A big buzz word these days is “transparency” and what it means. For me, transparency on a blog and in social media is the foundation for the trust we are attempting to build with our reader.

I like how Social Wayne describes transparency in social media:

Transparency in social media especially pertaining to blogging and covering a product, brand or service means that’s I’m giving you an honest non-biased opinion or truth when I write or cover a particular topic. Online this can mean that, I am who I say I am online and that my reason for posting or having a discussion about a product, brand or service does not have any hidden agendas. Or if I’m posting or having a discussion about a product, brand or service and was paid or hired to do so, you’ll know about it up front or it will be included in the conversations.

Which brings me to ghost-blogging and legal ethics, which popped up in Legal Blog Watch’s Ghostbusters of the Blawgosphere Take Aim at ‘Ghostblogging’:

It feels like a debate that has been going on for weeks, but it was just Thursday of last week when attorney/ghostbuster Mark Bennett wrote on his Social Media Tyro blog about “ghostblogging.” Bennett wrote that “[h]olding someone else’s resume, face, or results out as your own in marketing your practice is fraudulent. No ethical lawyer could possibly think that any of that would be okay. So how is it okay for a lawyer to hire a ghostwriter to write his blog?”

I’m not going to address the back story of this blog post, you can read that for yourselves. However, the idea of ghost-blogging does bring up legal ethics, as defined by our state bar associations. In a post yesterday, Use your blog to tell a story, I stated that in California it is not ethical for an attorney to use the term “expert” or “specialist.” Call me old school, but it’s a conservative interpretation of Section D of the California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 1-400 Advertising and Solicitation:

(D) A communication or a solicitation (as defined herein) shall not:
  1. Contain any untrue statement; or
  2. Contain any matter, or present or arrange any matter in a manner or format which is false, deceptive, or which tends to confuse, deceive, or mislead the public; or
  3. Omit to state any fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading to the public; or
  4. Fail to indicate clearly, expressly, or by context, that it is a communication or solicitation, as the case may be; or
  5. Be transmitted in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct.
  6. State that a member is a “certified specialist” unless the member holds a current certificate as a specialist issued by the Board of Legal Specialization, or any other entity accredited by the State Bar to designate specialists pursuant to standards adopted by the Board of Governors, and states the complete name of the entity which granted certification.

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one at the water cooler, but I would think ghost-blogging might be frowned upon via sections D-1 (you didn’t write it), D-2 (you didn’t write it), and, D-3 (you didn’t write it). Yes, there is the argument that associates write content for partners to slap their names on, but in our firm, and other firms I have worked at, the partners are usually involved in the writing process, if only serving as a senior editor, and the associates do get credit for their work product. The product, however, is collectively and solely produced by the firm. So I’ll ask the same questions posed by Bruce Carton:

  • Is it ethical to have a ghostblogger secretly write your blog?
  • If not, what if you disclose that fact somewhere on the blog?
  • Is there anything wrong with ghostbusters such as Bennett highlighting and linking to a page on the LGB Web site that publicly lists its clients?
  • If not, would it be appropriate for ghostbusters to “out” people who secretly use ghostbloggers?

So, Coolerites, what say you??

On Friday, January 29th, 2010, Bob Ambrogi, Jay Jaffe and Heather Morse-Milligan were guests on Maureen Kedes’ PR Insider discussing lawyers and PR; the move away from “traditional” public relations towards reputation management; oh, and how social media can play a part in all of this.

You can listen to “Yes, Lawyers need Publicists too,” or download the MP3 or via iTunes.

Lawyers are incredibly cautious and risk adverse. When it comes to blogging, Tweeting, sharing of information, there is still a large camp out there that is more concerned about their competition running across their information than they are about their current and potential clients doing so.
Your website and blog provide you with an opportunity to showcase your work product, to tell your story, to “spin” your message to your advantage. Why not take this opportunity to not only educate your current and potential clients, but allow your referral sources, influencers and press learn what an incredible attorney you are, and what successes you have achieved?
Rather than say you have tried 52 cases to a verdict, why not list the cases with a hyperlink to the final ruling providing a quick description of the case beyond the name, rank and citations?
If you are an “expert” in class action defense, which you can’t say due to bar association rules, why not highlight that experience by commenting on recent cases (and not necessarily your own), legal issues, legislation and trends affecting your clients’ industries, business concerns, and the court room in general?
And, when you’re called upon as a leader in your field of practice to speak at or chair a conference, make certain that you not only include those speaking engagements, but hyperlink to the conference and conference materials. Same thing goes when you’re quoted in a press article, or participate on an Internet radio program.
Yes, I know that there is a “risk” that your “competition” might run across those materials, articles, etc, but that also means that your “potential new client,” “reporter” or “influencer” might also do so.
(image via Art of Conversation)

Lawyers are incredible cautious and risk adverse. When it comes to blogging, Tweeting, sharing of information, there is still a large camp put there that is more concerned about their competition running across their information than they are about their current and potential clients doing so.
Your website and blog provide you with an opportunity to showcase your work product, to tell your story, to “spin” your message to your advantage. Why not take this opportunity to not only educate your current and potential clients, but allow your referral sources, influencers and press learn what an incredible attorney you are, and what successes you have achieved?
Rather than say you have tried 52 cases to a verdict, why not list the cases with a hyperlink to the final ruling providing a quick description of the case beyond the name, rank and citations?
If you are an “expert” in class action defense, which you can’t say due to bar association rules, why not highlight that experience by commenting on recent cases (and not necessarily your own), legal issues, legislation and trends affecting your clients’ industries, business concerns, and the court room in general?
And, when you’re called upon as a leader in your field of practice to speak at or chair a conference, make certain that you not only include those speaking engagements, but hyperlink to the conference and conference materials. Same thing goes when you’re quoted in a press article, or participate on an Internet radio program.
Yes, I know that there is a “risk” that your “competition” might run across those materials, articles, etc, but that also means that your “potential new client,” “reporter” or “influencer” might also do so.
(image via Art of Conversation)
Oh, the jokes started IMMEDIATELY when Steve Jobs announced the new iPad today.

First saw it on Facebook this morning from a friend of mine, an Internet technology executive, “… is wondering if iPad version 2.0 comes with wings for greater protection.”

Andy Levy Tweeted “it can’t be a good sign that #iTampon is trending and #iPad is not …”

@savvyauntie has it going on! “It’s called the iPad – oh no. Bad name! Period.” “I asked #apple if the bigger fonts on the #iPad were for older people. iDepends they replied.” And many more!!!

@DuaneReade “just announced they have the iPad in stock already in aisle 4! Next to the iDepends and iTampons.”

Ohhhhh, I bet Steve Jobs is a little upset right now.

So here’s my point:

Some woman attached to this product development and product launch, somewhere along the line, thought to herself, “Hmmm. iPad … iTampon.” And, she said NOTHING.

How many times have you sat in a room with a partner and thought … bad idea.. But said nothing?

How many times have you looked at a logo or graphic and thought: “Ugh. That looks like a melting big stick!”

I once told a partner that his edit to a document reminded me of “99 billion burgers served.” He wasn’t too happy, but my point was, “If I’m thinking it, someone else is going to be thinking it too.” The change was not made.

Sometimes the hardest part of my job is to give my honest feedback.

Just think about it. If that woman who thought “iTampon” had spoken up, somewhere along the line, Steve Jobs would have been introducing the iSlate or the iGuide today.

Now, if she was smart enough to be the one who registered www.iTampon.com … she’s BRILLIANT!

On Friday, January 29, 2010, I’ll join Jay Jaffe and Bob Ambrogi on PR Insider radio with radio host Maureen Kedes where we’ll be talking about the move away from traditional public relations towards reputation management.

You can catch the program here this Friday from 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. PST. The program will also be archived on the site, oh, and I suppose I’ll drop a link on blog as well.

I love the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment provides us religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble and to file suit against our government to “redress our grievances.”

However disgusting and distasteful, the First Amendment allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie, IL and recently allowed them to adopt a highway in Colorado. The First Amendment allows the paparazzi to stalk celebrities. And the First Amendment apparently allows us to express our opinions on Twitter, as long as we don’t cross the line into defamation.

In Horizon Group v. Bonnen, a case closely watched by Twitter-geeks, a defamation case was filed against Amanda Bonnen who Tweeted about her apartment management company:

“Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.”

Definitely not the worst thing I have ever seen Tweeted, but a case that went viral none-the-less.

Karen Sloan writes about the decision in Dismissal in early test of Twitter libel liability:

Twitter advocates won an early victory last week when a Cook Country, Ill., circuit judge dismissed a defamation suit filed by a Chicago-area real estate management company against a former tenant who tweeted about mold in her apartment. News of the suit went viral on blogs and Twitter as social media users considered the potential ramifications.

(skip)

The dismissal of the defamation suit against Bonnen doesn’t mean that tweeting can’t be defamatory, warned Richard Balough, who was one of the attorneys representing her.

“Just because you are doing something in 140 characters doesn’t mean there can’t be libel or defamation,” Balough said. “People always need to exercise caution, regardless of whether they are tweeting, talking or writing an e-mail.”

Score one, and possible two and three as complaints against Courtney Love and Kim Kardashian
work their way through the courts, for the First Amendment and Twitter.

Remember, just as we cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, we cannot libel one another on Twitter either.

You can follow me on Twitter at @heathermilligan.

(Disclaimer: Remember … I’m not a lawyer, I just hang out with them 9 to 5. The above us just my OPINION).

Like many of us, I am inundated with invitations, almost daily, for “social media for legal professionals” type seminars, conference, workshops and books. Some programs are full-day intensive workshops, others are 60-minute webinars. There are white papers, studies and now books on social media and networking for the legal professional. The pricing ranges from complimentary to several thousand dollars.

Buyer beware!!! Not all social media programs are the same, and not all experts know what they’re talking about. For instance, I received an invitation today from a legal industry publisher to purchase a book on social networking for the legal profession at the “discounted rate” of $500. Looking at the index of content, I can name a blog for each that cover these topics extensively. For free!! So here a couple Dos and Don’ts from me:

  1. Do attend programs hosted by Kevin O’Keefe from Lexblog. First off, Kevin’s funny, along with being informative. He’s living what he is teaching, and he is honest. Kevin’s the first person to tell you that we’re still learning a lot of this stuff as we’re going along.
  2. Don’t pay an exorbitant fee to attend a program when you can attend a better one for free or at a nominal price. Kevin’s programs, for instance, are complimentary and he archives the programs on his website. I know how much it costs to put on a webinar. Personally, if a program is over $100 I just hit delete.
  3. Do listen outside the industry. Not to insult any lawyers out there, but the legal industry is usually one of the last to adopt a new “trend.” I always like going outside the legal industry to see how other professional services, and how corporate America, are incorporating new technology and trends, and I am willing to pay for those.
  4. Don’t believe the “guru” hype. There are too many people out there teaching and coaching, but not doing. So you need to do your due diligence. A Google search will tell you a lot of what you need to know. Read the guru’s Twitter feed. What about their blog? Sorry, but if they don’t have a personal or professional blog, how can they claim to be social media and networking savvy??

Once you attend a few of these programs you start to realize that people like me, Kevin, Jayne Navarre, Tim Corcoran, Russ Lawson, Nancy Myrland and numerous other legal marketing professionals are conveying the same, but really more and better information, by sharing our personal experiences and best practices through blogging, speaking at conferences, or just by living what we preach. (image via Xara Xone)

I’ve been going back and forth with the need for a dedicated social media policy for my firm. Yes, I have drafted one, and I keep going back and editing it down. If you’re not sure where to start, Doug Cornelius has a collection of more than 132 social media policies you can puruse.

Then I came across this post by Michael Hyatt, whom I enjoy following on Twitter, today, Five Reasons Why Your Company Doesn’t Need a Social Media Policy and it go me thinking: Do we really need a dedicated social media policy?

According to Mr. Hyatt:

Your company doesn’t need a social media policy and here are five reasons why:

  1. Your people can be trusted. In my experience as a leader, people pretty much do what you expect. If you expect them to be honest and trustworthy, they will be honest and trustworthy. No, I am not hopelessly naive: I know some people misbehave. But why punish the many because of the few? Deal with the exceptions as they occur. Most people will do the right thing if given the chance.
  2. Social media are just one more way to communicate. I honestly don’t understand all the fuss about social media. It’s just one more way to communicate. Do you have a “phone policy”? an “email policy”? a “fax policy”? Technology is neither good nor bad. It’s what people do with it that is the issue. And honestly, I don’t care if people are updating their Facebook status “on company time.” (Is there really such a thing any more?) Instead, I prefer to focus on the results the employee delivers and let them manage their time.
  3. More rules only make your company more bureaucratic. Before the election, someone asked me what my political affiliation was. I laughed and said, “I’m a Libertarian, but only because I don’t have the guts to be an anarchist.” I don’t think you can legislate morality. (That’s not to say that legislation can’t be immoral, but I digress.) You can’t come up with enough rules to guarantee that people will do the right thing. Too many rules only make your organization slower and less likely to embrace the change it needs to survive.
  4. Formal policies only discourage people from participating. In my opinion, you want to encourage your people to engage in social media. Doing so puts a human face on your brand. It meets customers where they are congregating. It makes everyone an ambassador for your organization. But formal policies discourage this. They make people hesitant. No employee wants to get in trouble, so they just avoid the very thing you want (or should want) to encourage.
  5. You probably already have policies that govern inappropriate behavior. This is the real kicker. You likely already have an employee handbook in place that speaks to what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. At Thomas Nelson, for example, our handbook provides various examples of “Personal Conduct Violations.”

Our firm does have policies on conduct, etc. Do we need to muck it up and scare people away from social media??

Mr. Hyatt does have a short and simple Social Media Policy that says it all:

If you really must have a policy, then I suggest this one:

Use whatever social media you want. Feel free to use it on company time. Just use common sense and remember that if you publicly identify yourself with the company’s brand then act in a manner consistent with that brand. It’s in all of our best interests to do so.

I had a lot of fun the other day covering Kevin O’Keefe‘s “Blogging for Business Development” on Twitter (hashtag #LBGR).

Why do I do it?

  1. It’s like taking notes. I’ll remember the content better, and pay better attention, if I’m Tweeting the content.
  2. It broadens my exposure.
  3. It increases my followers in my targeted markets.
  4. People appreciate it.

I’ve  now done this for several conference, and never thought to put together a “best practices” list. Good thing Adrian Dayton did. Here are his five great tips:

  1. Use the hash tag.
  2. Bring your laptop.
  3. Make connections before the conference.
  4. Share the good stuff.
  5. Don’t worry about tweeting the name and title of each speaker with each quote.

You’re going to have to pop over to the article, How to Cover a Conference Using Twitter, to get the great details for each point.

I would like to add a few more of my own:

  1. Get approval from the conference organizers to get access to the ballroom Internet access passwords. Most conferences lock this down, and it can be difficult to gain access to the codes at the last minute.
  2. Introduce yourself to the speaker before hand and let them know you are Tweeting the program. This removes any doubt as to why you are tapping away at your laptop or on your iPhone during their program. In addition, I have found that most speakers will, at some time during their presentation, reference you to the room.
  3. Add a Twitterfall to your blog! I have one for LMA 2010 Conference in my sidebar, but if you’re going to be away from your blog for a few days, think about adding it as a main entry.

Happy Tweeting.

(image via www.geeky-gadgets.com)