Carolyn of MyShingle had a great comment on my prior post/hypothetical that I felt deserved its own post:

The problem with legal ethics questions such as the one you've posed is that each state has its own hyper-technical definitions of "solicitation" and "deceptive advertising" and my guess is that most bars would find the advertising you described to be an impermissible deceptive practice.

Nevertheless, my own view is that in the dynamic blogosphere, there isn't any reason to regulate this conduct. That's because any law firm that engages in the kind of practice described in the hypothetical is going to get caught - someone will find out about the blog and people writing in and being solicited and will spread a rumor of it around the blogosphere. The attorney will be tainted and no one will want to use that firm's services. That's what happened back in the Cantor/Siegel days (when they spammed newsgroups about their immigration law practice) . And that "free market" approach is a better way to combat deceptive or sleazy advertising practices than regulation by a heavy handed bar association.

She nails an issue that I hope will be addressed by the Blogbook: can the "reputation economy" and market forces take the place of regulations online?