The Trial Warrior, Nino Pribetic, unique among Canadian blawgers (eh?) in his criticism of self-aggrandizement and the adoration of technology as the weapon of choice for deception, raised the specter of the ghost. He provides a summary of the current state of ghostwriting on the internet, offering the example of Janet Ellen Raasch.
If you don’t have any professional or ethical concerns with legal ghostwriting or ghostblawging and are too busy to spend 15 minutes of your precious time to write your own original posts, then I suppose you have already consulted with Janet Ellen Raasch at Constant Content. According to the About Page:About
A constant stream of good content – with your name on it and appearing in skillfully targeted electronic and print media – is one of the most effective ways to enhance your reputation as a professional — and get new business.
Janet Ellen Raasch is an experienced independent writer who helps professional service providers reach — and persuade — their ideal clients through creation of by-lined content for the Internet, and copy for traditional print media.
In particular, Raasch produces content and copy for lawyers, law firms, consultants to the legal industry and legal organizations (including ABA, CBA, LMA and ALA). Because she has been an in-house legal marketing director as well as a consultant, her content and copy is written with your unique marketing agenda in mind. She is one of the best-known independent writers in this market segment.
Janet Ellen Raasch is an accomplished journalist who has written and ghostwritten more than 1,000 articles for electronic and print publication (see “writing samples”). In addition, she has written and ghostwritten more than a dozen books and numerous white papers (see “writing samples”). She has created keyword-rich content for more than a dozen Web sites.
Wow! Over 1,000 ghostwritten articles. It seems to me that ghostwriting and ghostblawging are symptomatic of what Scott Greenfield has referred to as a ‘race-to-the-bottom’ in the legal profession.
This made me wonder whether we’re point the fickle finger of shame at the wrong party? Underlying the concern Nino’s expresses, and which I and others join him in when decrying the race to the bottom, there are two discrete groups involved. On the one hand, there are the marketers, the social media gurus, the techno cheerleaders, the ghostwriters, all the various players who have become part of the cottage industry to “teach” lawyers how to gain overnight wealth and prestige on the internet, at the cost of a few thousand dollars and their integrity.
On the other hand, there are the lawyers who turn to these people to make them rich and famous.
For quite a while, I’ve had unpleasant thoughts about the former group, enticing lawyers with their empty rhetoric and sweet jargon to come to the dark side. They are the sirens of the internet, calling to lawyers to steer their practices to the rocks. As much as we debunk their empty promises, and reveal them as failures to amass wealth and prestige for their own account, so how can you expect them to teach you to do what they’ve never done, lawyers are still drawn to them.
But what do they do wrong? Lawyers are hungry and desperate, seemingly incapable of getting clients on their own and clueless about how to spread the word that they are experienced, aggressive and caring, just like every other hungry lawyer. There is a need. Needs want to be filled. Is it wrong to fill it?
That those who seek to make their fortune by sucking the blood of hungry lawyers and urging them to walk the boulevard in hot pants offer an unsavory alternative to the time-tested method of hard work and integrity (or as a judge recently told me, caring) is nothing more than salesmanship. Marketers gonna market.
What about the responsibility of lawyers to not play the fool? As lawyers, we are supposed to have the capacity to parse words for meaning. Shouldn’t this skill enable us to read the silly language of marketers, the stringing together of words that don’t connect, the use of nouns as verbs and adjectives that mean nothing, and realize that they say nothing? Sure, “new and improved” worked for years selling laundry detergent. Calling soap by its chemical name made it exciting and new. But we’ve gotten wise to the ways of the market, right?
It often seems that there’s a dichotomy to be drawn, between the experienced lawyers, the big firms, the people who have no excuse whatsoever for being led like lambs to the slaughter, for falling prey to the siren’s song, and those who are still young and naive. The newbies enter this suddenly jobless world determined not to shame their mothers and be that one in a hundred thousand million success story. These are the overachievers, the ones who will not sit on the couch in the basement whining about the misery of becoming a lawyer. They will win.
But how?
Along with the sadness of their circumstances, they are the digital natives for whom technology and the internet provide all answers. They used wikipedia to write all their papers, even though they googled more legitimate sources to put in the end notes. The truth is, they know that every answer can be found online, and they think us old-timers are so technically incompetent that we don’t know how they manage to be so brilliant.
And the truth is they’re right. It’s all here. The drawback is that the truth is hidden among the weeds, the lies, the nonsense and the craziness. It’s here, but they have to find it. They have to be able to figure out what is real and what is not. Adding to the problem is that the real stuff tends to be much harder to digest and spit out, while the scams are sweet and easy. Worse still, the real presents itself in unpleasant ways, while the scams are warm and loving, embracing all who stumble upon them in the warm glow of love. That, my friends, is good marketing.
Guys like Nino put their butts on the line to save the young lawyers from themselves, as the harm they can do in the early, naive years of their practice will surely haunt them as they mature. At the same time, they call out the marketers, exposing them as today’s version of the ad-men who came up with new and improved laundry detergent, though new meant a smaller box and improved referred to the company’s profits.
But we bought the detergent. And I’m told that clients hire the brand new lawyers who are “experienced, aggressive and caring.” And nobody seems to care that they’re selling and buying lies as long as it works.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No one has had a thing to say about this post yet? That’s always telling to me. Today’s crowd doesn’t like to talk about these things.
I remember sitting next to a lawyer at a conference while someone said that lawyers put garbage on the internet just to game Google and get to page one. He turned to me and said “so what?”
The crux of your post is this question:
“What about the responsibility of lawyers to not play the fool?”
Lawyers today don’t see themselves as any different than any salesman. Hop off the bus with your new suitcase of wares and go sell. Doesn’t matter if the product is good – all that matters is that you put on a smile, say things that sound good, and the sale happens.
Lawyers who buy in to ghost writing and other internet marketing tricks are no different than those that sit up at night and “call the number on the screen right now” to begin their road to wealth and fame. It’s not about whether the product works or is right for the customer (lawyer), it’s whether it sounds like it works.
The road to success today is filled with marketers telling young lawyers that the “old way of getting clients” doesn’t work anymore.
I’m just hoping no one tells my clients that.
Maybe no one else is interested in these issues, and we’re just tedious bores trying to block the road to success. I recall some young lawyers arguing that we, old lawyers, are afraid that young, savvy lawyers will steal our business, and so we’re trying to convince them to reject the path to success so we can keep it all to ourselves.
As the lawyer you sat next to at a conference said, “so what?” if it makes them money. So what?
There is a difference between snake oil salesmen and legitimate marketing professionals. Someone gaming Twitter follower numbers to claim they are a “social media” expert with no real credentials in marketing is very different from an experienced PR professional or professional writer who happens to have lawyers for clients.
The ultimate responsibility for using *any* kind of marketing, including legit avenues, has to fall on the lawyer-client.
Whether or not employing a ghostwriter to establish expert credibility is ethical is an entirely different matter. I don’t think it is. But that isn’t the ghostwriter’s fault–nor is it their ethical quandary. They are not (presumably) members of the bar: we are. And I don’t think newbies (speaking as one myself) deserve a pass. We’re subject to the same professional responsibility requirements as every other member of the bar, as we should be. It’s not like there is a dearth of resources for finding out the truth regarding who we hire and what our professional obligations are as members of the bar.
Yes, it’s the old “you don’t understand” argument. No matter how much we claim to understand, what we will never understand is the rush to jump in to every quick path to wealth.
When I began in private practice, and it was only in 1997, many of my colleagues were doing direct mail – and getting lots of clients.
I was looking for one good referral a week (didn’t happen every week).
Today, those that jumped in to the then quick path to (dollars) clients, are still relying on direct mail.
So I understand.
Dave,
No, there’s plenty of information on the scum that are trying to get lawyers to hire them. Problem is that many lawyers don’t find out til after they’re hired, and when they do – their response is often “why should I care, if he/she can make me money, why does it matter than they’re unethical?
Back in the old days one of the annual rituals among the clique of personal injury and CDLs where I had offices was to entertain ourselves with attorney ads in each new volume of the Yellow Pages. Since we actually knew these lawyers we would fairly (or unfairly) mock the claims and misrepresentations in these ads. This was great sport in the days before the Internet.
A prominent ad in the Yellow Pages in those days cost beau coup dollars, we poor practitioners with mere listings were very jealous when someone we knew had sudden prominence in the PAGES let alone an ad on the cover of book. These ads were for the most part, listings with areas of law emphasized, but some were over the top, e.g. in the form of currency, or our grinning colleague was pictured handing over a law firm check to some poor schmuck (or model) in a wheel chair and so forth. Mostly, the ad were obnoxious, but for some firms this sort of thing worked as part of an over all marketing strategy. And that’s the point, these lawyers buy into a marketing strategy that makes the practice of law seem as ordinary and not terribly important. Just another chase for money or someother ridiculous thing.
I see the “law firm blawg” ghosted or not as just an extension of this sort of absurdity and debasement of the profession. It’s nothing new.
If they don’t find out until after they’ve hired them, then they are fools. I can forgive a fool, if they learn from it. If they find out and they don’t care, they are scoundrels.
FOREFINGER, n. The finger commonly used in pointing out two malefactors.”~ Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), “The Devil’s Dictionary”
Should we have the “Dave Rule,” that no matter how bad a lawyer’s marketing behavior, all is forgiven if the lawyer is a fool but learns from it? Since the ABA House of Reps is in session, I ought to get this over to them immediately so they can enshrine it.
Or should we expect lawyers to figure out their ethical obligations first and not give them a first-fool violation for free?
I’d like something named after me as well, but that’s another subject.
To answer your question, what do you expect these lawyers to do Scott? Someone is telling them they can make them rich – it’s why they went to law school.
It’s not like they have the time to do a quick Google search and see if anyone has written about any of these scumbags.
Well, that’s true. Time is money.
I’m still stuck on the distinction between snake oil salesmen and the “legitimate marketing professionals.” The latter sounds a lot better than the former (which doesn’t sound good at all), but what constitutes the latter? The same guys who proclaim laundry detergent “new and improved?” The same guys who tell every client to write on their website that they’re “experienced, aggressive and caring?”
Lawyers have a fairly unique problem. There is very little we can legitimately and ethically say about ourselves that will distinguish one from a thousand others that isn’t puffery or deceptive. Marketing “professionals” (a description I use only because you used it, though there’s nothing about marketing that conforms to any known definition of professional) are in the business of selling a product, in this instance a lawyer. Given the ethical constraints, how many legitimate marketing professionals does it take to say “new and improved?”
The argument always told me was that they had to let people know they existed, or how else would people in need of lawyers find them? Well, not an unreasonable argument, but it failed to explain the “Best Lawyers Ever; 173 years experience; Never lost a case*.” But then, if it’s their duty to alert the public of their existence, isn’t there a similar duty to alert the public to their greatness as well?
* Past performance is no guarantee of future outcome.
I abhor ghostwriting for blawgs. It is almost always vacuous marketing shill. But ghostwriting in other contexts can be entirely legitimate. JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you …” was the work of a ghostwriter. Most Supreme Court opinions are the work of ghostwriters, a/k/a law clerks. Many legal briefs are largely the work of junior associates whose names never appear on the signature page. The key is that the ghostwritten piece reflects the thoughts and insights of the named author, even if it was someone else who put those thoughts down on paper.
This is no less true of marketing writing. If Bigname Lawyer wants to submit an article to the National Law Journal but wants the help of a professional writer to formulate and polish the piece, there is nothing wrong with that provided the finished piece reflects the thoughts and opinions of the lawyer.
Way back when I was in law school, I “ghostwrote” opinions for a prominent labor arbitrator. I sat with him at the hearings and then sat with him later as he explained to me how he wanted to decide the case. I wrote that all up for him. He and I went back and forth over drafts until I got his thoughts right. The words were mostly mine, but the reasoning was all his. Was that deceptive? I sure don’t think so.
I’m certainly not endorsing the use of SEO writers to produce website garbage. I hate spam in all forms, including spam on blogs. But from what I know of Janet Raasch, that’s not what she does. Work I’ve seen of hers (under her own name) was professional and skilled. My bet is that, if she writes an article for a lawyer, the process is much like the way a law clerk writes for a judge or a speechwriter writes for the president — the lawyer explains the points to make and the conclusions to reach and then the writer puts that down on paper.
I don’t recall saying, “No matter how bad a lawyer’s marketing behavior…”
I said I *can* forgive a fool. Not that all fools should be forgiven. Thankfully, my wife frequently forgives this fool.
Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob. Bob. Janet Raasch may be the bestest legal writer ever in the world. I’m talking top of the line. But when you say to the world, these are my words, my thoughts, my ideas, my work, but they really come from someone else, you’re a liar. Liar, Bob. It’s not the same as clerks writing judge’s opinions, or JFK having a speechwriter. The key is not ” that the ghostwritten piece reflects the thoughts and insights of the named author, even if it was someone else who put those thoughts down on paper,” but that it is precisely what it purports to be. We know judges have clerks and presidents have speechwriters.
Blogs (from the words “web log”) are put out to the public as the most personal of representations, the heartfelt reflection of their author. When they’re written by some unknown other, they’re a lie. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Lying is a bad thing, Bob. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. And no amount of rationalization makes lying less bad. Lying is bad. Just lie down and keep repeating that, Bob. Lying is bad. Lying is bad. Well, you get the idea, right Bob?
So young for dementia to set in. How sad and unfortunate.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I agree with you as to blogs. Having someone else write a blog under your name is a lie. It is contrary to the very purpose of a blog. As I said, I abhor ghostwriting for blogs. Abhor, abhor, abhor.
Well, I agree… given the constraints on our profession, I don’t know why a lawyer needs a marketing professional. Or a marketing amateur for that matter. I simply can’t answer that question, as I’ve never hired one and don’t intend to.
That’s what I admire most about you, Bob. You’re willingness to listen to reason.
Sadly, the dementia didn’t set it, it was beaten in. I think in a game of “Stop hitting yourself.”
It could be because some lawyers just look darn hot walking around in a sandwich sign. I would have said hot pants, but I’m aware of no lawyer (except of course me) with the legs for it.
Ouch. That must’ve hurt.
Oy.
I’m surprised to see you take this position. I would think any lawyer would want to (as a matter of candor) disclose significant input or edits to an article. I would think the journal would also want to disclose it.
Judging from the marketing copy, what this person is contributing is more than significant input into articles that are published in “print media.” (She’s actually writing the entire thing and allowing someone else to sign their name to it.) A failure to disclose this is sounds problematic from all sides. I’m surprised to even see a debate around this.
My experience with Bob is that if you repeat the important words five times, he gets the message. It’s like retwits.
I can’t speak for Janet, but you seem to be reading more into her words than I see there. If a lawyer is signing his or her name to a substantive article that he or she has not thoroughly reviewed and approved, then that lawyer has far more serious problems than the use of a ghostwriter. That takes us back to Scott’s original question of where to point the fickle finger of shame.
Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob. (See how you do it, Venkat?). Read these words:
A constant stream of good content – with your name on it and appearing in skillfully targeted electronic and print media – is one of the most effective ways to enhance your reputation as a professional — and get new business.
With whose name on it? Yours!!! Do you see anything about ideas, feelings, beliefs, underwear, anything else being “yours” other than the name? I don’t. Seems to be reading into it exactly what it says. A constant stream of good content — with your name on it… What more could one ask for, Bob?
You got me at the third “Bob”.
Then my work here is done.
Unfortunately, BLING is what it takes to penatrate the dulled brains of the sheeple.
Good grief. I am the apparently notorious Janet Ellen Raasch. Thanks to Bob Ambrogi for his supportive words. I very rarely ghostwrite blog posts. When I do, it is in very close coordination with the author, whose ideas or draft I translate from legalese into something a consumer can understand.
When I talk about writing for the Internet, I am speaking of articles, white papers, books, etc., which are posted online. For my own marketing purposes, I write one article a month which I submit to nearly 100 sites. Lawyers can do the same in order to spread their reputations.
My relationship with a lawyer/client is extremely collaborative. We talk, especially about the news value of what the lawyer wants to write and appropriate traditional/electronic venues for publication. He or she sends previously written materials, powerpoints and a list of the points he or she wants to make. I conduct a formal interview. I write a draft, and we usually go through two or three rounds of edits before the lawyer accepts it and puts his/her own name on it. Such work is never, ever created from scratch for a lawyer’s byline!
I would never write a legal document for myself or represent myself in court; that is not my degree or area of expertise. Why should a lawyer be expected to write an article in AP style for a consumer audience? That is not his/her area of expertise. That’s why we consult with professionals. I have a graduate degree in journalism and taught journalism at the university level for ten years. I have worked (ethically) with lawyers and law firms for 30 years. I do not provide the law; I provide the mass media style and the news peg.
Thanks for clearing that up. So those great articles with your client’s by-lines demonstrating their lawyerly communication and reasoning skills, artful use of language and passion for their subject and clients, designed to induce consumers to give them money, reflect your considerable skills.
Only the good ones!
That retort would have been so much cuter two days ago.
What is the point of calling out someone like Janet Ellen Raasch? She did an excellent job of defending herself. Maybe you should add her comment to the body of the post so everyone can see it. The problem with all of this whining is that the best attorneys have an obligation to have the best websites for their particular niche practice area in their particular city and state. The internet is not perfect, but for the most part it weeds out the bad from the good, and the generic from the unique and informative. It is completely transparent. It actually helps the public find information and compare attorneys much more effectively than phone book ads or asking a neighbor. Attempts to trick the search engines get punished eventually. This idea that all internet marketing is inherently evil is kind of silly. Don’t get me wrong, I’m highly entertained by this blog which is why I read it. But this post was particularly mean spirited and uninformed. And this whole debate about have a humble old school http://www.tannebaumweiss.com website so you can be ethical is missing something. Seems like you should come up with some solutions for effective internet marketing instead of just pointing out all the terrible websites that never had a chance of showing up in the search engines to begin with. Calling out those people you perceive as weak and helpless is easy, coming up with real solutions is harder.
So you think I should come up with “some solutions for effective internet marketing?” Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said here, and that’s saying a lot.
While I’m naturally thrilled that you find this blawg entertaining, I can’t imagine how you find the time to read it with so many streets to walk.
At least the stupidest comment ever was on your stupidest post ever. I’d say more stupid things, but this working girl has to get back to walking the streets.
Very snappy comeback. Fortunately for me, your opinion of my post doesn’t seem to be shared by anyone who isn’t desperately trying to market themselves to compensate for the fact that they have no business. Be careful out there on the streets, beware of intellectually transmitted disease.