There are some very witty folks on twitter. No, it’s not quite Oscar Wilde meets high tech, but then you don’t have to be that witty to make friends. Plus, not everything Oscar Wilde had to say fit within the 140 character confines of twitter. Yet, there are new friends to be made who, out of the blue, get a decent chuckle.
Many, however, aren’t on twitter to do an Oscar Wilde imitation. Oh, no sireebob. They are trolling for friends with an ulterior motive. They follow (then unfollow when you don’t return the twitter love [twove?]) to gain your confidence. They network. If you need a lawyer in Des Moines, they’re your man.
It’s not an evil plan. They aren’t doing it because they want to steal business they don’t deserve. They just want to let the world know they’re there, available and, hey if it happens that you need them, your friend. Manufactured experts on things that require no expertise tell lawyers that this is a great way to grow your business. Lawyers who need business go along for the ride. There’s no barrier to entry and if you get a case out of it, you’re way ahead of the game. What’s wrong with that?
In the past, the nature of referrals via twitter has been a subject of discussion here.
Contrary to my brethren who assert that cute and interesting twits are a fine basis for the construction of a referral network, I will never refer a matter to someone on the basis of their twits. I may like them very much, and enjoying twitting back and forth with them all day long, but they aren’t getting a case from me based on twits alone. I would require far, far more to have the requisite faith to entrust them with a client.
This isn’t to say that someone isn’t worthy, but that worthiness can’t be discerned on the basis of twits. No matter how much I like you on twitter, it doesn’t make you a good lawyer, just a good twitterer. If someone asks for a referral to a good twitterer in Des Moines, you’re my guy. A good lawyer? Sorry, don’t know anybody.
I realize that my view likely makes me an outlier. Many, perhaps most, will fail to connect likeability in one arena to competence in another. Some will justify it by saying, “hey, he’s a really sharp guy. I can tell by his twits.” Others just want to feed the business to someone they like. Still others will send it out in the hope that the favor will come back to her. Backscratching is a time honored tradition.
An outlier like me, however, can’t bring myself to do it. Not because I don’t think you’re smart, witty or likeable. You may be the most likeable person in all of Des Moines. If I’m in Des Moines and free for drinks and dinner, you would be the first person I would call. No, really.
But referrals aren’t guided by who one would prefer to hang out with. It’s all about lawyering. And it’s not about who talks a good game, but who produces. And it’s not about backscratching but trust.
Where did we go so far astray that we’ve forgotten the point of this exercise we call the practice of law. Sure, the marketers inform us that people are inclined to do business with people they like, thus directing us to be more likeable, more appealing in order to gain business. This has confused many, who fail to distinguish between what makes for good marketing as opposed to what makes for good lawyering. Do you refer to the best marketer or the best lawyer? Sadly, I see the former prevailing as weaker minds populate social media.
Think Dr. Gregory House, who may be the most dislikeable character on television, but the one you want when no one else knows what’s wrong. Yes, of course it’s total fiction, but it’s an example to make a point. In law, as on TV, the bottom line is the ability to get the job done, not the ability to provide comfort and solace while screwing it up.
While it’s not impossible to do both, my experience is that the lawyers who do the best work tend not to be the hand-holders and comforters. They tend to be hardened, focused and intolerant. They suffer foolishness poorly. They have the killer instinct, the ability to find the weak spot and the will to exploit it unmercifully. They have the guts to stand up to any enemy, and the smarts to know when and how to pick their battles.
These types of lawyers won’t be everybody’s cup of tea. Some of them are pretty hard to get along with, difficult to like. But when you’re in the midst of battle for your life, these are the lawyers you want standing beside you.
Chances are, you’re not going to find these lawyers floating around twitter making friends. But if you ask me for a referral, these are the lawyers I would send you to. If you want to know who is witty and fun on twitter, that’s another matter entirely.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am not a lawyer but given the nature of the government, God forbid, if I needed one in the future, I would want the competent, aggressive, hard nosed lawyer that you describe.
Please say you don’t think I’m witty.
I said witty! Not pretty! (And not wise.)
Sorry for my late arrival to comment on this.
Most people do business with people they like.
I can appreciate you discounting likability as a factor in people making a hiring decision- but to pretend it doesn’t play a major role just isn’t true.
Likability shouldn’t be the biggest factor when selecting a US President either, but after 2 rounds of Bush II- it is pretty hard to ignore how effective it is.
People will continue to do business with people they like. If they like someone because of their tweets- is it really that different?
You’re never late, Adrian. Now how to explain this to you. It’s the difference between flash and substance. For example, people react to shiny things. The shiny things may be valueless, but people do indeed like shiny things. People who select shiny things without value over un-shiny things with value are fools. Yet people like their shiny things.
Does that mean lawyers (and those feeding off the carcasses of lawyers) promote valueless shiny things, knowing that there are foolish people out there who will want them because they are shiny? You’ve forsaken the lawyer in favor of the marketer. You focus on what sells, even if its nonsensical, foolish or, worse yet, harmful.
While one instance of your experience with someone giving you work because of a twit doesn’t make for a marketing concept, it does serve to crystalize the question: Do you stand for the proposition that people should hire lawyers they like because of their witty twits, or lawyers who are competent? And here’s the harsh news. There is an inverse correlation between lawyers busy twitting all day to ingratiate themselves with others to get business and good quality. I bet you’re constrained to disagree, since your bread is buttered by lawyers desperate for business any way they can get it, but then you aren’t qualified to have an opinion until you’re competent to assess the quality of other lawyers.
And of course, that you may like them, whether personally or because you hope that they will pay you, has nothing to do with competence. They can be the most likeable, and least competent, lawyer in the country, and you would back them up 110% if they twitted something nice about you.
So yes, it is really that different. Feel free to stop by whenever you have a question.
And notably, you left one word out.
I am glad that find this blog. It is interesting. I have legal blog too.
And maybe a bit too much vodka? Nostrovia.
I really LOVE twitter mostly because it is a welcome, silly release from the details that take up my days and nights. I certainly do not expect to get paying clients from it, but then again, I am not on twitter for that purpose. I just find it fun, and even the best lawyers need some fun every now and then… right???
Well there’s no shortage of “wise” around here.
Wisdom being something completely else.
I don’t know why you’re so doctrinaire about this, S.H. We certainly know there a tremendous amount of hooey on Twitter, including among lawyers. But the fact is, guess what? On Twitter, you’re pretty damned witty. As am I. And you know we’re good at what we do. (Yes you do.)
So why is it so black and white by you?
There’s nothing wrong at all with having fun, and that’s the perfect use for twitter.
Because the future of law is being sold as product of lawyers skilled at social media rather that lawyers skilled at law. I don’t think I’m all that witty on twitter, but you can bet your bottom dollar that twit-wit doesn’t demonstrate any legal competence, any lawyer who would refer a client to another lawyer because they are a dear, close twitter friend is a moron.
So yeah, I’m kinda doctrinaire about lawyers engaging in moronic conduct (I’m against it).
Scott,
Flash versus substance- right. My point was not that people should send clients to those who they golf with, dine with or tweet with.
But that is how people behave, regardless of how illogical it is.
If you meet someone through Twitter, how is that relationship so different from meeting them in an airport, at a conference or on the golf course?
Ah, I see I’ve typed too fast for you. My apologies. 😉
The point is that people should not select lawyers for illogical, irrational, immaterial reasons. That some do is something we should fight against, rather than exploit. This is one of the things that distinguishes a lawyer from a liar.
Rather than promote twitter as a source of business because it isn’t any stupider than the worst alternative, how about we promote good, sound bases like competence instead?