I Blawg. You Flawg. Period?

Blawging and Flawging is black and white
That Elephant does not know what he is blowing his trunk about… Blawging and Flawging is black and white, simple as that.

Is Blawging for business purposes black and white? That appears to be the view of many commentators on my post on The Elephant in the #LawBlogs Room. There are blawgers and there are flawgers. That is there are the ‘serious’ law bloggers who do not dream of blogging for business purposes and then there are those who blog purely for those purposes and no other.

David Allen Green seemed to see the divide simply in terms of blog headlines suggesting that there were blawgers “who think there could be an elephant in the room” and others who “would never use such bloody awful piece of business jargon”. David obviously has not noticed that The Time Blawg is actually about the business of law and hence it will not be unusual for business terms to appear in this blog. Whether we resort to populist TV (other than Dr Who of course) or resort to pornography in our headlines to gain readership of our posts remains to be seen. However, surely a blog will stand on its content (as indeed Jack of Kent clearly does) and you cannot simply differentiate blog posts based on the headlines used without reading the content.

I do not consider it to be as black and white as some portray. As Tessa Shepperson’s recent UK Blawg RoundUp demonstrates there is a huge variety of different types of law blogs and law bloggers. I will offer my view on those types and how each may relate to business development.

The Student Blawger: This law blogger is starting out on the road to becoming a lawyer. They may be blogging about their experiences of University life and/or commenting on legal cases that interest them. They are not in it for business purposes as they are not yet in business. However, the fact that they are blogging builds their personal brand (I have given a talk on this topic to the Diploma in Legal Practice Students at the University of Glasgow: IT and Marketing in the Legal Profession). This could assist in employment prospects and generally from a business development point of view further down the line as the blog matures to one written by a solicitor or barrister/advocate rather than by a student.

The Academic Blawger: There are not so many of these around. However, those that are will not be selling legal services as such. The academic blawg will build the academics personal brand much in the same way as the student blawg does. It could lead to the academic being asked for quotes for newspaper or legal journal articles. It may lead to them being asked to provide a legal opinion on a matter by a solicitor. Business development possibilities exist but are perhaps not being exploited as they might be, as yet, by academia.

The Anonymous Blawger: No one (or very few people) know who they really are. Their Blawg certainly does not give it away. They like the mystery. They are not selling legal services. If their blawg is popular (this type often is) they may be able to sell some advertising space on their blawg if they really want to.  They probably don’t want to. If they did that might be the height of their business development (if you can truly call it that). Their anonymous profile will be raised much in the same way as the student or academic blawger but the effect of this will be much less. That could all change of course if this type of blawger decided to reveal themselves.

The In-House Blawger: A lawyer who has escaped or perhaps never worked in private practice. They work in-house for a company or perhaps a public body. Therefore they have no real business development purpose in blogging. However, there will be the personal branding benefits, already discussed in connection with Student and Academic Blawgers, and also personal development benefits. They are likely to engage with other lawyers who share interests that they do and who could well be lawyers that they end up instructing when the need for out of house assistance arises. All of this could benefit the business or organisation that they are employed in, all be it perhaps inadvertently.

The Occasional Blawger: Someone who tried blogging a few times and might return with the occasional post (there again you may never see them again). They were perhaps originally there for the love of it but they now seldom find the time for it. As a result their blog will not be read that often and will not be on the radar of other blawgers. However, their older blog posts may well be found by people searching for the area of law they blog in and the potential for business development (whilst diminished) will still be there.

The Journalistic Blawger: This blawger keeps us up to date with what is going on in the legal world. They produce very regular updates (perhaps several a day). They may be doing it for the love of it (see next entry) or they may be operating a business on the back of it or with the blawg being part of that business (perhaps in addition to a printed news journal). They will derive a good readership and as a result will be likely to have the ability to sell advertising space. Some may even be behind a paywall deriving revenue every time they are read.

The Love for it Blawger: They enjoy it, there is no business connected to it and they never set out to derive business from it. Tessa Shepperson put The Time Blawg into this category in her recent UK Blawg RoundUp. I am a lawyer whose primary personal area of expertise is Property Law with a niche in crofting law and servitudes (easements). The Time Blawg is unlikely to result in any new clients knocking on my door for such services. I blog at The Time Blawg because I am a lawyer who runs his own law practice and has an interest in the business of law. Blogging on that topic makes me think about the business of law in a way I might never do otherwise. It helps me decide what business practices to introduce at Inksters for the development of that business. So unwittingly it perhaps becomes a business development vehicle of a kind. Blogging on this topic does of course raise your profile as someone who may be able to share their knowledge on the topic in question. This could result in being asked to provide quotes for articles in newspapers or in the legal press or to talk at seminars or conferences. There may be a fee paid for such speaking engagements. The general profile raising involved could well ultimately benefit Inksters as the firm name is associated with me and recognised as a law firm in Scotland that it may well be worth placing business with. Advertisers may wish to pay to appear on The Time Blawg (I have been approached and so far declined). Thus a blawg that was originally ‘for the love of it’ and nothing else could well become something more and one that includes business development without you really knowing or wanting it.

The Membership Blawger: This blawger is certainly doing it for business purposes. You must subscribe (i.e. pay) to access their content.

The Legal Marketer Blawger: Some blawgers don’t seem to like this type of blawger. Don’t know why myself. Their business is selling marketing advice to lawyers. Many lawyers are certainly in need of such advice. The fact they are selling to lawyers does not make them more of a flawger than a lawyer selling legal advice to a client. Many marketing blawgs are well written with original material that raises issues for, and generates, discussion. Surely what any good blog should do. Yes, they are doing it for business purposes. But they may well love doing it as much as any other ‘love for it’ blawger does.

The Blawger who recognises the business advantages: This blawger enjoys blogging. They may be the ‘for the love of it’ type. But they also recognise that blogging brings with it business benefits. They are perhaps more likely to be business owners of law firms who appreciate the need (more so than the ‘technicians’ who work in law firms) for business development. This blawger will write good law blog posts. These may well be more client centered than directed at other lawyers. This blawger is likely to be active in engaging on other blogs by commenting on posts. They will probably engage on other social media platforms such as Twitter. They don’t ‘sell’ in a direct and blatant way but their online activities will certainly enhance the business development of their law practice.

As Bob Burg, commenting on Chrissie Lightfoot’s book ‘The Naked Lawyer’ in ‘Lawyers (And All Service Pros) Can Give Themselves The Edge‘, remarks:-

Here’s what I’m saying: You are in sales, my friends. And, selling is giving. It’s giving “time, attention, counsel, education, empathy and appreciation.” More than anything, it’s giving a value-based experience second to none; one that totally overshadows the invoice, regardless of how large the invoice is.

The Blawger who recognises the business advantages of blawging knows this. The “time, attention, counsel, education, empathy and appreciation” will be apparent in their blog posts and other online activities. This will be in stark contrast to the Flawger (who we will come onto shortly).

The Blawger in business development denial: Probably the ‘technician’ referred to in the last category. They think that being a lawyer has nothing to do with generating business but all to do with doing it, doing it and doing it. The following paragraph from ‘The E-Myth Attorney: Why Most Legal Practices Don’t Work and What to Do About It’ (by Michael E. Gerber, Robert Armstrong and Sanford Fisch) sums them up (substitute “blog” for “practice” and, if you are not in the US, “lawyer” for “attorney” and you will get the picture):-

Many attorneys justify their evasion of their responsibility to run their practice as a business on the ground that to focus on “business” is somehow immoral or unethical for an attorney. They tell themselves that there is something impure, inelegant, or even unprofessional about thinking of their practice in business terms

However, their blog probably does produce business development opportunities. They have a heightened profile. They are asked to contribute to other publications and talk at seminars/conferences or on the radio/TV. Their name is out there as an expert in their field. Work is derived as a result but they just cannot see or refuse to see the part (which may be a small one) that their blog plays in all of this. Nicole Black highlights these benefits in her recent post: I Heard About Blogging on NPR…:-

Blogging served me well in so many ways.  It allowed me to network with other lawyers from across the country, many of whom I still keep in contact with even to this day. It also showcased my writing skills and showed that I was up to date on changes in my field despite my time off from the law. I always tried to blog about topics that interested me and, because I did so, I very quickly found a voice. And from there, readers, and business, followed.

Through my blog, I created a body of work that helped me obtain new clients, a regular column with The Daily Record, an opportunity to co-author Criminal Law in New York with Judge Karen Morris, and, eventually, in late 2006, I was offered an of counsel position with Fiandach & Fiandach, the law firm with which I continue to be associated.

Since then, my social media presence and my various blogs have been the key to every opportunity that comes my way. Because of my online presence, I am frequently contacted by potential clients in need of an attorney. If the matter is not a DWI-related offense, I refer it out to other knowledgeable attorneys in my area. Other benefits arising from my online presence include opportunities to author books and articles, speaking engagements and getting quoted in mainstream media.

The Flawger: The terms ‘flawg’ and ‘flawger’ were first coined by Antonin Pribetic in his post: ‘My Gift to the Social Media Law Marketers: The Flawg’. Antonin attributed these, in the main, to the Legal Marketer Blawger:-

Flawg”: noun. A legal blog without any substantive legal content that is created, monetized and promoted exclusively for profit. A Flawg will often contain posts about the latest legal tech gadgets, or the how to gain new clients through the awesome power of the internet, in the absence of anything remotely legal to discuss;

“Flawger”: noun: someone who flawgs. Usually, a non-lawyer/social media law marketer, (but also a disbarred/suspended/unemployed/underemployed/retired/or failed lawyer who quit) who writes blawg posts about how to write blawg posts, SEO, ROI, iPads, cloud computing, top ten lists, and enjoys attending law marketing conferences and twittering about using #hashtags.

Since then these terms seem to have gained traction as much towards lawyers or law firms whose blogs are “without any substantive legal content that is created, monetized and promoted exclusively for profit”. Charon QC in his ‘Postcard from The Staterooms: Law blogs – but no *Flawging*?’ put it like this:-

I’m not interested in the ‘Flawgs’ – blogs which merely highlight the brilliance of the law firm along the lines of *I was sorry to hear that Mount Etna killed thousands in Pompeii in AD 79 (substitute the latest disaster to taste)  – meanwhile, if you need advice on conveyancing, personal injury or will drafting etc etc …contact us at…*

There no doubt will be certain legal marketers who would espouse the creation of such blogs by law firms. Those legal marketers are probably as much flawgers as the firms who follow their advice become. But there are legal marketers whose own blogs do not fit this criteria.

Nick Holmes in his blog post ‘What is a blawg?’ for UK Blawg RoundUp states:-

As blogs have become more common we find many law firms producing news blogs for client consumption and, particularly in areas of high competition, full-on “marketing” blogs especially designed to attract custom via SEO. That’s a perfectly valid use of blog software but it does not make what they produce blogs; they are marketing pap.

That definition from Nick is perhaps a good way of thinking of a law firm ‘flawg’. This type of blogger is only really in it for a perceived sale. They have heard that blogging is good for business development but they are not that interested in spending much time on, or perhaps even doing, it themselves. They will possibly buy content produced by others to place on the blog within their firm’s website. It will be heavily keyword laden with the only real purpose to be found as a result of SEO. There will be no real engagement by the blogger on other blogs or via social media. If they are on Twitter they will broadcast their blog posts and little else. They may even outsource their tweeting to the same marketer who is writing their blog posts for them. These blogs are unlikely to find themselves mentioned in Blawg Review or UK Blawg RoundUp. They are not going to be highly thought of or referenced by other blawgers. On the whole they will be ignored. They are more web content than blogs in the true sense. Many are perhaps flawging a dead horse in any event. The other blawgers I have described should lose no sleep over them.

As Charon QC said in a comment on ‘The Elephant in the #LawBlogs Room’:-

What we don’t really want to see is the marketing schtik which some US blogs engage in. I can’t see these blogs succeeding. Most people can see through the schtik. It could even be counter productive.

My list of different types of law blawgers may not be an exhaustive one. It is what I have come up with. Some blawgers will fall into more than one of these categories. Do let me know if you think there are other categories or if, indeed, you think there are only two: blawgers and flawgers. I think that ultimately most, if not all, blawgs result in selling of a sort (even if that is just the blawger themselves rather than a legal service). Some blawgers protest too much on this issue me thinks. If you don’t want to flog don’t blog. What do you think?

Similar Posts


  1. Great list Brian. There is another interesting ‘types of blogger’ list on Problogger here http://www.problogger.net/archives/2011/07/30/the-23-blogger-breeds-–-which-are-you/. I decided that I was probably a combination of an expert and machine on that list.

    So far as your list is concerned, I blog for the love of it, but as I run an online legal information service, I would be insane not to use the popularity of my blog to help the business. So I am also a blogger who recognises the business benefit of it.

    My view though is that EVERY blogger (if they do it properly), even the anonymous bloggers, will benefit from blogging The very act of blogging – thinking and researching a subject, crafting the post and selecting the right words – this cannot *but* help us as lawyers whose business is with words.

    It is also good to have your own place on the internet where you can express your views on a topic and comment on the news. This is a wonderful freedom which we have in the age of the internet. We are all publishers now.

    1. Thanks Tessa

      Goodness me: There are 23 types on that list and I only came up with 12!

      I have not been blogging long but in the short time that I have I can certainly say that I have seen the benefits that you have outlined. As a result I am actively encouraging the other solicitors and trainee solicitors at Inksters to take up blogging for their own personal development which will, I am sure, in turn benefit the firm.

  2. Yay for me. I’m a flawger. I think. Or maybe not.

    Who cares? What difference does it make?

    You do what you want, no one forces another to read, right?

    1. Thanks Steven

      Following my definitions you are, I would suggest, a blawger who recognises the business development benefits of blawging. Some would call that flawging. I would not.

      I agree, though, who cares? Many blawgers seem to care too much and I don’t really understand why they do.

      Most true flawgers (the “marketing pap” producers as Nick Holmes refers to them as) will not even be on the radar of most blawgers. As Charon QC says “I can’t see these blogs succeeding. Most people can see through the schtik. It could even be counter productive.” Let us not worry about them and leave it like that.

      Blawgers should not however dismiss the business development opportunities that blogging presents to them and the fact that this is not (if done properly) ‘marketing pap’.

  3. “I think that ultimately most, if not all, blawgs result in selling of a sort (even if that is just the blawger themselves rather than a legal service).”

    Perhaps the issue is not creating a taxonomy of legal blogging, but to consider the words of Jack White of the White Stripes in the song “Icky Thump”:

    “Who’s using who? what should we do?
    well, you can’t be a pimp
    and a prostitute too.”

    There is nothing wrong with selling yourself, I suppose, as long as you don’t sell yourself short or sell-out completely.

    There is a third stripe to add to your zebra.

    “Splawging” (“Spam blawging”):

    Using RSS-feeds and link-baiting without prior consent or written permission of the blawg owner in order to redirect traffic to a spammer law blog. In some cases, outright plagiarism or reproducing original blawg content without attribution.

    Of course, if most blawgers are just selling themselves or their legal services, then neither flawging nor splawging should pose a problem. Adam Smith’s invisible hand will gently guide clients to competent, ethical and competitively priced law service providers, each and every time.

    1. Thanks Flawgmeister Antonin

      I think ‘splawging’ could be potentially of greater concern to a blawger than flawging.

      However, as you say clients will, on the whole, be guided to competent, ethical and competitively priced law service providers regardless of splawging or flawging. So no real need for us to worry ourselves too much over it.

      1. Brian,

        I’m afraid my Adam Smith reference was meant to be sardonic..

        Flawging and Splawging are the detritus of legal writing. Clients seeking out lawyers will gravitate towards Google ranked websites and whatever keywords and SEO tricks that flawgers will employ to shill their services. The fact that this post and others do not even mention the decline in professionalism and ethics and the deleterious impact on public perception of our profession is worrisome.

        1. Thanks again Flawgmeister Antonin

          Sorry I missed the sardonicism. However, I do believe that most sensible clients looking for a lawyer with particular expertise will spend a bit of time working out who they should instruct from information gleaned on the web (if indeed that is the way they decide to select their lawyer). Blawgers are likely to stand head and shoulders above Flawgers in this regard.

          You mention the decline in professionalism and ethics. That is perhaps something you are seeing to a greater extent in North America than we are over here. I don’t think it is a real problem in the UK. Perhaps that is why flawging does not appear to be an issue of real concern in the UK as yet. Could this be the case?

          1. Given your moderation policy, I demur in naming any UK flawgers (they know, or ought to know, who they are). I do, however, acknowledge your efforts in framing the debate by identifying the issues important to the Blawgosphere, both in the UK and North America. As far as nascent issues of declining professionalism and ethics are concerned, I defer to your fellow UK blawgers to continue this dialogue.

            A final thought.

            There is apparently something called “brand journalism” where former journalists are hired by companies to write posts and promote these companies’ goods and services, under the pretext of journalistic training and standards. What this may portend for blawging or flawging is anyone’s guess, but it reinforces a view shared by some blawgers that branding is for livestock, not professionals.

          2. Thanks Antonin

            Perhaps we need Flawg Review and UK Flawg RoundUp. Perhaps even the Flawgies 😉

            Pinsent Masons employ journalists to contribute to Out-Law.com with some considerable success. Are they flawgers?

  4. Brian,

    The bloggers that sell marketing advice to lawyers are mostly lawyers who couldn’t make it in the law and therefore should not be selling or even giving advice to lawyers. All lawyers should speak out against these total failures who are trying to make money off lawyers. They should be exiled from the profession.

    [Editors Note: This comment has been edited to avoid the personal references to other blawgers that I have previously stated I consider can be made on commentators own blogs rather than here – see: I thought the Blawgosphere was a friendly place 🙁]

    1. Thanks Brian

      Just because a lawyer has moved into marketing (whatever there reasons for doing so) does not necessarily mean that they will not be a good marketer. If they are not then the lawyers that hire them will soon find out. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

  5. Morning Brian,
    Hope you don’t mind a non-lawyer commenting ?, albeit I do have an interest in law (particularly family) and an increasing one in blogging.
    That’s a great post and quite thought provoking.
    If I had to pigeon hole myself, i’d probably be in “who recognises the business benefits” camp at the moment.

    1. Thanks Paul

      Always good to hear from non-lawyers at The Time Blawg.

      This post and the two preceding ones could apply equally to any profession. So it is always good to hear different perspectives.

  6. I find myself a little sad at reading this post and one (in particular) of the comments. I am a solicitor who was made redundant and then chose to leave the law. I don’t think I’m a flawger – but I’m not sure what I am!

    Before I made the decision to move on, I blogged, I continue to blog. At the very start, I made a conscious decision not to blog on black letter law, preferring to concentrate on the things that interest me but which are still relevent to the profession.

    I would be horrified if people thought I was a ‘failed’ lawyer or that my blog is ‘out there’ to tell lawyers how to market themselves etc.

    Great post though Brian – made me stop and think…. as ever!

    1. Thanks Victoria

      You are certainly not a flawger.

      I don’t think you have to be a black letter law blogger to be a blawger. In my mind any blog that covers the law or is relevant to the legal profession can be a blawg. Your blawg certainly has plenty of relevance to the legal profession in it.

      Far better to blog about what interests you. If you do then your blog is more likely to shine as a result.

      The current economic situation and the changes we are experiencing as a result of ABS will mean more lawyers finding themselves working outwith (but maybe with) the legal profession. That is life. Many such lawyers may end up much more fulfilled as a result. I don’t think anyone can decry this. Some no doubt will be jealous of it.

  7. I deny that in either of the titles quoted from my blog, I chose them to gain readership. In fact I stopped looking at my Jack of Kent stats ages ago. I chose the titles because they….amused me 🙂

    But I do stand by my comment about an “elephant in the room”. Dear god…

    1. Thanks David

      No need to admit or deny anything. My references to your headlines at Jack of Kent were meant to be taken tongue in cheek. I don’t think any blawger should be spending their time worrying about or criticising the headlines chosen by others to sell their blog posts. If we did we would have a field day on your latest list of 5 post: a recognised “technique amongst bloggers wanting to write content that gets spread from one person to the next” 😉

  8. Great post Brian. As the old saying goes, you can’t know where you’re going until you know where you’ve been. If you want to know where your blawg is going or how you can improve it, a bit of self-reflection using the taxonomy outlined above, coupled with the problogger taxonomy as referenced by Tessa above ( http://thetimeblawg.com/2011/07/31/i-blawg-you-flawg-period/#comment-2269 ), can be useful.

    Nevertheless, while 99% of blawgs will indeed be one or a mixture of the above categories, I think it’s important for people not to try to pigeonhole their blawgs (or those of others) too much. At the end of the day, publishing legal information to the web for others to read for free, regardless of its form (provided it’s not complete guff), should be welcomed as much as possible.

    1. Thanks Gavin

      I agree that we should not pigeonhole blawgs. Categorising them, as I did, was really an exercise to bring out the business development potential that existed for different types of blawger and then, in effect, conclude that they all have business development potential, regardless of their type (i.e. perhaps all blawgs are really the same in that respect).

      All in favour of encouraging the posting of legal content on the web. If it is complete guff or marketing pap (as Nick Holmes calls it) then it is likely to be recognised as such and, as CharonQC says, could be counter productive for the blogger who posted it.

  9. Imagine television showing well-produced, interesting, funny commercials, one after another, all day and all night, day after day, month after month, etc.

    How wonderful it would be for lawyers to have such a resource available to us. I’m sure that non-lawyers would find it so fascinating that they would watch it all the time, because that’s what they desperately want to see, well-produced, interesting, funny commercials for the services of lawyers.

    Yes, it’s a wonderful business development opportunity. And that’s why the blawgosphere exists, so we have such a wonderful resource available to lawyers to develop our business, because everybody adores watching our commercials because we’re so brilliant and fascinating.

    After a while, every lawyer will wake up to this wonderful business development opportunity and the internet will be awash in well-produced, interesting, funny commercials for the services of lawyers. Then, we will all bask in the wealth and prestige that the internet bestows on us. Yes, it’s a wonderful business opportunity.

    1. Thanks Scott

      I would see a good blawg as being more like a TV documentary or news programme than a commercial. Not something that is on continually but something you want to take in on occasion and in depth. The commercial on the other hand is presumably the flawg. You make a cup of tea whilst that is on and therefore don’t really notice it.

  10. This *waves hands generally at the ‘debate’* is why I was determined not to be labelled a law blogger, or ‘blawger’. This debate benefits no-one, and makes us all look frankly ridiculous. Stop it, for the love of whatever deity you elect to align yourself with.

    1. Thanks Amanda

      You are certainly not a flawger but may, by now, have difficulty shaking off the ‘law blogger’ or ‘blawger’ title.

      The debate did mushroom somewhat following what I thought was an innocuous question about whether blogging for law firm business development was being ignored at #LawBlogs 2. Clearly it is no longer being ignored but the debate is probably about exhausted so may not need to be raised at #LawBlogs 3 in the Autumn.

      Ridiculous elements have perhaps, at times, crept into the debate but I think it is one blawgers needed to air. Especially when law firms are regularly being advised of the benefits of blogging and mentions of flawging have been cropping up on Twitter and on other blawgs.

      You will be pleased to hear that my trilogy of blog posts on the topic will stop at that (for now at least). My next blog post will be about the ice cream sellers of Dubrovnik.

  11. As one of the academic bloggers, I guess I’d say that whilst it is certainly the case that journalists have become more interested in quoting me post-blogging, my main reason is to spark discussion and broaden debate. There is a degree of promotion involved: though I like to think (pretend?) this is about promoting the idea that academic research has value and relevance to what is going on in legal services and the justice system. Plus, it’s fun and it helps keep me on top of what’s going on in the big bad world outside my ivory tower.

  12. Nice summation Brian, I agree with Amanda in terms of the debate – I don’t see the need to categorise in any way or create rules. I’ve always blogged about what interests me or tickles me or upsets me. I try to write with a personal perspective or insight, I like to commentate from different perspectives and sometimes I like to see how dark I can go with humour and language. I tend to read bloggers, blawgers etc that add a unique perspective or have an unimitable writing style, I have little time for regurgitated content or weak articles with lots of links to more interesting stuff. I wish there were more legal academic bloggers who engaged in the landscape like Richard Moorhead, I love Amanda’s deep analysis of important matters, enthralled by Ashley Connick’s enthusiasm of exploration, consumed by CharonQC’s anarchic playfulness and acerbic wit and your even handed guiding light. LegalTwo’s phosters are always enlightening too.

    Not so much a comment to the debate, more a reflection.

  13. Brian, I really like your blog and v m enjoyed the two #LawBlogs prequels to this one, but IMHO you have over-analysed in this third post. Let’s not have shoe-horning of bloggers into different categories that don’t really exist. Let’s just enjoy (or not) each other’s blogs. I echo Amanda’s sentiments. That all said, since I generally subscribe to @charonqc’s “no rules” principle when it comes to blogging, maybe my criticism of your blog categorisation is hyporcritical in itself. Best wishes, Tim

    1. Thanks Tim

      I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of my analysis and the fact that I am really saying that there may just be one category not two or many.

      I was surprised when my post was published and blawgers and tweeps referred to the complexity being introduced into the law blogs debate by categories and sub categories. It was then somewhat ironic when one of those blawgers started inviting tweeps to join categories of tweeps he had created within his Twitter lists!

      The fact is, although I may be at fault for not making this clear in my writing of the post, I do not consider there to be categories that blawgers should be put into or that there should be rules blawgers have to follow.

      There are different types of lawyers. I looked at each type, as I saw it, to see what business benefit they may derive from blogging. As far as my categories go I would see most blawgers falling into more than one of these anyway.

      Categorising them, as I did, was really an exercise to bring out the business development potential that existed for different types of blawger and then, in effect, conclude that they all have business development potential, regardless of their type (i.e. perhaps all blawgs are really the same in that respect).

      Thus, I am of the view that all blawgers are probably really flawgers. There is no great divide between the two as some would suggest. Only one category rather than two or many.

  14. Brian I agree with your response to @legalbrat’s comment above. These days there is such attraction to branding that all sorts of individuals are advised to manage themselves as “brands”. (Perhaps I am analysing things this way because I’m currently writing a book on branding). But blogging is THE way to develop your personal brand. Whether people are aware of it or not, there is enormous potential power in developing your personal brand as a way to further your career, or create opportunities for yourself. There is nothing wrong with that. Those who are able to write well or who have the time to develop good content benefit the most. Good for them. However, one or two comments seemed to be putting people into categories and implied or actually said that those with a business to push were a different type of blogger altogether (inferior) to those who didn’t have any business to push. Those bloggers who blog simply for the love ot it were possibly superior in some way. Something like that.That’s the message I took from some of the comments. I don’t see it that way and agree with Brian that all blawgers are flawgers, Even if you blog anonymously, there is nothing to stop you letting people who matter to you (now or in future) know that you are the face behind that blog. I don’t know why it created so much heated debate when the subject of blogging for business was first raised by Brian. What is really going on?

    1. Thanks Shireen

      The message you took was similar to the one I took from certain comments in the first of the trilogy of blog posts by me on this topic. Hence the reason for this latest post.

      Not sure what is really going on. I think some blawgers did not want to see the elephant and having let him out they want me to put him back where he came from. They don’t want to look at the elephant and I cannot quite fathom out why.

      Perhaps it comes back to the paragraph I quoted from ‘The E-Myth Attorney: Why Most Legal Practices Don’t Work and What to Do About It’:-

      “Many attorneys justify their evasion of their responsibility to run their practice as a business on the ground that to focus on “business” is somehow immoral or unethical for an attorney. They tell themselves that there is something impure, inelegant, or even unprofessional about thinking of their practice in business terms.”

  15. I found myself to be “The Blawger who recognises the business advantages”. Internet marketing is a miracle, especially in my country where lawyers are not allowed to have direct advertising and lawyers rarely blog. I found a workaround 🙂 Great blog, by the way. Just found it by googling around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.