Despite the dictates of sound judgment, the ABA Journal has once again sent out a call for nominations for its annual beauty pageant. If you take it as good clean fun, and nothing more, it’s relatively harmless. Sadly, there is no shortage of blawgers with personal issues for whom it matters enormously, revealing their childhood traumas of being the last picked in gym.
In the past, I’ve been deeply critical of the beauty pageant for what it does to people, debasing themselves for votes and creating hard feelings for those who feel they’ve been wronged by being left out. Good clean fun is fine as long as no one suffers needlessly.
The problem isn’t one of competition, which is generally healthy, but that the choices made in the boiler room of the ABA Journal are generally arbitrary, often bizarre, and largely a product of what interests a few non-lawyers. Some of the choices over the years have been, well, inexplicable, as have been blawgs ignored.
The number of viable law blogs at any given moment is hard to fix, but appears to number in the thousands if one uses a generous definition of “viable.” Many are focused on tech for lawyers, and only chime in when a shiny new toy is announced. Then there are the lawyer marketing blogs, which repeat the ten rules for whatever every month or so. And many blawgers have fallen into the hole of curation, doing little more than noting posts or articles of interest and cut and pasting some or all of the content, adding no ideas of their own.
There are a fairly large number of blogs that exist for the purpose of marketing and self-promotion, writing about cases or news items in a practice area that they think will be found by potential clients and be sufficiently interesting to get those potential clients to call. They tend to be simplistic in their content and fairly obvious in their purpose.
Finally, there are many blogs that are best described as peripherally related to law, in that they are primarily political in nature and promote an ideology that occasionally involves law as a transmission vehicle, without regard to accuracy. These tend to capture the interest of the tin foil hat crowd.
By my personal highly scientific calculation, there aren’t 100 blogs, written by lawyer about law, that are worth reading. There are a couple of new blogs that have either been created or come onto the radar in the past year, but there are far more than have faded into oblivion as blawgers got bored, burned out or learned that they weren’t going to get rich and famous on the internet.
The number 100 is a nice, round number. For the sake of a beauty pageant, it’s a good number to use. But I doubt they can come up with enough decent blawgs to make 50, no less 100.
One answer is to bring the pageant to its natural conclusion, that the blawgosphere no longer warrants a pageant. Another is to cut the number down to something more realistic. Somehow, I doubt either will occur. After all, the Blawg 100 sounds much cooler than the Blawg 37. But it also renders what little point there might possibly be in throwing a beauty pageant moot. If there aren’t 100 blawgs worth reading, then there is no point throwing a beauty pageant for 100.
Back in 2007, Dave Hoffman questioned whether the blogosphere was stagnant. I responded that it wasn’t, but that the first wave of blawgers, what I called the Old Guard, kept their circle tight and refused to look beyond it. My criticism was unappreciated at the time, but I was right.
In 2009, I wrote of Blawgospheric Darwinism, when lawyers began to believe the nonsensical hype that blawgs were the new way to market and everybody and their brother started a blawg. I argued that they would collapse under their own weight, as the blawgosphere couldn’t sustain thousands of blawgs of little consequence. There just wasn’t enough readers, and most weren’t worth reading. They would pop up out of nowhere and, just as quickly, disappear, leaving their dead carcasses floating around the blawgosphere. And I was right.
By 2011, I wrote of the Third Wave of Blawging, which I described as isolation. There may well be wonderful new blawgs around, but no one knows about them because they don’t link to anyone else, they don’t engage with other blawgs and they add nothing to the synergy of the blawgosphere. It’s not that they don’t want to be noticed, but they think it’s a one way street.
I nominated the Philly Law Blog for the beauty pageant, my way of supporting Jordan and Leo for their efforts. It’s a great blawg, and I do what I can to promote new blawgs. I tried to nominate Appellate Squawk as well, but the website rejected me, perhaps because it’s only one per customer, and I had already made a nomination. I didn’t nominate these blawgs because I believe the ABA Blawg 100 matters, but because there aren’t many ways to show appreciation for new blawgs, aside from putting them on my blawg roll and linking to them in a post.
But I can’t see how the ABA Journal machers are going to find 100 worthwhile blawgs. There will be no difficulty filling in the blank spaces, but not with quality stuff. There will be no shortage of nominations by blawgers’ secretaries, third-cousins, marketers or social media gurus, but it won’t make a mutt of a blawg look beautiful.
Having something of a vested interest in the continued vitality of the blawgosphere, I want to be wrong this time. Nothing would please me more than to have hundreds of great blawgs vying for the attention of the ABA Journal folks, making their job so painfully hard that only the crème de la crème make the cut. But I don’t see it happening. I don’t think it can be done. I don’t think they exist.
Prove me wrong.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I got an error message when I nominated you. Their algorithm may be set up to reject all criminal law blogs. however, I think it was because I admitted knowing you, which is not completely true since we have only met by e-mail and on your blog.
It must be the trick question. I submitted Appellate Squawk (I don’t even know the blawger’s real name), and it worked. He (or she) should submit you. Unless of course, that is another identity of yours, or your sibling and/or spouse.
Scott–two keystrokes makes a huge difference. I think you meant to put “NO” in this sentence.
“There will be shortage of nominations by blawgers’ secretaries, third-cousins, marketers or social media gurus, but it won’t make a mutt of a blawg look beautiful.”
Oh crap. Thanks Rita. A huge difference indeed.
It’s no error. By definition, anyone nominating me is making a big mistake.
“There are a fairly large number of blogs that exist for the purpose of marketing and self-promotion, writing about cases or news items in a practice area that they think will be found by potential clients and be sufficiently interesting to get those potential clients to call. They tend to be simplistic in their content and fairly obvious in their purpose.”
For younger lawyers like me, a “simplistic” blawg makes some sense since we don’t have a lot of experience to draw upon.
I don’t think we (younger lawyers) should write with the primary goal of attracting potential clients, though. We should write to open doors.
As you probably know, demonstrating a genuine and committed interest in a particular practice area through a blawg creates opportunities such as contributing articles, appearing on podcasts, etc. Plus, more seasoned lawyers seem far more willing to connect with younger lawyers if they share practice area interests.
My limited-experience food for thought.
“Appearing on podcasts?” Is this what you aspire to?
I took a look at the front page of your blog. Not a single link to another blogger. No conversation. Pedestrian rehash of articles, mailed in.
Brad, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, why bother?
My blogroll of approximately twenty is on the right sidebar. I do link to other bloggers in my posts, although I admit the ratio of news links to other blogger’s links should be more balanced.
Thanks for stopping by.
A blogroll is better than nothing, but it’s not a discussion. Most of us “more experienced” lawyers love to find new lawyers who are smart, engaging and with some moxie. We want to support you, send you business, help you along. Give us a reason to.
And cut the “thanks” crap. I stopped by because I chose to. Save appreciation for things that deserve it, and my “stopping by” doesn’t deserve a thanks.
And you’re welecome.
We’re tickled pink to be nominated for the ABA Beauty Pageant. Thank you! We followed your directive and nominated Simple Justice, hoping we haven’t broken any of the Pageant’s fifty million fussy rules, such as being part of a pair “of blawggers who have clearly entered into a gentleman’s agreement to nominate each other.”
Sorry you wasted a nomination on me. At least that rule doesn’t apply, as I’m no gentleman.
37? Heck, I don’t think there are 20 law blogs worth reading, though I notice you do have 27 in your blogroll.
The lawyers aren’t 100% to blame for this; I also blame the marketers. Sure, it does ultimately fall on the lawyers who make the decisions, but they have so many marketers filling their inboxes with blog(!) links(!), SEO(!), calls to action(!) and leads(!) every day, that it’s hard, even for the most respectable firm, not to fall prey to the gimmicks for fear they are missing out on something. Even those who start off blogging “the right way” (for lack of a better term) can often get sidetracked by the promise of a magic bullet from some snake-oil salesman and slip quickly into the gutter.
You likely have more to say, and enjoy writing more, than most, but the legal “blogosphere” would be a much better place if attorneys wrote only when they have something to say. Both Turk & Tannebaum are good examples of this.
Tannebaum who?
Good point. I remember him only because he made a post (on a site other than ATL) yesterday.
I’d vote for you mate, but my tinfoil hat is on too tight! ;P
True dat.
I nominated the Squawk, too.
It may be that ABA likes to see “safe” and predictable sites year after year–but I really can’t figure it out. What About Clients/Paris? “won” every year the contest was held except 2011–which oddly was the first year we started really expanding our scope of subjects we thought well-rounded lawyers should be thinking about. E.g., our usual fare plus What’s Happening in the Rest of the World. Didn’t seem to impress ABA much. Maybe they thought WAC/P? was a blog from a foreign country? Latvia or Liberia? Or Utah?
And, hey, as some of you will recall, ABA apparently this year decided suddenly that it really didn’t love Hull-Greenfield content/ideas/writing, after all.
BTW, it was GOOD that Popehat “won” last year (way overdue). It was BAD that Eric Mayer’s Unwashed Advocate did not. I hope they both “win” in 2012. And Simple Justice? Best law site out there still–it’s hard to do a daily gig for years on end. Scott, I don’t know how you do it, and lawyer away, at the same time. In short, you’re a Total Animal, Scott. Uncanny.
Main Point: Write and maintain a blog because you must write. No other reason. Blogs may have been better before the advent of awards–which no one I know back in say, 2005, had in mind as a goal. Good blogs are labors of love. They, not awards, are the main event.
I am a total animal, but I’ve never won the beauty pageant and feel confident that I never will.
Never give up. We’ll all vote for you. We won 2007 best biz blog–but now WAC is on the Scrapheap. Skids. Gutter. Has-Beens. But warning that ABA Fame is Fleeting and Cruel. Kerouac: “Like old newspapers blowing down Bleecker Street.” 🙂 Man, I need to get to an AA meeting fast.
Thanks, but no thanks. Awards aren’t for me, and I would rather see the attention go to Squawk.
Thanks Scott. I don’t know what to say other than I’m honored.
Oh, and all Leo’s articles suck, which is why they are on Lawyerist.
The least you could have done was included a pic of you in your Philly Phanatics hat.