Following my post yesterday about Texas Lawprof Wayne Schiess’ “7 Tips” for blogging, I received an email chastising me for not playing nice.

SHG: I’m surprised to find myself playing the role of “Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells,” but reading your “Blogging by the Numbers” post was akin to having to witness the posturing of a barroom bully. Include me out. Ken Adams

Now I don’t know Ken Adams.  He has a blog called Adams Drafting,  I suspect the blog name has something to do with the fact that his name is Adams and he’s selling contract drafting. The fact that the blog opens with his telling us that he is a “leading authority on modern and effective contract drafting” supports that suspicion. 

It’s fine with me that Ken didn’t like my post, and even that he described it as the “posturing of a barroom bully.”  Lawyers who spend their days toiling at the art and science of drafting contracts often find trial lawyers too rough for their refined tastes.  But what I couldn’t quite understand was what purpose was served in sending me the email.  So I did what my type of lawyer does when I receive an email from his type of lawyer.  I asked.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but why are you writing me about this?  You’re free to like or dislike anything I write, but it isn’t written for your approval.  What exactly was your purpose in sending this email?  Should I change my world view to seek your approval?

And Ken explained himself:

Scott: If you were writing solely for your own edification, you wouldn’t publish it. By publishing it, you’re electing to be part of a community. And by subscribing to your blog feed a few weeks ago, I became part of that community. Just as you’re free to write whatever you wish, I’m free, in parting, to tell you what I think of it.

Your cock-of-the-walk posturing is mostly unobjectionable, as your usual targets —brutal cops and the like—could do with vigorous handling. But it beats me why you should think that indulging in a smarmy takedown of someone as benign as Wayne Schiess represents good sport.

Ken

This response fascinated me, and offers a wonderful opportunity to clarify two separate points about the blawgosphere.  The first is that the reader doesn’t get to impose the rules.  For someone who drafts contracts, not to mention risks those extremely painful paper cuts on a regular basis, Ken engages in some remarkably poor reasoning.  The assumption that I publish for his approval, proved by the fact of publication, is a strange one.  Trial lawyers expect a logical nexus between assertions.  Apparently, contract drafters don’t bother with such onerous demands.  Clearly, Ken hasn’t been around here long enough to get the message.  But when ignorant assumption can fill the gap, why bother?

Then he’s decided that I’ve elected to be part of a community.  I’ve looked around for Mr. Rogers, but he’s nowhere to be found in my neighborhood.  I note that I’ve never linked to Adams Drafting, but then I can’t imagine any reason I would.  So what community is this that I’ve elected to be a part of?  Aha!  It’s Ken’s community, because he subscribed to my feed, which somehow confers some authority on him to chastise me for being a bad member of the Ken Community. 

I wish he had told me his rules beforehand, so I could have been a better member of the Ken Community when he subscribed to my feed.  If only I had known.  After all, how can I faithfully comply with my duty as a member of the Ken Community, which I joined by virtue of Ken’s subscription, when no one tells me Ken’s rules?  Of course, given that the Ken Community revolves around a blog that exists to promote Ken, Ken’s consulting, Ken’s speaker availability, and Ken (did I mention that already?), it may be likely that I would be unable to fulfill my role as his faithful servant.

But following my initial violation of Ken’s right to tell me how I should conduct myself in his community comes an explanation of how my “cock-of-the-walk posturing” (which I humbly note is a different use of the word “cock” than has ever been ascribed to me before) is “mostly unobjectionable” when used against targets with whom Ken agrees, “brutal cops and the like.”  But he draws the line when I “indulge in a smarmy takedown” of someone Ken feels is undeserving on my invective. 

This is where I must part ways with the Ken Community.  While I can appreciate that Ken’s delicate sensitivities are offended by “cocks” such as me, handling with “vigor” subjects and topics and people and ideas that meet Ken’s approval, he cannot tolerate my “vigorous handling” of those within his Community.  I’ve gone too far.  I’ve gone over the top.  I’ve crossed the line.  I touched one of our own.

Now hear this.  Ken, your attitude is why people despise lawyers.  Real lawyers challenge things with which they disagree.  There is no secret cabal of lawyers, keeping hands-off the brethren lest the little people be let in on the secret that we aren’t above scrutiny.  Bad cops circle the wagons around each other when they get caught.  You are the lawyer equivalent.  How dare you assume that I am one of your type, happy to conceal the warts of the profession to maintain the facade that makes you, a desk jockey, feel self-important and proud to be a self-described “leading authority.” 

I am a criminal defense lawyer.  I am not a member of the Ken Community, with its delicate sensibilities. I handle everyone “vigorously”, and can take some vigorous handling in return.  I will not cry and whine if someone disagrees with me, or (god forbid) calls me a mean name.  And I will not shy away from writing things that I believe to be true and need to be said.  You can hide under your desk and shit your pants all you want, but do not expect me to join you.

As for the “benign” Wayne Schiess, when he undertook to publicly provide “tips” to others on how to blog, he assumed the risk of disagreement.  And I very much disagree, though I can see why you might feel otherwise since your blog is flagrantly self-promotional.  Those inclined to puff themselves are often easily offended when their sham is exposed.  That Wayne promoted the mercenary side of blogging, the one you enjoy, exposed him to dispute from a “cock” like me.  By sticking your nose in, you did too.  If honesty is being a bully, then a bully I am. 

This was my reply to Ken Adams:

I think you’ve seriously misconstrued how my blawgosphere works.  Very seriously.  I strongly urge you to take me off your feed as I fear that I am not worthy of your community.  And just in case your eyes happen to spy one of my posts, avert them immediately.  I can further assure you that my cock-of-the-walk posturing will prove smarmy yet again, and I am deeply concerned that I not offend your sensibilities.

This is no place for the gutless, the mercenary or desk lawyers with fragile sensibilities.  Go away before your head explodes.  And Happy Easter.

Addendum:  My decision to post about this exchange was brought about by a number of things that occurred across the blawgosphere over the past week, not just Ken’s emails (though they did provide a perfect example of what’s wrong with lawyers and the blawgosphere).  Within the practical blawgosphere, we disagree with one another all the time, and post about it in clear, forthright language.  We spar back and forth, and recognize that disagreement, and the expression of disagreement, is what we deal with every day.  Afterward, we go right back to our usual banter, no hard feelings.  It’s just what we do. 

However, there were a number of instances over the past week where posts and twits that were critical of someone’s writings caused some hard feelings.  “But you’re supposed to be my friend,” was the refrain. “How can you say something mean about me?”  Just for clarity, this involved a number of others in the blawgosphere, as well as me. 

Here’s the deal.  When you post something, whether on a blog or in a twit, or anywhere for that matter, you subject your writing to peer review.  Just as Ken Adams didn’t like what I wrote, which is absolutely fine in itself, sometimes a post by a friend asserts something with which other friends disagree.  Sometimes the disagreement is strong enough to merit a post stating the disagreement.  This doesn’t mean that the friendship is over, but merely that there is a disagreement.  In most of these instances, the fact that there would be disagreement should have been obvious from the outset.  That it comes as a surprise is, frankly, quite incredible.

But that’s the point of having a big, worldwide, no-holds-barred discussion that hopefully produces something of both interest and worth.  The practical blawgosphere isn’t the chorus, singing hallelujah at best and remaining mute at worst, when someone posts something with which someone else disagrees.  We won’t use the circumspect language of the Academy, but state our positions with the same clarity and force as we do elsewhere.  We are not inclined to be delicate.

If a blogger cannot stand the scrutiny, then we pose a terrible threat.  There you are, trying to put together a post that sells a proposition, and then comes a bunch of wildmen ripping you to shreds for it.  It tends to happen with great frequency to those are trying to sell their product, usually themselves.  People trying to sell abhor controversy.  It doesn’t help their business.

But it is the very openness of the blawgosphere, that every word and phrase is subject to peer (and nonpeer) scrutiny, that makes it worthwhile.  This is what distinguishes it from the infomercial that I so dearly dread.  This is what keeps the blawgosphere honest.  And if you can’t handle honesty, then you really don’t belong here.

When I post my thoughts on a subject, anybody in the world with a blog can write about what a “cock” I am.  If you think so, go do it.  I may defend my position or not, and I may even be dead wrong though I believe otherwise.  Never before in the history of the law have we had a mechanism that allowed lawyers to express their views and review the views of others without limitation.  Those that survive the scrutiny will be the best, whether they are mine, yours or even Ken’s.  But stop the crap about hurt feelings and let the best ideas prevail.

Oh yeah.  And Happy Easter to everyone.