Well, this tweet got my attention this morning:
LinkedIn Endorsements 101 | Law Technology Today bit.ly/Y5JnWa via @ltrc
— ABA Antitrust Law (@ABAantitrust) March 23, 2013
And brought to mind some potential pitfalls with regard to privilege: When the endorsee has no publicly available content on the subject for which they are being endorsed, the first question that usually pops into my head is, "How do they know this about the individual being endorsed?" That inquiry makes me a bit nervous, especially if I imagine a scenario involving a member of a licensed profession, under scrutiny for some alleged act of malpractice. As a plaintiff's advocate or on behalf of the defendant, contacting all the people who clicked that "endorse" button might make the short list of people from whom some statement might be sought.
When there is publicly available content such as a treatise or a published note on the part of the endorsee, stated scenario seems like much less of an issue, and thus reinforces the old adage of "Publish or Perish."
My tip for staying out of trouble? Endorse for attributes for which information is publicly available, i.e. public speaking or subject matter pertaining to publicly accessible skills such as litigation or the subject matter of a recent treatise.
Also, kudos to the writer of "101." It treats the subject matter at a very basic level and this may give us a clue as to where many LinkedIn users are right now with regard to this feature.