Marketing Attorney Blog

As part of my monthly contributions to Web Marketing Today, I'm slowly working my way through the major social media sites. I started with LinkedIn, which has the most relevance to the most attorneys. In future months, I'll tackle Twitter. But this month, I address what is arguably the most powerful website on the planet--Facebook. Search Engines aside (i.e. Google), there is simply no website with more users and higher traffic. And, let's be honest, how can you do serious internet marketing and not be on the biggest site?

So, is Facebook right for you and your law practice? READ ON...

Recently, a California State Bar committee discussed a controversial proposal that would put a red warning label on attorney profiles for those facing disciplinary charges. This would take the concept of a website disclaimer to new heights. Only in California. Actually, I'd say only in Florida. But, indeed, this comes out of the left coast.

The proposal came from State Bar prosecutor Jayne Kim. It prompted an outcry from defense attorneys that felt accusations that had not been fully litigated and proven in court would lead to a serious hit on a law firms' business.

The state delayed voting on the proposal until after a 60-day public comment period. Kim had argued that it was unnecessary, claiming it was simply an extension of a 2011 policy that required consumer alerts on profiles of attorneys formally charged with misappropriation of client funds or improper loan modification activities.

Reporter Saul Sugarman, writing in the San Francisco Daily Journal, said that some committee members wondered why consumer alerts only appear on pages of attorneys while formal charges are pending. In the current system, the alerts go away once lawyers are found culpable of misdeeds, though the details of discipline still appear at the base of their profiles.

Different states have different requirements as to what an attorney can and can't do before, during or after a disciplinary proceeding. The concept of a red warning label simply because an attorney is facing a charge does not seem to be reasonable. Maybe it is because I see what I personally consider unfair outcomes in some of these matters, while more flagrant transgressions often go unaddressed. This is certainly not a blanket concern. The majority of disciplinary counsel come to the proper conclusions. Yet, I still see some serious head scratchers, especially in my area of focus--advertising, marketing and solicitation regulations. Attorneys--defense or otherwise--are right in that a red warning on a website profile is a death knell of sorts. Who is going to use an attorney with a red flag right on their own website bio? Nobody. You'd likely look to minimize your existence online until the matter was resolved. And even then, state bar listings and attorney profile sites on some high profile legal directories might also show the pending discipline.

While the overarching concept of "deceptive and misleading" is my mantra in looking at law firm website marketing from an ethics perspective, I also believe in certain components of "real world" promotion. A discerning consumer will look beyond the glossy, polished profile the attorney writes for him or herself and seek comments from more objective sites. A plumber's website does not say anything about the dozens of BBB files opened up. I guess you go to Angie's List, or in this case, the state bar.
I can't imagine that the plaintiffs' bar will sit back and see this proposal come to fruition. There could be room for a compromise in putting this data into the "disclaimer" component of a website, where a little additional due diligence by the end user is required. Placement on the biography itself would be quite the hardship.

This is a conversation worth watching.

When creating the "Internet Marketing Attorney" moniker in 1997, I would scour the web for the most innovative law firm websites, eventually rating and ranking them in five categories--design, content, usability, interactivity and intangibles. If you were listed among the 250 largest U.S. law firms, you were then ranked accordingly. Many small and midsize firms from around the world submitted themselves for consideration as well, and while I did not review all of them, I also had the annual Nifty Fifty list of innovative legal website components. But times changed and just like technology, I had to adapt.

There were three key factors that led me to stop presenting the IMAs--as they are known throughout the legal industry. First, the large law firm sites become homogenized. There were so few substantive differences to the sites that it made finding those differentiators quite difficult. I would write the same notes and comments over and over again. Second, my "for-profit" business (HTMLawyers, my law marketing consultancy) did not provide enough free time to properly conduct these evaluations. Because I never solicited those law firms I reviewed, it was a great branding tool but not necessarily a revenue generator. My time was always "sold out", but it was tough to equate new business with the time needed for the IMAs. Finally, any free time or "down time" is now owned by my children--who do not find law firm websites all that fascinating. Luckily, my monthly contributions to Web Marketing Today allow me to continually monitor and teach best practices for law firm internet marketing.

Which is a long-winded way of introducing this month's WMT column, Law Firm Websites: A Developer's Review, where in essence I turn the tables slightly by asking the web site developers to tell me what site they like best and why (obviously, their own handiwork). I invited some of the more prominent names in law firm website development to participate--just give me a site and what makes it special. The end result is a handy tutorial for any law firm looking to identify key components for their next website.

The cited sites offer a nice mix of law firm geography and size. Included in this column are websites developed for McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, Freeborn & Peters, Sideman & Bancroft, Nixon Peabody, and Jeffer Mangels.

Thanks to Inherent, Saturno Design, Duo Consulting, Bothwell Marketing and Justia for taking part. Each provided me with a website, some background and key features. In my 17 years of working on law firm website projects, I've had the opportunity to work with hundreds of developers throughout the world. In many cases, I've reviewed their RFP responses to law firms in helping select the right provider. In others, dozens of law firm website developers keep me informed of their newer launches and products--helping me pass that information along to my IMA and WMT readership. This month's column is a map of the newer online features that merit consideration in building or upgrading a law firm website.

For lawyers, there is so much more to LinkedIn than creating a profile, getting some connections and joining a few groups. The real value of participation is from the other products and services they offer. In this month's Web Marketing Today column, I try to address some of the components that go "beyond the basics."

Personally, I probably don't use LinkedIn the same way as many other marketing professionals or attorneys. I find the tool extremely valuable--but more as a super-powered directory of contacts for lead generation, competitive intelligence and a better source of data about people and companies. I find it very useful when following up with someone, learning more about a business card picked up at a networking function or refining a list of prospective clients. Others, however, spend hours on end building a network and doing a slightly more sophisticated method of cold calling.

As noted in the column, there is no disputing the power of LinkedIn. It is the second search result when looking myself up on Google--behind only my own website. With 200 million-plus users, there is a pretty good chance that the professional I'm looking for is in the network. He or she may have a skeletal profile and three contacts--but they are there nonetheless.

Like many friends and colleagues, I'm on Facebook multiple times each day. But I'm there to show you what my kids are up to, talk Phillies, Eagles, or Temple Owls basketball. My wife--a master at the "check in"--makes it easier for me to get served with a subpoena, since you know what restaurant to find me in on Saturday night. While I do mix personal and professional contacts, it is clearly a social environment. Depending on your practice area, it might be fertile ground for marketing. And with recent changes in design, it is becoming a more viable advertising option for law practices as well. But it is not for everyone.

Twitter, the third major player in today's social media circles, skews a little younger. The audience is huge, and loyal followers are avid. But, once again, the interest in participating among law firms is not always there. Somebody has to be tweeting all the time, and that does not work everywhere.

You may or may not choose to engage in Facebook or Twitter, but any business professional should maintain a level of activity on LinkedIn.

On February 28th, the Virginia Supreme Court held that a disclaimer was required under the state's advertising rules when posting results on a website. This is the latest outcome in the seemingly never-ending battle between Horace Hunter and the Virginia State Bar. This has been a widely watched case among ethics attorneys like myself that follow the bouncing ball of state bar advertising restrictions and first amendment scholars looking at the "free speech" argument. Is the next stop the U.S. Supreme Court?

Last April (2012), I was part of an ABA CLE panel that discussed "Is Your Legal Blog Compliant? Ethical considerations in the wake of Hunter v. Virginia State Bar." The panel included Mr. Hunter, myself, employment law blogger Molly DiBianca and noted Virginia ethics attorney Tom Spahn. We discussed and debated the many issues in the case. It is effectively a case of first impression in the law blogosphere. That was prior to the case heading up the ladder to the state supreme court. Read more about the program in Your ABA's e-news--Blogs can be legal minefields.

Blogs have been around since the late 1990s, yet this cyberspace battle in Virginia is the first real challenge by a state bar to the often cloudy areas of interpretation. Is a blog advertising, marketing, editorial, personal, or business? Where does the First Amendment end and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct begin? Should a state bar look at a blog as marketing or something else?

I've found that heavy bloggers and those that sell blogs to law firms are often quite vocal in the opinion that the blog is somehow "media" and exempt from rules under "marketing." As a former journalist, I've always been disturbed by the concept that someone with a blog is suddenly a "reporter." Clearly, there are blogs that have become popular enough in the mainstream that they become influencers and sometimes garner "media" status for credentialing and access. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to credential bloggers for various conferences. Usually they are just too cheap to register. And in most cases, I've never heard of them. There are blogs that are clearly online media. But they are usually a standalone entity and not promotional in the sense that the goal is anything more than traffic generation. The goal of most lawyer blogs is to generate business as lawyers--whether it is direct or in many cases, helping with search engine optimization, increasing media inquiries or branding visibility. Any way you slice it, we are not doing it as a personal "dear diary."

The ethics attorney part of me clearly believes that a law firm or lawyer blog is advertising, marketing or a communication that falls under the respective RPC. It is simply ridiculous to differentiate between a law firm website and a law firm blog (with, of course, exceptions). When doing an ethics compliance review of a blog, I look at numerous factors--including disclaimers, links to the main site, bar states of contributors and various other criteria in making sure a law firm blog is compliant--based on advertising and solicitation rules, not based on the concept that the attorney is an objective journalist making a comment.

Of course, if you are reading this, you realize that this is a blog! I do it for all the aforementioned reasons. But if you think the underlying goal is anything less than business development...please. We blog to get attention--for our practice, for our business. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We give advice, opinions and provide news for our niche targets.

It will be interesting if Hunter gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because a ruling there would likely elevate or dilute the level of restriction and requirements accompanying the thousands of law firm blogs out there. A good blog offers expert opinion--but it is marketing. This is not The New York Times.

In this month's Web Marketing Today column, I discuss the uses and value of video as an Internet marketing tool for attorneys. Video provides both enhanced web content as well as improved search engine optimization results.

Among the things that have changed in video production over the last five years or so is the importance of making sure that the quality is there. Lawyers should not look like they are facetiming each other on an iPad. That is left for my kids harassing relatives with video chat. Getting seasoned professionals to produce, tape and edit is critical.

My column discusses the ABA Golden Gavel Video Awards, created by Infinite PR's Nicholas Gaffney. I also talk about web video marketing tools such as those developed by TheLaw.tv and an example of law firms moving often-stilted webinars to a polished video product. The use of video impacts every type of law practice. Brown Rudnick's Charitable Foundation uses video to enhance the site for their Center for the Public Interest.

Of course, it would not be my take on video without pointing to my own humorous production from a few years back. If everyone loves it, then it is not really edgy or out-of-the-box. From Delaware corporate law to Carly Rae Jepsen, video has numerous uses in the law marketing toolbox. Some work better than others.

Recent rulings and advisories by the National Labor Relations Board regarding social media policies in the workplace impact law firms in a variety of ways. Today's New York Times article by Steven Greenhouse reviews how the NLRB is basically telling employers to scale back limitations as it relates to many social media policies that might be seen as illegal blanket restrictions.

Can you really stop Facebook and Twitter from happening in today's workplace? Nope.

The NLRB says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether you are in the employee cafeteria or on Facebook. Although Facebook might have better food options (I said that. It is not in the article).

The bottom line--many companies are rewriting social media rules. If you want to read about social media in the workplace from an employment law perspective, you are better off going to Molly DiBianca on The Delaware Employment Law Blog. I'm here to discuss the potential impact on the law firm from an ethics compliance and business development perspective.

Having taught social media courses at many law firms, written a few of the policies myself, and conducted ethics compliance reviews for a number of the AMLAW 200, I can tell you that some of the policies--both written, unwritten and suggested--are somewhat out of whack with recent developments. I often remind some firms that they might "suggest" or "guide" employees (lawyers and staff alike), but some of the policies I've seen have been overbroad and overreaching. The Rules of Professional Conduct take care of many of the ethics issues for the lawyers. However, there are plenty of gray areas as they relate to LinkedIn profiles, Facebook posts and tweets.

Be sure your law firm's approach to social media is appropriate. Because it is one thing to read about a corporation coming out on the short end of these rulings; it is another for a client to see you listed as one of the offending parties.

I address an important internet marketing topic in this month's Web Marketing Today column on "Monitoring your online reputation in 2013." We spend a lot of money to "get found" on the web with various search engine optimization techniques. But what about the stuff you don't want getting found? Or what I refer to as "reverse SEO"?

As the web ages and matures, it becomes more and more important to be vigilant about protecting your good name. And the first step towards staying one step ahead is to effectively monitor what I call an attorney's online portfolio. It is far more expansive than what your law firm posts or what might show up from LinkedIn or Martindale. And it only takes one bad apple in an orchard full of good ones to feel like your name, reputation and business might be harmed.

In an interesting comment posted on my WMT column page is a website developer frustrated that he has encountered situations where a top result on a Google search is "ancient history." Something 5+ years old that is "totally irrelevant." This points out the downside about some online reputation "fixers" where a problem is fixed today but could float back to the top after an algorithm change.

Make sure you spend as much time monitoring your law firm results as you do analyzing traffic and visitors to the website. And if you are doing neither, you have two things to add to the "to do" list for 2013. As end-users become more sophisticated, they become more likely to look at a few pages of what might be termed "objective" results rather than look at the web picture we are trying to paint.

The ABA Section of Family Law has dedicated its entire winter 2013 issue of the Family Advocate to the topic of marketing your practice in the digital age. The feature that the publication asked me to author, Finding the Magical Mix for Your Digital Marketing Plan, presents a wide range of options for the family law practitioner--including websites, blogs, use of video, search engine optimization, mobile sites, social media, directories and ratings. In other words, there are a lot of options and a lot to think about.

Among other features in the issue is an article on Common Ethical Pitfalls of Digital Marketing, authored by my ABA LPM colleagues Sharon Nelson and John Simek. While ethics rules should not discourage or hamper an attorney's involvement on social media and lawyer referral websites, compliance is critical. As an ethics attorney myself, I've worked to get a few attorneys out of digital "jams", not to mention implementing lots of preventive medicine.

Simply noting that the ABA Family Law Section has dedicated an entire one of its quarterly issues to this subject should be enough to wake up any family lawyer not paying attention to the World Wide Web. The bottom line is that like many consumer-oriented practices, competition is fierce and ever-increasing. Family law is such an interesting animal. Perhaps no other area of practice is likely to impinge on life more than divorce--if not directly on your household, indirectly through a relative or friend. In regard to advertising, you are often targeting a more sophisticated client base than might be the case for a plaintiffs' practice. Visibility is a necessity. No other area of practice is represented more in many of the lifestyle and regionally-based print publications I peruse from the mailbox. The radio and billboards tout family law practices (not so much on television). Facebook is both a contributing cause and effect of many divorces--meaning that a target audience is right there for the taking. The use of mediation and forms of alternative dispute resolution bring in other competitive marketplace issues. A few years ago, I presented a marketing ethics CLE program at the ABA Annual Meeting for the ADR section, with many of the examples coming from issues relating to family law attorneys competing with huge, non-law firm divorce mediation services.

Personally, I enjoy marketing family law practices. There is a mix of general law practice marketing principles with non-law firm specific avenues of consumer marketing targets. The challenge is often to out-"visible" the other guy or gal, while being in the right places at the right times. Like it or not, the prospective client is highly likely to utilize the Internet as a source of information, referral and attorney selection. Failure to appear is simply a lost opportunity.

For examples of some solid online efforts by family law attorneys (all noted in the ABA feature, and a reverse disclaimer - none are clients and I've never met any of them), see the links below:

Blogs - www.sandiegodivorceattorneyblog.com and www.fortlauderdaledivorcelawyerblog.com
Video - genxsmartie.blogspot.com and thelaw.tv/Kansas/Divorce+Law
Social Media inclusion - www.sblumenthallaw.com
Niche - Cordell & Cordell

In this month's Web Marketing Today column, I address the importance of having a proper mobile marketing plan to accompany your law firm's Internet marketing efforts. Regardless of a law firm's audience, practice groups, size or location--"mobile" is a critical component.

Some law firms are still at stage one--trying to get some sort of compatibility for an iPhone or Android device. Others have moved well past that toward development of applications that serve purposes ranging from "marketing" to uses for partner retreats, recruiting and access to files and billing.

The strategies, however, do differ based on a law firms' audience and clientele. As is the case with a typical website--what you develop for a Baker McKenzie is going to differ from what you develop for Sokolove Law. Although as of today, a quick look at both of those websites on my Droid were not online presences built for mobile. This column features firms that built a solid online mobile presence. It also addresses related issues tied to SEO and online advertising considerations as well.

I point out that a simple look at your own website's traffic reports should be all the evidence you need that the mobile audience is already huge, and rapidly growing.

In August, I wrote about the Consumer Reports evaluation of online do-it-yourself legal sites (Legal DIY sites no match for a pro). This week, Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Smith writes on "No-Frill Legal Services Grow," addressing many of the same DIY websites.

The impetus for the article is the lawsuit filed last month by LegalZoom.com against up-and-coming rival Rocket Lawyer. It is ironic that these entities are now fighting over what is and is not "free" in terms of form filing and other stuff where you apparently either don't need a lawyer, or perhaps just need one that works for them at really cheap rates. Interesting side note: Both LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer have real lawyers doing the fighting--I don't think they are using their own self service offerings.

The debate often revolves around the potential "unauthorized practice of law." Regardless of the semantics involved, the consumer is thinking this is a cost-effective way to resolve a legal issue. It is not like this business is new. Strip malls stores (Divorce! Bankruptcy! Wills!) have provided similar services for decades. Storefronts such as "We the People" have largely evaporated (thanks in part to the Internet and in part to State Bar issues with unauthorized practice). In recent years, the online offerings have changed the language in describing offerings to something akin to providing documents and/or providing a lawyer somewhere that can answer questions.

I've rarely seen any (non-anecdotal) data that shows the bottom line impact on the lawyers that practice in many of these consumer and small business spaces. My guess is that many of these companies will (accurately) tell you the amount of revenue opportunities they are generating for solo and small law firm attorneys that might be hurting for business should not be discounted. "We are hiring lawyers and getting them clients!"

If you can't beat them, join them

Many lawyers and law firms are getting into the business of online delivery of legal services. My ABA colleague Stephanie Kimbro (quoted in the WSJ article) provides web-based services to clients. The article mentions Jacoby & Meyers as entering the online legal forms business. For practitioners, there is a realization that automation and use of online delivery services will be one way to combat lost business (and generate more by charging less). However, the dollars will need to be competitive. As an attorney, it is hard for me not to suggest that these "online legal document" businesses--which most customers see as an adequate law firm substitute--are not damaging to both the lawyer and the client. I'm not only a lawyer, but I'm a client. I've gone to colleagues over the years for assistance in real estate matters, estate planning, intellectual property, employment law issues, and for friends (not me, friends), criminal and family law issues--all what I would call consumer-based matters. In every instance, I can think of a component that simply would not have been identified or resolved properly without a sharp lawyer's eye. Documents don't issue spot. They try, but they don't.

This leaves us with the dilemma of where these online services belong in the legal spectrum, whether it is proper or realistic for the ABA or a State Bar to play much of a role in their existence, and many lawyers that are walking a fine line--providing many of the exact same services online, but arguing that they are positioned to do so as licensed attorneys and not simply a "not a law firm" business. One thing that can't be debated, in looking at LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer--they would not be fighting over these issues if there were not huge bucks on the table. And based on previous governmental and political responses to Joe Consumer being provided with affordable legal services, there will be continued growth. And much of it will be attorneys recognizing that they need to operate in this space as well.

This month's Web Marketing Today column discusses the good, bad and ugly in the world of law firm blogging. As the bumper sticker says, "If you can read this, you must be on my blog." Anyway, that in itself highlights one valuable element of blogging--in cross-promoting other marketing and publishing efforts.

I've selected successful blogs in the small, medium and large law firm categories to highlight approaches and styles--from Silverberg Zalantis, Young Conaway and Reed Smith. In the world of blogs, they are all operating on an even playing field.

One of the ways I know that blogging is still "where it's at" in cyberspace is simply following the steps of my long-time web collaborator Pavel Ushakov. Between Pavel and Justia's Tim Stanley, much of the direction and advice I give myself (and others) comes from following their paths. Tim practically shamed me into getting back on the blog bandwagon. Pavel played a pivotal role in my original transformation from "marketing attorney" to an "internet marketing attorney." We worked together on original website projects for law firms like Morgan Lewis and Simpson Thacher back in the 90s. Remember the 90s man? He was then instrumental in creating the Internet Marketing Attorney website, IMA reviews and Nifty Fifty awards for me. And in developing my original business website and blog. Of course, as one of the true web pioneers, he has bigger fish to fry than helping me--but always responds quickly whenever I shout out for help. But his focus now is on blog development and consulting with Blogconsulting.com--with "little" clients like Adobe, Time Magazine and the Harvard Business School. But he is one of the go-to guys for blogging, and knowing what will come next.

Blogging is certainly not for everyone. A quick read of the WMT column should help you determine if jumping in the pool, or simply staying in the pool is right for your law practice.

In my monthly column on internet marketing for lawyers in Web Marketing Today, I tackle the sticky issue of ethics and compliance for law firm websites. If you had told me when I started teaching ethics CLEs on this subject in 1997 that I'd be this well-versed on the subject--and it would become a niche area of expertise for my practice, I'd have laughed. But lo and behold, the Rules of Professional Conduct have become my Ten Commandments. There are plenty of golden calves and false idols--but I won't name names. Let's just say that websites are now the tip of the iceberg in a land of Groupons and "ask the lawyer" sites, getting the disclaimer language right should be child's play.

In an upcoming column for Web Marketing Today, I am going to discuss the value of videos in law firm marketing, focused on internet marketing efforts. I've had the opportunity to work with people that know how to do them, such as my friends at TheLaw.TV. Last year, as chair of the American Bar Association's Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference, we held the first Golden Gavel Awards, recognizing the best law firm and legal industry videos. Nick Gaffney of Infinite PR organized the video awards and panel, with the end result being some phenomenal videos used by law firms on web sites.

This brings me to my own recent work on redevelopment of the HTMLawyers website. I wanted an effective welcome message, but ended up with something that looks like a bad local business ad on cable television. You won't see this on the business site, but I did marvel at how my eight year old daughter Lily watched me sweat, flub lines and deliver a mediocre performance--only to have her show me how it is done. I'm not sure if she is showing me the way or mocking me, but I enjoyed her performance far better than mine. Lily first appeared on this blog--in the fourth post--when she was born in May 2004, so this is her triumphant return.

If you are like me-- seemingly spending half your life reviewing state bar rules, regulations and ethics opinions for my clients that seek to ensure compliance in the states in which they practice--I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully, like most attorneys, you are more of a casual observer. In August, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association approved a series of changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Many in my realm of marketing and business development circles ask how it will impact them and what, if anything, they should be doing about it.

For starters, I remind you that these are "model rules" as opposed to "rules." As someone long involved in various aspects of ethics and professionalism in the ABA, I can assure you that the time it will take many states to implement all or some of the rules will be "not tomorrow." I'm pretty sure some states are still mulling over pieces of the ABA's Ethics 2000 initiative. But it is only 2012 now, and you really just want to update your rules before the year 3000 hits or risk being seen as behind the times. And these changes come from Ethics 20/20, which is 20 years longer than 2000, divisible by 20.

Of course, the impetus for the ABA changes is simple--technology has far outpaced the long arm of the professional conduct law. The Ten Commandments would be delivered today via cloud computing, as opposed to having a long hike and getting stone tablets. Oy veh!
While the changes address areas of confidentiality, outsourcing, job changes and jurisdictional issues, I'm only focused here on those regarding changes related to client development. The continued massive growth of internet marketing and clever entrepreneurial spirit among lawyers far outpaces what is currently on the books. Rule 1.18 better defines prospective clients in a world of pay per click, social networking, question and answer sites, etc...and the need to put in safeguards to properly avoid creating an unwanted or unintended attorney-client relationship.

My age-old favorite, 7.2, or ADVERTISING as the devil calls it, adds the tricky topic of not paying others for "recommendations" via online lead generation services. The original 7.2 from many moons ago was written for yellow page ads (what are yellow pages, my kids ask?), billboards and other distasteful mechanisms that--god forbid--might provide your law firm's name and contact information to a consumer in need.

And, of course, with prospecting for clients and advertising comes the need to better define "solicitation" and exactly what that means in a world with technology. We know about letters, phone calls and runners. What about all things Internet that flow through the clouds, DSL, broadband and the one guy still dialing up on AOL (buddy, you make me laugh, you cheap skate). Solicitation has been expanded to "a targeted communication initiated by a lawyer that is directed to a specific person and that offers to provide, or can reasonably be understood to provide, legal services," as opposed to communications with the general public.

OK, so you feel like I've told you nothing to this point. What should you do about these rule changes? First of all, if they are not adopted in full or part by the states that matter to you (where you are admitted, where you practice, where your firm has offices, etc), then at this point in time, it does not.

Keep an eye out for RPC changes that are adopted over the next 6-36 months, depending on how quickly your state bar gets off its' you-know-what.

What you should always remember--and I'm in an ongoing debate with some over this topic--is that such "communications" stretch the cybersphere--whether it is a web site, a blog, a Facebook page, a Twitter post, a Yelp profile, maybe even your JDate profile (not really). The rules don't need to state the technology by name for it to fall in the realm of prospects-solicitation-advertising. If you've followed my commentary on the Virginia Bar blog case, you know about the sensitivity to revealing too much about a client or his/her matter--even if it is in the public domain. I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that just because a statement is true does not mean you can say it. Bart Simpson should write "deceptive or misleading" 1,000 times on the chalkboard. Technology is not an end-around for the rules and comments in place from 7.1...to 7.? (depending on your state). In my opinion, the new rules don't change anything, they simply clarify. The real key is not in the rules themselves, but in understanding the technologies you are using--and how misuse can lead to discipline and worse--people knowing you can't figure out Twitter for your life.