LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

If you are a top tier attorney you are (at most) using YouTube to promote your actual job and don't spend hours on hours streaming.

Also beware of generalist lawyers. There is the odd exception but generally if a lawyer talks about pretty much every legal topic on the fly he is not going to be accurate. Great lawyers tend to have a narrow focus.

Edit: I find it also hilarious that a lawyer would complain about a client not using his brief. It's a job that you get paid for. It's the client's call on how to proceed with the case. It screams insecurity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Requine., Forgot My Old Account :(, 𖦹Junkpop𖦹 and 2 others
im5!XxhO said:
Also beware of generalist lawyers. There is the odd exception but generally if a lawyer talks about pretty much every legal topic on the fly he is not going to be accurate. Great lawyers tend to have a narrow focus.
Click to expand...
The best lawyer to do generalist stuff is probably exactly the "strip mall lawyer" everyone makes fun of. If they have an actual practice, it's been all over the map. A retired personal injury lawyer has probably seen every civil procedure situation imaginable, at least in their home jurisdiction, and just needs some research to cover it anywhere else.

Nick started floundering when he got out of his depth, i.e. dumb shit like filing that idiotic amicus brief in the Vic case (you know the one that was instantly punted because he did it wrong).

(That said most of the loltube generalist guys are in fact grifters.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Manning, Cottontail, Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown and 2 others
AnOminous said:
The best lawyer to do generalist stuff is probably exactly the "strip mall lawyer" everyone makes fun of. If they have an actual practice, it's been all over the map.
Click to expand...
I worded it a bit badly, but what I meant is that you should be suspicious if they tell you stuff on the fly without researching especially if it is outside their day to day practice.

The main difference between the average practicioner and the "YouTube lawyer" is that the former actually researches the case.

Nick is a good example of zero research and often being wrong. Some others also often claimed inaccurate stuff.

Law tube is an entertainment product but the educational value is often overstated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown
im5!XxhO said:
If you are a top tier attorney you are (at most) using YouTube to promote your actual job and don't spend hours on hours streaming.

Also beware of generalist lawyers. There is the odd exception but generally if a lawyer talks about pretty much every legal topic on the fly he is not going to be accurate. Great lawyers tend to have a narrow focus.

Edit: I find it also hilarious that a lawyer would complain about a client not using his brief. It's a job that you get paid for. It's the client's call on how to proceed with the case. It screams insecurity.
Click to expand...
Really thinking only one who makes actual sense is DUIGuy and he is not "top tier" lawyer. But well it is a niche which will have endless amount of clients and Youtube is not worst platform to advertise on for free...
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown
im5!XxhO said:
Nick is a good example of zero research and often being wrong. Some others also often claimed inaccurate stuff.
Click to expand...
The baseline is probably whether ChatGPT does a better job than you. If it does, neck.
im5!XxhO said:
Law tube is an entertainment product but the educational value is often overstated.
Click to expand...
Kurt is a good example. Even as a "non-practicing lawyer," he is one of the most accurate tubers, but isn't very entertaining (unless he is having a meltdown). Meanwhile complete idiots outperform him.

The opposite would be someone like LegalBeagle. His takes are glib and superficial, and come with a side of current year politics, but he's reasonably personable and has turned that into a huge audience. He's not really much better legally than Nick was in his prime (and of course Nick is pure retard tier at this point after all the brain damage).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cottontail and Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown
Kiwi Yuga said:
When I first saw it, I thought he was playing up the theatrics for show, because he had mentioned earlier that it wasn't a big deal and that he got paid either way, but at the end of the rant he genuinely looks like he is on the verge of tears. How can you get that mad at AI? It isn't actually ranking the two briefs against each other, it is trying to predict what it thinks you want to hear.

He also has a bad habit of getting into arguments with his chat and having mini meltdowns like this when people question his analysis. He gets confused and then angry, and starts banning people left and right. Dude needs to calm down.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly, I'd thought he was exaggerating for the camera but by the end he seems like he's really struggling to hold it together.

I'm fully willing to believe that an LLM has no clue what good legal writing looks like, but he acts like he's genuinely hurt that it didn't give him asspats. And you just know he'd have been super smug if it had "sided" with him.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: im5!XxhO, Accidental Protege, Dixieland Buckaroo and 2 others
I think at first he was playing it up for laughs, but then somewhere between five and ten minutes in you can feel the switch flick in his brain of "the prospective client thought the other one was actually better" and he just fucking blacks out with rage.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: SargonF00t and Local Fed
Bunkerhousing said:
He should also have tried the chinese deepseek ai, I often compare those two. Escpecially when I question the output from one AI.

Now, about the citations thing, can someone legally knowledgeable tell us about the importance of these?
Click to expand...

Common law is based on precedent, so you cite existing cases in order to present a legal argument. Kind of like citing sources in a college paper.

Since there are millions of legal cases, you're meant to cite the most relevant and authoritative cases as evidence to what you're arguing. Kurt is sperging out because his rival didn't cite a Federal Circuit Court of Appeal decision in his submission to the Supreme Court.

Because Kurt has autism, he views legal arguments as simply finding and collecting all the citations that have the highest Power Level, and assembling them together. The issue is when you can't actually find any slam dunk citations from the higher courts. Which Kurt admits to later on. He spent hours digging around for useful citations and couldn't find all that many.

So that's when you have to be slick with how you write, so the Supreme Court doesn't just toss your submission in the trash. This is the issue that Kurt has trouble with, because he has autism. ChatGPT can recognise rhetoric that is more effective, but its not programmed to tell Kurt how smart he is for all the time he spends researching law libraries.

In pop culture terms, its another case of Chuck McGill vs Slippin Jimmy. Even if Kurt is a better legal scholar than most, his lack of social skills are a ceiling on how well he can actually perform as a lawyer. And he is unable to recognise that the world doesn't work like a constitutional law class.
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: often puzzled, John.Doe, Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown and 1 other person
I can't blame some lawyoutubers like Emily for making it their full-time job streaming and leaving the practice. They arguably make a lot more money for less of the headache of being a practicing lawyer, especially in Emily's case (deputy DA in LA, imagine the horrors).

I wouldn't even know where to start on how much these lawtubers made during the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown
AnOminous said:
he opposite would be someone like LegalBeagle. His takes are glib and superficial, and come with a side of current year politics, but he's reasonably personable and has turned that into a huge audience. He's not really much better legally than Nick was in his prime (and of course Nick is pure retard tier at this point after all the brain damage).
Click to expand...

Do you mean LegalEagle? His grasp of the law is pretty bad, made worse by the fact that he has a massive left-wing bias which makes him outright mislead his audience. He's only 'personable' in the sense that he parrots left-wing talking points like 'Orange man bad' while wearing a suit. Then he got a massive hit of algorithm boosting by YouTube as part of their politically motivated campaign to shape the narrative. Without that combination of Reddit-tier pandering and use as political weapon, he'd be hawking cheap Chinese suits and shitty bar-prep material to an audience of dozens.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: RandomBattles, Not Really Here and Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown
DumDum Did Nothing Wrong said:
Sean/Potentially Criminal is my law tard of choice. He gives a good breakdown and even changed my opinion on some things and you get shitposts and sector lulz from him. Truly a man of the farms.
Click to expand...

It's probably for the best since we've seen how YT fame & fortune really makes cows go full schizo, but I do find it interesting that Sean's channel has remained so small even after the Rekieta crashout and exodus of his fans.

Sean's channel has grown by about 10k over the last year or two, but he's still only at 25k. Compare that to Balldo at an ever shrinking 400k+ and all the other Rittenhouse & Depp era orbiters who mostly eclipsed 100k just by association with Nick. Even Legal Vices, who was very late to the Lawtube scene like Sean (only joining Nick during Depp when almost the entire Rittenhouse panel had jumped shipped to LegalBytes pre-drama), managed to quadruple Sean's audience before his untimely death.

Sean trialstreams regularly (even if sometimes on replay), is a practising attorney, actually reviews legal documents, streams on a regular schedule, engages with chat's mischief, is knowledgeable of the sektur, is self-deprecating, has a sense of humor, calls other people out when appropriate, has pretty radical and based political views, does nerdy model building and painting streams late night on weekends, etc.

It's interesting that Sean fills a lot of the niches that Nick originally represented only a few years earlier (other than the Weebwars Anime & comics shit) but is somehow 90% less successful.

You would've thought that a significant portion of Nick's old audience would be looking for a new port in the storm, but only a small chunk has chosen Sean a good year or two later. It seems that Nick really was a lightning in the bottle situation with the initial Weebwars and Rittenhouse panaceas, because even Martin entering the scene during Depp was still too late to ride the wave.

As mentioned, it's probably for the best that Potentially Criminal remains small, niche & humble, but I do find the lack of audience migration peculiar and I wonder where a lot of Nick's old audience ended up.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: King George III, Local Fed, Permanent Resident Cope and 1 other person
Mordecai 3 Finger Brown said:
As mentioned, it's probably for the best that Potentially Criminal remains small, niche & humble, but I do find the lack of audience migration peculiar and I wonder where a lot of Nick's old audience ended up.
Click to expand...
Some of Nick's regulars ended up with Sean. Some have moved on.

Sean's biggest problems are:
  • He has a real job as a practicing attorney, which prevents him from getting the live viewers during a trial
  • When he does replay viewings, he'll oftentimes not engage with the audience or the content for long stretches.
  • He does stupid shit like simulcast his model building, on his main channel. The algo doesn't like such widely divergent content, and discovery is a major way to end up with more viewers
  • The edgelord shit (windchimes, the video cut-ins [blicky, movie clips])
  • He has a lot of stuff he'd like to do, but often ends forgetting or never getting around to.
  • The irregular schedule. (Yeah he usually streams daily across platforms, but the time varies a lot.)
  • He probably needs a good ~15 second intro, instead of whatever slop streamyards has
  • To some extent, the needed self-confidence. He often says he doesn't want to bother people to come on his show... but if he doesn't ask...
On the plus side:
  • He does do segment clips on his channel, which help with views.
  • He does actually have insightful comments more often than not
  • Some of his edgelord stuff is content others won't touch if it's a legal matter
  • His sense of humor is actually funny, and he can meme.
  • He does keep to his Thursday night stream schedule, and actually provides value adds for subscribers across platforms.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Captain Manning, Local Fed, Permanent Resident Cope and 3 others
Dixieland Buckaroo said:
He does stupid shit like simulcast his model building, on his main channel. The algo doesn't like such widely divergent content, and discovery is a major way to end up with more viewers
Click to expand...

I saw that Sean talked about having set up a dedicated model building side channel last weekend while painting Nazi soldier miniatures with Russian hand weapons.

I was a little confused because people in his chat were congratulating him on monetization when he only had 700 subs at the time. I thought a minimum of 1k was needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back