Kevin O’Keefe says that ghostwritten blog posts are unethical for lawyers. Unlike legal briefs or other work a lawyer may have penned by others, blogs are considered a form of advertising. If you say you wrote the piece but you didn’t, you are guilty of misrepresentation.

O’Keefe says that clients rely on blog posts to choose attorneys. “The ghost-written post may be better written, funnier, or just plain different than the attorney’s own work product. Even worse, the post may have a completely different perspective or contain better ideas than what the attorney is capable of.”

Basically, clients might hire you because you made them believe you are a better lawyer than you really are.

I have a question. What if you’re a great writer but a mediocre lawyer? Don’t your blog posts misrepresent your abilities? Should we tell average lawyers who write well to dumb down their writing, lest they entice unsuspecting clients to hire them under false pretenses?

How about lawyers who are better at public speaking than they are in the courtroom. Doesn’t their speaking ability give people a false impression of their lawyering skills?

While we’re at it, should we also charge lawyers with misrepresentation if they wear a hairpiece, makeup, or an expensive suit? Won’t prospective clients think they are better looking (and thus more effective) or more successful than they really are?

Just out of law school? Better not have nice office furniture. Clients may think you have more experience than you do.

Are clients so stupid and helpless that we have to protect them against every possible harm? By attempting to do so, don’t we make it more likely that someone will get hurt because people rely on the government to protect them and stop thinking for themselves?

I realize lawyers are held to a higher standard, but what part of arms length transaction is unclear? When did caveat emptor become bad advice?

Anyway, if people who can take away our licenses say we mustn’t say we wrote blog posts we didn’t write, we probably shouldn’t ignore it.

Are there any loopholes?

Can you use ghostwritten material without any byline? If you add the name of the ghostwriter to the byline will that do the trick? How about a disclaimer that the article wasn’t written by you but is posted with your approval?

I don’t know if any of this will suffice to stave off the wolves, but I have another idea.

See, I don’t recommend using “canned” articles or hiring a ghostwriter to write you blog, but not because they may cause harm. I’m against them because they aren’t very good.

Canned articles are usually generic and simplistic. Lifeless and boring. They don’t reflect the real life experiences or opinions of the attorney, and thus, aren’t effective at connecting with readers or persuading them to choose the lawyer who posts them over anyone else.

All this huffing and puffing about how ghostwritten articles get clients to hire lawyers under false pretenses is much ado about nothing. If anything, they usually do the opposite.

Ironic, isn’t it? You post canned articles, thinking clients will be impressed and choose you, but they yawn and look elsewhere instead.

The system polices itself. Imagine that.

On the other hand, ghostwritten material may still be useful by giving  you a place to start.

Re-write the ghostwritten article. Put it in your own words and add your own examples and stories.

Problem solved. The final piece will be more interesting and engaging than the original, and you can honestly say that you wrote it.

Just make sure it’s not too good, or that your head shot isn’t too flattering. The bar police are watching.

Want to get better at writing blog posts? This is what you need.