In one case the opinion I expressed was very personal about competency in a generic context. It was printed, handed to a boss, and the boss was told it was about them. Ironically it was not. However try explaining that with credibility, when that only comes out in discovery at a law suit.

The second time was an anonymous blog with stories about the difficulties people were encountering in a crisis and how the system couldn’t help them against a machine and how these people didnt have the resources to dig themselves out of a hole created by a confluence of events. It was actually a matter of public policy. A matter eventually subject to state and federal investigations.

So neither was irresponsible.

In any event, it is experiences like mine that warn others off from social media, which was my initial point.

Thank you for the blame, however, my own self recriminations for having an opinion on anything, and expressing it are enough. Just like here… Expressed an opinion on social media, and I got bit! See how that worked!

Why I don’t blog any more. Why I only use twitter to follow. Why FB has no last name.

Bill and I have discussed his goals a few times, and we share many of the same objectives. Yet, I think Bill is frustrated with me because I never seem to show sufficient respect for scholarly culture. We do not share the same sacred cows, and even though he pushes the envelope from the scholar side, it’s never enough to satisfy the practicing lawyer perspective. Much as I respect Bill’s efforts, they remain decidedly academic.

I wish you have commented on my post about this, as this is the sort of discussion that lawyers and academics need to have. Lawprofs won’t solve anything by talking among themselves, and practicing lawyers will never be capable of engaging with the professoriate in the sweet dulcet tones they demand of us. And so the Grand Canyon continues to separate us.

Another difference between the practitioner and academic cultures: I did not know about comping conference fees for blogging or tweeting the conference. The culture in law schools is often just the opposite: I’ve read blog discussions treating the idea of blogging or tweeting an academic presentation, where academics are often presenting draft papers, as unethical and chilling to proper academic interchange.

I enjoyed your post, and the snarkiness of my comment is not intended for you. But it is hard for me to cry for the law profs who don’t attend law/tech conferences because they would have to pay their own way. As an independent practitioner, no one pays for my CLE or that of my colleagues. We pay that out of our own pocket, along with office expenses, legal malpractice insurance and all the other benefits covered by law prof salaries. What’s more, for many industry conferences, academics receive a deep discount that solo lawyers do not – even though many law profs earn more than many solos. Finally, did you know that many conferences will comp admission if you present a paper or agree to blog or tweet the conference? If you can get in for free, you can often find cheap flights or bunk with others to save costs.