"Y'all, y'alllll ... y'awwwwll," Emily D. Baker — an exasperated, purple-haired, former Los Angeles County District Attorney — yells from her Tennessean home while livestreaming the Depp v. Heard defamation trial to an audience of more than 350,000 live, concurrent viewers.
Welcome to LawTube — a subculture of attorney content creators (law YouTubers) who livestream and commentate on high-profile cases in real time. Many have become household names with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Baker alone has amassed more than 600,000 YouTube subscribers.
LawTube creators use their charisma, relatability, humor, and irreverence to build massive audiences and followings. Audience members can interact in real time with both the creator and other audience members by writing messages in the group chat. Audience members can also attach a monetary donation (up to $500) to their message ("super chats"), which often prompts the creator to prioritize reading their comment or answering their question. In the Depp v. Heard trial alone, LawTube creators collected more than $500,000 in super chats. With super chats, ad revenue, and merchandise profits, LawTube creators are making multiples of what they did in the traditional legal setting.
Audiences crave the community, depth, and diversity of LawTube.
Community — Being in the chat feels like being at the game; only instead of being at a baseball game, you're at a trial. Instead of leaning over and saying to the guy next to you, "I can't believe they're putting him in," you're typing in the chat, "I can't believe they're putting him on the stand." You're discussing the brand of coffee, scotch, or whiskey you're drinking and debating which is best. This offers a sense of community that audiences crave in this digital world. These communities also have endearing names and sayings. Baker's community call themselves the "LawNerds," and their pets the "PawNerds."
Depth — LawTube is about the deep dive. Creators were shocked at the number of people worldwide who tuned in to listen to even the most mundane evidentiary hearings, trial days, and even line-by-line readings of legal briefs. Many creators added weekly (or nightly) shows in addition to their trial streams, which allowed them to dig deeper into the pleadings, motions, and legal strategy. Baker's weekly show, "Coffee and Cursey Words," often has her reading line-by-line through filings in pop culture cases de jour.
Diverse Content — LawTube offers almost any flavor of commentary one could imagine. Baker focuses on pop culture cases, explaining "the legal shit behind the stories we all want to talk about" and focusing on "Facts, Not F*ckery." Nick Rekieta, the so-called "Pope of LawTube," focuses on constitutional rights while streaming from his home in Minnesota and drinking copious amounts of scotch. Baker demands inclusion and respect in her chat, while Rekieta and his chat are known for a much more crass, crude approach that pushes the bounds of the YouTube Community Guidelines, First Amendment rights, and legal ethics at every turn. Audiences can choose the content and community of their choice, and choice is a good thing.
Diverse Creators — LawTube opens the door to diversity. Before LawTube (and 2020), the public would not have looked to a purple-haired, whiskey-drinking attorney for the latest legal happenings. Now, Baker is the most followed LawTube creator, has a highly ranked entertainment podcast, and, ironically, is sometimes featured on mainstream media. Gone are the days of stiff-suited attorneys giving bland, 30-second trial summaries on mainstream television. But Baker isn't just a spunky, purple-haired attorney. She identifies as neurodivergent and openly discusses the impact of ADHD, time blindness, and dyslexia on her legal career (and personal life). She bridges the gap for so many audience members who deeply resonate with her neurodivergence. Perhaps most importantly, she encourages audience members to push forward with their goals, whether it be in law or otherwise, despite being neurodivergent, and to spread inclusivity for neurodivergent people at every turn. LawTube opened this desperately needed door to diverse representation.
But with the benefits come the challenges. Perhaps most interestingly, ethical challenges.
Commentary vs. Advice — When a $500 super chat appears with a fact-based legal question, can the creator's answer be construed as legal advice? Most creators repeatedly reiterate that they aren't offering legal advice and will only answer questions in a general nature. But is that enough?
Ethical Complaints — Can the state bar hold these creators accountable for their legal commentary, even though they aren't practicing law? Several ethical complaints have been filed in Minnesota against Rekieta but, as he summarized, the state bar has not investigated them because he was not practicing law at the time of his commentary. Can this line be blurred?
Community Guidelines — YouTube enforces Community Guidelines that demonetize or deprioritize certain content, such as content mentioning certain words or promoting harassment, violence, and the like. This prevents the creator from receiving ad revenue for the stream, although they can still receive super chats. For example, Baker had several of her Depp trial streams demonetized due to discussions of sexual assault in that case. This raises an interesting conundrum for legal creators, who often stream trials involving similar allegations of assault or violence. As another example, YouTube previously deleted (but has now reinstated) Rekieta's entire channel for alleged failure to comply with Community Guidelines.
Copyright — The creators argue that their commentary over the livestreams constitutes fair use. But when LawTube began in 2020, creators faced a flurry of copyright claims from trial streaming networks attempting to "strike" their videos or otherwise get them demonetized (unable to earn advertising income) due to a copyright claim. So far, the fair use argument has prevailed. Other copyright instances have arisen. For example, one network struck one of Baker's livestreams of the Depp trial because a video they owned played as a trial exhibit that day. These raise interesting issues of fair use and copyright.
Defamation Suits — Of course, commentators can be held civilly liable for any defamatory comments. Questions arise as to whether these commentators would be considered media defendants for purposes of a defamation suit. Rekieta recently had a defamation action filed against him. Thus far, he said that he only made true comments and, to the extent they weren't true, they were in jest. It will be interesting to see how the legal system treats this action.
Originally published by San Diego County Bar Association - San Diego Lawyer March/April 2023.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
