PrawfsBlawg is ten years old. It was already going strong when SJ was born, led by a law professor named Dan Markel who was murdered last year. Even though I disagreed with Dan about many things, I respected him, and wrote about Dan’s ideas many times here. But Prawfs lived on, and now it’s ten.
Most of you don’t read Prawfs. It’s an academic blog, bogged down by the language, concerns and interests that are unique to the legal academy. It’s not always thrilling, particularly for the non-lawyers, and it was often disturbing when the prawfs navel gazed in the weird vacuum of ivy towered self-indulgence. It was especially frustrating when prawfs wrote about the value of their scholarship, or how the education of law students would die a brutal, painful death if law school wasn’t all about their law review articles and brilliant theory.
In the early days of SJ, I sought to bridge the gap between academic blogs and the practical blawgosphere, a phrase coined by Mark Bennett in a post that has apparently been lost to the ages. At another law prof blog, Concurring Opinions, Dave Hoffman took a stroll on this bridge, but he never quite reached the other side. Now, years later, we rarely see any cross-over. What once held the promise of synergy is now gone.
At the time, I tried desperately (likely too desperately) to chide the prawfs into engaging with practicing lawyers on real legal issues in real-life terms, rather than the sanitized theories that held the occasional kernel of truth expressed in words that were nearly incomprehensible to the practitioner’s ear. Conflict erupted. Lawprofs found it unbearable to have their babies called ugly. Lawyers were incapable of using the mitigated language of the academy, murdering a thousand words to say nothing, and being far more concerned that no feelings were hurt than any ideas were clearly expressed. Continue reading →