Newsletter Hidden Gems

In the new world order of feeds and blogs and tweets, we don’t talk about newsletters anymore.

Yes my friends, newsletters still exist! Michel-Adrian posted about finding law firm newsletters and Ted mentioned the CCH Law Student newsletter and we all know about the collection of law firm publications at Lexology.

Although the lines blur with technology, I suggest that to be labeled a newsletter, the information must be sent in hard copy or be made available electronically with some sign up action on the part of the recipient. Though signing up for information by a recipient may seem equivalent to an RSS feed, a newsletter differs based on the newsletter publisher’s control of the list. Electronic newsletters posted to a website offer the creator the ability to see how many times and who is reading the information. Newsletters sent by email and print have a fixed distribution list that the creator controls. Definitions, marketing viability, and publication intent aside, newsletters can be valuable sources of data.

My favourite newsletter is Eugene Meehan’s Lang Michener Supreme Court of Canada L@wLetter. This email newsletter is authoritative, timely, and an accurate and readable reflection of SCC decisions. It also often contains great anecdotes and interesting features in the website of the week section and has been frequently mentioned on Slaw as an information source. Sign up today, it is “Scot-free”.

Comments

  1. You’re absolutely right, Shaunna. The newsletter is still a useful way to gather insight and get a sense of how emerging issues are being treated at the practical level. The Supreme Court L@wletter is probably the best free newsletter we receive.

    I thought that blogging would kill the firm newsletter, but it still looks like a viable communications medium.

  2. One thing I like about the L@wLetter is that I have the impression (likely wrong) that most litigators receive it, so in a sense the items discussed are known to many English-speaking Canadian lawyers. One can assume that this week’s SCC decision (or telling anecdote) is common knowledge, because Mr. Meehan has gone to the trouble of telling us all about it. Blogs have lots of good info, but I assume that only 0.1% of Canadian lawyers read any given post.