Olga V. Mack is the CEO of Parley Pro, a next-generation contract management company that has pioneered online negotiation technology. Olga embraces legal innovation and had dedicated her career to improving and shaping the future of law. She is convinced that the legal profession will emerge even stronger, more resilient, and more inclusive than before by embracing technology. Olga is also an award-winning general counsel, operations professional, startup advisor, public speaker, adjunct professor, and entrepreneur. She founded the Women Serve on Boards movement that advocates for women to participate on corporate boards of Fortune 500 companies. She authored Get on Board: Earning Your Ticket to a Corporate Board Seat and Fundamentals of Smart Contract Security. You can follow Olga on Twitter @olgavmack.
Effective Decision-Making And Sweating The Small Stuff
Pay close attention to the expected value of your decisions.
I read the other day about someone who was learning poker and discovered that one of the most important lessons is that hard decisions tend not to matter. If it’s a hard decision, the expected value either way is pretty close. But the easy decisions matter, and an unforced error there matters a lot.
Poker, as everyone who lived through the Great Texas Hold ‘Em Boom of 2003–2006 remembers, is mostly a game of probabilities. The main skill is quickly evaluating your cards, the community cards, and figuring out the probabilities of certain hands. Then you use that knowledge to inform your bets, read your opponents, and try to make an educated case as to what cards they’re holding. It’s lots of quick math. Sometimes you obviously have a bad hand (and should fold) or a great hand (and should bet). And sometimes, it’s a really close decision.
Human nature is to agonize over those close decisions. It’s tempting to think there’s a right answer and you can figure it out. Confirmation bias further muddies the waters, as it’s also human nature to feel that if the choice turned out well, you made the right choice, and if the decision turned out badly, you made the wrong one.
But causality doesn’t work like that. Events that occur afterward seem inevitable in retrospect, even when it’s a coin flip. And it doesn’t matter what you pick in a coin flip: either one you pick is going to give you a 50% chance of winning. A slight change on either side doesn’t make much of a difference either: if you’re stuck between a decision that gives you a 52% chance of winning or 48%, neither one is going to make much of a difference.
In real life, of course, you never really know what the probabilities are, you’re just making an educated guess, and it’s basically impossible after the fact to figure out what the odds were. Nate Silver’s 2016 election prediction, giving Clinton a 71.4% chance of winning, was probably correct, but who can say. Even though that was based off voluminous amounts of data and statistical analysis, you can’t verify the probability of a one-off event. And decisions in law, of course, are much vaguer still. Trying to put a probability on what way a judge will rule or any other decision a single person will make is complete guesswork. It gets only worse when you get more granular, like trying to decide what argument to lead with. You’ll never know the real probabilities, so if you’re torn between two options, it’s probably close enough to a coin flip to not matter. It also doesn’t matter that humans find probabilities unintuitive and tend to interpret anything above 70% as certain.
On the other hand, easy decisions are free points which add up quickly. If a decision is easy, and you’re confident it’s a good one, it probably has a high probability of success (assuming your judgment is right in the first place). And those decisions matter: if choice A gives you a 90% chance of helping your argument and choice B a 10% chance, then, unlike a coin flip, the 90% will make things better, even if just marginally. Individually, it’s not much, but they add up, both because there tends to be a lot of easy decisions and because you can nearly always evaluate them much more quickly than the tough calls. In the time you spend agonizing over a 50/50 decision, you could be identifying more easy choices. It feels like you’re doing more by figuring out the hard one, but it’s comparatively just spinning wheels.
So next time you’re making a hard decision, back off a little and consider that it may not matter. Instead, sweat the small stuff a little more and see what easy decisions you can identify and get right.
Matthew W. Schmidt has represented and counseled clients at all stages of litigation and in numerous matters including insider trading, fiduciary duty, antitrust law, and civil RICO. He is a partner at the trial and investigations law firm Balestriere Fariello in New York, where he and his colleagues represent domestic and international clients in litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach him by email at matthew.w.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com.
The Legal Tech-To-English Dictionary: Customer Relationship Management Software
Ed. note: This is the latest installment of The Legal Tech-to-English Dictionary, part of our Non-Event for Tech-Perplexed Lawyers. Jared Correia is the host of the Non-Eventcast.
There’s a term for when attorneys use Latin and other arcane languages to describe legal processes to consumers: “legalese.”
But there’s no similar term for when vendors use technical and other arcane languages to describe their legal software operations to lawyers.
True, this dynamic may seem unfair. But now we have The Legal Tech-to-English Dictionary to help us cope.
Read on for the latest installment, where we translate customer relationship management software-related topics to plain English.
Customer Relationship Management Software (CRM)
1. The system that manages the process a business uses to generate continuing interactions with clients, both ad hoc and automated. While such systems are often used for intake management, these tools can also be used to establish nurture campaigns for staying in touch with existing clients, former clients, and referral sources.
2. A software tool allowing users to track lead and client interactions within a single program, with reporting features available.
Lawyer 1: Well, I went through my entire case list, and followed up with all my leads and clients I haven’t contacted for a while. It was a hell of a weekend.
Lawyer 2: Everybody gets my e-newsletter, but I still have to stay on top of callbacks with existing leads. It was a hell of a Saturday.
Lawyer 3: I automate pretty much all of my followups, and I’m very drunk right now, because I’ve been slamming mojitos for the past two days. It was a hell of a weekend.
Cf. It’s a process.
Client Journey
1. The intake process for a business, including all affiliated interactions, for onboarding new leads through close.
2. The customer experience, from the consumer’s perspective, from lead to close.
Lawyer 1: Our intake system is like a black hole.
Lawyer 2: Because leads are strongly attracted to us?
Lawyer 1: Um, it’s more like a dumpster fire.
Lawyer 2: Because we treat people warmly, and with kindness?
Lawyer 1: Can I just publish an intake form to our website?
Lawyer 2: We have a website?
Cf. Some people refer to it as a quest.
Cf. Like I said.
Pipeline
1. The series of phases through which a lead evolves, before converting as a client.
2. A feature within customer relationship management software that tracks lead progress through specified default and custom phases.
Lawyer 1: Did you finish roughing out our intake process yet, Chaz?
Lawyer 2: Yup, I’m done. But, let me just tease it a little bit before I give you the full series of interactions, because I’m really proud of what I was able to put together here.
Lawyer 1: Go on.
Lawyer 2: Okay. Lead comes in. We FAX them our intake form. They send it back by CARRIER PIGEON. We CLEAN the pigeon shit off of the form so we can read it …
Lawyer 1: [facepalm]
Cf. The importance of securing your pipeline, so it doesn’t get hacked. Whoops: different pipeline.
Marketing Automation
1. Generating specific follow-up sequences with leads and clients that do not require human intervention after the creation of such automation flows.
2. The designed follow-up messaging sequences that release to leads and clients on a recurring basis via preexisting workflows.
Lawyer 1: Did anyone follow up with the lead who called us yesterday?
Admin 1: They’re in a follow-up sequence in our CRM, that will generate messages automatically over the next few months, so no one has to.
Lawyer 1: You’re letting the robots contact our clients, while you’re sitting here drinking a latte?!?! Don’t you know you can’t trust the robots?!?!
Marketing Campaign
1. A specific plan to sell a product or service, or the execution of that plan.
2. A defined marketing strategy tied to a specific product or service, existing within a larger marketing plan.
Lawyer 1: Remember when we bought that billboard campaign?
Lawyer 2: Vaguely.
Lawyer 1: How did that do?
Lawyer 2: Damned if I know.
Narrator: Next time, track those calls, and manage the data via a CRM.
Cf. Not Voltswagen.
Cf. Neither New Coke.
Cf. Remember OK Soda?
Jared Correia, a consultant and legal technology expert, is the host of the Non-Eventcast, the featured podcast of the Above the Law Non-Event for Tech-Perplexed Lawyers.
Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To
In the annals of Section 230 crackpottery, the “publisher or platform” canard reigns supreme. Like the worst (or perhaps best) game of “Broken Telephone” ever, it has morphed into a series of increasingly bizarre theories about a law that is actually fairly short and straightforward.
Last week, this fanciful yarn took an even more absurd turn. It began on Friday, when Facebook began to roll out test warnings about extremism as part of its anti-radicalization efforts and in response to the Christchurch Call for Action campaign. There appears to be two iterations of the warnings: one asks the user whether they are concerned that someone they know is becoming an extremist, a second warns the user that they may have been exposed to extremist content (allegedly appearing while users were viewing specific types of content). Both warnings provide a link to support resources to combat extremism.
As it is wont to do, the Internet quickly erupted into an indiscriminate furor. Talking heads and politicians raged about the “Orwellian environment” and “snitch squads” that Facebook is creating, and the conservative media eagerly lapped it up (ignoring, of course, that nobody is forced to use Facebook or to pay any credence to their warnings). That’s not to say there is no valid criticism to be lodged—surely the propriety of the warnings and definition of “extremist” are matters on which people can reasonably disagree, and those are conversations worth having in a reasoned fashion.
But then someone went there. It was inevitable, really, given that Section 230 has become a proxy for “things social media platforms do that I don’t like.” And Section 230 Truthers never miss an opportunity to make something wrongly about the target of their eternal ire.
Notorious COVID (and all-around) crank Alex Berenson led the charge, boosted by the usual media crowd, tweeting:
Yeah, I’m becoming an extremist. An anti-@Facebook extremist. “Confidential help is available?” Who do they think they are?
Either they’re a publisher and a political platform legally liable for every bit of content they host, or they need to STAY OUT OF THE WAY. Zuck’s choice.
That is, to be diplomatic, deeply stupid.
Like decent toilet paper, the inanity of this tweet is two-ply. First (setting aside the question of what exactly “political platform” means) is the mundane reality, explained ad nauseum, that Facebook needs not—in fact—make any such choice. It bears repeating: Section 230 provides that websites are not liable as the publishers of content provided by others. There are no conditions or requirements. Period. End of story. The law would make no sense otherwise; the entire point of Section 230 was to facilitate the ability for websites to engage in “publisher” activities (including deciding what content to carry or not carry) without the threat of innumerable lawsuits over every piece of content on their sites.
Of course, that’s exactly what grinds 230 Truthers’ gears: they don’t like that platforms can choose which content to permit or prohibit. But social media platforms would have a First Amendment right to do that even without Section 230, and thus what the anti-230 crowd really wants is to punish platforms for exercising their own First Amendment rights.
Which leads us to the second ply, where Berenson gives up this game in spectacular fashion because Section 230 isn’t even relevant. Facebook’s warnings are its own content, which is not immunized under Section 230 in the first place. Facebook is liable as the publisher of content it creates; always has been, always will be. If Facebook’s extremism warnings were somehow actionable (as rather nonspecific opinions, they aren’t) it would be forced to defend a lawsuit on the merits.
It simply makes no sense at all. Even if you (very wrongly) believe that Section 230 requires platforms to host all content without picking and choosing, that is entirely unrelated to a platform’s right to use its own speech to criticize or distance itself from certain content. And that’s all Facebook did. It didn’t remove or restrict access to content; Facebook simply added its own additional speech. If there’s a more explicit admission that the real goal is to curtail platforms’ own expression, it’s difficult to think of.
Punishing speakers for their expression is, of course, anathema to the First Amendment. In halting enforcement of Florida’s new social media law, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle noted that Florida would prohibit platforms from appending their own speech to users’ posts, compounding the statute’s constitutional infirmities. Conditioning Section 230 immunity on a platform’s forfeiture of its completely separate First Amendment right to use its own voice would fare no better.
Suppose Democrats introduced a bill that conditioned the immunity provided to the firearms industry by the PLCAA on industry members refraining from speaking out out or lobbying against gun control legislation. Inevitably, and without a hint of irony, many of the people urging fundamentally the same thing for social media platforms would find newfound outrage at the brazen attack on First Amendment rights.
At the end of the day, despite all their protestations, what people like Berenson want is not freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. They want to dragoon private websites into service as their free publishing house and silence any criticism by those websites with the threat of financial ruin. It’s hard to think of anything less free speech-y, or intellectually honest, than that.
Ari Cohn is Free Speech Counsel at TechFreedom
Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To
More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:
Texas Legislature Sees Florida’s Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides ‘We Can Do That Too!’
South Florida Cops Ran Images Of Protesters Through State’s Facial Recognition Database
Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive
Introverted Associates Should Be More Welcomed At Law Firms
Most people would agree that the legal industry is a relatively social profession. Attorneys regularly interact with clients, adversaries, court officers, and co-workers, and people who are outgoing may have an easier time navigating the social connections that are important to succeeding as a lawyer. However, this does not mean that introverted attorneys should face challenges advancing and succeeding at law firms, and introverted lawyers should be welcomed more at various shops.
Building social connections, and interacting with others, is often seen as a way to advance at law firms. People are naturally more likely to favor individuals with whom they have socialized since they thereafter know such people not only as co-workers in an office, but as friends who have a life outside of the office. Moreover, socializing is often an important element of business development. Clients are naturally more likely to trust someone if they have interacted with an attorney on a deeper, more personal level, and extroverted people may be more effective at forging the connections needed to develop a book of business.
However, introverted attorneys can be valued members of a team even if they do not wish to interact with co-workers or others as much as other attorneys. The value of someone’s work product is rarely based on how introverted or extroverted a person may be since court filings, oral arguments, and other important parts of the legal process do not depend on whether someone is extroverted or has people skills. Moreover, just because someone does not like to socialize as much or meet new folks does not mean that someone is less worthy of advancement or should be judged more harshly against more-extroverted associates.
Nevertheless, in my experience, introverted associates may face challenges at numerous law firms. Perhaps primarily, law firms may make hiring decisions based on who they like just as much as who can perform the best legal work. And who people like is often a function of who that person has socialized with or feels like they have a deeper, more personal bond with.
Earlier in my career, I worked at a law firm that had a summer associate class with a few outgoing summer associates and one summer associate who was far more introverted. The more introverted summer associate did not feel comfortable participating in the summer softball league, voluntary social outings, or other events that required this person to go outside of their shell. I am not completely sure how well this person did with assignments since I was not directly supervising them, so definitely take my observations with a grain of salt.
In any event, when it came time for the firm to make offers, they decided to give everyone an offer except for the introverted summer associate. The summer associate went to a top law school, and it seemed like they did fine work but was without a job offer after the summer program ended. The fact that this person did not interact as much with other people at the firm did not mean that this candidate would not have made a solid attorney at that shop, and firms should be more willing to give introverted associates a chance to succeed at firms.
More law firms should also alter their operations in order to realize the full potential of introverted associates. At some firms, especially larger law firms, it is common for attorneys on a team to have large brainstorming sessions to come up with ideas on tackling a problem. Such sessions can be extremely helpful since more heads are better than one, and the more people tackling a problem, the more creative the group generally becomes. I am an extroverted person, but from my own experience, introverted associates might be less likely to offer opinions in a large group of people. As such, law firms might be able to tap into more potential if they allow associates to offer advice in private settings so that introverted associates are more comfortable conveying opinions.
Furthermore, law firms should recognize how mandatory social events can be extremely daunting to introverted associates. People who are introverted may not want to interact with their co-workers in a social setting and may feel anxious around the holiday season and other periods that are filled with mandatory work social events. Law firms should try to limit the amount of mandatory social events they host throughout the year and preferably make social events truly voluntary so introverted people can avoid any issues they have with attending such functions.
All told, the legal profession often requires people to interact with others, and as a result, extroverted people may be rewarded for the social and personal connections they are able to forge. However, introverted associates should be valued by law firms, and more shops should accommodate introverted associates and judge all associates by their work product rather than how extroverted or introverted they are.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.
Trump Pretty Pissed That His Lawyers Are The ‘Stupidest’
(Photo by Isaac Brekken/Getty)
Are these lawyers the stupidest? Are they the stupidest?
Who are they? Where did they come from? Who hired them? How come I always get the worst lawyers?
— Former President Donald Trump, reportedly lamenting the incompetence of his legal team — Bruce Castor, David Schoen, and Michael van der Veen — during his second impeachment trial, as recounted by Michael Wolff in his new book, “Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency” (affiliate link).
Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.
How The Pandemic Is Driving A Surge In Healthcare Tech
Interaction with the healthcare system can be harrowing, especially when information slows to a trickle. Many people during the COVID-19 pandemic have waited anxiously, whether at a facility or at home, for a frazzled doctor or a nurse to surface and give them news of their loved one.
Amid all the suffering, healthcare rapidly advanced into the high-tech era. By the time the pandemic began to ease, the usual tense wait for information very well might have been replaced by automatically generated text messages every hour with a loved one’s status, providing comfort and reassurance.
“Covid accelerated the adoption of technology,” said William A. Tanenbaum, a partner with Moses & Singer LLP in New York who is also the chair of the Practising Law Institute’s Healthcare Technology 2021 program and co-chair of its Outsourcing 2021 program. “Hospitals are moving that way anyway, and the pandemic pushed it forward.”
Contract Explosion
Tanenbaum is a transactional attorney who represents both companies that provide technology and hospitals and other institutions that use technology. He reported significant growth in the contracts necessary to sell technology and contracts with complex privacy provisions. This meant some healthcare providers couldn’t buy the latest tech without upgrading their fundamental information technology infrastructure.
“Healthcare is 20 percent of the economy,” he said, “and it just got a big boost from increasing the level of IT, a long-term trend.”
Telemedicine and remote medicine greatly increased during the pandemic, Tanenbaum said, as did the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, especially for research into the COVID virus.
“A lot of technology that was patient facing or for supporting hospital operations was quickly purchased,” he added. “The companies that sell this technology saw a tremendous increase in sales. Part of the reason was a demand for patient care and the general demand placed on hospitals.”
The adoption of new technologies allowed doctors to spend more time with patients and handle things more quickly and efficiently.
“Everyone said, ‘We need technology now.’ These things probably would have happened anyway, but the need became acute and the sales cycles became shorter and technology deployed much faster.”
The ‘IoMT’
While telemedicine, like telecommuting, was a trend during the pandemic, the widespread use of sensors was another big change, Tanenbaum said. Sensors can increase efficiency.
Healthcare technology companies helped hospitals “put sensors on everything,” he said. “From operating room doors on up, devices became smart and were assembled in a system of connected devices so that data collection and transfer became the engine of a special branch of healthcare innovation.”
This was such a pronounced trend that the “Internet of Medical Things,” got its own alphabet-soup abbreviation: the IoMT, according as noted in HealthTech Magazine. The sensors and interconnected devices gave rise to the patient status text messages that provide comfort to families, the article said.
The IoMT and cloud computing also allowed an expansion in the use of data analytics, another means to increased efficiency.
“Hospital use had been trending this way but it accelerated with the pandemic,” Tanenbaum said.
Like in other industries, bringing healthcare data to the cloud has been driven by advances in fast and inexpensive computing power. “Storage is virtually free,” he said.
Tanenbaum makes a distinction between digital health and digital medicine, both of which have benefited from cloud computing. He defines “digital health” as processes and technology that are not clinical but contribute to care — such functions as maintaining databases, transferring information back and forth, and analyzing the aforementioned sensor data to increase scheduling efficiency and make the most of equipment.
“Digital medicine” is a subset of digital health and focuses on patient treatment and direct clinical use. It may describe diagnostic tools, robotic surgical aids, and post-surgery remote monitoring.
Of course, the two overlap in countless ways.
“The new challenge is preventive medicine. Most hospitals and medical facilities tend to focus on interventions. Preventive medicine is what it sounds like. It straddles digital health and digital medicine,” Tanenbaum said. “It includes things like wellness data and fitness watches, not medical devices.”
“Hospitals are coming into that field. They are buying technology from companies developing data-driven tools,” he said.
Machine learning and artificial intelligence have proven useful on the diagnostic side of digital medicine, such as in radiology, and can also help increase efficiency and make better use of a professional’s time and expertise, according to Tanenbaum. For example, radiologists can feed their systems a high number of images where cancer is present. By processing these images, the machine — the software — learns what cancer looks like.
“Medical imaging is a particularly good area for machine learning. Image and pattern recognition are very good and computers don’t get tired,” Tanenbaum said. “They can go through enormous amounts of data and find correlations more quickly. I think the biggest takeaway on AI in healthcare is that really it’s augmented intelligence rather than artificial intelligence. It gives information to doctors to make decisions, it doesn’t make the decision by itself.”
This is in contrast to, say, an online advertising AI, which decides which ads to push to consumers entirely on its own.
Privacy Risks
While all endeavors that involve the collection of copious amounts of personal data are being scrutinized these days, no sector places more of a premium on privacy than healthcare, largely because of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA.
While the cloud storage being used more and more by hospitals is safe — “If the CIA can use the cloud, hospitals can use it,” said Tanenbaum — there is some risk while transferring data to the cloud.
“The biggest risk to security when you’re employing all these devices and putting them on the [IoMT] is that if it’s on the internet it can be hacked,” he said. “You’re putting in another avenue of attack for the bad guys. Stealing credit card numbers is a business. Criminals will steal credit cards and sell them in batches of hundreds. But stealing medical information? That is much more valuable. If you steal a patient’s chart that’s identity theft on a platter.”
Given the commercial and criminal value of sensitive personal information in healthcare, HIPAA has strong rules for how patient data must be treated, according to Tanenbaum. He also noted that a number of states have adopted their own privacy laws.
“From a regulatory compliance point of view, it all becomes more complicated,” he said. “From a technology point of view, new technology introduces risk.”
Although many products these days have security by design, Tanenbaum said that “hospitals need to be careful, because the risk has to be seen as a combination of these products and the underlying IT system to which they connect.”
Elizabeth M. Bennett was a business reporter who moved into legal journalism when she covered the Delaware courts, a beat that inspired her to go to law school. After a few years as a practicing attorney in the Philadelphia region, she decamped to the Pacific Northwest and returned to freelance reporting and editing.
Sure, Bill Barr Was Bad, But At Least We Were Spared AG John Ratcliffe
How do you like me now? (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Wasn’t the last four years of fun? Who doesn’t miss the frisson of waking up to read that the entire federal government will be doing a policy 180 because a demented couch potato watched a Fox segment and tweeted something insane?
But with teasers from the coming deluge of Trump books appearing daily, it’s like we get to relive the whole thing again. Hooray!
Here’s a particularly hair raising excerpt from Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Bender’s upcoming book Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost.
Early on, he attempted to oust Attorney General William Barr. By mid-November, the president secretly offered Mr. Barr’s job to John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence. Running the Justice Department was Mr. Ratcliffe’s dream job in Washington, but not like this. If Mr. Ratcliffe accepted, he’d be expected to refute the same briefings he’d provided the president as national intelligence director, which stated that no foreign powers had conspired to corrupt the nation’s voting machines. He turned it down.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but OH MY GOD.
John Ratcliffe was almost the Attorney General during the election dispute?
The Texas congressman who impressed Trump so much with his partisan screaming during the first impeachment hearing that he got nominated for Director of National Intelligence?
The same congressman whose nomination was withdrawn after it came out that he’d wildly exaggerated his resumé and it was clear he’d never get confirmed by his fellow Republicans?
The guy who finally got shoehorned in there after Trump made that unhinged troll Ric Grenell DNI, forcing the Senate to choose between letting Grenell burn down the entire intelligence community or letting Ratcliffe use it as a partisan tool?
The DNI who tried desperately to force intelligence analysts to say that Biden-loving China, not Russia, was the real threat to American elections?
That guy was almost elevated to AG at a time when Trump was actively working to get the Justice Department to intervene to stop certification of the vote in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona?
Yikes.
Well, we never thought we’d say this, but …
Thank God for Bill Barr and Jeffrey Rosen without whom it could have been so, so much worse.
Inside Donald Trump’s Last Days in the White House and Plans for a Comeback [WSJ]
Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.
Jonathan Turley Attacks Above The Law Because… Cancel Culture Something Something
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
We’ve written before about Jonathan Turley’s journey from Con Law luminary to shameless panderer to right-wing hot-button issues. The constitutional law scholar we all respected in the 90s now spends his time beating up nonsense straw arguments about executive power and complaining about “all this crazy ethnic food.”
The guy went out of his way to debunk his own past scholarship when the spotlight needed someone — anyone — with a fancy title to sacrifice their reputation at the altar of Trump.
Look, law professors willing to say that right-wingers are mangling hundreds of years of precedent are a dime a dozen. The only way to stand out is to throw in with the conservatives and if that means performatively acting like you’ve never heard of Chicken Tikka Masala, so be it.
Now he’s decided to wade into the “cancel culture” debate because that’s the next Infinity Stone in the cable news hit gauntlet. And he’s decided to go after that chit by attacking… me?
All right, dude. Let’s see what you’ve got.
Writing in The Hill, Turley focuses on my article about a number of law students at Duke resigning from their journal because the faculty is going forward with an article that the student editors object to including in the publication:
Some legal columnists echoed calls to ban those with opposing views. The legal site “Above The Law” (ATL) published an article denouncing the faculty for supporting free speech. ATL editor Joe Patrice ran a factually inaccurate tirade against Duke for using academic freedom as “a shield for professors to opine and behave in ways that marginalize others.”
Before we get any further, we’ve got to address the misleading “factually inaccurate tirade” comment. That phrase links to Jonathan Adler’s piece in Reason which — as I addressed in an update to the original post — misses the point of the original article. But Turley’s repeating it to an even bigger audience now, so we need to lay it all out again.
The original article was pretty straightforward: (1) a journal plans to give a forum to a Trans skeptic who is the subject of sharp criticism from her colleagues both within her school and within her field generally; (2) several student editors said they were uncomfortable having their names on a masthead peddling this rhetoric; (3) the Faculty Board told the students they were going to include the article anyway; (4) several students resigned. Is this factually accurate? Of course. The statement from the Faculty Board confirms each of these facts.
Adler’s article zeroes in on the key sin of my piece: suggesting that the students had any choice in the matter. I off-handedly called the journal, Law & Contemporary Problems, “student-run” before complaining generally that schools use students as journal labor on the claim that they respect the students as professionals. In fact, Adler points out, the faculty have the final say on this specific journal by design. This — and this alone — was the “factual inaccuracy.” If that seems to you like a non-sequitur in the context of the whole article, you’d be right. But it’s the basis for branding the whole article as factually inaccurate in The Hill.
Imagine how blinkered by ivory tower life one has to be to read my story and think the core conflict is “did the faculty usurp student authority when they ignored students to publish a Trans skeptic?” or “did the faculty exercise their prerogative when they… ignored students to publish a Trans skeptic?” As another law professor wrote me after Adler’s piece went up, knowing that it’s faculty edited “actually seems like this is a worse labor issue.” Indeed.
With the unwarranted swipe at the student-run thing aside, Turley — who, to his credit, seems to understand that the Reason post is a dumb sideshow and focuses on my actual arguments — quotes my post where I state that academic freedom is not an end to itself but a means to promote inquiry that “improves the academic mission of improving the human condition.” I should’ve used a “furthers” there… bad word echo. Sorry.
Anyway, he responds:
In other words, you are entitled to free speech so long as you cannot be accused of “marginalizing” others.
In other words, we’re just going to turn this into another straw argument. What I’m actually saying is that there’s a reason we have astronomy conferences without inviting heliocentrists. Not every idea advances the academic mission. You can talk about sex and the law and even the state of the Trans legal protection landscape without inviting someone — a non-lawyer for that matter — to criticize the underlying concept of Trans women. The students in this case, as well as many academics in her field, don’t think the debate over the law in this area is improved by her contributions at this time. That’s not silencing her… that’s how academia is supposed to work.
But Turley’s blowing by that and trying to bootstrap this onto the larger ideological mission of the right these days: confusing “free speech” with “the proper functioning of the marketplace of ideas.”
Sometimes ideas enter the market… and lose. And people are free to hold those trash ideas and talk about them all they want, but the academy isn’t obliged to lend its institutional goodwill to hyping them. For folks like Adler — who I just remembered was also on the “law schools should use affirmative action to hire more of my FedSoc friends” nonsense — and Turley, and all the other budding Substack artists out there, their definition of “free speech” is “direct institutional intervention to salvage our ideas for lacking enough merit to hold their own.”
Ultimately that’s all “cancel culture” is: the marketplace of ideas working. People are voting with their feet not to listen to you.
After more hyperbole about stuff that my former ATL colleague Elie Mystal has said, Turley lumps the two of us back together to accuse us of burdening free speech with troublingly arbitrary standards:
Dangerous thoughts are ill-defined beyond being rejected by these writers. Under this approach, free speech becomes like pornography under the famous test of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material … and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”
I’m sorry, when did an academic journal become the state?
This is utterly disingenuous pandering and Turley is — one sincerely hopes! — aware of that. This is nothing like issuing fuzzy legal standards (and that was from the concurrence for what it’s worth) for statutes criminalizing porn.
None of my article asks a government to intervene to stop professors from thinking the way they do or from publishing wherever people will let them. I argue, in the way the Framers intended, that while the government can’t dictate speech, private universities gratuitously managing academic publications have every right in the world not to publish something. It’s “free speech” to publish this and it’s “free speech” not to publish it — the concept has no bearing at all on the issue at hand.
In this case, several people that the school trusted enough to give spots on the masthead are saying “this is a bad use of our forum.” The faculty had the right (and the authority! just to make Adler happy) to ignore those students… but they are wrong to do so.
In other words, just because they coulda doesn’t mean they shoulda.
Turley surely knows this, but instead it’s almost 1,200-word jeremiad muddying the discussion spiced up by a lot of “campuses are too hostile to conservatives” and “I don’t like when professors voluntarily confront their own racism” anecdotes. The whole thing smacks of “please book me on tonight’s Tucker to discuss!”
And, sadly, perhaps it is.
The rise of a generation of censors: Law schools the latest battlement over free speech [The Hill]
Earlier: Student Staff Resign After Duke Law School Faculty Try To Force Anti-Trans Article Into Journal
Jonathan Turley Wanted For Vicious Murder Of Nonsensical Straw Arguments Of His Own Making
Jonathan Turley Doesn’t Understand All Your Crazy Sounding Ethnic Food!
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
Stat Of The Week: Growing Discontent
Lawyers soured on their work early this year, with increasing burnout likely weighing on their short-term job satisfaction, according to a new report.
Bloomberg Law’s second Attorney Workload & Hours Survey reveals a disparity between lawyers’ overall job satisfaction and how they felt about the first quarter of 2021.
For overall job satisfaction, the survey has some good news: Almost 60% of respondents rated it at least 7 out of 10, mirroring previous results.
But when asked about job satisfaction in Q1, that number plummets to 44%.
Unsurprisingly, this drop coincides with a rise in burnout — respondents said they experienced burnout 50% of the time in the Q1 survey, compared with 40% of the time in a prior survey looking at 2020.
As Bloomberg notes:
“This increase in burnout may be negatively impacting how satisfied attorneys are presently, but if conditions leading to increased burnout are directly related to the pandemic, respondents’ overall job satisfaction may not wane as they realize (or hope) that their work/life balance will return to pre-pandemic levels sooner rather than later.”
ANALYSIS: Survey Finds Lawyer Burnout Rising, Well-Being Falling [Bloomberg Law]
Jeremy Barker is the director of content marketing for Breaking Media. Feel free to email him with questions or comments and to connect on LinkedIn.