Some BigLaw firms decline to pay for Twitter check marks, while SCOTUSblog takes a stand
Legal Marketing & Consulting
Some BigLaw firms decline to pay for Twitter check marks, while SCOTUSblog takes a stand
April 26, 2023, 11:22 am CDT
Out of 17 top law firms that had free blue check marks from Twitter, only three have apparently paid to keep them, according to a review by Reuters.
Law firms that paid for the privilege of verification are Hogan Lovells, Holland & Knight and Vinson & Elkins, the article reports. But 14 others did not have check marks at the time that Reuters last checked. They included DLA Piper, Norton Rose Fulbright, Greenberg Traurig and Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
SCOTUSblog went further than the no-check-mark holdouts, announcing in an April 20 tweet that it is leaving the social media website.
“Bye, Twitter,” SCOTUSblog’s post read. “The tipping point was having to pay for verification, when we feel we add a lot of value. We also feel solidarity with NPR and share concerns about Twitter’s direction. You can find us on the blog and TikTok. If we join another platform, we’ll send word here.”
The price for a blue check mark starts at $8 per month or $84 per year. Verified organizations can get a gold check mark for $1,000 per month.
A Hogan Lovells spokesperson told Reuters that the blue check mark carries benefits that include analytics, data and a more secure two-factor authentication.
Some lawyers with large Twitter followings have elected to pay for the check mark. They include Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York; Neal Katyal, a partner at Hogan Lovells and a former acting U.S. solicitor general; John Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; Kannon Shanmugam, an appellate chair for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and Ted Frank, a class action watchdog and director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute.
The ABA Journal does not have a blue check mark.
Reuters contacted Twitter—which has laid off its communications staff members—for comment. Reuters received an auto reply with a poop emoji.
See also:
ABAJournal.com: “Would Twitter get Section 230 immunity in lawsuits filed over fake tweets with blue check marks?”
