My Law License

A Tale Of Two Emails From Young Lawyers, And A Request

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:55:00 +0000

Today I saw an email sent to a young lawyer I know. The email was requesting to meet with the lawyer to discuss a job (a job that wasn't available). Lawyers get these all the time. New graduates send cover letters with resumes saying they want to work for the firm, not having a clue whether the firm is hiring. Most just hope for a response (which this guy got.) Most would love the ability to meet with a lawyer (which this guy turned down).

Yeah, the young lawyer responded that he had no job to offer, but sure, the young lawyer could come in and meet him and talk about a possible set up where Mr. Jobless could have his own practice, share space, get some work, etc... It wasn't a job, it was an opportunity (note: Mr. Jobless actually mentioned the word "opportunity" in his email, but as you'll learn from reading Mark Bennett's post on the email, his idea of an opportunity was a paycheck. He couldn't get that, so he said "thanks, but no thanks."

There was debate in the comment section to Bennett's post about whether this kid was just bat shit stupid or deserved understanding because he made it clear he wanted a "job" and not an opportunity to at least sponge off some lawyers for a while while trying to make a few bucks. Hell, it's the internet, everyones got an opinion and where ever you fall on this, I really couldn't give a crap.

Later in the day, I myself got an email. Here are the relevant portions:

Mr. Tannebaum,

Could I fire off some questions to you? I would like very much to enjoy the practice of law, but am at something of a crossroads as to how to do so...

Specifically, I'd like to go solo, and am not sure where I should, what I should practice (I studied criminal and IP in law school), or how to balance it all and still have a personal life. I don't know. . . Because I know it sounds odd, I will say that part of my problem is that I left the state I went to law school and am in a whole new network. I won't hound you or anything. . . just thought I'd give it a shot.

Reading the tone of this email, I wonder what this kid would do if I invited him to come meet me at my office for a 5 minute conversation and no promises? Sure, he makes clear he wants to go solo, but he's not sure he can make it and would probably take a job if offered. He would at least jump at the "opportunity" for a meeting.

So while I'm going to respond to his email directly, I'm asking you to help him. Give him your best advice. I think he deserves it. I think he'd appreciate it.

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 Defending The Lawyer Before The State Bar

Understanding The New Florida Bar Advertising Rules, If That's Possible

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:10:00 +0000

There's new advertising rules for Florida Lawyers. They're available in this 53 page opinion released by The Florida Supreme Court this week.

Don't worry, you don't have to read 53 pages of a legal opinion, I'll help you with this.

From the Court: the Bar concluded that the existing lawyer advertising rules should be entirely restructured, focusing primarily on preventing the dissemination of misleading and unduly manipulative information.

But what about simply "manipulative information?"

Moving on...

And don't worry, like any rule change proposal: The proposals are designed to make the advertising rules more cohesive, easier for lawyers who advertise to understand, and less cumbersome for the Bar to apply and enforce.

Easier, less cumbersome. Of course.

So here we go:

Rules 4-7.1 through 4-7.10 are deleted. Gone. Poof.

We now have:

4-7.11 (Application of Rules);
4-7.12 (Required Content);
4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements);
4-7.14 (Potentially Misleading Advertisements);
4-7.15 (Unduly Manipulative or Intrusive Advertisements);
4-7.16 (Presumptively Valid Content);
4-7.17 (Payment for Advertising and Promotion);
4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients);
4-7.19 (Evaluation of Advertisements);
4-7.20 (Exemptions From the Filing and Review Requirement);
4-7.21 (Firm Names and Letterhead);
4-7.22 (Lawyer Referral Services); and 4-7.23 (Lawyer Directory).

If you're keeping count, and I do, we now have 12 rules instead of 10.

We also introduce the new term "objectively verifiable" in Rules
4-7.13 and 4-7.14

Meaning?

If the attorney can show, by objective facts, that the statement is true, then he has presented an objectively verifiable statement in the advertisement. On the other hand, making a subjective statement such as "the best trial lawyer in Florida" is a misleading statement that fails to meet the requirement because it is neither objective nor verifiable. The advertising statement must be supported by verifiable facts.

So you can't say you are awesome, unless it can be verified. But can you then just list your past success? That's verifiable.

Well... as long as the past results are not:

atypical of persons under similar circumstances.

Also:

A result that omits pertinent information, such as failing to disclose that a specific judgment was uncontested or obtained by default, or failing to disclose that the judgment is far short of the client's actual damages, is also misleading.
So is the Bar still staying away from the internet?

This subchapter applies to all forms of communication in any print or electronic forum, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, brochures, flyers, television, radio, direct mail , electronic mail, and Internet, including banners, pop-ups, websites, social networking, and video sharing media.

So now you can't use the internet as a haven for deception. What will the marketers do?

Also: This subchapter applies to communications made to referral sources about legal services.

"Communications?" So I can't get drunk with a referral source and say things that are not "objectively verifiable" The bartenders lobby should have been all over this one.

This is a requirement that may strike fear throughout the Bar:

Legibility. Any information required by these rules to appear in an advertisement must be reasonably prominent and clearly legible if written, or intelligible if spoken.

And you lawyers that take the case and send it to another lawyer to do the work?

Ut oh.

If the advertising lawyer knows at the time the advertisement is disseminated that the lawyer intends to refer some cases generated from an advertisement to another lawyer, the advertisement must state that fact. An example of an appropriate disclaimer is as follows: 'Your case may be referred to another lawyer.

While trying to prevent "Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements," is admirable, this part of the rule will be fun to litigate:

An advertisement is deceptive or inherently misleading if it:

(3) implies the existence of a material nonexistent fact.

Like me, do you often get annoyed when people are being...wait, let me get this right... deceptive and misleading by implying the existence of a material nonexistent fact?"

Here's an example of an implied existence of a material nonexistent fact:

Another example of the implied existence of a nonexistent fact is a statement in an advertisement that a lawyer is a founding member of a legal organization when the lawyer has just begun practicing law. Such a statement falsely implies that the lawyer has been practicing law longer than the lawyer actually has.

So young lawyers, don't be self starters. Don't "found" anything and advertise it to anyone. It's misleading, apparently.
You can say (even if it's not true) that you are:

aggressive, intelligent, creative, honest, or trustworthy.

You cannot say that you are:

"the best," "second to none," or "the finest."

You can use the words:

"goal," "dedicated," "mission," and "philosophy."

And your precious testimonials?

Testimonials by clients on these matters, as long as they are truthful and are based on the actual experience of the person giving the testimonial, are beneficial to prospective clients and are permissible.

Now let's talk about Potentially Misleading Advertisements. This is a pretty clear standard (there's still not a font for sarcasm?)

(1) advertisements that are subject to varying reasonable interpretations, 1 or more of which would be materially misleading when considered in the relevant context;

(2) advertisements that are literally accurate, but could reasonably mislead a prospective client regarding a material fact;

(3) references to a lawyer's membership in, or recognition by, an entity that purports to base such membership or recognition on a lawyer's ability or skill, unless the entity conferring such membership or recognition is generally recognized within the legal profession as being a bona fide organization that makes its selections based upon objective and uniformly applied criteria, and that includes among its members or those recognized a reasonable cross-section of the legal community the entity purports to cover.

Ok. I'm going to just move on from that one before my head explodes.

But before I do, just know that even if your ad is potentially misleading:

Clarifying Information.

A lawyer may use an advertisement that would otherwise be potentially misleading if the advertisement contains information or statements that adequately clarify the potentially misleading issue.

Now that we all understand Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements and Potentially Misleading Advertisements, let's talk about....

UNDULY MANIPULATIVE OR INTRUSIVE ADVERTISEMENTS
A lawyer may not engage in unduly manipulative or intrusive advertisements. An advertisement is unduly manipulative if it(and I'll summarize this:

images, sounds, videos, dramatizations, authority figures such as a judge or law enforcement officer, or an actor portraying an authority figure, voice or image of a celebrity, except that a lawyer may use the voice or image of a local announcer, disc jockey or radio personality who regularly records advertisements so long as the person recording the announcement does not endorse or offer a testimonial on behalf of the advertising lawyer or law firm... to mention a few.

This of course is my favorite part:

Notice of Compliance and Disciplinary Action.

A finding of compliance by The Florida Bar will be binding on The Florida Bar in a grievance proceeding unless the advertisement contains a misrepresentation that is not apparent from the face of the advertisement. The Florida Bar has a right to change its finding of compliance and in such circumstances must notify the lawyer of the finding of noncompliance, after which the lawyer may be subject to discipline for continuing to disseminate the advertisement.

I wonder what happens if the Bar files a complaint, the ad was found to be in compliance, and then after the complaint is filed the Bar revisits its finding? The word "after" seems ripe for litigation.Those of you who use those cheesy referral services need to read 4-7.22, and read it carefully - specifically section (b).

So there you go, easier, less cumbersome, or as Justice Canady said: I am persuaded that the proposed rules remain unduly restrictive.

I'm reminded of the time I was at a conference listening to the head of the Florida Bar Ethics Department talk about lawyer advertising. I asked why we couldn't just simplify the rules. The response: "why don't you help us do that?"

I wrote "4-8.4 - nothing false, misleading, or deceptive" on a napkin and handed it to her.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of Defending The Lawyer Before The State Bar

Some Thoughts For Online Wine Merchants - The Good, The Bad

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:18:00 +0000

Every so often I write about wine. Today is a good day to write about wine, because there's only one other thing to think about, one thing on the minds of all Americans, and I need a break from thinking about that for a few moments, even though I know there are over two-dozen families and a community in Connecticut that don't get the luxury of being able to take a break.

I'm not in the wine business, I don't sell or market wine or have a business interest in a vineyard. I'm what's called "the consumer."

And I know, I'm not the average consumer. For the most part, wine merchants and wine marketers target those that get excited about things that make me laugh. As a sommelier myself and avid collector, I lament the person walking the aisles of the local wine shop just looking at price, label, and how many points, or the person who sends me an email about a wine and says it "looks good" because it's cheap and highly rated.

I predict based on my unscientific observations that the best selling wine is "under $10 and 'smooth.'"

I want to talk to you - wine industry. I want to tell you some things about consumers like me. Some good, some bad.

Do what you want with this. My prediction is that you will do nothing because things are good and I'm an outlier.

But here goes:

THE BAD

1. I don't care that the wine is made by "the famed winemaker from _________________."

The grapes aren't the same. Wine starts with good grapes. I know that, and I know you know I know that, so stop emailing me that the wine is being made by the guy that made a good wine somewhere else. I don't care. Put it in a footnote, casually mention it, but stop using it as a headline.

2. Lot 18, stop emailing me whether I'm "sure I want to skip the (wine)?" It's stalky. If I want to buy it, I will. If you continue to stalk me, I won't, ever.

3. Please check cellartracker.com before telling me that Suckling gave it 96 points or that some unknown critic gave it 93 points.

You all know that cellartracker.com is used by people like me to see how a group of different people liked the wine. When you say it's 96 points and 17 people who know wine say it's an average of 87.7, you're done.

Would it kill you to note what cellartracker says, like CinderellaWine.com does?

4. Wines 'til Sold Out, I have no idea what the "WTSO Member Average" is. Sounds fishy.

5. Invino, your shipping costs are terrible.

6. Wine.com, you need to do more for your Steward Ship people.

Do you not see we buy more wine based on the yearly fee we pay for free shipping? Do you think we need more weekly emails telling us free shipping folks that you're running a special "one cent shipping" deal?

7. All of you, stop discounting wine to the price for which it normally sells.

Only idiots don't know that Caymus is about $60. When you sell it for $79 and discount it, you're being disingenuous.

8. Wine Cellarage, you get dumbest move of the year.

You promoted free shipping to people within three surrounding states to those who bought $500 of wine? Everyone else gets nothing? Unsubscribe, goodbye.

9. Get your inventory together.

Whatever it costs you, tell me immediately that you don't have the wine, or don't have a case. Don't call me three days later and give me the bad news. Additionally, and I'm talking to you Wine Exchange, another place I'm done with, don't promote a wine you don't have from a distributor you don't know, because when you don't get it and you have more excuses than answers, you lose a customer.

10. Winery notes are meaningless.

Tell me what you think of the wine as a merchant. Tell me a story about the wine, how you got it, why I should buy it. I'm not buying it because it you tell me what the winery says about how the grapes were planted or the weather. Be more like Dan Posner or Jon Rimmerman (if anyone can write as much as Jon or Nicki).

11. Stop sending me a box of wine.

I will never understand why I receive boxes of wine with nothing but packing and bottles. Wineries are usually exempt from this stupidity as they will include tasting notes, and Wine.com goes as far as including a coupon for a future purchase.

But I do not understand why the rest of you include nothing? Would a handwritten note of "thanks" kill you? One time I got a note saying I looked you up and see you're a lawyer, my wife's a lawyer too." Silly little note, but it said something about the merchant. If I bought a Napa Cab don't you want to tell me that if I like it, you have another one that I may like as well? Do you not have a corkscrew with your company name on it, a hat, something? Sending boxes of wine with nothing in them is like saying "here." Silly customer retention policy. You're not the only wine retailer - you know that, right?

THE GOOD

1. Invino.com, as much as your shipping costs piss me off, I like you telling me that a wine I previously purchased is back in stock. Good move.

2. Wine.com, I noticed that very, very, very, late in the year you started offering specials to Steward Ship members - like an extra day of discounts. Nice gesture.

3. Totalwine.com, good program of buying and picking up wine at any store, but you need to promote it more as a gift idea. It's a great gift to tell someone to go by their local Total Wine because there's a gift waiting for them. It gets someone in the store that may not have visited and gives the gift giver a way of getting a bottle of wine in the hands of someone on the same day.

4. Cellartracker.com, I love the new site design.

Love to hear any thoughts you have on the state of wine merchants. Maybe I missed some good, or bad things, and maybe I need to know about some others out there that take care of their customers.

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.

Where are the Marketers And Tech Hacks On Instagram Leaving Twitter, For Lawyers

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:32:00 +0000

As any lawyer who spends any time on the internet knows, there is nothing that happens for which some lawyer marketer or tech hack misses the opportunity to write about how it will affect lawyers. All new electronic devices, all new social networks, and generally anything new that garners attention of more than 35 people, comes with the drumbeat of those hopeful for a few lawyer bucks, that it will have an effect on lawyers. It just will. Just watch. Keep watching.

Don't believe me?

iPad for Lawyers

iPhone for Lawyers

Android for Lawyers

Blackberry for Lawyers

Facebook for Lawyers

twitter for Lawyers

LinkedIn for Lawyers

How Lawyers Can Use Halloween To Get New Business

How Lawyers Would Botch the Zombie Apocalypse

See, there's nothing that can't be related to lawyers.

So over the last couple days I wondered why there was no sounding of the lawyer marketing/tech hack alarm that twitter is no longer allowing Instagram pictures to automatically post.

I know, I know, you're thinking, "what's Instagram?" Well, if that's your question, you are probably not really a lawyer, or even doing anything that doesn't involve making collect calls from a correctional facility. Instagram is very important. It's important because many people use it and say it's important.

Instagram is a program to take and post pictures on the internet. You can also share them and have people share their pictures. You can also follow people and people can follow you. If you are a lawyer, you want people sharing and following. Share, and follow. Just do it.

If you are not taking and posting pictures on the internet, you seriously need help, especially if you're a lawyer. Because Instagram is a social networking site and lawyers who do not participate in social networking sites are missing out. Just trust the marketers on this. If they weren't right, they wouldn't have shut down their law practice to spend their days convincing you that they are right.

Anyway, before today, or yesterday, or whenever, you could take a picture with Instagram, put it up on twitter, and the picture would automatically appear on your status update.

That doesn't happen anymore. Now there is a link, but you have to click on it to see the picture.

Here's more of the awful details:

It used to be that when an Instagram user took a photo and then shared it with Twitter, that photo would show up in the Twitter user's tweet on Twitter.com and Twitter's various apps.

Then, last week, Instagram crippled this feature, only allowing Twitter to display cropped photos.
Today, Instagram seems to have turned this feature off.

(Instagram users can still share their photos to Twitter, but now other users have to click a link in a tweet to see the photo.) Some users are whining about the change.

Whining?

How dare they call the emotions over the loss of a critical tech feature (for lawyers) "whining."

I know, as lawyers, you're thinking "what will happen to all my clients and my practice?" I'm scared too. What effect will twitter's dis of Instagram have on lawyers, and how we can save our livelihood?

The internet is already raging:

Loren Feldman, who is bald, and not a lawyer (but as everyone else on the internet, keenly interested in everything about lawyers), said this:

Omg no more Instagram photos. Shit just got serious. Man these are crazy confusing times we live in. Why must it be like this? Why?

Chris Taylor (@futureboy on twitter and deputy editor at Mashable) made the relevant point:

Clicked on an Instagram photo in Twitter and had to wait FIVE WHOLE SECONDS while it loaded the page. What is this, the Middle Ages?

I think Chris was being sarcastic, but as you know, sarcasm at a time like this is just bullying.

It's at a time like this when we need a hug, we need to be there for each other. The Atlantic Wire understands this - they have a three-step process entitled:

"How to Get Over the Twitter-Instagram War

on Photos."

So I ask, where are the marketers and tech hacks when we need them? How will we continue to practice law when we can't directly post pictures from Instagram to twitter?

Help us marketers and tech hacks.

Please.

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.

Meet Marc Romano Of Ignyte, Inc.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:21:00 +0000

Marc Romano of Ignyte, Inc, sent me an email:

Brian,

Regarding your piece on the future of law being a joke, I and several people who read your piece think that the biggest joke in law at least this week appears to be you. You seem pissed off at something. Everything OK at the office?

Frankly, I'm convinced that you don't know what your talking about and if you're so busy defending peoples rights, where do you find the time to write self serving pieces like this with the intention of degrading others who are delivering great value to the profession. You seem to have impressed a grand total of 23 people who hit the "like" button. Not so good.

In the future, you need to back up your claims with facts supported by credible third parties. The word of Brian and Brian alone simply does not cut it with intelligent people. Then again, maybe that's not your audience.

I have limited time here. I have seven law firms that we're rebranding and several holiday parties to attend in the evening by past clients who simply want to thank us for putting them on a positive path. They are all thriving and focused on the future of their firms as opposed to Brian who is desperately defending the past.

By the way, starting your day at 9:15 is a bit 20th century and not indicative of a very busy schedule. We start our days at 7. We're pretty jammed up.

Kind regards,

Marc Romano
President
ignyte Inc.
Get ahead. Stay ahead.

marc@ignyte.ms / www.ignyte.ms / mobile: 1 + 585 469 2132 / www.linkedin.com/in/ignyte

Here's more about Marc:

Judgment against Ignyte, Inc.

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.

Got 5 Bucks? I Got A Lawyer For You

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:52:00 +0000

Fiverr is a Groupon-type site that offers "The world's largest marketplace for small services, starting at $5."

Some interesting offers I found:

I will professionally write a song or jingle for your website, celebration or event for $5.

I will draw your favorite animated character for $5.

and my personal favorite:

I will put message on my eyelid under my eye or on my lips for $5.

Then there's this:

I will give you expert legal advice on almost ANY subject. Tips for asking questions, be specific and leave out any personally identifiable information. Limit your question to 1 legal issue, ask questions don't tell stories or crimes. Disclaimer; I do not represent clients but I do provide legal advice. The information that is provided is solely for educational and informational purposes, and do not constitute legal advice. While I may on occasion suggest or respond to hypothetical fact situations, your situation may differ in important respects from these scenarios, perhaps in ways that are not apparent, and in some instances my response may be affected by pedagogical, jurisdictional, or other factors that also affect its potential applicability to your situation. Please understand that NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS FORMED BY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME, AND PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

So to review:

For $5 (from I have no idea who), you get:

1. Expert legal advice.

2. Apparently from a lawyer who "does not represent clients" but does " provide legal advice." (insert laugh from all 50 state bar associations.)

3. This expert legal advice is solely for educational and informational purposes but DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE.

4. This expert legal advice, solely for educational and informational purposes that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE may be "on occasion" nothing more than to "suggest or respond to hypothetical fact situations."

5. In some instances the response, which is expert legal advice solely for educational and informational purposes but DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE "may be affected by pedagogical, jurisdictional, or other factors that also affect its potential applicability to your situation."

6. And finally, Please understand that NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS FORMED BY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME, AND PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION when you are seeking expert legal advice solely for educational and informational purposes that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE.

I don't know who this lawyer is, but he should be disbarred. Not for offering this to the public, but for the harm he has caused to the public by writing the above.

And I apologize to all the young lawyers who believe I'm just trying to stifle creativity in a world of desperate unemployed law school grads, but my advice is that if you have $5, get one of these:

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 Inspired Solo, Disbarred.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:45:00 +0000

For those new around here, or new to the wonderful world of lawyers selling their marketing skills on the internet, I'm what's known as a ~~bully, asshole, dinosaur, buzz kill, cog in the wheel of attempts to peddle garbage~~, guy who exposes the sewer that is the world of lawyer marketing on the internet.

In order for any of this to make sense, some history is important.

When I first started talking with people on twitter, one night I received what is called a "direct message." That's a private message between two people. The message asked if I knew the person I was publicly talking with was disbarred? Disbarred? No, of course not. In fact, the person's bio said that he left the practice of law because he was so interested in teaching lawyers how to blog. Why would anyone blatantly lie about why they left the practice - why not just say "I no longer practice?"

After reading the disbarment order, I wondered why any lawyer would hire someone with this background to teach them how to do anything practice-related..

So I wrote about it.

Yeah, I know, defamation. I get threatened weekly, always by people that have never read the law of defamation. You have to have two things, a reputation, and damages. Usually both are a problem for these folks. Oh, and I what I say has to be false as well, that's always the problem for them. They don't like the truth, but it is, the truth.

It was then I realized that lawyers don't ask questions to anyone that claims to be able to make them money. Apparently, no one knew about this, or those who knew weren't willing to say anything. He was on his way to being a faculty member of Solo Practice University and then apparently the CEO who like Taylor Swift said she never ever ever ever knew about it, got the news....and well, that was that.

I confirmed this with a lawyer-marketer I know. Lawyers don't ask the hard questions like "why don't you practice anymore?" Or: "How many clients have you brought in to your law practice with social media?"

And then I found more of them - people who were a little free with their bios. Some I found, others found me through other lawyers passing it along - too afraid to mention it themselves. Some reaction was fascinating - lawyers telling me they didn't need me to write about the scum of the profession as they needed no protection. You know, like the protection lawyers don't need from Nigerian e-mail scams? (most victims are lawyers.)

Once I found a lawyer still trolling for business on the internet, even though she was facing charges of mortgage fraud (to which she pled guilty) and was disbarred. When I asked her why she was doing that she asked me if I would leave my partner hanging if that happened to me? You know, her law partner needed to make some money (and why did I have to ruin everything?) She now calls herself a "real estate law...rockstar," and uses only a part of her name, as the complete name brings up things that maybe her new friends in her new world don't know.

The internet is omnipresent, but a great place to hide.

Well when that issue came up of the lawyer facing mortgage fraud charges, The Inspired Solo chimed in, Sheryl Sisk Schelin. Her blog is gone now, as is her law license.

We'll get back to that in a minute - the law license part.

Sheryl called me a bully. I of course had never heard of her, so I did a quick Google search and discovered her law license was suspended in what's called an "interim suspension." The order says it's for failure to complete CLE requirements.

Sheryl said she had a health issue. Maybe that's why she didn't complete her CLE.

But then Sheryl was disbarred.

Matter I

Respondent was retained by ten clients to file bankruptcy actions on their behalf. Respondent accepted payments from the clients, including, in many cases, court filing fees, in excess of $15,000, but failed to perform any meaningful work on the cases or to diligently represent the clients and pursue their actions. Indeed, respondent never actually filed a bankruptcy action on behalf of any of the clients. Respondent failed to respond to telephone calls and emails from clients and failed to keep them reasonably informed of the status of their cases. Respondent also failed to refund to the clients that portion of the fees and costs that was not yet earned or incurred because respondent had converted the funds for her personal use. Finally, respondent failed to return the clients' documents and other materials in their files.

Matter II

A client endorsed and returned to respondent a settlement check in the amount of $2,000. Respondent cashed the check but failed to disburse any proceeds to the client. Respondent also failed to communicate with the client about the status of the settlement proceeds or about the client's pending case.

Matter III

On July 10, 2008, respondent was retained to represent a client in a civil action. Respondent agreed to represent the client on a contingency basis in addition to a $1,000 fee. The client also paid respondent $350 for filing fees. Respondent failed to keep the client informed regarding the status of her case and failed to respond to the client's emails, faxes, text messages or telephone calls. Respondent informed the client that an additional $1,200 to $1,500 may be required for personal service. The client requested a written explanation of the additional fees. However, respondent failed to send the client a letter of explanation regarding the additional fees. Respondent failed to refund the client that portion of her fees and costs that was not yet earned or incurred because respondent had converted the funds for her personal use. Respondent failed to diligently represent the client in the civil action.

Matter IV

Respondent was paid $500 by a client to represent the client in a wrongful termination action. Thereafter, respondent informed the client that due to the loss of respondent's electronically-stored information, respondent may have miscalculated the filing date for one of the client's statutory claims. Respondent also informed the client that due to the miscalculation error, respondent would represent the client free of charge and pay all costs of litigation. However, respondent failed to file any actions on respondent's behalf regarding the wrongful termination claim. She also failed to refund the $500 retainer fee, as she had agreed to do. Respondent failed to diligently represent the client in the action and failed to perform any meaningful work on the case. Respondent also failed to timely respond to the client's telephone calls and faxes and failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the case.

Failure to Respond

Respondent was served with notices of full investigation in each of these matters, but failed to respond or otherwise communicate with ODC in response to the notices.

Did you buy her "Twitter for Lawyers" book? Did you buy her advice, her consulting services? Did you want to be an "Inspired Solo?" Did you look all wide-eyed like you do when you watch those people on infomercials sitting on beaches in exotic places with the waves crashing behind them?

Have you ever asked that former lawyer turned social media marketing expert about their law practice - about their former law practice? Is the prospect of money that enticing that you just don't want to know the truth about what's behind the great and powerful Oz?

I do hope that Sheryl's health issues are resolved, although it doesn't appear the South Carolina Bar disbarred her for that reason.

I know this because I spent 5 seconds typing in to a keyboard.

And now you know.

Do you care?

Will it affect the way you approach these former lawyers turned "I can make you money" marketers?"

Eh.

What A Marketer Hears When They Get Me On The Phone

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:18:00 +0000

I don't know how Scott from Yodle got my cell phone number. I really don't care either. I have a cell phone, it has a number, and that number has been provided to a lot of people. Spending time on worrying about how he got it is for those same people whose heads explode whenever they get an unsolicited email.

So I was driving home yesterday from a meeting in Orlando and a Miami phone number popped up. I answer these unknown calls about 50% of the time, and I figured, why not.

Unfortunately, my answers didn't fit Scott's script:

"Hi is this Brian?

"Yes."

This is Scott from Yodlelaw."

(Smirk, and then...)

Silence

"So Brian, have you heard of us?"

"Yes."

"Well then you know we work with lawyers, including criminal defense lawyers.

"Yes."

"I'd like to know whether you are taking on any new clients?"

"No."

"No? Well, is that because you're filled up and can't take on anymore?"

"Yes."

"So you're not interested in more business right now?"

"No."

"Well, that's great, sounds like you're doing very well. Let me ask you so if someone called you for a DUI case you wouldn't take it right now, you'd refer it to another lawyer?"

"Yes."

"Wow, sounds like you are very successful, is there another practice area you're looking to build where you would be interested in more clients?"

"No."

"So the lawyers you refer cases to, can you give me the name of one of those lawyers?"

"No."

"Brian, it sounds like you're on the road, is there a better time to reach you?"

"No."

"Um, OK, well...thank you for your time."

"OK."

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.

Finally, A Marketing Company You Should Hire

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:23:00 +0000

One of the things I hear from fellow lawyers all the time is that I don't need to write about the people that have no business selling advice to lawyers, because according to them, no one is stupid enough to hire them, except all the firms that do.

Well now here comes a company that is everything lawyers should look for in a marketing company.

I give you... huhcorp.com

Their motto, sorry, tagline: "We do stuff."

Welcome to the world's most dynamic eBusiness marketing, design and consulting agency. We provide distinct clients with groundbreaking business strategies and cutting-edge designs to aggressively and creatively compete in a changing economy.

Our consulting ideas will entice and excite you. Our professional design solutions will give you the confidence to succeed. And our web site will make you think we know what we're doing.

And they have a strategy for those desperate lawyers thinking that there were only a couple of lying pieces of shit out there selling you on the dream:

Our main consulting strategy is to convince clients that we do stuff they can't do themselves, and that we deserve lots of money for it. The best way to do this is to always look good, and always sound like we know something you don't. Because we do.

Are you confused yet? Of course you are. And that's just how we like it. Our marketing professionals are constantly coming up with new ways to make you feel inferior and stupid. Because you are. And we're not. We're new-age, eMoving, marketing consultants.

And while I'm always wondering why my lawyer guru friends don't happen to talk about their vast list of imaginary clients, huhcorp entices you:

Our marketing and consultant clients are numerous and prestigious. Far too numerous and prestigious to name, in fact. You'll just have to take our word on this. There are a lot of them. And they're all really big, successful companies. All of our clients are very powerful and have lots and lots of money. That's why we charge so much for our design and marketing services. Because we can.

Our clients are always satisfied with our service. If you knew who any of them were, you could confirm this for yourself, but, since you don't, you'll just have to take our word on this one too.

This is the real deal people. But don't trust me, call for yourself.

As my critics out there say - I don't need to tell you.

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.

Turkewitz & The Southern Belle: Listen Up Young Lawyers

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:29:00 +0000

One thing about lawyers, is that they have found a way to use the internet, to use everything about the internet, to try and make money. There is no shortage of "how to make money" articles regarding every single new website and social media platform out there. Former 8 month practitioners are ready to sell you the secrets of social media and formerly practicing lawyers are making sure you know everything the iPhone and iPad cam do for you, as a lawyer of course.

Every so often, real lawyers looking to build or improve their real practices, can find real advice to use in representing real clients.

Like the two I found today, for example:

Eric Turkewitz, of "outsource your marketing, outsource your ethics" fame, writes some advice for new lawyers. Be forewarned, there is no advice regarding your internet presence, your use of a shiny electronic advice, or musings on the future of law that have no basis in fact.

While Eric has some misguided notion about proper footware, he provides the following sage advice:

Find a good mentor.

Let me elaborate.

Find someone who has been practicing law for a while. A mentor is not someone you buy, not someone who designs websites or sells you advice regarding SEO or "keywords." A mentor is someone you call, have a meal with, and generally ask advice of because you want to be better at lawyering, or you don't want to make things worse.

Eric adds something you'll not see from most of those "former lawyers" selling practice-by-point-and-click:

I write from experience.

Did you hear that? He writes from experience. Now go ask your social media guru or iPad licker whether they "write from experience." Don't hit yourself too hard when you get something that sounds like someone wants to avoid the question.

Eric is a good read, a good guy, but unfortunately for the kids, doesn't play well with the cheesy marketers out there. If you want to be a good lawyer with a respectable practice, Eric is a good guy to follow. If you're looking to pretend you're a good lawyer, go elsewhere.

And let me welcome the Southern Belle to the blawgosphere.

I hope this blog will accurately (and entertainingly) chronicle my forthcoming adventures in indigent defense. I’ve wanted to be a public defender for a long time. I actually went to law school for that express purpose. So, as you can imagine, I’m beyond excited to begin this journey.

Notice anything? No mention of the internet, or a shiny toy? Some more bad news for you hucksters out there - appears Ms. Belle isn't following a single one of you on twitter. Her only interest seems to be real lawyers with real practices. Sorry. Those of you selling the dream of "success by Google and things with power switches" will have to find some other sucker to which to peddle your wears.

While I don't agree Ms. Belle has to be anonymous for "ethical" reasons, I look forward to reading about her experiences as a newly minted public defender.

So take a gander, read these posts. Be happy there's still a few real lawyers looking to talk about the real meaning of being a lawyer.

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.

Richard P. Console Would Like To Post An Article On Your Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:28:00 +0000

For bloggers, this scenario is a big "yawn."

Email comes in from someone who appears to be perky young female all all smitten about your blog. Sweetie hasn't really read it, but will claim to have done so. What sweetie knows is that other people read it and she is pimping for a lawyer that wants to be read. That the topic of your blog has nothing to do with what her client wants attention for is of no matter.

And so yesterday, for the 58904th time, the email came, although this one was a bit different:

-------- Original message --------
Subject: Good Afternoon
From: Emily Kreifels
To: Brian Tannebaum

Good Afternoon

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my email. I am writing to you on behalf of Console & Hollawell PC, we are an personal injury firm from Southern New Jersey.

Your blog, http://mylawlicense.blogspot.com/, was recently recommended to me and since then, I have enjoyed reading the articles that you have published, they are entertaining and have become one of my favorite parts of the day.

With that being said, I was wondering if you might be interested in discussing a guest blog post from my law firm to your site. Our attorney, Mr. Richard P. Console Jr, would really love to put something together for your readers about medical malpractice.

Please let me know what you think of this idea, I’d love to discuss it in more detail with you.

EMILY KREIFELS / Internet Marketing Specialist / Console | Hollawell P.C.

e: ekreifels@consoleandhollawell.com t: 866.778.5500 f: 856.778.1918

525 Route 73 North, Suite 117. Marlton, NJ, 08053

Very nice, sweet stuff. Richard P. Console would love to put something together for my blog? Really? Richard P. Console has never heard of me, or my blog. Richard would love for you to continue trying to get him internet attention, and do that however you do that.

I was going to ask her to name the last 5 posts she read here, or how her clients feel about her opinion that my anti-cheesy marketing posts are her "favorite part of the day," but I didn't want to be mean in my response:

On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:39 PM, "Brian Tannebaum" wrote:

So this is your job? Sending emails to lawyer bloggers trying to get guest posts for your client? Does he have his own blog? What's the address? Why would I want an article on medical malpractice on a legal ethics blog, other than that your client wants a place to pimp his practice?

Pretty pathetic.

Brian Tannebaum

And as internet marketers love to engage in discussions when they sense criticism, she responded:

I'm sorry if I upset you.

I won't contact you again.

I asked:

Why don't you not contact any lawyers again? Why don't you tell your client to write his own blog instead of trying to glom off of other bloggers? Tell him its a dumb idea.

Brian Tannebaum

No response. Emily wont. It's her job. Richard P. Console wants attention on the internet and if people aren't going to read his stories of death and accidents on his blog and hire him, then the next best thing is to find other lawyer's blogs and invite himself to the party through Emily.

I'm not a big "invite yourself to the party" guy. I like to be invited. I often turn down the invitation, as I don't even have time to blog here as much as I'd like. But when lawyers want and need attention, they just ask for it, or have others ask for them. Attention isn't something that people pay on their own anymore through good work and referrals, it's something we lawyers for which we lawyers prostitute ourselves, apparently.

The internet is a wonderful and horrible place. Lawyers have turned it in to a sewer. Lawyers have shown themselves to always be the first to discuss how something new on the internet can help them "make money as a lawyer." We are in everyone's face on the internet, discussing how every new website can help us get clients. We embarrass ourselves. Whole perceived careers have been faked by people claiming they can help lawyers make money on the internet by typing and posting.

Richard P. Console has an internet marketer inviting him to other people's blogs. Why does he want to write for your blog? Why does he want to write for your blog that has nothing to do with his practice? Why does he blog?

Because I am a nice guy, I will help Richard P. Console.

Richard P. Console would like to write for your blog so that he can get more attention on the internet. He wants other bloggers to give him attention so that he can get clients. As a friendly, giving type, I want to help Richard P. Console get clients, and I hope his presence on my blog helps.

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.

Selling Solo Practice

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:55:00 +0000

Solo Practice "University" (SPU) queen Susan Cartier Liebel is "grumpy" that a law firm is offering $10,000 as a salary for a lawyer.

Susan asks:

Has the legal market become so bad that lawyers are actually considering taking a 'full-time associates' position which pays $192.30 a week….before taxes?

Um, Susan, I assume since you sell the dream of solo practice to young desperate lawyers you are aware that many of them can't get a job, anywhere, for any amount of money.

And here comes the ~~sales pitch~~ commentary on the low-paying job:

I once heard someone say that most people are not afraid of failure so much as they are afraid of success. At first blush I'm sure many of you are shaking your head and saying, 'hell no. I want to be successful. No doubt in mind. I just need the opportunity and I'm there.'

Success, opportunity, oh dear, wherever can I find this success and opportunity?

That's really what we do think. We want to be successful. We also fantasize about everything we will do with that success (which usually means having a certain amount of money to buy those things symbolizing our success – whatever that is. Maybe food?)

Success, fantasize, money, tell me more.....help me....

But most people are not trained on how to achieve success. We are trained to want and we are trained to be employees and travel a well-worn path to get 'somewhere' known and seemingly safe. And for some this is exactly what is wanted, to follow a well-worn path with guideposts and guaranteed results. It's also why in practically every industry and profession people are panicked because the well-worn paths are no longer leading to success but to no place even resembling the mythical land of promised success.

Training...wanting.....panicked....mythical land of promised success.... I can't take it anymore...tell me how to make money, to be successful, to have........

That is why I had to comment on the latest buzz which is about a legal job posting on Boston College of Law's job site for full-time law associates paying $10,000 per year.

That is why? What is why? Oh, here it is....drumroll......

We are so ingrained to believe employment by another is the answer that we don't realize (nor are we told) there are other ways!

Yes! There are other ways! Is it...is it going solo? Can you help me Susan?

Now Susan wants "to be fair" about this $10,000 job, so here's the whole story:

In addition to $10K per year, the Gilbert & O’Bryan job posting also notes: 'This is an excellent position for a new lawyer or someone returning to a legal career, and a good place to learn how to practice law with real clients. … Benefits include malpractice insurance, health insurance, employer paid clothing allowance and an MBTA pass. Former employees have gone on to prominence in other firms, government and private practice.'”

Learn how to practice law with real clients? Health insurance? Clothes? Transportation? Don't you get that all when you sign up for SPU?

Susan still doesn't like it: "I'm deeply offended by the law firm who doesn't respect fellow lawyers enough to offer a living wage."

You see, the less firms out there offering jobs, offering anything, the more desperate young lawyers become, and the more desperate they become, the more willing they are to jump on the internet and pay for advice.

SPU is a website that sells courses to lawyers that want to go out on their own. They've had "professors" teaching things like blogging for profit (Former Professor Grant Griffiths who was disbarred for taking money from a trust set up for children prior to taking his new gig at SPU), and adoption (taught by a lawyer later arrested in a baby selling scam)

Susan's also been generous enough to give a forum to a young lawyer whose ethics were under the microscope for silly things like not having an office where she practices.

Jobs at law firms are bad things to SPU, as they cause lawyers to decide between buying advice on the internet, or learning to practice with real lawyers.

Susan has good news though about going out on your own, and I'm sure she'll put this in writing for you when you sign up for SPU:

"I'll wager you'll earn more than $192.30 per week before taxes. And you'll certainly get a lot more 'experience' putting your degree to use on your terms without losing your dignity."

Yeah, I wonder how? maybe by...charging less than other lawyers? That's OK, right? It's just not OK for a law firm do to the same thing when offering a job.

"On your terms," isn't that what all young lawyers yearn for - doing what they want, how they want. Of course there's no examples anywhere on how that could be a collosal mistake, or at least when we're selling advice on the web we quietly avoid mentioning it.

Gotta protect your business.

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.

Blogging The Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Hearings: Now I'm Confused

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 21 May 2012 13:31:00 +0000

Like any lawyer after a long period of time practicing in front of the same court or board, I left this weekend's hearings with a sense of confusion. I thought I understood this process. Maybe I do, but I'm not sure.

The purpose, in my opinion, of bar admission hearings are two fold: One is to ask questions relating to issues of character and fitness, the other is what I call "legalized hazing."

When someone is appointed to the Board of Bar Examiners, they go through some training. Some Board members stick to the script, while others just want to get to the point and determine whether the applicant should be admitted. I don't know what that training entails, but if I had to guess, I would guess the following is taught (it isn't, but it just looks this way from the other side of the table):

1. Make the applicant uncomfortable.

Regardless of their answer to a question, respond with "I'm confused," or "I thought you said before, that...." This is interrogation 101. Make the person being questioned second guess what they just said, even if you know they are telling the truth.

2. Even if you, as a lawyer on the Board, understand how something happened, (because you've been in that situation), pretend you don't.

This always entrigues me, this "I don't understand," when every lawyer who has practiced law for 5 minutes has had the same situation. I sit there and look around thinking "you know what happened here, it happens all the time." Some Board members do the "spoon feeding" thing and say "so what happened was....," while others continue with open ended questions appearing to have no idea what caused the situation to occur.

3. In an "us" vs. "them" mentality - ignore the lawyers who represent applicants.

I've been told this is not true, that members of the Board haven't been told "not" to talk to lawyers that appear before the Board, but "I'm confused" when the more senior members of the Board chat it up with us in the hallways and otherwise outside the hearing setting while the new members make it clear that saying "hello" or even making eye contact is a real problem. By the way, the applicants notice this, and it doesn't say much for the profession. What's funny is that when I'm in court and I see a judge off the bench, I usually say hello instead of turning my head.

4. Assume misinterpretations of questions are lies, lies, lies.

When an applicant says they answered a question because they thought the question said "this" instead of what the Bar Examiner "knows" to be the correct interpretation, what we have here is a difference of interpretations. Sure, some applicants are full of it and were just trying to pass one over on the Board, but let's assume that maybe there's a few that are just not as smart as the Bar Examiners and were just wrong. It is entirely possible that the applicant is not as smart in the nuances of the Bar application as the Board Member.

5. In another attempt to make the applicant uncomfortable, make faces that indicate you are just shocked, shocked, shocked at the answer you are hearing while becoming more aggressive in your questioning.

I was always told that in court, it's inappropriate to make faces. What are we teaching young lawyers?

For that matter, as another Bar Defense Lawyer said to me this weekend "these applicants go to hearings and think that this is the way lawyers behave."

That comment hit me. While the Board is not group of similarly minded, or similarly behaved people, when an applicant pays a fee, plus hires a lawyer, puts on a suit, travels to another city, and sits in a room with those that are judging whether they should be a lawyer - shouldn't they demonstrate lawyers at their best?

Listen, there's nothing wrong with a little in-your-face-talking-to at these hearings. Nothing wrong with scaring the crap out of a potential lawyer in an effort to let them know that this is a rough and tumble profession and certain behavior is not tolerated. But shouldn't there be a demonstration of the behavior that is expected from lawyers?

An applicant's lack of understanding of the question, or the issue that is trying to be created, doesn't always equate to a lie, and many Board members understand this. The purpose of these hearings should, should be to gather information and determine whether the applicant is being candid and whether both those issues establish a person with the character and fitness to be an attorney at law. There's an applicant blatently lying? Slam him. But some of them are being honest, I promise you that.

Which brings me to another issue of confusion: financial responsibility.

I always advise applicants that putting their financial house in order is essential to being admitted in Florida. This means either all debts are paid, there has been efforts to pay, or there is a payment plan. I have declined to represent applicants that have financial issues and have made no effort to resolve them. I know the Board will defer their admission until efforts are made to pay debt. The old "let me in to the Bar so I can make money and then I'll try to pay my debt" doesn't work.

The reasons for the financial issues are still fair game for the Board, as they need to know whether the applicant is responsible when it comes to their own, and more importantly, client funds.

But when there is a large debt, fully paid, and the Board eats the guy alive, casting irrelevance on the payment of the debt, it's more confusion for me. I saw this recently. This was the guy. In the sea of law students with crushing debt, unpaid taxes, maybe mortgage foreclosures, he was the one that paid off a large debt. Man was I excited. What an example.

But that he paid the debt was not even relevant, it seemed. They did all the things I've described above, and made it clear that they were just not believing anything he said about anything.

But the guy had a large debt, and he paid it, every penny.

So what do I tell my clients?

Of course I know what I will tell them in addition to everything else I tell them:

"Ignore the dirty looks and 'shocked' looks on their faces, don't be 'confused' by the 'I'm confused' method of responding to your answers, if you're lying, don't, but if you're not, don't let 'I thought you said' put you off-guard.

And, if you ever get the chance to apply for the Board of Bar Examiners, remember everything that happened when you were there."

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.

Meet Attorney Christopher J McCann's Webmaster, Nader

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:00 +0000

Got an email today:

Hi,

I was wondering if your site was open to guest bloggers.

My name is Nader and I’m the webmaster for cjmdefense.com. I would love to contribute an article to your site. The content is entirely unique and will not be posted anywhere else.

If this sounds interesting to you I'd love to hear back from you!

Sincerely,
Nader Ahmadnia

Bloggers get requests for guest posts all the time. It's part of the game. Let someone post on your blog (with a link of course) so they can inflate their own hits. It's the typical scumbag marketing tactic that dirtbag marketers like to use to help their clients raise their profile on Google.

I never allow guest posts from these pieces of shit. None of the "real" bloggers I know do either.

So I went to cjmdefense.com to see what it was all about. It's Christopher J. McCann's website. He has a blog, but there's not much going on there. He's a 12 year lawyer and has all the right things - nice photo, payment plans, free consultation, "call me directly," "commitment to personal service," all that good stuff.

I just wonder why Chris has hired someone to go find lawyers and try to sell himself on their blogs. Can't he send his own email, or "call directly?" Where's the "personal service" Chris. Chris?

I have a webmaster, he's the guy that I pay monthly to "host" my website. He's never offered to send out emails to other lawyers and bloggers and offer to guest post, and I've never thought of having him be a marketer for me. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. When I want to start a relationship with another lawyer, I usually call, or send my own email. Maybe I need to have my webmaster try and create fake relationships with other bloggers for me so I can be more popular on your computer monitor.

The goal of Chris McCann and his webmaster Nader is to leave a lasting impression with other lawyers and bloggers.

Chris McCann, you've definitely left a lasting impression with me.

Definitely.

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.

Womble Carlyle, Adrian Dayton, And Transparency

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:31:00 +0000

One of the benefits of the internet is that is allows people to say things and hope they go unchecked. One law firm makes this claim, one social media guru makes that claim, and although there are those mean people out there (ahem) that still believe honesty and transparency are important to the legal profession, there's enough kids out there failing to take a closer look in deference to the chance to say "congratulations" and hope to have someone thank them on some social media platform.

Womble Carlyle is a law firm. Adrian Dayton is a social media guru, who calls himself a "evangelist of social media for the legal profession."

Womble Carlyle just made the following announcement:

Womble Carlyle ranked #1 for social media outreach among law firms reviewed.

That's great. Awesome news.

Now let's ask some old school questions; who did the survey?

Social media guru Adrian Dayton studied and graded the social media programs of nearly 60 AmLaw 250 law firms. Womble Carlyle ranked #1 with 74 of 100 possible points. The runner-up firm scored a 56.

Great. If anyone should be doing a survey of law firms and how good they are at social media it surely should be the self anointed social media evangelist for law firms.

But there's something else. Adrian isn't just some social media guru doing an independent survey of law firms:

From the testimonial page of Adrian's website:

“After extensive discussions with Adrian about our firm’s social media strategy, we in client development management at Womble Carlyle decided to have him work with group of our top business development-oriented attorneys during the summer of 2010. We are definitely seeing results and have decided to reengage him to work with attorneys in specific practice groups during 2011. As an attorney and as an individual that is extremely knowledgeable about the field of social media, Adrian has been able to connect with both our senior attorneys and associates alike, helping them to see the potential of social media and build their personal brands. He offers an outsider’s perspective that greatly enhances the work we in client development do with attorneys each day. His experience working with large law firm attorneys sets him apart from his competitors and I highly recommend his services to other firms. On a personal note, I’ve attended several conferences with Adrian. He is a tremendous networker – he practices what he preaches and that more than anything has left a very favorable impression on me.” November 4, 2010

Aden Dauchess,Womble Carlyle

We'll get back to that in a minute...

One of the cornerstones of transparency, is being transparent. When the National Democratic Party says their candidate is winning a congressional race, the first question is "who did the poll?" If the answer is "The National Democratic Party," then we disregard it. If the poll was done by an independant media outlet or other private company on their own, we consider it relevant.

But here we're dealing with lawyers. Where's the transparency?

Did Adrian disclose on whatever results he provided that he was a client of the firm?

Did Womble disclose that they hired Adrian?

Or did both parties figure it didn't matter?

We live in an era where there's an award for getting an award. We congratulate people for being congratulated. We are lauded by our clients, and don't bother to acknowledge that some of us are lauded by our clients because we've asked them to be laudatory.

There are things called "client testimonials," and "peer reviews." The titles mean something. It matters what our peers say, and what our clients say, and it matters that we differentiate the two.

So congratulations Womble Carlyle, I'm glad your client Adrian Dayton, who you hired to help with your social media presence, thinks you're number 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.

Anonymous Commenting Legislation By Joe Lieberman?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:10:00 +0000

I'm not a fan of the sewage that is most anonymous comments. In my little part of the blogging world they come from lawyers, lawyers parading as cowards - afraid to express their thoughts unless protected by anonynimity. But I certainly don't support federal legislation controlling the sewage.

Senator Joe Lieberman does?

From DailyKos:

I've learned that Sen. Lieberman plans to introduce a bill this week to strip site owners of Section 230 protections for the posts of anonymous commenters.

(The text of the amendment is here.)

Lieberman's bill would end the Internet as we know it. By a simple change from "shall" to "may," Lieberman will empower a Republican-dominated federal judiciary to decide on whim and caprice which site owners are protected from liability their commenters' actions, and who faces potentially massive judgments.

Now I know the anonymous commenting union deeply supports their cause - that of saying whatever they want, regardless of truth, without recourse. The argument is always that anonymous commenting is important because it actually allows people to be honest without fear of retribution - like when they report something to the local police on their "tip" line.

The difference of course is that those anonymous tips don't usually involve false attacks on someone's reputation, nor do they live on the internet.

But this amendment is in the name of anti-terrorism, which allows legislation to pass, regardless of whether it's constitutional, right, or simply fair.

I've gone back and forth on the anonymous commenting thing - allowing it, not allowing it, allowing it when it's not simply one of my "fans" too afraid to say anything to my face and has an axe to grind. There is of course no First Amendment right to anonymous commenting (don't tell the anonymous commenters that), but using congressional power to further control the idiots on the internet is dangerous.

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.

Another No CLE Credit CLE Seminar On Twitter For Lawyers, By Non-Practicing Lawyers

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:10:00 +0000

Will it ever stop? Do we care that marketers are swarming all over the legal profession, dropping the red meat of "how to make money" and pretending that teaching us how to communicate with a keyboard is a science?

Oh, you just want to know where to send the $125?

Here.

It's yet another "Twitter for Lawyers" seminar. Not twitter for doctors, engineers, truck drivers or fruit stand owners - just lawyers. Us silly lawyers, unable to understand how to type on twitter, unable to go about our days with out learning how every single social media platform can make us money.

Now this tele-seminar is put on by ALI-ABA, which claims to provide "Continuing Leadership in Professional Education." This professional education though provides no continuing legal education credit. None.

Tweet tweet tweet.

Here's what you'll learn:

Twitter Basics: Setting up your profile and what to tweet

The Language of Twitter: Codes and shortcuts

Platform Choices: Twitter.com versus social media management tools

Twitter in Context: How Twitter supplements your web presence, and,

drum roll........

Twitter for Client Development

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Did you check out the faculty? Three people, none of them practice law. They can't tell you about the last legal client, or case they got through twitter last week, last month.

I know, you don't care. If they can give you the keys to new clients through twitter, you're pulling out the credit card.

Enjoy.

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.

No Rachel, It's Legal Advice, Regardless Of What You Call It

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:42:00 +0000

Recently, I was told I was the "laughing stock among us Gen Y Lawyers," supposedly by a Gen Y lawyer, although I don't know, as the comment was anonymous.

I don't know what a "Gen Y Lawyer" is. I also don't know what a "Gen X" lawyer is. While people grew up in both generations, and there are people that define the stereotypes of each - whether lazy, entitled, dependant on their parents for living expenses, unwilling to conform to anything remotely evidencing a standard law practice, or merely angry at the prior generation - there are those in each generation that don't fit the mold.

Rachel Rodgers, whom I've written about before, whom others have written about before, is still parading around the internet claiming to be the lawyer for Gen Y entrepreneurs. She's started Rachel Rodgers TV, and has provided legal advice - yes, Rachel, legal advice, on how to fill out legal documents to stay out of legal trouble.

Let me say that again:

Telling people how to fill out legal documents in a way that presumes to prevent legal issues, is legal advice.

I don't care what generation you come from, how successful you think your online law practice is, or how much you couldn't care less about ethics rules - giving advice on legal documents to avoid legal issues, is giving legal advice.

You Gen Y'ers may hate me, may think I'm "mean" and not understanding that you are the future of law, and I better get on board, but I need you to know that giving legal advice is giving legal advice even if you keep stepping all over yourself to claim it's not legal advice.

So Rachel has done her second edition of Rachel Rodgers TV. On this episode, although she doesn't begin with a shout out to her "party people," she shows a disclaimer. Then she gives legal advice (but it's not legal advice because she says it isn't.)

Now after the following video was posted, I was made aware a couple commented on the site that it was, in fact, legal advice. Those comments have not appeared - surprise surprise. I did see this appear, although I'm not sure it appeared after these more experienced lawyers that actually know what they are talking about, posted their still un-released comments:

[Dear viewer: I think its pretty obvious that this is general information, designed to be educational and not legal advice, and then Rachel keeps stepping all over herself to back track and stammer with: The business owner asked a much more specific question, and I have generalized it here. I am sure you know that I cannot speak to your specific situation and in no way guarantee that the information provided in this video will apply to your situation or would work for your business. Furthermore, this video does not create an attorney-client relationship (I am sure you know that, too),

The above doesn't change that the following, even with the video disclaimer, is legal advice:

So for those that worship Rachel, think that she is "all that" (for you Gen Y party people), understand that when a lawyer like Rachel gives legal advice, it's legal advice. I know, I know, I'm mean, I'm a bully, I "just don't understand." Rinse and repeat.

But you're wrong. Your parents may have never told you that you're wrong, but you are.

You're wrong.

Any client that takes her advice on this video and then has a problem, is damn sure going to say they did it because this lawyer on the internet told them to.

Is it worth it?

Well, from what I understand about the stereotypical Gen Y lawyer, getting on the internet is what's important. Rachel has said that ethics should not be used as a weapon against Gen Y.

So I'll put my weapon away, again.

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.

8 Years With Diabetes, 40 Days Without Insulin

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:14:00 +0000

Eight years ago, President's Day. Well, I wrote about it last year.

Diagnosed, medicated, let the roller coaster that is Type II Diabetes begin. More pills, less pills, insulin, more insulin, less insulin, and now, for almost 40 days, no insulin.

January 8 was the last day I injected myself with my daily dose of insulin. I embarked on a 21-day purification program that changed everything. While I've been off the program for several weeks now, my eating habits remain similar to when I was on the program - no bread, no processed foods, no late night eating, no big portions, exercise, every day, fish, chicken, vegetables.

Blood sugars are normal. Weight is down, way down.

Conventional wisdom is that Type II (as opposed to Type I where the body produces no insulin) can be controlled with diet and exercise. That's not always true. What's also not always true is that this is a progressive disease that cannot be reversed of controlled as the body changes.

There is no "cure" for diabetes, but there is control. There is the ability to change eating and exercise habits and rely more on the natural control of food and exercise than to just assume you must take more and more medication. Lose weight, exercise more (or start) and stop eating shit. Test throughout the day.

I hope to stay off insulin. If I can't, that's OK. I'm grateful it exists, as opposed to pre-1922 when people just died due to lack of insulin. It's not only mentally beneficial that I don't have to take it, it also saves me about $1,200 a year.

I've also started spending more time in the community. It's time for me to talk to newly diagnosed diabetics at the local hospital diabetes center about what their future holds, and I've been honored with an appointment to the Board of Directors of the Miami Chapter of the American Diabetes Association where I hope to make an impact in my home town.

If you have diabetes and feel an inability to get your head around it, I'm happy to talk to you. My experience is not something you should assume will work for you, but the notion that the only way to control it is through more and more medication is worth you debating with your own body.

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.

See Ya Greenfield

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:57:00 +0000

Scott Greenfield is done blogging at Simple Justice. You can all stop your guessing and "aw shucks, really?" He's done, It's over. Greenfield has a wicked sense of humor and wit but he would never waste his time faking his exit from the blogosphere. You're not worth it.

I know it's hard for you to understand why. You don't wake up at 4 a.m. daily and type intelligent explanatory prose on various legal happenings and the demise of our profession. You have a marketer for that, typing away about horrific accidents or terrible crimes, filled with links to your website in the hope that the phone will ring, in the hope that you'll create a fake reputation in time to pay the barista.

Blogging for profit is easy. Hire someone to do it, or write about yourself and your seemingly important work. Writing about the system and those that toil in it, trying to examine police behavior, judicial behavior, attorney strategy, takes thought.

And thought today is rare.

Greenfield pulled up every morning in his '78 Cadillac (because there was nothing wrong with it) next to the kids in the Smart Cars and those being dropped off by their parents, and spoke his mind. He was the grunting old man taking too long to order black coffee at Starbucks, holding the flip phone that can access the internet, but he doesn't know how.

He exposed the sewer that the marketers have made of the internet, and they paid him back with their cowardness by not typing one comment on his final post. They instead called each other in a celebratory mood, contemplating the future with one less "lawyer of the past" that would hurt their snake oil business.

Those fortunate to have an off-line relationship with the old man, were treated to intelligent conversation, sage advice, and and a guy who insisted on picking up the check. A gentleman. When I was installed as President of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, I asked Greenfield to speak. Instead of flying in and out, he came in, with his family, a couple days early, and stayed for and attended the entire conference. Mean guy that Greenfield.

Yes, Greenfield is part of the past. He still dons a suit and goes to court, he still has clients contact him by phone instead of Skype. No, he doesn't represent "start-up" type clients, his calls come from judges, lawyers, names of note. Greenfield built a reputation before any kid with a law degree (or not) could pretend she was a "rock star" on a computer monitor. To Greenfield, Elvis Presley was a rock star, Mick Jagger. Someone that has a cool website and retweets quotes on twitter, is not someone Greenfield would consider a rock star - because of course he's a dying breed.

At a minimum, Greenfield's departure leaves a huge hole in the criminal law blogosphere. The Happysphere group, those that never say anything of note because it would make people not like them, along with their brothers and sisters that type daily about shiny toys and how LinkedIn can make your dreams come true, all see a clearer path to writing nothing.

Sometimes things end. Five years blogging, as Greenfield said in his post, is an eternity. Those of you that blog for profit, or have someone do it for you, don't see this. You either don't write on your blog, or have no trouble writing about your greatness in law.

The man has a kid on his way to college, a wife he loves, a great practice, and this is just something he doesn't have the passion for anymore. He's probably tired of many of you and your lack of desire to do anything to remind him that this is a profession and not a marketing convention, and he's not going to continue if he can't do it the way he wants to do it. He's a crotchety old man.

But Greenfield will still be around. He'll still comment on your stupid blog, and he'll still make you look like an idiot on twitter.

There are many of you tech hacks and social media gurus that will claim Greenfield is an example of a lawyer that refused to "get on board." If he would just blog for profit he would continue.

Be careful. Be very careful.

You only wish you could afford, mentally and financially, to get on board Greenfield's train.

Greenfield was a blogger in the true sense - he wrote his thoughts, his analysis, and couldn't care less what anyone thought of it. It wasn't a marketing tool (although the marketers continued to bang their heads against his blog, claiming everyone blogs for profit.)

Yes, Greenfield will be around, he may write something here and there, but as a daily writer at Simple Justice, he's done. He had a good 5 years and now it's time to move on. He has nothing to prove to you, or himself. He is a lawyer that blogs, not the other way around. The difference to his practice now that he's not blogging every day will be zero. Really.

So I'll see you around Greenfield. You done good, and I thank you for keeping your shoe the necks of the lying, scamming, hucksters that are celebrating the end of Simple Justice today. Thanks for being important to Joel. Thanks for bringing to light corruption, terrible and great judicial decisions from far away places, noting the good journalists on the crime and civil rights beat, and being a daily reminder that there are still lawyers that don't see wearing shorts and typing at Starbucks while meeting clients as "the future of law."

Later Greenfield.

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.

Now They're "Masters Of Marketing," Says A Marketer

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:10:00 +0000

For the self-proclaimed "lawyer marketers," tweets, books, and consulting gigs are never enough to pay the rent (or half the hotel room when he goes to conferences and asks if anyone wants to stay with him.)

The marketers tweet ideas and posts of others, write posts on "what lawyers can learn from (any non-law story)," congratulate each other on being congratulated by other marketers, and write books that only the most desperate, moronic lawyers find relevant. ("Use my real name in social media? Wow!")

So what to do?

Have another marketer package you up as a Law Firm Marketing Master.

Yes, that's right, an Australian lawyer marketer has put together a group of 10 5 of your favorite social media stars and in late February, well, the whole thing will launch. Yes, you'll be able to buy their "secrets" to growing your practice.

I don't know who the other 5 will be, but there will be 10, even though there's 5 now.

When I first saw the link to the "Law Firm Marketing Masters," I figured that some national association had knighted these twitter rock stars and epic thought leaders as "masters." But no, they are masters by virtue of....another marketer.

We are bringing the World’s best law firm marketing experts straight to you. The Law Firm Marketing Masters Series offers you real-time tools, techniques and strategies to build an extraordinary law firm. The content ranges from how to build a winning culture, right through to how to integrate a successful online marketing campaign, through the smart use of blogs and social media tools. Learn what the leading rainmakers are doing today to drive exponential growth in difficult times. The Law Firm Marketing Masters series gives you over 7 hours of audio content, as well as the book with loads of other exclusive information and offers.
This is Exceptional Real-Time Content

Exceptional.

But leading rainmakers? These are marketers. Which one of the 10 5 are rainmakers?

We wouldn't expect anything less than exceptional from one of the "masters," Adrian Dayton.

From the site:

Adrian is an attorney, author and internationally recognized speaker and consultant to some of the largest and most respected firms in the World

You remember Adrian? He was fired after 8 months as a lawyer, wrote a book on how lawyers can type on twitter, then admitted to me that he puffed his resume to sell himself, and now has convinced several, as he calls them "large law firms" to hire him to teach them how to blog and tweet, and game Google.

None of these clients care how he got to where he is, in fact, they don't ask. I recently spoke with a lawyer marketer about how the scum of the industry get in the door of respected law firms and lawyers and was told "you have no idea - lawyers don't ask questions."

And the lawyer marketers thank God for that. There's no money in having to answer to your past, especially when so much of it is made up.

There's also Larry Bodine.

From the site:

Larry Bodine needs no introduction. Now, the Editor in Chief of Lawyers.com, Larry is the World’s most recognized law firm marketing expert.

Says who?

Another marketer.

Larry recently shuttered his lawyer marketing consulting shop to become "Editor In Chief" of Lawyers.com, whatever that means. Larry doesn't like me much, because I wondered aloud why a long-time marketer like him would want to associate with the likes of Adrian Dayton. Larry seemingly is a fan of "organic" marketing, you know, non-social media marketing? He had a voice that wasn't part of the merry mix of happy "make money by tweeting" clowns. That changed. Can't beam 'em? You know the drill. So as that changed. he of course also became a big fan of Adrian, and as I saw it happening, I started wondering when they would join ranks.

There's also who the site refers to as "Law Firm Marketing Special Guest" Ari Kaplan, who is described as "one of the World’s leading Thought Leaders."

The site doesn't say who is producing this marketing package, so I went on a little search. At the bottom right of the site there is a link to "Law Firm Marketing." Clicking the link got me here.

Then I went to "About," which led me here.

Scroll down a bit and found a link to Multi-Award Winning Lawyer and Change-Agent Dan Toombs.

And here he is. Dan Toombs founded "grow your practice" in 2010.

You can sign up now so that when the product goes on sale you will be notified. I don't know how much it will be or who the other 5 "masters" will be, but get on board, sign up now, and grow your practice with the "masters."

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.

Is The Florida Supreme Court Done With Reinstating Felons To The Bar?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:22:00 +0000

Here, the Board determined that no amount of rehabilitation would ever be sufficient to warrant readmitting Castro to the Bar. We agree.

Yesterday in a unanimous decision, the Florida Supreme Court told disbarred criminal defense lawyer William Castro he will never be admitted to the Bar. He can never reapply.

He wasn't told that when he was disbarred 18 years ago - he was told he was out for at least 10 years and then he could reapply. So in the last 18 years he's done about 13,000 hours of community service, adopted foster children, become a leader and mentor to people in our community, and displayed a serious commitment to rehabilitation.

It is clear that since his criminal conviction and disbarment, Castro has engaged in thousands of hours of community service, benefiting both his church and the legal community as a whole, in an effort to show his rehabilitation. While his commitment to community service is admirable, we agree with the Board’s conclusion that no demonstration of rehabilitation would ever suffice to allow Castro’s readmission to the legal profession.

That he had judges and lawyers speak for him at his reinstatement hearing doesn't tell the full story. Two of the judges that spoke for him are no nonsense former prosecutors. He also had a former Florida Supreme Court Justice, one of the most conservative while on the bench, encourage the Board of Bar Examiners to recommend readmission.

On the one hand, the conduct giving rise to this petition clearly undermines the public’s trust in the judicial system. On the other hand, as former Justice Raoul Cantero testified, William Castro’s case is ―one where [he has] seen more rehabilitation over a greater period of time than any other case.‖ Indeed, it was not just Raoul Cantero who testified on Castro’s behalf. Castro submitted letters from 190 individuals and presented many witnesses who testified in favor of his readmission to the Florida Bar, all setting forth specific examples of how he has demonstrated extraordinary conduct.

The Board declined. The reason? his prior conduct. He gave about $77,000 in kickbacks to a judge for appointing him to cases, 64 in total. A lot of cases, a lot of money. While there was no evidence he did anything less than a professional job for the clients, this type of conduct, resulting in a federal indictment and criminal conviction, strikes at the heart of our justice system. No argument there.

But they gave him a path. Out for a minimum of 10 years. He wasn't permanently disbarred (meaning no ability to reapply.) He was told there was a process - reapply and show by clear and convincing evidence that you've rehabilitated yourself and we'll consider it.

But did they?

The evidence established that Castro logged over 13,000 hours of community service during the past eighteen years—equivalent to an impressive 700 hours of service per year. He has volunteered for the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) program, where he has been described as a wonderful asset. The Senior Staff Attorney of the criminal court’s GAL program recounted several different cases on which Castro served. She believed that Castro’s efforts in one GAL case saved a child’s life and further described him as a relentless advocate and meticulous. Castro is also a licensed foster-care parent, and he and his wife later adopted each of the three children they had fostered. The judge who approved the adoptions described how she grew to admire and respect Willie and had no doubt that he would be a very positive member of the Bar.‖ Castro has led CLE seminars in which he has taken accountability for what he has done. One witness who previously worked with Castro in organizing a seminar involving ethics and the law stated that during the time she has known him, Castro made her want to be a better lawyer. Another witness testified as to his service to the community, and especially to children, describing him as a person that is just doing everything that he can to be able to give to people, to give of himself, of his time, of his talent, and to really make a difference in people’s lives. Further, Castro has organized programs for migrant children, and one witness testified that these migrant children wouldn’t have anything or much if it wasn’t for the efforts that Willie Castro had done. By all accounts, Castro has lived an exemplary life since his criminal charges, felony convictions, and prison sentence. Based on what I perceive to be overwhelming evidence of his rehabilitation, I would state that Castro has demonstrated all seven elements of rehabilitation required by Rule 3-13 of the Bar Admission Rules for admission when the applicant has previously engaged in disqualifying conduct

The conduct was what caused the 10 year disbarment. While it's relevant to why he was disbarred, if that is the reason he can't get back in, why give him an opportunity? Why let this man believe for all these years that there was a possibility?

I understand, that was then, the Court is now. Things change, minds change, Bar standards tighten, but if nothing this man did for the last 18 years matters to the Board or the Supreme Court, then the concept of redemption doesn't exist.

The issue for reinstatement is both what is disqualifying (disbarment) and whether there is sufficient evidence of rehabilitation. Castro beat the world on the second part - he had to - his conduct was criminal, and not just garden variety criminal, but the type that is at the heart of our profession.

But everyone knew that when they kicked him out, and they didn't tell him then - that no matter what he did - he was never getting in.

A few years ago there was a commission set up to review the Bar Admission process in Florida. Two issues that were recommend were 1. that no felons be eligible for admission, and 2. that all disbarments be permanent.

They didn't pass. On the felon issue, the Board of Bar Examiners wanted to retain their power to determine admission of convicted felons on a case by case basis. Remember that a felony is murder, rape, robbery, and in Florida, also a 3rd DUI, driving on a habitual drivers license suspension, and stealing anything over $300, to name a few. The point being that Florida has expanded its list of felonious conduct to things that may not necessarily be considered disqualifying for admission to the Bar. The Board didn't want a hard-and-fast rule.

But now we have the Castro decision, one that will cause other disbarred lawyers to wonder if their 5 year or 10 year disbarment is really that. One that will cause us to wonder whether the concept of rehabilitation for Bar admission is irrelevant for any convicted felon. One that causes me to ask whether it's more humane to tell a lawyer he has no future with the bar, at the time of his disbarment.

I just wonder if Castro wishes he would have been permanently disbarred.

He was, actually.

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 Marketer's Creed: Just Say Everything Applies To Lawyers

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:19:00 +0000

I just don't know where to start. This marketing to lawyers crowd has become a total joke, trying to be subtle about their goal to sell, sell, sell to lawyers with their overdone analogies to lawyers of every new shiny Apple device, new software, Steve Jobs death, a story having nothing to do with lawyers, any pop culture issue, any popular story, a celebrity in rehab, ANYTHING that they can pretend has some comparison to lawyers.

The economy is driving so many lawyers to abandon their goal of become better advocates in favor of become better marketers that anyone out there who will try to analogize any aspect of life to lawyers is seen as a genius.

Morons. All of them.

Every damn day some tech hack, failed lawyer, marketing moron, salesperson to desperate lawyers everywhere tweets, posts on Facebook, or yes, even blogs about how we lawyers and law students are to believe that there is nothing in life that doesn't apply to lawyers.

What applies most to lawyers? Whatever they are selling.

If you're a cloud computing evangelist, you talk about how everyone is talking about cloud computing for lawyers. If you sell twitter for a living, you talk about how 145% of all lawyers are hired through twitter. Sell blogs? Talk about how the latest news story having nothing to do with law means that all lawyers should blog.

And all in the name of selling a dream to lawyers.

Why doesn't everything apply to doctors, or pilots or teachers? Why is it that the entire marketing world seems to be converging on lawyers? Why is it that every aspect of life seems to the marketer to have some benefit to how lawyers can make money? There we are, lawyers at the forefront of taking every internet platform, every new shiny toy, every new piece of shit that is introduced into the market, and talking about how lawyers can use it to make money.

And we wonder why they hate us?

When will we see how the act of taking a shit applies to lawyers? Or driving down a road, or buying a hot dog?

I hear the iPad 3 is coming out in March. Know how it will affect lawyers or the practice of law?

It won't.

But someone, someone desperate for attention, actually many people desperate for not only attention, buy lawyer attention and lawyer dollars will tell you it does.

And we all sit back and comment on how "interesting," and "epic" the thoughts are.

They're not.

I'm tired of it.

Aren't you?

Probably not.

I can tell you though, this post, applies to lawyers.

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.

So This New Jennifer Smith from the WSJ Asks To Meet

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:52:00 +0000

One of the rules of the tech hacks, social media gurus, and other weaklings that fall victim to my being "mean" on the internet, is that you don't engage me. Never, ever, ever, respond to anything I say to or about you. It's bad for business. When you're trying to create a (false) image on the internet, rule #1 is to ignore me.

So not too long ago some Jennifer Smith person started at the Wall Street Journal. Proving my point that the notion "we all know about who Adrian Dayton really is and you don't need to keep reminding us," Jennifer wrote a piece quoting Adrian as if anything he says matters to anyone. I of course told her, on twitter, that she was ugly, dressed funny, and wore combat boots.

So defying the rules of social media, when Jennifer found out we would be in New Orleans at the same time (her at the ABA, me, well, not at the ABA) she emailed me and asked to meet.

I know, you're thinking "why?"

Don't worry your little head about it.

So I took a stroll to her ABA hotel, figuring we'd sit at the bar while ABA types asked "what are you doing here" (not to her, to me). She wanted to get out of there. She had enough of 3 piece suits and 29 year old BigLaw associates and terms like "Tier 1," "bonus" and "partner."

Yeah, she wanted to go to a noisy bar with a defense lawyer from Florida that went to a school of which she never heard.

And she wanted to talk about the future of law.

Now don't get excited, it wasn't your future - you know, shorts, Starbucks, iPads, virtual clients with virtual problems, no more law offices, no more suits, no more advocacy. The term "Starbucks lawyer" did roll off her tongue as if it has been part of the dialect for years, causing me to call the waitress over for another round.

This Columbia Journalism grad and former Newsday reporter has a fascination with the profession, where it's been, and where it's going. She knows all about Dropbox if that makes you feel better. Doesn't interest her so much as does the issues of the difference between buying a document and hiring a lawyer. What's interesting about Jennifer, besides that she's a much better conversation then that Ashby Jones, is that she's interested. Lawyers know that many reporters are phoning it in, writing without passion or perspective about that which they observe. Lawyers know, they-re the reporters standing outside of court asking us "what just happened in there?"

Jennifer seems to know "what just happened," and she's interested to know what's now going to happen. It's not everyday a young reporter asks me "you have any good questions I should ask David Boies and Ted Olson tomorrow when I interview them?"

So if the phone rings or you see an email or errant tweet from Ms. Smith, respond. Intelligent conversation is hard to come by these days.

I walked Jennifer back to ABA central, scanned the lobby of suits and considered stepping in to the bar to see if any interesting conversation was going on.

"You should get out of here," she said.

Yeah. She knows me already.

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.

Except He Wasn't A Lawyer, And You Said Nothing

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Tannebaum) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:08:00 +0000

There will be no links to him here, the moronic, career-suicidal law student that in 2012 called himself a "lawyer" on his twitter bio. It's over, he's deleted his account. He's gone. He's let me know privately he now understands what he was doing, what he was possibly doing, and in a moment of maturity - he said "thank you."

Yes, I was the twitter police, again.

Yeah, you remember, the lawyer-turned convicted felon who was still soliciting business on twitter, pretending to still be practicing?

And so last night someone tells me about a young law student who claims to be a "lawyer" on twitter. The typical "happysphere" lawyers, who see confrontation as a "friend" and "follower" killer, a dead end to social media rock stardom, sat back and enjoyed the show - apparently for days, weeks.

But as one happysphere lawyer told a "rookie lawyer" that inquired about me: I'm mean.

After asking the law student whether he considered who may see his twitter-feed (his law school Dean, the Bar), he claimed it to be entertainment. After I asked who may be entertained, he contiued to explain. I explained that explaining this was only creating a "paper" trail, and suggested he get the hell off twitter.

So he did.

Yes, I "bullied" him off twitter.

Except he didn't see it that way.

It was just some of the lawyers on twitter that did.

You said nothing. You thought it was funny.

I, Mr. Mean, decided to help a brother out.

Because I'm mean.

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.