When Justinian Lane wrote his screed against the omnipresent lawyers who, facing hunger and eviction, recreated themselves as social media experts, the newest, coolest phrase in the online lexicon became “social media snake oil salesmen.”
Tonight, I reached my level of tolerance for snake oil salesmen who bill themselves as social media experts for lawyers.
If a guy with a J.D. is trying to make his or her money from teaching other lawyers about social media, you can be sure that he or she is a failure as a lawyer. Lawyers who are good at rainmaking have one thing in common, no matter whether they do their rain dance for plaintiff or defense firms: They’re rich. They don’t try and teach others how to be rainmakers because (a) they don’t want the competition, and (b) they don’t need the money.
In the past couple of days, it’s been a meme running through the bowels of the blog and twittersphere. Just yesterday, a post emerged at , a blog that has never promoted an idea that couldn’t be better captured on twitter with characters to spare, that spread like wildfire, entitled One Size Fits All Snake Oil Targets Lawyers.
I am in complete agreement with Rex. Those of us who are aware of the shenanigans being played on the unsuspecting have a duty to protect others from “these people.” But there’s a problem. When we do, we get our butts handed to us for beating up on them. Our critics come from two primary sources, the brotherhood of snake oil salesmen, the mutual protection society that covers up each other’s lies, scams and overt silliness in the flowery yet meaningless language of the trade, and those who pay (or at least pay heed) for these snake oil salesmen and need to prove that they aren’t the dumbest people on the internets.
You can’t have it both ways. Either those of us who, like Rex, have been online for awhile have a responsibility to call out the charlatans or not. You want to know who’s blowing smoke? We know. We know who’s puffing their credentials, who’s outright lying, whose stories are suspect and whose are total nonsense. But to tell you, we’ve got to hurt some feelings. There’s just no nice way to call a liar a liar.
My tenure online has brought me plenty of criticism because of my refusal to mince words. I call them as I see them, and I call them in language that (I believe) leaves little doubt as to what my point is. This gives rise to a wealth of criticism about my being too harsh on others. The braintrust at the ABA calls my posts “rants”, while their counterparts at Avvo thinks I’m an “abrasive ass.” I find the latter offensive, only because I don’t use that kind of language in my posts, and I’m quite disappointed that Josh King, Avvo’s GC, was incapable of coming up with a way to make his point without using an epithet. But their point is quite true, compared with the many tepid, unclear, wussy posts that permeate the blawgosphere, mine tend to be more forceful. I’ll take the heat for it and have no plans on watering down what I write.
So Justinian Lane and Rex Gradeless are right. So is Brian Tannebaum, described by Avvo as “unattractive yet insipid.” But if anybody really wants to know the truth about your good buddies who are out there offering to teach you how to make millions from blogging and twitting, then be prepared for things to get ugly. There’s just no other way to learn the truth other than to learn the truth.
And I’ll start right here. Hey Rex. Look in the mirror, kid. The line for beating me up starts on the right.
2010 Prediction: Droves of people are going to try to sell legal professionals their product, gimmick, “next best thing”, social media strategy, eBook, webinar, and who knows what. Anything for a quick buck.This defender of the vulnerable lawyer is Rex Gradeless, an unemployed 2009 law school grad who, as described by Avvo, is recognized due to “the Paris Hilton effect: he’s famous for being famous.” His sole achievement is amassing more followers on twitter than any other lawyer (or lawyer to be, as the case may be). Despite the fact that it hasn’t paid off for him, he nonetheless gives lectures to lawyers about the wonders of social media and how to be as famous as him.
Those of us who have been online for awhile, and you know who you are, have the responsibility to protect other legal professionals from these people.
I am in complete agreement with Rex. Those of us who are aware of the shenanigans being played on the unsuspecting have a duty to protect others from “these people.” But there’s a problem. When we do, we get our butts handed to us for beating up on them. Our critics come from two primary sources, the brotherhood of snake oil salesmen, the mutual protection society that covers up each other’s lies, scams and overt silliness in the flowery yet meaningless language of the trade, and those who pay (or at least pay heed) for these snake oil salesmen and need to prove that they aren’t the dumbest people on the internets.
You can’t have it both ways. Either those of us who, like Rex, have been online for awhile have a responsibility to call out the charlatans or not. You want to know who’s blowing smoke? We know. We know who’s puffing their credentials, who’s outright lying, whose stories are suspect and whose are total nonsense. But to tell you, we’ve got to hurt some feelings. There’s just no nice way to call a liar a liar.
My tenure online has brought me plenty of criticism because of my refusal to mince words. I call them as I see them, and I call them in language that (I believe) leaves little doubt as to what my point is. This gives rise to a wealth of criticism about my being too harsh on others. The braintrust at the ABA calls my posts “rants”, while their counterparts at Avvo thinks I’m an “abrasive ass.” I find the latter offensive, only because I don’t use that kind of language in my posts, and I’m quite disappointed that Josh King, Avvo’s GC, was incapable of coming up with a way to make his point without using an epithet. But their point is quite true, compared with the many tepid, unclear, wussy posts that permeate the blawgosphere, mine tend to be more forceful. I’ll take the heat for it and have no plans on watering down what I write.
So Justinian Lane and Rex Gradeless are right. So is Brian Tannebaum, described by Avvo as “unattractive yet insipid.” But if anybody really wants to know the truth about your good buddies who are out there offering to teach you how to make millions from blogging and twitting, then be prepared for things to get ugly. There’s just no other way to learn the truth other than to learn the truth.
And I’ll start right here. Hey Rex. Look in the mirror, kid. The line for beating me up starts on the right.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I helped start a meme, my life is now one step closer to completion. 🙂 Glad you enjoyed the post!
while their counterparts at Avvo thinks I’m an “abrasive ass.”
Watching Pinnochio with my little ones a few years back, the use of “jackass” jumped right off the screen at us. It was used, of course, in conjunction with kids turning into donkeys.
Many words start as epithets and get watered down to general use. But this one seems to be upgraded.
Yeah, I know this is totally off-topic to your discussion of the snake oil salesmen.
But lawyers are, after all, wordsmiths.
I wondered about that as well, imagining Josh King slaving over his words. How long did it take him to come up with that phrase? Half a second? Less?
It appears that you have somehow caught the imagination of many where others, myself included, have failed. It’s not just about enjoying the post, but about the post accomplishing scrutiny of its target.
Curmudgeon would have been more appropriate. But, I think you’re a little harsh on Josh. I think he genuinely admires you.
Marc J. Randazza wrote:
Curmudgeon would have been more appropriate.
Who stole Randazza’s keyboard?
Actually, I didn’t slave over it at all – it was a direct quote from one of your many admiring readers here.
And we wouldn’t want you to change a thing. Your attitude is one of the things that makes your blog so fun to read.
Of course I’m harsh on Josh. I’m an abrasive ass. It’s what we do.
Get off my lawn.
Where do I go to see Tannebaum described as “unattractive yet insipid”?
Pretty much anywhere they know him, but Miami would be the warmest.
Does any Western male under the age of 40 have a first name other than “Josh”?
Please advise.
Nope – being over 40, I like to think that my parents were trendsetters.
My mistake–and sorry, Josh–but that’s really something. You should be interviewed by the media about that.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not yet 40.
You are wise beyond my years.
As one who occasionally sells said snake oil — in the form of lectures and consultations — I must challenge Lane’s premise that I must, therefore, be a failure as a lawyer and a peddler of bullshit. Here’s the thing: I genuinely enjoy playing around with the Internet and social media. I started writing and speaking to lawyers about this stuff way back in 1992. Even back then, I was telling lawyers how they could use the Internet to market themselves and to save money in their practices. I have worked in media, print and online, most of my career. Even though I sometimes get paid to speak about or discuss social media (and just as often do it without pay), I do not take my snake-oil cart on the road because I “need the money,” as Lane says, but because I am genuinely enthused about the subject and enjoy sharing that enthusiasm with others. Lawyers are not all automatons engaged in single-minded pursuits of the almighty dollar; we are diverse in our knowledge and interests — and some of us are even willing to share what we know with others.
I might suspect that you’ve missed the point of Justinian and so many others, except I’m more inclined to believe that you get the point and are using your own example, grossly misapplying your circumstances to Justinian’s points, in order to deflect the attack. So the better question is why, when no one has ever accused Bob Ambrogi of being a snake oil salesman, would he want to insert himself in the argument to deflect attention from those for whom the shoe fits perfectly?
Or does Miss Grundy just prefer a quiet classroom and want all the unruly boys and girls to settle down?
Don’t tell Bennett, but he’s not aging all that well.
Is all of the gray real? Only my hairdresser knows for sure.
I don’t think I missed Lane’s point. Here are two of his statements:
-“People who want to charge lawyers money for teaching them about social media are bullshit peddlers who hope to exploit the (presumed) ignorance of the (presumed) rich.”
-“If a guy with a J.D. is trying to make his or her money from teaching other lawyers about social media, you can be sure that he or she is a failure as a lawyer.”
Sure, there are snake-oil peddlers out there. We can all name names. But Lane’s post unfairly condemns a broad category of JDs for the sins of a few. I inserted myself into the argument simply to make that point. Now you all go back to throwing erasers around the classroom.
You neither sell yourself directly to lawyers as the man who will teach them to get rich off social media, nor have you abandoned the practice of law to be a social media expert. These are the points that Justinian was making. In context, I thought they were perfectly clear. Out of context, they are still clear to those of us who know what he’s getting at.
You weren’t the target, so your example doesn’t change anything. He wasn’t unfairly condemning a broad category of JD, but a narrow category of JDs turned social media experts. Watch out for the erasers.
Heh. I’m cranky enough myself – or used enough to SHG – that I viewed his comments being complementary towards Bob. “Yo, Bob, we’re not talking about you. You’re not a scum bag.” High praise indeed! 😉
Remind me not to hire you as a sign language interpreter.