I’ve been on Twitter for a couple of years – it’s great for temporal search, for tracking what people are saying about your company and getting esoteric news updates. But I’m amused by the gushing over Twitter’s marketing potential, particularly by lawyers and legal marketers. Twitter is not a billboard. It’s not a brilliant free substitute for paid advertising. The only way Twitter works for attorneys is by expanding sources of potential referrals. And guess what? Those endless litanies of the latest car accidents in your city, those monotone updates of recent court rulings – they’re not going to work for you on Twitter.

The way Twitter works is through the same diligent effort that makes all referral business go: making connections, being authentic and displaying one’s competence, professionalism and dedication to client service.

This post from Ben Kearney caught my eye today:

I don’t know Ben personally, but thanks to Twitter I know that he lives and practices in lovely Eugene, Oregon, enjoys wine and, like us here at Avvo, has a certain illogical affinity for Brian Tannebaum. But that post – and others like it that offer a glimpse into Ben’s practice and approach – make it certain that if someone came to me looking for a business lawyer in Eugene, I’d recommend that they give Ben a call.

But let’s not pretend this is easy. You’ve got to have the willingness to engage and the baseline of competence and professionalism, just as you would if you joined Rotary, Kiwanas or another local group in an effort to develop referral business. I follow hundreds of lawyers on Twitter (find me at @joshuamking and odds are I’ll follow you, too), and I still see too little of this. Let us know who you are, what you care about, and how you practice. Have a conversation.

Because if your only use of Twitter is as a billboard or a one-way push of legal updates, you might as well stop wasting your time now.

As some consumers have found out the hard way, one of the problems with describing one’s experiences with businesses online is the potential to get slapped with a defamation suit for your trouble. It doesn’t really matter whether the suit has a chance of prevailing; the cost of defense makes censoring oneself seem like the best option.

Obviously, this is no good for the kind of reputational ecosystem that can provide other consumers with valuable information about the quality of a service providers’ offerings. That’s why I’m so encouraged by the potential of the Citizen Participation Act (H.R. 4364), a bill currently working its way through Congress that would put in place a nationwide anti-SLAPP law. Under the Act, those sued for exercising their First Amendment rights would have access to a special motion to dismiss. Valid defamation cases could still proceed, but those driven by thin-skinned bullying tactics could be thrown out at the earliest opportunity, complete with attorneys fees paid to the defendant.

While California has long had a such a law – and Washington just got one – most state anti-SLAPP laws are non-existent or anemic in coverage. A robust nationwide standard is long overdue. If you’re interested in supporting the bill, visit the Public Participation Project website or write your representative.

Some might say that social media for business is all about the conversation – that, like traditional networking, it’s all about putting one’s authentic self out there, connecting with other people and enjoying the relationships that are the fruit of sharing ideas and opinions; humor and commiseration.

But who’s got time for all that touchy-feely, networky stuff? Why not just amass an army of twitter followers; a legion of fans to your kick-ass Facebook Fan page? Big numbers have got to equal big results, right?

Well, not exactly. Plug YOUR social media numbers into our handy-dandy calculator and find out for yourself:

1. Twitter followers valued at $0.01 apiece. Source: typical Ebay “buy it now” values for bulk followers (did you know you could buy followers on Ebay? Pretty sweet, huh?)

2. Facebook friends valued at $.37 apiece. Source: Burger King “Whopper Sacrifice” ad campaign
.
3. Facebook Fans valued at $3.60 apiece, based on a recent study of large brand advertising spend per impression.

As May reaches its end, we’re within a month of Avvo’s third anniversary. Despite this tenure, and despite the tens of thousands of attorneys who have claimed their profiles, we continue to hear from attorneys laboring under misconceptions about how Avvo works.

So, in the interest of saving ourselves some time lawyer education, we’re proud to announce “Avvo Myths” – our compilation of the latest-and-greatest “ideas about Avvo that are wrong” – along with plenty of information on how Avvo really works. Enjoy!

Think state attorney regulators aren’t amenable to the changes that technology brings to the practice of law? Well, here’s more evidence to support that view: New Jersey has come out with an official frowning-upon of “virtual law offices”, including those where attorneys rent office space on a non-fixed basis.

Perhaps the New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising felt its hands were bound by the state rules requiring that attorneys maintain a “bona fide office,” and that this is the surest way to ensure that the rules get changed. However, it could have easily found a more expansive definition of what constitutes a “bona fide office;” one that takes into account our present world of ubiqutous broadband connections, voicemail and mobile phones. Instead, we get this ridiculousness.

Now solos throughout the Garden State have to choose between taking a stand against their regulators or increasing their cost structures by renting inefficient office space. Not good for solos, and not good for consumers who will bear these increased costs.

I’ve written quite a bit before on the topic of online reputation ecosystems, and the value they bring to both businesses and consumers. However, Professor Eric Goldman – who heads the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University Law School – is one of the leading authorities on the subject. Unlike many academics, Eric brings a lot of real-world experience to the discussion, and it’s always worth listening to his thoughts on this topic.

Eric has posed a very interesting deck of slides detailing the regulation of “reputation systems”, and concluding that mediated systems of reputation (e.g., Avvo’s client reviews) are inherently superior to unmediated systems (e.g., word-of-mouth or unmoderated online forums) in offering both breadth and quality of reputational information. In Eric’s formulation, the characteristics of a successful mediated system include: Translucent algorithms + robust anti-gaming enforcement + no pay-to-play, attributed sources and a right of right of reply.

Despite the fact that Avvo doesn’t offer fully-attributed sources (we feel it is important to offer those rating lawyers the option to comment anonymously), I’m glad to see that our gold-standard process for mediating client reviews meets the Goldman test.

Being on the bleeding edge of a cultural trend isn’t usually the most stress-free place to be. Witness Yelp, the leading site for online reviews of restaurants, bars and other small businesses, which has found itself on the receiving end of a class action lawsuit over user reviews.

Once largely limited to products, reputational ecosystems are now developing around other businesses, services and (as is the case with Avvo) professionals. Think of it as the aggregation and dissemination of what people once merely told one another; the move of “word-of-mouth” into the online world. This adjustment is difficult for some, as online comments will be felt more viscerally by a small business than by a global consumer products manufacturer.

Smart business owners, however, know how to move past this disappointment and effectively deal with, learn from and even capitalize on negative user reviews:

As we’ve pointed out before, the most effective ways to respond to negative online comments are obtaining more positive reviews, posting a professional response, or simply ignoring them. Filing a lawsuit is very rarely the right response, if for no other reason than the Streisand Effect. And filing a lawsuit against the internet service that hosts the reviews? An even uglier path, as the defamation plaintiff gets to experience both the Streisand Effect AND the unceremonious smackdown of their lawsuit colliding with provider immunity under 47 USC 230.

But the plaintiff here (Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital in Long Beach, CA) has taken a novel tack, attempting an end-run around CDA 230 immunity by alleging that Yelp is running an “extortion scheme” by offering to take down negative reviews in exchange for cash.

It’s a creative effort by the plaintiff’s lawyers, Jared Beck (who has two client reviews on Avvo – hey, Jared; wanna pay to take those down? Just kidding!) and Gregory Weston, but here’s a prediction: The suit is going to get booted, and quick.

You see, Yelp sells advertising. One of the benefits of advertising is that an advertiser can choose a “favorite” review to highlight at the top of all user reviews; after that, the reviews are sorted by an algorithm that takes into account the age of the review, how helpful other users found it, etc. It’s a nice balance between the promotion inherent in advertising and consumer transparency (Avvo offers a similar client review-featuring benefit to advertisers and Avvo Pro subscribers).

It’s a safe bet that what really happened here is that the plaintiff confused Yelp’s advertising sales pitch (“become an advertiser and choose the most glowingly positive review to move to the top of the stack”) with extortion, ignoring the fact that Yelp, like Avvo, has a firm policy against deleting most reviews and internal processes that separate advertising sales from the site’s editorial function.

Isn’t this a whole lot likelier than the theory that Yelp is operating an extortion racket? What’s more, if Yelp were extorting businesses, wouldn’t you expect to find few, if any, negative reviews amongst advertisers? Take a look at any random sponsored listing on Yelp (say, for example, Seattle’s Stellar Pizza & Ale). You’ll see lots of reviews, some of them quite negative. The beauty of a healthy reputational ecosystem is that these reviews – positive, negative and in between – paint a composite picture that gives potential customers a wealth of information. They also illustrate that if Yelp is taking payments to delete negative reviews, its advertisers are getting phenomenally poor value.

As Yelp pointed out in its initial response, “running a good business is hard; filing a lawsuit is easy.” Don’t be surprised if the ultimate lesson Dogs and Cats learns here is that it’s even easier – and a lot more effective – to ignore or learn from your bad reviews and focus on delighting your customers. Their word-of-mouth will move online, too.

Last summer, the ABA kicked off its “Commission on Ethics 20/20″ to review ethics rules across the country in the context of technological change. Given its role in promulgating model rules for state bars, the work of the commission can have far-ranging implications. It could even hold out hope of ushering in a paradigm shift that would benefit both attorneys and consumers via streamlined, easy-to-understand licensing, practice and advertising rules. Unfortunately, early indications aren’t promising.

The starting point is the Commission’s Preliminary Issues Outline, a curious document, covering areas both broad and specific, and quite obviously representing the pet issues of those involved with the Commission. Given the composition of the Commission (lots of academics, established lawyers and little-to-no active users of social media or advanced technology), this points to a process that is unlikely to move the profession toward greater transparency and consumer responsiveness. Here’s a sampling of some of the issues being pursued by the Commission:

The Pros and Cons of State-Based National Licensure – From the call of this question and early comments, look for a heavy focus on the “Cons.” That’s a shame, because there are a lot of ways consumers and lawyers could benefit from more “borderless” practices.

Whether the Model Rules Unnecessarily Impede a Lawyer or Law Firm’s Ability to Employ New Technologies in Representing Clients - Expect to see lots of handwringing over cloud computing, social media and the like. We saw it with email, cell phones and IM, and it gets repeated with every new technological iteration. Sigh.

Virtual Law Firms – It would be great to have a real discussion about virtual law offices and how multi-jurisdictional practice rules could accommodate them. However, the Commission is focused on client protection, which current rules can easily address.

Social Media Use By Lawyers – The Commission has framed this issue as whether existing ethics rules adequately address social media use by lawyers. As I pointed out in Avvo’s Comments to the Commission, the problem isn’t that the existing rules need to be expanded to cover social media. The existing rules are, all too often, too expansive and inflexible, and many state bars have shown that they love nothing more than to over-regulate attorney communications. Why not just scale back – as at least one bar (DC) has done – and simply draw the line at any advertising that is false or misleading? Billboards or tweets; the medium doesn’t matter as long as the message is transparent and honest.

Unbundling & Opensourcing Legal Work – Another area where the Commission has immediately focused on “client protection” rather than the ways the ABA might embrace these opportunities to make legal services more affordable and widely available. Sure, clients need to be protected from shady practices, but the history of bar regulation has shown that it is a very quick step from “client protection” to “preserving the monopoly of lawyers over delivery of all legal services.”

Online Access to Attorney Disciplinary Records – This should be a very simple discussion, especially given the sorry state of public access to attorney disciplinary records. If I were a doctor, I’d be outraged that all of my licensing information was so openly available (as it is, online, in every state) while lawyers escape this scrutiny due to the historical oddities of attorney licensing. While states like California, Florida, Texas and Washington do a good job of making this information available, others – like Alabama, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah – are shamefully bad. Does the Commission call out this lack of transparency and ask for ideas on how to solve it as quickly as humanly possible? Uh, no – they lead with the hand-wringing, wondering whether the online disclosure of public disciplinary records would lead to litigation against the recordkeepers. No, seriously.

Does Existing Law Protect the Public When Accessing Lawyer Rating Sites? – Finally, my favorite, obviously kicked in by someone who doesn’t like attorney ratings. The answer to this inane question is, of course, yes – existing law is more than adequate to “protect the public” as they cut through the opacity of the legal industry. What existing law won’t do is protect lawyers from being rated and scrutinized as “word of mouth” moves online via client reviews and ratings like Avvo’s.

Athough the Commission has raised a few non-issues, many of the items on its plate are things that should be explored. It’s just that they need to be viewed with an eye toward enhancing consumer access to justice. Whether that means more information about attorneys or removing the shackles from innovation in legal practice, there’s a lot of progress that could be made. While we remain likely to see little more than a process of worrying and regulatory fist-pounding, there remains opportunity to remind the Commission of how its mandate could lead to meaningful change. The Commission is still taking comments – make your voice heard.

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.

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