20 Comments

1. Ken  •  Sep 8, 2009 @7:13 am
   

   Wayne returns, and digs the hole deeper.

   Even if you believe him, he set up an autoblog to market for a lawyer — that is, a blog that grabbed content and automatically posted it.

   Who the hell would want to hire an attorney based on an autoblog? I'd never hire or refer to such an attorney.

2. Jdog  •  Sep 8, 2009 @7:41 am
   

   Well, people do stupid stuff. I think that, for marketing purposes, there's a benefit from visibility in pretty much every niche. The issue is, of course, what the downsides are — the downsides to, say, billboards all over the place include the cost, frex. The downside to visibility gained through gaming search engines — and that's just what that sort of aggregating website is intended to do — is that the tradeoff is being thought to be an idiot by people who can think such things through.

3. shg  •  Sep 8, 2009 @7:50 am
   

   Web monkey makes him sound sorta cute and cuddly. Oddly, I don't find him to be either. But what is most disturbing is that the web monkey's efforts are directed toward distancing Melina Benninghoff, who has yet to be heard from on this matter (itself a troubling thing) from his bad acts, as if Benninghoff's putting her career and ethics into the hands of a web monkey absolves her from responsibility for his web monkeyism.

   Wayne Conley matters little. He's just another borderline psychotic twerp who is under the misapprehension that he gets to decide the rules by which everyone else plays. But the deafening silence of Benninghoff is all this comes through loud and clear. Unless, of course, she's such a very important person who simply hires blithering idiots to serve her that she need not dirty her hands by addressing the wrongs done on her behalf and in her name.

4. Patrick  •  Sep 8, 2009 @8:10 am
   

   I'm inclined toward the second interpretation Scott, since it's been going on since August 17, which is a helluva vacation, longer than I could afford to take until the day I retire or die.

   If all of this had happened over Labor Day weekend and surrounds, I'd wonder if Ms. Benninghoff didn't know any part of it, or that all of it, embarrassing threats included, was handled by her web monkey. But we're at more than 22 days of plagiarism, with web monkeys furiously (and badly) spinning, and counting.

   Even if she knows nothing about the internet, does the woman not have email? How could she not know at this point? Has she been under the Tuscan sun all this time?

   By the way, I appreciated the clarity in your post and comments on the matter. Whatever intellectual property lawyers and "information must be free" activists may say about "fair use," in the moral world plagiarism is theft.

5. Jdog  •  Sep 8, 2009 @8:29 am
   

   Even if she knows nothing about the internet, does the woman not have email? How could she not know at this point? Has she been under the Tuscan sun all this time?

   Cue Stephen King, and Misery. I'd consider asking her local PD to do a "welfare check" on her, but of the three times I've done that, none has ever worked out all that well, and I'm superstitious.

6. TomH  •  Sep 8, 2009 @2:00 pm
   

   Umm – I read Mark Bennett's comments page from the link above, and what strikes me was this passage by Mr. Conley –

   You fill out that domain registration anyway you like . . . I bought that [domain] with my credit card,,I have spent much of my own money and time in this and you can criticize all you like all you like. Will it be Melina’s site? ofcourse it will when I am done I am giving it to her as my way of saying thank you and that she is much loved. . . .

   Perhaps Mr. Conley is an ex-client, performing his services "voluntarily" as a "gift." Just a thought. Does she even know it's out there?

7. Old Geezer  •  Sep 8, 2009 @5:27 pm
   

   Here's ho I see it. Ms Benninghoff successfully defended Mr. Conley's (cousin, father, son, brother, whatever) who then couldn't pay his bills. Said defendant then offered Mr. Conley's services, in barter, to a naive lawyer (oxymoron?) who is accepting services, about which she has no understanding, without contemplating the wreck and ruin that awaits.

   Naivety, like speed, kills.

8. Jdog  •  Sep 8, 2009 @5:30 pm
   

   Yeah, but in that scenario, she either a: didn't look at the website for, literally, months, or b: did, and didn't get that attributing others' writing to hers (no matter whether it was done by her, or on her behalf) really looks bad, because it really is bad.

   Naivete? Nah.

9. Old Geezer  •  Sep 8, 2009 @5:36 pm
   

   Jdog, I never said she was bright! If she was unaware of the origin of the material, maybe she thought Mr. Conley was as bright as her. At this point it's hard to tell.

10. Jdog  •  Sep 8, 2009 @5:40 pm
    

    Jdog, I never said she was bright!

    On that, at least, we can agree to, well, agree.

11. Mike  •  Sep 8, 2009 @8:19 pm
    

    So a bunch of lawyers, lawyer bloggers, and readers of lawyer blogs are just certain any any average lawyer would, of course, understand blogging; and check her site religiously.

    Self-selection bias, anyone?

    Excuse my while I decide whether to check Google Analytics, Woopra, or SiteMeter. (Ha! All of them). As well as do Technorati search, Twitter search, Google Search, and Google Blog Search using my full name, last name, nickname, and blog's name. Then a Google "link:" search. I shall then copy and paste my posts into Google, to see if anyone has stolen my most delicious content.

    Which is clearly what any reasonable and mentally-healthy person should be doing after a full day's work.

12. Ken  •  Sep 9, 2009 @6:33 am
    

    I can't speak for Patrick Matt but this is my view — I'm reminded of the time during the '08 campaigns when people discovered racist crap in the "Ron Paul Newsletter," and Paul was forced to claim that he didn't really pay any attention to the newsletter that went out under his name.

    Ms. Benninghoff arranged for stuff to be published under her name on the internet. There are several possibilities. (1) She knew what was going on and didn't care. (2) She observed what was going on, but was too dumb or ignorant to grasp it. (3) She didn't monitor what was being done in her name at all.

    (3) is not flattering. Could she have been in trial? Yes. But the solution to being in trial is not to say "I'm just not going to review anything done in my name while I'm in court." It's to delay things done in your name until you can review them.

    If Ms. Benninghoff allowed a web monkey to publish a blog nominally written by her, and failed to monitor what was being done in her name, that shows bad judgment of the sort you don't want in a criminal defense attorney.

    I guess one alternative is that she had no concept of what a blog or twitter feed is at all — not even enough of a grasp to know that public statements were being made in her name. That's not flattering.

    Or maybe she has no clue about the internet and web monkey said "I'm going to set up a web publicity solution for you" and she said "OK" and knew nothing more, and did not supervise or inquire. Still not flattering.

13. Patrick  •  Sep 9, 2009 @6:46 am
    

    Which is clearly what any reasonable and mentally-healthy person should be doing after a full day’s work.

    Yet you do it Mike. I know exactly which Mike this is, and I fully believe you're reasonable and mentally healthy.

    And, like you, she had a blog. Only she didn't write it or know its content (if Wayne Conley is to be believed, and I don't trust him in the slightest).

    If he is telling the truth, consider this: I come to you with a proposition that I could increase your business by posting flyers around the courthouse, and on windshields. You think it's a great idea, and give me the go-ahead, but you have a reservation or two.

    Do you A: Ask to read what the flyers will say?; or B: just give me my fifty dollars for posting flyers, knowing I'm not a lawyer but trusting me to get it right?

    Now analogize to the web.

    I appreciate that you're an unusual thinker. I also appreciate that you enjoy taking a view opposite to that of most others to make people think. You're a thinking man's troll, and I don't use that term in an uncomplimentary fashion, because I'm a lesser troll myself and appreciate what creative trolling can accomplish.

    But in this case you're just being silly.

14. Jdog  •  Sep 9, 2009 @6:57 am
    

    The Excluded Middle ploy is, I think, about the clumsiest of the fallacies. In this case, to suggest that there's no middle ground between

    a: turning one's rep over to a deranged web monkey and not monitoring in the slightest, and,

    b: obsessively monitoring one's own website

    is, well, stupid.

    Let me suggest just one possibility in that large middle ground that Matt would like to dismiss: how about her once, over a period of five months, opening up a browser and seeing that her website contained writings of others that seemed to be attributed to her. Once. It might take five minutes, if she types and reads real, real slow.

15. Mike  •  Sep 9, 2009 @11:30 am
    

    Now analogize to the web.

    Except that the web is new. N.P. is probably the smartest lawyer I've ever met. He was clueless about blogs. So if N.P. didn't really "get it" at first, then I have a lot of sympathy for lesser minds.

    I think the most likely take is Ken's. Yes, this lawyer showed bad judgment. I just don't think it was willful or intentional. Not even willful blindness. Surely, she was negligent. Perhaps even reckless.

    My guess: She looked at her site, thought, "Ooooh, shiny," and then went back to nit-wit functions to talk about synergies and expanding one's network.

16. Mike  •  Sep 9, 2009 @11:37 am
    

    My last comment, btw, was not a troll. I did some Googling on this Mellissa person, and she strike me as your typical 115 IQ social climber. I could probably articulate her shallow little soul in about 5 minutes. I could guess where she shops (Nordstrom on a good week), what car she drives (BMW 3 series, or maybe an E class Mercedes – she doesn't have *real* money, but wants the status of a "elite" car), and what books she reads (you know she's read The Secret).

    She would be the first to volunteer to teach a CLE. Because, lacking the intelligence necessary to doubt one's self (re: Dunning-Kruger), she would of course feel qualified to teach a room full of people as smart or smarter than she is.

    People like her make a lot of stupid mistakes because, while above average IQ and thus "smart," they tend to think they are in the 130 range. They jump into a Big Boy and Big Girl's world. Hence, this fiasco!

    Sure, I don't respect her. I wouldn't associate with her. I'm just not ready to hang her.

17. Matt Raft  •  Sep 9, 2009 @12:04 pm
    

    Since we're all speculating here, have any of you considered that perhaps the lawyer is in the middle of a trial and has no time to check her email or website(s)?

    As for the lawyer not responding to the shadow-blogging issue, doesn't it seem wise _not_ to respond and wait until America's notoriously short attention span moves elsewhere? If you were her lawyer or friend, wouldn't you tell her to a) take down the "offending" site; b) tell Wayne to stop writing about her and for her; and c) focus on revenue-generating activities, i.e., not responding to bloggers?

    When you criticize this lawyer for not being tech-savvy or for "lacking the intelligence necessary to doubt one's self," don't fool yourself–you are engaging in nothing more than adult playground gossip and backbiting. Before you continue to do this, you might want to check out this link for some authority on this issue: http://www.dianedew.com/gossip.htm (see, I try to have a sense of humor, too

    In any case, some of you are buying into a logical fallacy when you say a lawyer who doesn't use conventional advertising methods and then fails to religiously check on her numerous ads is not worthy of a referral. I'd actually argue otherwise–trial lawyers, esp criminal trial lawyers, rely more on public speaking than motion-writing, so theoretically, they are more likely to be social extroverts than tech-savvy introverts. Stated another way, I bet Gerry Spence doesn't know his html from a hole in the ground.

    Also, keep in mind, the lawyer at issue graduated from law school in 1993. I know 1993 isn't the Stone Ages, but I am willing to cut her more slack than a 2002 law school graduate who may be more familiar with the positives and negatives of internet advertising.

    Fully realizing I will be the butt of jokes for the rest of the week at Popehat, I will leave you with one question: if this was your mother, would you still be talking the same kind of smack, or would you be trying to help her make things right?

18. Jdog  •  Sep 9, 2009 @12:08 pm
    

    The blog's been up for something like five months.

19. Ken  •  Sep 9, 2009 @1:00 pm
    

    Hilarious. I just deleted a comment from a scummy auto-scrape "best criminal defense attorneys" marketing blog.

20. Joni Mueller  •  Sep 11, 2009 @1:13 am
    

    Believe it or not, this very kind of web content theft is being punished, and quite harshly, by at least the Ninth Circuit, which upheld a stiff arbitration order against a San Diego law firm (1/3) *and its web developer* (2/3) for wholesale copying of a Northern California law firm's web content. As both a legal secretary for nearly 30 years and as a web designer, Conley and all others like him make me sick. But I have no sympathy for Ms. Benninghoff's apparent lack of concern. Bottom line, the web site is hers, and she needs to take responsibility for its content.

    The Ninth Circuit decision covered at Law.com (watch the line wrap):

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432820979&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=LTN&pt=Law%20Technology%20News&cn=20090806&kw=9th%20Circuit%20Finds%20for%20PI%20Firm%20Over%20Theft%20of%20Firm