My Law License

Because First You Have To Be Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:29:00 +0000

Long before I signed a lease for my office space, the cleaning crew in the building was there, and I trust they'll be there long after I leave. There's a few things they do that keep them coming back every day as the sun sets. One, they clean the place. Two, you could leave a diamond ring, 2 Rolex watches and a stack of cash on the desk and it would be there the next day, and three, they have this policy where unless a box, container, or other thing on the floor that looks like it's garbage, actually says "GARBAGE" (I write "BASURA" because I actually know these folks), they don't throw it out. That's right, that empty cardboard box appearing to have no relevance or future, will remain in the middle of the hallway the next morning if there's no instructions on what to do with it.

Sometimes that fourth thing is a bit annoying, but sends the appropriate message - we have a job to do, and begging for forgiveness is not helpful at contract renewal time. You want the box thrown out, just say the word, literally.

In contrast, this philosophy that there's a hierarchy of authority in the business world was rejected at last week's "Marketing Partner's Forum." That's right, Sally in marketing, is on her way to becoming a "Marketing Partner." This group is just a few motivational conference quotes away from relevance in the 70% of law firms that don't have a "Marketing Partner."

The following platitude went viral in the conference twitter stream and I'm sure emptied a few tissue boxes:

@cindygallop: You heard @silviacoulter, #MPF12 peeps: BREAK THE RULES and ask forgiveness, not permission.

That's right, the marketers have had it with lawyers, especially when it comes to social media, saying no, "not for us," "not our image," "no," just "no." If the grey hairs, whose only significance was to grow a successful law firm, won't listen to the 28 year old social media star, well, they're going to just do their own thing, start pounding away on twitter and LinkedIn and blogging, and apologize later.

They don't ever discuss rules, especially when they say things like this:

Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants:

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer:

(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;

(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and

(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

Now when it comes to rules, the marketers have an easy out - one, they don't apply to them, and two, they are seen as "scare tactics" by lawyers like me who constantly throw them in their face and, well, maybe hurt business. Anything that hurts business is wrong, and communist, and part of the past, and mean.

Marketing folks didn't have to swear to their state Supreme Court to follow some rules, they reject the constant droning of "be careful with social media," and reject any notion that anyone should be "scared" of the consequences of stupidity on the internet.

I responded that I thought their "seek forgiveness not permission," nonsense was a good way to get fired, to which one of the merry group of morons responded something about how you wouldn't want to work for someone that didn't "follow" that premise.

Who are these lawyers to tell the marketers how to run a law practice?

Of course the marketers would like my cleaning crew to take a page from them and just start throwing out boxes, then saying "oops," and there's really no example of how this philosophy (other than my mean, mean, rants) actually was detrimental to someone's career.

And then last night, oh no, ut oh, damn, not again:

The managing editor of a student-run news organization that covers Penn State resigned Saturday after the publication's Twitter account sent messages saying former coach Joe Paterno had died, according to a letter on the publication's website.

That's right, the kid woke up Saturday morning, probably threw back some badly needed coffee, some cold 2 day old pizza, went for a run, did a little homework, had some tweets pop up from the paper's twitter account about Joe Paterno dying, and this morning, well, he's out of a job.

Just like that.

Yeah, see, the problem was, Joe Paterno didn't die. The family spokesman (usually a family member or someone a cell phone call away in another room), never said he died, because he wasn't dead.

News about a death is sad, and even sadder when you hear about it while you're still trying to live.

He's not a marketer, but he's begging for forgiveness right now.

"I never, in a million years, would have thought that Onward State might be cited by the national media,'' his letter said. "Today, I sincerely wish it never had been."

Yeah, I know, you're just some local student-run paper at Penn State, and when you tweet something about the death of Joe Paterno, why think that anyone else may read it?

The kid had some help from some other, better known media outlets that couldn't be bothered with that old, dying journalistic concept of "verification:"

The incorrect information found its way onto media websites, including CBSSports.com, People.com and the Huffington Post.

CBSSports.com had run a photo of Paterno with a caption saying the longtime Penn State coach "loses his battle with lung cancer at 85.'' The blurb did not include the source of the information.

In an apology on its site, CBSSports.com said the mistake "was the result of a failure to verify the original report. CBSSports.com holds itself to high journalistic standards, and in this circumstance tonight, we fell well short of those expectations."

Oops. Sorry.

The now former editor did say something that's true, of which the perfect "verification" is his own stupidity:

"In this day and age, getting it first often conflicts with getting it right, but our intention was never to fall into that chasm,'' the letter said. "All I can do now is promise that in the future, we will exercise caution, restraint, and humility."

Caution, restraint, humility.

Not really exciting buzzwords like "thought leader," "game changer," "rock star" "evangelist," or "epic."

They're terms of the past, that have caught up with the future.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Let the Legal Conferences Of The Stupids Begin

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:20:00 +0000

Now that the holidays are over, it's time for failed and former lawyers turned tech hacks and social media experts to gather and give each other hugs and remind each other that lawyers who have offices and wear suits are part of the past.

Of course I am here to give you all the conference information you need. First, let's talk about

Legal Tech NY!!!!!

Legal Tech NY, otherwise known as LTNY, (self described as the "most important legal technology event of the year" and otherwise known as LTNY!!!!!! on twitter because the children can't communicate in something that's not an acronym (LOL!!!)) is the precursor to the ABA Tech Show, which is where the non-practicing LTNY attendees go next if they haven't maxed out their credit card or mommy and daddy will foot the bill.

Besides the 394 hours of e-discovery seminars, here's a couple others to catch at Legal Tech NY, sorry LTNY!!!!:

iLove for the iPad: Tips, Tricks & Apps: "Another burning question that continues to occupy minds of the legal technologists and their clients worldwide is
“Laptop or Tablet?” In a can’t-miss briefing by experts, this session “iLove for the iPad: Tips, Tricks and Apps,”
addresses ways the iPad can serve as an effective mobile tool for legal professionals and how it can enhance their
workflow and communication.

eDiscovery in a Facebook world: Social Retention & Its Requirements

Growing & Retaining Your Client Base Through Technology & New Media

One of the high notes of LTNY!!! is that none (update: after tweeting incessantly "I don't know if I'm going to LTNY in a pouty effort to get a free ticket, one former lawyer has been substituted in) of the usual suspects of failures are speaking. Good job LTNY coordinators. It's about time some conference realized that former and failed lawyers shouldn't be put in front of practicing lawyers learning how to better their practices.

And coming up this week...

MPF12!!!!! (social media folks love exclamation points)

That's the Marketing Partners Forum: Driving Innovation in a Transforming Legal Marketplace. I know, but just stay with me here, I never knew Lucy the marketing girl was now called a "Marketing Partner" either.

This conference, having darkened my door in Miami, has all the buzzword seminars:

Social Media to Drive Revenue

The Future of Marketing: Redesigning the Way You Do Business In The New World Order (New World Order is of course, social media)

Aligning Brand with Strategy (always need a branding seminar)

Effective Approaches to Selling and Building Relationships (selling relationships? Is that like prostitution?

Reaching GCs Through Social Media (Translated: how to stalk the people that really want nothing to do with you)

Web Trends 2012

Where’s the Money? (This just made me laugh)

And of course, my favorite social media guru, Adrian Dayton, will be there selling his new book "how I convinced everyone that after 8 months practicing law I could tell BigLaw how to use LinkedIn and Blogs to bring in business," or something like that.

Adrian is moderating a panel, which in social media guru land means "I AM SPEAKING AT A BIG NATIONAL CONFERENCE." Bob Ambrogi, for whatever reason, has agreed to be on this panel.

Have fun everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

I Stopped Taking Insulin One Week Ago (A Post For My Type II Diabetic Friends)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:04:00 +0000

You may have started out like me. Eight years ago next month it was a diagnosis with the number 330. Got some glucophage, changed my diet, and in a month it was 103. A few years later, a few different additional pills later, it was time for the needle. One shot a day turned in to 4. We changed some pills around and got it to one shot a day. It's been fine. A1c about 6.5 or 7. Life is good.

Meet my chiropractor and nutrition freak of 10 years, Dr. Todd Narson. He's got this 21-day purification program.

No, it's not a "juicing" diet. It's some shakes, lots of vegetables and fruit for 10 days, and then we add in some chicken and fish and when it's over, we, on our own, decide how to live our lives. Todd is my dear friend, and he never asked me to do the program. He doesn't know I'm writing this post. I'm not getting a dime off the next program he sells to a friend of mine.

The primary goal is not weight loss, although that obviously comes with it (down 8 pounds in 10 days). The goal is detoxification. As Dr. Todd tells me "your body is not set up to digest certain foods."

So this post is about as salesy as it gets.

I've been on this program for 11 days, and 7 days ago stopped taking my 30 units a day of insulin. I also reduced my nightly amaryl pill by half.

My morning blood sugars have been numbers like 86, 95, 101, 105, 126, 95, and 112.

Why?

Obviously it's because of reduced food intake and the things I am not eating - but the important point is that one year ago my doctor was hinting at an insulin pump, and in the last week I've realized that I can control my diabetes with food and exercise.

I feel better, I am thinking clearer, I am sleeping better.

I don't crave the typical things that Dr. Todd is concerned about - coffee, sweets, and my beloved wine. I wasn't a daily coffee drinker, didn't eat sweets that much, and am not an alcoholic. I do miss bread and chips, but I can tell you that when this is over, I will be much more focused on eating well and eating crap as an occasional treat. I'm really enjoying trolling the farmers markets and loitering in the produce section at Whole Foods. Getting re-introduced to fruits and vegetables is a lot of fun.

Today I begin re-introducing chicken and fish and we'll see what happens to my blood sugar levels. If I have to start taking some insulin again, that's fine, but to know that a type II diabetic CAN regulate blood sugar with serious changes in diet, is something I hope you think about.

This program is not easy. The first day or two is really tough, and can be tougher if your body needs more time to detox. Then it gets easier. When you start feeling better, losing weight, reducing medication (if you can do that) it makes it that much easier.

This isn't for everyone, but if you have been contemplating whether you can make serious changes that will affect your life for the better - consider this program.

You can also do some things yourself, like stop eating shit and exercise a little.

That works.

Whatever you do, you should definitely check with your doctor first*

*I didn't do that because I am arrogant and will tell him what I did when I feel like it, right now I'm enjoying life, and the numbers show that.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Short But Interesting Life Of The Article III Clerk

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:35:00 +0000

A couple days ago I stumbled upon a twitter account "Article III Clerk." It purported to be a young federal judicial clerk to an older judge (Bio: "Current law clerk for a Senior U.S. District Judge on the East Coast. He’s really fucking old, so I roll the dice of justice on my own"}, and he tweeted with the arrogance of, well, some young federal judicial law clerks.

I had a suspicion it was a joke. It was over the top.

"The opposition you filed was goddamn unreadable. You think I want 10 more typo-ridden pages about what light I should view evidence in?"

It was actually funny. He thought out loud about the stupidity of pleadings he received, claimed his judge was never around (and senile) so he was running the place, and he had 127 followers.

But it was also, well, strong:

"Judge called from home today to “check in.” I got it under control you senile fuck. Go back to napping underneath 20 blankets."

"I really, really hope the Judge doesn’t die while I’m clerking."

I, being the all powerful with about 3,700 followers on twitter (some who actually aren't spam bots or porn peddlers) asked why he only had 127 followers.

With an hour he had 40 more.

Then he got the attention of Eric Turkewitz, who also wondered if it was a joke:

If truthful, he’s revealed that he works for a senior federal judge on the east coast who may not be well, that he is 27, and the court clerk is female. That’s a lot of biographical data to narrow down the possibilities. Also, that he’s incredibly arrogant for a young pup that may never have stood in the well himself.

And now he's gone. Poof. Deleted his account.

It could only be because it was true.

And for anyone practicing in his judge's court, that's pretty scary.

Of course there will be those who will say he was "bullied" off twitter. You know, the other liars and frauds that want to peddle their thoughts and consulting services to desperate lawyers? They'll whine and cry and say Turk was mean and that poor young kid got scared.

I say he got smart, and ended it before it was too late.

Maybe.

It's never too late to make a U-turn, unless you've already gone off the cliff.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Marketing Yourself As The Lawyer (Coward) You Are

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:58:00 +0000

Sometimes I wonder whether to write about the things that just make me embarrassed to be a lawyer. There are things so stunning, so pathetic, that I have trouble transferring thought to words.

But this is something you need to know.

While I have devoted much of the space here to talking about lawyers who lie on the internet and pretend they are someone else, this is a case where two lawyers have allowed another "lawyer" to treat them like a hostage in a third world country, (Link takes you to apology of Lori Palmieri to Joseph Rakofsky, it has no title as a title would give it "google juice" and not be a very good marketing tactic, better not to be able to find it when looking to hire Palmieri because it would damage her marketing plan), spewing propaganda for the purpose of saving themselves.

And they have done so magnificently.

Their next move should be to advise their state bar that they no longer have the character and fitness to practice law and are surrendering their licenses.

They have both settled a case, caved in to the plaintiff, where there is no jurisdiction over them.

Let me say that again.

They couldn't lose.

They couldn't even be ordered to attend one court hearing.

Nothing would have ever happened.

Settling a case under these circumstances is called incompetence.

And of course these lawyers have their defenders.

But defending incompetence and cowardliness is embracing those concepts as acceptable.

Lori Palmieri, markets herself as a fighter - she's "your key to justice." Former prosecutor turned criminal defense lawyer. She gives no appearance that she would ever cave in to nothing. Never. Ever. Nor that she would criticise those that chose to fight. Palmieri graduated from my law school and claims membership in FACDL, but I've never met her, and never heard her name, anywhere.

Martha Sperry, well I'm not sure she practices law, as she spends her days blogging advising on shiny toys and apps. But she is a lawyer, and she should know that if there's no jurisdiction, there's no jurisdiction.

In fact, Martha wrote:

I was sued by Mr. Rakofsky and I do not feel his legal claim has merit against me. But I believe in the legal system and that is where I feel this dispute should be resolved, not the blogosphere.

But then hypocrisy set in...

Martha wrote several posts in apology, and then shucked and jived in the comments section like no other in response to the questions of real lawyers, and former co-defendants.

She resolved her case, in the blogosphere.

And of course she claims that people are "messaging" her in support, as all tech hacks and cowards do. We haven't seen any of these messages, but I assume (if they really exist) they are from the people who think Martha is wonderful and nothing she does is wrong because she knows a lot about Google and shiny toys.

And it's not even that these "awwyers" settled, it's their attack on the fighters, those who understand the law, who really practice law, and who won't be bullied (there's that word again) by a lawyer with no case.

It's the, "uh, well, I, uh, what are you asking me, uh, well, I, uh," responses.

Why did they settle?

Fear.

Couldn't be bothered.

Maybe they're broke and can't afford to file a motion to dismiss.

Maybe they don't know any lawyers who would help them.

Maybe a combination of all three.

But if you check out their internet presences, you'd never know the background.

And don't we love that?

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Silver Bullet Of Legal Marketing, For Like When Tornadoes Kill People

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:01:00 +0000

I have failed you all. I have spent my time here raging against the scumbag legal marketers who believe that the road to success as a lawyer is filling the internet with garbage - automatic twitter feeds, multiple accounts, ghostwritten blog posts about the latest car accident and who just got arrested.

I have spent my time spewing silly advice about building relationships, networking, organic marketing, speaking, writing, and have totally missed the boat on the best way to get cases.

I found it.

It's here. For you.

Just watch.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

They Couldn't Wait (An Angry Rant, With Profanity)

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:15:00 +0000

As the 2011 holiday season grew closer, the social media and tech hacks got, as Elmer Fudd says, “bewy bewy qwyat.” Lawyers, real lawyers, turned their focus to family, travel, closing out their year, settling those last few cases, and the interest in buying into the salesmanship of former lawyers peddling social media and tech bullshit waned.

It was kinda nice.

But yesterday, the first day back for most lawyers, brought out the rash of shit that is the failed and former lawyers, and those with no business advising anyone in the legal profession, going on and on about why lawyers need to “get on board,” with social media and shiny toys. It was like they were holding their breath for 3 weeks and just couldn’t take it anymore. The flood gates opened – where was their next desperate lawyer looking to “harness the power of social media?” Where was the next broke lawyer looking to learn which Apple product they were required to have to “survive?”

There was this post about worthless garbage predictions about things with power switches and that post about how cool social media for lawyers is and the other 12 posts about which software lawyers “must” use in 2012 to survive. Most from former lawyers, who still wont admit they were failures in practice or just weren’t very good or interested in being lawyers. They now just want to tell you how to do it right.

I have a question for all of you – all you out of work failures with law degrees trying to play yourselves off as some authority on anything:

Why don’t you all just shut the fuck up?

You use your moniker as “lawyer” to try and convince the desperate among us, those looking for any website, toy, or marketing trick to help them “make money as a lawyer,” that you are their savior. There you are, ready, willing, and able to try and sell them on your lies that you somehow, after leaving your mediocre, or worse, failure of a law career, are worthy of taking money from your former brethren to help them reach wealth and fame doing the same thing you couldn’t do yourself.

You beg to speak at conferences and say nothing. You speak down the hall from conferences that never heard of you. You speak to 12 people and because someone tweeted about it, 30 people tell you how awesome you are.

You tell lawyers they need to “get on board” the same train you jumped off of years ago.

You are a fraud. All of you.

That’s why you stay close to each other, congratulating one another for doing nothing but stating the obvious. One of you is quoted by the other fraud and the other merry group of morons chime in with their “congratulations!”

Congratulations for what?

For the fact that another lawyer turned marketer fraud thinks you are worthy of their love?

You sit in the stands and pretend you know how to teach the players on the field what they need to do to be better.

But you were unable to stay on the field.

You stopped playing.

These players (lawyers) want to continue playing, they’re not looking for a career in failure.

So why don’t you get the fuck out of our profession in total?

Go. Stop taking money from lawyers to make them dumber, lazier, and more reliant on things that do nothing to better the profession.

You worsen our profession. You make money turning it in to nothing short of a group of document pushing, robo-typing, shiny toy addicts. You know nothing about client representation, being an “officer of the court,” or the high honor of having the license to advocate for a person, entity, or cause.

You are pathetic. And none of us that cherish the privilege we have been given to be officers in the third branch of government have any use for you.

Those that have a use for you, those lawyers too stupid to realize that paying you, listening to you, acknowledging that you are a member of our profession, are conspirators in your fraud. And should drive the bus out of town on which you are a passenger.

Go. Away.

Happy New Year.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

2012: The Year Lawyers Become Great Through Lawyering, Not The Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:18:00 +0000

Analogize two new restaurants. One with a great website, pictures of the beautiful decor, private rooms and a great wine list, ability to make reservations online, and testimonials from customers like Julie R. and Bob W. It also has an active twitter account and Facebook fan page. "Like" them on Facebook for a free appetizer.

The other, located behind a hard to find strip mall, it only has 12 tables, and the website has a couple typos, with the only contact information being a phone number. It says "call for reservations."

In 3 months, the first restaurant goes out of business.

The food was terrible.

In 3 months, you may be able to get a reservation at restaurant 2 that's not at either 5:30 p.m. or 10:15 p.m.

The food is amazing. Everyone is talking about this place.

Everyone was also talking about restaurant 1.

Restaurant 1 thought they would balance the reality that the food sucked, with their awesome internet presence.

And this is what's going on in the legal profession.

Can't get a job? Create a persona on the internet.

No one is hiring you? Start blogging. Blogs are great for Google attention.

Going out and developing relationships will "take too long? Hire a social media expert to blast your mug and (trumped up) credentials all over the net.

Lawyers are being taught that being a good lawyer is second, or third, to marketing on the internet.

Now I'm not unrealistic, if you're doing a good job and no one knows about it, that's a problem.

The question is: who do you want to know about it?

As I ask lawyers frequently, "tell me if the best case you ever got was from the internet."

When the "I found you on the internet" call comes in, do you see dollar signs? Real, dollar signs?

We all use the internet for the same reason - to find the best deal, the cheapest price. Are you the best deal? The cheapest? Is that what you want to be?

My friend Kevin O'Keefe, (and he is my friend by function of him having bought me a beer and otherwise not giving a crap what I say about him nor taking it personally) who never misses an opportunity to (not so) subtlely pimp his blog sales company, tried to say the same thing, but couldn't help himself from encouraging lawyers to participate in the race to the bottom.

I was almost moved to tears that the leading blog salesman for lawyers would pen a post titled:

You have more than an opportunity as a lawyer in the new year : You have an obligation to be great

And it started off in typical fashion, the marketer paying required homage to the God of Marketing, Seth Godin:

Godin shared what he wrote 9 years ago that applies equally today.

Here's a question that you should clip out and tape to your bathroom mirror. It might save you some angst 15 years from now. The question is, What did you do back when interest rates were at their lowest in 50 years, crime was close to zero, great employees were looking for good jobs, computers made product development and marketing easier than ever, and there was almost no competition for good news about great ideas?

Many people will have to answer that question by saying, "I spent my time waiting, whining, worrying, and wishing." Because that's what seems to be going around these days. Fortunately, though, not everyone will have to confess to having made such a bad choice.

Great stuff. Now is the time to set your path, to stake your claim in your profession.

Kevin continues eloquently with Lord Godin's words:

The thing is, we still live in a world that's filled with opportunity. In fact, we have more than an opportunity -- we have an obligation. An obligation to spend our time doing great things. To find ideas that matter and to share them. To push ourselves and the people around us to demonstrate gratitude, insight, and inspiration. To take risks and to make the world better by being amazing.

Yes, yes, yes.

We, as lawyers, have obligations to do great things, to be "amazing."

Yes. Amen.

And then Kevin makes his (pitch) point:

While recent grads and lawyers who have been practicing for decades bemoan the lack of legal work and opportunities, other lawyers are running laps around them by harnessing the power of the Internet.

Curiously, as in most posts written by former lawyers-turned-marketers and social media experts touting their "trade," there is little to no specific examples. When marketers and social media "experts" are asked why they consistently leave out evidence of their claims, they harken back to their days as lawyers and say "would your clients want their names mentioned in a blog post?" They claim that the attorney-client privilege is somehow relevant to the marketer-desperate lawyer relationship. It protects them from having to admit that their claims are just that - claims.

So I don't know which lawyers are "running laps" around other lawyers by "harnessing the power of the internet."

I had a website and a blog long before the marketers darkened the door of our profession, and I have found that harnessing the power of lawyering much more enriching than harnessing the perceived power of the "where are all the cheap, unknowing and easily duped" clients.

But that's me.

Kevin continues:

The Internet has served as the great equalizer over the last decade. Lawyers have left established firms to chase their dreams of doing the work they want for the types of clients they want with the type of lifestyle they want. Other lawyers have carved out niche practices in larger firms, making them an asset to the firm, as opposed to a liability at the age of 45 or 50.

Lawyers have left established firms to chase their dreams of doing the work they want for the types of clients they want with the type of lifestyle they want?

Because of the internet?

See, I laugh at that, but I'm not Kevin's audience. His audience are those that actually believe that the internet is where their dreams start, and are bound to come true.

People have different types of dreams, I guess.

And then Kevin goes in for the kill (drum roll please):

Never before could a lawyer start a blog to demonstrate their passion, expertise, and care. Rather than a good lawyer taking decades, if ever, to build meaningful business relationships and establish themselves as a go-to lawyer in a niche area of the law, lawyers are doing so in a couple years through blogging.

That's right, the shortcut, the alternative, to developing meaningful business relationships over time and establishing yourself as a go-to lawyer, can be done in a couple years through....

blogging.

That's according to Kevin O'Keefe, of Lexblog (click link for information on how to buy "turn-key professional blog service.")

Kevin ends his post with Godin's question:

Why not be great?

I agree. But blogging doesn't make you great, it makes you a blogger. It may even make you a shitty blogger.

Lawyering doesn't make you great - it makes you a lawyer. Great lawyering makes great lawyers.

Unless you're selling blogs.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

A Generation Of Proud, Anonymous, Lawyers

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:34:00 +0000

The debate over privacy is dead. It isn't really, but apparently, in order to be "cool" on the internet, you must declare something "dead." The debate over privacy though is dead, as there is no privacy on the internet, or in smart phones, and anyone who cries about it, is a moron. Write something, text something, put anything on the internet or in to your phone, and assume someone not intended to see it, will. As lawyers love to say - GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

But the debate over anonymity is not dead, it is growing, and it is divisive.

I think anonymity is important. It's important when reporting a crime, and can serve other important purposes - like when the statement made can put someone in jeopardy of harm - real harm.

Anonymity is also important to those that are cowards. Without anonymity, blog comments would be vast wastelands of intelligent conversation and vigorous debate by people willing to put their name to their statement/argument/lucid thought. Instead, we get comments about people's appearance, ethnic background, and made up shit that is just written to generate a response.

Anonymity is also important to liars. Without anonymity, someone couldn't comment - without the fear or retribution - on a blog post or news article with something that the writer knows to be false.

Some of it is just silly, and some of it is downright scandalous.

When it comes to lawyers and law students, anonymity is simply pathetic. We are, or are going to be, members of the bar, advocates, leaders. Instead, we are no better than the flip flop wearing, basement dwelling, unemployed and angry citizenry who spend their days protected by their fake name or "Anonymous" on the internet, saying whatever they want, and claiming that they are simply fulfilling their patriotic duty under the First Amendment.

There are two reasons I am not anonymous. I am not afraid of letting people know what I think, and I don't come from an upbringing where I was led to believe it was appropriate to lie about people, and otherwise say things publicly without putting my name to it.

Not only is there a feeling that anonymity is OK today, people believe it is a God given right and dammit if they are going to come out of hiding and speak their mind. Anyone who doesn't think much of online fear-based anonymity, is a dangerous person.

So went the debate a few days ago between myself and a law student. The debate began when this anonymous law student was (like many anonymous keyboard tappers who have found a nice home at Above the Law (ATL)) upset about the new comment policy allowing columnists to decide whether to accept comments. I think the policy is stupid, (ut oh, are they gonna fire me?), I think that people who can't take it are pathetic, but it's the new policy.

This anonymous law student was telling one of the ATL columnists who invoked the policy to "rise above it" and continue accepting comments. I thought it hypocritical that an anonymous law student was telling a (not-anonymous) lawyer to allow comments (the bulk of course which are anonymous), so I stuck my nose in it, and here's the relevant portions of how it went:

First, this anonymous law student announces that a columnist has chosen to no longer allow comments, and then says:

@LawStudentDiary hiding isn't the answer.

Brian Tannebaum - But you're anonymous.

Then after the typical nasty shit that happens when someone like me tries to talk to someone like her, @lawstudentdiary says a couple interesting things:

You either allow people to be anonymous and thus be honest, or you have real people, who have to self-censor.

and

If no one was allowed to be anonymous, you wouldn't have hardly any commentators.

Then of course, as twitter goes, someone else jumps in and claims that this is about something much more important:

@clarinette02 @btannebaum @lawstudentdiary May I ask you : Who were the very first drafters of the US constitution? haven't I heard they were anonymous?

Yes, and I've had Tang, just like some of our Astronauts.

And then of course, I finally got the "you stupid old man" comment:

@LawStudentDiary @ @btannebaum Haha, okay. Most of the internet is anon. Some of your fellow ATLers are too. It's how things work. I'm sorry you don't get it.

That's me, Mr. he doesn't get it.

I do though. I get it.

I just don't like it.

I don't mind that people are allowed to be anonymous. There's no requirement for people to say who they are while mindlessly typing things that make total sense to them and the world in which they live. But this entitlement (there's that word again) that society has, that law students and lawyers have, that not only can I be anonymous, but I have to be because if anyone knew what I really thought, I'd be homeless or have the shit beat out of me, is disgraceful.

Think about it - you, reading this. Lawyer, law student. Is this what you wanted? To become an advocate and then spend your days in hiding on the world wide web, in fear not just of your own stupidity and hate, but more importantly, in fear of your cogent thoughts, ideas, perspectives on life?

That's who you are when you are anonymous - no one.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The One Comment That Got To Me

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:15:00 +0000

No, not those comments. I've been the subject of negative comments in print and online for longer than any social media hack has been working from home after their failed law career. I'm not talking about the anonymous online comments. Those generate laughter and some eye rolls, but I'm lucky enough to have been the brunt of hatred ever since I opened my big mouth in college. It rolls off me like another article about how the way I practice law is dead and I must get on the train of a total virtual practice or I will die.

I'm talking about a comment I heard from a lawyer. A lawyer I've been a friend to, a lawyer I've advised, counseled, and helped do some things. This lawyer has become successful in their own right, both professionally and politically, and never fails to say thank you. I like this lawyer, and I'm glad this lawyer is doing well.

So the lawyer tells me that some lawyer asked whether my friend really believed that I helped them out of unselfish motives. There of course had to be some motive, it couldn't be just...that...I like this lawyer and was there for the advice.

I've been dealing with this for my entire career. From the first time I joined a Bar association, went on the board, ran for office, ran for another office, on another board, in another association, the lawyers whose entire practice is the walk from their car to the courthouse and back to car to go home, have always believed that lawyers like me only get involved in things, in other people's campaigns and efforts, out of an ulterior motive.

And that motive is?

To become a judge.

Of course.

This is understandable. There are plenty of lawyers who climb the ladder of bar associations and other organizations with the goal in mind of wearing the robe.

But it's never been mine. No, I'm sorry to disappoint, sorry to shock the world, but my motive has never been to make $142,000 a year, sitting on a bench everyday saying "denied," "granted," "next case," and hoping every 6 years that no one runs against me and takes my job.

Nope, I've never applied for an appointment, never filed to run, never told anyone I was interested.

Actually, about 10 years ago there was an article in the paper about a (failed) effort I was trying to start to have every local bar association pass a resolution banning judicial candidates from joining their organization. I would see the parade of otherwise socially inept judges all of a sudden becoming members of this and that association during their campaign. I wanted it stopped. The associations wouldn't touch it.

I'm 42, I love practicing law. I love a new client, I love writing motions, I love negotiating. I love the fact that my income depends on me, and isn't the same amount no matter what I do. I love that every day is different.

But the morons out there can't see that. No way, I must want to be a judge - why else would I help people, plan CLE events, advocate for changes in the law?

Why must it be that the only reason people get involved in their profession is to leave it and go do something else, like judging?

Yeah, maybe in 15, 20 years I'll change my mind, but no time soon, and it won't have anything to do with the things I've done in bar associations or charities.

I do these things because I like to do them, because I value relationships, because with the people I get to know and work with, I don't have to rely on my twitter account or other website to bring me clients.

What I have realized though, is the same people who will never imagine that there are lawyers out there that just enjoy getting involved in their profession, are the same people who think the only reason to blog is for business. These are the same people who have the robotic script: "I see you have a blog, you get business from it?"

The perception is not limited to any one thing, it's a general perception among desperate and unhappy lawyers that those who don't spend their days banging their head against the wall trying to drum up business and instead are doing other things, can only be doing them with ulterior motives.

So to you, the asshole that asked my friend that question, yes I know you read my blog, I know you read it, hate it, but secretly wonder if you could do the same thing. To you, the one who asked that question wondering if you could get the same advice and counsel from me, wondering if there was something you could hang your hat on to say "AH-HA," it's not there. You've reached a dead end.

And I hope you have a good mirror.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Does The North Carolina Bar Advocate Blogging About Accidents To Get Cases?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:54:00 +0000

One of the tried (tired) and true marketing methods used by cheesy personal injury lawyers is to blog about horrific accidents in order to get the Google attention they want and hope that the grieving family finds them on the internet and retains them so they can get their 40%.

This is a disgusting practice that's been resoundingly trashed on the internet.

But not by the marketers:

Dale Tincher of consultwebs.com writes yesterday,

As you know, obtaining quick notice about local accidents and injuries will help your law firm in many ways. First, if you are aware of accidents early, you may have a chance of getting an inside track on a case. Additionally, if you post something on your website quickly, you may be found and have an opportunity to get a case. Posting information on your website, blog and social media will also help your rankings. Google rewards websites for frequent updates and activity.

Doesn't surprise me that as there's more and more desperate-to-make-money-lawyers out there that these pathetic tactics become more attractive. Why spend the time building a reputation when you can fake one on the internet?

But this is what interested me:

Dale is the project consultant for the North Carolina Bar Association’s endorsement of Consultwebs.com, Inc., as the only Web consulting firms endorsed by the North Carolina Bar Association’s Technology Assistance Program (TAP.)

Not a very well written sentence, but what I got from it is that the North Carolina Bar endorses this firm in some way.

I'd like to know why?

I'll be right here.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

An Open Letter To Legal Marketing Conference Organizers: Dear Morons,

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:24:00 +0000

It's getting pretty pathetic out there, and you, ALM, Lexis, and the other organizations serving the legal profession have been throwing together conferences for lawyers desperate to market themselves chocked full of a happy group of idiots as speakers.

Failed lawyers, lawyers who haven't seen a client in years, non-practicing lawyers whose ethics raise more questions than an episode of Jeopardy, losers.

Why are you putting these empty, unemployed, conference grasshoppers in front of lawyers? Why aren't you spending 5 minutes on Google checking these frauds out?

Do you actually sit in the room and listen to these people? Is it really worth an hour of some lawyer's time to hear that we used to ride horses to work and now we drive cars? Does that have anything to do with representing clients with legal problems? Does it matter to a practicing lawyer that the fax machine has been replaced by the scanner? Do we not know this? Is this earth shattering, worthy of a conference fee?

I know, I know, they'll speak for free, they seem to have important followings on twitter. They'll travel on their own dime. They begged to speak. It's cheap for you.

But do you ever wonder why an unemployed lawyer peddling social media or tech tips would fly a few hundred or even thousands of miles just to take a microphone for a panel discussion for an hour?

Are these the important "futurists" of the legal profession that you are happy to have your conference attendees pay good money to hear? Are you really OK having people spend a few hundred dollars, take a day or two off work, travel to another city, and all just to hear from a bunch of people who couldn't make it as practicing lawyers?

Do you have no shame?

This garbage should stop, and stop now.

I know the economy is in the crapper. I know you know that marketing conferences are all the rage and all you need is someone to say that social media is the future and that the iPad has replaced the stone and chisel. I know.

But wouldn't it be great to have one conference where none of these fakers were invited? Wouldn't it be awesome to have a conference where you could say "all our speakers actually represent clients and have real law practices and exist on a daily basis without praying to the Gods of Apple or social media?"

No?

Try it. Just once.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Tweet Heard 'Round The Social Media Marketing World

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:24:00 +0000

Before the unemployed marketers found a way to sell it for a living, and convince lawyers that clients were going to line up with every online "tweet" or "status update," no one thought of creating a fake persona for the purpose of lying to get business. No one thought of puffing qualifications, or, in legal terms, making shit up, in an effort to appear "experienced, aggressive," and here to fight for you 10 minutes out of law school.

When Facebook and twitter and other "social" media sites came online, the first thing people started doing, was talking to each other. When the marketers, unable to truly assist in "marketing" those that were qualified to be marketed started swarming, they made it a profession to help lawyers "create" an online image - true or not.

Lawyers are sheep. Proof? The most scammed segment of society as a result of "Nigerian" email solicitations and other "may I deposit millions of dollars in your account," jokes, are lawyers.

Want to make money? Convince a lawyer you can make them money. They will give you money. Doesn't matter whether you know how to make money. As a marketer told me recently in response to my wonderment how certain morons were given money by lawyers to give marketing advice - he said "no one asks about qualifications, no one."

So tonight, in the middle of watching the resident hucksters try and peddle their wares, I saw this from a social media marketer:

Separate Social Media From Marketing - Anthony J. Bradley and Mark P. McDonald - Harvard Business Review

Harvard Business Review. He he.

... we need to break out social media and talk about more than marketing and technology. Instead, we need to talk about what social media enables: the ability to collaborate in new ways — which is particularly important for business leaders interested in creating more collaborative, innovative, and engaging organizations.

Huh?

An executive may boast, "We have Twitter and SharePoint, and we're on Facebook." But if you were to ask the executive how social media is positively impacting business results, you may raise a significant issue. When social media is applied to marketing, it creates activity — and in marketing, activity is a good thing. But activity alone does not create business results.

Now wait just a minute?

You can't just type things on social media sites and things will happen?

...just because you've opened the door doesn't mean you've crossed the threshold into a new way of working, managing, and leading. To achieve those ends — we've described these as attributes of a "social organization" — it takes more than setting loose the technology and praying that something good will happen.

So wait, there has to be something behind your online fakery that is actually true?

We need to move beyond social media as a technology tool.

Now this article is basically saying that if the organization behind all the social media lights and sirens is not "social," then it doesn't matter.

Taken a step further, if your law firm, solo practice, reputation, credentials, don't comport with the crap you are spewing on the internet, then all you are doing is using a marketing tool to project something that doesn't exist.

And for some, that's OK.

If it's not, then maybe it's time to think about whether you should be spending more time working on who you truly are, then who you are on social media.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

How To Make Money As A Lawyer - Forget Law School

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:43:00 +0000

A couple years ago my electrician showed up to my house in a BMW. A few days later he showed up in a Porsche. I asked who's Porsche it was, and he said "mine, the BMW is in the shop."

Recently, there's been some discussion about this country developing an economy of lawyers, doctors, and accountants. No one wants to be a plumber, electrician, or other trades person. It's demeaning. Mom and Dad won't be proud, and all the money to be made is in lawyering.

Yeah, right.

I will tell you this: If I graduated plumbing school 17 years ago, I'd be making as much or more than I am now. I'd have 10 trucks, ads running around the clock, and my name plastered everywhere around town - from bus benches, billboards, airplanes over stadiums, and charity events. No fancy office, no Bar regulations, no judges wanting me in court NOW, no sleepless nights wondering if Mr. Jones hot water is working.

With all the discussion about "the future of lawyers," I haven't seen one post about "the future of plumbers."

Will there be a time where people no longer stop up a toilet? Will sinks no longer need to be installed? Will giant condominiums be built in 2023 without bathrooms and kitchens?

Will we be taking a shit on our iPads?

From the ABA Journal:

Hedge fund manager Daniel Ades of Kawa Capital Management tells the Wall Street Journal that students should seek an education that pays the highest salaries relative to the cost of education. According to that analysis, technical colleges are the best. "We're in a skills based economy and what we need is more computer programmers, more [nurses]," he tells the newspaper. "It's less glamorous but it's what we need."

The article is geared towards the discussion of loans, and why it's more cost effective to pay for a trade school education in terms of making money in a career than it is to pay for law school.

So there's the answer, forget law school. If money is the goal, go to trade school. it costs less, you don't need to wear a suit, you can use all your shiny toys for business, and you don't have to worry about social media for lawyers.

Let me know if you do it. I'll hire you to fix my toilet, and bitch about how much it costs as you drive away in your Porsche.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Would You Want Your Kids To Be Lawyers?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:12:00 +0000

This weekend, in two separate conversations (not twitter conversations, actual face to face with food and drink conversations), two different lawyers told me without solicitation, that they would not want their kids to be lawyers.

One is a 30-year lawyer-turned-coach who still practices part-time, and the other is one of the most successful personal injury lawyers around, 17 years in to practice.

The coach said that debt and the job prospects were paramount in his thinking, while the successful PI lawyer said it was due to the lack of professionalism he has to deal with on a daily basis.

So from two different types of lawyers, the feeling seems to be that lawyers, and the money, suck.

I would encourage my kids to become lawyers, but only if they truly wanted to practice law, to be "real" lawyers, to be professionals dedicated to representing clients. These could be indigent clients facing jail, corporate clients looking to screw the general public, or people looking to get divorced. Regardless of the source of the passion, as long as they were going it to it for the right reasons - to represent clients as advocated and counselors, I'm all for it.

I sense the Starbucks crowd, the e-lawyering crowd, and those who believe their law schools are the devil for forcing them to go to law school based on the promise of wealth and fame, are not going to encourage their kids to go to law school. I also trust those who didn't find law as easy and fun as they thought will also hope their kids do something else.

But I'm interested in the discussion.

So if you're going to offer your thoughts (and I'll allow the anonymous cowards in on this one as I'm about to change that policy) please at least tell me how long you've been in practice and what it is you do.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

If Joseph Rakofsky Had A Mentor, And Other Wild Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:43:00 +0000

Scott Greenfield described it with clarity this morning:

In the beginning, this was a matter of a young lawyer who did what so many others would have done, reached beyond himself for the dollar at the expense of a murder defendant, Dontrell Deaner. At this point, most have forgotten that this was about saving the Dontrell Deaners, the defendants entitled to competent counsel because their lives depended on it. Instead, they got puffery.

But it now appears that Joseph Rakofsky isn't like the other young lawyers who want to be something they're not. Most of them would have learned something from the universal condemnation. Most would have grasped their horrible mistake quickly. A few would have taken longer, but eventually come to the harsh realization that they blew any chance at redemption.

This one, however, has enjoyed no epiphany. This one will fight to the death. He will add, and redo, and redouble, and fight. This isn't tenacity, an excellent trait in a lawyer. This isn't mere stupidity. This is pathologic obsession.

Mark Bennett had some comments on young Joseph's predicted assault on the only lawyer who would add his name to 2011's version of the Titanic:

By filing suit for his pal Rakofsky, Borzouye—whether he knew it or not—put his professional reputation and his bank account on the line along with his precious time. It wasn’t much of a favor to Rakofsky—a greater mitzvah would have been to dissuade Rakofsky from filing suit at all (I don’t know if he tried, but see “First,” above)—but it is not entirely out-of-line for a lawyer, when a friend is intent on destroying himself in court, to come along for the ride to try to minimize the damage.

Oh Joseph, I've seen this too often. I haven't seen it from lawyers in their infancy, but from lawyers well in to their careers who have decided that the world is against them, that attacking anyone with a heartbeat and voice will lead to some type of victory, somewhere.

It never ends well.

The lawyers I speak of are disbarred. The ones who felt attacked, and went on the attack, never knowing when to stop attacking, and continuing after the last interested person turned away - the last interested person besides a Bar prosecutor.

I think of Charlie Sheen.

Charlie had a problem, he took that problem and attacked anyone who spoke of the problem. He went on the attack, and made himself the story.

He lost his job, his kids, some friends, the respect of those who once respected him, and then all of a sudden, it all stopped.

Then it got quiet. Then we heard the sincere apologies, the evidence that he had moved on and was looking for a life away from the past.

It worked.

So how did it happen?

I have to think someone put their hand on Charlie's shoulder and said "stop."

"Stop."

"You're not 'winning,' you're losing, badly."

While the story of Sheen's demise fades, the talk of his new life becomes the lesson for many. "Hey, look at Charlie Sheen," will be the phrase spoken to those who think they can't get out of their own way.

Which brings me back to Joseph Rakofsky.

Young Joseph could have been a popular speaker on the young lawyer circuit. I said from the beginning of his failed life as a plaintiff that had he taken his experience and turned it in to a teaching lesson - many of the young (marketing) lawyers may have learned something. Had young Joseph stood up and said "don't do what I did, don't take on a case unprepared, don't over-market yourself, don't be who you are not for the sake of building a practice," he would have been a strong voice in the "I speak from experience" camp.

Instead, he amended his complaint.

And so I wonder where is Joseph Rakofsky's mentor? Does he have one? Has he had some who he's now cast away? Are you one of them thinking "I tried to talk to him, but he knew better?"

Joseph Rakofsky claims he can't sleep, he's lost business, his life is the result of "internet mobbing."

But the last time I heard Joseph Rakofsky's name before yesterday, before he said "I'm back," was, well, I don't remember.

Maybe Joseph Rakofsky has a mentor. Maybe young Joseph is a bad mentee. Maybe his short time as a lawyer has taught him that becoming the poster boy for circus-type litigation is a road to success.

Young Joseph is on his way to nowhere. He doesn't know that, he'll never agree with that, but then again, I wonder if anyone is telling him that.

Nothing he is doing will accomplish anything positive in his life, or career.

But I'm not the one to tell him that.

Maybe someone else knows better.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

I Saw The Future Of Law, And It's Not What Any Of You Morons Are Talking About On The Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:07:00 +0000

I spent the day at my law school alma mater yesterday speaking to students about, well, about a lot of things. They asked questions, I asked questions, They talked about their future, and I spoke of my past.

I've also been sitting back, watching the failed lawyers try and convince the greater legal community via blogs, articles and quotes at happy conferences that the future of law is what they deem it to be. The drum beats louder every day. It's no longer that e-lawyering is part of the future, we are now being told if we are not part of the sit-at-home-and-sell-legal-services- world, we will not be a part of this perceived future. Google + is a total complete failure, but to those who have nothing to talk about, it's the future. Lawyers are shutting down their practice because they have determined they have the secrets to running law firms, and rather than practice law, they are going to sell you their secrets to success.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

There is no "future of law."

None.

Not a single student asked about building a practice by keyboard and monitor from mommy's basement. Not a single student spoke about twitter, dropbox, or anything with .com at the end.

They spoke about offices, firms, clients, courtrooms, "meaningful" practices," and passion.

They don't know you "future of law" people are full of crap yet, because they haven't met you, you and your self-fulfilling prophecies that because you are un-interested in going to an office and having face to face communication with clients, everyone else one day will be as well.

It's OK if you have decided that your future of law is going to be in pajamas, or going from Starbucks to Starbucks, or trying to tell successful lawyers that (for a fee) you have all the answers. Most of us know better. Most of us know that it's merely your reality, your inability to practice law like lawyers - in the presence of clients, in a suit, in a courtroom or conference room. You are merely tired, or broke, or getting to the point of being broke, and trying to convince the world that lawyers who practice "normal" law are going to die off soon.

Your future of law is law by tech and teaching "secrets" that are about as secret as your failure. That's great, for you.

But it's not the future.

Because as I know, and as I heard yesterday, your future is just that.

Yours.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

A New Blogger The Marketers And Starbucks Lawyers Missed

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:09:00 +0000

According to those worshipped on the internet these days, lawyers only blog for profit, and working in an office is a sure fire road to nowhere. We are in a marketing sewer and all lawyers are to follow the lawyer in front of them down to the pile of shit called the internet, typiing away for the sole purpose of business, and working from their dining room table when Starbucks kicks them out.

Lawyer Joe Scura must have been out the day the unemployed former nothing lawyers were busy scamming other lawyers young and old in to thinking that working alone from home and blogging for clients was the only way to riches and fame.

His website and blog violate about every marketing rule that exists.

Fasten your seatbelt marketing scum - here's Joe out of the box on his website:

Joe Scura opened his first law office in 2009

2009! You idiot! Rule number 1 - never, NEVER say how long you've been out unless it's more than 5 years.

What the marketers would have told Joe was to start with:

Joe Scura is an experienced criminal defense lawyer that will fight for your rights for a reasonable fee.

The Virtual Office crew (who of late have insisted this is the future of law) drops out of Joe's world at the second sentence, where he says:

This office is devoted to providing exceptional representation to real people faced with real legal problems

Then there's his first blog post:

Two Years In Solo Practice

There you go again Joe, being all honest and transparent and just violating every rule of sleezy marketers.

A better title would have been: My Advice To Young Lawyers After Years In Private Practice (2 is plural after all.)

Joe continunes with the first reason he writes this post:

I would like potential clients to know who I am and where I’m coming from.

Oh man Joe, you want them to know the truth about you? Really?

Here's more bad news: Joe went to law school not to make money, but: with the goal of becoming a criminal defense attorney

And while I want you to go to Joe's blog and give him the many hits he obviously doesn't care about, here's a clip of what to expect (so the "how to make money fast like today as a lawyer" crowd doesn't waste their time.)

If I could stress one point here, it would be “just work”. You could spend hours in your office tweaking your website, tweeting, answering questions on AVVO, (all of which I’ve done btw) but if you want to be a young solo the most productive thing you can do to build your practice is develop skills as an attorney and do good work

Welcome aboard Joe, and congratulations on your first "Like," from me.

h/t: Mark Bennett

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Federal Judge Smacks Florida Bar On Advertising Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:57:00 +0000

This stuff makes me happy, because I think the Florida Bar has become more of a consumer protection agency, than an association of lawyers. It also makes me happy because I have argued that the advertising rules should be as follows: "Read rule 4-8.4," (no false, misleading, deceptive behavior.)

But the Florida Bar continues to micro manage lawyer advertising, protecting Aunt Sadie from some errant letter about a legal matter.

So now Jacksonville federal judge Marcia Morales Howard ruled some of the advertising rules unconstitutional.

Lawyer William Harrell wanted to use the slogan "Don't Settle for Less Than You Deserve," but that's a no no.

Judge Howard held the rules to be "vague."

They're not vague, they're ridiculous.

Public Citizen brought the lawsuit, and in critizing the advertising rules, made the point as to why they exist: "The rules have made it extremely difficult for lawyers in Florida to effectively reach injured consumers in need of representation," said Greg Beck.

That's right, the goal is to keep us away, because consumers don't want to hear from us.

But the Bar has to have evidence, and facts, and they didn't:

The Bar does not articulate any basis for believing that “Don’t settle for less
than you deserve” could potentially mislead the public or erode the public’s confidence in the legal profession. See Mason, 208 F.3d at 958 (“The Bar has the burden in this case of producing concrete evidence that Mason’s use of the words ‘AV Rated, the Highest Rating’ threatened to mislead the public.”). Moreover, the Bar presents no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that the phrase has misled the public or tarnished the reputation of the legal profession in the public’s eyes. Mason, 208 F.3d at 957. Instead, the Bar generally cites to data which purportedly shows that television advertising “lowers the public’s respect for the fairness and integrity of the legal system and adversely affects the system.”

The Florida Bar has since amended the advertising rules, but they're still ridiculous, cumbersome, and subject to all kinds of interpretation that leaves lawyers wondering whether it's worth advertising at all.

(Editor's Note: I hate most lawyer advertising but defend a lawyer's right to advertise - I"m kind of a hyporite that way.)

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Are There Any (Other) Impressive, Creative Law Students Out There?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:04:00 +0000

Because Im bad for business, I've only been invited to a few, well, two, social media/tech conferences to talk about the sewer that lawyers have made of the the internet.

My other speaking engagements are limited to boring conferences, like talking to real lawyers who have real practices and actually believe that ethics play a part in marketing and law, and law students who are looking to not go afoul of the Bar Rules.

So last week I was invited to address an early morning Professional Responsibility class at a local law school. They chuckled, they asked questions, some stayed after to ask more questions, but most played on their laptops (some followed me on twitter as I was saying the most important things they've ever heard- so I thought), and for the most part, they got up and left and went to their next class or took a nap or something.

One student sent me an email. She wanted to say thanks but was admittedly too busy to stay after for that purpose. Apparently staying after class to commiserate with some old relic from the 90's was less important than her own studies, which I appreciated.

In her email, she told me about a recent presentation she gave to a local Bar Association (the 4th largest in the country) on ethics in advertising and the newly proposed Florida Bar Rules.

No, I'm not kidding. Apparently the law school has some clinical internship program where law students can do these types of things. Apparently, she was interested in this topic.

I asked her to send me the presentation. It was pretty impressive. Actually, it was first-rate kind of stuff. We'll talk more about it when I take her to lunch in a couple weeks. (Yes, there was a small lesson in that paragraph.)

So this got me thinking, besides all the law students we read about in the blawgosphere who are suing their law school for forcing them to attend based on promises of jobs, or whining about why lawyers don't see how incredibly epic and awesome they are, what the other ones doing?

That's my question.

Is this law student I met an anomoly? Are there others out there that ignore the economy, the crowd of crybabies, and the social media hacks that promise them wealth and fame by keyboard and instead have engaged in interesting projects that may result in a lawyer out there actually taking interest?

Take a minute from begging people to "Like" your Facebook Fan Page and let me know.

I'm interested. Really.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

The Hijacking Of "Cyberbullying" By Marketers, Tech Hacks, And Social Media Gurus

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:12:00 +0000

Cyberbullying is a real problem. Children have committed suicide as a result. Cyberstalking is another problem. I've received calls from women being stalked by men (both known and unknown), wondering what to do.

These real problems though, with real definitions, have been embarrassingly used by the marketing, tech hack, and social media guru folks on the internet in order to stave off any criticism, discussion, debate, or questions about their backgrounds and various bullshit they peddle.

Any marketer, tech hack, or social media guru who has complained about being "cyberbullied" or "cyberstalked" should bow their heads. You are worthless theives of terms that have real meaning to defenseless people. You have used these terms to round up your groupies in to believing you and offering help.

So listen up, real good:

"Cyberbullying" is when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones. It has to have a minor on both sides, or at least have been instigated by a minor against another minor. Once adults become involved, it is plain and simple cyber-harassment or cyberstalking. Adult cyber-harassment or cyberstalking is NEVER called cyberbullying.

So you 30 and 40 something marketers, tech hacks, and social media gurus, shut up. You want to write something critical of someone else, great. Defend it. You want to sit there and passively aggressively call your critics "psychopaths," or "weirdos" because they don't hug you and otherwise kiss your ass on your blog, expect a response.

Criticism of the bullshit you write (or even the bullshit I write) is not akin to being "tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted."

There is a group of lawyers, me included, on the internet, that have no problem calling bullshit when we see it. If you believe that is "cyberbullying," then show me your identification that proves you are under 18, and I'll show you mine.

So stop threatening us, stop thinking we are scared of you and your screenshots and your free lawyer friends. That means you - the marketing scam artist, the iPhone "evangelist," and you, you lying social media guru - you and your online "friends." We have been sued, stalked, and as they say, "been there done that." Your threats, discussions about what you are going to do are in and of themselves, as you call, cyberstalking and harrassment. But we can handle it without crying like babies to our online ass kissers.

So shut up. Move on, and stop thinking for a minute that you have any relevance in the world of professionals. Your entire life is online, ours is not.

Grow up, stop whining, and stop hurting the children of the world by trying to convince people that you are a child as well.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Finally, Good Advice To Young Lawyers: Shut Up

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:05:00 +0000

It's not even fun anymore to predict what will happen on the internet when a discussion ensues about how young solo practitioners can make money, immediately.

So the queen of advocacy for solos, Carolyn Elefant, decided to open the floor to anyone with a perceived lucid thought in their head.

As Scott Greenfield noted, "naturally, a marketer showed up like a guppy drawn to chum..."

It's the mantra: Practice in trouble? Cash flow not what you expected with that shiny new iPad and virtual law practice? Start plunging your brains out on marketing.

A quick word about marketing.

Every so often the lawyers get into a dust up with the marketers, social media consultants, and tech hacks on the internet. We live different lives. Lawyers practice law. Many marketers, social media consultants, and tech hacks used to practice law and now don't, but have all the answers on how to make zillions as a lawyer. They'd rather just work at their dining room table and take their daily trip to Starbucks to tweet about the price increase on Netflix, which affects their nightly obligation to stay home because they have no money to go out.

The marketers will try to argue that lawyers are "marketers" as well. This is true. Everyone in business is marketing. The definition of marketing is to take your product or service to market. The difference is that practicing lawyers don't take money from desperate lawyers in return for marketing advice. We may engage in marketing, but our job is to practice law. I know, it's hard to comprehend that the only argument you marketers have is really no argument at all.

Back to the advice.

Here's some (anonymous of course) advice that came in the comments to Carolyn's post:

Waiting for people to refer you things is not a marketing plan. The three big marketing methods are direct mail solicitations, yellow pages and internet.

Learn these words: Search Engine Organization (SEO). SEO is the science of getting page 1 on Google. Become a master of SEO. Besides hiring an internet consultant, you should learn everything that you can yourself from books.

A good service will ghostwrite blogs for you that have good keyword content.

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.

(i.e., stay away from me)

From this point forward, 50% of your gross will go to internet and mail advertising. In a good economy, it drops to 25%. Cut non-advertising expenses. You can use a virtual phone network, get rid of the secretary, etc; but you can't skimp on advertising.

Criminal: Lots of people get arrested and need a lawyer. Do misdemeanor and DUI. Stay away from felonies in the beginning. Criminal cases are all flat fee paid up front (or at least half up front). Unlike civil litigation the opposing counsel (the prosecutor) isn't out to crucify you for your inexperience. They'll offer you 20-30% more jail that to an experience criminal defense lawyer who is part of the club; but they won't crucify you.

Marketing driven specialization in routine practice areas criminal/bankruptcy/divorce etc) will let you make a good living.

Too bad this loser was too scared to put his name to his awful advice.

But then there was Joe. Joe put his name to his advice, which caused Greenfield to call him out on his lack of experience.

Joe said maybe he should just "shut up," to which Greenfield said:

That's right. New lawyers don't want to hear this, and don't like it one little bit, but this is exactly the right advice. If you have nothing helpful to say, say nothing. If you have yet to achieve a thriving practice, then you have no advice for anyone else who is having difficulty achieving the same thriving practice.

I realize that the idea of shutting up offends you, and being told to shut up stings. I realize that it flies in the face of what your parents and professors told you, that you should express yourself constantly. But this is the real world, and just because you have a keyboard and time on your hands does not mean you have advice to offer.

After a few months, even a year in practice, I knew nothing. At least I told myself that. I spent a lot of time doing three things, practicing, listening, and learning. Giving advice was something I did to clients and those few lawyers in the PD's office that asked, but not to other lawyers who had been doing this longer than me. I took advice from them.

But that's not acceptable today. There is a notion out there that lawyers like me, like Greenfield, are "scared" of what's happening, that we're scared that our clients will go to younger lawyers armed with shiny toys and a recorded voice at the virtual (basement) office in mommy and daddy's house. That we're scared our clients will prefer someone who lives 2,000 miles away who was "recently quoted" on some website for 3 minutes.

You want to listen to (or pay) a lawyer who's been practicing for less time than it takes to have a child? You think these people have the answers? You think the way things "used to be done" are over?

Lawyers are like anyone else, even worse: tell them you can put money in their pocket, and they will listen. They will type, they will swipe the maxed out credit card for the marketing plan, and they willbe attracted to those that claim to have the secrets to the pot of gold.

Scott was right: "...this is the real world, and just because you have a keyboard and time on your hands does not mean you have advice to offer."

Wait... Oh, nevermind, I've been doing this longer than 9 months.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

"Cute" Judicial Orders Are Our Problem, Not Theirs

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:27:00 +0000

I don't know when they started, the orders from judges requiring warring lawyers to play rock paper scissors, or as of late, attend a weekend class on civility called a "kindergarten party."

Yesterday, lawyers got their revenge and celebrated the leaking of an email to Judge Sam Sparks taking him to task for his recent behavior.

So now lawyers everywhere are saying "see, those orders are bad, wrong, unfair, and bad.

It's always nice when someone like Chief Judge Jones comes in and saves us from ourselves, changing the focus back to the judiciary and away from us.

So I guess now we're vindicated. Now we don't have to worry that when we act like childred that we're going to get called out on it.

I think these orders are an important part of the practice, because it puts on the table (with humor and not sanctions) the level to which some lawyers will sink to represent a client.

I've read many comments from lawyers saying that judges should just sanction these lawyers and stop being funny about it. Two comments on that - much of this childish behavior is just that - childish - but not unethical. The other thing is that I think they are funny and if we can't laugh at ourselves, then looks like judges will just laugh at us.

The Florida Supreme Court is so fed up with our ability to be civil, that they've amended the oath of attorney. This amendment has caused Florida lawyers to ask "am I grandfathered in?"

Some of them are kidding.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Why Are We Being Taught To Avoid Anything Unhappy?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:27:00 +0000

In today's world where everything is about marketing (not necessarily telling the truth) there is a theory among the hucksters that all negative comments, criticism, and probing questions, should be avoided at all costs. They feel comfortable taking this tact, and referring to anyone who isn't in the "happy" box, as a "troll."

I'm therefore, a troll. I ask questions, I point out lies, puffery, and other marketing tactics that are nothing more than an attempt to make money the dishonest way.

I'm a problem. I literally, just won't just let things lie.

Well, here's another truth, avoiding the truth, avoiding answering questions that may knock a few points off your perceived "personal brand," just makes things worse.

Recently I was looking to book a hotel. I went to Trip Advisor. I love this site. I read the reviews. There's a couple things I look for. One, the number of positive reviews. I really don't care what they say after the first few, but the number is important.

Then I look at the negative reviews. I read more of those. I notice that mostly, the negative reviews come from people who ask for special accommodations. "We had a party of 35 and didn't all get to stay on the same floor like you said maybe, possibly, could happen." "We got in at 2 a.m. and there weren't 9 people at the desk to help up." Most negative reviews appear to be from people who will never be happy. Some, though, are relevant - the ones about noise, cleanliness, food quality, to name a few.

Finally, I look to see if anyone at the hotel responds to the reviews. If they do, they move up a notch with me.

But last week I noticed something interesting. I saw one hotel where the responses were only to the positive reviews. "Oh, thank you so much, we're so glad you love our wonderful hotel......." Every negative review was left without a response.

I won't stay there regardless of the positive reviews. I know a marketing huckster advised this hotel to only respond to positive comments, and ignore the "trolls."

So this troll won't be staying there.

This behavior is growing on the internet. Lies and deceit don't work well with questions and criticism, so it's ignored.

The next time you're online, watch how people ignore anything that makes them unhappy. Ask questions, and watch who responds, and who cowers.

There's a ton of posts on the internet about responding to negativity. Whatever they say, there is no substitute for taking criticism and questions head on.

It's what real lawyers do.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Now Will Everyone Stop Believing The Hype Of Social Media Rock Stars?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:45:00 +0000

I never heard of Trey Pennington. Apparently, the social media crowd loved him. He killed himself over the weekend. He suffered from depression.

To those that don't understand depression, it is (no pun intended) a deadly disease. I served on a non-profit board with a wonderful lawyer, loved by many, and just a great guy. He always offered to help on whatever project we were proposing, and was always glad to see you.

He hung himself one day.

Depression is not being sad, sitting at home complaining, or otherwise feeling sorry for yourself. It is a real, chemical imbalance, that can easily be hidden behind a smile and offer to help you create your dreams with a marketing plan.

There is this vicious debate raging on the internet now between those who say Mr. Pennington had "all these 'friends' on social media," so why couldn't he turn to someone for help? This is the argument being made by people who say the whole social media thing is a joke and that no one has many "real" connections - people they can actually call a "friend," against those that claim social media is the end all be all in life. The social media group - those who loved him, knew him, and say depression is a silent killer that only shows itself when it's too late - they want everyone to stop making this an argument about social media "friends."

The argument is pointless in this situation, and misses the mark.

While it's cute to argue that "hey, what about all those 'friends' on twitter, couldn't you turn to one of them," that's better left for revelations of financial desperation and other social problems. Depression transcends relationships, online or offline.

The real point of this story is something the social media rock stars will not discuss - the notion that someone's created brand on the internet is never the whole story.

Many social media rock stars have no jobs, no income, huge debt, and nothing more than a web presence and a following on twitter. You would never know that, because that's all hidden, no one asks hard questions (especially when faced with the promise of wealth and fame by someone who has neither), and it's a negative discussion which is prohibited by the happysphere on the internet who only respond to congratulations, thank yous and "you're so awesome" type compliments.

The lesson from Trey Pennington is simple - stop assuming that because someone created a web presence and says things that are attractive to you and seemingly can make your life better, that any of it is true.

It's usually not. None of it.

I extend my condolences to the family and friends of Trey Pennington, and hope that at least one of you reading this will realize that your shock is only due to your inability to face reality.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.