Earlier this week I read and retweeted a blog post by someone I thought was a young lawyer (insofar as the name of the blog implies the blogger is an “associate”). It was a post laying out data and analysis on the blog’s first month, as well as some anecdotal commentary that hinted at an independent approach to legal social marketing. I thought it was bold in its transparency and honesty, and tweeted so.
When I went back today to look for additional posts of interest, I was disappointed to find a garden variety poseur. That he would claim the mantle of associate when he hasn’t finished law school/passed the bar/been hired by a firm as a lawyer (and not his present role of clerk) is troubling, and kind of killed any credibility for me.
It went downhill from there. His other posts were basically great swaths of commentary on martial arts and “The Great Conversation'” (aka dead philosophers and poets) lifted from Wikipedia and strung together with the kind of flowery prose that you find in high school term papers.
The reason why I bring this up is that he saw fit to include condescending remarks on legal marketing and legal marketers, deigning to allow that there are a few good ones, but that the bulk are charlatans with a sales agenda.
Really? That’s pretty rich coming from a part-time marketing guy who has been a legal blogger for a month. And he doesn’t have a self-serving angle?
I could have just tweeted out, “Look, liar, U had 1 lucky post. But in the main, U don’t know squat.” [Next tweet] P.S. The blogger trolls U emulate will never love you back, no matter how many @ messages you send them.”
But I needed a post for today, and this format is more satisfying.
Thanks for your kind attention.