It was, perhaps, unfair or inaccurate for me to call the practice “passive-aggressiveness.” I don’t know what motivates lawyers—I named Scott Greenfield, John Kindley, Jamison Koehler, Norm Pattis—who are increasingly referring to ideas without naming their authors (for example, Greenfield: “Plenty of people with . . . peculiar political views that color their idea of what it means to be a criminal defense lawyer”; Kindley: “what doubly offends RCDLs is that I suggest this while having a tiny fraction of the experience they do actually defending those accused of committing crimes”; Koehler: “the debate quickly moved past a discussion of the merits of the issue to a debate on the respective qualifications of people to engage in the debate itself”; Pattis: “Kindley has been criticized for aspiring to a Bugliosi-like posture”). Greenfield accepts the description with good grace; Kindley explains why he didn’t engage Greenfield directly; Koehler is busy writing about his fantasy football league and wondering, “And these are working lawyers? Where do they ever find the time?” And Pattis writes in favor of not attributing ideas with which we disagree:

But I don’t want law blogging to become the equivalent of Sam Adams Jr.’s tantrum: Issues matter to me; personalities don’t. There’s a nasty trend among bloggers to engage in ad hominem tripe: John Kindley of People v. State just got mobbed. He wrote a contrarian’s piece about justice and criminal law. What followed were comments about his profile on his webpage, etc. This is tedious grammar school antics. Sure, it’s fun to huff and puff and finger point at one another. But to what end?  Writers, like trial lawyers, are mere vehicles for the messages they convey: personalities rarely matter. If someone writes something I think ill founded, it is far less aggressive, whether passive or not, simply to disagree, than it is to advertise his or her error more effectively.

This is the pundit’s view: that attributing error is “aggressive.” (Because the pundit is the ultimate authority, such that all discussion ends with him?)

As a blogger, you should, attribute. You should attribute the thoughts with which you don’t agree as well as the thoughts with which you do. You should name the thinker, and you should link to the thought (possible exceptions exist for hate speech and other obnoxious attention-seeking).

Why? There are four reasons.

You should attribute for yourself. Citing without attribution invites sloppy writing and exaggeration, if not flat-out fabrication. As Pattis, above: “What followed were comments about his profile on his webpage, etc.” Really? What comments? Where? By whom? I’ve been following the discussion, and I haven’t seen it. I’m not teaching expository writing 101 here, but the passive voice encourages lax thinking, which is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s.

You should attribute for your readers. They should not have to take your word for what other people have said. Links are optimal, but if you’re unwilling to link, naming the speaker allows your readers to discover for themselves the words that were said, and their context.

Koehler, for example, says that poor Kindley is a victim, “left to defend himself on the basis of his age and experience” Okay, what has required him to defend himself on that basis? What was said that left him to defend himself on that basis? By whom, when, and where? Was it “you don’t have much experience, and therefore you’re wrong”? Was it “you’re wrong, and if you had more experience you’d see it”? Or was it “you crazy kids!”?

You should attribute for those with whom you disagree. Failing to attribute an idea doesn’t show respect for the thinker; to the contrary, it shows contempt. We’re all lawyers here; part of our job is to do verbal battle over ideas. Other bloggers are big boys and girls who can defend their ideas, and who want to do so. Treating them like fragile teacups dishonors them and their ideas.

Like Pattis, if someone mentions my name on the internet, I notice, and can respond or, if I’m persuaded, learn. If someone talks about my ideas without using my name, there’s no reason for me know it unless it’s in one of the few blogs I read regularly. It was not worth mention when Pattis was the only one doing it, but if everyone does it the blawgosphere will turn from a conversation to a disjoint set of bloviating pundits.

Most importantly, you should attribute for the blawgosphere. It’s not, as Pattis insinuates, about marketing, but about conversation. If marketing drove blogging practices, we would all to each other when we agreed and studiously ignore each other when we didn’t. Marketers aren’t interested in conversation unless it makes them look good.

A happyspherical lovefest doesn’t make for interesting reading; conflict does. Not attributing kills conversation; attributing facilitates honest discussion. Not attributing allows bloggers to refer to discussion in the blogosphere—as Koehler has referred to it—as “the self-righteous fury of the mob.” Which is great for the victimocrats among us (who, like Koehler, can bemoan the lot of poor “victim” John Kindley), but which is a conversational dead end.

For my part, I want to know when people disagree with me; if you think I’m being a fool, tell me. Don’t mutter about me behind my back. When I am (as here? possibly) wrong, I want to be told why, and when I am right, I want to rebut your argument. I want readers to be able to follow the discussion, so that they can reach their own conclusions.

Bad ideas left unchallenged thrive; bad ideas challenged get better. Attribution is not about personalities, but about dialectics. Pretend that there is no thinker behind the thought—take the pundit’s position, that your authority is so great that not naming those with whom you disagree is an act of mercy to them—and the discussion just ends. It’s no way to persuade (if that’s your objective); nor to synthesize ideas.

It is, rather, the online equivalent of talking about someone as though he’s not in the room, when in fact he is.

In response to the advice that the best way to do so was to produce new substantive content, as with a blog or a CMS, the refrain that I heard, time after time, was “I don’t have time for that.”

These were lawyers looking for more clients. Let’s suppose, conservatively, that they aspired to get only one additional client a month, and that they were real slackers, who would spend an average of two hours on a case, from beginning to end. So they wanted two additional hours of work a month, but they didn’t have time to spend a half hour a week blogging.

“I don’t have time” is an excuse. These lawyers think they have two hours a month for new cases, but not two hours a month for blogging. I know lawyers who play golf, who watch football, who hang out at bars, and who claim not to understand how I have time to write. (I tell them my days just have more hours than theirs.)

Like most things, it’s matter of priorities. When writing is more important to you than golf or football or alcohol, it’s easy to find time to write.

(I say “write” because the written word is the most indexable medium. Lawyers wanting to participate online could just as well record audio or video podcasts, or publish original photography or artwork.)

Exposure is what the marketers, SEO gamers, and other self-styled experts, ninjas, and gurus are selling, with their empty promises of high search-engine placement. There are precious few who will assist you in building your reputation.

Why? Because online reputation-building requires that the customer do something more than write a fat check. It requires that he have a good reputation offline, that he be a competent communicator, and that he work hard. And if the customer has, is, and does these things he has little reason to write a fat check to some expert.

So you get these experts who want to make an easy buck off lawyers who want to develop their online presence. They can't do it by selling reputation (nobody can sell you a reputation) so they sell exposure.

The problem is, you see, that often exposure is inimical to reputation. Take the marketer—Sparta Townson, for example (previous SMT post)—who spams blog comments in the name of her clients. In theory (debunked theory, but theory nonetheless) she is increasing their exposure by "link-building," but the reputational harm she could cause in the process, when the bloggers take umbrage and name the customers, is tremendous.

Broadly speaking, online reputation is what people find when they google your name; online exposure is how likely you are to be found otherwise. If your reputation is bad, you don't want people finding you online. Tend to your reputation first.

Assuming that I haven't missed something completely, which, naturally, I have . . .

Humans communicate for fivesix reasons:

• To educate;
• To entertain;
• To persuade;
• To inspire;
  
• To attract; and
• To deceive.

Any discrete communication might serve one or more of these purposes. For example, with this sentence I aim to educate and to persuade.

Examples of communications intended to attract arethe setup for a joke, or the first sentence of a good book or the location of the post splitter in this sentence, intended to draw the listener or reader in.

A lawyer's online communications that may be associated with that lawyer by potential clients should educate, entertain, persuade, inspire, and attract.

(A Tangent, Which Will Be Very Important to Future Theory Discussions: a lawyer's stock in trade is not, as Abraham Lincoln would have had it, her time, but rather her knowledge and her intellectual abilities. A lawyer's online communications that clients might see are effectively free samples of the lawyer's product. So even while lawyers' communications entertain, persuade, and attract, they educate: "This," they say, "is what this lawyer knows, how she thinks and how she communicates; it is, in short, who she is as a lawyer.")

Search engine optimization does not directly advance any of those goals of communication. It may expedite them (because you can't communicate with people who aren't there), but it is the tail, not the dog.

I wrote about Sparta Townson at Defending People as well, in the context of the marketing services she is trying to sell, as did Ken at Popehat.

Aside from the reputational questions for the lawyers who are Townson's target market, The story has interesting angles in the realm of pure social media, which belong here at SMT rather than Defending People.
The dispute, as presented by Jamie, was this: Sparta Townson was posting (or more likely paying someone else to post) spam comments on lawyers' behalfs on Jamie's blog. Jamie objected, and had the decency to call Townson on the phone. Townson took the position that, because comments on Jamie's blog were open, she was allowed to spam the comments and there was nothing he could do about it. Then she hung up on Jamie (another topic, for another day: how little social-media savvy some social-media experts display.)

Is Townson right? If a blog has "open" (not moderated) comments, is it fair game for the spammers?

That question can be broken down into two parts.

First, who makes the rules for Jamie's blog comments? Like his home, Jamie's blog is his castle; Jamie is sovereign there. If Jamie elects to leave his door open, that's not permission for Townson to come in and shit on his Persian rugs.

Jamie has a rule: no comment spam. It's not even an arbitrary rule. Anyone who's been around the internet for any length of time since Canter & Siegel knows that spam is unwelcome. Townson can't possibly be surprised that her feces are unwelcome on the Bakhtiari.

Townson knows they're unwelcome, but still she leaves them. She thinks she can get away with it, because there's nothing Jamie can do about it. Is she right? A rule without a sanction is a courtesy; if Jamie is sovereign on his blog but can't enforce his rules, they might as well not exist, and Townson can make her own rules.

But Jamie's blog (powered by Kevin O'Keefe's LexBlog, by the way, in case you insist on spending money on a social media expert) has Google PageRank 5. What that means, in practical terms, is that if someone doesn't have a strong web presence already (another topic for another day: social media "experts" with weak web presence), when Jamie writes a post about her it's going to come up high in Google search results for her name (another topic for another day: how a real—as opposed to self-styled—social media expert would deal with that post.)

Is that a sanction? Sure it is—potential clients Google "Sparta Townson" or "Internet Guru Girl," and instead of finding the reputation she's cultivating for herself they find the unsavory truth.

So Townson can't make her own rules. She can choose not to to engage in offensive conduct, or to do so and risk the sanction.

Jamie is not limited to naming Townson, though. He could also—if he chose to—name the lawyers who are paying Sparta to defecate on his carpet. Those paying Townson to spam for her are responsible for the spam as well; there is a theory (yet another topic for another day) holding that the best way to stop the comment spam is not to make an example of the Sparta Townsons of the world, but to make an example of those who are paying the Sparta Townsons of the world. If they stop paying her, she stops spamming.

Nobody gets to tell Jamie what to do on his blog. The so-called experts who want to spam with impunity can call it "bullying" when Jamie lays down the sanction of his choice for breaking his rules, but even if they had a web presence worth a damn, I doubt that Jamie would care.

Who makes the rules? Those who, like Jamie, are writing the content that people want to read (and link to) make the rules.

Law Office of Henry S. Hilles, III
Norristown, PA

to explain how it is okay to use a dead nine-year-old child to advertise legal services. Like Sassower, Chase, and Kahn (who are also invited to explain), Strand, Beck, Petersen, Hark, and Hilles are paying FindLaw to market them through dreckbloggen.

We didn’t know? You know now. What have you done about it?

We didn’t ask FindLaw to do this? Not explicitly, but you paid them to.

We trusted FindLaw?

Outsource your marketing, outsource your reputation.

We get the blogosphere we deserve.

If you needed a regular source of ideas for blog posts, you could subscribe to Avvo’s questions in your field and answer them on the blog. Lots of the questions aren’t worth answering, but there are at least a couple a week that might make for interesting blog posts.

For example, here are today’s Texas criminal law questions from Avvo Answers:

• In Texas if someone steals and doesn’t get caught but someone wants to turn them in that saw what will happen?[Probably nothing.]
• I heard that the Minimum mandatory stay in Federal Prison was being reduced to 65%. Is that true, and when will that come in fo [No. It's a perennial myth.]
• When the prosecutor’s office receive new information that is exculpatory, what is their role? [To reveal it to the defense.]
• I need a pro bono criminal lawyer to handle a case for my 18 year old son, who is being set up. He is worried about not graduate[Good luck.]
• I took the blame for a friends theft of $230. Can I still get in trouble for ratting him out? [Probably.]

At least four out of those five questions might make for informative blog posts. No effort would be required to choose a topic for a post; all you would have to do is research and answer the question. Voilà, instant blog framework, leading to the production of on-subject content.

As a bonus, by answering on your own blog you don’t have to deal with the answhores.

Kashonia wants her money back. Because “whilst it’s true that we did start with nothing, what we did was to go out on the streets and beg for money. That was the way we were to “manifest” the money.  There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between vibrationally manifesting money and begging for money on the streets.” Yes, the rubes who had paid to go to this workshop were actually sent out onto the streets of Las Vegas to ask strangers for money.

Hmmm. You cause your vocal cords to vibrate and form the words, “please give me money”; a stranger gives you money. That sounds like vibrational manifestation of money to me.

But, hey, I live in the real world, where people work for a living. I’m not a mental health professional, so I can’t say for sure that she’s batshit insane/ Instead, I’ll just say that she is living in a different world. Kashonia’s long post reveals how clueless the greedy can be in their search for money for nothing. Her greed seems pretty benign—hapless rather than avaricious—but someone who spends 12 grand to learn how to “vibrationally manifest[] money”:

1. Is well-advised to always set off the word “reality” with doubt quotes;
2. Will always be an easy mark for a conman; and
3. Has no right to complain when someone else gets money from her for nothing.