The word “Quora” has been bandied about by the early adopters as the newest greatest/worst way for lawyers to craft an online reputation for brilliance.  Because the internet needed a  new place for lawyers to give advice for free.

The  Cult of Positivity promoted by social media gurus urges lawyers to promote themselves by posting answers online to questions asked by people who can’t afford lawyers or just don’t want to pay for advice.  The failing of this concept eludes many lawyers (and all social media gurus), but those of us who get the daily calls asking for free consultations or answers to “just a couple of questions” know the score.  You don’t?  You’ll find out, after wasting a hundred hours pretending to care deeply about people who have no potential to be your client and only want a quick freebie from you.

But time-wasting isn’t the only potential problem you’ll endure in trying to build that internet reputation that everyone says you need to survive as a thriving lawyer in the internet age.  Huntington, New York, matrimonial attorney Gary P. Field learned that the hard way.  I don’t know Gary Field, and he may well be a fabulous lawyer, but he had at least one person who didn’t like him.  That person had a keyboard.

[S]omeone had been posting anonymous comments about him on two websites, blasting him as, among other things, “dumb,” a “fool” and “the most worst attorney licensed to practice in the State of New York.”

Field reacted in typical lawyer fashion.

Mr. Field suspected that Robert Grant, the ex-husband of a client, was responsible for the posts. Mr. Field sued Mr. Grant for defamation and asked the court to order Mr. Grant to turn over his hard drive.

Mr. Grant moved for dismissal and sanctions against the lawyer.

Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Thomas F. Whelan dismissed the lawyer’s action, Field v. Grant, 34898-2010, although he declined to order sanctions.

“Viewed in the context in which they were relayed and the website forums on which they were posted, the comments constitute pure opinions which cast general reflections upon the plaintiff’s character and/or qualities which are not a matter of such significance and importance so as to amount to actionable defamation,” Justice Whelan said.

Judge Whelan understood what Gary Field didn’t, that reputation on the internet is a two-way street, where expression of opinions about a lawyer can just as easily be negative as positive.  A negative opinion, even if utterly groundless and borne of antipathy for a lawyer having done his job too well, is still just an opinion.  Nobody wants to talk about the fact that people can say bad things as well as good things on the internet.

This reality gap in online comprehension is preventing lawyers and the consumers of legal services from gaining a meaningful appreciation of what the internet has to offer, and what it doesn’t.  The attack on Gary Field was anonymous.  Where are the social media gurus explaining to the public that anonymous attacks are worthless as any angry idiot with a keyboard to vent his spleen. 

They won’t do that, however, as it simultaneously informs their target audience, lawyers who don’t know any better, that there are pitfalls in the digital world.  It’s hard to sell marketing when acknowledging that there are major risks involved.

As the hype about Quora heats up, one has to wonder whether it has occurred to lawyers that their answer to questions, intended to promote their expertise, may reveal them as incompetents?  Just as Bennett shows, and Windy shows, with the misbegotten Avvo Answers, answers are easy to come by.  Correct answers are not. 

Sure, there are opportunities on the internet to show the world your competence.  And there are opportunities to show the world your lack thereof.  And there are opportunities for others to say wonderful things about you, and opportunities for others to say less than wonderful things.  We tend to believe that kind words are humbly deserve, but unkind words are an assault on reputation. 

Maybe, just maybe, they are all well-deserved.  After all, the underlying claim is that this vast resource of information is empowering people to know what they’re getting into.  Sometimes, the accurate information is that they’re getting into trouble.

Judge Whelan made the right decision dismissing Gary Field’s complaint.  Not because the attack was necessarily undeserved, and I will assume arguendo that he’s an excellent divorce lawyer, but because the nature of opinion is that it can go both ways.  Field can fight the attack by offering demonstrable evidence of his competence.  The internet is there for him as well as his erstwhile detractor.

But Gary Field, like each of us, should be aware of the reality that any effort to prove our brilliance on the internet may well do just the opposite.  We may get the reputation we deserve, whether we like it or not.  With Quora added to the mix, there is certainly no shortage of places to strut our stuff.  The only question is whether we look as attractive in hot pants as we think we do.