Lawyers are used to defending their profession. There isn't a medical malpractice lawyer alive who hasn't had to deal at one time or another with some angry citizen blaming the downfall of the entire nation on the sleazy work of attorneys attacking innocent doctors. Everyone has heard the joke about lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean. But, hey, that's alright. We're attorneys. Our livelihood is rooted in potential conflict. We can take criticism.
While lawyers might get more public abuse than others, every professional takes their fair share of attacks. We know, because we've seen criticisms lobbed at us even after we stopped actually practicing law and moved into the legal marketing side of things. As legal content writers, there is a select minority of marketing-types who can't resist making jabs at the work of copywriters. Their complaint always take some form of this argument: An attorney should always write every single word on their website and blog themselves. Anything less is disingenuous.
We strongly beg to differ. A few points on that issue...
1. Hiring legal content writers does not magically make it impossible for members of the firm or a solo to also write content. In fact, in our experience, hiring writers for help actually makes attorneys write even MORE than they usually would on their own. Why? Because there is something about the Momentum of having quality, consistent content updated frequently that inspires firms to give their all to the online marketing effort. When doing it alone it often seems overwhelming, and so nothing gets done.
2. Writers often take the ideas, perspective, and interests of the practicing attorneys and turn them into blog posts. In this way, the writer is a conduit which allows an otherwise busy attorney to share a perspective online that he wouldn't have time for without the help.
3. Good law content writers do not produce bland copy that has no relation to the firm. There may be some bad content producers out there, but anyone of quality incorporates the perspective of the firm. Throwing up content with little connection to a firm merely for linking purposes may be questionable, but writing specifically for a firm's audience by another is not.
Whew. After that rant we feel better. We should probably stop at 4 points, because our critics are not all that persuasive or numerous anyway. By responding too forcefully we may actually be giving them more weight than they deserve.
Suffice to say....our writers are very proud of our work and will defend it against anyone.