The Darker Side of Social Media for Lawyers - Update
See end of post for update - could this mess have been avoided?
For new and existing solos, the power of social media is intoxicating. Tools like Facebook, LinkedIn, Blogs and Twitter are easy to use, extremely inexpensive and can help new lawyers connect with colleagues and prospective clients and establish a prominent image online. I've sung the praises of social media myself and I stand by what I said.
But for all of its virtues, social media has a dark side - quite literally. The anonymity provided by most social media sites lets users conceal their true identities in the shadows. If you're not careful, you may wind up friending or following some rather unsavory characters, as these cautionary posts by Kevin O'Keefe and Eric Turkewitz reinforce.
Scott Greenfield shares the full back story to Kevin's and Eric's posts. A lunatic who's been cyber-stalking Mark Bennett ("worst lawyer in Houston") after Bennett outed him for content scraping and other illegal or deceptive law firm marketing practices set up a Twitter account as @asshatlawyer. Apparently, @asshatlawyer's sole purpose is to trash and attempt to intimidate Bennett, Greenfield and the other lawyers who stepped up to warn other users of @asshatlawyer's conduct. Yet unbelievably, @asshatlawyer has 934 followers, many apparently from those who that @asshatlawyer would follow them back.
Laudably, Scott doesn't propose (as does one of his commenters) that bars should ban or regulate lawyer use of Twitter, nor does he counsel lawyers to stop using social media. Instead, Scott urges responsible use (knowing your followers, rejecting the hype) and most importantly,
[Making] sure that your friends in the blawgosphere and twittersphere are made aware when a psycho inserts himself into the community by spreading the word to make sure that no one inadvertently, foolishly, engages with him. Outing the psycho-stalkers will at least minimize the annoyance that twitter leaves us exposed to.
As I've stated repeatedly, social media changes the media, not the message or the motives. You wouldn't follow a complete stranger down the street or invite some crazy person who into your law office who didn't express any interest in using your service. At the same time, we don't cease our social interaction and lock our doors because of the few crazies out there.
The same is true with social media. Does it attract kooks and crackpots and downright dangerous individuals? Absolutely, and far more than in the "real world" population precisely because of the anonymity that it affords. Still, that's no reason to stop using social media, but rather a wake up call to participate in it ethically, transparently and responsibly. And to avoid and call out those who don't.
Update - If you're looking for more background on the stalker part of this story, you can find a good summary and insight at Rick Horowitz's Probable Cause.
Second update (1/3/10 - 10 pm): To clarify, the stalker incident wasn't so much the point of my post as was the emphasis on treading cautiously when using social media. Nevertheless, I received an email asking whether this situation could have been avoided if the bloggers who originally outed the stalker hadn't been as aggressive in engaging him to begin with. After all, you never know if you're dealing with a wacko or a reasonable person. And there's also the question of whether we should give more attention to these lunatics at all.
Both are fair questions. Personally, I think that content scraping warrants public censure particularly when it's done under the auspices of an attorney website. But is there a point at which the escalation could have stopped? In re-reading Rick Horowitz's post (he's a few steps removed from the controversy but nevertheless embroiled), I don't think so. However, if calling out people for improper conduct is going to lead to retaliation, then how can lawyers protect themselves? Sure, established lawyers with good reputations and great Internet visibility can insulate themselves, but what about a newer attorney who seeks to out negative conduct? Is there a way to do it to avoid harmful backlash and reputational damage?
Also, what about the question about engaging trolls? Do we embolden them more?
I'm interested in hearing your views so comment away! Also, for additional background on these issues, you could check out Dan Solove's prescient 2007 book, Future of Reputation which examines some of these questions.
There seems to be a number of lawyers who are into "social media" to the extent that they give themselves ridiculous titles: "Joe Bloggs Esq., the world's largest Linkedin lawyer" etc etc...with 4123 connections
Like Facebook, their goal seems to be to get the largest number of "connections".....
I have used "social media" and have yet to get one client that way. Maybe I'm doing it wrong!
Bottom line is there is still no substitute for 1) word of mouth and 2) having a rep for doing GOOD WORK and 3) FACE TO FACE networking.
The question of whether this situation could have been avoided is an important one, and it relates to the difference between a true psychopath versus a typical annoying person, the troll. Ignore a troll and they will eventually move on, so the rule of thumb is don't feed the troll.
A psychopath, on the other hand, is not so easily dissuaded. They are, by definition, mentally ill, and become increasingly obsessed as they are denied the attention they seek. Rather than wane and move on, they escalate matters instead of growing bored and moving on. This becomes their entire life.
In this instance, the cyberpath was ignored for about four months. During this time, he built numerous websites and opened dozens of twitter accounts, growing increasingly aggressive and involving ever-growing numbers of people in his web. Many of the people had no idea what this was about, and made the mistake of engaging him under the assumption that he was misguided. This gave him the attention he craved and his activities became increasingly more venal to lawyers who were unaware of who he was and what he was doing.
Mark Bennett chose to engage him because of the harm he was doing to so many unaware lawyers. The problem was not going away, and the people he was harming had no clue what they were getting into. Again, this is the difference between a true psychopath and a merely annoying person, and it's important to distinguish between the two as the latter should be ignored, but the former will eventually require action as he will not go away on his own or because he's being ignored.
Carolyn,
Great article! I think that an effective strategy in dealing with this type of problem is to NOT "fight fire with fire," as exemplified by Horowitz's debacle. If one is able to determine the true identity of a troll, cyber-stalker, etc. utilize real world measures to stop their activities. Contact them outside of the realm of blogs, social media and what not and send them a good old letter on your nice letterhead telling them what you intend to do should they choose to continue.
I believe that responding in the same or similar medium chosen by the "aggressor" simply escalates the problem. You are acknowledging, and oftentimes affirming, the presence and power of the aggressor.
Boston lawyer-
Social media is more often misused than it is used when it comes to attracting clientele, and there has been more written about this topic than one could ever read in a lifetime.
I think that even biggest social media "gurus" would agree with your bottom line though, and there lies the problem with your argument; social media is not meant to be a substitute for any of those three factors.
Properly utilized, however, it is 1) another "mouth" (hopefully many, many mouths) to spread the word about the brand of YOU and 2) your good work, as well as 3) increase the chance of, opportunity and value of face to face networking.
I've driven business my way via social media...a good bit, actually, but I still try to keep it personal and avoid the titles and silly pursuit of high, meaningless numbers Mr Boston Lawyer describes above.
Hi Carolyn:
Lawyers are not immune to the hysteria and hype around "social media." I came up with the slogan "Law IS Social Media" because people in the legal profession have an overblown idea of what the profession has to offer a rapidly changing society. It's not ABOUT us! Law without communication and consent is nothing more than opinion, so it's time we got over ourselves and became more servant than leader. I think bar regulation of online speech is dangerous, since most lawyers haven't a CLUE about the underlying technology or where it is going.
Carolyn,
In answer to your question in your update, perhaps if I hadn't started by whacking Benninghoff so hard across the knuckles with my ruler all of this could be avoided. But . . .
But if we don't clean up the blogosphere ourselves, nobody is going to do it for us, and aside from a few sociopaths who will never learn, everyone can take a lesson from the public shaming of those who break the rules that we agree on.
At that time it appeared that we were dealing with a California criminal defense lawyer, not a psychopath. Once we established who we were dealing with, we stopped engaging him for three months, until that seemed not to work.