When I started this blawg, Carolyn Elefant and Bob Ambrogi shared duties at Law.com’s Legal Blog Watch, a daily survey of interesting stuff happening in the blawgosphere. Both are now gone. Bruce Carton was brought in to replace Carolyn, and Eric Lipman later came aboard to fill Ambrogi’s loafers.
Bruce was already a known quantity in the blawgosphere. Navigating the blawgosphere isn’t easy for newcomers. It takes a while to understand who’s who and what’s what. Because of his experience here, Bruce hit the ground running, introducing some new ideas of his own, combining wit with a depth of understanding of the blawgosphere that only comes from experience.
So who is Eric Lipman? His bio at Legal Blog Watch tells little:
Bruce was already a known quantity in the blawgosphere. Navigating the blawgosphere isn’t easy for newcomers. It takes a while to understand who’s who and what’s what. Because of his experience here, Bruce hit the ground running, introducing some new ideas of his own, combining wit with a depth of understanding of the blawgosphere that only comes from experience.
So who is Eric Lipman? His bio at Legal Blog Watch tells little:
Eric Lipman is a lawyer, for sure, and fancies himself a writer as well. He was a litigation associate with Cahill Gordon & Reindel in New York for six years, completed a one-year clerkship with the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and spent two-plus years as a legal analyst with Bloomberg LP, focusing on antitrust, M&A, corporate and securities issues.
Does he have a blawg of his own? Has he ever? Did he know the blawgosphere existed before he got this gig? Good questions, no answers. In his introductory post, he says that he likes to write, did a guest post, and is an unapologetic law geek. What he doesn’t say is that he knows anything about the blawgosphere. The bio sounds more appropriate for Above the Law than Legal Blog Watch, but it’s unclear whether he could sing well enough to win ATL Idol.
Having followed Lipman’s posts daily, and often finding them a bit disturbing both in their lack of purpose, strained humor and dubious understanding of the blawgosphere, generally considered a negative for someone purporting to be watching blogs, it became clear to me that Lipman didn’t have a firm handle on the blawgosphere. This hit home hard when he posted about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the bane of Maricopa and the Constitution, the other day.
What about Adam Stoddard? What about indicting Judge Donahoe? What about everything that’s been written about Arpaio over the past few months making this one of the most serious issues of constitutional dimension in the country? Nada.
My bet is that Eric Lipman is a great guy and possibly a decent writer. It would probably be fun to sit down with him and have a beer (he pays). But what the heck was John Bringardner thinking when he hired a guy to write about the blawgosphere when he can’t even find the blawgosphere?
In the interest of accuracy, maybe he should take a page from Dan Hull and add a question mark to the end of the name: Legal Blog Watch?
Having followed Lipman’s posts daily, and often finding them a bit disturbing both in their lack of purpose, strained humor and dubious understanding of the blawgosphere, generally considered a negative for someone purporting to be watching blogs, it became clear to me that Lipman didn’t have a firm handle on the blawgosphere. This hit home hard when he posted about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the bane of Maricopa and the Constitution, the other day.
This introduction to the post made it clear to me that Lipman was clueless. The blawgosphere has been on Arpaio like flies on, well you know, and Lipman knows absolutely nothing about it? His post goes on to mention the pending federal grand jury investigation, in the course of using it for some cheap laughs.Via the ImmigrationProf Blog, I found this Washington Post article on Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff Joe Arpaio. For those of you who’ve been living under a rock heavier than the one I just recently managed to dislodge, Arpaio is the head law enforcement officer for the county that includes Phoenix, and has for quite some time been the subject of much controversy.
Arpaio has designated himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” though according to the Post, he pronounces that final word “SHUR-ff,” which is kind of awesome. His initiatives run the gamut from the gimmicky but pretty harmless, like forcing inmates to wear pink underwear (now available to the public), to the arrogant and arguably improper, like deciding to crack down on illegal immigration when and how he feels like it, regardless of what the federal government has to say about it.
What about Adam Stoddard? What about indicting Judge Donahoe? What about everything that’s been written about Arpaio over the past few months making this one of the most serious issues of constitutional dimension in the country? Nada.
My bet is that Eric Lipman is a great guy and possibly a decent writer. It would probably be fun to sit down with him and have a beer (he pays). But what the heck was John Bringardner thinking when he hired a guy to write about the blawgosphere when he can’t even find the blawgosphere?
In the interest of accuracy, maybe he should take a page from Dan Hull and add a question mark to the end of the name: Legal Blog Watch?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Loafers?
I thought Gucci loafers would be too pretentious. But how could I ignore that you’re a fashion icon?
I wondered about the loafers thing, too, Bob.
Scott, it’s not like Boston and Essex County are big on swizzle sticks, croquet, and Barbara Streisand concerts.
It’s not like I said he was light in them, or that I hear Cher singing in the background.
That must be the problem. I’m generally a tied shoe kind of guy. Will run out at lunch today to get some slip-ons. Hopefully it’ll help.
My advice: Blog barefoot. Keeps you on your toes.
Oh, that was good. Wish I thought of it.
I wonder what role Jill W. is still playing with the blogs.
Years ago, I was one of the original 8 blogs put into the ALM Blog network. One blogger (I’ll keep his name out of it, since this might be “inside baseball” I shouldn’t even be talking about) offered up some fantastic ideas in a polite tone. Some of the ideas were critical, but he was a total gentleman about it. He simply pointed out how ALM could make the legal blogosphere better.
One was as non-confrontation as it could be: He suggested that ALM give the legal bloggers passwords to some ALM subscriber-only content. After all, didn’t ALM want us discussing its content? How could we do that if we didn’t have access to it?
Jill W swiftly dropped his blog from the network. The reason given was that his “focus had changed.” Total b.s.
After [his] unceremonious departure, no one offered up any ideas to the ALM people. The mentality inside ALM, anyway, is to NOT listen to bloggers about the blogosphere.
Heh. Just found the e-mail. Here was another idea: “Ask us to speak at ALM events, and identify us as law.com
bloggers. For instance, the blogging panel at LA Legaltech had Lisa
and Craig and was moderated by Monica, but had three other bloggers
unrelated to Law.com (including someone who didn’t even have a blog).
The bloggers in this network often speak on non-blogging topics. Ask
us.”
THOSE are the kind of suggestions that get you kicked out of the ALM Blog Network.
Since we’re trading stories, A couple of years ago, Carolyn asked Turk and I whether we were interested in being part of the ALM network. There was the potential for some modest income from advertisements, but it wasn’t clear whether there was any other benefit to it. Turk was interested. I was not.
My biggest concern was becoming a part of any quasi-corporate structure that might inhibit what I wrote about or what views I might express. I felt fairly confident that at some point, I would write something that was deemed offensive or contrary to their policy. I think I made a wise choice.
I wrote for Legal Blog Watch for four years and my LawSites blog has been part of the Law.com network for even longer. Not once has anyone at ALM or Law.com attempted in any way to tell me what I should or should not write about or which blogs I should or should not cover.
As for the incident Mike mentions, the fact is that this unnamed blogger does have a blog that is primarily devoted to promoting his business. That wasn’t the intent of the blog network. If he was booted because he suggested he be selected to speak at ALM events, then I should have been booted long ago, because I have made the same suggestion many times over to various executives at ALM. I was formerly an editor for ALM and director of a division there, and I’ve been a columnist for Law Technology News for 10 years, and I couldn’t for the life of me get placed as a speaker on ALM panels. In all my years of writing for, working for and blogging for ALM/Law.com, I can count on one hand the number of times they’ve invited me to speak.
Bob, his blog was picked up as one of the original 8. His content didn’t change during his tenure. He blogged about building legal business. Thus, his blog was relevant to the legal blogosphere.
He was dropped immediately after suggesting how ALM could improve its blogging efforts.
I just checked, and have the e-mails from 2005 that he and others sent. I save everything and rely on memory for nothing. We can chart when he sent his e-mails to when his blog was “fired” from ALM.
Sure, there is always the post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. Having been involved throughout the discussions, his departure was not merely a coincidence. He spoke up, and for that, was shown the door.
I like you and always have. But you are doing some spinning here. Again, I have the e-mails.
I just checked the e-mails. I didn’t see your name in the e-mail headers. Were you even involved in the 2005 discussion? If not, then why have an opinion?
BTW, it wasn’t Jill W. It was Jennifer C. Here is how she replied to the blogger’s e-mail: “I hear your frustration and am happy to answer each of these points offline, in a more appropriate forum.”
LOL.
Now, it’s not even a big deal. I only relayed the story because it was relevant to Scott’s initial post: Namely, ALM still does not fully “get” blogs. I explained that they do not “get” blogs because editorial within ALM will show you the door for offering suggestions.
You’re right that I really don’t know enough about that incident to make an informed comment about it. I really just wanted to make the point that I never experienced even a hint of censorship or any suggestion that I needed to toe the company line.
Maybe it’s the loafers?
And learn to use the friggin reply button, please.
Gosh, Scott, Legal Blog Watch has a new writer who maybe doesn’t”really know what’s going on in the legal blogosphere, huh?
I hadn’t noticed. Is this some blog that, what, links to other blogs? Blogs about law?
Sounds real interesting. One day I’m gonna get me one of them, those law blogs things. Then let’s see if I can raise up that — what did you call it again?
You’re cruel. Eric’s got the gig. Now he’s got to “get” the blawgosphere. From what I understand, he never had a blawg and didn’t grow up within the blawgosphere as the rest of us have. Since his charge is to crank out 3-4 posts every other day about the blawgosphere, actually about blawging rather than the underlying issues that blawgers are blawging about, a depth of understanding of the blawgosphere seems critical.
I’m not sure he will be able to get there from his position on the outside. It took me a long time to get any meaningful level of understanding of what this is really all about, who’s who and what’s what, and I’m still learning. But since he’s got the podium at Legal Blog Watch, he better get cranking if he wants to have credibility and not come off as some n00b in lace up shoes.
Mike,
Sorry I cannot add any insight into the conversation about what happened in 2005 because that was before my tenure with Law.com. I would, however, like to comment on how much ALM values the Law.com bloggers. During my time I have always encouraged the bloggers to send me ideas and many have done so. Sometimes I act on those suggestions and sometimes I don’t, but I cannot think of any instance where I would drop someone from the Network because they made a suggestion or shared their thoughts about the blogosphere – I rely on them to do just that.
The Law.com bloggers are a very important part of the site and hopefully of the blogosphere. Yes, ALM has a business relationship with our bloggers, but this is not a secret and does not take away from the valuable content they provide. Which, by the way, they do without my intervention. I have never told a blogger what to write about and have no intention of doing so in the future.
I am not cruel, I’m egocentric. And my point is that you are saying, “I knew Bob Ambrogi, and Eric, you’re no Bob Ambrogi,” and I’m telling you I know Bob too (and he knows me) but from my point of view Legal Blog Watch was never much of a legal blog watch. My point of view is defined as the point of view of my blog, which is objectively one of the 100 highest traffic legal blogs in the country; is routinely found on the blogrolls of other blogs covering my area; and unlike most of the other 100 has repeatedly been linked to by major national general interest blogs but as far as I know has pretty much never been “watched” by Legal Blog Watch — even when I have, on one rare occasion, repeatedly asked for a link with respect to what I believed I could say was a bona fide newsworthy development and didn’t even get a polite response.
You know what, I link mostly to my friends, and vice versa, and no one owes me nothing. But when you make claims of comprehensiveness and you do that, you’re going to get that “cruel Ron Coleman” comment which is, again, just the self-centered Ron Coleman who thinks if you watch legal blogs and have never had something to say about Likelihood of Confusion… then you can change writers all day long. It don’t make me no never mind.
You and I have discussed this issue in the past, and like you, I’ve had issues with Bob’s “watch”, where he would mention blogs with posts taken from mine, without ever mentioning Simple Justice as the source. There were just blogs that Bob watched, and blogs that he didn’t. I suspect that was not due to ignorance or neglect, but rather the choices Bob made. Unfortunately for us, we were not amongst the chosen.
Now Ron is sounding like Scott, who has in the past suggested that I ignored him while I was at Legal Blog Watch. For the record, however, I just did a quick search and found at least a half dozen times we wrote about Ron at Legal Blog Watch.
Yeah, it really annoyed me when I would break a story and some other blog would pick it up, with a link back here as the source, and then you would write at Legal Blog Watch of the second blog breaking the story and leave Simple Justice out of it entirely. I am so petty. I am ashamed of myself.
Again, for what it’s worth, I did cite Simple Justice several times and I read it and Ron’s blog regularly.
Let me say that, as a matter of blogging etiquette, I generally try to drill down to the original source of a story and make sure he or she gets credit. If there were times when I failed to drill down deep enough, I regret that.
Aw, don’t sweat it. It’s all water under the bridge, now that you’re retired. Just kick off those loafers and relax.
Against all better judgment, and for the final time on this post, come hell or high water, I thought I’d say a few things:
1) I am not now nor have I ever been Bob Ambrogi. Scott – you read my intro post, so should know that.
2) @Ron re: the comment below: I, Eric Lipman, do not claim comprehensiveness, and, I have to say, I don’t really think LBW does either. As Scott astutely points out, I’m responsible for 3-4 posts every other day. It would simply not be possible to cover the entire breadth of the legal blogging world in the amount of time and space I’m allotted.
3) I have no agenda, no particular allegiances/alliances/blood feuds with any legal bloggers, present company included. I do my damnedest to document my sources for everything I write about, and will continue to do so.
4) Credibility is a great thing to have. While I didn’t “grow up” in the blawgosphere, I’ve been a consumer of its wares for some time. I’m not a member of the law blog Skull & Bones society, and don’t have the passkey that would get me into whatever hidden rooms you guys frequent. But I’m also not naive enough to think that everyone is going to like — or care about — everything I write. And I’m not gonna lose any sleep over it.
5) Going back to the lace-ups tomorrow. My ankles are flopping around all over the damn place in these loafers.
I hate to say this, but it’s not easy to be a fashion icon like Ambrogi. Lace-ups? Please.
Eric, my issue with you was entirely different than any old issues with Bob (who, by the way, had me on his Lawyer 2 Lawyer podcast once with Kevin O’Keefe, who talks a blue streak). My issue was that there were major doings on the subject your wrote about, but you picked a tertiary source and an inconsequential point rather than the huge, longstanding efforts addressing Crazy Joe Arpaio. It wasn’t about this blog, or any other blog, but there was about a half dozen blawgs involved, posting on Arpaio day after day, on some incredibly serious matters, and you chose to address a pretty puny tree and miss the forest.
And there is no law blog Skull & Bones. At least as far as you’re concerned. For now.
You are right and I am wrong. You were not the party involved, and I corrected myself. It is a perfect reminder why I save everything, and rely on my memory for nothing important.
It could be that ALM is much more open to suggestions than before. I have no personal knowledge about current practices, and once again offer my apologies.
Here’s the issue, man. Who are you?
I’ve never seen you posting comments at blogs. Never seen you blog. Where did you come from?
You seem like a dude who wanted to be a writer, so you got a gig at Legal Blog Watch – just like so many others who wanted to “cash in” on the blogosphere. It’s not passion driving you. It’s the chance to make a few bucks and see your byline. Both of which are the wrong reasons for blogging.
I am withholding judgment, but it does seem that – thus far – you’re not involved in or part of the legal blogosphere. Scott’s post was proof of that. The Maricopa drama was huge – and a month’s long saga. How did you miss it? Were you even paying attention? If not, why not?
Of course, coming to SHG for the Greenfeld Treatment is a great introduction to legal blogging.
Anyhow, best of luck.
As to Eric’s #1, I am greatly relieved. If he was Bob Ambrogi, then I’d have a lot of explaining to do.
As to #2, I would echo Eric that comprehensiveness was never the goal.
Thanks Mike. I save almost every email as well. Much to the horror of our IT department.
As the former Legal Blogwatch writer, I have to chime in with Bob and be clear about one thing. Even though I was a paid co-contributor to LBW, no one at ALM ever tried to exercise editorial control over the content of the blog or the posts that we selected, nor has anyone at ALM ever tried to control my content at MyShingle. As such, Bob and I criticized Martindale Hubbell, Lexis and other companies that sponsored Incisive Media/ALM publications.
Having said that, given that I was hired by Incisive I felt (just as a lawyer hired by a client) obligated to further the interest of my sponsor by increasing the readership of LBW (which Bob and I succeeded in doing, bringing it from something like a few hundred visits a day to several thousand). As such, I often covered the more inane “personal interest” stories that seemed to generate so much discussion, like whether typewriters or bike couriers would become obsolete or skyrocketing associate salaries. In addition, we simply didn’t have the bandwidth to do in depth coverage (like WSJ Law Blog in its heyday or ATL) on things like the Harry Potter copyright case (WSJ Law Blog attended the trial) or the Enron or Madoff cases.
As for blogs that were covered – that issue was not so much whether they were top blogs (which I know that Ron’s blog is), but frankly whether the blogger’s coverage was on the right topic at the right time. One might have a top blog, but if the coverage of a hot topic issued after my post, I wasn’t likely to revisit the story.
I think that we did strive for comprehensiveness, at least inasmuch as permitted by the limits of the news cycle. We could have easily found enough material at WSJ Blog, ATL, Volokh and Simple Justice every day for our posts, but instead we tried to search for stories and commentary from other sources, which became increasingly difficult as more bloggers entered the blogosphere, without necessarily providing more substance.
I was going to hire Chris Crocker to make a “LEAVE ERIC ALONE!” video for YouTube but he is busy on other projects. So question #3 on today’s Three Burning Legal Questions will have to suffice.
I feel like a troll. Bob, I really didn’t wake up yesterday and decide to, as the youths and members of the criminal law bar would put it, “call you out” before going to sleep. But maybe that is why I sound like Scott!
I think I am a little more nasal, though.
Anyway, I’m sorry I posted such a self-indulgent, self-pitying kvetch.
Now THAT doesn’t sound like Scott, does it?!
I follow this, too, Carolyn. It’s a little like Glenn Reynolds has said — he’s like a (club) DJ. A link has to be the right the link for the right moment, even if it is not the best link or even the first on a given topic.
On the other hand, I appreciate your acknowledgment that, of course, you felt you ought to be more inclined to promote Incisive/ALM blogs than other ones, all things being equal.
Everyone has agendas, as I have written many times (in particular when criticizing the FTC blog disclosure regulations), and there’s nothing wrong with that; and of course there’s nothing wrong with everyone talking about everyone’s agendas, either…
Pretty sure it was Scott who coined the phrase, “Blogging is never having to say you’re sorry.”
Not me, brother Bob. I never cared whether I was included or not, only that my work was not misattributed to someone else. I’m all about quality, not quantity. Feel free to use that one whenever it works for you.
Boy, this really has turned into an ALM pity party (or class reunion, according to how you want to look at it). Here I am, trying to give Eric a little nudge toward the blawgosphere (it’s not like everyone else wasn’t saying the same thing), and I’ve turned him into a folk hero. Like bald Britney.
Man up, for crying out loud, or I’ll send Hull over to slap you around some.
I promise, I am really much more assertive in court.
No, really.