It can sting. But, like Cher in Moonstruck, it can also snap someone out of their complacency, or self-absorption, or personal fantasy. You don’t have to like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not appropriate.
A segment of the blawgosphere produced some serious criticism of the ABA’s myopic adoration of technology. There was Brian Tannebaum, Venkat Balasbrumani, Antonin Pribetic. I, too, offered some thoughts. Carolyn Elefant, who was one of the six-minute presenters, responded that she had no regrets.
Each of the critiques offered a somewhat different take on what went wrong with Ignite Law, but Carolyn chose to put Tannebaum at the head of the pack, relegating the rest of us to “Tannebaum’s colleagues” as if it was a bunch of “me toos.”
I spoke at Ignite because like Brian Tannebaum and his colleagues, I also have fear – though my fears are entirely different. Brian wrote in his post:
What I fear, is new lawyers who listen to non-practicing lawyers go from conference, week in and week out to tell them all the wrong ways to get business, and that the way they are doing everything, is wrong. I fear many of the people who spoke here. I fear that I have witnessed a live version of everything I criticize.
That’s what I fear.
As for me, I fear that without a little bit of encouragement, our profession will lose talent; that promising lawyers will depart the legal profession because they don’t realize the myriad of paths that can carry them to success and personal fulfillment.
What’s ironic about Carolyn’s self-defense is that she was amongst the small group who spoke at IgniteLaw who were not the target of criticism. She’s a real lawyer with an agenda that promotes the alternative of solo practice. I took no issue with her brief talk, and I’m fairly certain that no one else did either. She was one of the high points of an otherwise troubling evening.
Still, Carolyn obviously felt the slap or she wouldn’t have felt the need to explain and defend herself.
On another front, Jamison Koehler wrote a very complimentary post about me yesterday, the sort of post that borders on embarrassing even though it’s not entirely accurate. While saying nice things about me, Jamison notes that he’s got his differences.
Yes, Greenfield can occasionally be cranky, and I don’t always agree with him. I don’t share, for example, his distaste for the “slackoisie.”
I prefer prickly to cranky, but that’s just my personal preference. But a comment to the post offers an opportunity that I would be remiss to pass up in any discussion of a good slap.
Thank you for an interesting piece on Scott Greenfield and Simple Justice. While I am a fan of Simple Justice, I have mixed feelings about Scott personally. He can be warm and funny. He can also be extremely cruel, particularly to new lawyers who venture onto his site or whose website comes to Scott’s attention. And I have yet to see him concede an argument when challenged on an blog piece through the comment section.
Out of the mouths of babe’s comes the response to Jamison’s support of the Slackoisie. To the new lawyers who venture onto my site, or whose website comes to my attention, and who feel that I’m extremely cruel, tough nuggies. I’m not your mommy. It’s time that somebody informed you (and this is not directed at TPorterfield, as I have no clue who that is, but use the comment as the embodiment of the point) that idiotic tripe, replete with emotions and feelings, is childish crap. Grow up.
There will be no trophies for everyone. There will be no ice cream parties. You will be told that your butt is fat if that’s the case. There are plenty of other blawgs that will stroke your brow and tell you that you aren’t butt ugly to make you feel better about yourselves and to grow your love. But not here.
Jamison describes my feelings for the Slackoisie as “distate”. He’s wrong. It’s intolerance. I’ve watched teacups grow up into young lawyers. I’ve watched them in court as they argue to judges about how they “feel” about a client, an issue, a case, and saw the tears well up in their eyes as the judge blew them off. I’ve heard them whine and complain about how unfair it is that no one thinks as highly of them as they think of themselves.
And I’ve seen how the online community coddles the slackoisie, courting their readership and love. So go to those blawgs that are nice to you, if that’s what makes you feel “special”. Does that make me “extremely cruel?” If that’s what you think, then that’s what it does. Run, little slackoisie, run. Run into the waiting arms of your mommies, to stroke your fevered brow and tell you how wonderful and brilliant you are. Run far away from here, for here you will only get the cruel reality that you aren’t special, wonderful or brilliant.
I’ve been told by many that I’m wrong on a wide variety of subjects, by people I respect, who have earned the right to say so. You haven’t. But even so, what missing synapse makes you think that I’m required to change my opinion to please you? If I didn’t believe in what I write, I wouldn’t have written it. And if I do believe in what I write, I will hold my view. Did you think that because you “feel” differently, that changes anything?
What you perceive as vitriol is not a reflection of me, but a reflection of your vision of life as distorted by your self-esteem. Read Theodore Dalrymple and learn a little truth. Your problem isn’t low self-esteem, but that you get the esteem you deserve. Talk about a slap in the face. Wake up and smell the coffee, kid. No one owes you a happy meal.
Sometimes, you just need a damn good slap in the face. Sometimes, you feel the slap even if it’s not directed at you. It’s a cruel world out there. If you can’t handle it, go back to the couch in your parents basement and play gameboy, where you can pretend to shoot up all the people who are mean to you and feel omnipotent.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just own it. You are often cranky and apparently always prickly. I wouldn’t say you were “extremely cruel,” but “brutally honest” sounds about right.
The prickly/cranky factor is one of the things that keeps me coming back here.
That’s what I’m aiming for. There’s enough smoke being blown up people’s arses already.
I also understand that I’m popular amongst law students because they’ve created a drinking game, whenever they spot a typo they have to down a pint. I try to do my part to amuse them.
I had a moment of sad self-reflection when I thought to myself “that does sound like a drinking game a law student would play.”
Sometimes I believe you write these posts *just* to get under the skin of people.
This is one of those times.
That’s okay. I write what I write and anybody who wants can read it. Some understand and some don’t. That’s just how it goes.
Addendum: My first reaction was to be flip, but since you’re a friend, I decided that it would be a better idea to explain. As you know, many people read our posts, some of whom are the intended audience and some of whom aren’t. Some understand what we’re talking about, others don’t. The idea that we can write anything meaningful that will “please” everyone is silly; you can’t please everyone and to try is to serve no purpose whatsoever.
This post addresses a particular issue that bothers me a great deal, the expectation of many of the newer lawyers that they will be treated with kindness. It’s not merely narcissist, but part of the larger problem of people who are of the mistaken belief that they are due happiness and enhanced self-eteem. Read the Dalrymple post. It’s excellent, though I would anticipate that the same people who find me cruel will find him cruel as well.
The easy alternative is to go with the old axiom, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. But feeding them honey merely enables their narcissism, their belief that their self-esteem is the center of the universe, that they are due kindness. Some, maybe even all, will think me cruel for what I write. I’m fully prepared to be the bad guy to make the point. I hope that helps you to understand why I write these posts.
It’s more a combination of “brutally honest” and “hilariously mean.” Your sharpest rhetoric comes in torrents when the subject is the Slackoisie.
Of course, acute lawyers may appreciate getting the kind of honest opinions you’re serving up gratis, even if it comes with a bit of schadenfreude.
I’m resigned to the fact that I will not be univerally loved, schadenfreude notwithstanding.
Is it too much for a lawyer, new or old, to hope to be treated with a modicum of professionalism? I understand that (usually) the only acceptable response to histrionics, screaming, or ad hominem attacks is to remain cool and keep a stiff upper lip, but is it fair to think the opponent, cloaked in the authority of the State in whichever capacity, is nothing more than a mean-spirited, ogreish bully?
I can certainly take a fair dressing-down and the consequences that result from a personal mistake, but it seems a lot of older officials want to beat similarly aged co-workers because into submission because the officials think we will be spineless cowards. Yeah, it’s tough and that’s the way life is, but is it wrong for me to harbor a little resentment for these toads?
Please note that this is YOUR blog, and I see nothing wrong with you addressing the “kids on the lawn” however you see fit. My comment is not directed at you, but a generalization of some occasional encounters in the legal arena.
P.S. The Dalrymple post is amazing.
When I first started writing about the issues surrounding new lawyers and the Slackoisie, I was far nicer and more subtle about it. It went right over the heads of the very people who needed to hear it. Over time, it became clear that the targets of the comments wouldn’t get the message unless it was made abundantly clear and specifically directed. That’s very much a part of the problem, their incapacity for self-examination and intolerance for criticism, even if constructive. They want praise and nothing else.
I would much prefer to have the discussion on a higher plane, I can’t do it alone. If they won’t listen to a whisper, it becomes necessary to raise our voices to be heard. That’s not my choice, but theirs.
This should be distinguished from petty tyrants who will use their power to abuse everyone in sight. I have no power beyond the value of my words and ideas. No one has to listen to me, read me, pay any attention to me at all. I can’t make them, and even if I could, I wouldn’t. But I, like Dalrymple who says it so much better than I ever could, try because I believe it will help them mature into the lawyers they think they are and want to be.
Hmmm… now I understand the increase in liver transplants among 3Ls.
It explains far more than that.