A while ago I commented on a blog post about the nature of legal blogging. I was pretty relaxed about the definition of legal blogging, and people’s self-definition and motivation for blogging and was a bit bemused when a number of commenters got a bit hot under the collar about who was a real blogger / blawger / flawger, and what sorts of blogs had value. But I’m feeling slightly different about it now. Increasingly the term “blawger” is symbolic of an approach that I just don’t identify with, and I think I’d prefer to define Pink Tape as a legal commentary blog (albeit not always the most serious commentary), not a “blawg” or a “flawg”. And here’s for why…
I work pretty hard on this blog. In between the “real” work of barristering. It does make me a little bit of money in the form of advertising revenue, but not nearly as much as the lost billable time I spend writing blog posts. No doubt the blog has some benefits in terms of profile – but notoriety is not necessarily a surefire way to more instructions. Good bloggers do not necessarily make good lawyers and vice versa. If I just wrote in order to sell my “product” I would censor myself rather better than I do. For example I would probably not foreground the amount of legal aid work I do and would not complain that I can’t pay my mortgage. I make a conscious effort to write from the heart, to write honestly about my experiences, to say what I think rather than what I think potential clients might like to hear (within the bounds of professional conduct). Much of what appears on Pink Tape is unlikely to win me any clients. People might read it, but it hasn’t resulted in a queue outside chambers to instruct me on a Monday morning. And I’ve probably put the kaibosh on any hopes of a judicial career I might have had (far too bloody opionionated and hot headed). But overall I don’t think it hurts, and lay clients are sometimes impressed or are reassured by knowing their lawyer has a beating heart and a bit of a life. Continue Reading…