Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Whatever happened to Henry Simons? (fp)

Wow -- that's some very scary poll results (kw)

The scarlet ankle bracelet. (fp)

Every good article should have one idea. (fp)

Family values in market turnover culture. (fp)

Banks really create value: probably $58 billion in overdraft fees & credit card penalties in 2009. (fp)

A Citizens United dream: Exxon could have deployed 10% of its 2008 profits to outspend every presidential and senatorial candidate that year. (fp)

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets promises to adopt your pet if you are raptured. (fp)

Habermas doesn't tweet, but does interview well. (fp)

Lessig on Google, copyright, orphans, and the future of access to information. (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Kristina on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • PrometheeFeu on The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rewards

    • PoNyman on Very scary poll results

    • Civ Pro King on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • ParatrooperJJ on Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided

    • Lotta on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Alan on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Colin Crowe on The Take Away About Take Home Exams

    • Glomarization on Links and short thoughts on Amazonfail

    • Vinca on Book Review: Divergent Opinions: Why Community Matters — A Review of Sunstein’s Going to Extremes

    • A.J. Sutter on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

    • Keri Brooks on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Illinois on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open?

    • Ken Rhodes on Constitutional Rorschach Test (or Zen Koan)

    • Ken Rhodes on My Letter to the Economist on Climate Change

  •  

    Site Meter

Blogs and Law Practice

posted by Frank Pasquale

Blogger extraordinaire Tom Bell has a rather skeptical take on the impact of blogs on legal practice. Bell notes that while

Blogs seem tailor-made to [offer a] cheap and easy way to bloviate before the world without suffering an editor’s interference . . . . Attorneys will not find that blogs gives them the sort of detailed and applied legal analysis they need to help their clients, nor will attorneys find they can ethically practice law via blogging.

Some valid points here–I certainly wouldn’t practice via blog! But there are some notable exceptions to Bell’s first point, about lack of careful legal analysis. As Ian Best’s taxonomy of blogs (and citation tracking) shows, some courts have used blogs to help them sort through cutting edge legal topics. I also think that law student blogs (done well!) may be a good way for students to develop their interests and demonstrate their abilities.

Moreover, the use of blogs as marketing seems to be catching on among practicing lawyers. The New Jersey Lawyer reports that law firm Stark & Stark launched two blogs that got over 250,000 hits in a year from 60,000 people; a partner at Hill Wallack says that his blog “usually generates at least one new referral daily.” (Sorry, it’s the 8/28 edition, so no article link.).

If they turn out to be a cheap, effective marketing tool, blogs may be a way for small-to-midsize firms to break into areas traditionally dominated by BigLaw.


 October 19, 2006 at 12:55 pm   Posted in: Blogging   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. NJLS - October 19, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Two additional notes to the practical value of law blogs.

    1. Blogs* operated by law school Law Reviews offer practitioners an easy way to reach out to student authors. This would be useful if, for instance, a student comment outlined a cause of action for a class of potential litigants. A practitioner could, via a law review web forum, begin a conversation that could elicit critical research data that might save the attorney hundreds of hours and either support or rule out a contemplated lawsuit.

    * Law review web forums tend to look less like a traditional blog, see Harvard’s Forum, U. Penn.’s PENNumbra, and Yale’s Pocketpart, but the notion of an online conversation is fundamentally the same.

    2.) A drawback, which I have unfortunately seen in responses to several postings on this site (and most certainly others), are the ad hominem attacks that are (hopefully?) motivated by a desire to be witty, pithy, and sensationalist (as opposed to mean-spirited, condescending). I fear that this trend in conversation deters some authors from engaging in blogversations, and encourages others to gloss over details (which is, in any practical setting, what is more important) in an effort to be provocative.

  2. BTD_Venkat - October 19, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    Very interesting. The pressure of billable work today precludes me from offering a meaningful comment, but let me say that the availability online of rulings and commentary (see, e.g., How Appealing) has made me 10 times more informed as a lawyer. Both on topics outside my practice area and in the practice area. I can’t say it’s fundamentally altered the way I practice but it’s certainly made information much more accessible. More than once I have come across a case discussed on a blog. Later a related issue comes up in practice and 4-5 google searches later I have printed up a recent appellate decision addressing the issue, some briefs (sometimes helpful sometimes not), and scholarly commentary (a blog post and linked article). I would previously do this with Lexis/West but I would always spend some amount of time getting to the reference points. Because of blawgging, I have come across and remember many of these reference points already.

    Some of it is generational of course. Most practicioners used to read slip notes and newsletter updates and kept informed through this. For whatever reason I never got into that. (At a small firm where I am now it’s much more difficult resource-wise to subscribe to newsletters, etc.) Blogs pretty much take the place of that and in a very effective efficient way.

    Another change is that it allows lawyers to connect. Particularly at the small/solo level you don’t have a ready network of lawyers across the country. However, through blogging I have come across practicioners in various parts of the country and practice areas that I can at least email with an issue. This has resulted in more than one meaningful connection.

  3. wheeler - October 19, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    “Attorneys will not find that blogs gives them the sort of detailed and applied legal analysis they need to help their clients.”

    debatable, but i’ll concede it. even so blogs do a much better job than, oh say a cle or state bar journal, at keepinig me up on the latest legal developments. i would feel like i was lost in the darkness without doug berman, how appealing, and scotus blog.

  4. Carolyn Elefant - October 20, 2006 at 10:06 am

    I would have to agree with the commenters that blogs DO help attorneys stay informed. I started my energy regulatory practice in 1993, and back then, the only way to keep on top on developments was to purchase a daily publication at a cost of $1500/year – at that time, well out of my price range. To read the news, I would have to go to either the FERC or trade association library and read a month’s worth of back issues at a time. These days, there are a couple of blogs on energy regulatory issues that are free, and link to the cases as well. This is an enormous sea change that people who do not practice, or have not practiced law as long as I have, simply cannot see.

  5. Frank - October 20, 2006 at 11:25 am

    THanks for all for the comments. It’s very interesting to see the “leveling effect” of blogs.

    In response to Ms. Elefant’s point–it would be nice to compare the relative merits of the daily publication and the blog. My guess would be that the daily publication would be a bit more comprehensive and careful, but the blogs in the area would include more (potentially speculative) analysis and would be more interesting to read. There was some comparison in Science of wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica, and apparently the open source model of the latter did quite well in comparison with the established information provider.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Adam Benforado
Mark Edwards
Michelle Harner
Kristin Johnson
Jeffrey Kahn
Alex Kreit
Viva Moffat
Adam Steinman










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress