{"id":4433,"date":"2006-03-16T20:18:36","date_gmt":"2006-03-17T00:18:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/03\/16\/o-for-oversight\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:05","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:05","slug":"o-for-oversight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/03\/16\/o-for-oversight\/","title":{"rendered":"“o” for oversight"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

As founder of lexBlog<\/FONT><\/A>, Kevin O’Keefe<\/A> would appear to be quite savvy <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
about <\/FONT>the presentation and <\/FONT>content of lawyer weblogs.  Yet, until revealed <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
this morning by Ben Cowgill, l<\/FONT>exBlog’s <\/FONT>Kansas Family Law Blog<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A> included <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
some very prominent lawyer weblogs in a blogroll labelled “LexBlog network,<\/EM>” <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
although they have no connection of any sort with lexBlog.  See <\/FONT><\/FONT>Ben Cowgill <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on Legal <\/EM><\/FONT>Ethics<\/EM>, “Is your blog part of the ‘LexBlog network’?<\/A> (you might <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be sur<\/FONT>prised by <\/FONT>the answer),” March 16, 2006.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“questionDudeS”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
In a Comment in reply, Kevin seems to suggest that the situation caught him <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
by sur<\/FONT>prise, <\/FONT>and says:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“It was an oversight that a blogroll was labeled a network as <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
opposed to lawyer or other blogs.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Two years ago, Kevin’s “oversight” led him to leave out (see this<\/A> prior post)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the core notion in <\/FONT>Rebecca Blood<\/FONT><\/A>‘s conclusion that weblogs really <\/FONT>do build <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
reputations quickly — the need for hands-on self-education: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“By maintaining a weblog that is tightly focused on a particular <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
subject, these weblog editors educate themselves by searching <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Web daily for news and information pertinent to their area of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
expertise, exercising judgment in weighing the relevance or impor-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
tance of what they find, and articulating their thoughts on links that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
they decide to include, either by summarizing the article or by analy-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
zing the material presented.   It is what experts do, and this practice <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
will speed anyone’s progress to that end.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Similar “oversight” apparently caused Kevin to leave out of his lexBlog promos, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
back in 2004, the fact that all third-party materials on a lexBlog weblog would be <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
marked as <\/FONT>being provided from a different source.  (see our post<\/A> and the conces-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
sion <\/FONT>drawn out by Denise Howell’s probing questions at <\/FONT><\/FONT>Bag ‘n’ Baggage<\/EM><\/FONT><\/A>)  Of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
course, it is not the least bit clear to me that merely sticking a copyright symbol <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with another entity’s name after such third-party content will, as Kevin asserted,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“make clear that the [lexBlog] lawyer did not write it.”  Will the target public know<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the difference? <\/FONT>(For more, see Ben Cowgill’s post <\/FONT>this evening on chasing a rabbit<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
March 16, 2006).<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                          \"honest\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
When it comes to marketing his products, then, it often appears that Kevin needs <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
far more “<\/FONT>oversight<\/FONT><\/A>” — “Watchful care or management; supervision<\/EM>,”  in order <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to avoid such embarassing oversights — “An unintentional omission or mistake.” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(Amer<\/EM><\/FONT>ican Heritage Dictionary<\/EM>, 4th ed., 2000)  <\/FONT>Perhaps hiring a marketing\/ethics <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
consiglieri might be a good idea — someone who can draw Kevin’s attention to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
practices or claims that are likely to be seen as misleading or deceptive. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
One place for the new consiglieri to start might be the marketing of lexBlog’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lexPremium<\/A> <\/FONT>service, which begins by asserting that providing third-party content <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
will: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"lexPR\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Solidify reputation as trusted expert<\/EM>  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
This is the plan that will utterly solidify your reputation as a trusted <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
expert in your field and locale. With our Premium service, you’re <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
launched to the forefront of your area of practice, perceived as a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
leading authority by the public, colleagues, the media and clients. <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT>
\n
\"tiny This is the same issue raised by the truncated Rebecca Blood quote<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in <\/FONT>2004. <\/FONT>It’s building reputation on the cheap — it’s selling the appearance of ex-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
pertise.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“tinyredcheck” All of this puts me in mind of Homer, Horace and Pope.  Like <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Horace<\/FONT><\/A>, I know <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>that “Even the worthy Homer sometimes nods.”  <\/EM>But, <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I also <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>remember the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>warning of Alexander Pope<\/FONT><\/A>:<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
 “Those oft are stratagems which errors seem, Nor is it <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Homer nods, but we that dream”<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT>
\n
None of us knows what’s in Kevin’s mind or heart.  You’ll have to decide for your-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
selves whether <\/FONT>Horace or Pope gives us the better guidance about lexBlog.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
p.s.<\/STRONG><\/EM> In a comment at his weblog, Kevin states<\/A> today that “LexBlog has achieved the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
success <\/FONT>it has because we’ve acted ethically, honestly and with integrity at all times.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n
trusting the dog
to guard the gate…
chrysanthemum<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
“BatMoonN”<\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
I entrust my home
for the night
to mosquito-eating bats
<\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
simply trust,
simply trust!
cherry blossoms in bloom
<\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/FONT>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
  Issa<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
    translated by David G. Lanoue<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                        \"questionDudeSN\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As founder of lexBlog, Kevin O’Keefe would appear to be quite savvy about the presentation and content of lawyer weblogs.  Yet, until revealed this morning by Ben Cowgill, lexBlog’s Kansas Family Law Blog included some very prominent lawyer weblogs in a blogroll labelled “LexBlog network,” although they have no connection of any sort with lexBlog.  See […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-19v","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4433"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12734,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4433\/revisions\/12734"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}