practicehacker

AI – Advanced IT/Security
CR – Client Relationships
ED – E-Discovery
GG Going Green
IN – Internet
LF – Large Firm / Corporate Counsel
LT – Litigation
MA – Mac Track
MO – Microsoft Office
MT – Mobile Technology
PO – Paperless Office
RM – Records Management
RT – Roundtables
SSI – Solo / Small Firm I
SSII – Solo / Small Firm II
SM – Show Me How

Share this post :

Author’s Note: This year I got to blog the ABA Technology Show once again as I did last year in this pair of posts here and here. In addition, this year I was given the opportunity to publish my work in the prestigious publication TechnoLawyer. And on a related (and equally important) note, this was the second year in a row that I was sponsored by the august DuPage County Bar Association, thanks to the hard work of directrix and champion of technology, Glenda Sharp. To Glenda and this year’s bar President, Fred Spitzzeri, a great big Thank You! Here’s to doing it again next year …

I Attended ABA TECHSHOW 2008 and All I Got Was This Lousy Blog Post

Eliminating the Paper Chase: From Boxes to Bytes (Paperless Office Track)

A Real World EDD Motion Hearing (Litigation Track)

The Mobile Office: Take Your Desktop in Your Pocket (Mobile Technology Track)

Outlook Tips and Tricks (Roundtables Track)

So You Want to Be an ABA Author? (Special Session)

Beating the Startup Blues: A Tech Survival Guide (Solo/Small Firm II Track)

Grand Finale: 60 Sites In 60 Minutes

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: SQ Global Solutions

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: Legal Bar by BEC Legal Systems

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: Electronic Discovery

Crazy Mazy’s Best of Show: Adobe Acrobat Professional

A Report from the Exhibit Hall and Suggestions for TechShow 2009

“I’ve always supported Avvo”

In one of her most recent posts, Bar Association Enters the 21st Century, Carolyn ‘I supported Avvo all along’ Elefant takes a breathtaking intuitive leap, proclaiming that (hold onto your hats) lawyers may be slightly behind the curve when it comes to technology. No, it’s true. She’s out there. Here’s how Carolyn put it
Lawyers have been using the Internet for a decade, and even the most unsophisticated consumers have had Internet access at home for at least five years. … a directory that would enable consumers to find lawyers online should have seemed like a logical project for bar associations — which purport to serve the public by helping increase access to law. The bars did little to provide lawyers with ways to list themselves online and, consequently Avvo stepped in to fill this void

Powerful stuff. Sadly however Carolyn has it all wrong.

By not putting together a decent referral system on the web (ed. note: Carolyn’s post says that the first such bar association system may be online now) Bar Associations have not dropped the ball or missed an opportunity to serve, any more than Avvo has stepped into their inadvertent breach. On the contrary, what we are watching right now is the unraveling of one of the last monopolies baked into American law — the Bar Association. Let there be no doubt then: Bar Associations do indeed exist to serve … themselves. And like every bureaucracy since the invention of bureaucracy (thank you Emile Durkheim) bar associations large and small perpetuate themselves by keeping information about, and communication between, members to a minimum. It’s that simple. If lawyers can’t find each other they can’t get together and cause trouble. Divide and conquer – as far as strategies go, it’s an oldie but a goodie.

Remember, ego administer proinde ego sum. I administrate, therefore I am. Take away the Bar Association’s power to control information and regulate free assembly, and you take away its power … period. No bureaucracy ever let that happen voluntarily. No, what we are seeing is that the nation’s Bar Associations held on to their role as the sole arbiters of right and wrong, keepers of the sacred flame, for as long as they could.

And now that their monopoly is looking shoddy and dated, will this old, tired, dog learn new tricks? Come on … what do you think?

Attorney and legal blogger Carolyn Elefant wrote me to object to the way I portrayed her in this post, and to point out that she is as pro-Avvo as anyone! I had this to say

Dear Carolyn:

I applaud your open-minded position. Then again your message begins by characterizing me as a “supporter of Avvo,” meaning you have written me off as a partisan voice rather than a sound critic of the legal services market-place.  Does that make it easier to write off the points I make in my posts?

To set the record straight, I am glad to see Avvo make the scene, but would have been just as happy if Thomson, Lexis-Nexis, or ALM had done so first. But that wouldn’t fit in with their information oligopoly, would it? I mean, why promote efficiency when you profit from just the opposite? I’m sure that’s a lesson learned from the insurance, tobacco, and health care industries.

But maybe you can tell me why, despite the fact that you and others had a head-start of several years, a monopoly on readership, and now corporate sponsorship, not one of the major legal bloggers addressed the legal market-place mess? You never wondered why neither Thomson, Lexis-Nexis, nor ALM chose to do what Avvo has? It’s not as if they lacked the resources. But I guess asking the question means that I’m just the “pro-Avvo guy” as you indicate in your e-mail.

I am glad to see Avvo make the scene, but would have been just as happy if Thomson, Lexis-Nexis, or ALM had done so first. But that wouldn’t fit in with their information oligopoly … why promote efficiency when you profit from just the opposite? I’m sure that’s a lesson learned from the insurance, tobacco, and health care industries.

Let’s say that I can’t convince you that my position is an objective one, still there is this: the legal blogging elite has decided to be anti-Avvo and nothing will change that. All I’ve read is that Avvo must be bad because it is not 100% accurate — this despite the fact that the site uses information already in public sources and invites lawyers to add their own input. So much for keeping an open mind.

Finally, the real irony is that Avvo looks like the underdog while the legal bloggers are being bullies. I thought that as lawyers we were supposed to advocate and take on the challenging positions. What gives?

I look forward to whatever clarification you can offer, and I thank you for taking the time to write.

document automation :: process consulting :: e-discovery consulting