Minnesota Lawyer Blog

I was a bit amused and then intrigued by some comments made by former Attorney General Mike Hatch posted yesterday on MinnPost. The Hatch comments were in response to a request for an interview from MinnPost's Eric Black, who was writing a piece on Hatch's role in the current managerial situation at the AG's Office. (Actually, it's the first part of a two-part series. UPDATE: Click here for part 2.)

Hatch, who now is in private practice in Minneapolis, had apparently scheduled an interview with Black, but then backed out at the last minute. Rather than just giving the typical Marsha Brady excuse (i.e. "Something suddenly came up"), Hatch sent a rather lengthy explanation as to why he was cancelling and not commenting, during the course of which he did, in fact, comment.

Here is part of what Hatch sent to MinnPost: "I had misinterpreted my secretary's message, and thought that you were with the Rochester Post. ... [I]t is my policy not to interview with bloggers. While I should stop right here, I feel chagrined in having agreed to a telephone interview with the Rochester Post, finding out that in fact you represent a blog called the Minnesota Post [sic], and having raised your expectations of an interview. ..."

First of all, I am not sure MinnPost is really a "blog" per se. The folks over at MinnPost may or may not agree with me, but I would say it's more of an online news service covering public affairs. These days, with people making comments on posted articles that may or may nor have previously appeared in print, it gets harder and harder to draw such distinctions. MinnPost is most definitely part of the electronic media -- a vastly growing segment of the news business. The migration of news online has hit daily general- circulation newspapers hard. Papers like the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press have shed some of their top journalists, who, in turn, have gone on to become part of the online media. Thus, in closing himself off to "bloggers," Hatch is losing access to some of the best and brightest in the business. Plus, many people born after 1980 will likely never get to see his pearls of wisdom if he confines himself solely to print. (Although most newspapers have a web presence themselves these days, so the dividing line gets kind of blurry.)

This is not the first time Hatch has professed a resistance to technology. Some may recall a little more than a year ago, while he was the director of complex litigation at the AG's office, he proclaimed that he didn't even have an e-mail address. (Ironically, that comment came as a rebuttal to allegations that Hatch had forced staffers to post positive things about the AG's Office on this blog). While I find it a bit difficult to believe that such a politicically well-informed man would have no idea what MinnPost is, I would suggest he acquaint himself with it and other online media.

As both a blogger and the editor of a brick-and-mortar (or at least paper-and-ink) newspaper, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. (Minnesota Lawyer has both a blog and a website, which makes us what the guys on Wall Street like to call a "multimedia" operation.) A part of me likes the idea of sources only talking to print publications because that's still the bread-and-butter of the news industry -- at least until someone figures out how to make online news pay. But realistically, I don't think it works to limit yourself to print in 2008.

They used to say that you shouldn't pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. These days, I would make the following addendum: "You also shouldn't pick a fight with someone who gets a lot of unique visits to his or her site." Not as catchy, perhaps, but an accurate reflection of changes in the industry.

Minnesota Lawyer today unveiled its newly revamped website. It's got a much fresher, cleaner look. I suspect there will be some initial glitches, but it will ultimately be much more user-friendly for visitors. Let us know what you think. You can reach me by e-mail at mark.cohen@minnlawyer.com.

The Wall Street Journal Law blog has an item today about what some law firms are paying Google to come up as "sponsored links" when you do a search using certain keywords. (The blog reports that lung cancer and law firms dominate CyberWare's list of most expensive search terms.) There are all kinds of jokes waiting to be made of that pairing, but I am not going to go there.

Number three on CyberWare's list of the most expensive terms are the words "personal injury lawyer michigan." If you type in those Google search terms, and then click on the link of one of the firms that comes up as a "sponsored link," that firm will have to pay Google $66.46. The firm is gambling that it will pick up enough business to offset the advertising costs incurred when people click on their link, but don't wind up giving the firm any business.The highest Minnesota-specific legal search terms on the list were: "personal injury lawyer minnesota." Firms are reportedly paying $36.17 for each click on their link to be sponsors for those terms. While Minnesota is still a better bargain than Michigan, that price is fairly high up on the CyberWare list.

I was curious what local firms were employing this advertising strategy, so I went to the Google site and plugged in the keywords "personal injury lawyer minnesota" to see what came up. Not surprisingly, at the top of the list of "sponsored links" was Woods & Thompson. Since I find that firm's TV ads annoying, I didn't mind clicking on its link just so it would get charged $36 for my visit. A few other usual suspects came up as "sponsored links," including Mesbesher & Spence, Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben and Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum & Carey. There were also less familiar names, such as Terry & Slane, The Schmidt Law Firm, and Hall Law.

I have no idea if their strategy is paying off, or perhaps it's to early to tell. I suppose if you do wind up landing a big case through being a sponsored link," $36 might be a small price to pay.

If the thought of cruising a WiFi network on a BlackBerry makes your mouth water, grab a napkin before reading further.

Device maker Research In Motion today officially announced the much-anticipated BlackBerry 8820—its first phone with WiFi capability.

Of course, BlackBerry users already had access to the Web through their cellular provider’s EDGE network—and will continue to have that option. But with the 8820, people will be able to connect to the Internet at any number of wireless hotspots across the country.

The 8820 is also the company’s thinnest phone, sporting a QWERTY keyboard, 320x240 display, trackball navigator and built-in Global Positioning System—not to mention usual features such as Bluetooth and a MicroSD slot.

Wireless provider AT&T will begin carrying the BlackBerry 8820 later this summer. RIM hasn’t released a price yet.

I predict this device will become the iPhone for the attorney set.

First, the good news: BlackBerry service has been restored after an overnight outage that left millions without e-mail access on their cherished devices.

The bad news is that you're now acutely aware of your CrackBerry addiction.

Research in Motion, the Canadian company that provides BlackBerry service, is still investigating the cause of the outage. But what about the effects?

Stories abound on the supposed addictive and sometimes painful nature of the handheld devices, not to mention the cultural impact of a workforce that’s unwired, but nonetheless tethered, to the office.

So how did you get through the night?

According to WebMD, withdrawal symptoms can include: