Much ado in the legal blogosphere about “ghostblogging”, an apparently new practice in which lawyers pay professional writers to write their blogs for them. The discussion has evolved to cover not only the appropriateness/efficacy of ghostblogging, but also whether it is ethical (per attorney advertising rules) and whether it is proper for those taking umbrage at ghostblogging to “name names” of those lawyers hiring ghostbloggers.

This entire discussion is mind-bendingly baffling to me. Blogging is a great platform for those who like to write and have something to say. It can be cathartic, informative and lead to engagement with others sharing your interest in the topic. It may lead to writing deals and speaking gigs. It may even help you develop business directly, particularly in the form of referrals from those who have gotten to know and respect you via your blog. But having someone else write your blog? If you haven’t even got the inclination to write, how are you going to deliver the authenticity and engagement that are table stakes to making blogging successful? What’s the point?

On the ethics issue, I’m not a big fan of attorney advertising regulation, and I don’t think blogs in their proper form are even subject to attorney advertising rules. However, when blogs devolve into pure advertising, they’re just like any other lawyer website, ad rules and all. And to the extent a ghostwritten blog involves deception, there’s no question it runs afoul of these rules.

Most amusing to me, however, are the protestations that bloggers like Mark Bennett who have called out lawyers using ghostblogging services are doing something untoward. Hey, if the service isn’t a problem, you shouldn’t care if anyone tells the world you’re using it. The fact that users of ghostblogging services are sensitive about being associated with it speaks volumes about how above-board they really perceive the practice to be. What’s more, they’re ATTORNEYS. I don’t know about these lawyers, but having people tell me I’m full of crap or don’t like what I’m doing has been a regular occurrence throughout my legal career. Grow a thicker skin – and don’t think about blogging if you can’t be authentic and have a real conversation.

Hiring an SEO (search engine optimization) firm can be a daunting experience.  Thousands of dollars are at stake, there is no regulation in the industry, and there is certainly no shortage of people promising amazing results.  Read on to find six questions that will help you sort out the pros from the con men.

1)  How well does the SEO firm’s own website rank in Google?

If an SEO firm’s own website doesn’t rank well in Google for keywords important to its business, that puts a big dent in its credibility.  To quickly find out for yourself a few keywords an SEO firm ranks well for, enter its website into SEM Rush.  You can then ask for elaboration on how the firm uses SEO to acquire clients.

2)  What percent of the SEO firm’s clients stick around for more than 2 years?

Unfortunately some SEO firms have a churn and burn business model.  They exploit the fact that SEO can take time, so they essentially do nothing for months, saying they need more time, until the client eventually gets fed up and leaves.   Ask how many clients stick around for more than 2 years, and ask for a handful that you can contact for references.

3)  What specific tactics does the SEO firm use to build links?

Link building is the most difficult and the most important part of SEO.  You can play with the code of your website all day, but without link building, you’re not going to rank well for competitive terms.   Therefore, it’s critical your SEO firm be skilled at acquiring links to your website.

Ask for the specific places (or types of places) you can expect to get links from, and then make sure you keep an eye on this if you become a client.  Be sure the links are coming from reputable, relevant sites, not just junky directories no one has ever heard of.

4)  How will the SEO firm measure its own performance and be accountable to you?

What do you want from the SEO firm? Do you have specific keywords you want to rank better for? Or do you just want more clients via your website?

Be honest with yourself and the SEO firm about what you want, set benchmarks and agree on metrics that you will regularly monitor.  If not, bad SEO firms can string you along for months showing you complex numbers and pretty charts that aren’t getting you closer to your goal.

5)  How many different clients is the SEO firm juggling at the same time?

SEO, particularly as time goes on, is not something that you can do on an assembly line.  Scalability is a big problem.  SEO requires time-consuming, custom solutions for each client’s unique situation, and it’s impossible to do a good job if you’re juggling too many clients at a time.  Ensure the people working on your SEO are not stretched too thin.

6)  What is the background and experience of key management?

SEO is a relatively new industry and lacks any real regulation or accreditation.  In other words, anyone can call himself an SEO expert.  Closely scrutinize the background and experience of key management to ensure they have solid SEO experience and a clean record.  Also find out if the SEO firm has ever operated under a different name.

Part of the reason many of us became lawyers is because we enjoy the challenges of the profession. We were constantly challenged with new information in law school, and now we find ourselves challenged by the new information from changes in statutes, case law, and the unique facts and circumstances each of our clients brings to us.

We stay informed about the issues that affect our clients, and because of this, we bring in more clients for ourselves. By gathering as much knowledge for ourselves as we can, we grow as practitioners and as individuals.

But what about the growth of our industry? We easily acknowledge that acquiring information to grow as individual attorneys is a worthwhile cause, but should we be doing more to grow the industry of law? Can we make the bar better by sharing our expertise?

As Avvo CEO Mark Britton said during last week’s Avvocating conference, in our role as lawyers, we are traditionally protectors of information. It is instinctual for us to protect our clients’ information, our work product, our industry knowledge, and our “rainmaking” techniques. But as the legal industry undergoes a much-talked-about change, we need to open up and share. I’m not talking about violating confidentiality rules, here. I’m talking about being more like Silicon Valley and less like Route 128.

Let me explain.

Silicon Valley is known around the world as a hotbed for technological advances, and with good reason. The area is home to the likes of Yahoo, Google, Apple, and Facebook. The companies that have sprung up in Silicon Valley have been amazingly successful.

Far fewer people have heard of Route 128. Located outside of Boston, it was once expected to be an East Coast version of Silicon Valley. All the ingredients that made Silicon Valley could also be found near Route 128. In both cases there were willing pools of investors, entrepreneurs, and world-class universities with well-known technology programs.

Though companies like EMC, Lotus, and Novell have all called Route 128 home, it hasn’t become the East Coast Silicon Valley that it was supposed to be.

So why has Silicon Valley been so successful when Route 128 has not? And how can we take to heart the lessons Silicon Valley has taught the tech industry to grow the legal industry?

Annalee Saxenian has written about the respective success and failure of Silicon Valley and Route 128. She attributes the success of Silicon Valley to the West Coast business culture—a more laid back, casual atmosphere. She argued that because people on the West Coast tend to have a more relaxed business attitude, it was more likely that employees of tech start-ups would move from one job to the next, taking information with them, and that even if those employees did not move around, there was, in general, a more open sort of communication among like-minded individuals in the industry.

Saxenian then suggests that Route 128 suffered in part because of its more buttoned-up style of business. On the East Coast, the employees of tech companies were more secretive about what their companies were doing, and were more likely to stay at one job longer to try to build a serious career, rather than hop around from job to job like their counterparts in Silicon Valley. The companies they worked for were also more secretive, and were more likely to be vertically integrated than companies in Silicon Valley.

For Ronald Gilson, business culture wasn’t enough to explain the difference in success between Silicon Valley and Route 128. He examined the two areas more closely, and noted that the business culture in these areas was a direct result of the legal rules in each respective area. He notes:

“The natural experiment results from the fact that Silicon Valley and Route 128 have different legal rules governing employment mobility. Post-employment covenants not to compete have the potential to seriously restrict the movement of employees between existing firms and  to start-ups and, hence, to seriously restrict employee transmitted knowledgespillovers. California prohibits covenants not to compete; Massachusetts enforces them.”[1]

The business culture and legal rules in California actually encourage people to share information. And sharing information fueled industry growth in Silicon Valley, while lack of information sharing inhibited industry growth on Route 128.

You see where I’m going with this?

Bringing this all back to the industry of law: what if we made a conscious effort to be more like Silicon Valley? If we shook off the shackles of our self-imposed protections on information, and shared our knowledge of the law and the industry with one another, could we build a better bar of attorneys? Information sharing can also be a valuable marketing strategy. Demonstrating your expertise on the internet can help you build a reputation that will get you hired more often. And when others find your shared knowledge and share it with others, a snowball effect occurs.

Last week’s Avvocating conference was a great step towards this goal.  I think it’s a necessary step, and the future of the legal industry.

About the Author: Kaitlin Janusz graduated with her BA in Political Science and Economics from the University of Wisconsin in 2006. She went on to earn her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2008, and is admitted to practice law in Wisconsin. In 2009, she joined GJEL Accident Attorneys as Director of Client Outreach. Find GJLE at www.gjel.com or the blog at www.gjel.com/blog.

[1] John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper 163, August 1998, available at SSRN

Most lawyers who practice internet defamation law are well aware of the Streisand Effect, and you’d think they would be counseling their clients accordingly. But from the looks of it, they aren’t making much headway in convincing internet defamation plaintiffs of the futile and counter-productive nature of most such suits. Or are defamation plaintiffs just so angry, so out to extract a pound of flesh that they insist on pushing forward, irregardless of the wisdom of so doing?

You see, there continues to be no shortage of misguided defamation litigation. This week’s example is a case featuring a dead-loser of a defamation case accompanied by a request to keep the whole thing hushed-up: Vision Media TV v. Forte, et al. Quick summary: the plaintiff (a provider of quasi-news television productions, the subjects of which are asked to pay upwards of $20K in “production costs”) is peeved about comments that appeared on 800notes.com, a site devoted to consumer reviews of telemarketers.

Of course this lawsuit is barred by Communications Decency Act Section 230, and of course Vision Media TV would have been far better off ignoring these comments or asking that satisfied customers post positive remarks. How many people who weren’t aware of the comments, allegations of scammy practices at Vision Media TV, or 800notes.com are now aware of all three, solely due to Vision Media TV filing this lawsuit? Textbook Streisand Effect.

Now, to make matters more amusing, Vision Media TV is seeking a court order requiring that defendant’s counsel (Public Citizen) stop posting the court filings on its “blog website” (click here to see the filings). No matter that these filings are public records, or that merely by making this request more people will pay attention to these filings. No matter that other websites unrelated to the lawsuit will be moved to post the papers themselves (see below). Yep, ask the court to put a muzzle on the lawsuit you brought. How’s that working out for you, Vision Media TV?

Public Citizen Motion to Dismiss
Vision Media TV Motion to Strike Defendants Posting Their Motions to Their Blog Website

Attorneys from across the United States attended the sold-out Avvocating Conference last week in Seattle.  It was a fantastic two days – jam-packed with sessions exploring online marketing, social media and legal ethics.

The conference could not have been a success without the many great presenters who not only spoke on the topics top of mind with lawyers, but also met individually with attendees throughout the day to answer additional questions.

Their time and enthusiasm was greatly appreciated by the team at Avvo, and from the lawyers who provided their feedback.

Here is a sample of what we heard:

“This conference was top notch, not at all dumbed-down for an attorney audience, and every speaker was not trying to sell us.  I’m walking away with great tactical tips and a deeper understanding of Internet Marketing.”

“I appreciated that speakers zipped past ‘what this is’ and provided valuable information for taking it to the next level.”

“There was more information than any normal human can absorb, but I caught lots of practical tactics I can actually apply now.”

“I was expecting to learn a lot and my expectations were far exceeded! Top notch seminar.”

“1000% ROI! Absolutely valuable information for anyone desiring to grow their law practice immediately and long term.”

“There were so many new ideas -  it was great hearing from all the experts under one roof.”

“This conference was the perfect mix of speakers and topics to provide overview, depth, specificity and course of action for an audience of varied technical backgrounds – very empowering!”

“Usually you go to conferences expecting to hear sales pitches throughout the day. The Avvocating Conference was nothing like this as it was jam packed with ideas and strategies that I am excited to get home and work on.”

For those of you who were blown away by Vanessa Fox’s talk on Search Engine Optimization last week at Avvocating, I’m glad to say her book, Marketing in the Age of Google, is now available for pre-order on Amazon.

Stefan Weitz from Bing just finished his presentation called “SEO and the Future of Search.”

-    Google clearly is leading, but Bing is growing rapidly.
-    35% of searchers are not satisfied, and Bing is aiming to satisfy them.
-    3 problems in search:  (1) 25% of clicks lead to “back”; (2) 42% of sessions need refinement (try the search again to get it right); (3) 50% of time spent searching is long sessions (need long exploration sessions to find what they want).
-    “Decision engine” = what Bing thinks consumers need right now.
-    72% of local business consumers do web research before making a phone call.
-     Bing is interested in spatial search, which is basically using street view to search (Bing’s street view is pretty cool…didn’t know that).
-    Sentiment extraction: Bing looks at reviews and determines what they’re about and whether they’re positive or negative.
-    Future of search: semantics (understanding what you mean)
-    Future of search:  “Page Rank” relies too heavily on links, and crowds don’t necessarily source the best results.   Popularity tends to ignore experts and drives polarized ideas.
-    Future of search: paid search is now pretty pedestrian – lots of room for optimization and better user experiences (e.g., mobile with GPS integration).

Nate Bucholz from Google just finished his presentation called “Advanced Pay-Per-Click Marketing.”

-     18% yearly growth in paid search marketing
-    Lawyers are the largest group of advertisers in search.
-    Google Insights for Search: a tool good for keyword research.
-    Google local business center:  Google.com/lbc , go there to enter information about your firm.
-    Adwords rank = max cost per click bid X quality score.
-    You want to focus on quality score, which is all about relevance.
-    Put rates in your ad, so you don’t waste money on clicks for people who aren’t willing to pay.
-    Capitalize the first letter of every word = increased click through rate.
-    Test different ad copy and let Google automatically rotate them.
-    Wait to test different ad copy until you establish a quality score first.
-    Pull a search query report to find good negative keywords.
-    Content network can produce cheaper conversions.
-    Use Display AdBuilder to make displays ads for free for use with the content network.
-    Distrust anyone who guarantees the top spot in Adwords or Google organic.
-    Search Adwords appearing with a yellow background have passed a quality score threshold. If no yellow background, none have passed the threshold.
- If you use Adwords for a keyword you’re already ranking well for organically, you will get more clicks total – Adwords does not detract from organic clicks.

Vanessa Fox from Google just finished her presentation called “Advanced SEO.”

- 200+ factors go into Google’s organic search algorithm.
- Keywords in domain names help indirectly because of anchor text.
- Use the Google Wonder Wheel to get into the mind of searchers.
- Because of search, every page is now a homepage.
- Make sure the words people search for are on your pages.
- Map out search personas: who are the types of people interested in your website? What keywords are they using? What do they want? Are they finding it on your pages?
- Google treats folders and subdomains the same when it comes to blogs
- A blog can help your website SEO if you host it on the same domain.
- Links are still one of the main things to concentrate on.
- People are more likely to click when there is an organic and a paid result, than on either alone.
- Description meta tag is your opportunity to craft a marketing message; it’s not used for ranking.
- Search engines may devalue links from one site to another if both are owned by same person.
- Links from many sites are better than many links from one site (e.g., a blog roll).
- Toolbar pagerank is nothing like real Google pagerank.

Trevor Claiborne from Google just finished his presentation called “Website Analytics and Website Optimizer.”

-    Hits don’t matter. What matters is what people do when they get to your website.
-    Goals are powerful, they track whether people do what you want them to do on your website.
-    Google Analytics (GA) now offers 20 goals instead of 4.
-    Sign up for GA at google.com/analytics.
-    Mongoose Metrics can help you make phone calls a GA goal.
-    Use GA Intelligence to help with data overload.
-    Use custom alerts to monitor things you’re worried about, like if visits drop by 10%.
-    Use annotations to mark what’s causing certain anomalies in your website traffic, great for when multiple people access same GA account so they all know what’s going on.
-    Google Website Optimizer (GWO) tells you whether certain things are better on your website, like doing an AB test with direct mail.
-    Google has tested which of 41 shades of blue works best.
-    Small changes can make a big difference in conversion rate.
-    GWO shouldn’t negatively affect your ranking in Google if you keep the test short.
-    A good test page has a clear, singular goal (like filling in a form), enough traffic for a statistically significant test (100 conversions), and you have to be able to access the page’s code.
-    You have 5 seconds to make an impact on a web page, so make changes that are seen within 5 seconds.
-    “Hippo”: Highest paid person’s opinion (of why a website looks the way it does).  Bad, because a website should be a certain way based on data, not unfounded opinion.