Comments on: Does a Restricted Info Base Have a Benefit?

By: Facing The Sharks - Colleen Appleton - A non lawyer vs. lawyers » Who Is My Targeted Audience?

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:14:39 +0000

[...] "Would you pay someone to pick your blogs for you" but the title of the post is actually Does a Restricted Info Base Have A Benefit?" This post brought in a blogger who is new to me. That is, I’ve never heard of the [...]

By: Andrew Flusche

Andrew Flusche — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:07:19 +0000

Pro Se,

You’ve definitely identified a huge dilemma in the legal field. It’s not easy to represent yourself.

The research question is an interesting one. I don’t know of people who would work with a pro se litigant, but there might be a way. It’s a difficult area, since non-lawyers can’t help someone with legal things. What a mess.

Good luck,
Andrew

By: Pro Se Thoughts - A Non-Lawyer’s Journey Through The Court System » Who Is My Targeted Audience?

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:19:44 +0000

[...] you pay someone to pick your blogs for you” but the title of the post is actually Does a Restricted Info Base Have A Benefit?” This post brought in a blogger who is new to me. That is, I’ve never heard of the [...]

By: Pro Se Thoughts

Pro Se Thoughts — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:15:14 +0000

I would pay someone to pick my blogs for me, as long as I only had to pay for their picks that matched what I need. I would also pay someone to research blogs, sites and case information for me, looking for information that supports the legal issues of my cases.

The only problem I have with hiring people from the “legal world” is that their rates target the rich. What American can afford $175-$400 / hour? (lawyers) and I don’t know how much legal researchers cost. They seem to only do research for lawyers anyway.

I spend hours and hours researching blogs, legal sites and cases; so much so, I’m not spending enough time writing the actual pleadings. If you know of a service already, do tell!

By: Andrew Flusche

Andrew Flusche — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:44:49 +0000

Hey Kevin,

Your comment wasn’t harsh at all. I’m really glad you wrote one.

Take care,
Andrew

By: Kevin OKeefe

Kevin OKeefe — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:56:55 +0000

NP Andrew, hope I did not come across harsh. Should have added a after ‘low blow.’

By: Andrew Flusche

Andrew Flusche — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:43:41 +0000

Kevin,

I definitely did not mean anything bad or negative about you, LexBlog, or your clients. I offer my most sincere apologies for the poor taste of my intended joke here.

I’m a regular reader of your blog, as well as several of your clients, and I think you’re doing the legal community a great service. I do wish you the best of luck with your work.

I do appreciate the explanation for why your quality content isn’t included in the Newstex directory. I think that’s enlightening to the overall discussion, which I wanted to delve into a bit here.

Again, I am very sorry for the negative comment I made. Thank you for stopping by to discuss the situation.

Andrew

By: Kevin OKeefe

Kevin OKeefe — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:14:36 +0000

Low blow Andrew. I’ll suggest whatever is best for LexBlog clients. Always have. It’s in my best interests to see our clients succeed.

Newstex which ‘provides’ law blogs to LexisNexis has contacted me a couple times regarding the inclusion of my blog and LexBlog client blogs. Problem is I don’t have the right to sell our client’s content to third parties so that the third party may use the content however they see fit, as required by Newstex.

Newstex is asking that I recommend to LexBlog clients that they license their blog content to Newstex & LexisNexis. LexisNexis even mentioned it directly in an email exchange today. Problem is I don’t understand the business model nor do I see the benefit. Looks very very backwards.

I’m not certain that anyone at Newstex or LexisNexis understands blogs and how blog content is consumed.