When I was first asked if I would agree to provide information to a private business seeking to “teach” lawyers about social media, I responded with how much of their take they planned to donate to charity.  If none, then why would they expect my free services so that they could turn a profit?  My correspondent came back with a funny response, neither offended by my antagonistic response nor embarrassed by having been outed for her effort to free-ride. 

She showed moxie, and I like moxie.  So, against my better judgment, I agreed to answer a bunch of questions about lawyers and social media so that this for-profit entity could create a presentation to sell to lawyers as if it was CLE-worthy.  It was a few minutes of my time, and more importantly given the other lawyers who were being asked to contribute, I realized that I was likely the only voice that would have anything to say suggesting that social media was not the panacea of wealth, success and prominence.  The others were all social media cheerleaders, or made their living off of it.

The presentation was completed and it’s available to be seen.  It’s absolutely awful.  It’s a lie.  It’s nonsense.  It’s total and complete crap.  It includes one quote from me, a tepid offer of the benefits of social media:

You can become part of a community that will both add to your professional knowledge and expand your professional world.

Omitted is the preceding and subsequent thoughts that this is the only benefit, not wealth and success.  Just like talking to a reporter, they parsed out the tiny piece that supported the false premise and ignored the rest.   Whatever.  Any lawyer foolish enough to pay to see this presentation gets what they deserve.

But what I didn’t realize adequately until chatting with other lawyers during my time doing the ITAP program at Cardozo Law School was how little most lawyers understand about the internet, and how little they want to understand.  Guys like me, and other blawgers like Bennett and Tannebaum, are busy trying to warn the brothers and sisters to steer clear of the charlatans.  Guys like Turk and O’Keefe are disclosing the scams and spams of big-boy lawyercentric businesses like West’s Findlaw. 

Those of us who spend some time on line are well-aware of what’s happening to lawyer advertising and self-promotion.  The problem is that the vast majority (and based upon my anecdotal experience, the word “vast” fails to suffice to capture it) neither know nor care.  They pay the monthly bill and never look back.  They haven’t got the slightest clue what is being done in their name, and actively avoid learning anything about it.

It is nothing more than today’s version of the yellow page ad, as far as they’re concerned.  A salesman sells them on the concept, promises the world, and that’s the end of their involvement.  After that, it’s just another bill to pay.

Those of us paying attention use great phrases like “outsource marketing = outsource ethics.”  The problem is that the people who need the message aren’t listening.  They aren’t reading. They aren’t paying any attention.  Nothing.  They truly aren’t interested in what’s happening online, beyond the potential of getting some new cases and not missing out on the internet gravy train.

Which brings me back to the seminars touting social media for lawyers.  There’s one happening about this time out in Washington State by a well known company that derives all its income from social media.  They asked if I, along with a few others, would be interested in doing a contrarian panel, tentatively titled “Four Angry Men.”  The only draw back is that they wanted us to go out there on our own dime, the giveback being that we could attend their conference for free.  Yeah, and I enjoy having a needle thrust through my eye.

On the other side, the cheerleaders and hypsters would not only happily shell out for the flight and hotel, but would pay for the privilege of “presenting” to the attendees in the hope of the attendees paying for their social media guru services.  They promise this is the next coming of wealth for lawyers.  There will be no one there to disagree,  Why in the world would I be willing to pay the freight to “present”?  I’ve got no financial horse in the race.

Where are the bar associations in all this?  They are running CLEs replete with presenters who are  at best clueless about social media and at worst the same cheerleaders who clamor for the face time with potential customers.  I’ve yet to see a single bar association CLE that isn’t gushing about social media.  The bar associations are as clueless as the rest of the bar, when they could be the best source of legitimate information for lawyers.  They have failed miserably to inform, and instead use whatever juice they possess to promote ignorance.  The worst offender is the ABA, the foremost promoter of snake oil as a cure-all.

And so there’s a small pond of people who learn that the cheerleaders are selling snake oil, and a large group of people who outsource their marketing, and hence their ethics, because those are the loudest and most prevalent voices.  And the ocean of lawyers who are shelling out the bucks because they believe that’s the future of their practice neither know nor care.  They will never hear a dissenting voice.