If you’ve been following along, LexBlog is building a citable library of legal practitioner publishing. Strange part — some folks can’t see the value of such a library.
Twenty plus years ago, when lawyers started publishing online, nobody called it marketing. It was publishing. The goal was to build a name, build relationships — to develop business.
Somewhere along the
Legal citations follow a rigid format that tells you exactly who said what, where it was published, and when.
Without proper citations, neither the court nor lawyers can cite a published work. Big reason that practitioner publishing, whether blogs, white papers or articles are not cited.
Here’s an example of a citation for a law review article: Jane Smith, The
Case law has a citation system. Statutes have one. Law reviews have one.
But when a practicing lawyer shares insight and commentary on the law, whether it be interpreting primary law or breaking down the law for clients or the public there’s nothing.
No structured way for lawyers or the court to cite it. No persistent identifier connecting the work
If you’re a lawyer publishing insight and commentary on your niche area of law, where do you want your publishing to live?
Of course, you’ll still want publishing on your website. People who find you by word of mouth, through search, or even through an LLM will look you up there. But that audience is shrinking.
But think about a
It’s hard enough as the leader of a company to keep yourself and your team on vision. It’s harder still to pivot from the original vision to something new. But at some point, you have to. Because of an opportunity, an obligation to serve, or a marketplace that’s moving—which isn’t.
Over the last six months or more, I’ve been writing
Who remembers when Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave platforms the confidence to host legal communities online?
It was thoughtful of Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University School of Law to mark the 30th anniversary of the act of this week with a great legal analysis of its history, in which he began,
“Section 230 didn’t receive
Working on the LexBlog Library, a worldwide collection of legal insight and commentary authored by legal practitioners, academics, law students, and other legal professionals contributing to the advancement of the law, the question came up as to why lawyers would contribute their publishing.
People assumed it was to expand reach and visibility. I wasn’t so sure, so I looked to
In preparation for a consultation with lawyers at a new law firm client of ours, I turned first to my traditional talking points. I then turned to ChatGpt and quiried “You know my teaching of bloggers from days past? What are they?”
To which ChatGPT responded, “Here are your teachings.” Twenty-two years of teachings, shared on this blog and other
I was a VP of Business Development at Martindale-Hubbell of LexisNexis when my previous company was acquired by them. I respected the heck out of Carol Cooper, its EVP and Publisher who was continuing to build a directory of profiles, one begun around the Civil War.
Profiles were a big deal in generating work for lawyers and firms and they
As reported (password protected) by Amanda Robert of the ABA Journal,
“Law librarians are pushing back on the idea that generative artificial intelligence will eventually replace them. If anything, they have become more relevant as they test and promote new AI-based tools for government, law schools and law firms, says Jenny Silbiger, the president of the American Association of