The Poster Boy For Intellectual Embarrassment
Jones Day partner and fellow curmudgeon Mark Hermann wrote a post at Drug & Device Law about why Biglaw blogs are a bore. And he would know.
But no such post would have teeth in the absence of a foil, someone against whom he could juxtapose the attributes of Biglaw to show how and why they succumb to their risk averse, voice averse, interest averse prose. And Hermann, my good buddy, chose me. Such an honor.
So what does Hermann think?
But no such post would have teeth in the absence of a foil, someone against whom he could juxtapose the attributes of Biglaw to show how and why they succumb to their risk averse, voice averse, interest averse prose. And Hermann, my good buddy, chose me. Such an honor.
So what does Hermann think?
Be funny! Be provocative! Do something that will draw readers in.
That's the key for many successful blogs, such as Simple Justice. It's not a first source of news. It's not breathtakingly intelligent (although it's not bad on that score — don't take offense, Scott). But it has a voice. It's funny, and it can be thought-provoking.
No offense taken, Mark. After all, I'm just lucky I can spell offense, no less take it. I once had a really good thought, but then I saw something shiny and couldn't remember what it was. Oh well.
But that's not all Hermann's got to say in using me as his poster boy. It's enormously gratifying to know that I serve a greater purpose to the breathtakingly intelligent Biglaw online community. Though they may be far too serious and thoughtful (ya know, the way lawyers are supposed to be) draw in readers, at least there are schlubs like me to use as the alternative.
You see, Biglaw has an image of gravitas to maintain, and attempts to be humorous or provocative could place them in jeopardy in the eyes of their very important clients. A solo, on the other hand, can be as big a horse's ass as he wants, since he's got nothing to lose.
Carolyn Elefant wondered whether I was offended by Hermann's post. I'm not. It's a culture thing, where Biglaw is scared to death of anyone figuring out that they might spill something on their white shirt and tie. While Hermann sees it as breathtakingly intelligent lawyers protecting themselves from being revealed as insipid cogs, I see it as the fearlessness of speaking one's mind (even if that mind falls short of brilliance on many an occasion).
There's nothing that makes me feel prouder than knowing that I am here to amuse the good men and women of Biglaw. Even if only by dribbling on myself. I'm here for you, Mark.
But that's not all Hermann's got to say in using me as his poster boy. It's enormously gratifying to know that I serve a greater purpose to the breathtakingly intelligent Biglaw online community. Though they may be far too serious and thoughtful (ya know, the way lawyers are supposed to be) draw in readers, at least there are schlubs like me to use as the alternative.
You see, Biglaw has an image of gravitas to maintain, and attempts to be humorous or provocative could place them in jeopardy in the eyes of their very important clients. A solo, on the other hand, can be as big a horse's ass as he wants, since he's got nothing to lose.
On the other hand, if you read our attempted humor and are offended, you might not be so constrained. You might write directly to us (and some of you have) or you might write to others in our firm to complain about us (and some of you have done that, too).Heck, I must embarrass myself at least three times a day, and that doesn't even include the dribble glass that Mark isn't aware of yet. Apparently, it's my willingness to embarrass myself that makes readers come to Simple Justice. They just can't get enough of my spilling my vapid thoughts all over my nice white shirt and tie. I bet they just laugh and laugh, thinking to their Biglaw selves, I might be boring but at least I'm not him. After all, why would any solo practitioner care if he's the buffoon of the blawgosphere? It's not like he's got partners who won't let him eat lunch with them.
Solo practitioners don't have to worry about that risk: If Scott Greenfield embarrasses himself at Simple Justice, no one can complain to his colleagues. Not so for those of us in the AmLaw 200.
Carolyn Elefant wondered whether I was offended by Hermann's post. I'm not. It's a culture thing, where Biglaw is scared to death of anyone figuring out that they might spill something on their white shirt and tie. While Hermann sees it as breathtakingly intelligent lawyers protecting themselves from being revealed as insipid cogs, I see it as the fearlessness of speaking one's mind (even if that mind falls short of brilliance on many an occasion).
There's nothing that makes me feel prouder than knowing that I am here to amuse the good men and women of Biglaw. Even if only by dribbling on myself. I'm here for you, Mark.
Trackbacks
-
12/4/2009 10:25 AM
My Shingle wrote:
Chalk one up for the solos and small firms. For what it's worth, we dominate the ranks of the Third Annual ABA Blawg 100. By contrast, only two large firm blogs made the cut, Mark Herrmann observes at Drug and...
I dunno, but I do think he's onto something. Orthogonally, and all. In pretty much any organization, one of the rules is Don't Embarrass the Boss. A mid-level cog in pretty much any organization can do that, easily, with a metaphorical splash of coffee on the tie. Collaterally, another is Don't Blemish the Brand. The brand in Biglaw isn't conversational and clever; it's solid and stolid.
Be pretty hard to be interesting and conversational while keeping all that in mind.
Reply to this
It's all about biglaw for you corporate types.
Reply to this
I can't imagine anything scarier or sorrier than lawyers trying to be funny (as opposed to those who are naturally humorous, witty and entertaining).
Mark does have a point about the freedom of being a solo. Many a lawyer has to bite his or her tongue to avoid offending a partner. For myself, being retired also gave me the freedom to say things that might anger a judge or Bar Counsel without worrying about ramifications for myself or my clients. BigLaw blawgs need to be so inoffensive and need to do so much self-censoring that they only rarely can be interesting and relevant enough to attract a consistent audience or evoke passion.
Reply to this
p.s. The fact that Mark doesn't appreciate your consistent insight and intelligence is quite worrisome, SHG. His definition of intelligence must be very cramped and uninspiring.
Reply to this
I was given an assignment recently which boiled down to synthesising the general recent thrust of anti-trust/competition law into a script for a 10 minute comedy skit.
It was the hardest thing I've ever done, I find law unbelievably interesting but not very funny.
I think you can be entertaining in how you actually present the information but the information is just too hard to make funny on its own. If your blog is about law and how your multimillion pound LLP practices it you're swimming against the stream if you want to make it funny. (That's not to say that the surrounding events relating to law can't be hysterical but then you get into issues of brand identity if you have lawyers "gossiping" or being off topic.)
Reply to this
For what it's worth, I think your posts are both regularly "breathtakingly intelligent" (at least as intelligent as anything any BigLaw drone could ever come up with) AND occasionally embarrassing (or would be in the absence of your famously impregnable self-assurance). IMHO, it's hard to be intelligent in a way that counts without a healthy measure of fearlessness.
Reply to this
When a twerp like you has earned the right to carry Scott's briefcase, maybe then your opinion might be worth something.
Reply to this
And what is your opinion worth, anonymous Blind Guy? Who the hell are you? My comment was intended as a compliment, as if Scott needed one. I wanted to say that, directly contrary to MH's slight, it's precisely the intelligence and insight of Scott's posts, along with their potential value to my development as a lawyer, that keep me coming back, not their entertainment value. At the same time, unlike you, I'm not into kissing wingtips. IMHO, it behooves a "young" lawyer to not be too great a respecter of persons, and to not be cowed into silence by age and experience. After all, sometimes we have to face older and more experienced adversaries across the aisle. Sometimes they're wrong. But again, I didn't mean my comment as a back-handed compliment. I meant it as a compliment and appreciation for the service Scott renders on this blog.
Reply to this
I never thought I'd hear the name Scott in the same sentence as the word breathtaking.
But yes, this blog adequately reflects the intelligence of the author.
Reply to this
A solo has some balls and can speak his mind. A biglaw lawyer is a buttoned-up corporate tool. One might be interesting to read, one probably is not. Mr. Hermann needs to explain this?
Reply to this
I think MH has a point in that if you blog at a big firm, you are dealing with 100s of colleagues who see no upside in what you're doing but will pounce on any microscopic downside that arises. If you take a position/view that offends one of their clients, for example, you are going to receive a lot of criticism and heat from them and firm management.
Also, some BigLaw firms try to operate like a Dilbert-type company. They think they can control the message/perception of the entire firm through a Marketing Dept., etc. The Marketing folks think that they must vet all statements. It becomes very tough to be a free-thinker and actor.
Reply to this
I suppose Hermann is saying that individualism can't survive the Big Law Borg. True, of course, but what's interesting is what else lies beneath that truism.
Many big law practitioners fall victim to stunning arrogance. Big law blindness grows out of the mistaken assumption that big firms draw all of the talent and brains, while those in small and solo practices play in the minor leagues.
The underlying blindness means that you can't find top-tier attorneys, high quality writing, or even true intelligence outside of the big law world. Seems like that bias operates in the critique of SJ.
The critique is amusing on one level, but it's also pathetic and annoying. That said, the big law blindness also provides for soft targets for those of us on the other side. So I suppose I shouldn't snivel.
Reply to this
Well someone mentioned frequently in the above post is an arrogant bore at best and a pompous ass at worst. Hint, in case you need one, I wasn't bored when we lunched this week Scott. But that drooling thing? It's a problem
Reply to this
I prefer not to think of it as drooling, but rather glandular exuberance. It was great seeing you too.
Reply to this
I find you breathtakingly intelligent Scott. As well as honest, passionate, dedicated and true. To be able to talk about law conversationally, with the common touch, it's a gift. A great one. You got it.
Reply to this
Thank you. That's very kind. Maybe too kind.
Reply to this
While the purpose of the Simple Justice blog may not be to show off Scott's breathtaking intelligence (as evidenced by his lack of proofreading), I have no doubt that Scott has an intellect far beyond ordinary men. As proof, I offer the fact that he has several times commented on my own wisdom, and since the strength of my intellect is subtle and often overlooked or misunderstood, I know Scott must be in possession of an unusually sharp and agile mind.
I also know that Scott must be tremendously relieved that Biglaw thinks he's "not bad", so kudos to you, Scott, kudos to you.
Reply to this
Reply to this