Brian Tannebaum rides herd over the twittersphere, trying to make sure that lawyers huffing and puffing themselves to others stay honest. By that, he has tried to make sure that lawyers who overstate their qualifications, including their continued right to call themselves lawyers, This arises primarily when they use the title “lawyer” to promote themselves as social media guru, a meaningless phrase that’s been sorely abused.
He recently picked up on a lawyer from my neck of the woods, Kathleen Scanlon, who was caught up in a fairly large real estate fraud case. She pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentence.
What drew Tannebaum’s attention to her wasn’t that she was indicted or pleaded guilty, but that she continued to aggressively pursue business on twitter under the guise of being a real estate lawyer and “social media rockstar,” even after the guilty plea. It was the brazenness of it that caught Tannebaum’s attention, and so he outed her.
This led to a post by Mark Bennett at his Social Media Tyro blog, using the Tannebaum/Scanlon exchange on twitter, where Scanlon deleted her twits and altered her profile to cover her tracks, then denied that she did any such thing, to discuss how purported “social media expertise” has become the refuge for disgraced lawyers.
Scanlon didn’t take kindly to being the poster girl, and went on a tear in the comments to Bennett’s post. Her words run the full gamut, from ignorant to disingenuous to deceitful. The best choice would have been to remain silent, but that apparently wasn’t in the cards. Instead, she argues and argues, writing some things that should never emerge from the fingers of a person awaiting sentence.
Should her words come to the attention of the court or prosecution, there may well be good reason for her plea deal to explode in her face. Not only is there no remorse whatsoever, but there’s outright denial of any wrongdoing and an extremely aggressive claim of undeserved victimhood. Scanlon makes no bones about her right to do whatever she has to do to continue to make money in real estate, shifting focus ever so slightly so that her “hiatus” (her word) from the law won’t interfere with her ability to make money.
This is not the lesson one would expect a guilty defendant to learn. It’s certainly not what a guilty defendant should express publicly.
While there is much of concern in Scanlon’s comments, this seems to me to be the most troubling:
But you can’t have it both ways. There are pleas of convenience, even though they aren’t supposed to happen, where a person makes a business judgment that it’s smarter to plead guilty than fight. But to claim poverty as the reason for the plea stinks. To lay it on your children’s future is malarkey. Pleas of convenience come from the fact that they’ve got you nailed to the wall, not because you’re innocent and they can’t prove otherwise.
The problem isn’t that Kathleen Scanlon (or Scanlondesio as she’s called in Webcrims) is such a horrible person. It appears that she did wrong, that she was swept up in the furor of cheap mortgage money and scam real estate closings. From what I understand to be the case, this was pervasive amongst real estate lawyers before the crash, and since somebody had to close these strawman deals, it might as well have been Scanlon to collect the fee. I do not suggest that this is an acceptable excuse at all, but proportionality is always an important consideration.
That said, Scanlon has made her bed by continuing to hold herself out as a lawyer and claiming “rockstar” status while awaiting sentence, then fighting about it when called out. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists, there’s no “nod and wink” amongst the bar to conceal wrongdoing by other lawyers. Had Scanlon not pushed the envelope, and pushed it hard, she would have never made it onto anyone’s radar. Had she not decided to fight rather than be conciliatory, she might have enjoyed a much more understanding reception. But at each turn, Scanlon chose the route destined to exacerbate her problems.
There are three points to be learned from this mess. First, it’s wise to lay low while awaiting sentence. Second, when you promote yourself as a “social media rockstar,” don’t be shocked and angry when people notice. Third, there is no situation that can’t be made worse with a little effort and poor judgment.
I bet that Scanlon can put her knowledge of real estate to good use in the future, support her kids and find great success. She certainly doesn’t seem the type to be kept down for long. And I hope that she’s learned from this mess in the meantime.
Update: In a timely twist, another self-styled social media type (she denies having ever called herself a guru), Sheryl Sisk Schelin who blogs as The Inspired Solo turns out to be a suspended lawyer. When confronted by the Brians (Tannebaum and Cuban), she responded by playing prune-faced school marm to their internet sheriff. Her post, Life’s Too Short to Listen to Bullies: How to Respond to @sses on Twitter, is fascinating for its bluff and swagger, that those who “challenged” her are babies and bullies because they didn’t behave the way she wanted them to.
On the other hand, nowhere in her post does she mention anything about her suspension from the practice of law.
The question of when or how a disbarred, disgraced, suspended attorney should acknowledge their problems is an interesting one. But one this is clear: If they can’t practice law, they should not hold themselves out as a lawyer, whether directly or by implication. That’s where all the arguments all fall down.
He recently picked up on a lawyer from my neck of the woods, Kathleen Scanlon, who was caught up in a fairly large real estate fraud case. She pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentence.
What drew Tannebaum’s attention to her wasn’t that she was indicted or pleaded guilty, but that she continued to aggressively pursue business on twitter under the guise of being a real estate lawyer and “social media rockstar,” even after the guilty plea. It was the brazenness of it that caught Tannebaum’s attention, and so he outed her.
This led to a post by Mark Bennett at his Social Media Tyro blog, using the Tannebaum/Scanlon exchange on twitter, where Scanlon deleted her twits and altered her profile to cover her tracks, then denied that she did any such thing, to discuss how purported “social media expertise” has become the refuge for disgraced lawyers.
Scanlon didn’t take kindly to being the poster girl, and went on a tear in the comments to Bennett’s post. Her words run the full gamut, from ignorant to disingenuous to deceitful. The best choice would have been to remain silent, but that apparently wasn’t in the cards. Instead, she argues and argues, writing some things that should never emerge from the fingers of a person awaiting sentence.
Should her words come to the attention of the court or prosecution, there may well be good reason for her plea deal to explode in her face. Not only is there no remorse whatsoever, but there’s outright denial of any wrongdoing and an extremely aggressive claim of undeserved victimhood. Scanlon makes no bones about her right to do whatever she has to do to continue to make money in real estate, shifting focus ever so slightly so that her “hiatus” (her word) from the law won’t interfere with her ability to make money.
This is not the lesson one would expect a guilty defendant to learn. It’s certainly not what a guilty defendant should express publicly.
While there is much of concern in Scanlon’s comments, this seems to me to be the most troubling:
With respect to the criminal case, I pled to Scheme to Defraud because I was advised to do so in light of the non-incarceration promise, the seriousness of the charges & possible penalties, the incredibly prohibitive cost of going to trial (which is what I wanted to do at the risk of blowing my children’s college education fund) and probably the most important – that I am the mother of two elementary school age boys. Perhaps you might want to peruse the indictment for a better background on this case: http://manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2009-07-8.pdf . Use your super criminal lawyer skills and search my name in there. My lawyer’s first reaction was “what did you do? where is the crime?”. I put my family first, ahead of the law license because I have my priorities straight.What she did was pretty clear: She represented straw buyers in real estate closings, which served to steal mortgage money. She didn’t kill anyone, but it’s still a crime. And claiming that you didn’t know they were straw buyers is silly.
But you can’t have it both ways. There are pleas of convenience, even though they aren’t supposed to happen, where a person makes a business judgment that it’s smarter to plead guilty than fight. But to claim poverty as the reason for the plea stinks. To lay it on your children’s future is malarkey. Pleas of convenience come from the fact that they’ve got you nailed to the wall, not because you’re innocent and they can’t prove otherwise.
The problem isn’t that Kathleen Scanlon (or Scanlondesio as she’s called in Webcrims) is such a horrible person. It appears that she did wrong, that she was swept up in the furor of cheap mortgage money and scam real estate closings. From what I understand to be the case, this was pervasive amongst real estate lawyers before the crash, and since somebody had to close these strawman deals, it might as well have been Scanlon to collect the fee. I do not suggest that this is an acceptable excuse at all, but proportionality is always an important consideration.
That said, Scanlon has made her bed by continuing to hold herself out as a lawyer and claiming “rockstar” status while awaiting sentence, then fighting about it when called out. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists, there’s no “nod and wink” amongst the bar to conceal wrongdoing by other lawyers. Had Scanlon not pushed the envelope, and pushed it hard, she would have never made it onto anyone’s radar. Had she not decided to fight rather than be conciliatory, she might have enjoyed a much more understanding reception. But at each turn, Scanlon chose the route destined to exacerbate her problems.
There are three points to be learned from this mess. First, it’s wise to lay low while awaiting sentence. Second, when you promote yourself as a “social media rockstar,” don’t be shocked and angry when people notice. Third, there is no situation that can’t be made worse with a little effort and poor judgment.
I bet that Scanlon can put her knowledge of real estate to good use in the future, support her kids and find great success. She certainly doesn’t seem the type to be kept down for long. And I hope that she’s learned from this mess in the meantime.
Update: In a timely twist, another self-styled social media type (she denies having ever called herself a guru), Sheryl Sisk Schelin who blogs as The Inspired Solo turns out to be a suspended lawyer. When confronted by the Brians (Tannebaum and Cuban), she responded by playing prune-faced school marm to their internet sheriff. Her post, Life’s Too Short to Listen to Bullies: How to Respond to @sses on Twitter, is fascinating for its bluff and swagger, that those who “challenged” her are babies and bullies because they didn’t behave the way she wanted them to.
On the other hand, nowhere in her post does she mention anything about her suspension from the practice of law.
The question of when or how a disbarred, disgraced, suspended attorney should acknowledge their problems is an interesting one. But one this is clear: If they can’t practice law, they should not hold themselves out as a lawyer, whether directly or by implication. That’s where all the arguments all fall down.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If she had a clue about social media and its implications, she wouldn’t have twittered about the event.
So she doesn’t just have a problem holding herself out as a lawyer, or denying the charges despite the plea, but she leaves much to be desired in her alternative career while she’s on “hiatus.”
More on Scanlon…read the comments of Cuban’s posting where she claims it is OK for a “non-barred” attorney to continue working in a law office.
If ever there was a case of someone violating the First Rule of Holes, this is it.
Thanks. I should have updated to include Brian Cuban’s post, not to mention Scanlon’s continued hole-digging.
Wow. “Prune-faced school marm”? Really? That’s what you get from a post advising people being bullied w/ ad hominem, sexist attacks to just not play the home game and shut the bullies down? Or was I supposed to get down in the muck and start taunting back?
Well, OK.
For the record, I don’t call myself a lawyer. I also don’t call myself a guru, or an expert. I call myself a former lawyer. I call myself a coach, and a consultant. I call myself a single mom, too, as long as we’re talking about labels we willingly adopt.
As for disclosure, I did. Quite awhile back. Mssrs. Cuban and Tannebaum (sp?) seem to think I should put some kind of scarlet ‘A’ (or ‘S’, I guess?) in my every tweet and post. I disagree.
I started consulting before my health crisis (which, not that anyone’s asked, is what precipitated my licensure suspension). I still need to make a living. I have a child to feed. So I turned to the other two things I do well — consulting w/ others (not just lawyers, by the way, a fact which is made quite clear on my site) on online presence building, and writing.
Sorry, but I’m still not clear on (A) what authority either of these men (one who, ironically enough, holds himself out as a defender of attorneys on the wrong end of a disciplinary action) have to police anything; (B) what either of them know about what I do or how well I do it; (C) at least in Mr. Cuban’s case, what solo service professionals need, have time for, or are willing to outsource; or (D) what being a lawyer has to do with being a marketing consultant, except that I was good at marketing my practice, although I’m probably better at helping others.
It’s too bad, too. Because the base issues were pretty interesting ones, before it all turned into an ugly, namecalling mess.
@Turk: your initial comment confuses me. The consensus here is “disclosure is good” but “if she knew anything about SM” she wouldn’t have disclosed it? How, exactly, does that work again?
ETA: Actually, my mistake – I used “recovering lawyer” – I’ve amended it to make it clear, although I think it was pretty clear to begin with that I no longer practice.
Turk’s comment refers to Scanlon, not you. As for Cuban and Tannebaum, they didn’t come looking for you. Rather, you made the decision to insert yourself into what they were doing with Scanlon and then complained that they weren’t being as nice to you as you wanted them to be. And then you whine about it in a blog post. Hence, the “prune-faced school marm” description.
@Turk: your initial comment confuses me. The consensus here is “disclosure is good” but “if she knew anything about SM” she wouldn’t have disclosed it? How, exactly, does that work again?
I’m not sure why you are confused. She’s awaiting sentencing and is apparently busy filling Twitter and comment areas of blogs with conflicting accounts, claiming she didn’t do the deed despite her allocution, displaying lack of knowledge of local ethics rules, and continuing to hold herself out as a lawyer despite her inability to practice law.
If the prosecutor presents this stuff to a judge there is a pretty good chance the judge will not be pleased.
This sort of reminds me of Flea, who was live-blogging his medical malpractice trial. That didn’t end well for him. If you aren’t familiar with the episode, just Google and you’ll find a bazillion hits.
Come on Sheryl, my crying Youtube baby tweet was damm funny. You know you laughed, admit it…
Re: Turk’s comment – I was and remain aware of that, thanks. My question still stands.
Re: Insert myself — no, that’s not true at all. I don’t think you understand the sequence of events here.
Re: whining? Really? This is about being “nice”? When did civil discourse — you know, basic stuff like not name-calling (name calling! Most of us left that behind in grade school) — become such an unreasonable expectation in professionals?
I responded to a blog post — that’s it. A blog post that, by its very nature and definition, was seeking responses. I got roundly, viciously, personally attacked. That’s fine — it’s their choice how to respond to a reasoned counterargument.
Just like it’s mine how to respond to a group of bullies. And I don’t care whether you agree with them or not, their *tactics* are those of bullies. And that was and remains my complaint. Insinuating that I’m being somehow less than a grown-up for calling them out on their ugly *tactics* — that’s just petty and childish.
By the way, Scott — why do you force people to wade through this “verify your email address” stuff when you just go ahead and post comments anyway? I’m still waiting for that email your site said was coming, so I know I haven’t verified anything yet. Or am I somehow a special case? Just curious.
Really, respond or not, I honestly could not care less. I’ve had my say. Anyone who thinks I was “whining” is probably not someone I’m going to have much success communicating with in any event, so – peace to you, and farewell.
See, you’re doing it again. You’re under the severely mistaken assumption, like the prune-faced school marm, that you and you alone get to decide what’s acceptable discourse and what’s not. And then you run away lest you be held accountable. Nobody owes you “nice” according to your terms.
Nobody named you Queen of the Internets. You don’t get to decide that others are behaving like children and unworthy of the very important time of a suspended lawyer who hides it behind euphemisms.
So everybody else is childish but you? Of course, that’s the way prune-faced school marms think. And feel free to run and hide from your history, your disgrace. It’s always easier to run away then confront your own demons. But don’t lie about it. You care desperately that others think of you as a whiny loser. Go cry about it amongst the other disgraced lawyers turned social media gurus. I’m sure they will hold you and tell you how much they love you.
And I have the ability to override the system and post a comment. I saw yours before you got the email and posted it. Because you are, indeed, special. Does that make you feel better?
You defrauded my client and took away her home you lowlife piece of dung. You are not a lawyer nor are you a human in my opinion you are the scum of the earth who should be locked away with sociopaths like John Gacy. I will be in touch with the DA to demand restitution for your crimes not only against mortgage companies but against real people who will be homeless thanks to your greed! I only wish we lived in a country where dung like you could be stoned for their crimes!