The first time I read this, I let it pass. It’s not only good advice for any lawyer who wants to fake his internet persona, but the mantra of legal marketers throughout social media. The second time I read this, I couldn’t ignore it. Here’s the quote:
Don’t get involved in commenting on other lawyer blogs (especially a crew of criminal defense lawyer blogs who are friendly with this site) They are well followed and readers will follow your comments from their sites to yours, but these guys get into the habit of picking fights with other lawyers on the internet.
Emphasis supplied by Brian Tannebaum, who immediately adds “i.e., stay away from me.” Me too, I hasten to add. I’m part of this crew, if crew it is. Which raised the question, why is it just us?
Brian is mean. Me too. Brian won’t let people lie on the internet with impunity. Me too. Many people hate Brian for calling them out when all they’re trying to do is manufacture a viable online marketing campaign so that they can make a decent living. “Is it a crime to want to make a decent living,” they cry?
I know who you are. You email me and tell me that you are outraged by all the liars and schemers on the internet. You can’t believe how full of it people are, how shameless and brazen they are, how offensive they are. You tell me all about it. You tell Brian all about it. You sometimes leave comments under a pseudonym or using your first name agreeing with what we right. You are lawyers, judges, social media gurus who hate other social media gurus. You applaud our efforts.
But. You want that crew of criminal defense lawyers to do your dirty work and keep the internet clean and honest.
What prevented me from ignoring the quote at Tannebaum’s blawg was its exclusive reference to “a crew of criminal defense lawyer blogs.” He was right. It’s just us, a crew of criminal defense lawyers. There are other criminal defense lawyer blogs that are flagrantly shameless in their lies and self-promotion, so we know that criminal defense lawyers aren’t some better breed of lawyer per se. We have scoundrels in our ranks, just like all the other practice areas, and some are pretty awful.
But the characterization that the only crew to stay clear of is made up of criminal defense lawyers is right on target. Why? Why is it that no one except this crew is willing to take a stand and be the meanies of the blawgosphere?
Sure, we’re the gladiators of the profession, tough guys ready to stare down any enemy, no matter how big or nasty. And what does that make you, frightened little teacups too delicate to take on a harsh word or stern stare from your brethren? You civil litigators want to play tough guy at depositions or in the hallways haggling over thirds, but we see your knees shaking beneath counsel table in the courtroom when the judge tells you to stand up. So which is it, fighter or coward?
My sense is that it’s neither. And both. Because there’s a crew of criminal defense lawyer blogs doing the dirty work that so many of you privately applaud, it allows you to be the nice guy, the sweet lawyer who all the other lawyers like and feel comfortable about. We do that dirty work so you don’t have to. You get to craft an internet persona of likeability, because, well, it’s much nice to be liked than to be hated. And, of course, people hire lawyers they like rather than lawyer they dislike, and it really isn’t in your personal self-interest to make enemies on the internet if you don’t have to.
And you don’t have to, do you, as long as there is a crew of criminal defense lawyers who will do your dirty work for you.
The original comment says that we have a “habit of picking fights with other lawyers.” This isn’t quite right. We have a habit of not letting someone lie, cheat and steal, even though he happens to be a lawyer (or disbarred lawyer, or non-practicing lawyer, as the case might be). We have a habit of standing up for some nasty ethical proscriptions, like not deceiving people. We have a habit of standing for something.
What do you stand for?
It’s not that guys like Brian and I, not to mention Mark Bennett who does the dirty work as well, don’t appreciate your behind-the-scenes support for what we do. It’s good to know that we have widespread support for being the janitors of the internet. And there are others, lawyers who don’t practice criminal defense like Nino Pribetic and Ken, who stand alongside us publicly and call out the liars and scammers. But the vast majority of lawyers who applaud our efforts do so from the shadows. At best, there’s an occasional tepid post that’s less than enthusiastic about social media.
This is getting old. As lawyers, we are ethically obliged to clean up the mess made by our own, to not let lies go unmentioned or scoundrels get away with scamming the public. You’re a lawyer. You are obligated to do so as well. It’s time to get off your fragile butts and take a stand, risk having someone call you meanie and make a potential enemy online in the effort to hold our profession to minimally ethical standards.
Don’t tell me how you agree with us and how much you appreciate our efforts. Take responsibility for yourself. I never want to read another baby lawyer or social media guru or money-grubbing lawyer’s comment advising others to avoid the “crew of criminal defense lawyer blogs.” It should be all lawyer blogs, every honest, intelligent, ethical lawyer on the internet ought to be slamming the liars and scammers as well.
If you don’t have the guts or will to get into the game, then you’re no better than the scoundrels. We may be a tough group, willing to brave the slings and arrows, but we’re not here to clean up the mess so you don’t have to get your hands dirty.
Guess which one of these young ladies is destined to become a criminal defense lawyer? That means you’re the other one.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does RICO apply to internet bullies?
😛
That likely depends on who you ask. I bet you get a different answer from than from this bully.
Legs and legs and more legs. This story has legs.
This is why I hate the “solo out of law school” thing. I get criticized for my opinion on it, normally on these grounds: “But I graduated law school and couldn’t find a job! What was I supposed to do? Sit on my couch? Not not use my law degree?”
I don’t know, and honestly, I don’t really care. It’s not about you. It’s about clients. Perhaps I’m just imposing my experience on other people, but I think firm practice is absolutely necessary for any young lawyer. In addition, it benefits both the client and the lawyer. The client gets to pay a lower rate to have the menial work done (drafting, legal research, depositions of less important witnesses, status conferences, etc.). The young lawyer gets the benefit of learning how to practice law slowly, and supervised, while providing value to clients. Admittedly, it’s often a whole bunch of suck for the young lawyer, but that “suck” is what makes you tough.
Slowly the young lawyer begins to build a reputation, a social network (you know, the real life kind, where you call other real life human beings on the phone or have lunch with them), and develops skills that are valuable to clients.
There are too many young lawyers out there who are being told it’s okay to represent clients with no experience and often no money in the operating account. It’s a result of too many JDs. And it’s too bad, because clients are the one suffering with a “young lawyer” tax.
Granted, a lot of good lawyers went solo right out of law school and did just fine. I just don’t think it’s a good idea for the vast majority.
It’s sad to say, but not everyone with a JD and a license is entitled to practice law.
The “discussion” with the anon commenter at Carolyn’s blog is still ongoing, and what’s become clear is how badly perspective clouds understanding. Us old-timers, and young lawyers like you who don’t suffer from entitlement, can understand the POV that they have a ticket and need money. We just don’t accept it as justification.
The alternative doesn’t appear to have any ability to grasp that we aren’t functioning within their paradigm, and our problem is that their paradigm is fundamentally misguided. Put another way, they refuse to accept the possibility that they’re ugly and insist they’re beautiful because that serves their endgame, earning a living.
This chasm of comprehension is becoming deeply troubling, and appears to only be getting worse.
There are so many things wrong with Anonymous’ posts, I can’t even point all of them out. However, I’ll try to make his point as concise and blunt as possible – all that matters is how many clients you get, not whether you can competently do the work.
I practiced as a baby lawyer. I never made it out of my diapers. I was scared to death most of the time and, you know what? Rightly so. However, I always meticulously researched everything, got opinions from experienced practitioners, and never took anything that I didn’t sincerely think I could handle competently. Was I always right? No. But I tried not to screw my clients for the sake of another dollar.
It’s funny, I don’t quite get the sense from anon or some of the others that they would screw a client, or even don’t care about clients. I do, unfortunately, get the sense that they don’t grasp the fundamental nature of a lawyer’s committment to the client. They come first and the client is along for the ride. They hope they do well for the client, but if not, at least they got paid. I sense that they truly can’t see the distinction here.
Okay, perhaps I was too harsh with my characterization.
I see it more that some lawyers see clients and their cases as widgets, i.e. the more widgets make and sell the more money I can get. This is fine for certain industries and I think it probably does work for lawyers, especially those who do mass volume work like debt collection. I just don’t think its a model that should be adopted by any lawyer. I naively think that a person’s legal matter should not be commoditized ?
I think that captures it better.
Behold the wages of the self-esteem movement.
Shg:
This is the Anonymous Poster. I am enjoying this exchange, even though it got a little heated.
I read your comments on your blog and generally agreed with them. Frankly, I don’t think that there is that much difference in our views.
My advice to the young lawyer is:
1. Limit your practice to a few, or one, practice areas.
2. Use targeted direct mail and internet solicitations, for that practice area, which are TRUTHFUL and NOT DECEITFUL.
3. Do a VERY GOOD JOB for clients. I did not go into detail about how to do a good job (my post was already pretty long), but I would suggest the following:
a. Learn as much as you can about your practice area from publicly available sources like CLEs, treatises, annotated statutes, pleadings and transcripts. Go to court and watch.
b. After you get the client, associate an experienced co-counsel with whom you will share the fee and learn the practice area. Only after you are comfortable, do you handle cases entirely on your own.
This is not a get rich quick scheme. High advertising expenses, lower fees, and sharing the fee with the co-counsel will create low margins. In time, more referrals and the elimination of co-counsel will cause much higher margins.
This is also not as good as starting out as an associate at a firm; but unfortunately that option is not available to everyone.
I thought that my detailed advice was much better than “Work hard and do a good job” or some other meaninglessly vague platitudes.
Do you find any of this morally objectionable?
Do you think that any of this is inconsistent with “the fundamental nature of a lawyers commitment to the client”?
I am asking the question in good faith and am genuinely interested in your answer.
I’ve enjoyed debating this with you.
Take care Scott.
cc: myShingle.com
Moe Fein had something to offer. As prior comments should have made clear, you and I are talking about entirely different things. I speak to the obligation of a lawyer as a professional. You speak to the job of a lawyer as a business.
At Carolyn’s blog, I never offered advice to the young lawyer on how to improve his business. With only the limited information provided (there were a thousand unanswered questions), and without knowing the lawyer personally (and thus knowing his personality, strengths, weaknesses), there was nothing I could offer that would be real.
But under no circumstances would I have suggested targeted mailings, internet solicitations, social media marketing gurus, as the cure to his business woes. Under no circumstances would I have suggested finding a niche that is currently selling (as opposed to an area of practice he/she cared about and desired to practice). Under no circumstances would I have suggested taking a dime from a client for representation in which he/she could not provide excellent representation.
I might have suggested, had I known more and had it been appropriate, that he/she suck it up, work very hard on becoming sufficient competent in his/her desired niche, so that clients sought his/her representation, other attorneys sought his/her involvement in cases,
Or I might have suggested that he/she had no future in the law and ought to look for a job as the assistant manager at Dairy Queen. This is not a get rich quick scheme. Or a get rich slow scheme. Or a get rich at all scheme. I do not encourage hackery, or scheming, or half-assed lawyering if one can get away with it and it’s the best one can do. I do not spread a vision of mediocrity, and anyone aspiring to mediocrity is unacceptable to me.
So no, we aren’t talking about the same thing. And should you tell me you agree with me, you are wrong based on a superficial reading of your words. As for anything deeper, your anonymity precludes reliance on your self-attributed credibility. Glad you enjoyed the debate. Spreading bad ideas doesn’t thrill me nearly as much.
im not a lawyer im interested in the law and trying to find out which function of the law interests me to study. im not a young woman im 43. i only want to tell you how much i love your blog. i stumbled across it one day while reading injustice everywhere and hasve been coming here since to read the stories and responses and even though i do not know you personally. judging from your responses to the stories you posts and/or situations which burns you up. i admit i greatly admire you, and have the highest respect for your honesty and outspokeness or right is right and wrong and wrong
Thanks, Robin. It’s nice to know that not everybody thinks I’m just a mean curmudgeon.
Not “just.”
Why can’t we all get along? Yes, there are people out there who are ‘scoundrels’, scammers, back-stabbers, frauds, phonies, liars, cheaters, etc. Just like any other job. Criminal Defense Lawyers have a responsibility and a duty to defend a person to the best of their ability. Every person is entitled to a fair trial by law. It is my choice to become a criminal defense lawyer as it is a teacher’s choice to teach, a doctor’s right to practice medicine, etc. It doesn’t make me or any other defense lawyer a scoundrel.