Opinion / Commentary

FindLaw Article on State of the Legal Blogosphere

Bill Gratsch — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:36:29 GMT

I recently had the opportunity to update and summarize my thoughts on the state of the blawgosphere via an article for FindLaw. Writing with a maximum word count in mind, there is always some material that doesn't make the final draft, but I tried to hit the high points.

Here was the lead-in:

Legal weblogs? Law Blogs? Blawgs? Whatever you call them, legal-oriented weblogs are thriving and their collective impact on the legal world is likely to reverberate.

If curious about the rest, you can find the article online here: The State of Legal Blogs: A Report From the Frontlines

Law School Lectures on YouTube? Why Not, Others are Already Doing It

Bill Gratsch — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:47:45 GMT

I have long enjoyed the University of Pennsylvania's Knowledge at Wharton website, with its database of free articles, lectures and podcasts covering everything from real estate to leadership to business ethics to law and public policy. I have also been struck that beyond the value it provides to the public, it provides the school with an "always-on" location to showcase itself and its faculty. Columbia Business School's Ideas at Work follows a similar path, while perhaps the most provocative new effort is the University of California at Berkeley's joint effort with YouTube.

According to an article this week covering the UC-Berkeley-YouTube website, UC Berkeley first to post full lectures to YouTube:

YouTube is now an important teaching tool at UC Berkeley.
The school announced on Wednesday that it has begun posting entire course lectures on the Web's No.1 video-sharing site.
"UC Berkeley on YouTube will provide a public window into university life, academics, events and athletics, which will build on our rich tradition of open educational content for the larger community," said Christina Maslach, UC Berkeley's vice provost for undergraduate education in a statement.

I would be very curious to know the cost of this joint effort. I really like the idea of the university leveraging YouTube's technology. I often think schools put too much money and effort into recreating the wheel, trying to build online systems themselves when private sector partnerships would be more cost effective and help ensure the site stays current with rapidly changing technological innovations.

In any case, I was particularly struck by the passage accompanying the introductory video on the website:

The University of California, Berkeley is the preeminent public research and teaching institution in the nation. From classic literature to emerging technologies, the curricula of our 130 academic departments span the wide world of thought and knowledge. Supported by the people of California, the university has embraced public service as an essential part of its mission since 1868.

Especially the last part, the university has embraced public service as an essential part of its mission since 1868.

In my mind, public universities exist to serve the public good, educating students for productive lives in their chosen fields. But, they also can serve the public good by informally educating people of all ages, students or not. To do this, they simply need to make readily available the intellectual capital residing in the minds of their faculty and researchers. And, as we are now seeing from universities such as those mentioned above, the technology to facilitate this education has arrived.

With this in mind, I would love to see law schools across the United States and world actively embrace the public service part of their mission by readily sharing the thoughts, ideas and lectures of their own faculty. I realize there are some nascent efforts out there, but I have yet to see any law school move to the vanguard (if I am wrong on this point, please send me bill@blawg.com the links to a law school site on par with the examples I mentioned earlier).

The opportunity for law schools is there. The cost may not be as great as it seems at a glance. Perhaps it just takes a phone call to Google/YouTube to get the ball rolling.

Here's one voice hoping the future reveals law schools leading the charge...

Blawg Value: Leegin Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc.

Bill Gratsch — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:46:30 GMT

I am sure that lawyers being lawyers, there will always be a debate within the community as to the value of legal-oriented weblogs. For myself, and as I have stated on a number of occasions, I think such weblogs are valuable for a variety of reasons. Of these various reasons, the one I wanted to point out today was their ability to quickly convey, crosslink and syndicate thoughtful reaction, analysis and commentary on key court decisions.

As an example, take a look at the post Leegin Analysis at Antitrust Review. The post, which discusses the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Leegin Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., not only conveys the commentary of the blawg's author(s), but links to other relevant postings and case material on the subject. There are even some comments (to which you can subscribe) to the original post wherein others have clarified earlier writings or added-on new thoughts.

And, it is all for free...

As a final thought, I would hazard a guess that this post will quickly find its way into Google, Yahoo, the blawg search sites, etcetera, and be readily found by any students, lawyers, researchers or just interested persons searching for information on Leegin. Indeed, it may be among the most accessed resource on this subject matter out there.

An important Court decision analyzed with thoughtful commentaries from experienced professionals, freely available to the world...to me that adds value.

Law School Debt and Lawyer Salaries

Bill Gratsch — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:32:32 GMT

Over the last few years, I have talked on occasion to students considering law school. When asked about my 'lessons learned' from my own years at law school, I always start with a simple statement: keep a close watch on the debt you are incurring to pay for school and try to keep the total as low as possible. Why? Because the higher it is, the longer you will be making monthly payments and/or the larger those payments will be. And, while at age 23 or 24, it is often difficult to foresee just how much impact a big monthly school debt payment will have on your life and goals (e.g., buying a house, etc.), rest assured it will have a bigger impact than you can imagine.

That is, unless you are able to command a very large salary right out of the gate. But, here is the thing...the very large salaries we have all been reading about? They really are only being given to a minority of the freshly minted lawyers out there.

On this point, Leigh Jones at The National Law Journal wrote a nice piece this month on the subject of lawyer salaries, About That Huge Salary: It's a Long Shot.

The gist of the article (which is well worth the read) can be gleaned from these excerpts from the first few paragraphs:

Despite news of record-breaking employment figures for law school graduates and first-year salaries of $160,000 at many top law firms, a significant contingent of job seekers -- including those with strong credentials -- are living a much different story after graduation...

...But the eye-popping salaries are the reality for a small fraction of law school graduates, and all those stories of big money may be creating unrealistic hopes for the vast majority of law school students. Contributing to the situation is the effort by law schools to portray their employment numbers as robustly as possible to boost their ranking scores.

...The upshot means dashed expectations for lots of graduates, many of whom are saddled with high debt as they struggle to start their careers...

From my own network, I can simply say that the range of salaries being earned is quite dramatic. Ms. Jones' article attests to this:

According to the latest information from NALP, the Washington-based nonprofit group that tracks legal employment, 90.7 percent of last year's law school graduates were employed nine months after graduation, topping 90 percent for the first time since 2000. The total number of graduates for whom employment status was known equaled 40,186.
From that number 55.8 percent -- or 22,424 -- took jobs in private practice. NALP estimates that about 37 percent of graduates who go into private practice end up working for firms with 101 attorneys or more. Importantly, the vast majority of the firms paying first-year associates the much-publicized $160,000 have more than 500 attorneys.
The result is that about 80 percent of law graduates are not working in law firms with more than 101 attorneys and, consequently, are making far less than the amounts grabbing all the attention.
"I'm kind of stuck," said a 27-year-old lawyer from Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law who moved to Chicago after she graduated last year. She did not want to reveal her identity out of a concern that doing so would hinder her job search.
Currently working for an in-house department at a large insurance company in Chicago, she graduated in the top third of her class, was a member of law review and participated in the school's moot court competition. She has $70,000 in student loan debt, she said, and makes about $50,000 annually.
She sent out more than 100 résumés and letters before and after she graduated, she said: "I could get in the door; I just couldn't land the job."
She said that many of her friends from law school are working on a contract basis for law firms: "A lot of people are making $30,000."

I would ony add to this excerpt that I would bet a survey of public defenders, lawyers working for nonprofits and even those just putting out their shingle for the first time, would find a large number of lawyers not even making $30,000.

Ultimately, salary may not be some lawyers main concern. They practice in less lucrative areas out of sheer love for their work. And, certainly that is a completely credible reason for choosing a particular career path. But, no matter what path you choose, keep an eye on your debt load. Believe me, when you look back ten or twenty years from now, you will be happy you did.

Link to NLJ article: About That Huge Salary: It's a Long Shot

Whole Foods Uses Weblog in Response to FTC Lawsuit

Bill Gratsch — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:46:13 GMT

You may have read in recent headlines that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has raised some issues with regard to Whole Foods Market Inc. plans to acquire Wild Oats Markets Inc.

The FTC has filed a lawsuit to prevent Whole Foods from acquiring Boulder-based Wild Oats, the second-largest natural-foods grocer after Whole Foods. The agency said the combined company would control too much of the market for natural and organic foods and harm competition. (taken from Denver Post article on subject)

Whole Foods is disputing the claims through the normal legal avenues, of course, but what is also interesting to me is how the company is using a weblog to "tell its side of the story."

Chief Executive Officer John Mackey has a weblog entitled, simply, The CEO's Blog — John Mackey.

This week, Mr. Mackey used his weblog to lay out a very detailed post regarding Whole Foods stance on the proposed Wild Oats acquisition, including why it believes the FTC's lawsuit is without merit. In the post, Whole Foods Market, Wild Oats, and The Federal Trade Commission, Mr. Mackey starts by noting the 'whys' behind his weblog posts:

It is our intention to be as transparent as possible to the outside world and to provide as much relevant information as possible to our customers, team members, shareholders, suppliers, media, and the government concerning this proposed deal. What I want to do with this blog entry is to share my personal perspective about why Whole Foods' purchase of Wild Oats is a good thing and exactly how and why the FTC is wrong in bringing suit to stop it. I will follow up this blog entry with additional blog entries as necessary to answer the FAQ's that pop up over the next several weeks.

What is particularly fascinating to me, though, is what follows this introductory paragraph:

What follows below is a memo that we sent to our Board of Directors, prior to our first Board Meeting to discuss the deal. It was written of course in confidentiality, but we believe that the FTC is using this memo (one of the 20+ million documents they required from us-more than the Exxon/Mobil merger I'm told) as one of their documents to prove their case against the deal. This document very accurately states all the major reasons we want to buy Wild Oats.

Mr. Mackey's post then precedes by laying out, item by item, the bullet points that were included in the memo, but with significant added detail as to what was meant by the bullet points and/or the Whole Foods' position on each bullet point.

What I also found interesting about this post was the Whole Foods allowed for comments, and there were some intriguing ones that seemed to suggest some of Mr. Mackey's and Whole Foods' possible goals for this post are being achieved. See what you think:

John, i found this to very infomative and helpfulin understanding the merger. i am a team member @ the largest store in CO. and i am also a shareholder so this goes a long way in understaning how the goverment works in these matters. i will watching for other blogs in the future. thanks and good luck.

Posted by: anthony connor at June 19, 2007 06:53 PM

I really appreciate your open and candid communication with public (includes customers and shareholders). I am not sure if you read about the recent FTC challenge to merger of Western Refining and Giant Industries.
But, what happened finally ? FTC was defeated because their arguments did not make sense. I am sure same will happen with this (WFMI and OATS) merger challenge.

Good Luck !

Posted by: Amit Gupta at June 19, 2007 07:11 PM

Your comments about "eliminating the competition" further supports the need for a legal strategy that directly counters the FTC's narrow view rather than try to convince the courts that Whole Foods competes in the supermarket industry.

Posted by: John Hauser at June 19, 2007 08:01 PM

John Mackey continue to stand by your principals. I am writing to my Congress women and Senators about this. The FTC has never protected the public by blocking a merger, Telco and big Oil are prime examples of mergers that have cost consumers billions of dollars. WFM and Wild Oats are mere specs and flies as they relate to the food industry and real good giants. Those of us that shop and understand the brand and the quality products and protections WFM provides should be allowed to grow prosper and merge...Lets just hope the Safeways of the world don't make a pitch for WFM and destroy the brand and employees as they have done with their markets and employees. SHAME on you FTC...but then again SHAME on all things from this administration.

Posted by: Ron Blitzer at June 19, 2007 09:06 PM

I looked, but was unable to find any similar type posting on the Whole Foods matter from the FTC. The FTC does have a weblog, see FTC Launches Blog in Advance of Upcoming Tech-Ade Hearings , but appears to have a specific focus, rather than being general in nature. I wonder if the FTC will ultimately launch a weblog to lay out its side of the matter(s) in dispute?

In the end, I don't know enough about Whole Foods matter to have a specific opinion as to the merits of the FTC's suit. I simply wished to point out what I thought was an innovative use of the weblog form. I can imagine that, among lawyers, there will be a wide range of opinion as to whether such a public post is a good idea.

Regardless, it seems to me that with each new use of a weblog in relation to a legal dispute, their perceived value and viability continues to grow. Again, here is the link to Mr. Mackey's post: Whole Foods Market, Wild Oats, and The Federal Trade Commission

Online Legal Profiles Missing One Feature: Make Me Move!

Bill Gratsch — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:09:57 GMT

Have you seen the brilliant concept that Zillow.com has added to its real estate-oriented website, Make Me Move? Why wait for a homeowner to put their home up for sale? If someone offered you an enormous sum of money for your house, wouldn't you consider moving, whether you had planned to or not? Isn't Zillow proactively trying to create new business opportunities for itself, by creating and matching up buyers/sellers who may not otherwise even been buyers/sellers? Zillow is even seeking trademark protection for the phrase.

Here is the nutshell from Zillow itself:

What is Make Me Move?

Make Me Move is a free and easy way to tell others the price you'd be willing to sell your home for, without actually putting it on the market. It's that magical number you just can't refuse.
How Does It Work?

Once you set your Make Me Move price, potential buyers can contact you anonymously via e-mail. Then it's up to you whether or not to sell your home. Try it out! You can remove your Make Me Move price at any time.

Why don't attorney online profiles have the same feature? Not a salary target, of course, but more a feature that allow attorneys and other professionals to outline not only their skills and background, but the challenges and opportunities they seek?

Attorneys have long used biography/resume/profile sites like Martindale and many law firms spend a lot of time and effort creating their own attorney biographies pages. Now the space is heating up, with social networking sites like LinkedIn adding large numbers of attorney profiles (along with large numbers of profiles in general). Avvo has profiles, Blogger has profiles, Blawg has profiles, lots of sites have profiles. And each sites' profile feature seems to have a particular focus or unique feature.

But I have yet to see a Make Me Move type feature.

I realize that most attorneys and professionals working in the legal space view their online profile as a marketing tool to help them get new business. But, I also realize that legal is fast moving to a free agent marketplace where just about anyone will consider moving to a new job if the opportunity (and price) is right.

I have had any number of conversations with long-time lawyers who wistfully recall the days when a lawyer came out of law school, joined a firm, made partner and securely worked away until retirement. But that world is fast ending.

Indeed, in my own extended network, I have had friends work hard to make partner at some of the top firms in the country, only to subsequently quit when an exciting new challenge was offered them. I have seen partners with 20+ years at the same firm leave because they received "an offer they could not refuse." The largest law firms are showing an increased willingness to de-equitize long-term partners, suggesting there is no such thing as absolute job security, even if you are part-owner of the business. Some published reports suggest that up to 80% of new associates leave their first firm by their fourth year out of law school. Professional recruiters working in the legal space report that the lateral market continues to be robust. Indeed, start-ups like Lateral Link have been formed in response to the opportunities in the lateral marketplace.

All of this points to the lawyers as free agents, willing to consider (and move to) new opportunities at any time, no matter whether they are 2 years or 22 years out of law school.

Now, I don't expect law firms to include a Make Me Move-type feature on their own sponsored attorney biographies. But, their lawyers are already moving on their own to the web and sites like those mentioned above anyway, creating their own personal professional profiles. Many of these profiles include space for a professionals to list their strengths, goals and aspirations. They also include online networking tools and often search engine optimization bonuses they don't get elsewhere.

In the end, online professional profiles don't have to be a one way street. Yes, lawyers and other professionals can continue to use them to drum up new business and network, but they can also use them to let the world (and potential employers) know about their skill sets, experience, and the challenges and opportunities they seek. I think professional recruiters know that anyone will move from an existing job to something new; it is just a matter of getting that "offer that can't be refused."

Finally, I am not suggesting that an overt Zillow-like Make Me Move feature is the exact approach that should be taken. Indeed, that would be awkward; something more finessed would be better. But, the concept is the same: hire me as your lawyer or just hire me.

I'll leave this post with a final thought. In the era of globalization, increased competition (both on and offshore) and web-enabled technologies, is it more likely that the legal space and law firm business models and culture will return to days gone by, or move deeper into the free agency model?

Anyway, something to consider...

Law Firms: Competition and Globalization

Bill Gratsch — Tue, 29 May 2007 12:03:45 GMT

In my conversations with people in all walks of life within the legal vertical, I pick up bits and pieces of information over time. Sometimes these bits and pieces begin to collect around a specific subject and suggest something of a trend.

One such recent "collection" is the subject of competition. Specifically, the location of law firms' competitors. The nascent trend I am picking up is that for mid-size to very large law firms, the competition for some clients is going global. That is, they are finding that competition is beginning to come from non-U.S. based law firms. And, not only abroad, but even on their own home turf.

I cannot say that I am surprised. While lawyers in the United States enjoy some protection from competition via the requirements for and protections of practicing law in a given State, such requirements and protections cannot do much to stave off the globalization of business (and its intended and unintended consequences).

To this point, one growing reality of globalization is that whole industries are consolidating. Look at banking. When I look at banking, I see a large number of state and regional banks being folded into massive multinational corporations. In many of these cases, the acquired bank's headquarters closes and its executives are reassigned or let go. Local law firms which may have had longstanding legal and personal relationships with the acquired bank's executives are then faced with the reality that they may not know a single executive at the acquiring bank. Not too mention that the acquiring bank probably already has its own longstanding and personal relationships with its own "local" law firm. And, "local" could be just about anywhere in the world. Sure, some residual legal work will always remain in the acquired bank's state, but is it of the same quality and quantity as before the merger? That is the million dollar question.

Other examples of industries even further globalized than banking, with rapid consolidation lead by dominate corporate parents based overseas, are cement (Cemex, LaFarge), steel (Mittal), mining (BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto)... Where is the home office of the law firm that handles the bulk of these global goliaths legal work?

Every time a U.S.-based company is acquired by a foreign entity, the U.S.-based law firm that did the bulk of that company's legal work faces a real competitive challenge. To compete for the work going forward, the U.S.-based attorneys may need to jump on a plane and head to Mexico, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, India or China to make their case. Not a simple matter.

Even more disconcerting, what if the Mexican, French, English, etcetera law firms and legal consultancies already serving these international corporations come to the U.S. and bid on work the acquired company is now re-bidding at the direction of its new parent? Not only do those foreign firms potentially have the same longstanding legal and personal relationships with the parent company executives that U.S.-based law firms have long enjoyed with the now-acquired local companies, but they may be able to leverage lower cost offshore legal resources than the U.S. firms. Most especially in transactional work.

There will always be a need for attorneys with "local" knowledge in each U.S. state and thus there will always be legal work being performed by U.S. based firms for global companies doing business in the U.S. But, will the work represent the same quality and quantity as in the past? And, will the U.S.-based firms have to adjust to competing against foreign enterprises for some of its existing work and new work?

Perhaps the trend is nascent, but increasingly my own conclusion is that many U.S. law firms are in for a prolonged competitive battle; a battle that may well include competing for work with global law firms and consultancies, not only abroad, but on their own doorstep.

An Early Look: Blawgosphere Statistics

Bill Gratsch — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:41:13 GMT

Dennis Kennedy got me thinking the day when I read his post, Has Blogging Peaked?, which was his own reaction to a post from Steve Rubel at Micropersuasion in which Mr. Rubel suggests blogging has peaked, As Daily Postings Slide, Blogging Peaks.

Since the majority of the people I know still don't really understand what a weblog is (let alone have one), and an even larger majority don't yet use a feed reader, I find speculation that blogging has already peaked to be a little questionable. Especially if we narrow our focus to legal-oriented weblogs and the blawgosphere.

I think sometimes that the techies among us get so far out ahead of the rest of the masses that they lose sight of just how far behind most of us are behind their early adoption.

In any case, I thought I would take this opportunity to share some general statistics about our little slice of the larger blogosphere, the blawgosphere:

Blawg is currently tracking approximately 1500 legal-oriented weblogs.
Approximately 66% of these 1500 have published new posts within the last 60 days.
For a 64 day time period ending April 5, 2007, the 1500 blawgs combined for around 43,278 total posts.
The blawgosphere in total generates approximately 677 posts per day on average.
Weekdays are more active posting days than weekends.
While the statistics are not yet complete, more anecdotal evidence (based on my experience over the last 4 years) leads me to believe that new blawgs are coming online almost every day somewhere in the world (again with weekends being lighter than weekdays).

The above statistics are drawn from an early sample of data, so I don't consider them totally complete. However, for now, they do give you an sense of the size and breadth of the growing blawgosphere. And, yes, regardless of what the larger blogosphere is doing, I believe the blawgosphere is growing.

Changing Models: Parallels Between Music and Legal Information

Bill Gratsch — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:29:43 GMT

Over the last couple of months, I have run across numerous articles describing the woes facing the music industry. One of the most recent was a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week entitled Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply (sub req'd):

In a dramatic acceleration of the seven-year sales decline that has battered the music industry, compact-disc sales for the first three months of this year plunged 20% from a year earlier, the latest sign of the seismic shift in the way consumers acquire music.

The sharp slide in sales of CDs, which still account for more than 85% of music sold, has far eclipsed the growth in sales of digital downloads, which were supposed to have been the industry's salvation.
The slide stems from the confluence of long-simmering factors that are now feeding off each other, including the demise of specialty music retailers like longtime music mecca Tower Records. About 800 music stores, including Tower's 89 locations, closed in 2006 alone.
Apple Inc.'s sale of around 100 million iPods shows that music remains a powerful force in the lives of consumers. But because of the Internet, those consumers have more ways to obtain music now than they did a decade ago, when walking into a store and buying it was the only option.

As I read this, I was struck by a couple of items. One, how quickly this downward, negative (for music companies) transformation occurred. Two, the lack of vision and innovative thinking by the established music industry companies in proactively adjusting their business model to meet changing consumer expectations.

Here's the thing. The music industry has been finding that digital music downloads are not increasing at a fast enough pace to replace declining CD sales. Beyond the growing reality that Apple, not a old line music company, is becoming the dominant force in dictating what is and is not popular via its iTunes portal, consumers (especially younger consumers) are not married to the idea of buying full CD's anymore, getting singles from a host of sources, including mp3 blogs, iTunes and file-share networks. Meanwhile, according to the WSJ article, even the remaining big sales volume producers are adjusting their models: with music sales sliding for the first time even at some big-box chains, Best Buy has been quietly reducing the floor space it dedicates to music, according to music-distribution executives.

The trendline appears to heading towards shrinking music sales, no matter the distribution model. Here is one conclusion from a music industry veteran as to CDs place in the future business models:

Jeff Rabhan, who manages artists and music producers including Jermaine Dupri, Kelis and Elliott Yamin, says CDs have become little more than advertisements for more-lucrative goods like concert tickets and T-shirts. "Sales are so down and so off that, as a manager, I look at a CD as part of the marketing of an artist, more than as an income stream," says Mr. Rabhan. "It's the vehicle that drives the tour, the merchandise, building the brand, and that's it. There's no money."

So, back closer to home, are there any parallels to what might happen in the legal vertical? I think the short answer is yes, with the lowest-hanging fruit being legal information. If you think about the heart of legal information, much of it is public in nature. Companies add value to this public information by repackaging it into easily discernible pieces and by cross-referencing and adding context and historical perspective. In the past, the barriers to entry have been fairly large as the public information was often buried or not easily accessible (which is still too often the case unfortunately). And, the cost of hiring professionals to repackage and otherwise add value to the information eliminated many would-be competitors before they even started. Finally, the consumers of the legal information had spent their formative years in libraries, doing research via physical books and without access to the web, framing their expectations for how legal information should be delivered.

Looking forward, I don't see any of these past realities staying the course. First, slowly, but surely, public information (from the government agency to the courthouse) is being made available electronically.

Second, the model of who adds value to that information is changing in a couple of ways. Initially, as Wolters Kluwer Chief Executive Officer Nancy McKinstry hinted in the company's most recent earnings call, big information providers are going to increasingly leverage global platforms, which may include having the 'add value' piece of information delivery performed offshore in lower cost locations. It is not unrealistic to expect that ultimately tasks like writing brief case summaries and similar 'add value' work being performed by legal professionals for legal information providers in the United States will be shifted to offshore lawyers in less expensive locales. Moreover, back here in the United States, the cost of entry is lower than ever for individuals and small information providers to take root. As we are seeing in these early days of the blawgosphere and focused microsites, subject matter experts are reviewing legal news, cases and information every day, filtering and otherwise adding value to it, and then giving it away for free. It may be the future competition for old line information providers won't be other large entities, but instead many thousands of small, focused informations providers nibbling away.

Finally, do any of us really thing the lawyers of tomorrow will have the same frame of reference for how legal information should be delivered and consumed? I have watched elementary school kids interacting in virtual worlds and seen six year olds boot up computers and bounce around the web without a second thought. A few minutes in any mall across America will open your eyes as to how younger generations are interacting and consuming information; times have changed, to say the least.

As the music industry has discovered, in the face of changing technologies and consumer expectations, old line business models become vulnerable. The old business models for the legal information industry may be transformed--for better or worse--sooner than we think.

Weblogs Too Risky? Argument Seems a Bit Leaky.

Bill Gratsch — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:23:12 GMT

Dennis Kennedy had a great quote in Computerworld this week in reaction to a story about [a] law firm in New Jersey [which] has temporarily halted plans to launch a blog because its insurance company would not cover the blog under an existing malpractice insurance policy. See Insurance company refuses to cover law firm's blog

In the article, Mr. Kennedy was quoted as saying these types of attempts to impose new restrictions on blogs likely occur 'when people aren't that familiar with the technology and think it is somehow completely new and different. Really blogs are just a form of Web pages. What you're doing is not different than if you are speaking in public or writing an op-ed piece.'

His point is well made. The idea that law firm's weblog is somehow completely different from its e-newsletter or its company website shows a lack of understanding of web technology. Perhaps the concern is how quickly the content can be syndicated worldwide. Yet, law firms send out e-newsletters everyday and often then post them on their websites. This content is then often picked up by "scraping" robots that grab, reformat and repurpose the content for other websites, in effect syndicating it to the world. The syndication process is much more clunky than that facilitated by RSS feeds, but the end result is the same.

Moreover, if there is a concern that somehow a law firm weblog will be a free-wheeling affair wherein anyone and everyone just randomly throws up their latest thought, that has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the business processes and policies in place at the firm. If a law firm starts a weblog and establishes a policy and process to govern postings to it, I echo Mr. Kennedy in wondering how this would be more risky than the other mailings, articles, speeches, quotes, etcetera that firm personnel make public everyday. Indeed, one could argue that a well-crafted policy and process underneath a law firm weblog is inherently less risky than the unfiltered interviews and speeches that firm lawyers regularly give.

We obviously don't know the full story behind the insurance company's rationale and perhaps it is simply taking a cautious approach to give itself time to understand weblogs and complete risk assessments, etcetera. For that I cannot blame them. They are running a business, after all. In the end, however, I doubt that attempting to classify weblogs the technology as somehow too risky to ensure will carry the day.

For more on the subject see Carolyn Elefant's post Warning: Blogging Can Render You Ineligible for Malpractice Insurance as well as Dennis Kennedy's No Malpractice Insurance for Law Firm Blogs?