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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Naivete? Nah.

Naivety, like speed, kills.

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?