Has the time for listservs passed?

Greg Lambert asks (as reported by Joe Hodnick) on the Law Librarian Blog: “Is it time to retire listservs”?

Not yet, according to Greg Lambert, library and records manager for King & Spalding LLP in Houston and blogger at one of my newest favorite blogs, 3 Geeks and a Law Blog. See Lambert’s Where Do Listservs Fit in a Social Media World? AALL Spectrum, June 2009. The networking tool of the 1990s is inefficient but remain easy to use, convenient and useful. “As long as we have e-mail, we’ll have listservs” writes Lambert. “That said, their heyday has come and gone. Social media tools and Web 2.0 resources are becoming the communication tools of choice and will eventually push listservs to the background.” Lambert proceeds with a discussion of his two favorite social networking alternatives to listservs: Twitter and Nings. Of the two, Nings gets my thumbs up. [JH]

I raised a similar question on the lawprof listserv a couple of weeks ago in response to an AALS initiative to create new member-only listservs for the various sections. I asked whether listservs are really relevant anymore when I get most of my important law-related discussion from blogs. Most of the professors responding, however, said they relied heavily on listservs.

I don’t think Twitter will ever catch on among law professors; the vast majority of them still sneer at Twitter. The reason why, I think, was well explained by one of my JD/PhD colleagues on the law faculty here. Scholars–especially those who have gone through rigorous PhD training, like most new law faculty entering the profession today, have had perfectionism drilled into them. They are literally incapable of committing to online words ideas that have not been fully worked out, rigorously analyzed, exhaustively cited, and tested at a series of faculty workshops. Spontaneity is not a value to them.

Of course, there are a few law professors currently on Twitter, and will no doubt be more, but I don’t think Twitter will ever be a significant medium for communication among law professors. As for communication between law professors and those outside the academy: few law profs have any interest in communicating with non-academics. The reasons for this are left as an exercise for the reader.

Downturn in the legal market: temporary blip or end of an era?

An article in last week’s Wall Street Journal Blog featured an interview with legal consultant Peter Zeughauser, who predicted a grim outlook for law firm hiring for the next few years:

It’s not going to be over before the end of the year. I think you’re going to see dramatically reduced offers to summer associates at the end of this summer, and dramatically reduced offers for people to come in as summers in 2010. These cuts could be very dramatic, as much as slashed by 90 percent.

This is just one of many recent blog posts and articles sounding the same note. The Fulton County Daily Report (via Law.com) says “It’s Time to Face It: The Big Law Bubble Has Burst”:

The Big Law bubble seemed like such a safe place. What better job security than working for a giant law firm with a diverse slate of clients, a reputation as a power house and enough billable hours for a willing Cog to propel herself via a series of 18-hour days straight through her youth and into the golden years? How could a firm with such lavish offices, premium pro-sports seating and historic origins be anything but a success through even the roughest of economic times?

Major law firms across the country are laying off staff–including partners, rescinding offers to law graduates, or paying as much as $60,000 to put them on furlough for a year. However, there is still no consensus on what all this means for the future: is this just a temporary downturn, and will the law firm market be “back to normal” in a couple of years, or is this a major structural shift such that the good times will never return?

A few law schools are tentatively responding. Some schools are strengthening their practical skills programs to make their students more competitive in a tight market; a few are experimenting with co-op or internship programs in the third year. In general, though, law schools seem to be tightening their belts for the short term but assuming that things will get all better before long.

On the other hand, some of those legal consultants arguing that the law firm market is undergoing a permanent realignment or paradigm shift, like many consultants, have a financial interest in promoting a crisis mentality–all the better to convince law firms to pay for their insight and guidance.

So what do we do? Plan to ride out a temporary downturn, or begin (if it’s not already too late) intensive self-study and radical restructuring for a radically different law market for the next generation or two?

Anonymity on the Internet

“[U]nder our Constitution, anonymous pamphletering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995)

How do you use social media?

The term “social media” is subject to many different definitions and interpretations. To make it simple: for my purposes, if you’re reading this blog, you’re a user of social media. If you ever listen to podcasts, you use social media. If you’re on Twitter, you’re a social media user.

But why do you use social media? I’m running an informal Condorcet poll at http://is.gd/qKkz. Please click on the link and follow the instructions to rank your uses of social media (blogs, podcasts, and Twitter). I’m testing some theories, and I’ll give you a tentative report next week.

Please repost links to this poll. Thanks!

Bowling Together, Virtually

(Updated 3/25/09: program description revised.)

I’m working on a program proposal for the Netroots Nation conference this August in Pittsburgh.  For those who aren’t politics geeks, here is what Netroots Nation is about:

Netroots Nation amplifies progressive voices by providing an online and in-person campus for exchanging ideas and learning how to be more effective in using technology to influence the public debate. Through our annual convention and a series of regional salons held throughout the year, we strengthen our community, inspire action and serve as an incubator for ideas that challenge the status quo and ultimately affect change in the public sphere.

The fourth annual gathering of the Netroots (formerly known as the YearlyKos Convention) will be held August 13–16 at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, PA. Netroots Nation 2009 will include panels led by national and international experts; a progressive film screening series; practical training sessions and workshops; and the most concentrated gathering of progressive bloggers to date.

I’m hoping to broaden the discussion a bit by looking at the value of online communities that are not at all political, at least in an traditional sense.  There is still political value in the idea of online community itself; it’s important that online space for personal and community expression remain open.

I need your ideas for examples–and potential speakers.  Do you know of a knitting forum where people talk about organic sheep farming?  An online book club that makes a bit of extra effort to be diverse and inclusive, not just in the books they read, but in their membership?  A cooking Ning group where people are open to discussion of sustainable fishing?  Let me know.  Here is the description I’m working on:

Bowling Together, Virtually: Building Social Capital in Online Communities

The netroots can encompass more than those who do explicitly political blogging.  Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone traced the harmful effects of the fragmentation of local civil society.  Now online voluntary communities are forming around bowling, knitting, and other personal interests, occupations, and hobbies.  While not explicitly political, such activities have political value: with their global reach, they bring together individuals from diverse locations and backgrounds and promote profound relationships among people who would not otherwise interact.  Is there a latent potential for growth of political awareness in these sorts of communities, as people meet online to share those things they have in common? Is the formation of communities, independent of political boundaries or corporate mediation, itself a political activity?

Ideas are welcome, ideally before next Tuesday.  Thanks!