I'm aware that marketing requires a certain amount of overstatement, but I sometimes have to wonder if PR people even have the capacity to read their releases with any objectivity at all. Case in point: Avvo's latest CLE offering, If You're not on Facebook, You're Committing Malpractice. Really? I acknowledge that if, as they say in their example, I'm cross-examining a witness about social media and have no clue about social media, I'm in trouble. But if I don't go dinking around on Facebook or Twitter on a regular basis I'm committing malpractice? I really don't think so.
First, Avvo, I don't need to spend significant time cruising timelines or posting to figure out how Facebook works. It isn't rocket science. If I need specialized knowledge for a case, I'll go get it. And promptly forget it thereafter.
Second, cruising and posting to Facebook is actually a huge waste of time. Have you bothered to look at what people post there? Have you bothered to figure out what people actually look for there? There's a reason I call it "Wastebook." Sure, if they're looking for an attorney, they may want to find some background there. Frankly, that's a good reason to set up a site and keep it as lean as possible. TMI is real, kids, and it isn't good.
Third, USING social media is likely to be the malpractice. If you post some opinion, especially on Twitter, there is NO WAY you can post sufficient disclaimers to cover your butt.
So sorry Avvo, either this class is an absurdity, or your title is simply a lie.