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

 

January 5th, 2009

Avvo: "No Concern" Over Convicted Sex Offender

Avvo, the lawyer rating service, says it has “no concern” over a convicted New York sex offender, whose license was suspended last week. Steven J. Lever, a former Kirkland & Ellis associate, was the subject of a sharply divided opinion from New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, with a three judge majority suspending him for three years over the dissent of two others that sought to have him disbarred. The lawyer plead guilty in September 2005 to sex offense charges related to soliciting sex over the internet from what he believed to be a 13-year old girl. (See: Sex Offender Keeps Law License)

The Avvo opinion on Lever gives their definition of “no concern” as follows “We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.” (Pdf version here: Avvo-Lever.pdf)

Avvo also says it has found “no misconduct” regarding the lawyer, with the definition of “no misconduct” being exactly the same as “no concern:”

“We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.”

Avvo has been oft criticized for its ratings because the subjective nature of lawyering isn’t truly amendable to any rating system. Avvo had contended that, while the subjective part was difficult, the objective part of rating attorneys by looking for misconduct actions was something it could do.

While I wouldn’t expect last week’s disciplinary decision to be reported in just one week, the actual criminal action against him was resolved three years ago. And Avvo missed it. (There are also zero comments by others on the Avvo site related to this lawyer.) If it is Avvo’s policy not to research crimes committed by attorneys (and I’m guessing that based on the fact that they didn’t report this sex crime conviction), then even its limited value of analyzing objective data is a failure.

Avvo thus apparently fails not only with the subjective rating system, which defies quantitative analysis, but also with the limited objective analysis of data that it aspires to. Because if you don’t find the data, the analysis isn’t worth squat. Garbage in, garbage out.

See also on Avvo:

And previously regarding Lever:

Links to this post:

Why AVVO Will Hurt Lawyers
Everyone who reads this blog knows I’m no fan of AVVO for many reasons. But just this week Eric Turkewitz, in a very well considered blog post, again notes the AVVO rating system is just flat out a danger to the public it purports to
posted by Susan Cartier Liebel, Esq. @ January 07, 2009 5:14 PM

 

January 2nd, 2009

My Blawg Review of the Year Nominations

The anonymous Editor of Blawg Review has once again foisted upon those that have written a Blawg Review (or are currently signed up to write one) the miserable job of picking the “best” of the year.

The problem, of course, is that picking the “best” is highly subjective. There’s no scale to weigh these things. And yet, someone must sit on this jury.

And so, since I’m now a juror, I’m going to pick based on who I think the best storytellers are. And that’s because, as attorneys, what we do is tell stories to present our client’s side of how something occurred. If a juror’s eyes glaze over in boredom then being right won’t help you. And woe unto the lawyer that self-promotes. Do either jurors or readers want to hear self-promotional stuff?

To keep the attention of jurors (or Blawg Review readers), I want to put them in the action. There are no warm-up comments, thank yous, explanations, or other time-wasting crap. Every opening argument I’ve ever given starts exactly the same way: “Today we turn to the clock back to…” and off we go into the middle of the story where I like to start. It’s all about the story. Jurors need to be interested in what’s going on. And so do review readers.

Mere lists of facts can be boring. I don’t generally use them unless I have to.

It can also be hard to shoehorn posts into specific legal topics for a Blawg Review, which many try to do to fit the theme of their blogs. It’s a trick that is tough to pull off. But tell a good story, and leave yourself open to any facts (good blog posts) that you see, and you’ve opened the review up to range near and far on anything of interest.

In fact, when I did my reviews based on the NYC Marathon and Thanksgiving with Arlo Guthrie, storytelling was the technique I used. I kept away from legal themes and I focused on social gatherings, where anyone can talk about anything. I didn’t spend any time with introductory comments. Chuck a little fantasy into the mix of putting people at your side during a race or a dinner, and you can go anywhere with the story so long as you grab their attention and hold it. And I tried, as much as possible, to do it in such a fashion that readers would want to click the links and be sent away from my review. Because that, after all, is the idea behind these weekly reviews.

And so, without further ado, I nominate these three storytellers for Blawg Review of the Year, followed by eight Honorable Mentions:

  • Rush Nigut of Rush on Business took us during Blawg Review # 147 on the annual Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa. He was kind enough to put bloggers right into the middle of the race. Without Rush, I never would have learned about Mr. Pork Chop.
  • Mistress Ruthie hosted Blawg Review #160 at Ruthie’s Law, captivating this juror not with the story, but with the persona of the storyteller. She (?) doesn’t waste time with an introduction explaining what she is doing. She just does it. And you get it. And you merrily click on links and come back for more amusement. The law doesn’t feel like work.

Having done that, I also need to give an Honorable Mention to the following:

Charon QC at Blawg Review #141, set the bar high at the start of the year with a review that puts many others to shame. Even if you never clicked a link, the review was (and is) worth reading for the wordsmithing alone.

Marc Randazza
at the Legal Satyrcion did a brilliant job on Blawg Review #190 Bill of Rights Day. Did I say previously that “mere lists” can be boring? Or sticking to legal themes often doesn’t work? Well the Bill of Rights is the greatest of all Top Ten Lists, and Randazza picked a legal theme for sure, and proved me wrong on both counts on how to put a review together. Easily one of the ten best of the year.

Mediator Victoria Pynchon
at The IP ADR Blog picked virginity as a theme for Blawg Review #171. Now how bold was that? She also happened to have done what appears to be the longest review of the year, chock full of so many links it boggles the mind as to how long she must have worked on it.

I liked Joshua Fruchter’s Blawg Review #187 on Evolution Day at his site LawyerCasting. Since the law, and the practice of law, is constantly evolving, it is a theme that lends itself to most anything the writer wants, and in this case he successfully integrated his theme with his practice area. And that is a tough trick to pull off.

It’s worth noting that some had difficulty sticking with the themes they picked, and they wisely abandoned them rather than try to force the issue. George Wallace at Declarations and Exclusions went with a pirate theme at Blawg Review #153, before admitting (aaargh) “We have no posts to link actually involving pirates, in the traditional non-intellectual property sense, but we can present a selection of items dealing with more shorebound offenses.” And off he went for a great review, albeit having little to do with piracy.

Perennial Blawg Review of the Year winner Colin Samuels, at Infamy and Praise put up a daring Blawg Review #189 with the Rime of the Ancient Mariner theme. While picking one of the great stories of literature to tell, he ran into problems when he realized he couldn’t quite sustain the literary element with a journey through the law. (Of course, it didn’t stop him from doing an exceptional and captivating review.) He wrote:

The Mariner chose a life at sea and experienced all that it offered — the mundane and the extraordinary, the routine and the exceptional, the company of crewmates and the boatload of corpses. Similarly, our experiences with the law mix the usual with the unusual and….

Forget it. I’m reaching; you know I’m reaching. Let’s end this charade, shall we? Look, I’ll level with you… I need a section in this Blawg Review where I can put a number of excellent posts concerning substantive legal issues. I’m going to do it here and I’d appreciate it if you’d just nod and go with it, OK? Thanks.

David Gulbransen at Preaching to the Perverted did Blawg Review #182 in a very imaginative exam format, which perfectly suited the fact that he had just taken a blizzard of them.

Anita Campbell at Small Business Trends went with a straightforward list for her Blawg Review #177. And if you are going to go with a list, this is certainly the way to do it. Nice and clean. David Giacalone of f/k/a, who famously wrote that he often finds “themed Blawg Reviews to be annoying, strained and distracting” probably loved it.

Finally: To those nominated and those honorably mentioned, I’ve tried to find your law firm web site in addition to your blog to give you a little Google juice, because you earned it. I missed some, but if you send me the link, I’ll add it in. Email: blog [at] TurkewitzLaw [dot] com

 

December 31st, 2008

Chief Judge Kaye Keeps Door Open On Hillary’s Senate Seat


Dan Slater from the WSJ Law Blog interviewed New York’s chief Judge Judith Kaye today on what she will do next now that she is retiring.

Two weeks ago I said she should be considered for Hillary’s Senate seat, with Caroline Kennedy being a particularly bad choice. (See, Chief Judge Judith Kaye — For U.S. Senate)

And the last question Slater asked was on that point. And the Chief Judge kept the door open with this non-answer:

We’ve heard rumors that you might replace Hillary Clinton in the senate.

I’m not thinking yet about my chapter three. You’re still talking to the chief judge, Dan. Have some respect. [Laughter]

 

December 30th, 2008

Sex Offender Keeps Law License (Updated)

In a decision released today, a sharply divided panel of the Appellate Division, First Department determined that an admitted sex offender will keep his New York law license. A majority of three justices suspended the license of the admitted offender for three years. Two dissenters insisted he should have been disbarred. The case is Matter of Lever.

Steven J. Lever was caught in a sting operation when “he engaged in sexually explicit conversations over an internet chat room with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year old girl, followed by his attempted meeting with the presumed minor for purposes of sexual contact.” The then 30-year old patent lawyer, formerly at Kirkland and Ellis, had logged on to a chat room targeting older men and younger women. In six separate conversations over a period of three months he engaged in discussions with “significant sexual content” and then arranged to meet the girl at the Ronkonkoma train station in Suffolk County for the purpose of oral sex.

In 2005 he plead guilty to to the misdemeanor crime of attempted criminal sex act in the third degree.

The matter was first heard before a referee, who recommended just a six-month suspension, taking into account the mitigating circumstances that Lever had admitted to his conduct, cooperated with police, and that there was no actual contact with a minor, among other things.

The case proceeded to a six-member Hearing Panel that didn’t appreciate the light nature of the referees six-month recommendation. The panel took the view that “preying upon … minors for sexual gratification by means of the internet should be dealt with more harshly.” A majority of the Panel therefore recommended that Lever be suspended for three years, or until the end of his criminal term of probation, whichever was longer, and that any reinstatement be conditioned upon a psychiatric evaluation. A sole dissenter on the Panel believed that a one-year suspension was appropriate.

From there the matter went to the Appellate Division, which resulted in today’s divided opinion. In a per curiam majority by Justices Gonzalez, Nardelli, and McGuire, the court noted that “use of the internet to prey on minors for purposes of sexual gratification is despicable and dangerous misconduct, that has brought shame to himself and to this State’s bar.” They went on to write that “serious misconduct of this type necessarily requires a significant sanction that will convey to members of the bar and public that this Court will not permit attorneys who engage in such immoral and criminal behavior to continue practicing law.”

But the majority voted not to disbar since they saw a distinction between an attempt to have sex with the minor and actually doing it. The court wrote:

Given that most State’s penal statutes treat sexual contact with a minor as a higher-grade crime than an attempt to commit such a crime (as would be the case in a sting operation), there is no basis for us to ignore that distinction in attorney disciplinary proceedings. Respondent’s sanction should be premised on what he was convicted of doing, not what he might have done if circumstances were different.

The majority went on to give great credit to mitigating factors in arguing against disbarment. They wrote:

Further, even if we agreed with the dissent that the offense, by itself, would ordinarily require disbarment, the substantial and credible mitigation evidence offered by respondent in this case requires us to consider a lesser sanction. From the beginning, respondent has admitted responsibility for his actions and has taken “uncommon” efforts to rehabilitate himself. After his arrest, he voluntarily entered sex offender treatment and all evidence in the record supports the therapist’s opinions that such therapy appears to be working and that the likelihood of respondent repeating the misconduct was “low.” Further, respondent cooperated with the criminal investigation and with Committee staff in their investigations, and he has no prior disciplinary record.

Justice James Catterson, writing in dissent and joined by Justice Saxe, called the act of dissenting in a disciplinary case an “unusual step” and urged disbarment, writing “I do not believe that we can reconcile the status of registered sex offender with that of a member of the bar in good standing.”

Justice Catterson went on to explain his reasoning as follows:

[Lever’s] counsel characterizes [his] conduct in a three month campaign of seducing a girl that he believed to be thirteen years old as a “disturbing social problem.” This attempt at minimizing the acute danger of sexual predators should be summarily rejected. I recognize that New York attorneys convicted of various crimes are routinely suspended and ultimately return to practice law after a suitable period of time. Of course, there is a very broad spectrum of crime from the venal to the mortal and the discipline imposed upon attorneys must necessarily reflect that diversity.

However … we are charged with the duty of protecting both the courts and the public from unfit attorneys, and even attorney discipline must have some absolutes; some event horizon that dictates disbarment. Generally, conversion of client funds has epitomized that litmus test. I believe that a convicted and registered sex offender merits disbarment, even when the crime, as in the instant case, is inchoate.

Justice Catterson’s point at the end, that taking client money is the most common reason for disbarment, is well taken. Readers are left to decide on their own if sexual predation is worse than the taking of money. I, for one, think it’s a slam dunk, and hope the matter is appealed to the Court of Appeals so that this attorney is disbarred.

———————————————-
Update, 12/31/08: The New York Law Journal has published a long article regarding this rare split decision on a disciplinary matter.

Links to this post:

a tale of two lawyers
the internet tells two stories this morning. first, the maryland daily record tells the story of an applicant to the maryland bar who has been practicing law, apparently without incident, in new york for 25 years.

posted by @ January 05, 2009 4:05 PM

blawg review # 193
welcome…. bienvenue…willkommen … london calling…. i have the pleasure of opening the batting for the series of 2009 blawg reviews. i did my first blawg review exactly a year ago. i cannot quite believe that a year has gone by so rapidly

posted by charonqc @ January 04, 2009 4:38 PM

lawyers who sought sex with 13-year-old suspended
what gets a lawyer disbarred in new york? apparently not trying to “engage in an oral sexual act” with a 13-year-old. in 2004 barrister steven j. lever chatted online and had several phone calls with a cop pretending to be a severely

posted by @ December 31, 2008 1:17 PM

daily roundup 2008-12-31
due to work and family commitments today and tomorrow, this may be my final post at overlawyered. walter olson will be returning shortly. eight los angeles police officers may face suit from an unwilling jamie lynn spears decoy.

posted by SSFC @ December 31, 2008 8:25 AM

“Sex Offender Keeps Law License”
“Sex Offender Keeps Law License”: At his “New York Personal Injury Law Blog” today, Eric Turkewitz has a post that begins, “In a decision released today, a sharply divided panel of the Appellate Division, First Department determined
posted by @ December 30, 2008 4:10 PM