I like Mirriam Seddiq. She’s witty, spunky and manipulative, everything you could want from a woman lawyer. She’s got moxie. I respect moxie. Mirriam was a blogger in the early days, long before Simple Justice was a twinkle in my eye. I was unaware of her existence when I started, mostly because her posts were about her daily doings, and I was interested in the law rather than pets, meals and fee-ee-eelings.
After the child-birth hiatus, Mirriam came back, both to the practice of law and to the blogosphere. She’s busy trying to re-establish herself as a criminal defense lawyer, and to integrate herself back into the blogosphere. Her old blog is new again. Called Not Guilty (No Way) , Mirriam writes about her life. She also has a lot of questions.
Today, I read (ish) an article on how lawyers are using social media. As I’ve recently said, I’m at a crossroads with Not Guilty, trying to figure out what direction I want to go in and how I’m going to get there. As a new solo attorney going it on my own for the first time, I’m wondering how to get clients to know I’m here and that I really have a firm grasp on this whole law thing. There are attorney who use social media to advance their business – my friend Jamison Koehler does not apologize for dropping SEO breadcrumbs throughout his blog. Rock Star solo Carolyn Elefant, and Niki Black (who writes the book on Criminal Law in New York State) are fonts of knowledge on this front and have been exceptionally helpful as I try to make my way through this maze. I believe that the internet has a power that I have not yet tapped, and I’m slowly coming around to that idea.
I can just see Carolyn cringe when she reads Mirriam’s description of her as a “rock star.” It’s the sort of thing that hypesters and scammers call themselves to promote their self-importance. Carolyn is substantive, and does everything possible to avoid the hype and scam. Mirriam wouldn’t know that calling a substantive lawyer a “rock star” is demeaning. She means well.
With that said, I admit to having no idea what that article I read (ish) means. Seriously. None. I have an understanding of the english words being used, but put all together – they mean nothing to me. Thought leader? I asked what this was and got non-answers. While people may think the term is idiotic, I’d still like to know what it means in current usage.
I was one of the people who gave Mirriam a snarky answer. I thought her question was a joke. She seemed sharp enough to grasp that there is a coterie of marketers online who use a perverted form of language to craft expressions like “thought leader” to suck in people who hope to someday become “rock stars.” The real answer is that a “thought leader” is a person whose thoughts other people follow (seems rather obvious, no?), and the phrase is used to suggest that if you start a blog, preferably with the paid assistance of any number of marketers, you will become a leader and others will fawn over your every thought, eventually raising you to rock star status.
I would have thought Mirriam would figure out what this silly phrase, “thought leader,” means. It means nothing. It’s a phrase invented by marketers to create a vague suggestion of self-importance in weak minds. No one really defined it, nor was it meant to be defined. It was meant to promote. It was meant to create an impression, a sense, of meaning in the absence of meaning. It was meant to appeal to people who would never be a “thought leader.”
Perhaps Mirriam’s confusion is brought about by an ambivalence, an online schizophrenia, as is evident in her statement about Jamison, Carolyn and Niki. As a new solo, she wants business. The marketers, with the love and support of internet cheerleaders, offer what appears to be the road to wealth and success. Of course, anyone with a modicum of reasoning skills wonders, “but if I go online, and everybody else goes online, then we’re all the same and right back where we started, right?” Not exactly.
Some approach the internet as means of presenting substantive thought. Others as a marketing machine. Still others try to have it both ways. The marketing lawyers use whatever tools are available to distinguish themselves, such as lies and deception. They claim vast experience as lawyers even when they’ve only practiced a few weeks. They claim vague assurances of victory, knowing full well they can offer no assurance. They use former prosecutor status to suggest that they have some hook with the other side that can be purchased to beat the system.
With each new marketing lawyer, the hole is deeper. It has to be, as it serves no purpose to market yourself as inexperienced, incompetent and scared. So every marketing lawyer is God’s gift to the law. Ho hum.
The hybrids, lawyers who think they can play both sides of the field, generally fail at both. They are banal in their thoughts and tepid in their self-promotion. There’s little use for a lawyer who fits that description.
The substantive lawyer may win the approval of his peers, provided his substance doesn’t conclusively prove he’s got no worthwhile ideas at all (always a risk, much to the dismay of the lawyer who learns that he is, in actuality, a “thoughtless leader”). But he still isn’t likely to achieve wealth and success on the internet. Despite the thousands millions of words murdered by marketers and cheerleaders to tell us how to do it, such as the absurd article at Mashable that withers under the slightest scrutiny, it’s never really happened, unless you’re trying to bottom fish for the clients rejected by flesh and blood lawyers or seek to establish yourself as the foremost pro bono lawyer in America. Many have tried and died, with the moribund blogs of the deceived littering the landscape like tombstones of their failure. The reason Mirriam didn’t understand the Mashable article is that it’s a mash of fine sounding words without substance. Fundamental to good marketing is to make things sound wonderful and mean nothing.
In the comments to Mirriam’s post are two comments with additional questions that I will attempt to answer. First, an easy one from Jamison,
What I don’t understand is the criticism of social media — and the people PROMOTING social media — by the people USING social media.
The criticism isn’t “of” social media, but of the abuse of social media. People use social media to lie. About themselves, about others, about social media. The people doing the criticizing, and I’m one of them, like it very much, but don’t like those who use it to deceive. Not only are we against lying, as an evil in itself, but the liars brand us all as being part of the scam. Those of us who don’t lie don’t want to be viewed as part of this scam. We try to keep the place clean and honest. Glad I could explain that to you.
Then comes a puzzlement from a surprising source, Norm Pattis. It surprises me because Norm’s been around a long time, having had 38 separate blawgs since his departure from Crime & Federalism. Norm had been one of the most incisive, fearless, hard-hitting blawgers around. If I can find where he hid his Prozac and flush it down the toilet, he may be again.
I am not at all clear about this stuff either. I am puzzled by the heavy mockery of all this, however. We all write for our various audiences. I am inclined to think that anti-marketing is merely one brand of marketing. But I am not really sure.
It’s a puzzlement to me as well, when someone who doesn’t see something as a problem that others do extrapolates that into the assertion that it’s not a problem. Although Norm has been around a long time, he’s kept largely to himself and avoided the collateral issues. He’s questioned why I post about it here from time to time, since it’s not on his radar. I’ve tried to explain, but obviously haven’t done a satisfactory job of it. As Mark Bennett says, “I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand for you.”
What “we” do is write. Why is up to each of us to decide, rather than project onto others. Some just like to write. Others write for business. Still others write for validation and approval. “We” question the motivations of others, which is what “we” often do. It’s fine to question, but the answers are often elusive. The answers usually tell more about the questioner than the questioned.
Norm’s inclination to believe that “anti-marketing is merely one brand of marketing” tells me only about Norm rather than anyone else. Norm once wrote that anybody who read his posts would never hire him. That was certainly true, at least back then. Maybe he’s moved into the feel-good camp, where blawgers exude emotions to entice others who share their fee-ee-eelings to join him in a rousing chorus of Kumbaya. But I’m not really sure.
Mirriam brings her post toward a close by writing:
Here are some things I do understand: The Supreme Court came down with a decision today saying that you have to actually say you don’t want to talk to the police in order to invoke your right not to talk to the police. There were ten murders in Baltimore over the past several days, and I’m waiting to hear if I’m on the CJA panel here in Maryland.
I wonder if Mirriam has any thoughts about these law-related things. If so, one can’t tell. Jamison says Mirriam is a “kick ass lawyer.” He’s had lunch with her. I haven’t. Maybe one day she’ll decide to become a “thought leader” and then I will be able to tell. I think Mirriam may well have significant thoughts about legal issues. I look forward to finding out. I wonder if she will ever take the chance.
And one might wonder why I’ve tried to help explain these things that Mirriam, Jamison and even Norm don’t get. It’s because I like these guys and want to help. I’m confident that this post won’t get me any clients or win me any kudos. My guess is that my help won’t really be appreciated, and they may even be unhappy with me for writing this.
Or maybe it’s part of my carefully crafted internet persona designed to create the impression of caring about people while eschewing self-promotion, which in a perverse way, permits me to be self-aggrandizing through the back door. Then again, this may just be the way people talk among themselves when they are being honest and forthright, with neither hidden agenda nor ulterior motive.
Of course, these are just my thoughts. Does that make me a “thought leader”? I don’t think so. If nothing else, I’ve given Jamison and Mirriam a link, which should help with their SEO. That should count for something.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you were one of my censors, this post would never exist.
I’m honored that you thought me worthy of so many words. I’ll have to bookmark this for later review.
I’m no one’s censor, and you are worthy of so many words.
Fuck a duck, Scott. (Merely a matter of speech, you ASPCA types.) Feelings aren’t so bad. Sprout a few, talk about ’em. Both of mine are healthy
Now, if I were a teacup. . .
Man, I haven’t heard anybody say that in 20 years.
If you were a teacup, I wouldn’t have bothered.
One benefit of getting old is that the the forgotten becomes new all over again.
So true. I love summer reruns.
Don’t act as though you don’t have and/or share your fee-ee-eelings. You’ve got them and discuss them with reckless abandon. They merely involve hatred and loathing. Now take that energy and hug a client. You’ll be the perfect lawyer.
I suppose that’s how it looks through the eyes of children. And you wonder why you get spanked from time to time? Do you need constant hugs to make you feel worthwhile and enhance your self-esteem?
“What I don’t understand is the criticism of church by the people going to church,” he said as he dropped his business card in the collection basket.
[to the tune of “If I Were a Rich Man”] … adahdahdiddle diddle dee dee dah dah diddle diddle dum,
all day long I’d diddy diddy bum . . .
What a country, eh?
I like my feelings. I don’t like hugs from old guys though. Which is why I married someone five years younger than me.
But in all seriousness, the criticism is helpful. I keep it in mind as I make my way. I don’t think, though, that you will ever discover if I’m a good lawyer through my blog. I could fake it the whole way through if I wanted to, as you’ve pointed out yourself. My substantive legal skills can’t be proven through anything that comes out in the interweb, so what’s it for? Rip Van Winkle over here is going to figure it out eventually. It may be disco to you, and I’ll have to live with that. You jive?
Constant? No.
No one will learn all there is about Mirriam from a blog, but they can learn some things, important things, about Mirriam the lawyer, such as her depth of thought and analysis, your understanding of trial dynamics and procedures. That sort of stuff. We gain respect for the legal opinion of others because of what they write, showing what they know and think. We learn from them. We admire them. And it’s just possible that we may send them a case should something arise in their jurisdiction.
True, it’s impossible to say how persuasive you are before a jury, or whether you can do a decent cross (as opposed to write a decent cross). But we know whether you’ve got something on the ball. Without it, we know nothing. In this instance, nothing isn’t as good as something. And occasionally, something can be quite important.
And I don’t really care for hugs from old guys either.
So you’re just not getting enough love?
Explain this please. It is confusing to me.
I disagree. I am confident that Scott, Bennett, Pattis and Gamso are all hard-working, dedicated smart lawyers. I’m just as confident that Bennet & Pattis are superb trial lawyers (Scott & Jeff don’t talk as much about actual trial practice, but I’d guess they are also very good). I base this on the fact that they all clearly spend a great deal of time thinking about the law, their analysis shows great depth, they take the time to nurture other lawyers and they all have the attitude necessary to do this work well. Conversely, I’m pretty sure Tannenbaum, someone this click of CDL bloggers all seem to like very much, is not someone I’d ever recommend and that opinion is also based entirely on his writing, which tends to be shallow and reeks of self-promotion even as it reveals a lawyer who makes some pretty basic mistakes without knowing it. Like Scott (and Norm kind of) said, I don’t think its too likely you are going to directly gain a client that you actually want from blogging, but I do believe with the right kind of blog, you will probably receive referrals from other CDLs outside of your jurisdiction.
But then, who is my audience? Other criminal defense lawyers? Am I ‘marketing’ to them in hopes that they will throw me a client? I will write blog posts so that they will know I can analyze a case? I dunno.
I’m fairly comfortable with who I am, as a human and as a lawyer. From my perspective, the only thing writing more substantive law in a post would do is prove to some readers that I can do it. I don’t feel the need to do that since I know I can do it and clients will know I can do it. Unless, of course, the blog is for marketing and I need to let clients know I can do it by doing it on the blog. I can’t have it both ways. So, I either write what I want as I want, or I write so that you all will like me better and know that I am a good lawyer and perhaps send me a client.
I know lots of lawyers in other jurisdictions. I imagine that if they have calls coming in that deal with my jurisdiction they will give me a buzz. Not because I write a mean blog post, but because I try a mean case and they know it. And they know it not because they had lunch with me, because that’s just silly. I know I am charming, but not so much so that I can convince you I’m a ‘kick ass lawyer’ just because I spot you a burger.
God, what a bunch of collective navel-gazers you all are turning out to be. This is why I don’t blog about what I do for a living. I don’t have to worry about whether or not people will hire me because of my blog. That’s never going to happen. (Unless snarky libertarian-ish commentary becomes the Next Big Thing.)
Great excuses all. What do Bennett, Pattis, Gamso, Tannebaum (so Lee and I differ, that’s okay) and others, myself included, know.
Spare me the sanctimony. You know that criminal defense lawyers are way more fun than computer geeks.
Excuses? Really? That’s one way to blow it off, I suppose.
But, if I’m going to take you at your word which is you write for yourself and you write what you want, then why should that not work for everyone? You, Bennett, Pattis, Gamso and Tannebaum are in one league and I am clearly not there. The only thing for me to do is to change so I can be part of ‘the gang’. Maybe its not a gang I can be a part of and so because I don’t prove to you via my blog that I’m a ‘good’ lawyer you won’t send me clients.
Isn’t that the sum of it? Or, you won’t take me seriously as a blogger? I can’t figure it out. Should I write for me? Or for you and your gang?
And, maybe you haven’t noticed, but there is another big difference between me and the rest of you. . .
I’m with you, Mirriam: much better that you should write what you want than that you should try to please anyone else or (God forbid) to get more business.
My high school classmate Lisa writes the Lemon Gloria blog (http://lemongloria.blogspot.com/). She writes really well, but she doesn’t write about the law. So is her blog a lesser effort than mine? Not by any measure. Should she be pressured to write about the substance of the law? No, that’d be silly, especially since she’s not a lawyer.
Scott, what is it about Mirriam’s blog that makes substantive comment mandatory? Don’t we have enough to deal with, with the liars and SEO-gamers, that Mirriam could skate by writing personal touchy-feely stuff?
Yes, excuses, because I don’t believe you. It’s fine if you really have no interest in writing about law (it really is fine), but then you aren’t a law blogger, just another person with a blog who happens to be a lawyer. You can write about your life and feelings all day long, and that’s fine, but it isn’t law.
I write what I want, as does the rest of ’em. We sometimes navel gaze, but mostly write about the law. It’s not because we must, but because we want to. We often riff off each other, debate, argue disagree, support, backup, and disagree again. Then we have a virtual beer (and sometimes a real one. Or more). We’ve come to respect each other, as people and lawyers.
You want to play with the lawyers, but don’t want to blog about law. You want to be called a kick ass lawyer but write that you have nothing to prove. You want to be part of the gang, but don’t want to do what the gang does.
You write for yourself. But if you want to be a mommy blogger, why are you trying to play with the criminal defense lawyers?
But then, this appears to be the real problem:
There are people with far less experience and far less intelligence blawging about criminal defense. What are you afraid of?
It’s not mandatory at all. But then, she’s Lemon Gloria (or mommy blogger, or touchy-feely blogger, whatever), not a criminal defense blawger. The choice is entirely hers, but she can’t have it both ways.
As someone with less experience and less intelligence than Mirriam, I’ll take that as my cue.
Are you really suggesting that Mirriam doesn’t write about the law? Yes, there is a lot of mommy-stuff there. But there are also insights gleaned from her over 12 years of experience trying real cases, including 5 murder trials. More recently, there are her insights on starting a solo law practice and re-starting a legal career. Though these issues may not be of interest to an established practitioner of 15, 20 or 30 years, they do interest neophyte lawyers such as myself.
She tried 5 murder trials? That’s great. I never saw her discuss her 5 murder trials on her blog. Can you show me where that is?
I want to play with you guys? I want to be part of the gang? I want to be called a kick ass lawyer? I think you have me confused with someone else. Or you are reading something else.
To be frank, I think the legal posts are boring. In fact, I don’t read yours when they are strictly legal analysis. BO-RING.
It’s when you start talking teacups that it gets good.
Don’t call me a law blogger. That’s ok. My feelings won’t be hurt, I promise. I’ve been kicked off support groups, not being a part of your gang won’t do too much more damage to my ego. Because, that’s all it is, isn’t it? Ego. I get more readers and I feel better about myself. You and the rest let me into your group and I feel better about myself. Or, I continue on as I am, as I’ve always been, and I feel better about myself.
Afraid? I’m not afraid of much, to be honest. Thunderstorms. Clients going to jail because I screwed up, my kids turning out to be douchebags. That shit scares me. I’m going to Afghanistan in July. That scares me a little too. Writing about criminal defense? I do it all the time, just not in a way you understand.
LOL – oh come on! If one were to judge you based on your blog one would think all you do is write about the law and never actually practice. They would call you Professor Greenfield. Who else has time to pump out four substantive blog posts a day?
Actually, Scott, she’s kind of like you in that regard. You don’t talk a lot (if at all) about your own cases and your clients. Neither does she. She downplays things. She does the girly thing. She lets people underestimate her. She lulls people into a false sense of complacency.
Believe me, I’ve seen her in action. She is, exactly as you pointed out, manipulative. And those qualities, as you clearly recognize, turn her into a pretty kickass lawyer.
OK – now we are giving up trade secrets and it must be stopped.
I AM a girl. A dumb little girl with a mommy blog. Yay me!
It’s no big deal at 10 minutes a post. I’ve got them wrapped up before I finish my morning coffee. I drink a lot of morning coffee.
And this is why I’m trying to get her to join the conversation. Just as I’ve pushed you, I push Mirriam, because I believe there’s a lot there and I want her to let it out.
Fair enough. If law is boring, then that’s that. I’m not big on posts about feelings. To each our own.
In all of that, that’s all I get? Sheesh.
That’s it. There’s no response to “I don’t wanna.”
Lee Anonymous, speaking of “some pretty basic mistakes (which I have no fear of admitting I’ve made), it’s “Tannebaum,” not “Tannenbaum.” That you would never recommend me based on my blogs is of no matter. If you spoke to any of my clients, you would probably be shocked. But I know it’s easier for you to anonymously write here about your baseless assumptions that are of no consequence.
As you, and most regular readers here know, my name’s Lee Stonum. I’m a public defender in Orange County, California (the real kind of public defender, not the one who comes to get his feet wet, tries a few misdemeanors and then heads off to make money). You may be right that I’d be surprised, you may be wrong.
Hey lee and tannebaum – stop bogarting my post.
Well it’s too bad Lee that you are one of those PD’s who resent those who spend a few years in the office and then leave for private practice. I know your type well. You’re the type that still has nothing to say to me when I represent your lawyers for free in criminal and Bar matters, do CLE’s at the office, and buy a few rounds of drinks for the new lawyers. See Lee, you know nothing about me. You embarrass yourself with your assumptions. Do your self a favor and if the chip on your shoulder is not too heavy, call the PD’s office in Miami, and ask about me. I won’t make you apologize about your ignorant comments my lawyering skills, or my commitment to young lawyers.
Obviously you make assumptions about me based on knowing about as much about me as I know about you, which is very little (hence my admission that I might well be wrong about you). Here’s what I do know: your writing is boring and self-congratulatory, and you’re a defensive little thing.
I could keep going, but I know you’ve got an online presence you care deeply about and I could honestly care less. It was an example. Did I take a shot at you? Sure I did, I’m not fond of you, but I wasn’t trying to start a discussion. You’re not going to change my mind and I have no interest in changing yours.
So, Mirriam, I’m going to send this one back to you upstairs. I enjoy both the substantive reaction pieces to happenings relevant to criminal law that people like Scott provides and the war story / day in the life vignettes that I relate to in the writing of folks like you and Norm (who writes wonderfully about the FEEEEEEEEELINGS of what it is to do the work we do, which I can relate to a little more than new solo status or being a mommy).
I’m stepping in now, and putting an end to this side-beef. Lee’s got a right to be unimpressed with Brian’s blawg, and there are certainly a ton of people who think mine is awful and I’m a blithering idiot. My knowledge of Brian’s abilities goes well beyond his blawg, and I believe him to be an excellent lawyer, regardless of what anyone thinks of his blawg. If I have a client in Miami who needs the best defense, I would put him in Brian’s hands without hesitation. I also have a great deal of respect for Lee as a hardcore, experienced trench PD.
Consider this an example of the limits of the blawgosphere, where too much is likely to be assumed from too little known about someone, and this cuts both ways in this instance. Now this is done, and back to dear Mirriam.
Will I be able to come out of my room and go out tonight? Or am I grounded all weekend?
Nobody’s grounded, but I want the two of you to write 100 times, I will not hijack Mirriam’s post.
At the risk of crossing the cheerleader line (Gimme a one), many of these comments are examples of the power of social media to start conversations. SHG and Seddiqq are both bloggers I started reading through Law.com Law Blog Watch, where I also came to admire other writers and observers like Bob Ambrogi and Carolyn Elefant. But I am a marketing pratitioner and I am drawn to these writers for reasons not related to the practice of law or the pursuit of justice. I came as a promoter of lawyers. And each has helpd me learn something about that.
The use of social media is not, to me, about sales. It is about trust. We learn to trust others by getting advice that pans out, hearing or reading opinions that mirror ours, or expose our own illogical beliefs. If you have readers (followers, connections) with whom you develop trust this way, comes the time they need a lawyer or to recommend a lawyer, the trust you have established becomes a reason to contact you. Clearly, then, while self-expression through social media has a revelatory element that is useful for the user, it also can have a relational effect that is useful, as well. In developing business, the relationships you want to encourage ae among those who may someday need your advice or those who know people who will. In the specific case of criminal law, other that the obvious, I would include the police and other lawyers who do not practice criminal law. Should Mirriam become trusted in these “audiences”, that will eventually send business her way.
Normally, this post would never see the light of day, but you’ve been frank about who you are and what your purpose is. I respect that.
I think you mistake creating trust for being liked. I’ve made many friends in the blawgosphere, and I’ve come to like people very much. But that doesn’t tell me enough to send them cases and trust them with my clients. The saying, “on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” remains true. Liking someone isn’t enough to entrust someone’s life to them.
I agree with Scott on this. I like that people enjoy the blog, but it’s never been about anything other than what it is. In fact, it’s not even connected with my law practice, yet. So even if other lawyers wanted to send me clients – which would be odd just based on a blog – they would have to know me in order to reach me.
Still, I didn’t even know I was listed on there. Cool!