|
Law-related blogs: following in the footsteps of Thomas Jef ... |
|
Congratulations to Jim Deckard, the KBA's new Executive Dire ... |
|
Sunday • January 7, 2007
Since when is journalism 'a new game in town' that needs to be regulated?
Comments (5)
TrackBacks (1)
E-mail this article
Today's edition of the Lexington Herald-Leader contains an article about the growing number of blogs published by Kentucky lawyers. See "Lawyers take legal debates online." I have already provided some related commentary in a separate post. See "Law-related blogs: following in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson."
On further reflection, I have concluded that the most intriguing part of the article is a statement by a member of the Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission. The member stated that blogs by lawyers are "kind of a new game in town" for which the Commission has not yet developed any "hard rules."
Those words make me want to ask three questions:
First, since when is journalism a "new game in town"? Lawyers have been writing about the law for centuries. The Internet has merely made it easier for them to do so.
Second, what does it indicate when a Commission member refers to a new medium of communication as a "new game"? Does it reveal a cynical or suspicious attitude toward the new technology? Would the same member have said that there was "a new game in town" when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type in 1450?
Third and finally, why does a new medium of communication necessarily require new "rules" from the Advertising Commission? It is the Commission's duty to regulate the advertisement of legal services, not to control all forms of public communication by lawyers. Has the Commission become so jaundiced that it regards any public communication by a lawyer as an advertisement for legal services, and any new medium of communication as a "new game" that must be regulated (or won) by the Commission?
|
|
Law-related blogs: following in the footsteps of Thomas Jef ... |
|
Congratulations to Jim Deckard, the KBA's new Executive Dire ... |
|
Trackbacks
Comments
Diana L. Skaggs visited this page on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and wrote:
Ben, I didn't read the quote to suggest that rules ought to be developed. Without commenting on the need for an advertising commission in the first place, my thinking is that they are just watching the goings-on in this new medium. I read "new game" with not so much emphasis on the word "game", but as an acknowledgment that this new medium permits lawyers to put a lot of information on the web that could potentially be advertising and thus within their purview. As long as lawyers remain professional with this power of the keyboard, I don't think we will have any trouble. Diana
Ben Cowgill visited this page on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and wrote:
Thanks, Diana. I would be pleased to receive a comment from the Commission member in which he confirms that he did not intend any sarcasm or innuendo by his choice of the words "new game in town."
Leonard Bucklin visited this page on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and wrote:
I wonder what is the difference in Kentucky between a hard rule and a soft rule.
Ben Glass visited this page on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and wrote:
Here's what I view as the great unexplored issue in First Amendment/Lawyer Advertising Jurisprudence. When does something that a lawyer writes "cross over" from something that is pure journalism, and, (even in Kentucky and Florida, protected by the First Amendment) become some form of "commercial speech" that is (for the time being) entitled to somewhat less deference than "pure" First Amendment Speech.
This is a major issue because the best lawyer/marketer/bloggers are figuring out that the publication of good useful information can establish you as the "expert" without you, yourself calling you an "expert." The info published, however, can be a pure comment on the news. As such, it should not be subject to bar regulation at all.. the fact that the particular article appears on a website or blog should not change that analysis.
You see, Ben Cowgill is exactly right: it is wrong to view all words coming from a lawyer's mouth, and put to writing as "advertisement." You must analyze the words and ask the question: "do these particular words propose a commercial transaction?" If the answer is "no", then basically end of argument unless the speech is misleading. It simply should not matter whether the words show up in a letter to the editor or a blog/website.
LaTonia Denise Wright visited this page on Sunday, January 7, 2007, and wrote:
Ben, thank you for the insightful post. I am a practicing home health RN in Ohio and an attorney practicing law in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. I also own a law-related ancillary business (Healthcare Risk Averion Group, LLC.) and I blog (of course) on the law, legalities, and legal issues in nursing. Where is the distinction between the practice of law and the practice of nursing for the purposes of the Kentucky Attorneys' Advertising Commission?
Post a comment
Use this form to post a comment about "Since when is journalism 'a new game in town' that needs to be regulated?."
Your comment will be reviewed for relevance and propriety before it is added to the comments section of this page. The author reserves the right to disapprove any comment that is found to be inappropriate.
