Posts Tagged ‘Twitter’

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/b/BishopPatterdale/01/l/1388869659h90om.jpgAlthough still not a Twitter fan boy, I confess there’s something to the immediacy of firing off 140 character tournedos of untenderized thought. Admittedly, there are drawbacks to expelling every rashly considered impulsivity into the ether. My dogs will disagree but some itches are best left unscratched.

Compared to tweeting, however, ruminations posted on a blog necessitate more marination. This hopefully translates into less likelihood of inflicted harm. Unfortunately, this means the windows of currency to comment on what’s topical a given day or week are soon closed.

Instead of one longer post, here are random notes — albeit longer than 140 characters.

From the SMH File

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/See_No_Evil%2C_Hear_No_Evil%2C_Speak_No_Evil.jpg/320px-See_No_Evil%2C_Hear_No_Evil%2C_Speak_No_Evil.jpgNot long after the ABA House of Delegates voted against a proposal that to meet accreditation standards, 75 percent of an ABA-accredited law school’s graduates must pass a bar exam within a two-year period — the ABA put Arizona Summit Law in Phoenix on probation for low bar-passage rates. Bar passage rates have dropped to 25 percent at Arizona Summit for first-time bar exam takers, which obviously meant that the studiously unaware ABA was finally forced to take action against one of the nation’s most expensive law schools.

In a bit of unintentional understatement following the probation announcement, the executive director of Law School Transparency, a nonprofit legal education policy and watchdog organization, declared “the decision highlights the A.B.A.’s increasing courage in holding schools accountable.” With apologies to Polonius, if this be courage let there be method in it. See “For-Profit Law School in Arizona Is Put on Probation.”

More from the SMH File

File:Noaa-walrus31.jpgOne only has to read this year’s candidates’ statements to appreciate the continuing conflated confusion of lawyer thinking that results from the State Bar of Arizona’s conflicted regulator and trade association mission. Is the State Bar of Arizona a regulator protecting the public interest? Or is it a trade association serving and protecting members’ interests? It can’t be both — not without a walrus-sized conflict of interest.

And what about its court-mandated raison d’être “to serve and protect the public with respect to the provision of legal services and access to justice”?

But as the following excerpts demonstrate, virtually every candidate believes that running for a seat on the Arizona Bar’s Board of Governors means they’ll be acting on behalf of members’ interests. With elections coming up in two counties, candidates are asking either for “the opportunity to serve my fellow lawyers” or to be “a voice for solo and young lawyers” or that “the needs of our members are voiced and heard” or pledging to “make sure the Bar is here to help attorneys, not hurt them.” And of course there are the usual vague variations on the tried-and-tested trade association theme of serving “to ensure the Bar is working for its members” or that it “performs more services for the membership.”

Promises promises.

Also from the SMH File

Almost 7 years to the day after New Jersey said a so-called “virtual office” did not qualify as a bona fide office, a New Jersey lawyer also licensed in New York and also without benefit and burden of a bricks and mortar office in New York has filed a U.S. Supreme Court petition to overturn the New York rule that prohibits her from practicing in New York without said bricks and mortar office in the state. New Jersey didn’t change its anti-virtual office rule until 2013.

New Jersey used to have the same bona fide office restriction, i.e., “a bona fide office is a place where clients are met, files are kept, the telephone is answered, mail is received and the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts,clients or adversaries and to ensure that competent advice from the attorney can be obtained within a reasonable period of time.” 

For more about lawyer Ekaterina Schoenefeld’s 9-year bona fide office battle, see Catherine Elefant’s always timely My Shingle post at “Solo Seeks To Challenge Archaic Bonafide Office Rules at the Supremes.”


Photo credits: The three monkeys: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, by John Snape at Wikimedia Commons, the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License; Odobenus rosmarus at Wikimedia Commons, public domain; frustrated gif at giphy.com;SMH at http://gph.is/1WqoSOE at giphy.com.


Read Full Post »

File:A&TLincoln.jpg“I could write shorter sermons,” said Abraham Lincoln, “but when I get started I’m too lazy to stop.”  With a bit more nuance, the same difficulty arises with blogging.

It’s either a function of trifling time or excessive explication but either way, two weeks ago a lawyer reminded me of the problem of long-winded writing when he confessed how much more he prefers consuming content on Twitter rather than from blogs, including even my own. ‘Touché mon ami.’

Well before life was reduced to 140-character intervals and before Lincoln cracked wise about verbosity, 8th century BC soldier-poet Horace encapsulated the pitfalls of the predicament when he declared,“In laboring to be concise, I become obscure.” 

In the 17th century, in excusing his wordiness, Blaise Pascal provided further insight by allowing that, “I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it short.”

photoMore lately, on the subject of writing, novelist Stephen King, inconsistently argued, “the shorter the book, the less bullshit.” (Contradictorily, King’s longest book runs almost 1200 pages).

The heart of the matter is that while Polonius opined the soul of brevity may be wit, we’re inundated with too much content. “The plethora of opinion, brilliant and important as it may be, is just overwhelming.”

And besides being mind-bogglingly wordy, social media can also be, as blogger posts, “pretty boring . . . hyper-egotistical.”

But worse of all, there’s the professional affliction all lawyers contend with — or as marketing blogger Nataline Saumore posts, “Nobody tries to write boring content except for maybe lawyers . . . .” Or I might also add judicial scribes.


So while we may have new media today, we face the same problem our predecessors also had. “Concision is a virtue,” otherwise —  TL;DR“Too long;didn’t read.”


Photo Credits: Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad looking at an album of photographs, via Wikipedia Commons, public domain; “Wee Westie with Glasses,” by Randy Robertson, Randy Son Of Robert at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution; “Annika is Getting Soooo Big!!,” byVicki’s Pics at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content for noncommercial use requiring attribution and share alike distribution; “Snore,” by Collin Harvey at Flickr via Creative Commons-licensed content requiring attribution.

Read Full Post »

Businessmen having disagreement uidI haven’t heard from that young lawyer I lunched with last November who unsubtly thumbed his BlackBerry under the table while we talked. Or at least I think it was his Blackberry he was manipulating sub rosa.  In any event, I probably won’t be hearing from him anytime soon.

Maybe, he saw my subsequent post? Or maybe he’s still struggling to build a solo practice in a tough economy? Or perhaps he simply realized I was just another older guy with “No tech. cred. as young lawyer texts during lunch.”

A new essay this morning in the nations’ paper of record, adds to the too-wired-to-be-polite conversation, which was the substance of my earlier blogpost. But it seems that this latest essay is ultimately just another trifling shovelful atop the mountain of complaint over our being too tech-connected at the expense of authentic in-person interaction.

Unfortunately, it’s an insoluble continuing affliction. It’s beating down our rules of etiquette, especially as noted in the story, via e-rudeness on smartphones. The overview is provided by David Carr, Keep Your Thumbs Still When I’m Talking to You” and was aptly subtitled, “Ahem! Are You Talking To Me? (or Texting?)” at the NYTimes.com.

It also made me inexplicably wonder, “How would the “Taxi Driver” scene immortalized by De Niro’s “You talkin’ to me?” as Travis Bickle play out today?” Would Bickle maniacally stare at his Android instead of his mirror? Would he point a Blackberry instead of a sleeve gun?

Portraits 22But as Carr’s article points out, it’s about narcissism and the exaggerated self-importance of the too “digitally devoted.”  He quotes, as an example, one twittering overly connected blogger who says, “Last year, for my friend’s birthday, my gift to her was to stay off my phone at her birthday dinner.” How very kind.

Carrying around a smartphone all the time is as reliable a marker as it gets for incipient rudeness. However, I don’t see anything changing in the future. Live-Tweeting will continue and so will texting while supposedly listening to the person in front of you. And research studies will continue to identify the reasons. It’s about “Facebook, self-esteem and aspiring to die in your own arms.”

Read Full Post »