The TechnoLawyer Blog recently launched a regular feature it calls YouLaw, which reviews law firm advertising videos that are posted to YouTube. New York medical malpractice lawyer Gerald Oginski writes thereviews. At the end of each review is a section called “Back Bench,” in which other experts add their nutshell opinions. Now I’ve joined the [...]
TAG | video
Law.com and LegalTalkNetwork.com have collaborated to launch Legal Channels, a service that produces professional-quality marketing and informational videos for lawyers and law firms. The videos are produced by Emmy award winning broadcast professionals (these are the folks who produce my Lawyer2Lawyer podcast) and the finished videos are posted on both Law.com and LegalTalkNetwork.com, as well as on YouTube. In addition to the online versions of the videos, broadcast-quality versions will also be available. Check out the Legal Channels page to see samples.
The Connecticut Law Tribune’s Tom Scheffey interviews me for his article today, ‘Duby-ous News’?, which follows up on a controversy I previously wrote about at Law.com’s Legal Blog Watch surrounding a PR consultant’s role in a law firm’s staged news program.
The half-hour program features two partners from Hartford’s Shipman & Goodwin being interviewed about a recent $12.4 million jury win in an eminent domain case against the town of Branford, Conn. Conducting the interview is the firm’s PR consultant, Duby McDowell, a former TV journalist. In the video, she is identified as “Duby McDowell, WFSB Political Analyst,” but never as a paid PR consultant for the lawyers being interviewed. Her “co-host” in interviewing the two lawyers, Tanya Meck, is identified as a former planning and zoning chair in West Hartford, without any mention that she, too, is a paid PR consultant.
In the comments to the Legal Blog Watch post, the firm wrote a response in which it says, among other points, “No reasonable person could have thought that the video was an WFSB news program.”
One footnote to all this: The CLT article quotes one person who questions the whole idea of a law firm creating a Web page and a video to explain a court victory. Given the controversy this victory created — it was an eminent domain case and taxpayers would have to foot the bill — I think the firm’s creation of an explanatory Web page was a good idea. I even think the video was a good idea. My one concern is that the video was produced in a manner that made it misleading, especially when the video was taken from the context of the Web page and broadcast over local cable-access stations. But the Web page was a good idea, from a PR point of view.