Last week I participated in a survey conducted by Edelman on behalf of Technorati. The survey aimed to find out about trust in blogs by both bloggers and blog readers.

The results are not surprising, except for a few findings:

Question 16: When looking for product information, which do you trust most?

Though it is probably to be expected (since bloggers answer, they most likely want to be seen as trustworthy), it is an example of the shift towards looking to blogs for what is seen to be unbiased information. Again, this is a question that is asking about product information specifically.

This stands in contrast to question 14:
Question 14: What is the trustworthiness of a blog endorsed and produced by a company?

Over 50% of respondants do not implicitly trust blogs created by a company. But again, we’re talking mainly about companies trying to sell a product.

I would suggest that these findings would be much different when looking at blawgs. In fact, I think that blawgs, since they do not hawk a product (or even explicitly a service) are the most trusted of all. To me, it is for the simple reason that blawggers have much more to lose.

The reason? Accountability and reputation. Think of a blog that is trying to sell Juicy Fruit. This blog has been used as the best example of a corporate blog flop. It’s very obvious that it’s just trying to sell a product without giving any useful information to readers.

But who cares?

But imagine a blog from an attorney that does nothing other than plug that attorney’s services and their firm.

Juicy Fruit won’t sell any less gum because of their splog. Their reputation isn’t really in the gum consumers’ mind when they are in line at the supermarket. But reputation means everything to the blawgger.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I just read an article by Joe Hartley called A Contrarian View of Legal Blogs. The article is on a blog, and it gives reasons why attorneys should not write blogs.

Here are his main points:
1. Blogs are not effective.
In his article, Hartley says

“Simply because something is new and hot doesn’t mean that it’s effective. I haven’t seen anyone address the question of how blogging fits into a law firm’s business plan, which should measure why and how a law firm will make the considerable investment of time necessary to run a blog.”

I would have to disagree here, as firms (as well as individual attorneys) are not simply posting whatever they feel like whenever they feel like it without looking at strategy. Although most blawgs do not fit into a business plan in terms of direct revenue, they are in the firm’s marketing plan and budget.

2. Lawyers can only write in legalese.

“Imagine what a blog written in legalese or academese would read like. Do you have someone in your office who can write well enough on a regular basis to produce a well-written blog?”

Well, yes, in fact, we do. I think it’s a sweeping generalization to believe that lawyers can only write in legalese. It’s simply not true.

3. There are too many blogs out there already.
In the article, Hartley uses the example of “Massive Distributed Parallel Computing” to say that, since there are so many bloggers out there, firms should steer clear of blogging. Since there’s no way to compete with bloggers in terms of content, you should stay away:

“..being a very small cog in a large machine is not what you want for your law firm.

I would say that not being involved at all is far worse than being the little guy who covers one thing very well.

4. Law firms are not news services, and their blogs do not give value to their clients
From the article:

Many blogs appear to be adopting news feeds from other sources. Most are opinion blogs, citing sources that favor their world view. This is fine, but what application does it have for a law firm? Law firms are not news organizations, and the value to clients (or to the firm) is at best unclear.

He’s right, law firms are not news organizations. But that does not mean that firms completely ignore any legal issues being covered in the media. How can a firm show a firm grasp on the current state of any legal area without continual analysis of rulings and cases?

5. Bloggers aren’t interesting:

“I have been told that there are some bloggers out there who are just plain fascinating. I confess that I have not found any. Even with interactive blogs, the quality of the comments is distressingly banal, filled largely with statements like “I agree” or “Right on!”

I couldn’t disagree more.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This morning I took a look around the “blawgosphere” (I hate that term) to see what blawgs are linking to. Though there isn’t a Google Zeitgeist-like list of popular topics on legal blogs, looking at the popular blawgs gives us a snapshot of the important topics of the week.

1. Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers- US President George W. Bush announced on Monday that he has selected Harriet Miers to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Miers has been called a “longtime loyalist with no experience as a judge.”

See Legal Underground, Professor Baingbridge, and Underneath Their Robes.

2. Blogs for Legal Research- An article by John Dean on Findlaw talks about the risks and rewards of blogs as a source for legal research.

See Law & Justice and LexBlog.

3. Introduction of the term “blawg” to the Westlaw and Lexis opinion databases- On Bag and Baggage, Denise notes that a 9th circuit decision has entered the term “blawg” into the books. In a dissenting opinion, the word “blawg” appears for the first time.

4. Associate Marketing Mentor- A new blog has been created by Mike Cummings and Larry Bodine to help associates with business development. The authors created the blog in response to a survey that found that “57% of law firms fail to provide associates with any training to generate new business.”

5. May jurors blog jury duty?- On Legal Blog Watch, Lisa Stone poses this question to her readers. The question came up on Josh Hallett’s blog:

“I have jury duty the week of October 17. The question is can I blog it? I did a quick search for “jury duty” and found some people that blogged about it. Most of them appear to be after-the-fact though.

This has started an interesting conversation.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This weekend, I kept thinking about blogs and collaboration. In many of my posts, I talk about the difference between the “old web” or regular web sites, and blogs, and when I think about site authors working together, the differences are highlighted.

Think of your firm’s web site. Now imagine asking an attorney from a competing firm to write an article to appear on that site. Ridiculous, right? Why would you give a plug to the competition? It doesn’t make sense.

Now think of your blog. If another attorney has written something that would be interesting to your readership, it’s not such a crazy idea to link to it.

After much thought, I think I’ve realized the difference. People go to a firm’s site to learn more about the firm. People go to a blawg to learn about an issue. Where a firm’s site shows what the firm can offer, a blawg tries to prove it by showing a firm grasp on an area of law.

To do this, blawggers should think of themselves as a resource to their readers. Realistically, a blawg cannot possibly have enough content to cover every aspect of an issue. If a blawgger tried to cover everything, they wouldn’t have any time for “lawyering”!

Instead of trying to be everything to everyone, it makes much more sense to point readers to content that has already been written. Sure, cover the issues and provide analysis and original content, but if someone has already written a good piece, link to it.

This goes back to the idea that blawggers are trying to show their expertise. Think of anyone you consider an expert on a topic. Envision an expert being interviewed on a television news show. Let’s say the person is an expert on internet law. The reporter asks a question. The expert formulates his answer, and like all experts…….

They give examples to support their point.

Think about it. When someone’s an expert, they point to studies, books, articles, and other sources that are in support of their main point. No one I consider an expert can rely solely on their own thoughts or writings.

Lawyers especially fit this example. Lawyers use rulings and precedents to support their arguments. They rely on what has already been written and accepted to guide their work. Bringing this notion to blawgs makes sense.

This week, I’d like to focus on what I am calling “complimentary collaboration,” the idea that a blawgger should link to, or work with, other blawggers that compliment their own content.

Popularity: 2% [?]