January 9th, 2009

Why is SimmonsCooper Spamming My Blog? (Updated)

Every blogger gets spam. I expect it from the various hustlers who permeate the web. But I didn’t really expect it from a law firm. From a big law firm.

SimmonsCooper* is a personal injury firm in Illinois. They focus on asbestos litigation and the disease it causes, mesothelioma. According to their web site, they have 17 partners and 39 associates and of counsel talent on hand, so this isn’t a small shop.

But apparently SimmonsCooper thinks it would be a mighty fine idea to send spam advertising to my blog in the comments area.

The first message came in January 2nd, and I deleted it and ignored their transgression. Then they did it again today. The post they were spamming was a September 17, 2007 piece on the Graves Amendment and immunity for car renting/leasing companies. Not a lot there about asbestos, I’ll tell you that. But that didn’t stop them from posting this drivel: If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with blah, blah, blah.

Note to SimmonsCooper: That’s pretty scummy stuff. It’s also a waste of your time and resources because:

1. The note is old and unlikely to be read by many;

2. Those that do read it aren’t looking for an asbestos attorney; and

3. You get zero Google juice out of it because my blog, like others, has a “do not follow” command for the comments area so that spammers don’t waste their time polluting our little publications.

If you want to advertise your services, go ahead. Knock yourself out. It’s legal because of that First Amendment thingie. I’ve got a web site too. Nothing wrong with that concept. I have to hope that any lawyer that does advertise will do so in a dignified manner.

But sending spam to my blog is not dignified.

Now I’m going to take a guess here and say that SimmonsCooper hired some idiotic SEO company to spread their name around. Perhaps they are ignorant of the fouls being committed in their name, or perhaps they are simply turning a blind eye to what their agents are doing in their name. Perhaps they are just shocked, shocked, I tell you, that their agents would behave in such a slimy manner.

I can only hope they pick their experts in a better fashion than the people who do their marketing.

———————————————————-

* Link is via a TinyUrl redirect so that the spammer doesn’t profit from any Google juice due to this posting.
———————————————————-

After posting this, I receive an apologetic call from Mark Motley at SimmonsCooper. He told me that they did not approve of what had been done in their name and were embarrassed by the spam.

I’ve previously written of the risks of lawyers outsourcing their web marketing to others, in the context of those horrid attorney search services (The Ethics of Attorney Search Services). There is a danger not just on the ethics front, but on the reputation front when SEO companies sing their own praises to get your business, and then do trashy things in your name.

Motley sent on to me this email, which he asked that I publish:

Thanks for your time today on the phone. It was a pleasure meeting you.
As you and I discussed, SimmonsCooper does not have anything to do with
the spam commenting you refer to in your blog. We do not approve of
spam commenting. We have a blog ourselves and frequently receive those
sorts of messages as well. I’m sorry to have met you under these
circumstances but am glad to have found your blog. Keep up the good
work!

Regards,
Mark Motley
SimmonsCooper LLC

Links to this post:

Sixteen Rules for Lawyers Who (Think They) Want to Market Online
1. If you’re looking for The Promised Land, you’re in the wrong place. This is the Wild West, Pilgrim. 2. There are clients online—sophisticated, moneyed clients—but they don’t find lawyers the way you think they do. …

posted by Mark Bennett @ November 16, 2009 10:15 PM

September 22nd, 2008

"Metrolink Train Attoneys" Appear (And What If It Happened in New York?)

The Los Angeles Metrolink train accident that killed 25 people and injured over 100 others seems to have brought out the worst in a few attorneys, with ads and website popping up to advertise for victims. As reported by Kevin O’Keefe, even YouTube ads have been popping up.

It was exactly this type of disaster in New York that led to new ethics rules. In 2003, the Staten Island Ferry crashed, killing 10 people. And while victims were still being pulled from the wreckage, some lawyers had already contacted the Staten Island Advance in order to place ads for the next day’s papers. Thus was born New York’s new attorney advertising rules (some of which are being constitutionally challenged).

Regardless of whether any one particular rule is constitutional or not, one thing is clear: That those lawyers that leap after cases in such a fashion do a great disservice to the profession. The few who do this make the rest look bad.

Those seeking counsel for such an incident — indeed for any kind of incident — should avoid such people at all costs. They have merely shown that they have advertising moxie to get noticed, and bad taste in what they have done.

August 7th, 2008

Is SueEasy the Worst Lawyer Idea Ever? (Updated and Bumped to Add WhoCanISue.com)

This post originally appeared April 13, 2008. It has been bumped up due to another moronic entrant into the field of trolling for lawsuits. The new site, at the bottom of this post, is WhoCanISue.com. And it, like SueEasy discussed here, raises substantial ethical and litigation issues:
—————————————————————-

When I first heard about SueEasy, I thought it was an April Fool’s joke. But it was October when it first appeared as a development concept (see 10/23/07 post:So How Did You Find Your Attorney? SueEasy!!!). Then I thought it must be a practical joke created by some tort “reformers” to highlight really bad advertising that sometimes takes place. Standard operating procedure is to use anecdotes to tar everyone else to win further protections and immunities for big business.

Sad to say, it has now gone live and appears to be yet another grotesque form of marketing, except that this one is actually dangerous and can help kill legitimate cases. (Note: SueEasy links provided by a TinyUrl redirect, so that this embarrassment to the profession doesn’t benefit from any PageRank by my linking to it.)

According to the site, “SueEasy is neither a law firm, nor is it a lawyer referral service.” That leaves only one thing, a marketing portal of some kind, presumably where lawyers buy space. These types of dumps are a dime a dozen on the web, and I get calls from them all the time. (See: The Ethics of Attorney Search Services.)

But unlike other attorney search services, this one has the potential for some serious damage in a unique way to both client and attorney in personal injury matters.

First, from the client perspective. One question you might expect at a deposition or trial will be this: How did you find your attorney? That doesn’t mean defense counsel can ask what was said, but they might certainly ask how you got to the lawyer you are using. Now can you imagine a jury finding out you used some company called Sue Easy? Perhaps a judge will allow the testimony, perhaps not, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in a position to find out when the answer is SueEasy.

And since you may share documents or write something to this company that advertises it is not a law firm, that stuff you send may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege and may be discoverable (and possibly admissible at trial). Which is to say, that is a way for a defense lawyer to get the SueEasy name in front of a jury.

Here’s something else you might to consider: During jury selection one of the standard issues raised by defense lawyers is that anyone can bring a lawsuit. So if ever there was a way to reinforce that idea, contacting an advertising portal named SueEasy would do it. It’s like handing a big, fat gift to the defendants.

Second, from the attorneys perspective. You have not only shot a stomach churning hole in your own client’s case (and any fee you hope to recover), but you are also at the mercy of the advertising portal to act ethically. As I demonstrated in my other post on the ethics of these portals, this could be a real issue. For example, the site appears to be in violation of New York’s ethical rules because it fails to state that it is attorney advertising.

You might also note the site owners are too embarrassed to identify themselves, so a participating lawyer would be ceding their marketing to an anonymous individual or company. Imagine that, a lawyer putting his or her law license into the hands of anonymous people. Try explaining that one to the disciplinary committee one day.

If you agree to be marketed by that portal, the disciplinary committee of your state may well say that they are your agent, and you are responsible for the content of their site and the conduct of the employees. And they may not look kindly on the willful blindness defense that you will try. (“Really? The site did that? Oh, my, I’m shocked, just shocked to find out. I’ll have a talk with my people and maybe we’ll do something else. Oh, thank you so much for telling me, Madame Chair of the Disciplinary Committee.”)

So my advice to those seeking an attorney:

Ask around first. Your friends, relatives and neighbors are the best place to start.
Ask another attorney, even if outside the field you need. While you wouldn’t want a medical malpractice attorney to handle your real estate venture, and vice versa, there’s a pretty good chance that the attorney will at least know where to look for the right person.
After you get a few names from the above methods, you can check out their websites to see if they give clues as to what field(s) the attorney(s) claim to be proficient in, and interview the attorneys as to other cases in the field that they have handled.
An attorney search service such as Sue Easy is not just a bad idea, but a spectacularly bad idea, with this possibly be so dangerous as to harm your case or career. Any attorney who uses it for serious personal injury cases may well be committing malpractice.

This company is a bona fide twofer for defendants. They get both the horrible anti-plaintiff’s lawyer press and they get stuff they can actually use in the courtroom. I keep thinking this must be a joke, as no right-minded lawyer would ever affiliate themselves with this outfit. But I fear that is not the case.