Reflecting on Avvo‘s Internet marketing conference for lawyers, Kevin O’Keefe of LexBlog writes:

I started on the Internet at AOL. I answered people’s injury, medical malpractice, and worker’s comp questions. The more questions I answered, the more work our firm got and the more successful we became. The more I listened to others and the more engaged I became, the more I enjoyed myself and the more people who contacted me to help them.

I discovered that Internet marketing was not all about me. It was about what I, as a lawyer, could do to help other people. Rather than buying cheesy yellow page ads and running expensive TV ads, I could get good legal work by helping people.

via For lawyers is the world really all about Google rankings? : Real Lawyers Have Blogs.

The lesson that good connections with people — arising from providing good quality content on a blog, helpful commentary in forums, useful information and replies on Twitter, to name just three examples — is the core of effective marketing is often lost.

You might call this “un-marketing” or “non-marketing” to distinguish it from frantic SEO, blaring billboards, or extravagant banner ad purchases. It’s deceptively simple: go out and help people, and clients will find you.

Taking this kind of approach does not mean foregoing an online presence. How can you put yourself out there and be helpful if you don’t join Twitter, don’t blog, and don’t contribute to forums? And once you start seeking out people to help, how can they and others find you later if you aren’t on LinkedIn or don’t have your own Web site?

Whatever you call it, the core message is to be helpful and do good, and the clients and customers will seek you out in return.

As a do-gooder, SEO, ad buys, and similar strategies should be done to be helpful. That is, such strategies should make it easier for people to find you, and for you to be helpful in return. They are secondary strategies, not primary ones.

For a do-gooder, primary strategies involve getting out there and providing utility to others: answering questions, being a resource, advocating positions you believe in, sharing your experiences and knowledge.

Doing good and being helpful isn’t a new marketing strategy. It’s just an old way of showing the world your worth, updated for new mediums. It takes Google’s “don’t be evil” and goes one better: go do good, and the clients will come (just don’t forget to make it easy for them!). It takes “add value” and takes it further: go be helpful!

Has this kind approach worked for you? Have better ideas? Think it’s crazy? Let me know in the comments.

Want clients? Be helpful and do good is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

It could mark one of the biggest changes for lawyers joining the profession since the first U.S. bar exam was given in Delaware in 1763 — a single bar exam aimed at standardizing attorney credentials nationwide.

via Law.com – Uniform Bar Exam Drawing Closer to Reality.

Law is slow to develop, so this will take a while — but it’s a step in the right direction.

Uniform bar exam drawing closer to reality is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

Law school’s pedagogical approach does not necessarily reflect this ultimately practical goal, though, and its focus on the so-called “Socratic method” and on appellate case law is, many argue, an ineffective means of training effective lawyers:

Martha Minow, the new dean of Harvard Law School, where the Langdellian method of teaching from appellate opinions was developed, has called for “another case method” closer to the one used in business and public-policy schools, and consistent with W and L’s approach and Carnegie.

PrawfsBlawg: What’s happening in legal education?.

In contrast, graduate school is eminently suited to its goal of training new academics. We read other academics, write like academics, and teach and grade like the teachers we expect to be. Very disconnected from the “real world,” perhaps, and often overly bound up with theory — but still, if one is aiming to work in this area, the training is, in a very real sense, practical.

Law school, though, while pushing the practical, does not teach it. At most, one might argue that it teaches a kind of thinking — a very critical kind of thinking — but it does not teach students to practice law (nor to teach it, for that matter).

I’m curious to see how my reflections on law school education change as I pursue my PhD — I expect I might feel more positive about it as more time passes. We shall see.

Law school vs. graduate school is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

Jim Calloway points out a troublesome issue for traveling attorneys:

The Department of Homeland Security recently clarified its position to restate that if you cross the border, any of your digital information devices can be seized and searched without the government giving you any reason whatsoever. They did promise to try to return them in a more timely manner. This includes everything from a laptop to an iPod to a USB flash drive. (Wow, wonder how many flash drives are in the pockets of my laptop bag now?)

via Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog: The Digital Lawyer Crosses the Border.

He goes on to provide the following advice to any lawyer who may cross the U.S. border with a laptop potentially full of confidential client files:

That laptop probably can no longer travel across the U.S.border with you. Whether top military grade encryption protects your information from the Department of Homeland security or just presents a professional challenge for them is for you to decide.

via Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips Blog: The Digital Lawyer Crosses the Border.

There has always been an exception to search and seizure law at border crossings. In theory, this is nothing new — attorneys traveling with confidential paper files could also have them searched. But the ease of carrying vast numbers of confidential documents in electronic form raises the bar on this.

And, as Calloway also points out, encryption may or may not be sufficient to protect your data from the U.S. government. It might be better to limit what confidential data you have on your laptop at all — Calloway recommends “temporary” netbooks for the job instead of your regular notebook. I think that’s not a bad idea at all.

But I still think you should encrypt any laptop with confidential data too.

Related articles by Zemanta

• PCWorld: DHS Clarifies Laptop Border Crossing Rules (trishussey.com)
• ACLU files lawsuit on border laptop searches (infoworld.com)
• Homeland Security Changes Laptop Search Policy (yro.slashdot.org)

Lawyers should leave their laptops at home when traveling abroad is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

It turns out to be a remarkably efficient way of offering what Granat calls legal transaction services — tasks that are document intensive. For everything from wills to adoptions to shareholder agreements, elawyering has numerous advantages. Its cheaper, for example; a no-fault divorce, Granat says, might run a fifth of what seeing an attorney would cost. It’s also faster — customers can access the tools anytime and never have to interrupt their day to meet with someone in a distant office. Simply put, elawyering makes certain legal services more accessible.There are trade-offs, of course. “The relationship has less richness than what youd get from sitting in a lawyers office,” Granat says. “And if you have an issue thats more complex, then you still need to see a lawyer face-to-face.” In other words, its a lower-fidelity experience.But for most simple legal interactions, elawyering is, well, Good Enough. It gets the job done, even if it doesn’t let you ask every question or address every contingency. And not surprisingly, it’s on the rise. “Elawyering will be mainstream in three years,” Granat says. “I predict that in five years, if you’re a small firm and don’t offer this kind of Web service, you’re not going to make it.”

via The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine .

I have yet to see an explosion of virtual legal practices by attorneys (although I have seen a few ads for outsourced legal research, generally to India), but I think paralegals are leading the charge in this area. (See, for example, Paralegal Associates, based here in San Diego.)

The biggest worry I think many might have with this — a worry that might prevent this approach from being “good enough” — is one of trust, particularly in billing issues. With standard hourly billing (at sky-high rates), working virtually with a remote attorney is, well, scary. (Of course, how much real interaction do you really have on an hourly basis with a “regular” attorney?)

In the attorney space, there is an increased focus on alternatives to hourly billing, such as fixed-fee services for routine legal matters (wills, for example). This ties neatly in with virtual legal services, where in-person meetings are less necessary, and flat fees make good sense.

The other area that might make sense in this regard is virtual research: providing remote legal research to other attorneys, who can save time and money. I think this could be a real growth area for virtual legal services, and it keeps clients insulated from potential problems with quality, since a “regular” attorney still buffers any advice and so on.

Combine legal research with paralegal services and perhaps tech support, and you have a winner, I think.

Is virtual lawyering the future? is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

Ah, the challenges of equating production with copyright (a very Lockean concept, incidentally):

The problem? The city and the court reporter who recorded the transcripts would have charged a much higher fee for a copy of the transcripts, and felt that the lawyer’s use of the law to gain access was somehow unfair. The court then ordered the lawyer to pay the court reporter over $4,000 to make up the “difference.” The lawyer, however, appealed, and the appeals court has thrown out the lower court ruling, saying that forcing the lawyer to pay the higher fee would mean that the court reporter effectively was given a copyright to the transcripts

via Techdirt.

It may not be “fair” to the court reporter that his or her work product should be available for less than they wish to sell it for — but the point of copyright and IP is about balancing public and private interests (and in promoting progress, in Constitutional terms), not about awarding ownership to producers. The court reporter was already paid for their effort and work, after all. The public interest then is best served by not awarding future monopoly ownership to them. Which is, I expect, pretty much what the appeals court decided.

Court transcripts and copyright awards is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

Randy Picker responds by saying:

We should review how the public domain works. The public domain is sold every day. Every time you buy a copy of Hamlet you are paying for a public domain work. I do H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds in my copyright class on this starting with Project Gutenberg — free, of course — and then heading to Barnes & Noble and Amazon, where the prices range from $2.50 to $13.95 see slides 3 to 13. That is precisely the nature of the public domain: anyone can use it for whatever they want, including selling it. The AP is fully within its rights to sell public domain content just as Amazon does every day.

via The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: The Associated Press: Selling the Public Domain?

To restate: there is absolutely nothing legally wrong with the AP licensing or selling public-domain content. To paraphrase concepts from the open source world, public-domain content is free (as in speech, “libre”) not free as in beer.

As Picker puts it, “Public domain content is outside the copyright system. Again that is its nature.”

You have no right to access of public-domain materials (perhaps unfortunately). You have no right to get them without paying. Instead, such materials are free for anyone to use in any way they wish. The AP can sell the material. You can sell the content. Anyone can do with it what they wish.

(A side note: a license by the AP to such content may be invalid, in the sense that once you have it, you can do with it as you wish — although potentially you may still breach a contract you have with the licensor. Picker, for example, writes, “Ordinary rules regarding contracts and licenses should apply to circumstances under which someone is given access to public domain content.” I can envision counterarguments. In other words: it’s complicated. Thus the existence of lawyers.)

Bizarre? Unfair? Strange? Perhaps. But consider that the protections of copyright are a modern addition to the world. Pre-18th century (to grossly simplify things), if you sold your manuscript, you sold the “copyright” as well. All intellectual creations were, in a sense, in the public domain (although the concept didn’t quite exist — without modern copyright, there is no concept of “public domain” either — there is simply one state, not too).

Modern copyright changed this, and arguably encouraged creation — but it also locks up works in various ways as well. Thus the need for a balance, I believe, between the protections of intellectual property (which is not quite like ordinary property, which is why you only “infringe” IP) and the dizzying freedoms of the public domain.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Associated Press will sell you a license to quote the public domain (boingboing.net)
• AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sell (techdirt.com)

What does it mean to be in the public domain? Thoughts about the AP licensing scheme. is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

The  (IFOSS L. Rev.) is a collaborative legal publication aiming to increase knowledge and understanding among lawyers about Free and Open Source Software issues. Topics covered include copyright, licence implementation, licence interpretation, software patents, open standards, case law and statutory changes.

via the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review.

Cearta.ie adds some more details:

It is a peer reviewed biannual journal for high-level analysis and debate about Free and Open Source Software legal issues, and it will receive financial and administrative support from the NLNet Foundation, which supports organizations and people that contribute to an open information society. Edited by Andrew Katz and Amanda Brock, its focus includes copyright, licence implementation, licence interpretation, software patents, open standards, case law and statutory changes. Unsurprisingly, it operates a strong Open Access Policy, providing immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

via cearta.ie » New Open Source Law Journal.

So what’s in the first edition? Here’s the (very interesting) table of contents:

Foreword and statement of purpose: an introduction to IFOSS L. Rev., Iain G Mitchell QC

Articles

• The Fiduciary Licence Agreement: Appointing legal guardians for Free Software Projects, Ywein Van den Brande
• Collaborative Approach: Peer-to-Patent and the Open Source Movement, Christopher Wong, Jason Kreps
• Bad Facts Make Good Law: The Jacobsen Case and Open Source, Lawrence Rosen
• Introducing The Risk Grid, Shane Martin Coughlan, Andrew Katz

Case Law Reports

• Jacobsen v Katzer and Kamind Associates – an English legal perspective, Mark Henley

Book reviews

• ‘Open Source Technology and Policy’ by Fadi P. Deek and James A.M. McHugh, Andrew Katz

Tech Watch

• Tech Watch, Adriaan de Groot

Platform

• Collaboration Among Counsel Celebrating the Formation of a Community of Lawyers for the Advancement of Understanding of Free and Open Source Licensing and Business Models, Karen Faulds Copenhaver

This looks like a journal to watch going forward.

Related articles

• International Free and Open Source Software Law Review Launched (computerworlduk.com)
• New Free/Open Source Software law journal launches (boingboing.net)

New law journal launches that focuses on open source is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

The New York State Court of Appeals, in Stern v. Bluestone, 2009 NY Slip Op 04740 (2009), overturned a lower court ruling that ruled that a faxed newsletter dealing with attorney malpractice issues – the same area in which the author of the newsletter practiced. Lower courts thought this newsletter constituted advertising, and thus ran into rules about attorney advertising. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

Why is this important for law bloggers?

The primary purpose of most law blogs is the dissemination of information. Like Bluestone’s “Attorney Malpractice Report,” blogs educate the reader about a subject matter that is unrelated to the self-promotion of the blogger.

Certainly increased visibility of the blogger is a byproduct of the publication of a successful blog; and as a result of that visibility, new clients may follow.

But, that doesn’t mean that the primary purpose of the blog is the retention of clients.

In comparison, I think that most people would agree that the primary purpose of television and radio ads, billboard ads, professional Web sites and yellow page ads is the retention of clients. Blogs are different because the primary purpose of blogs – sharing information – is separate and distinct from the self-promotion that is the essential element of most advertisements.

Thankfully, the court’s decision in Stern v. Bluestone is a strong indication that the highest court in New York understands this distinction. The court understands that lawyers’ creative use of emerging Internet technologies is, in many instances, simply an extension of traditional networking activities, including speaking at a seminar, authoring an article in a legal publication, distributing a newsletter via e-mail or joining a committee at the local bar association.

It’s good to know that the highest court in New York “gets it.”

via The Court of Appeals “gets it” when it comes to technology « Practicing Law in the 21st Century-A Law & Technology Blog.

In short: the same logic could be applied to a topical law blog written by an attorney, making this ruling important outside of the realm of faxed newsltters. In addition, lthough this ruling applies only to New York State,many states have similar rules, and hopefully this ruling bodes well for potential cases in other jurisdictions.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Journalist Shield Laws and Bloggers (inpropriapersona.com)
• When Law Prevents Righting a Wrong (inpropriapersona.com)

Law blogging and attorney advertising: Stern v. Bluestone is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.

Facebook

Facebook is a social networking Web site focused on connecting people with each other. Many of us have now experienced the joy (and occasional pain) of (re-)connecting with people from high school, college, or law school through the site.

Many people have decried the negative aspects of Facebook in the job search, primarily the ability of potential employers to find personal information (such as drunken party photos, political/social leanings, etc.) out about you through the service. Although this can certainly be a problem for a naive individual, it should not keep you from using the service, provided you: (1) do not post photographs (or better yet, do not participate in situations) that you would derail your chances of employment (drunkenness, drug use, etc. – this is particularly true for legal professionals) and (2) keep your personal life confined (through various Facebook limiting mechanisms) to those who know you. If in doubt – don’t put it online.

From a job seeking perspective, Facebook will not find you a job. It is not Monster.com or similar job search site. Instead, it is an extension of old-school networking – meeting people, connecting with people, sharing with people. Use similar approaches on Facebook that you would use in person, but remember: Facebook is focused more on personal connections that professional ones, so treat it accordingly.

• Do not attempt to “friend” business connections who you barely know via Facebook. (Save those for LinkedIn, next on the list).
• Do let your actual friends know via Facebook that you are looking for a job.
• Do search for people you may know who do work like you wish to do, or who work where you want to work. You may be surprised that you actually know someone who can put in a good word for you.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn is like Facebook for professionals, minus the games, the sharing, the pictures, and everything else that makes Facebook so “sticky.” But these limitations are its biggest asset, because they turn it into a truly professional zone. Everything you put on LinkedIn should be professional, with only a passing nod to your personal life (to make you real). In terms of posting information to LinkedIn, it is best to think of it as an in-depth, network-enhanced resume. It is not for arringing to meet friends at the movies, nor for sharing your vacation pics to Cancun.

Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn is the perfect place to connect with business acquantances who you do not know well. In this sense, think of LinkedIn as your social Rolodex of business contacts, with recirocal connections, recommendations, and easy searching.

• Do connect with those you meet.
• Do not connect with people you have never met, unless you arrange an introduction (supported by LinkedIn). To do otherwise is to invite trouble and do your reputation more harm than good.
• Do update your status on LinkedIn with professional information related to your job search.
• Do search for companies and look for people you know there.
• Do pay attention to “friend-of-friends” who you may be able to be introduced to through LinkedIn. This is a very valuable part of LinkedIn networking!
• Do get recommendations from current and former co-workers. A LinkedIn profile of an active job seeker with no recommendations is potentially problematic, as it suggests that no one wants to recommend you!
• Do keep your profile updated with current information.

Plaxo

Plaxo is in some ways like LinkedIn and Facebook: it connects people with each other. It has a more professional bent than Facebook, and in that way is more similar to LinkedIn (including an online profile hat is more like a resume than Facebook’s, for example). Its current incarnation is more focused on “lifestreaming”: gathering up and synchronizing your online life in one place:

Plaxo is about synchronizing all that’s important to you in one single place. It’s about staying in touch with all those who you care about… your family, your friends and your business contacts. With Plaxo’s Pulse, we keep you up to date with what your friends, family and Business contacts are up to.

• You can Share photos, videos, reviews and more…
• You can share content from the websites you use like Flickr, YouTube, Digg and a growing list of activity stream sites you can activate.
• You can represent yourself on the web with your own profile. Choose what to share and with whom.
• And with the Plaxo Address book, get the information you need for the people you know and Sync it to places you already use.
• You Plaxo calendar syncs with Yahoo!, Gmail, Outlook, Mac and a growing number of sync points to make sure you don’t forget what you’re doing.

Plaxo is all this in one place and that’s why it’s the most efficient and fun place to be in. And most important of all, you decide who gets to see what.

It is worth it to establish a Plaxo profile while job searching, and keep it updated. (Not having recommendations on Plaxo is also less of a problem, as long as you have them on LinkedIn.)

Plaxo’s aggregation support for your online activities is powerful, but has the potential to mix your personal and professional lives together. Thus, be very careful of this.

• Do establish and maintain your profile.
• Do use the aggregation and synching tools, if they are useful to you.
• Do not mix personal and professional updates.
• Do use Plaxo’s tools to contain your personal updates to your personal friends.

Twitter

Twitter is a newer contender to the social media landscape. It permits posting short status messages, which may include links to articles, blog posts, pictures, etc. In a professional context – remember, you are job seeking – these status messages should stay away from “crazy party last night” and steer more towards the “excellent article, I recommend you read it.”

Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, and Plaxo, connections in Twitter are one way: you can follow people, or they can follow you, but reciprocity is not required.

To find useful people to follow, look for those in your field. A good place to start is LexTweet, which aggregates legal Tweets – consider joining as well and participating.

My recommendations:

• Do read about how others are using Twitter professionally.
• Do keep your postings professional.
• Do mix in some personal updates to be “real,” but remember – a potential employer may be reading them, so be judicious.
• Do “add value” by Tweeting useful information.
• Do not use tools to mass add followers, or similar “spammy” behaviors.

JD Supra

JD Supra is a different alternative to the above sites. Unlike the four above, it is focused exclusively on the legal community:

As a legal professional, you post your court filings, decisions, forms and/or articles to JD Supra’s database, a free tool for legal research. You also create an in-depth professional profile that is freely available simply by browsing or keyword searching, or via link from any of your posted documents.

A profile on JD Supra provides a useful addition to your LinkedIn and Plaxo profiles – but that’s not the core value of the site. The main point is to demonstrate your value to potential employers (and clients, for that matter) by sharing your work via JD Supra: filings, briefs, articles, etc.

At first glance, it may seem like you are giving your work away for “free” – but in reality, you are receiving value: respect. Your value as a lawyer, after all, does not come through directly selling your prior work – but rather in using your prior work to sell yourself.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Brief Guide to Personal Branding using Social Media (socialmediatoday.com)
• Using Social Networking in Your Job Search (lateralattorneyreport.com)
• Social networking your way to a job (marketplace.publicradio.org)

5 Social Networking Sites for Legal Job Seekers is from in propria persona, © 2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use.