Law Blog Week in Review: Unethical Marketing, Quick Writing Fixes, & Email Disclaimer Trolling


Each weekend, I round up the best law blog posts I have found during the previous week. You can help by sending me links using our contact form, starting discussions in the Lab, or tweeting the link to @lawyerist. Or just tell me what I missed in the comments.

A Solo Practitioner’s Manifesto

This “Why I Went Solo” post from Canadian lawyer Vince Wong is a pretty great answer to those who buy into the myths about solo practice. [VW Law]

Law Firms, the “Soft Underbelly” of Data Security

It’s true. We are the weakest link. Frank Strong offers some tips for being less soft and weak. [Business of Law Blog]

“I don’t think these people … intend to be dishonest. I just think they don’t get it.”

Rick Horowitz perfectly describes a lot of lawyers online, whether the subject is blogs, Avvo, or just about any other form of online marketing used by lawyers. [Probable Cause]

Three Quick Writing Fixes

  1. Look for that and eliminate it if the sentence makes sense without it. (This is a pet peeve of mine.)
  2. Look for of, because it often indicates extraneous words.
  3. Look for in, for the same reasons.

For a more detailed explanation and more tips, see Steven Taylor’s post. [Attorney at Work]

Find Well Settled Law

The essential premise of, written up by Bob Ambrogi, is pretty simple: scoop up all instances of a judge writing things like “it is well settled that …” or “it is well established that …” in opinions. It’s like a legal research shortcut so you don’t have to assemble your own string cites from scratch. [LawSites]

Trolling with Email Disclaimer

I wanted to post an excerpt of the amazingly stupid email disclaimer Mark Bennett posted, but you really should just read the whole thing. Here is a sample that does not do it justice:

If you are the intended recipient or receive this communication intentionally by the intended recipient, subject to Texas Rule of Evidence (including rule 408) you are granted express consent to disclose, copy, and/or distribute this communication. In return, you agree to not alter it, for example, by removing any of these disclaimers. In violation thereof, you agree to (1) be personally liable for a minimal of $15,000 in liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, and court costs in collecting these damages

Note: Email disclaimers are pretty pointless, period. This one goes well above and beyond pointless. [Defending People]

Investors Are Betting on Legal Tech

When Clio announced its $18 million investment, it was exciting for legal tech, but it was also an outlier. Now NetDocuments has raised $25 million, which looks more like it could be the beginning of a trend. [LawSites]

Featured image: “Businessman in a suit holds wrench” from Shutterstock.


Get Lawyerist in Your Inbox, Daily

Current Articles
Current Lab Discussions