You Won’t Read This

It goes back a little over a year now, when  Dan Hull asked me what I thought about writing an article for the ABA Journal on the subject of mentoring.  Both of us shared a concern with new lawyers, from the perspective that far too many of them were slackoisie, and far too few were being adequately mentored so that they could take their place in the profession without either disgracing it or harming clients.

We decided it would be a good idea.

Hull contacted Molly McDonough on March 13, 2011 and pitched the project.  She liked it, and carried it to Allen Pusey, publisher of the dead tree ABA Journal. He liked it too, and we were given the green light.  The idea was that it would be ready for print by the summer.

We were given a 2500 word limit and an editor, Jill Chanen, and we went to work.  With some fits and starts as we decided the scope and breadth of the piece, we nailed down an outline, and received raves about how wonderful it was, how much everyone loved it and how thrilled they were. And so, Hull and I crafted the article.

It was to be a feature, and we took it very seriously. We had a mission, to make a persuasive case to shift the trend we had both experienced away from new lawyers being left to flounder or pretend they knew what they were doing when they didn’t, and old lawyer caring only about cranking out hours or collecting the next fee.  Both Dan and I saw the looming crisis, where the emphasis on the business of law left neither time nor concern for the profession of law, the focus on client and competency. 

We proposed the New Mentoring, which rejected the facile lip-service being paid on the internet in favor of substantive effort on the part of both new and old lawyers that would produce no direct financial benefit, but would sustain the purpose for which society gave us license to hold other people’s lives in our hands. 

This was no blawg post. It wasn’t snarky or cute.  It didn’t capitalize on the flavor of the moment, and we meant it to stand as an evergreen piece, an idea that would retain its merit over time, as this was a long term issue.  Being in an age of 10 second attention spans, and issues with shelf lives of mere hours, we recognized that an idea requiring long term commitment and produced no quantifiable gains was decidedly unsexy.  But it was crucial for the perpetuation of the legal profession.  We worked hard to make the article say what we believed needed to be said.

Through dedication to our cause, we produced an article within the word limit and time frame sought by the ABA Journal.  We worked hard to do so, and we did so.  A great deal of time was put into this project, which could have been spent working on client matters and making us huge sums of money.  While we expected the usual magazine compensation for the effort, it was nothing compared to what we would have earned working on pending cases.  But we were willing to make the sacrifice because we felt the article had a message that needed to be sent, and so we sacrificed our own pecuniary interest.  We turned it over to our editor, who in turned it over to hers.

They loved it. Not just liked it, but loved it.  At least they said they loved it.

There was some additional editing along the way, questions about particular words or ideas, and one day it needed to be shorter, and another it needed to be longer. The idea was raised about adding in a sidebar with someone who was of the view that mentoring in the digital age could be done via twitter, which concerned us since the ABA Journal has a unnatural fondness for technology which tends to make it seem less stodgy and more hip, even though it’s an approach more appropriate for People Magazine. 

Dan and I were concerned that the focus would shift away from mentoring toward technology.  While tech was an element of our articles, it’s relationship was tangential at best.  Only those with a direct financial interest in promoting superficial notions like mentoring on Facebook would consider it worthy of discussion, no less a serious alternative.  They eventually came to this realization as well, from what we were told, as our weighty perspective was juxtaposed with the frothy silliness of virtual mentoring.

When the September issue of the ABA Journal came out, I looked at the cover. Our article wasn’t there. I looked inside, and it wasn’t there either.

Same with October. And November.  We made inquiries, and were told that something more pressing pushed it down the road a bit.  That can happen.

Then a call came from Jill Chanen, informing me that because of some amorphous “politics” at the ABA Journal, our article was killed. Dead and buried. Sorry, have a nice day.  It was odd that the call came from Jill, as she wasn’t involved in the decision to have us produce the article, and was merely the messenger.  No reason to kill the messenger, since this isn’t Sparta.

Dan reached out to the publisher, Allen Pusey.  No response.  He tried again, and Allen told him he was busy but would get back to him the following week. Then nothing. Dan tried again. And again nothing.  Allen must be a very busy man.  And apparently the monumental waste of our time in producing the article they loved and wanted so badly means absolutely nothing because we’re inconsequential in comparison.

Granted, our article wasn’t sexy cool.  It wasn’t controversial, nor did it deal with a hot topic, the sort of trendy thing that fascinates people for a few hours.  But it was a damn solid piece of writing, and it was meant to do something that would matter to lawyers and clients.

And because the ABA Journal, having asked us to write it, having implored us to write it, having told us how much they loved it, having us go all the way down the road to produce a feature article for their hard copy magazine, has decided to kill it, you will never read it. And I’m pissed.

Don’t blame us. Dan Hull and I wrote it for you.

28 thoughts on “You Won’t Read This

  1. Leo

    The ABA Journal is sometimes useful to mop up my spilled coffee. It’s a shame they decided to kill an article that I would have found relevant, for once.

    Though if an unauthorized electronic copy inexplicably found its way into my inbox, I think I’d enjoy the read.

  2. Bruce Godfrey

    I assume that the ABA Journal must own the rights by agreement, as otherwise you and the co-author would remain at liberty to have your creative work published elsewhere. If the ABA persists in refusal to publish it and refuses to communicate, it hardly seems unethical to take it elsewhere (again, unless the rights have transferred.)

  3. Jamison

    Why don’t you post it here? And at What About Paris? And then give the rest of us permission to re-post it on our sites so that it is eventually all over the Internet, reaching readers who never would have seen it in the Journal?

  4. SHG

    Much to the dismay of those of us who have embraced the blawgosphere, the vast majority of lawyers still don’t pay it any attention.  Most of those online are at least somewhat familiar with the problems and issues, but the majority of lawyers who are most in need of giving thought to what’s happening with young lawyers need to be reached.

    We, who pay attention, must reach those who don’t. That’s why the ABA Journal was chosen as the medium of transmission.

  5. Frank

    The article won’t be published, you and Dan (presumably) have not received one thin dime from that rag. Unless you and Dan signed some sort of yellow-dog contract with that rag you retain copyright and can shop the article elswhere. Or even put it up here.

  6. SHG

    We could, though that isn’t the point here. Reaching offline lawyers isn’t an easy thing to do, and it’s the offline lawyers who desperately need to become aware of the problems.

  7. David Sugerman

    I don’t have to tell you that you and Dan reman in among my heroes. This bites, of course, but it is ABA, which is to say par for the course. As one who has been lighting candles in the wind on this for half a dozen years, I’m keenly interested. I wonder if it makes sense to submit to various state bar journals. Seems like your home states of NY and Ca would be logical starting points. Recruit help from twit-law pals to handle Fla., Pa., and Tex. And then small states (dibbs on Oregon!) and pretty soon you get traction. Other journals: ABOTA, AAJ, etc.

    Since you and Dan have done the real work, it’s up to those of us in the peanut gallery who have contacts and know something to step forward. If you want to send me a copy and permission, I will work my small state, if you like.

  8. RTK

    I would have renewed my ABA membership to get my hands on this article. I hope it gets out there one way or another. If it saves the life of a single child . . .

  9. Alex Bunin

    Per your instructions, I did not actually read the post. However, we do have a very good program through our local criminal defense bar association, run by one of my assistant public defenders. It matches new lawyers with experienced criminal defense lawyers. I have applied for a Gideon grant from DOJ to formalize the program, add an administrator, and send the young lawyers to the Southern Defender Training Center.

  10. SHG

    Ironically, while your program certainly seems like a worthy and helpful idea, it’s something of the antithesis of what we argue for. Rather than “programs” funded by the government, we need lawyers, both young and old (and in the middle like me), to return to the nature of a profession in its relationships.

  11. Alex Bunin

    I told you I did not read it. Anyway, I agree with the sentiment, and what you describe is how the program has worked to date. What I want to do is add a few other aspects that do cost money – formal administration and a trial college.

  12. Anthony

    The ABA’s quashing of the article is another reason why I believe it to be worthless.

    Nonetheless, I am precisely the type of lawyer who could benefit from the article. Graduated from law school in 2010 and was fortunate to have a few job options upon graduation, despite not being a law review kind of guy. I am currently practicing in a small firm. Confused and disenchanted by the myriad practice areas and inability to hone in and specialize. I sense that the fee is the bottom line. I find myself spending much of my time learning the law. Burnout is a real possibility at this rate. The advice I continue to receive is “it’s too early to specialize.” Internally, I think specializing is my only hope at longevity in this career.

    Perhaps I understand your need to reach those lawyers “offline.” I hope, however, that the article may be published in some medium so that folks like me can benefit even if it means my taking it to those very “offline” lawyers you intended as your target audience. I work with two.

    Thanks for the effort.

  13. SHG

    I don’t think any ABA Journal readers won’t like it. Still, we were never told why, given how much they loved it throughout the writing process, why they decided after a year to kill it.  Everything is speculation at the moment, since no one had the stones to tell us.

  14. Thomas R. Griffith

    Sir, I’ll take what’s behind the cutain. Regarding the articles intended target audience – the term ‘offline’ lawyers / attorneys in which you’ve coined is not sinking in.

    Please confirm if I’m getting close. Are these offliners merely older ABA Journal subscribers that simply don’t blawg or own a legal web site? If so, a possible remedy would be to speak to the masses via AARP. Letting the ABA Journal kill it should piss everyone off and lead to it being reborn in other venues like law schools, CLE courses, blawgs, etc… Thanks.

  15. SHG

    Most lawyers, young and old, don’t read blawgs, and even the ones who do read only occasionally. Not just the old men types, but most. This article was meant for them.  I’m afraid the AARP isn’t going to do the job.

  16. Kathleen Casey

    What are they threatened by?

    (Not original with me. My mother’s brilliant cousin asked her the Q once about a hostility problem from other relatives that on the surface appeared to have no basis. It takes us back a piece but it is wise and I am grateful to summon it up when appropriate.)

  17. Carolyn Elefant

    That sucks. But I’ve got news for you – you probably wouldn’t have gotten much more readership in the ABA Journal than you do here at SJ. Why don’t you try NYT or HuffPo if you don’t want to post it here. ALM is another option.

  18. SHG

    I’m not sure what about this post caused people to think we were asking for “suggestions” about other places for publication. Between Dan and I, we’re pretty capable of thinking up alternatives, if that was what we wanted to do.  Well. Dan at least.

    Still, it’s very nice of you to worry about us.

  19. Dan Hull

    Kind of you, though, Carolyn. The article from the outset in all respects was tailored (and tailored carefully) to ABA’s big tent readership. Over our careers Scott and I have each been published in reputable newspapers and magazines, both trade and non-trade. We’ve each appeared on broadcast media. We’re reasonably savvy about the news business. But this was a jointly-written article FOR the ABA Journal only–and on a subject that meant much to us, and that the two of us had talked about a lot between ourselves. Lots of publishers–in and out of law–would have liked the general idea. But ABA publication & readership was integral to everything we did. That was the target audience and heart of the piece. It was not a “generic” piece in search of a publisher. I.e., “hey let’s do this article FOR the ABA”–not “let’s get some ideas about mentoring out there in an article”. Everyone involved understood that. After the surprising rejection, I was told on the first call they would reconsider. Then zilch. Worst part? The piece was good.

  20. Leo

    “I find myself spending much of my time learning the law. Burnout is a real possibility at this rate. The advice I continue to receive is ‘it’s too early to specialize.’ Internally, I think specializing is my only hope at longevity in this career”.

    Two things.
    1) You spend a lot of time learning the law because you don’t know anything, yet. I say this as a fellow 2010 grad. It comes with time

    2) One day you’ll find something you like and you’ll start to delve into it to learn as much as you can. While you’re not going to become a specialist overnight, you can start writing about it, reading up on news stories, and being a “go to” guy for information on the issue. It’s not a magic pill of knowledge.

    It takes time and hard work. You’re getting there. Get comfortable with feeling uncomfortable.

  21. Stu

    Kind of sad, really. My firm has struggled with the mentoring process, trying to make it a professionally enriching experience while not coddling too much. A good article on the subject would have been helpful. If it ever is published please give a heads up.

  22. SHG

    At least your firm is trying. Most have forgotten all about it, as some relic of days gone by and a non-revenue producing waste of time and effort.

  23. Dan Hull

    Hear, hear. The “burnout”, Anthony? Handled right by you that burnout is likely the process of becoming a very good lawyer. Drinking out of a firehose and working tired and with a gun to your head–but doing it for Others (clients), not for you or even for your employer–is what great lawyers often do. It’s seasoning hard won. Sounds like you are in the main crucible right now. Exactly where you need to be. You’re lucky. Some people never experience it. This law stuff is hard, especially at first.

  24. Thomas R. Griffith

    Sir, the reason why a few of us are so willing to assist (without being asked) is directly tied to all of the assistance (mentoring) you’ve so kindly provided us over the years.

    Plus, honestly, the Post left us dangling and confused as to the future of the article. Throw in the strategic yet limited target audience curveball vs. allowing it to immediately benefit the profession as a whole just added to it. Thanks for clarifying above and for all of your assistance.

    R.I.P. – New Mentoring

Comments are closed.