The ABA Journal came up with a fascinating promotion, called Legal Rebels. With some exceptions, it’s largely a celebration of lawyers who are engaged with social media, as if an iPhone on your hip made you a latter-day James Dean.
For those honored, it’s as good an opportunity to scarf a bit of publicity as any. After all, the ABA Journal carries a bit of cache from the old days, when the ABA mattered. To many lawyers unfamiliar with changes in the last decade, they are impressed by a mention in the ABA Journal. I can’t blame the lawyers whose smiling faces appear in their Rebel bios from taking advantage of it. We can all use a little appreciation from time to time.
But what really impressed me was one “Legal Rebel” who used her appointment to the gang as an opportunity to declare that she was no longer a rebel. Just a lawyer trying to do what lawyers are supposed to do. That Rebel is Carolyn Elefant.
I’m deeply flattered that the ABA Journal recognized me as one of its ten solo legal rebels. Trouble is, I don’t feel very rebellious these days.
That wasn’t always so. Back in law school more than two decades ago, I was a rebel in the truest sense of the term, defying conventional wisdom and challenging every perceived inequity.
Perhaps because the legal profession is adversarial, most of us view the world in black and white. Tiny variances from the norm (using electronic signatures instead of ink! representing clients online instead of remotely by phone! a blog instead of a newsletter! numerical client ratings instead of AV or BV!) are regarded as seismic events, and those who use new techniques are hailed as rebels. But in reality, many of us rebels (well, at least this one) aren’t fighting the legal system at all but instead, are simply fighting to keep our place in it.
The ABA Journal is an unabashed cheerleader for social media, and its Rebels more like to ride twitter than a Harley (or a Legal Rebel skateboard). That it happens to be self-serving, given the Journal’s social media existence, may have a bit to do with its choices as well.
But Carolyn underestimates her rebeliousness. While she is an early adopter, and has been on the cutting edge since before I ever considered blawging, she has done something special, rebellious, in the process. She has refused to surrender her integrity to the cause. Whether in her zeal to promote solo practice lawyers as every bit as worthy a professional, and practice choice, or in her support for social media as a medium to better establish a practice and serve clients, Carolyn has always recognized the downside and never shied away from a balanced presentation. She never says it’s easy or magic. Carolyn goes to great lengths to make sure that the information offered includes the bad along with the good. Others have not been so honest, and allowed their vision to be clouded by self-interest.
Carolyn tells the truth. In my eyes, that makes her a rebel.
Why does Carolyn’s integrity mean so much that it makes her a rebel. Because it’s a commodity in such short supply within the social media set. This short chronicle should make that painfully clear, as well as the failure of the blawgosphere at large, and the ABA Journal (since they’re so busy hyping social media gurus as Legal Rebels), to confront the wrong as well as praise the right.
The whole ABA Journal legal rebel concept is goofy, if you ask me, just because it’s an excuse to blindly applaud social media without regard for the substance of lawyers behind it. That’s not to say that some of their “rebels” aren’t worthy (even if for reasons other than those cited by the ABA Journal), but just that the idea is so fundamentally silly.
That said, if the ABA Journal wants to really show some cojones and make a meaningful contribution to social media, let it stop sucking up to the social media mouthpieces and starting concerning itself with ethical abuses and lies that threaten to turn social media into the last refuse of scoundrels. Isn’t that the sort of thing one would hope would concern the ABA Journal?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m young, inexperienced and Canadian; I’m curious to know what changed with the ABA in the last 10 years that made them irrelevant?
Funny that you ask. I received a telephone call yesterday from a young woman who found me on Avvo. She told me that she needed a free consultation to ask me questions. I informed her that I didn’t offer free consultations. She replied that she thought every lawyer answered questions for free. I disabused her of that notion.
You’re Canadian? Do you like curling?
The phrase “rebel lawyer” is an oxymoron–something like “military intelligence” or “customer service”. I do admit, however, lawyers are some of the best ranters around.
You should know we’re just a bunch of socialists. As such, I demand my free answer.
But really, I just thought you would be naturally inclined to give some background since you mentionned it. I don’t believe you have some kind of moral duty to do so.
If I was naturally inclined, it would have been included in the body of the post. I can’t repeat myself for every Canadian socialist curling devotee who comes along.
Scott, I hear anyone of these fine New York curling clubs are looking for new (socialist or capitalist) members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_curling_clubs_in_the_United_States#anchNY
P.S. This is not an upload link. 😉
[Ed. Note: This is the last time I will allow a link in a comment, even if it does spoil the joke.]
I was presumptuous. Mea culpa.
Apology accepted.
Where can I hit “like?”
You just did. Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.
I took a respite from social media for Rosh Hashannah so I didn’t see this. Thank you! Though as you said, I like the recognition, it is a strange prize. At least all of the rebels are, from what I can tell, practicing lawyers.
You’re welome. Whether or not the others are practicing lawyers, you remain a rebel, albeit not for the reasons given by the ABA Journal.
Scott: I certainly agree with your appreciation for Carolyn and her work. However, I’m not clear on why you associate all Legal Rebels with social media advocates. Out of the 49 new rebels, 4 of them are associated with social media, marketing, or networking of any kind. Legal Rebels is not about lawyers on social media (which I see you use with some regularity). Their work is significant in many important areas of the profession.
If you consider “significant legal work” sitting in Starbucks, clientless, pecking on an iPad and pretending to give advice to people who actually practice law, then you’re absolutely right. Perhaps your idea of who is associated with social media, and what constitutes significant lawyering, might be a bit skewed by your self-interest.
Well, look who’s here, Donna Seyle. Aren’t you the same Donna Seyle that’s blocked real lawyers like Scott and I on twitter because you shudder at the criticism of “social media lawyers,” those who, as Scott says, sit “in Starbucks, clientless, pecking on an iPad and pretending to give advice to people who actually practice law?”
You feel safe here I assume? You don’t have to have your precious twitterstream disturbed by real lawyers seeking debate on your month old role teaching lawyers how to use social media? No questions being asked about the real meaning of your bio where you say you “became involved in the dramatic changes in the legal profession due to technology and the recession?” Sounds like another lawyer not practicing law looking to make money off other lawyers who are desperate to learn “success by keyboard and conference call.”
Good luck Donna. I hope you find other safe places to come out on the internet, places where you won’t be questioned or requested to debate.
And by the way, your comment that other legal rebels are “significant in many important areas of the profession,” is not only laughable, but telling that you would say that and include no names or examples.
I’m sure the Starbucks lawyers appreciate your defense of them here.