Update (1/26/12, 11 am) Here’s Scott’s post, Un-Optimization, which was also referenced by Kevin. Read the post yourself, but as I interpret it, Scott argues you can’t have it both ways: if you write what you believe in or what is controversial, you take a chance that you will offend or drive others away. If you blog to voice an opinion, that risk won’t bother you, but if you are blogging to market, the risk will be too great. That, as I understand is why Scott believes blogging to opine and blogging to market are incompatible but READ HIS POST!! I am not sure that the continuum is as black and white as this (which goes back to Jamison’s point) but that is because if my principles were important enough, I’d voice my opinion without compromise (that’s why I’m stuck in the Rakofsky lawsuit). On the other hand, if the issue didn’t matter so much to me and would offend, I suppose I would back away. What a lawyer’s line. Anyway, this issue has been beaten to death but if you want to jump in for another round, feel free.

Every so often, the familiar conversation crops up in the blogosphere over why we ought to blog?  My buddy Kevin O’Keefe sells blogs, so of course, he’s bullish about their importance to the legal profession.  Except, if you’ve ever met Kevin, you know that this isn’t just a sales pitch; he actually believes this stuff.

Other bloggers believe this stuff too.  As Kevin notes,  Scott Greenfield blogs to let people know he was here [update: see comment above]; Jamison Koehler blogs to share his love of the law and desire to engage other bloggers, but he’s also frank in noting that there’s a residual marketing benefit that he derives from his efforts.

I’ll admit, that I don’t get as agitated by others by flawging (except if there’s ghostwriting involved, I consider deceptive. But blogging for the sake of SEO only may not be wrong, but it’s a waste of a medium that empowers individual lawyers to do great things.

Take a look at a companion post I wrote long ago about why I blog. What’s your reason?