I did a CLE today on ethics in advertising and social media. I offered the opinion that a 100% ghost-written blog, where the lawyer who gets attribution doesn't write or review any of the content written by someone outside the firm, would be looked upon poorly by a state bar. A member of the audience strongly disagreed and felt that if lawyers can claim credit for CLE articles written by associates or law student clerks, then the same lawyers can claim credit for ghost-written blog posts. If you have an opinion one way or the other, please feel free to post in the comments.
After the talk, a marketing person offered me a more sophisticated hypothetical. Feel free to offer your views in the comments on this hypo as well, but please identify which hypo you're discussing. He said that he works with a lawyer and writes blog posts, tweets, and Facebook entries for her. From his repeated interactions with her, he knows what content she likes. He sends her the content and then posts it unless she objects or edits within a certain number of hours. He knows that sometimes she's read and approved the text and knows that sometimes she's in trial, etc., and hasn't read the text. He argues that this is really no different than a partner having a trusted associate write CLE articles for her. Your thoughts on this variation?