Properly responding to Social Media Criticism is an important skill to learn. In the Social Media Age, those who learn this skill will be successful. Those who are unable to master this ability will suffer. There are several methods that may be utilized when dealing with Social Media Criticism. Some of the ways to deal with Social Media Criticism include:
1) Ignoring the criticism and hope it subsides and is soon forgotten.
2) Responding to the criticism in the same medium to demonstrate that the criticism is unfounded.
3) Taking legal action against those who have criticized you.
Ignoring the criticism may work in some instances. However, do not hide under a rock. Monitor the criticism to understand if and how it may harm your reputation and brand.
If one decides to respond to social media criticism it may be done in the same medium that the original criticism occurred. For example, when legal marketer Larry Bodine called me a crank and appeared to defend an unethical and misleading marketing practice when I outed a fellow legal marketer who was practicing Social Media Credential Fraud I responded to Bodine by stating the facts and the law to rebut his position. Since I was correct about the law and facts he has not responded.
Another way to respond to social media criticism is to file a lawsuit against those who have directed criticism towards you. On April 1, 2011, The Washington Post wrote a story about lawyer Joseph Rakofsky's handling of his first trial. Rakofsky's first trial did not go as planned. It ended in a mistrial and according to the Washington Post the judge in the case indicated among other things, that Rakofsky did not have good grasp of legal procedures. Subsequently, the American Bar Association, Thomson Reuters, and other well-respected media outlets and lawyers discussed this case in traditional media outlets, on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms.
It appears that Rakofsky was not pleased that he was criticized so he decided to sue everyone he believed had criticized him and he has alleged that the criticism rose to defamation. Scott Greenfield has nicknamed the case Rakofsky v. Internet.
Some of the alleged facts of this matter include:
1) This was Rakofsky's first trial which was also a felony murder case.
2) Rakofsky was not licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction upon which the case originated and needed to be admitted pro hac vice in order to handle his first trial.
3) In paragraph 102 (p23) of Rakofsky's complaint he states "as a result of the blatant alliance between Judge Jackson and the AUSA"....
4) In paragraph 111 (p28) of Rakofsky's complaint it appears he is accusing a judge of intentionally publishing on the record slanderous and defamatory statements against him.
5) In paragraph 122 (p33) of Rakofsky's complaint he tries to explain that he used an unfortunate shorthand word ("trick") while stating in an email to his investigator "Please trick...(old lady) into admitting:"
Rakofsky should have learned to walk before he ran with a murder case. One's first trial should not be defending an alleged murderer. The above points and the rest of the complaint demonstrates that Rakofsky may not understand the legal definition of defamation. Rakofsky makes unfounded allegations against a judge, a prosecutor, reporters, members of the media and fellow attorneys. Does Rakofsky believe that the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct for the Lawyers (and NY and DC; even though he is only barred in NJ) and the FTC Advertising Regulations do not apply to him?
According to the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, it appears that Rakofsky may be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Washington, DC. In an advertisement that appears to list Rakofsky's Washington, DC address (a Regus virtual office address) it may provide the impression that Rakofsky is a Washington, DC barred lawyer. Rakofsky may want to review In re Banks, 561 A.2d 158 (DC 1987) and Brookens v. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 538 A.2d 1120 (DC 1988). Rakofsky's actions (ex: obtaining a DC virtual office address without a DC license) may demonstrate an intent to circumvent the DC Bar rules.
Taking legal action against those who have criticized you via social media should only be done after all other options have failed and only when one has the law and facts on his side. Filing a lawsuit against The Washington Post, The American Bar Association, Thomson Reuters, and numerous other entities and attorneys will not restore one's reputation. The best way for an attorney to build his reputation is through ethical conduct, hard work, and successful client representation. Unethical conduct, misleading advertising, and unsuccessful client outcomes are not the building blocks for a successful legal career.
The only reason I did not address "the Rakofsky Affair" earlier is that I was busy discussing Social Media Credential Fraud and I felt all of those who Rakofsky sued said everything that needed to be said about the matter. The moral of the story is in the Social Media Age young lawyers should not follow Joseph Rakofsky's playbook.
Rakofsky should drop his lawsuit before it further destroys his life. This situation should serve as a final exam hypothetical in every law school throughout the country.
If Rakofsky takes legal action against me and/or my law firm for this post or any past or future posts I will file a complaint against him with the New York, New Jersey, and Washington, DC Attorney Grievance Committees, the Federal Trade Commission, and I will file a counter suit. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, Rakofsky... go ahead MAKE MY DAY!
To learn how to respond to social media criticism you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Larry Bodine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Larry Bodine. Show all posts
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
How to keep your social media profile embarrassment free
Protecting your social media profile is extremely important because employers and clients are Googling people to investigate prospective candidates and business partners on the Internet. Therefore, be careful what and where you post online.
In a recent blog post, I discussed Social Media Credential Fraud. Right after my post, a legal marketer and non-practicing lawyer by the name of Larry Bodine appeared to defend the practice and made some unprofessional and unprovoked comments directed towards me on this blog. I have never met Mr. Bodine nor have I ever written about him.
Mr. Bodine used the word "crank" when describing me and stated, "you don't know anything about social media marketing." He has a First Amendment right to state his opinion; and I welcome him to visit my blog and post his comments. Mr. Bodine may refer to me as a "crank" or any other names his heart desires. There is an old legal saying I remember from law school: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either the facts or the law, attack opposing counsel."
I could have easily deleted Mr. Bodine's comments but I chose not to do so. Instead, I responded to his comments and I offered to meet him for a cup of coffee. In addition, I asked him to answer a few questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bodine chose not to respond to my questions.
The moral of the story is that you must always consider how others may view your online comments. I do not blog to embarrass but to inform and add value to the conversation. I was hoping that because I discovered an unethical and troubling activity that has already negatively tarnished some members of the legal marketing community, Mr. Bodine would be interested in taking a leadership role to root out this practice. Instead of using my discovery as a learning and teaching moment, Mr. Bodine attacked the messenger.
What is worse? Making unprofessional and childish comments towards another lawyer on social media without any evidence to support them or appearing to defend and endorse an unethical and misleading social media marketing practice? It begs to wonder what does Mr. Bodine really know about social media and social media marketing?
To learn more about how the law may affect your social media usage and whether your social media marketing campaigns are FTC compliant you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In a recent blog post, I discussed Social Media Credential Fraud. Right after my post, a legal marketer and non-practicing lawyer by the name of Larry Bodine appeared to defend the practice and made some unprofessional and unprovoked comments directed towards me on this blog. I have never met Mr. Bodine nor have I ever written about him.
Mr. Bodine used the word "crank" when describing me and stated, "you don't know anything about social media marketing." He has a First Amendment right to state his opinion; and I welcome him to visit my blog and post his comments. Mr. Bodine may refer to me as a "crank" or any other names his heart desires. There is an old legal saying I remember from law school: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either the facts or the law, attack opposing counsel."
I could have easily deleted Mr. Bodine's comments but I chose not to do so. Instead, I responded to his comments and I offered to meet him for a cup of coffee. In addition, I asked him to answer a few questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bodine chose not to respond to my questions.
The moral of the story is that you must always consider how others may view your online comments. I do not blog to embarrass but to inform and add value to the conversation. I was hoping that because I discovered an unethical and troubling activity that has already negatively tarnished some members of the legal marketing community, Mr. Bodine would be interested in taking a leadership role to root out this practice. Instead of using my discovery as a learning and teaching moment, Mr. Bodine attacked the messenger.
What is worse? Making unprofessional and childish comments towards another lawyer on social media without any evidence to support them or appearing to defend and endorse an unethical and misleading social media marketing practice? It begs to wonder what does Mr. Bodine really know about social media and social media marketing?
To learn more about how the law may affect your social media usage and whether your social media marketing campaigns are FTC compliant you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)