Also, is it fair to assume the lawyer has continuous direct control over whomever is shadow-writing the blog? From what I've read about her on-line, she's apparently done several trials, including a capital crime defense. Perhaps she's in trial right now, and we're taking advantage of her lack of time. It just doesn't feel right to single out a solo practitioner who does not appear to have a disciplinary record or a record of ripping off clients.

That's a rhetorical question of course: I'm 99.9% sure you actually write your blog. But would you let me write it for you, in your name, without prior approval and without control?

That's the most charitable interpretation of what's going on in this case.

As a fellow solo practitioner, part of me feels like we should leave her alone. It is difficult attracting new clients as a solo practitioner, so trying new advertising methods doesn’t sound completely unreasonable.

And insofar as "actions" are concerned, while you may deal with criminal lawyers, civil discovery, to which criminal lawyers generally don't have access, can be agonizing. It would be particularly agonizing in your case.

If Ms. Benninghoff would like to discuss the matter with us, she's more than welcome to send an email and discussion will be had. You, on the other hand, had better look out.

Fortunately Mark preserved some screenshots.

I agree with you completely, Patrick. I sometimes need to make referrals for lawyers in Fresno. But I would never in a million years refer to someone who either (1) deliberately thieved content (unlikely here, I think) or (2) hired some web monkey to run her blog and twitter feed and add content to it without monitoring that content. That content is sent out under her name and reflects on her. It's horrifically bad judgment. Horrifically bad judgment, in a criminal defense attorney, is Not A Good Thing.