Introductory Remarks From Your Guest Reviewer For the Week

Welcome to the 227th edition of Blawg Review, your movable feast on the internet for all things blawggy. That’s blog + law = blawg, for those of you purists whose blood boils at the sound of made-up words, and the adjectival form thereof would be, natch, blawggy.

I’m Sheryl Sisk Schelin, and I have the honor of hosting Blawg Review this week for the … what, fourth? Fifth? … whatever, it’s been a fair number of go-rounds with dear anonymous Ed. (I was supposed to have done this a few weeks back but due to some miscommunication, that … uhm … didn’t happen. By the way: Mr. Greenfield? There are no gurus here. I just checked — I even looked under the bed and in the closet and in the pseudo-garden out back — desperately in need of some hedge clipping, but no gurus.)

As with my last BR, I am once again eschewing the problematic notion of “themes.” The problem with themed blawg reviews is mainly one of oneupsmanship — somebody gets clever with the Shakespeare, then the next guy has to go all Dante on you, and the next thing you know, we’re struggling to get through an irreverently witty translation of Innocent the III’s De miseria conditionis humanae and, really, who needs that? Right. We just want the good stuff from the blawgs.

So that’s my “theme” — such as it is: a simple message from The Inspired Solo to tap your inspiration when you really need it, and don’t let the pressure to be creative, funny, clever, or — well, hell, anything, really — distract you from your true goal. That’s real inspiration.

My purpose this week is to show how blawgs can be used in smart ways to achieve more than just the occasional platform for venting or getting back at your opponent from last week’s oral arguments. If you want to call that a theme, well, you go right ahead, with my blessings.

NB: I might as well admit it now. I really tried to get my dog Rosemary to do this again for me but she said, “Lady, you haven’t clipped my claws in how long now? How the hell do you expect me to work that keyboard? And by the way, I’m out of the chewy nummies. Thanks.” I next turned to the two felines, first to the oldest — aka “Salem, the Devil Cat” who merely hypnotized me with red glowing eyeballs of doom until I backed off slowly — and then to the new one, T-Jeff (named for Thomas Jefferson, who for reasons past understanding is apparently my daughter’s second-favorite president. She was going to name him Obama but felt that was disrespectful, since she’d be cleaning out the litter box and all.) But T-Jeff just looked at me blandly and started chewing a button off my shirt. So, no go.

You’re stuck with the human.

The Blawg Review — Genius of Blawgs Edition

Richard Johnston is apparently a master of understatement, as evidenced by the title of his blog The Problem is ERISA. He submits a post titled “Discretion and Its Many Abuses – Part I”.

Forward Movement presents “Green Building Provisions in Waxman-Markey”. Waxman-Markey, if you’re unaware, is pending legislation aimed at combating greehouse gas emissions and generally addressing many of the ways we humans have totally screwed our environment. You can view more information on the bill at the Energy & Commerce Committee website. The post is guest-written by Richard Kuhn, who does a credible job outlining the various provisions of the legislation’s two current versions as they pertain to bringing private buildings into green compliance.

I confess: I wasn’t going to include A New Dawn for Michigan Car Accident Victims? posted at Michigan Auto Lawyers Blog. It’s about a fairly state-specific issue, and … well, it’s about car accidents, which never really floated my boat. But then I took another look, and decided to include it. Why? Because it’s good. And because being primarily a blog coach for lawyers these days, I do like how it demonstrates one of my favorite things about blogs in general: namely, that you can use your blawg for more than just getting a few more phone calls from potential clients. A well-written, well-argued blog post can help foster real honest-to-goodness change, and that’s a powerful thing. So, kudos, Steven.

Jeff Gordon and The Licensing Handbook Blog present “More On Trust”. As Jeff explains: “Trust is important when creating deals. But you can’t contract for it. This post is a discussion on things that cause me bias and, by extension, a lack of trust… and how to resolve it for success.” What I like about this one is that it demonstrates another beautiful part of blawgs (true also of blogs of all stripes and flavors, really). Note how Jeff began with an earlier post, which was responded to by D.C. Toedt, and then Jeff added additional thoughts. We can all jump in with the comments, of course. And that, dear readers, is what we blog instructors & coaches mean when we say “the blog is a conversation.”

Legally UnBound gets the Golden Oldie award for managing to work in a classic Welcome Back Kotter episode into a thoughtful post titled “Welcome Back Kotter & The Deterioration of Debate”. Here’s another example of a great use of a blog: video (note the way-appreciated transcript at the end, a nod to the reality that not everyone has a soundcard in the computer at work) which was carefully selected to augment the point of a serious subject — the lack of real debate process in legal proceedings — in a humorous way which nevertheless adds to, instead of detracting from, the underlying point.

Lots of blawgs were talking about Lockerbie, Scotland this week — namely, Scotland’s decision to grant the Lockerbie bomber’s request for compassionate release due to his terminal illness. Opinio Juris writes approvingly about Ruth Wedgwood’s opinions. The IntLawGrrls write approvingly about compassion. And Charon QC? Apparently likes his motorbike. Meanwhile, Cathy Gellis attempts to explain “why (many) Americans are upset” about this release at her blog Statements of Interest. Finally, Jonathan Mitchell wonders about“That letter from the FBI to the Justice Secretary: is it real?” posted at Jonathan Mitchell QC.

Apparently, there was a huge dustup in the blawgosphere this week about anonymity, and I missed it completely. So I’m going to allow Colin Samuels, the contributor of this gem, to explain it all for us — but first, the requisite links:

• Althouse: “The model insisted on outing the blogger who called her a skank“
• California Defamation Law Blog: “The Tale of a Model, a Blogger, and Internet Anonymity“
• Peter Vogel: “The Skank Blogger Intends to Sue Google for $15m for Disclosing Her Identity“
• Kashmir Hill: “What Are the Rights of the ‘Skanks in NYC’ Blogger?“
• Concurring Opinions: “Can You Be Sued For Unmasking an Anonymous Blogger?” and “Cyber Gender Harassment: Skanks of NYC“
• Above the Law: “Talking About Skanks with Daniel Solove“

I’d also add this post from Slaw’s Angela Swan, decrying the use of anonymity on the web in general — although I disagree completely with her thoughts, I certainly do understand the frustrations underlying them. Additionally, I highly recommend Adam Thierer’s thoughts at Technology Liberation Front on “Randy Cohen’s Guideline for Anonymous Blogging.”

If I ever see the word “skank” on a legal blog again after this week, it’ll be too soon. The “Skanks in NYC” case was a big topic of discussion this week. Ann Althouse was critical of the low threshhold the judge used in ordering Google to identify the anonymous blogger: “The key is for courts to have a high standard in determining whether there really is defamation before they order that the name be revealed. Otherwise, someone who hasnot actually suffered a legally remediable injury can use a lawsuit for the wrong purpose: to inflict the injury of making a pseudonymous writer’s name public.” Adrianos Fachetti was critical of the unmasked blogger, not for blogging anonymously but for blaming everyone else for her predicament: “it really irks me when people don’t take responsibility for their actions. It also saddens me when someone gets burned because they believed that anonymous speech was absolutely protected under the First Amendment, regardless of the type of speech.” Peter Vogel offered a good rundown on the facts of the case and the ruling. Kashmir Hill had a good early post concerning the rights of the formerly-anonymous blogger and succinctly explained the import of the decision: “I think the lesson is: if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it on the Internet unless you’re okay with the fact that you might one day get outed.” Dan Solove weighed-in on the case and the blogger’s potential causes of action. Then, like a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, two great tastes came together when Hill interviewed Solove about the case. Danielle Citron considered the gender issues raised by the dust-up, including speculation that the attention to the case was rooted in part in “leering interest in a “battle” between two beautiful women”.

Also up in the blawgosphere this week (and also pointed out by Sir Colin), a certain article appearing in the WSJ was discussed, picked apart, and so forth by some very able blawggers this week. The article’s point — that the billable hour model is dead, or at least on life support, or at the very least a lot sicker than it ever was — ain’t necessarily news to any of us, I hope, but it’s still worth a conversation or two:

• Ideoblog’s Larry Ribstein sees the end of more than just a profit center for BigLaw.
• Elie Mystal at Above the Law says “Well, maybe, but what’s going to replace it?” and has some interesting thoughts thereon.
• Client Revolution’s Jay Shepherd has been a long-time fan of value-based billing and writes here of his experience with it.
• Randy McClanahan is on board, and has some really interesting suggestions for in-house GCs on how to implement more balanced and creative billing methods for their companies.
• Colin thinks Bruce MacEwen “has perhaps the most extraordinary perspective on billing this week — he explains that the billable hour debate is not about billables at all, but is instead about the lack of trust between clients and their counsel.” But I’m not so sure that’s extraordinary. Seems like the quite logical beginning of the discussion to me.

One last Colin Contribution:

Robert Ambrogi noted an unscientific study which found that half of all new legal blogs fail within one year and many fail much more quickly than that. More than a few bloggers have stood the test of time, though. Three recently published books and discussed them or topics relating to them this week. John Bolch published “Do Your Own Divorce“, a volume Christian Metcalfe called “Kramer v. Kramer – but with property and less tears”. Adrian Dayton detailed how microblogging on Twitter netted him a book deal for “Social Media for Lawyers: Twitter Edition” and helpfully explained how followers on Twitter may be classified, from bots to friends, and how the key to building a client base from Twitter is to engage with others rather than simply following or being followed.

That’s it for this week’s edition! Remember: Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.