Courting the Undecided Lawyer

That's it!  I'm done with TV!  And it's not just because The History Channel is airing yet another pawn shop reality show -- Cajun Pawn (although that is a pretty good reason).  I simply can't stand to watch another political campaign ad in which the candidate insinuates that the opponent's parents were never married and then concludes with, "I approve this message."

And don't get me wrong.  I'm not turned off by the lies and distortions.  After all, as a humorist, they are my stock in trade.  I don't even mind that the ads are often focused on irrelevant and trivial matters.  Once again, irrelevant and trivial constitutes the bulk of my full-day seminars.

However, I do find it infuriating that none of these ads gives a single reason to vote for a particular candidate.  Sure, I now know why the other candidate is a low-life reprobate (something I knew already, by the way).  But why should I vote for the person running the ad -- because he or she is the best tattletale?  It makes me wonder how these people got this far in life.  Can you imagine one of them at a job interview?

Employer: "Tell me about the skills you possess and how you can employ them in this position?"

Applicant: "Well, my greatest skill is my observational ability, which allowed me to notice that you don't want to hire any of those bozos out in the lobby.  One of the women is wearing cherry lipstick and plum fingernail polish.  If Ms. Thing is that sloppy with her appearance, then you can only imagine how she'll handle your books.  And don't even get me started on that fool who is still using a Blackberry.  Apparently, he must have seen one of your old job postings for a Y2K consultant ...."

Would you ever hire such a person?  Of course not.  Yet, here is the really disturbing part.  The American people will hire such a person in November.  While negative campaigning has no effect on the well-informed voter (all three of them), it's extremely effective in swaying the opinions of the all-important "undecided voter."  After all, the person who hasn't been able to choose between candidates with polar opposite political views, despite being given four years to do so, isn't going to be swayed at the last minute by the candidates' positions on, say, the role of NATO in a post-Cold War Europe.  Yet, this person might be swayed by an accusation that the other candidate is a philanderer, a draft dodger or an African American.

And while this does not bode well for our republic, it is something that we can use to our advantage in marketing CLE.  Let's face it.  A significant portion of our attendees are "undecided lawyers."  They haven't weighed all of their options (or even themselves, by the looks of things in the Midwest).  They simply know that the compliance period is nearing and that they must choose some course in order to maintain their law licenses.  In making this last-minute and haphazard choice, it's unlikely that they will consider learning objectives, practice area relevance or, in the case of IP lawyers, hygiene.  They will simply flip through a few brochures, read a few e-mail advertisements and then cast their lots.

In this situation, you can increase our chances of winning the undecided lawyer vote by going negative. For instance, rather than touting the credentials of your presenters, you should simply point out the shortcomings of your competitor's faculty.  Sending out an e-mail blast claiming that your competitor's CLE speakers are "self-absorbed, disorganized windbags" will be effective; and likely true.  Yet, you shouldn't let such things as truth or relevance prevent you from launching attacks against your competitors.  You should feel free to spread rumors that a competitor's staff is rude, spits in the coffee, and might even steal your kidney if you fall asleep during the seminar (which is inevitable given their windbag speakers).

And just so that you know that I'm willing to lead by example, I'm taking this opportunity to market my services to the undecided CLE provider:

Robert Musante and Irwin Karp are not only horrible speakers, but even worse people who consort with hippies and other leftists in northern California.

Speaking of hippies, Matt Homann doesn't even wear a tie.  Can you really trust the research coming from a man who can't even find suitable neckwear?

And speaking of untrustworthy, Larry Port is simply too good looking to be taken seriously.  After all, would you entrust your firm's IT capabilities to Brad Pitt?

And speaking of someone who has way too many kids, Stuart Teicher has four children.  Obviously, his idea of "burning the midnight oil" does not include actually preparing for his talks.

In short, there is only one choice for your next outside speaker.  My name is Sean Carter and I approve this blog post.