WORLD Law Direct Forums
Home > WORLD Law Direct Forums > FORUM INFORMATION > Law News > The Curmudgeon on Big-Firm Blogging: Don’t Do it for Profit

The Curmudgeon on Big-Firm Blogging: Don’t Do it for Profit

This is a discussion on The Curmudgeon on Big-Firm Blogging: Don’t Do it for Profit within the Law News forum, part of the FORUM INFORMATION category; In November, the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan published an opus on blogging, entitled “ Why I Blog .” He called blogs ...

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 12th, 2009, 09:00 PM   #1
News
 
WSJ Law Blog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,847

Default The Curmudgeon on Big-Firm Blogging: Don’t Do it for Profit



In November, the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan published an opus on blogging, entitled “Why I Blog.” He called blogs — a conflation of Web and log — an evolving literary form that are “generating a new and quintessentially postmodern idiom,” heralding “a golden era for journalism.”

Today, Mark Hermann — a Jones Day Partner, the author of “The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law” and the co-author of the Drug and Device Law blog — writes his version of “Why I Blog.” But rather than addressing the literary or journalistic merits of the form, Hermann homes in on a far more practical question (for lawyers at least): Can big-firm attorneys use blogs to bring in the bucks?

Referring to his blog, Hermann writes: “In our little niche, however, we’re pretty well known. To the extent that a blog of this type can generate business, we would have expected that to have happened during the two years we’ve been at this. . . It really has not.”

Hermann acknowledges that if he were a “Yellow Pages” lawyer rather than a “tall building” lawyer, blogs might be a better way to attract business. “If we blogged about how to draft contracts efficiently for small businesses, we might attract small business clients,” he writes. “But if we blogged about ‘international M&A transactions valued in excess of $5 billion,’ we’d be less likely to succeed. In-house lawyers at sophisticated companies have many ways to select counsel, and going on-line to find bloggers ain’t high on that list.”

“What’s our advice?” he asks in conclusion. “Same as it’s always been: Blog for pleasure; blog to stay abreast of your field of law; blog to influence the public debate; blog to raise both your firm’s and your personal profile in a your legal niche. . . .But, if you’re a big-firm lawyer who typically handles large litigation or corporate matters, don’t blog for profit. For lawyers in practices such as ours, there are other, more effective marketing tools.”
WSJ Law Blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark & Share



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

| More

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Format Your Messages
Add Forum to Google Toolbar
Forum Jump

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gangbusters at Cravath? Firm On Week’s Two Big Deals WSJ Law Blog Attorneys & Legal Ethics 0 Nov 3rd, 2009 11:00 AM
Big Law’s Future: Profit Forecasts, More Layoffs, and Going Big in BRIC? WSJ Law Blog Law News 0 May 5th, 2009 04:30 PM
Alabama AG on Massey: Don’t Federalize Recusal Rules WSJ Law Blog Law News 2 Jan 20th, 2009 01:53 PM
Cadwalader’s Partner Profit Down 30%; Chairman: Not Too Shabby WSJ Law Blog Law News 2 Jan 14th, 2009 03:03 AM
After California, Gay Couples Still Face Legal Thicket; “Don’t Sue!” WSJ Law Blog Other Family Law Matters 0 Jun 10th, 2008 04:11 PM


Powered by U.S. Legal Forms


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:07 PM.