Imagine how difficult it is for lawyers to limit their comments to 140 characters. We face a dilemma having to leave some ambiguity in our message. Reducing beautifully formed, grammatically correct language to a small group of symbols and abbreviations goes against the grain. It’s hard for us.  Perhaps that is why as a  group, we have been slow to use Twitter as a business tool.

Adrian Dayton gave a presentation yesterday with some insight into the use of Twitter in the legal field.  It’s minimal.  He says we’re being left in the dust.

Maybe he’s right. After all the first I read about yesterday’s earthquake was a tweet from Phil Goff. He was at the Christchurch airport. Granted it was on a  news page, but just what was going on in Canterbury spread from phone to phone as fast as it did by radio or TV.

Just like the architect who is told to build the perfect home on half the budget she wants and a tiny plot of land, maybe we lawyers should view Twitter as a challenge to be embraced.  A bit like a cryptic crossword, a real test of our language skills.

Debra Dorrington