A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

–Oscar Wilde

What distinguishes a cynic from a skeptic is the former impugns the motives of others, while the latter is inclined to require evidence before believing. Usage over time has conflated the words, which is unfortunate. Maybe the liquid is the cure for what ails ya. Maybe it’s snake oil. Until you know, you don’t know, and believing the person selling it isn’t a particularly effective way to find out.

At the Puddle, it was noted that there was one (count them, one) practicing lawyer in attendance at the International Legal Technology Association 2017 conference. For about a decade, we’ve been informed by the unduly passionate that tech would change everything. To say that it hasn’t is an understatement. Remember how the futurists were going to Reinvent Law? Except it never happened.

When I attended the last Reinvent Law, I enjoyed the presentations greatly, but fully realized that wrapping cool gadgets and apps in glowing adjectives to the thrill of the tech-loving audience wasn’t going to cut it. There was one thing missing, that none of this had anything to do with what lawyers actually did. The truth was that they wanted nothing to do with lawyers, who wouldn’t clap enthusiastically at the way Google Glass would change trial forever.

According to the folks who had something tech-ish to sell, the failure was due to lawyers being averse to anything new, tech-haters. Cynics. But there was one young lawyer refused to go along with the narrative.

It’s not that lawyers are anti-technology, it’s that they are anti-bullshit.

— Keith Lee

I was pretty proud of Keith, as he was standing up to the tech mob and disputing their rationalization for legal tech start ups failing, failing, one after another, failing. Keith wrote a book, the Marble and the Sculptor, for which I wrote the foreward. I caught some crap from older lawyers and academics for lending my cred to this book, being challenged as to who this arrogant kid was who believed he knew enough to tell other young lawyers about life. I defended Keith. I defended his book. His advice was sound.

The book is an aggregation of accumulated wisdom.  Keith borrows heavily from some of the best experienced lawyers around, like Dan Hull and Mark Bennett,  There’s even a bit of me in there, though without attribution which is probably wise.

But I now wonder what happened. An apologia appeared the other day, under the ignominous title, A Criticism of Cynicism. The choice of word is less about the word than the ancient Greek philosophy. It was a tricky move, as it allowed him to characterize naysayers as cynics while avoiding admitting doing so. Nobody needs a criticism of cynicism, a strawman to begin with, but it’s far easier than facing skepticism.

But sometimes, you do need to tear down a fence. Sometimes the Emperor has no clothes.

Lawyers, legal education, the legal industry as a whole – cannot remain stuck in the past. Progress is inevitable. But it needs to be prudent progress, balancing thoroughness while chasing efficiency.

Keith goes on to explain all the good things that can come of change, like “cynicism can lead to stagnation.” This from the guy who wrote* “lawyers are anti-bullshit.” What pushed Keith to go from skeptic to the salesman’s pal?

Two areas of the legal industry that have been on my mind recently are technology and education. I’m speaking at legaltech and a legaled conference in the next two months and I’ve been thinking about how to discuss improvement in the legal industry in a method that is Cynical, not cynical.

My initial reaction was “great, the circle jerk invited a skeptic, someone who wasn’t afraid to call bullshit.” I was well aware that the last things these groups of cheerleaders wanted was a skunk at their garden party. But then I grew concerned.

If you look at the past 10 years of legaltech, you’ll find the corpses of dozens, if not hundreds of companies that have crashed and burned when they hit practicing lawyers.

It’s easy to be cynical when so many companies fail.

There’s that word again, and it doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. This smelled remarkably like the problem wasn’t that greatest tech thingies ever failed to provide anything of substance, anything actually useful and worth the cost of admission, but that lawyers were cynics. Critics were cynics.

And then, even more disconcerting:

But cynicism for it’s own sake is worthless. It’s wallowing in one’s own dirty bathwater. Again, it’s cynicism, not Cynicism. If you’re only being critical and not trying to push the ball forwards (or hold it in place if you think it’s being pushed in the wrong direction), then you’re full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It’s okay to be dissatisfied, but you also have to want to improve the status quo.

It’s not just that this was empty rhetoric (and a bunch of mixed metaphors), but it was empty rhetoric to rationalize . . . something. Soon enough, the something became clear.

In October, I’ll be co-chairing the Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers conference along with Alli Gerkman. In 2006 the people at IAALS were dissatisfied not with just one part of the legal system, but the system as a whole. They said “I think things could be improved a little.” Twelve years later they’ve made strides in a variety of issues:

• Honoring Families Initiative
• Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers
• Quality Judges Initiative
• Rule One Initiative

This year, ETL17 is focusing on serving tomorrow’s clients. The ETL17 speakers reflect people at the forefront of legaled and from legaltech. Not to mention ignite presentations from innovative educators around the country.

Co-chair the circle jerk of “people at the forefront of legaled and from legaltech”? The market will take care of legaltech, as it already has with corpses of last year’s greatest legal thingy ever. But legal education involves screwing with kids, teaching them the laundry list of the most progressive fixes will miraculously make their future bright, as opposed to law schools closing, more than half the kids incapable of passing the bar exam and serious structural issues of law being solved by insipid unicorns with cute pink bows tied in their flowing manes.

This list of speakers at ETL17 is notable for a few reasons. Foremost is that not a single person practices law. The two guys amongst the nine speakers are LegalZoom’s founder Eddie Hartman and Avvo’s Dan Lear. Are these really the guys at the forefront of legal ed, a place Eddie never went?

If law is to find its way out of the cesspool and regain its dignity, efficacy and credibility, it needs people who refuse to be co-opted for validation, to manufacture apologies for abandoning skepticism and singing “hallelujah” with the gang. Keith Lee was one of those guys who had the guts to call bullshit, not because he was a cynic but because it was bullshit.

Conferences like these are where bullshit gets applauded. If the co-chair has to preface his role by rationalizing away as “haters” those who challenge bad, yet adored, ideas, is there any way he can not applaud his own speakers? Can the co-chair call bullshit. I hope so, but I doubt it. I put my cred on the line for Keith.

*Keith also wrote “girls” and created a gif.