Bloggertizing

Should lawyers’ blogs be classified as advertizing?  I have wondered about that before, but never thought a state would consider passing a regulation to that effect.   A committee of New York State’s Administrative Board of Courts has not only suggested such a regulation but also has proposed "extend[ing] court jurisdiction to out-of-state legal advertising that appears in New York."  This has prompted a London-based lawyer to ask, "Could I be disciplined by New York state because there are pay-per-click adverts on my weblog or seminars, and these are interpreted as acts which ‘solicit legal services’?"  Interesting issue.  Would LDS-themed blogs written by lawyers that sometimes talk about legal issues and how they apply to the Church or Church history be subject to this regulation because they can be read in New York?  Would Nate Oman, Kaimi, Steve Evans, Kevin Barney, ECS, Guy Murray, DMI Dave, A. Greenwood and other lawyers be subject to discipline for our participation on LDS blogs?

This entry was posted on Friday, September 29th, 2006 at 11:31 am and is filed under Law, Weblogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

6 Responses to Bloggertizing

  1. Guy Murray says:
    September 29, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    What about J. Fowles? I suppose the only solution here is to ban the Internet from N.Y!

    Reply
  2. john f. says:
    September 29, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    Yeah, both Jordan and I (we are both J. Fowles) would be in the same boat.

    Reply
  3. ECS says:
    September 29, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    I don’t think I’d be disciplined, because “ECS” isn’t my name. Plus, I’m still registered with the Bar under my maiden name, so “ECS” aren’t even my official attorney initials. All the rest of you guys might be in trouble, though 🙂

    Reply
  4. john f. says:
    September 29, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Steve told me off-blog that there’s nothing to worry about. Good thing this post was only tongue-in-cheek. Thanks Steve.

    Reply
  5. Jordan F. says:
    September 29, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    No, but what you say on blogs can be used in depositions and has also been known to show up in court…

    I saw an expert witness slammed once about his credentials when, probably as a joke, he alluded to the “death” of his career as a research scientist at a certain university. He even had a picture of a tomb with an encryption stating that his career as a professor lay buried there. Clever, but the attorneys who retained him were not happy when he was asked why he considered his career in the field he was supposed to be an expert in to be “dead.” lol.

    Regardless of whether we can be said to “bloggertize”, I try to stay away from taking legal positions on this blog in the IP field, lest they come back to bite me later (“Your Honor, Mr. Fowles says that now, but even he does not believe the law should be that way, . . .”)

    Reply
  6. Guy Murray says:
    September 29, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    Steve told me off-blog that there’s nothing to worry about. Good thing this post was only tongue-in-cheek. Thanks Steve.

    Was this comment only tongue-in-cheek? If not, let’s hear what Steve had to say off blog!

    I saw an expert witness slammed once about his credentials when, probably as a joke, he alluded to the “death” of his career as a research scientist at a certain university. He even had a picture of a tomb with an encryption stating that his career as a professor lay buried there. Clever, but the attorneys who retained him were not happy when he was asked why he considered his career in the field he was supposed to be an expert in to be “dead.” lol.

    Excellent point. I always look up opposing experts online hoping to find that they have a website. There is usually something posted on that site that could be useful in cross examination.

    Reply

Leave a comment