 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Signs of Progress | Main | Still Growin' » April 13, 2007Suing a Blogger: Fourth UpdateRipples from the threat of a lawsuit against Nashville blogger Katherine Coble over a blog post she wrote critical of JL Kirk Associates, a "career search" firm that tried to get her and her husband to pay nearly $4,500 up front before the company would try to find her husband a new job, continue across the blogosphere with Technorati now finding the case mentioned on more than 175 blogs (and Google's blog search finding more than 225). David St. Lawrence writes that, by its actions in the Coble case, law firm King & Ballow "demonstrated a total cluelessness of the dynamics of an informed marketplace." The lesson here is that a complaint from a customer is an indication that something is wrong with your service. Fix the problem. Don't try to intimidate the customer, especially if the customer is a blogger! The problem won't blow over and by the time all is said and done your organization's entire history will be public knowledge and the embarrassing details will be available on the Internet for years and years.True. King & Ballow gave JL Kirk Associates terrible strategic advice because King & Ballow - like probably most law firms - don't understand the dynamics of an informed marketplace. And JL Kirk Associates listened to the advice because it, like most business, didn't understand either. Posted in Blogging
Comments
Look upon this as Evolution In Action. If they ever start giving corporate Darwin Awards, this one'll be a strong candidate. Posted by: Dr. Ellen at April 13, 2007 1:39 PMThe law firm, very predictably, did what law firms do. They always want to fight and be contentious... the more they stir things up the more they get paid and they have nothing to lose. It's not the law firm's fault... it's the companies fault for involving the law firm and stupidly taking the firm's advice. There is never any value added when the lawyers get involved. They just fight over what's there and take their cut. They are never going to suggest a win/win solution because they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Posted by: jimmy at April 13, 2007 3:25 PMVia your April 11 post, at which I placed a similar comment to this one, not realizing that you have been making updates, Koble's story is now spreading to the legal blogosphere. Professor Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA cited it (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2007/04/suing_bloggers.html)
which sent the posts out to its news subscription list including me.
Definitely, this has proved to be the media blunder that Bill assessed, as now King & Ballow is losing face not just with bloggers, but members of law firms. Kudos for your insightful coverage and helping to get the word out. Posted by: Beth Wellington at April 13, 2007 8:58 PMGee, Jimmy, why not make some generalizations? It's probably worth noting that it is a *lawyer* that is coming to Mrs. Coble's rescue. Posted by: Mike at April 13, 2007 9:20 PMThere are plenty of lawyers who seek win-win positions for their clients. They usually are the most sought out by good businesses. The problem here could be lawyers who were ignorant of business reality. On the other hand, this could well be a case where the client demanded specific action, the lawyer advised them against it and the client insisted. We simply don't know. Posted by: Rob at April 14, 2007 2:34 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
