Listserves: I don’t know if they’re evil, but they’re damn entertaining
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
In light of very recent events on a listserve, this post by Carolyn Elefant at MyShingle is particularly amusing (to me). She writes:
Lombardi argues that trial association listserves must do a better job of monitoring the lists to weed out or discourage “inexperienced lawyers” who “con their way into a case” and use the listserve as a fallback.
I don’t agree with Lombardi. In my view, the availability of a listserve doesn’t give lawyers added incentive to take cases beyond their competency. Even before listserves, lawyers accepted cases beyond their skills for a variety of reasons: sometimes to gain experience, sometimes because of greed and sometimes because they don’t even know that they’re out of their depth. Rather than exacerbate this problems, listserves offer a solution, by serving as a lifeline to lawyers in over their head. Cutting lawyers’ access to listserves will guarantee that they’ll be flying blind in a case, which will harm the client even more.
I don’t participate in listserves, although I am subscribed to a few. For the most part, I find the discussion there instructive. Of course, there are messages posted to the listserve that defy description and leave you either agape or aghast. I do think that Lombardi above has a point - a listserve should be a forum for discussion of ideas, not repeated pleas for help. It should be a place where you can get feedback on ideas that you have for a defense or theory of a case. I’m not sure I’d go as far as Carolyn in saying that they are a lifeline. If you’re relying on a listserve to prop up your representation, then I worry about your client.
Overall, though, the listserves are just another part of my daily reading along with blogs - a way for me to be introduced to things I didn’t know and for an occasional chuckle.
Yikes. I didn’t intend this to be a real post, but there you are. Scott has more.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
I stand by my comment that listserves are a lifeline, even for experienced attorneys. For example, haven’t you ever made a mistake in a case? Many lawyers who make mistakes are so fearful that they conceal them, often further compounding the error. A listserve gives lawyers a non-threatening environment to describe a mistake and obtain advice on remedial action. In other cases, a listserve can help a lawyer address unexpected problems in a case, such as what to do when a witness dies or you learn that your client in an employment lied on a job application or an EEOC form.
I think I have a problem with relying on them. Knowing that you can always ask a question there in a do-or-die situation and get an answer. It’s fine as one of the alternatives for sources of help and information, but over-dependence on it (and there are quite a few that operate in that fashion) is dangerous and not good practice.
As I was driving around after my last comment, it occurred to me that there might be another reason why you and I view listserves differently.
I work in an office with colleagues and supervisors and hundreds of other attorneys in the system that I can call if I need to. Maybe it is different for the solo, who can’t walk down the hall and ask the question.
Do you think that has anything to do with the relative value we place on these listserves? Or did it always form a part of your opinion and I just missed it? (It’s possible. I’m stupid like that.)