. Actually, I watch for anything you write.
Thanks Rick. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen comments by someone who calls himself “The Blind Guy,” but you look remarkably like him. Except, of course, you aren’t blind and he is, which makes it all the more remarkable that he goes through the trouble of reading this drivel.
Glad I could be of support to the Rioja industry, as if you needed a reason. Thanks Charon, and my love to the PM for his fine choice in MPs to arrest.
You had me worried there for a bit. With only a single post for the day and and a portentious reference to why you started the blog, I thought this might be your swan song. I thought you might be pulling a Norm Pattis and leaving the blogosphere in a huff. (Hi Norm!)
I’m glad we’ll still have you to kick around.
Besides, you lie when you say that the purpose of Simple Justice is to write about things that interest you. If that’s all you wanted to do, you could just open up your word processor, type in your thoughts, and save the document. Soon you’d have thousands of tiny files filled with your words.
But that wouldn’t be the same, would it? That’s why you have a blog. You may not want to admit it, and you may not care for some of our comments, but you like it that we read what you write. It’s flattering, and it’s an ego boost. You want us to be out here.
Or am I just projecting?
Scott:
The problem with having a lot of readers is that the common denominator gets lower and lower. I enjoyed blogging for several years, but all that changed once I started to pay attention to what was and was not being said. Enjoy have readers, but don’t cater to them. You owe nothing to anyone. And remember the most powerful words you can speak to a critic: “Thank you for reading. What did you say your name was again?”
N
Amen bro. I blog for the same reason you do. Same results. The real serious knowledge posts only read by a few (probably) 4 siggers like me. The lighter fluffier posts more popular. I don’t stoop any lower than about 1 sig, so 70% of the people would never be interested in ANY of my posts. And no one can quite get their head around I do it for the hell of it. Even less for me than for you, cuz at least you’re a practicing lawyer so in the public perception you probably have a good source of $$. And yes, we both want our ideas to be shared. Every writer wants to be read. I totally get it. Thank you.
I actually did that before blogging. I have a folder full of I stuff I cranked out for fun. But underlying motives are often not as easy to figure out as some may think.
Thanks for reading the first 4 graphs.
Amen to you too. Maybe we should form a union.
When you write, I listen.
Ah, Scott, flattery will get you everywhere. Let me just say, I don’t dislike you, I was merely pointing out that based on your reaction to dissenters from your opinion at times (there was a specific disagreement you and I had a few weeks ago that I actually cannot even begin to remember the substance of that rubbed me the wrong way), I can say that I’m not sure you and I would personally get along. I read this blog because I think you’re interesting and smart as opposed to, for instance, Woman Wearing Black, who I can say I “like” as much as I can say that about anyone whom I’ve never met because she is funny and self-deprecating and I really enjoy not only her legal postings, but also hearing about her day to day life management. This blog serves a different purpose and serves it well.
I do sometimes get bored by all this marketing stuff as it is not why I come here (though I do read everything that is even tangentially law related, I generally skip the political or “interesting item in the news” stuff) and I think it probably takes time away from you writing about substantive legal issues that are far more interesting to me, but as we’ve firmly established it is up to you to write what you wish and to write about what interests you. Perhaps if I one day decide to return to private practice I will return to these posts with a more interested eye. I doubt it though. Instead, I’ll probably be calling you to ask you federal practice questions, something I know absolutely zero about.
All that said, it is quite flattering to know that someone whose voice I respect respects mine as well. Cheers.
Separate comment for a separate subject. All of this marketing stuff baffles me. That someone would hire an attorney based on anything less than word of mouth or personal observation is truly amazing. I mean, maybe for a DUI or something and, even then, I would think that someone would ask people they knew for recommendations, but for a serious crime? Hire someone on the strength of a website or blog? That just doesn’t make any sense to me.
As you’ve said, Scott. The truly successful private attorneys are such based on their reputations and those come only from talent and hard work on behalf of current and former clients. I imagine that if I ever returned to private practice, I would market on the internet, but only to make people aware of me. Anyone wishing to hire me would be supplied with numerous references to former clients who were willing to vouch because that’s what I would want if I were looking to hire a lawyer.
What Do You Think?
I invite your thoughts and comments, and look forward to lively and thoughtful discussion. …
This is your motive, and intent, isn’t it?
Yeah, I am relieved that I read to the end and that you are not quitting in high dudgeon. I read you when I can, and I always learn something. I hope people who are not criminal defense lawyers learn more about what it is really about. I too am a criminal defense lawyer. Sometimes I wish I could get more high paying clients, but I do the best I can for the many who don’t have much money, but still need an advocate at their side. I get really tired of the “zealout” prosecutors who want to add notches to their belts and care not about people or fairness, and I am pretty sick of the Article III judges who want to cover their behinds and not do anything controversial, or even read your brief. But there are some good people out there, including you. Write on, whatever you want.
Kinda, but only kinda. I wrote that at an earlier time, when there were only a fraction of the readers and the comments were still primarily from lawyers. At the time, the biggest part was about keeping things civil, as some commenters would start cursing out other commenters. I still mean it in general, but …
Hey.
Thanks, Anna. Especially reading all the way to the end.
Keep it general. Plausible deniability. None of us is objective about we tick.
I understand blogging for blogging’s sake, without a marketing purpose. I spent a good chunk of time on a personal blog (leftlibertarianquaker.blogspot.com), before realizing I couldn’t afford the time I was spending on it and needed to focus more on building my law practice. My hope is to begin blogging again for the same personal reasons, but in a way more directly related to my legal and professional interests. If blogging this way incidentally brings in some business (and I appreciate your remark that criminal defense doesn’t lend itself to internet marketing — though I also for now do family law and wills/trusts) then great, but if not no big loss. Granted, I won’t have the benefit of your experience to provide value and attract a readership, but there are interesting things and interesting cases that arise even in the life of a rookie lawyer, and I’ve got some peculiar philosophical ideas that I find worth spouting off once in a while independently of my criminal defense experiences. Of course, there’s the problem of finding motivation at the outset of blogging to post things that probably no one will read. The formula I hit upon at the end of my previous blogging career was to comment on other blogs as I saw fit and use my own blog as a journal and index of those comments.
The remark of mine that you highlighted concerning your “formula” did not necessarily imply that you were blogging to market your services, but rather that you were blogging in a way that provided real value to your readership (in fact in a way without any discernible marketing purpose, whether or not such a purpose did or did not exist).
I’ve only recently become a regular reader of Simple Justice, in the course of filling up Google Reader with blogs of interest to me. I was not necessarily aware of the backdrop to your reaction to Mark Merenda. All I saw was a response to a comment that seemed on your part to be an overreaction and to go way over the top in its incivility.
No one is denying your right to say whatever the hell you want on your own blog, and to forbid certain people from commenting here. And I don’t think you have a responsibility beyond your own purposes in writing your blog by virtue of the success of your blog as some kind of “institution.” But of course, other people have the right to either respect or disrespect what you say, and have the right to respect or disrespect your disrespect of Mark Merenda.
You imply that my opinion is not worth considering because I have yet to try a criminal defense case. I hope that when I am an established criminal defense attorney I will have a more hospitable attitude towards those coming up in the profession. My impression of you is that you are quick to think the worst of people rather than presuming the best until proven otherwise.
I am deeply moved. Thank you for sharing.
What’s a 4 sigger?
I’ve only got one Sig — a 220 — but I really don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.
There are good points to what John says and I admit thinking to myself that the “formula” comment could be taken more than one way — at least one of which might be positive.
That said, John, your comment exemplifies the dangers of over-quick categorization. This probably helped us when we had split-seconds to determine whether the object approaching us was a predator or not. It gets in the way of modern discourse and relationships.
The individual expression of Scott’s “hospitality” might not be fair. Neither is your assumption that this demonstrates that he is — that is, that one of his traits is — to be “quick to think the worst of people rather than presuming the best until proven otherwise.”
Maybe he is that way [insert wink symbol], but I can’t tell that based on the foundation you laid.
Civility is shown also in the way we respond when people appear to misunderstand us.
Rick, yes there is irony in the fact I may have been guilty in this instance of the very thing I accused Scott of. My impression that he is “quick to judge” may have been overly broad in that it pretended to understand or infer more than it possibly could of a another’s character, when in fact what we’re talking about are alleged particular instances of incivility in the peculiar circumstances of impersonal internet debate/discussions, in which it is easier to say things you might be more hesitant to say in real life.
You’re a gift to us all Scott. Loved this phrase enough to share it with my Twitter followers just now, ‘For those who cannot imagine a world where a lawyer would just write for the hell of it, thereby projecting their own views that this must be a marketing vehicle, boy have you got it wrong. ‘
Blogging is about having a passion for something – and you have it. To the extent that blogging with a passion creates a name for oneself, so be it.
Marketing is highly charged word in some circles. To the extent I’ve said you’ve marketed yourself by blogging, I did not mean to say you did so on purpose. I just meant it in a way that without blogging in the way you do, I would never have ran across you. And that would have been my loss.
Continued success with Simple Justice – however success should be defined.
I have not been reading your blog long, but I am somewhat familiar with the debate and took the time to read this post because it struck a chord. My blog is still in its childhood, yet its initial purpose and your experience sound oddly familiar.
I applaud anyone willing to put themselves out there and express what they feel, whether or not I or anyone else agree. If we all agreed, what purpose would we serve as lawyers?
Keep up the good work, Scott, and kudos to you for keeping your focus.
Wow. I’m humbled Kevin. Thanks.
Well done!
Thanks for the post. I been blogging since 04 and can relate to all you say. Writer first, blogger second, lawyer third. And in the game of crim defence, the best marketing solution is a bunch of satisfied clients. If the critics don’t understand that, that’s their loss. Anyway, that’s enough from me. You keep it up…
I guess you felt the necessity to clarify to others what seemed clear to me all along, namely that you write about whatever piques your interest, that you do not aim to please anyone or curry favor with anyone in the profession, and, most importatnly, that you’re the “baal-habayit” (Hebrew for ‘the owner of the house’. Consequently, all visitors should behave as they would when visiting someone in his own home (commenters – think of yourselves as dinner guests in someone’s house, and that will pretty much sum up the “Dos and Donts” of commenting, First Amendment freedoms and SCOTUS precedents notwithstanding.)
For those who seem to have the mistaken assumption that you do not appreciate young, new lawyers (or as one commenter here put it, you are not “hospitable” to them), I strongly object to that characterization. I am a recent graduate, starting out my career here in the US (though i’ve had several years of experience in a foreign country). I never felt, for a single moment, a lack of respect for my opinions. In fact, the opposite is true. My (few) comments were appreciated, discussed and treated with utmost dignity and seriousness. I have learned so much from this blog, though that did not prevent me from articulating my disagreements on certain issues, as you very well know.
I have no comment on the “blogs as marketing tools” controversy because, frankly, I have nothing to add to this trivial discussion which is, by the way, tangential to this blog. Lawyers should do whatever suits them. If you find meaning in well-written, informative, and entertaining pieces without attempting to pick up more clients (as Scott does) – do it. If you want to blog to market yourself – be my guest. If you want to combine the two – go for it. If you think a certain blog is a travesty and the reason Sodom and Gomorroah were destroyed – that’s fine with me too (don’t read it, start your own blog, and shamelessly try to steal readers away from that terrible blog). But for the life of me I cannot understand how some people have the chutzpa to go to other people’s blogs and write nasty letters or make unreasonable demands?
I think you have said it far better than I did. Thanks Sam. My respect for your comments bore no relation to your age or experience, but your content. Whether we agreed or not, it contributed greatly to the discussion and flow of ideas, which is what makes the conversation worthwhile.
Thanks, AP. You’re probably unaware of this, but I speak with a fairly thick Aussie accent. Listen: shrimps on the barbie. Did you catch that?
Lee,
I offer that the attorneys who actively market on the internet are, aside from attempting to boost name-recognition, merely fighting over those who are desperate.
At least, this is what I’ve seen at my site where the people contacting me for a list of attorneys are those who have tried those who were recommended but found that they couldn’t afford those ones or that they wouldn’t take on their case.
Of course, I only offer this as a non-lawyer who runs a police misconduct site and whereas most of my readers are those who claim to have been abused by the police or by corrections officers and who are usually looking for civil rights attorneys instead of, or in addition to, criminal defense lawyers.
Of course, given the nature of my site in contrast to SHG, I probably don’t have as many requests from lawyers seeking a site to launch a marketing effort from.
Oh, and yeah Scott, I still read and enjoy this site even though my comments, more likely than not, land in the “unwelcome” pile.
All the best.
Are you kidding, PR? You have been a wonderful contributor and are always welome.
I wonder when Claudio and Hero will show up, speak the name of their play, take a bow and exit the stage?
Hey Scott:
I have to say that I really enjoy your blog and always have since I discovered it. I tend to enjoy the more legal articles, even though I am not an attorney.
I started blogging because I have a passion to educate people, especially attorneys, about my field in an understandable and non-techie way.
I am not ashamed to say that I derive some marketing benefit from my blog, but that is secondary to my purpose for writing it. Of course, marketing on the internet is something that actually reaches some of my potential clients. However, 99% of my clients come from word of mouth from attorneys and private investigators.
Anyway, I have a great deal of respect for people who write because they have something they want to say, and not just because they have a product or service to sell.
And I find your writing to be particularly clear and insightful.
Simple Justice is by far my favorite blog to read and will continue to be so, not matter how acerbic your comments get.
Actually, those are the most fun to read anyway. 🙂
Regards,
Larry
Thanks Larry. And just so others know, I’ve used Larry’s services and he did a great job. Larry knows his digital forensics, and it was worth it for me to have some guy down south do my work rather than some New Yorker to make sure that the work was done right.
No Bail for Jew (Updated: Comments Deleted)
The Conspirator in Chief
No Bail for Jew (Updated: Comments Deleted)
The Conspirator in Chief