I don’t think the new Facebook “Places” feature will last.  I get it– it’s  FB’s attempt at recreating Four Square. Interestingly, it’s yet another way that FB is keeping you on their site– with each new feature they give you less reason to leave the platform in order to enjoy a full social media experience.  But Places is going to drive the rank and file FB user nuts.

Twitter users expect some chaos.  There are multiple tweets streaming at every moment and less meaningful postings seem to be an accepted part of the Twitter-verse.  Not so in Facebook.  I think that FB users will be less tolerant of the somewhat annoying check-ins.

People are going to get angry and hide the feature pretty quickly- heck, I’m on the verge of doing that myself.  I wonder how that’s going to be received by the all-powerful gods of Facebook because I’m sure they can tell when things are being hidden.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that negatively impacts their ability to use the feature to raise revenue.  I’m not sure how- it’s just where my gut is leading me.

It’s coming– in a very short time there’s going to be a change in the competence standard. It’s not necessarily going to be an official amendment to the rules. Before long, however, courts and disciplinary boards throughout the country are going to require that attorneys have a basic understanding of social media in order to demonstrate the minimum level of attorney competence. Sound crazy? Think of it this way– would you consider an attorney “competent” if they couldn’t navigate the internet or use e-mail? Of course not. Well it’s going to be the same thing with social media. So if you’re not involved….better start learning.

By the way, these short blog posts are all you’ll get out of me from now on. After all– who has time to read anymore?

What I usually say when asked how an attorney can stay out of ethical trouble when engaging in social networking is….”Be Smart.” Although that isn’t very tangible advice, the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee issued an opinion in 2009 that helps give my advice a little more bite. You can see the opinion here http://bit.ly/agdDpS

Basically, the Philly Bar was asked to opine on the issue of whether an attorney could ask a third person to “friend” someone on Facebook in advance of litigation. Specifically, that person would connect with someone and claim that it’s motivated by friendship while the true, admitted motive for connecting is to gather information to be used against that person in a lawsuit.

The Committee said that the connection would be a violation of Rule 8.4(c) because it was deceptive. They stated that the connection would pass muster if the true reason for the desire to connect was revealed, though the Committee acknowledged the practical reality that no one would accept the connection if they understood the true motivation.

What’s key here is that the decision turned on the concept of “deception.” These particular actions in the social networking world would cause an ethical problem because they were done in a deceptive manner. Thus, the Philly Bar opinion gives lawyers some tangible direction about how an attorney can “Be Smart” when engaging in social networking– don’t be deceptive.

Listen, I tried.  Honestly, I really did.  I tried to use LinkedIn, but after about a year of participating, I’ve come to a decision.  Almost everything about it is stupid and a waste of my time.

The most intriguing part of social networking– what’s differentiated it mostly from other forms of networking, is selflessness.  People are involved in the honest exchange of information with the goal of helping others.  The people who thrive are the most authentic and the ones that provide value to others.   LinkedIn is the antithesis of that. 

90% of everything on LinkedIn is self serving.  Don’t get me wrong, I know we’re all out there trying to get exposure and make a buck.  But what drives me crazy about LinkedIn is that all of the postings are created so that they appear to be bona fide attempts at providing valuable information, but anyone with half-a-brain can see that they’re not.  Heck, the only people asking questions are coaches and consultants!   The questions are thinly disguised as helpful, but they’re really just blatant attempts at getting attention.  It’s outright insulting. 

Even the discussions in the groups are a waste.  I’ve seen two…TWO…questions that were honest requests for information, one of which was an unabashed, direct request for legal advice (and I hope no one provided an answer or you may be in ethical hot water).  Are there a few exceptions?  Perhaps a couple of genuinely helpful groups or some serious requests for important information?  Of course.  But those exceptions are just that– exceptions and they’re very much in the minority.

LinkedIn is valuable for one thing– to get people in your network to introduce you to people that you may not know (and to do the same for others).  For that reason alone I’ll stay engaged.  The rest of the platform is garbage.

Many of us have spoken with someone who’s uttered, “I just don’t see how Twitter can be helpful for business.”  They usually go on to say something obnoxious like, “It all seems so frivolous– I mean, who cares about what you ate for dinner?!”  I’ve spent a lot of time trying to explain the business benefits to people like that, with mixed results.  Well, you no longer have to be frustrated, because now you could simply tell those people to read “Twitterville” by Shel Israel.

Mr. Israel shows how Twitter can be used effectively for business purposes.  He recounts the origin of the platform and also talks about some effective, current uses in the business world.  But all is not as rosy as it sounds. 

The first half of Twitterville is a great business book.  The second half is a series of case studies and it’s just not that interesting.  My recommendation:  Definitely read Twitterville, but you can put it down after around page 190.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!