Recently, I had a lawyer approach me and say that he was thinking about starting a blog but he had trouble crafting short posts.

I’m a runner. Kinda.  More specifically, I’m a distance runner. Truth be told, I’m not a very good runner at all. It doesn’t come naturally to me and until a year ago, I hated it.  Basically, I slog out 9:30 to 10:00 minute miles for long distances.

There’s nothing impressive about running a 9:30 mile. If I’m running a 5k, I’m about a minute and a half faster than that.  However, there’s no way I could hold an 8 minute mile pace for 26.2 miles…at least not now.

How does any of this relate to starting a law blog?

It’s a marathon of sprints.

Each post is a sprint. It should have a singular purpose and make a single point in as few words as possible.  Ideas to the blogger are like energy to the runner – they need to be conserved. If you find yourself veering away from the original topic then you need to stop…end the post…and start a new post to be published on another day.

Overall, successful law blogs are like marathons. They go on for long periods of time. Many blogs burn out early.

The key to building a blog is about doing a little on a lot of days.

I love Alltop. Alltop posts links to the best blogs on the internet. Links are posted by category.

It is a great honor to have this site listed on Alltop’s legal page. Even if you have to scroll way down to find my site.

It is an even greater honor to have my response to Colin McEnroe as one of the top legal stories on their site.

Here’s the screen shot as proof:

Update: Since I originally posted, my post has become the most popular story on Alltop’s legal page.

Yesterday I was on a conference call preparing for the Connecticut Bar Foundation’s “How Technology is Changing The Practice of Law” symposium at UConn Law slated for April 9, 2010.  I am a panelist on the “Talkin’ Bout My Generation” portion of the program. I hope to see you there.

For a little sneak preview, our panel was discussing how we use technology to keep on top of legal developments.

I’ll make the argument that there is no better website to keep on top of developments in Connecticut law than the Judicial Branch Law Libraries’ News Log. It links to all advanced released opinions, legislative developments, and developments within the judicial branch. It is a tremendous resource for Connecticut attorneys.

Each year the ABA publishes a list of the top 100 legal blawgs. Considering the thousands of law blogs on the net it’s no small honor to be selected an ABA 100 Blawg.

In my opinion, the list will lose all credibility if Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog isn’t selected.

His blog is good.

This year he’s provided outstanding and in depth coverage of Ricci v. Destafano and other significant developments in employment law.

Equally as important has been his work on Twitter.  I felt like an attendee having followed Dan’s tweets at the ABA Convention in Chicago.

Dan has helped the Connecticut bar by volunteering his knowledge and expertise in blogging by teaching a CLE.  He’s a friend to the blogging community in Connecticut.

I say come on ABA. Show the Nutmeg State some love and name CT Employment Law Blog to your top 100 list. Dan has earned the honor.

Oliver Wendell Holmes would love twitter. It is perhaps the greatest marketplace of ideas in the history of human kind.

You’ve got 140 characters to say something or nothing.

To read what someone writes on twitter you have to choose to follow someone.

If you say a lot of relevant or interesting somethings people will choose to follow you. You’ll be retweeted and before you know it all sorts of people will start following you.

If you’re a spammer no one will follow you.  Nobody. Part of Twitter’s success is that unfollowing someone is quick and painless.

I could spend all day everyday tweeting things like “Need real estate lawyers? Put Leone, Throwe, Teller & Nagle to work for you” the same way a television station could choose to run nothing but commercials all day.

The only rule the Statewide Grievance Committee needs to adopt regarding attorneys Twitter pages is to exempt them from registration entirely. The beauty of it is the marketplace of Twitter is more efficient than any rule that attorney ethics committees could create to regulate it.

In Tweetspeak: No need 4 SGC to regulate Twitter b/c using it to solely to market is self defeating.

I especially like to follow rules that impact my livelyhood.

Every quarter, I have to register this blog with the grievance committee. I’m not happy about it but I don’t have the time or the desire to make an issue of it. Registering this blog takes 5 minutes of my time every 3 months and is a small price to pay for the privelege of attaching my name to posts about Connecticut law. In life one has to pick one’s fights and this is one that’s not worth fighting.

My real gripe lies with the Grievance Committee’s (SGC) lack of a policy on Facebook and Twitter.

In preparing for the upcoming CLE on the Basics of Blogs, Twitter, and Social Media for Lawyers, I asked the SGC for materials or guidance on the ethical requirements for attorney’s using social media. I was told in so many words that the rules haven’t caught up with Web 2.0.

What we’re left with is the SGC applying outdated Web 1.0 rules to Web 2.0 and that’s a problem, especially for attorneys who are solos or practice in small firms.

The rule is easy enough:

Connecticut Attorneys must register all communications made by a lawyer or a law firm about legal services offered by the law firm.

The exceptions are as follows:

1. An advertisement in the public media that contains only the information, in whole or in part, contained in Rule 7.2 (i) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, provided the information is not false or misleading;

2. An advertisement in a telephone directory;

3. A listing or entry in a regularly published law list;

4. An announcement card stating new or changed associations, new offices, or similar changes relating to an attorney or firm, or a tombstone professional card;

5. A communication sent only to:

(i) Existing or former clients;

(ii) Other attorneys or professionals; business organizations including trade groups; not-for-profit organizations; governmental bodies and/or

(iii) Members of a not-for-profit organization that meets the following conditions: the primary purposes of the organization do not include the rendition of legal services; the recommending, furnishing, paying for or educating persons regarding legal services is incidental and reasonably related to the primary purposes of the organization; the organization does not derive a financial benefit from the rendition of legal services by an attorney; and the person for whom the legal services are rendered, and not the organization, is recognized as the client of the attorney who is recommended, furnished, or paid for by the organization.

6. Communication that is requested by a prospective client.

7. The contents of an attorney’s website(s). Attorneys must provide the domain name(s) (URLs) of the website(s) only and must do so only on a quarterly basis.

The rules about internet advertising are clearly set up for stale websites on which lawyers boast about being a Super Lawyer, their community involvement, and their diplomas. I call these websites dinosaurs.

I have a Facebook page and have several hundred “friends.” Most of them are former classmates, co-workers, family, and friends with pretty much the sole exception being that I’m “friends” with  Red Sox pitcher Justin Masterson, who pitched well last night in leading the Red Sox to their 10th straight win and completing the sweep over the Yankees.  I digress.

My Facebook page lists my occupation and describes a little of what I do. It’s not all that different than my bio page on this site, less words but the same idea.

My profile can only be seen by people that I’m “friends” with.

Sometimes, I write about law. Again not a whole lot different that what I do on this site. Sometimes, I’ll post a link on my profile page and embed an article or blog post that catches my eye. Sometimes, I’ll update my status and it will include something law related such as “off to court” or some such useless nonsense.

It was suggested to me by the SGC that it may be best to separate my personal life from my professional life online by creating some sort of a net wall.

But that’s not right. I have rights under both the United States and Connecticut Constitutions to comment on law, my life, or whatever nonsense pops into my head.

Norm Pattis has done a wonderful job in making the case that attorney ethics rules are written for large firms and that applying them to small firms and solos places unfair constraints on those who don’t have a 150 partners.

Facebook is ground zero for this conflict. On one hand my Facebook page exists as a private way for me to keep in contact with the people in my life on the other hand it is a way for me to market myself.

The question is where to draw the line?

I rely on my friends, family, and former classmates for business. I couldn’t exist without them.  Law school classmates send me cases, family members and friends have me prepare their wills and buy and sell their homes. 

Does it benefit me if my high school classmates know where I practice and what it is that I do? Absolutely.

Lawyers in large firms spend lots of marketing time meeting with and speaking to people in whatever industry they happen to serve. For example, it makes sense for an energy lawyer to be out an about at meetings with the energy industry. 

For me Facebook works in much the same way.

I can’t think of a policy for the SGC to regulate attorneys’ Facebook pages.

Facebook allows a person to buy very targeted ads that appear on Facebook and I think it makes sense for attorney’s to have to register those ads.

Registering my page with includes lots of personal photos and information goes to far. I don’t post pictures of me with my dog in a Halloween costume on this site because they are not for public consumption. The SGC has no right to view those pictures. I do not want the SGC as my friend and it probably does not want me to be it’s friend either.

The only policy that makes any sort of sense is for Facebook pages to be exempt from registration and review the same way an advertisement in the yellow pages is exempt. It makes sense.

The only people who can see my Facebook page are people who (1) I let see it; and (2) people who choose to see it. 

The SGC shouldn’t wait around to enact such a policy either.  Failing to have a policy in place has a chilling effect on speech. I shouldn’t be left wondering if updating my status to read “busy today,  last day of the month, lots of closings” or “proud of legislature for enacting Kerrigan legislation” is a violation of my ethical duties as an attorney.

For the past few months, I’ve been working with Susan Cartier Liebel and Dan Schwartz on putting together a seminar for lawyers on web 2.0.

The Basics of Blogs, Twitter, and Social Media for Lawyers CLE will take place on May 26th at the CBA Law Center in New Britain at 6:00 pm.

Why Susan and Dan? They’re the best. Really.

The pamphlet lists me as chair but that’s really a misnomer. The bar association said it was too many characters to write “the guy who asked Susan and Dan to put on a seminar.”

Dan Schwartz is the founder and writer for the wildly successful Connecticut Employment Law Blog. Dan’s blog has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, he’s become the “go to” person for the Hartford Courant on employment related articles, and his blog is on the top of the charts for numerous “best employment law blog” lists.  Dan is a rock star in the lawyer/blogger world.

Susan Cartier Liebel is the founder of Solo Practice University.  Susan’s Build A Solo Practice blog is an ABA 100 Blawg (something you’ll learn about at the seminar but in short it means she stands out from the crowd) and is always on top of the ABA’s most viewed blogs. In my opinion, one of the reasons for Susan’s success is that she understands web 2.0 as a component of law practice 2.0.

I’m excited. I’m getting to learn from the best. I have a feeling they’ll say that posting videos in a post called “Thursday Evening Nonsense” of a girl walking up an escalator isn’t the best idea for a law blog.

Really, if you’ve thought about starting a blawg, wonder what Web 2.0 is all about, have a blawg, then this seminar is a MUST.  Big firm, small firm or solo this is for you.

Speaking of solos, as an added bonus, Susan has generously donated a one-year scholarship to Solo Practice University (a $595 value). Show up and bring your business card. One winner will be selected at the end of the seminar. Way cool.

Two Ladies in Waiting takes a fascinating  and fresh look at same-sex marriage, constitutional rights, federalism, civil unions through the lens of their honeymoon. Really good stuff. This is one of the best blog entries that I’ve read in a long time.

For the record, my wife and I also drove to Quebec for our honeymoon. We remained married the whole time.

Surrogacy creates fascinating legal issues.

I was happy to discover that Fairfield attorney, Christopher M. Gallagher has launched the CT Surrogacy Blog. The blog covers surrogacy cases, legislation, and statutes in Connecticut.

I wish Attorney Gallagher the best on his new blawg.