A Public Service Announcement to the Readers of this Blawg

The time has come for the author of this blawg to post a disclaimer. Henceforth, this disclaimer should be considered incorporated into everything that’s come before, as well as everything that comes after. 

Disclaimer: The author of this blawg is not fair and balanced. In fact, he is hopelessly biased. He will make no attempt to present both sides of any story. The author of this blawg is not a journalist.  He will not pretend to be a journalist while writing this blawg.   

The purpose of this disclaimer is to state the author’s biases. The author of this blawg is a lawyer. As a lawyer, he is biased in favor of other lawyers or anyone studying to become a lawyer. If forced to choose between a lawyer and anyone else, he will usually choose the lawyer. However, even though he is friends with lawyers everywhere, he is not a member of any conspiracy by lawyers to take over either the country or the world. Although he does desire power and control, he mostly wants it over his own wife. He fully understands that even in this department, the best he can hope to achieve is some freedom of movement around the house while she is sleeping. Even this will happen only if he is very quiet.

Though the author of this blawg considers all lawyers his friends, he is not always consistent when applying his friendship. He favors friendly lawyers over grouchy lawyers. As a trial lawyer, he favors trial lawyers over other sorts of lawyers. He favors lawyers who do not attempt to seek an unfair advantage over their opponents. He favors lawyers who desire civility in litigation. He favors lawyers who follow the rules. He disfavors lawyers with large egos, but realizes that actual enforcement of this bias would conflict with his other biases favoring lawyers. Thus he is willing to grant lawyers with large egos the benefit of the doubt, at least until they demonstrate that in addition to their large egos they don’t have a sense of humor.

The author of this blawg leans to the left. He is biased against corporations and in favor of individuals. He is a firsthand witness to the harm that comes to regular people when corporations try to boost their bottom lines at the expense of their customers. He is willing to consider that he engages in overgeneralizations about corporations. Until he is convinced otherwise, however, he considers corporations guilty until proven innocent.

The author of this blawg is a “plaintiffs’ lawyer.” In his practice, he normally represents individual people and never represents insurance companies. In the past, the author of this blawg has worked as a defense lawyer. Even as a defense lawyer, he was skeptical about the motives of large corporations. Despite his bias against corporations, he does not hold it against other lawyers that they continue to represent insurance companies and corporations. The author of this blawg has never stood in the way of a defense lawyer’s right to make a living, a policy that is most severely tested for him when depositions by his opponents continue for hours longer than is really necessary. When this happens, the author of this blawg usually keeps his mouth shut. He believes corporations are entitled to good representation, even if they are willing to usher many defense lawyers into the ranks of the country’s millionaires. About rich defense lawyers, the author of this blawg says, “More power to them.” However, he wishes the public would think about rich defense lawyers whenever criticizing rich plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Someday, the author of this blawg may quit working as a lawyer so that he can spend more time writing. This long-term goal brings to mind other biases that need to be disclosed. Though the author of this blawg admires good lawyers, he also admires good writers. Among writers, he especially admires novelists, particular those who write literary fiction. Among novelists who are lawyers, he admires them all, whether their fiction is literary or commercial.  He does not care whether he is being consistent. The author of this blawg thinks it is impossible for anyone to be consistent all the time, especially weblog authors.

The author of this blawg wishes to thank his blawging colleague David Giacalone of ethicalEsq for engaging him in the discussions that led to the creation of this disclaimer. The author of this blawg realizes that only a small percentage of his readers will ever get this far in his disclaimer. If they don’t, he believes it’s their own damn fault. He also believes they’ve lost their right to accuse the author of being deceptive about his biases. 

The author of this blawg prefers short posts to long ones. He apologizes in advance for the length of this disclaimer. When posting to this blawg, the author considers it his primary obligation to entertain. However, he keeps a soapbox in his office and gets on it from time to time. The author of this blawg knows that a switch in style and tone will sometimes confuse his readers. When this happens, the author of this blawg accepts the blame, except when the confusion was due to the stupidity of the reader, in which case he blames the reader.

As a human being, the author of this blawg has many other biases, too many to be fully catalogued here. However, he will attempt to catalogue a few of them. The author of this blawg prefers the word “lawyer” to “attorney.” He does not like the word “litigator” under any circumstances, unless cleverly used as a title for another blawg. The author of this blawg secretly cringes each time he uses the words “weblog,” “blog,” or “blawg,” but he thinks these words have entered the language. He thinks anyone who is upset about his use of these words should just get over it.

The author of this blawg does not smoke. In the past, he has smoked when drinking beer, even during the time he was training for marathons. The author of this blawg has run eight marathons, generally finishing in just over 3 ½ hours. The author of this blawg does not do drugs. However, he believes drugs should be legalized. He also believes that if drugs are ever legalized, their legalization should be repealed once his oldest daughter, who is a freshman in high school, is tempted to try them.

The author of this blawg prefers Diet Coke to Diet Pepsi, Michelob to Bud Light, and blondes to brunettes.

Comments

[Jenna]

Damn, brunettes just get no love!

Great Disclaimer BTW :)

[Hugh Hyatt]

Nice. Thank you!

[The Bull]

Blatant Bias against Brunettes! Reprehensible! I feel so oppressed. Class Action!!!

[Jenna]

I know a great civil rights attorney ;) heheh

[David Giacalone]

Ev (can I call you "Ev"), I'm pleased to have nudged you into producing this lucid and thorough Disclaimer. Getting you riled and/or penitent is quite rewarding.

I wish I had the energy to come up with a such a complete list of my own personal biases. However, the first scan of my memory bank has turned up no examples of bias (except for a rather pronounced distrust of many of my legal colleagues).

Can we get serious for a moment: Below is a definition of "disclaimer" from a typical legal dictionary. It's a telling Commentary on Our Times that the word "disclaimer" is virtually always used in the second meaning now, and not the primary legal meaning it had for centuries:

DISCLAIMER: (1) A refusal or renunciation of a claim or right. (2) A refusal or denial of responsibility for a claim or an act. (3) The written clause or document that sets out the disclaimer.

Okay, back to silliness: Jenna, don't despair. Evan did not totally preclude brunettes, he merely stated a preference for blondes. (I'm just guessing that his Partner-in-Chief is blonde.) And, I bet bottle blondes will do in a pinch.

[Scheherazade]

As a blonde, I must salute you on your candor, discretion, and good taste yet again.

[Jenna]

I tried the blonde thing once and think the end result was a cross between a blonde sandra bullock and kurt cobain.

...Can't win them all ;)

[Evan]

This blawg is beginning to remind me of my mother in law's hair salon.

David, you can call me "Ev" if you want; my friends used to do that in high school. However, since I'd rather not completely resurrect the nickname, permission is granted only to you. Use the privilege wisely!

[The Bull]

Jenna,
If we work it right, we might be able to get 16 cents a head. We could get them to initiate an affirmative action law stating that there must be a representative number of brunettes found attractive. The inherent bias requires that all men state that we are just as hot as the blondes and they must whistle and catcall the number of brunettes equivalent to that which is proportionate to the population. We can start a movement, "I'm Down with Brown" or something like that. Have your people call my people. It'll be huge! See what you have started, Evan?

[arbitraryaardvark]

you are a journalist. deal.
a recent case of mine, majors v abell, features posner on disclaimers.
aside to bull: discrimination on the basis of color, yes, but no state action, and i'm not sure a blog is a public accomodation.