WHO NEEDS DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES?

When we have the tales of the Blawgosphere! Everybody, and I mean everybody, is just abuzz about the almost-simultaneous self-outing of Article III Groupie in The New Yorker, and the disappearance of her/his blawg, Under Their Robes. (It now is password controlled.)

Law.com's Lisa Stone sums up all the gossip here. Here's Bob Ambrogi's report. And here's the Editor 'n Chef's account on Blawg Review.  Ol' EnC was among those (including moi) who speculated that A3G was actually Denise Howell, of Bag and Baggage, but it turns out it wasn't even a babe: it was a 30-something New Jersey lawyer, David Lat, an assistant U.S. attorney. (Not for long, many speculate.) 

P.S. Check out Blawg Review #32, here. (JAG Central this time).

Meanwhile, the SoloSez crowd is just beside itself about Ross Kodner's diatribe against blawgers, whom he collectively asserts exude an attitude that is "elitist, class-structured, narrow-minded and exclusionary." Ohhhhhh kay Ross. (Caveat: Ross, a former member of the LTN editorial advisory board, is a very frequent contributor to LTN).

Here's his self-described rant:

[I'm writing about] the "attitude" that many of us in the legal tech world have observed as developing among blawgers over the last couple of years. It's elitist, class-structured, narrow-minded and exclusionary. There, I said it.

Obviously I'm not trying to paint a sterotypically overbroad picture, but it's very noticeable. There's the sense that if you're in the legal tech world and don't have a blog there's something wrong with you. I am sick and tired of being repeatedly asked why I don't have a blog. Not "have you thought of something useful and interesting to justify having a blog?"

I believe in the overall concept of intelligent web use for marketing, client contact, brand building, collaborative and educational, etc. purposes. From a business perspective, taking business time and resources to devote to a web presence should be part of a reasonably thought out integrated marketing strategy and plan. So whether website or blog (which to be 100% clear is just a subset of the website universe of online presence approaches), there should be a plan and time/cost justification. Understand that I have absolutely NO problem with personal blogging without limitations, qualifications, etc. If people want to post random musings, pictures of their pets, and rants about whatever, they are certainly free to do so.

But when it's a business situation, it's very different in my mind. So my answer to those blawgers who keep pestering me is this: When you've got 6 GB of free CLE materials and articles that get downloaded constantly by people from all over the world - then you can hassle me about not blogging. When you've spent several thousand hours helping people by posting to various listservs, then you can throw stones at my glass house.

Why don't I blog? Because I accomplish what I want to accomplish with MicroLaw.com, business-wise. Might I build a blog within a website, add RSS capability to the content being posted to the site? Sure - but I'm too busy doing live presentations, living in airport lounges, writing articles, posting free CLE materials, running pro-bono relief efforts and posting to listserves . . . not to mention the occasional need to make a living and run my business . . . AND have personal relationships and pay the attention to Kodner1.html and Kodner2.html that they deserve to add anything else to my plate. Add in my naturally and admittedly obsessive personality and I could see doing little more than blogging 12 hours a day.

So for me it's partly practical, partly personal survival and partly business-justification-based that I'm not blogging.

But what thoroughly agitates me is that the attitude that bloggers are above the rest of us, as a technically-effete class, is about as exclusionary as you can get. For a concept intended to spread information freely, creating a closed little cliquey society seems like the antithesis to the blogging mentality. And I'm sorry, because one blogs or because one has a regular website does NOT automatically make someone an expert on a subject. Period.

And same for websites. Evaluate the information source CAREFULLY whatever it is that you're reading and plan on relying on from the web. Hardly limited to legal bloggers, there are plenty of people who fashion themselves as subject matter experts where the primary qualification is nothing more than saying they are experts.

The press release for the upcoming Blawgthink seminar embodies my concern and frustration. I don't have it handy and I don't want to try and quote it, but there was a point made that this seminar format is superior to traditional CLE - OK, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But it went on to essentially say that all PowerPoint-style CLE presentations are inherently crap in comparison to their seminar format.

So in one fell swoop, every hard-working CLE presenter was trashed and insulted. I personally found it infuriating and outrageous - others in the legal tech CLE world who saw it have been telling me the same thing. So how can pissing off the logical core of people who are in the best position to influence the legal tech market (and who may also be bloggers!) be positive. It's the essence of substanceless self-indulgent elitism.

And personally, I have given up much, professionally and personally, spend as much as 50% of my time traveling around educating legal audiences over the past 20 years - most of which never results in any kind of even the shadow of a prenumbra of business opportunity - I do it first and foremost because it's my version of pro bono - giving back to the legal community of which I am a part. And sure, it's fun and it feels good and all the acknowledgement is cool and yes, sometimes there is business that directly or indirectly comes from it. But to have what I and so many others who have worked so hard to do so thoroughly condemned merely in the interest of promoting some conference is a virtual declaration of war on many of the most established and pervasively present influencers in the legal tech world.

At best, it was a ham-handed amateurish blunder - a lapse in judgement that resulted in a very poor choice of wording. And yes, this REALLY set me off.

So sorry about the rant ... not directed at many good folks in the blogging world. It's just the few that sometimes seem to speak for all that I think intentionally or unintentionally get this attitude and try and spread it with missionary zeal and secularism. My request to blawgers is use your platform in an inclusionary way - not to polarize the marketplace with even the impression of elitist exclusionsm.

Okay, I feel slightly better now . . . deep breath.

OK Ross. Please tell me you really didn't refer to your kids as Kodner1.html and Kodner2.html. Anyway, interesting post -- and I can't wait to read all the responses among the Blawg/Lex/Think/Thought crowd.

Update/clarifications: (Responding to some of the comments):

1. Hey! "Diatribe" in Mon tawk is NOT derogatory. Diatribe = rant. Nuttin' perjorative intended.

2. There may not be a lot o' conversation within SoloSez, but there is back channel. I stand by that one.

(Thanks for writing!)

Update #2: Wow -- what a great dialogue. Thanks everybody.

One quick note: Ross, I think you missed the point about how ironic it is that this discussion is so active on a blog. It wasn't implying that you posted the rant originally on my blog, it was implying (I believe) that this is a good example of how blogs are a great vibrant venue for these sorts of discussions etc.

And just for the record: Ross did NOT provide this "rant" to me nor did he ask me to post it.  I did, however, notify Ross with minutes of posting the item, as a courtesy to him because Ross is a regular contributor to LTN and former edit board member -- and because it is just the right thing to do.

Comments Update #3: Maybe part of the reason that some folks are perceived as "elitist" etc. is how we all present and market ourselves. When does healthy marketing cross over into excessive self-promotion?

I'm from the school that favors Letterman-esque modesty with a touch of self-deprecation. I would be very uncomfortable proclaiming myself as world's greatest legal tech editor -- but let's be real: no one will ever accuse me of not liking a magazine, microphone or blog where I can pontificate. We wouldn't be leaders without strong egos.

But when can alpha dog behavior backfire? I think when there is a perception of excessive self-promotion -- and many of us must at least occasionally plead guilty to that charge.

For example, check out ABA/LPM "Law Practice Today" November 2005 article (and bios) by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell, listing 19 law practice management blogs. Four of the 19 are sites that Dennis or Matt Homann are involved with. As an editor, I would not allow an author to hype his/her own stuff in an article -- because I think it looks way too self-promoting.

IMHO, Dennis would have been better to list 19 that he was not involved with, and use his bio to list his own sites. It's better to have other people say how wonderful you are than to say it yourself.

I'm not attacking Dennis here -- just using this article as an exemplar for all of us to think about how we create and foster perceptions -- this discussion raises such an interesting combination of issues -- leadership, marketing, and the wonderful world of alpha dogs. All good to think about, as we all try to do our best in this legal technology community.