August 30, 2004
That's Infotainment
It probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that lawyers and law students occasionally (okay — daily) are guilty of obnoxious and obtuse behavior, but you might not know that every couple of months someone is silly enough to memorialize their gaffe in email, voicemail, or memorandum form. In days gone by, perhaps the offending material would get passed around to a handful of chortlers. Now these things hit the Web faster than a litter of puppies hits Craigslist. "Did you hear about the poor sap from [law firm where partners are rumored to dine on associates' livers]?" or, "Can you believe that idiot at [other law firm where the truth of the rumors has been documented]?"
This last week was no exception, and we have Texas lawyer (and blawger) Stephan Kinsella to thank for posting a voicemail that had been making the email rounds. Members of the press weren't far behind, and lawyers who hadn't managed to hear about the voicemail sooner were having it served up in their ozmosys reports.
Why so much inadvertent hilarity from the legal world? Well, as Tucker Max writes in The true story behind "The Now Infamous Tucker Max Charity Auction Debacle" email (via Stephan, who has been pointing to many such gems since posting the voicemail referenced above), boredom is at least one factor:
Almost immediately upon arrival at Fenwick, I realized that I HATED being a lawyer. My mental picture of what being a lawyer entailed did not include having to spend countless hours every day sitting in a lifeless office, surrounded by boring people, doing idiotic and ultimately meaningless paperwork. Unfortunately, that is all that a corporate lawyer does. Honestly, I wish I could say it was the firm, I wish I could blame the people or the place, but that was not the case. It wasn't the firm that I hated; it was the very nature of the job. Being a lawyer SUCKS.
Mr. Max goes on to explain he created his Web site when he got bored in law school. For some it's boredom, for others it's stress. Yet others just appreciate the opportunity to tell it like it is. Still others are born diarists in the Dooce tradition, with a unique knack for translating the pathos of their daily lives. Whatever the cocktail, in addition to regular explosions of unintentional humor, the law wonks are responsible for some of the most wickedly funny weblogs around. Grab yourself a cappucino with an extra shot of schadenfreude and see what I mean. Then go order a copy of Alex Wellen's Barman (now available in paperback, with Free Candy!) for good measure.
The following much too short list is in no particular order, is meant to convey flavor, and is by no means a complete catalog. Most of these blawgs are more or less anonymous. Many are law students, so let's hope their coursework does not do lasting harm to their writing. Follow their links for more transmutation of angst into art.
- Jeremy's Weblog
- Running With Lawyers (think scissors, not wolves)
- Stay of Execution
- Sugar, Mr. Poon? (In general, blogs premised on obscure Chevy Chase references are tough to beat)
- Begging The Question (See?)
- Unbillable Hours
- And What Thanks Do We Get?
- Notes From The (Legal) Underground
- Underneath Their Robes
- Sua Sponte
- Lonestar Expat
- The Uncivil Litigator
- Will Work For Favorable Dicta (winner of the Best Pseudonym Ever award)
- Buffalo Wings And Vodka
- GigaLaw's Roundtable Discussion: Pop-Up Ads and the Law
- Complaints in Lawsuits between Claria and L.L. Bean (Doug Isenberg: "As far as I know, the lawsuits by L.L. Bean are the first against advertisers of third-party pop-up services. Previous reported decisions involved lawsuits against the services themselves...")
Posted by Denise Howell at 02:52 PM
August 27, 2004
Fundamental
Steve Jurvetson at his blog The J-Curve: "I just was curious who would find this if I took no effort to promote it.... =)" All it takes is for someone like Halley Suitt to let the cat out of the bag, and bing-bang-boom: The J-Curve is (presently) the second result for Steve on Google.
After just a couple of posts in June, Steve is really hitting his stride this month. Here's his Blogger profile. Rick Bruner says Tim Draper's apparently blogging as well.
Posted by Denise Howell at 03:42 PM
And You Thought Lawyers Were Just A Big Pain In The Keister
Well, generally yes. But some of them are out there battling pop-up ads with intellectual property law. For an idea of how they're faring (short answer: so-so), see this article in FindLaw's Modern Practice. [Via Jerry Lawson]
This appears to be one of those wide open areas of Internet law where no appellate court has yet weighed in. Decisions can be pretty scattershot until that happens (and even afterwards, but at least then there's something more solid to go on). Further reading:
Posted by Denise Howell at 01:01 AM
August 25, 2004
Worthnewsy
Kevin Heller let me know — no doubt because he has an alert set up on the INDUCE Act — that along with Patently Obvious The Industry Standard's guest blog posts are among the few that show up in Google News. So here's Kevin, receiving an alert about a post pointing to his posts...I actually had the even more surreal experience — since I have an alert set up on the word "blawg" — of receiveing an alert about my own post...
This is made yet more interesting (what? you don't find this fascinating?) in light of JD's post here yesterday about the lack of partisan balance in Google's political news results, calling for a "venom correction check." Thank goodness JD is a big "J" Journalist, with all the ethics and standards appurtenant thereto, or he might be tempted to exercise a little self-help by peppering The Standard with a slew of left-leaning Kerry posts, which would then show up in Google News. Of course, many of the rest of us posting here are lay folk who wouldn't know a source from a soccer ball. I'd expound on this further, but there's an alien spacecraft landing in the back yard that urgently requires my attention.
Posted by Denise Howell at 04:16 PM
On Point
Never has such bad proposed legislation been the subject of such good daily coverage. I'm speaking, of course, of the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act. See for yourself at the INDUCE Act blawg (now a group effort, I see), and Ernest Miller's categorized posts on the same topic. In particular, Ernest's post today brings us exhaustively up to speed on possible INDUCE alternatives, and his recent Richard Koman interview (complete with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang references and clarifications) explains the proposed Act's bad, worse, and ugly.
And if those aren't enough pointers to stuff I had nothing to do with (I've had a very analog day), Dave Winer has some thoughtful comments about blogs and money.
Posted by Denise Howell at 03:43 AM
August 24, 2004
No Grim Reaper Required
My 95-year-old grandmother has come up with the perfect slogan for photo.stamps.com:
"And you don't even have to be dead yet!"
She'll sell at the right price. I can put you in touch.*
An early indicator on the success of that service: I sent sheets of stamps to several family members as gifts, and every one of them has already called to ask for the URL.
* Which reminds me, yesterday someone emailed saying they wanted to buy my blog. I haven't had the nerve to ask them to make an offer. My ego doesn't need to hear they'll go as high as $13.95.
Posted by Denise Howell at 06:03 PM
August 23, 2004
Hey, Who Evited The Grim Reaper?
One of the answers in the interview I posted here yesterday has had me thinking. Mike Buckley talked about changing "the law firm technology paradigm from 'I don't type' and 'What file did you put that in?' to 'I can get that information together for you on my laptop and email it to you in an hour.'"
That insight captures at least two of the skills and functionalities that continue to reveal themselves as absolutely essential to effective use of technology: search and aggregation. It also touches on the final step in the process: distribution. In the era of Web As Platform, the distribution step becomes much more interesting and multifaceted. Reminds me of the remark by Steve Jobs about the state of the world when Apple first started: "People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this." So now with collaborative Web publishing like blogs and wikis. If federal judges can do it with grace, ease, and style, perhaps there's hope for the rest of us. (If not, there's always Yellow Tooth.)
Posted by Denise Howell at 05:59 PM
August 22, 2004
Opening The Kimono — Or In This Case, The Don's Robe
My law firm has always paid a lot of attention to education and training, and I've written in the past about some of our programs (Modern Taxonomies For The Digital Banquet; What's Ahead, with Glenn Otis Brown of Creative Commons). Recently, it announced something called Reed Smith University. As the New York Lawyer put it, "In a few years' time, Reed Smith hopes to be the first major law firm staffed entirely by alumni of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of business." (Link added.) RSU will develop courses for all the firm's 2,300-plus employees, under the umbrella of five "Schools" (the School of Law, School of Leadership, School of Technology, School of Professional Support, and School of Professional Development). I'd never heard of a law firm adopting an in-house education program on this scale and thought it was pretty interesting, but I had a bunch of questions. In the following interview with RSU's "Chancellor," John F. Smith III, and the "Dean" of its School of Technology, Mike Buckley, I got answers. Michael Pollack, Dean of the Leadershp School, participated in the interview emails as well, but as frequently happens in court when counsel hope to spare the judge too much of a good thing, he simply "joins" in the answers below. (It's worth noting that in addition to their new "academic" positions, John and Michael are members of the firm's Executive Committee, and Michael is the firm's Director of Strategic Planning and a member of the Management Team.)
1) How will partnering with a post-graduate business school enhance the in-house training and education the firm provides its attorneys and staff?
Chancellor John: Wharton has a variety of resources that we do not have in-house. These include experience in executive education programs, faculty who consult on the subject of personnel development, an ability to help us structure a new undertaking like Reed Smith University in a professional and truly helpful way, ideas on improving our pedagogical techniques and the ways in which we deliver our programs, and work with university-like projects in large corporations. Some things they will do for us; some things they will help us do better for ourselves.
Technology Dean Mike: Major businesses have already developed many of the tools and systems we, as a now huge law firm need. Wharton can help by making those tolls and systems available to us and guiding us in how we implement them. In technology, business traditionally has been light years ahead of law firms. We are catching up, but we can use all the high quality advice we can get on how to use the systems and how to train people in the use of the systems.
2) What will The Wharton School's involvement be? Will it provide direct instruction, or work with instructors within the firm, or both? How would you respond to a skeptic who wondered whether this was more about lending the Wharton name to the firm's training programs than about real change and innovation in disseminating knowledge within the firm?
Chancellor John: We are glad to have the Wharton name associated with our project, but this is about making a real difference, not about cosmetics. As noted above, Wharton faculty who are among the best in the country will be teaching in RSU's School of Leadership, and likely in some of our other schools as well. A Wharton professor is serving as the academic advisor to the School of Leadership. Beyond this, Wharton faculty will serve as consultants in the development of all of our schools. With their advice, we are likely to seek relationships with still other kinds of institutions and look for other kinds of academic advisors for our other schools, Including the School of Law, the School of Technology, the School of Business Development, and the School of Professional Support. Ultimately, we will decide who best can help us think freshly about these subjects and help us achieve excellence in each.
Technology Dean Mike: The Wharton name is not the significant thing about RSU with respect to the School of Technology (SOT). Advice from Wharton or another high level than perhaps the School of Leadership. SOT expects to consult with Wharton or another suitable organization of Wharton's caliber with respect to training in technology. Even without that input, however, it should be clear that the organization of RSU marks a sea change in the way technology is taught at RS. Major changes in subject matter content, training structures, methods of delivery of training and interaction with the "student body" have already been mapped out.
3) Will all of the firm's in-house education now emanate from RSU, or will there continue to be programs developed independent of The Wharton School?
Chancellor John: As noted, Wharton will be involved in providing some but not all of RSU's programs. Its role as to the other programs will be that of a counselor. A large number of RSU's programs will be developed in-house and taught by Reed Smith lawyers and staff, and by still other parties.
Currently existing in-house programs will gradually be incorporated into the RSU framework. We don't want to interrupt things that are working well. Over time, after our school leaders have thought about each of them from the ground up, those programs will continue, be upgraded, or be replaced. Ultimately, almost all of the education/training at Reed Smith will take place under the aegis of one or another of the five schools in RSU.
4) How can a business school approach help lawyers, staff, and clients get the most out of the myriad technologies the firm makes available to them?
Chancellor John: Wharton has had occasion to address some of these issues in its work with other corporate programs. We expect them to make valuable contributions here. But it should also be remembered that we are not confined to Wharton's expertise. Mike Buckley, as the Dean of the School of Technology, may recommend that we also consult with other organizations or individuals. Having fresh outside perspectives on how we are using our technologies will help the leaders of our School of Technology to do their jobs, giving them more options to consider and offering ideas for their consideration.
Technology Dean Mike: Lawyers and the firms they manage are usually traditional, rather conservative, slow to change and resistant to technology. RS is breaking that mold and has already made great strides in reshaping its management and culture to be able to take advantage of 21st century business methods. RSU is in many ways the matrix within which those changes will take place. Working with business advisors, not just traditional law firm consultants, a commitment to "out of the box thinking" and innovation and formal recognition that organized, cutting edge training is very useful all give RS a real opportunity to change the law firm technology paradigm from "I don't type" and "What file did you put that in?" to "I can get that information together for you on my laptop and email it to you in an hour."
5) How will the online/distance learning component work?
Chancellor John: This is one of the things we are studying. The firm already has a considerable investment in technology that is used in the delivery of education/training content. We are experimenting with on-line techniques, and trying out various providers. I expect that there will be a process of continuous experimentation and evolution in the future.
Technology Dean Mike: Training technology is especially susceptible to technology based learning delivery systems like desk top video; interactive self training software; virtual classes with hands on techniques; and virtual one-on-one training. What works best for each school and for that matter for each "class" is something we need to study. By the way in this context calling these training sessions "classes" may be a misnomer since gathering a bunch of people together in a physical classroom is probably not the best way to train many subjects.
6) How will the firm encourage lawyers and staff to participate in RSU programs? How will RSU change the way lawyers incorporate continuing legal education and training into their workload?
Chancellor John: he most important answer is: by running programs that are truly valuable for one's development, and seen as such by our lawyers and staff. We expect to make our offerings transparent, by collecting and publishing information about the competencies that the firm expects different people to have, developing courses that meet those needs, organizing the courses into progressions, and in that way helping people to understand both what is expected of them and also how they can acquire the education/skills they will need. We plan to publish a catalog before the end of the year.
The fundamental idea is to help people succeed, and in that fashion to have the firm succeed. As we improve our curriculum and work to make sure that it reflects what people need, we expect that achieving success in the courses offered will be related to progress in the firm.
Technology Dean Mike: In the SOT we hope to motivate the lawyers by establishing several "advanced" programs. Those who learn how to use technology in their practices in a really advanced way will receive not only appropriate recognition in the form of certificates of accomplishment, but also internal and hopefully some external firm publicity. Wouldn't you be motivated by the prospect of having the firm announce that you were considered one of its most technologically savvy lawyers? (Ed.: do I get points for being obsessive about closing <p> tags?)
7) I'll end with more of a plea than a question: Promise there won't be a fight song!
Chancellor John: I promise no fight song. We may try to have a little fun with the University concept, however. I'm open to ideas!
Technology Dean Mike: We considered adopting academic robes for the Chancellor and Deans in the same form as Oxford, but it seemed just a bit too much for the budget. Maybe next year.
Posted by Denise Howell at 10:42 AM