Listserves: I don’t know if they’re evil, but they’re damn entertaining

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.