The Uncivil Litigator is more than just another anonymous weblog by an anonymous lawyer. What is it that distinguishes its author, who calls himself “UCL,” from the many other lawyers who write about their day-to-day experiences? An obvious place to start is UCL’s attitude of self-confidence. UCL is not one to fret about having a law degree, not one to complain about being a lawyer, not one to moan and groan about his hours or his bosses. He’s quite certain of his role in the world. More to the point, he’s quite certain of his own abilities. Some might say this self-confidence is nothing more than the arrogance of a young lawyer just asking to be knocked down a notch or two by his older and more experienced peers. But that’s not exactly right. The self-confidence does not mean that UCL fails to report events honestly. He reveals his weaknesses and his doubts too. It’s these revelations, in fact, that prevent The Uncivil Litigator from becoming monotonous, dull, and overbearing.
UCL is a credible reporter of his own experience. He describes himself as a “trial lawyer” in his fourth year of practice. He works in a civil litigation firm “with around 100 lawyers, in one of America's 10 largest cities.” Most often, he represents defendants in insurance-coverage disputes. Though he can be highly critical of the way other lawyers conduct themselves, one gets the sense that the real-life UCL is probably easy to work with. He claims, for example, that he tries to inject “some humanity into [his] dealings with other counsel.” And even when he excoriates other lawyers in his weblog, he’s always quick to say that he was professional to their faces.
UCL calls himself a “fanatic law-lover” who is “in love” with his job. Sometimes this zeal goes a little overboard, as when UCL writes that he’ll be a judge someday or chooses a federal rule of civil procedure for a vanity license plate. Is it possible he’s joking, trafficking in irony? Although irony is a common feature of anonymous weblogs, this seems unlikely. There’s nothing in The Uncivil Litigator that would clue careful readers in to the fact that a joke is being played. Indeed, there’s rarely much humor at all in The Uncivil Litigator. It’s not that UCL is closed off to methods of communication other than straight-faced exposition: for example, he praises the satirical Anonymous Lawyer as a superb weblog. But when he’s writing his own posts, he’s all business. What you see is what you get.
About the mission of his weblog, UCL writes: “My purpose is simply to maintain a running journal of my professional life, for my own enjoyment. If I can simultaneously maintain the interest of readers who want a peek at the real-life trials and tribulations of a civil litigator, all the better.” How does UCL maintain reader interest, if not by the vehicle of humor? He does it with a method perfected by the best op-ed writers: that is, he stakes out an opinion and sticks to it against all comers. He is heavy-handed and one-sided. He gives no sanctuary to the weak-minded and has no patience for fools. But as harsh as it sounds, the effect isn’t off-putting. Indeed, the opposite is true. It makes the weblog interesting and entertaining to read.
Though UCL stated his weblogging goals long ago, he has maintained his vision through more than six months of posting. The Uncivil Litigator continues to focus exclusively on UCL’s experiences as a young lawyer, with only a few detours every now and then to consider the larger issues of the day. It means that UCL does not deal very much in the small details of life outside the law firm, which distinguishes his weblog from other journal-style blogs written by young lawyers—Stay of Execution, for example, or any number of others. This is not to say that UCL’s focus is too narrow. Indeed, by boring in so effectively on his experiences as a litigator, he is able to dig more deeply into the experience than most. Scattered throughout The Uncivil Litigator are posts that combine to form an accurate representation of what a young litigator might experience in the early years of his career.
Although UCL has stated explicitly that “being anonymous detracts from the credibility” of his posts, his weblog proves that anonymous weblogs can be a useful vehicle for conveying information about a lawyer’s life. The danger of anonymity is that it makes the author of a weblog less accountable to his audience. It would seem a powerful temptation, for example, for an anonymous author to shade the truth every now and then. The reasons might be many—to make the author seem more heroic than he really is, for example, or to make his opponents seem more dastardly. I think UCL has successfully resisted this temptation. As a result, his audience has come to trust his judgment. Meanwhile, the same anonymity that might be a burden for others provides a shield that allows UCL to be more candid than would otherwise be possible. How could a young lawyer maintain a true account of his experiences without anonymity?
This anonymity has another use. It allows UCL to display his brash, youthful self-confidence in full bloom. The examples are many. At one point, UCL predicts that he will make “a complete ass” of an opposing lawyer “in front of a judge in 2 weeks.” Another time, he shares his personal definition of litigation: “All litigation is a battle of wits between competing opponents, and I enjoy beating . . . my opponents.” In another post, he derides the work of other lawyers, calling it “crap.”
This makes for compelling reading, even as it raises questions in the engaged reader’s mind: When will UCL stumble? When will one of the lawyers he so harshly mocks turn around and deliver a good ass-whipping? When will UCL make a terrible mistake that will lose a case for a client?
So far, UCL’s experiences as a lawyer seem to justify his self-confidence. Perhaps it’s his successes that allow him to remain so gung-ho about the legal profession. It’s another recognizable feature of UCL’s personality, common to many enthusiastic young lawyers: a tendency to overdramatize their lives while overestimating their own importance. This tendency to overdramatize sometimes applies to UCL himself: we see him getting the best of other lawyers, seeming not to realize that plenty of other young lawyers, cookie-cutter-fresh from the ovens of law school, would reach precisely the same result. Although this judgment is a tad too harsh, it can’t be denied that UCL thinks lawyers are worth looking up to, as when he writes that “every lawyer plays an extremely important role in trying to ensure that society's democratically-crafted rules to live by are not ignored.”
The obvious retort is that those very rules were not only crafted by lawyers, but mangled by them, made so complex and impossible to navigate that lawyers are guaranteed “an extremely important role” in society by virtue of their having botched the job initially. After all, someone has got to help the ordinary people navigate the maze. I suppose it’s not a point of view that’s held by too many of UCL’s devoted readers. They’re there to see a lawyer walk the high wire, take a turn on the trapeze, then stick his neck into the lion’s head. It’s all in a day’s work, as they say . . . and you’ll find plenty of it on The Uncivil Litigator.
Related post: Deconstructing Weblogs: The Anonymous Lawyer
Evan, you've done a great job of describing UCL's weblog and persepective, and issue-spotting concerning the anonymity question. There's no doubt that our Ulcer has strong opinions and sticks to 'em (see this thread, and especially this one). I wish the real UCL could leave Comments at weblogs as himself -- without reference to the UCL weblog [leaving the UCL persona and its celebrity out of the picture]. That would lend more authority to judgments made about the ethics, capabilities or motives of others.
When he's outed (how many Montreal Expo fans with his legal background are there in the blawgiverse?), he will surely wish he had phrased a few things a bit more diplomatically. Ah, the brashness of anonymous youth!
As usual, I wonder how the heck he has time to leave Comments and lurk at just about every blawg in the cyberverse.
I, too, am glad UCL and his weblog are among us.
Posted by: David Giacalone | October 13, 2004 at 10:53 AM
A more substantive response to Evan's very interesting and thoughtful post is forthcoming on my blog. But as to David's remarks about my anonymous identity... I know for a fact that the authors of the few blawgs I regularly visit could probably out me if they wanted to based on referrer stats, and they consciously choose not to. This, I appreciate, and the fact is that I visit those blawgs knowing that I leave behind hints of my true identity. I choose to trust them, which may or may not be naive on my part. My response to being outed would be very simple: UCL would disappear and be silenced forever, blawg and all, which is exactly what has happened to a few other blawgs I can think of.
Some people appear to be offended by my and others' anonymity. I don't know why. Anonymity gives me the freedom to, inter alia, refer to terrorists who behead innocent people as a bunch of "f***ing bastards" (self-censored out of respect for Evan's blog). I simply wouldn't use that language while associated with my real name, which is very publicly and openly associated with my very real law firm, any more than President Bush would use that language during a press conference. (I know I know, "I'm no President Bush"; thank God for that).
Do readers want me to have this freedom or not? If they don't, why are they readers to begin with?
Posted by: UCL | October 13, 2004 at 12:58 PM
Initially, the anonymity of blogs like UCL's, Running with Lawyers, Anonymous Lawyer and others sort of annoyed me. I was bothered that these bloggers, who mince no words, didn't have the guts to back their thoughts up with their identity. But I've since changed my perspective and now regard these bloggers as altruistic and their anonymity as an additional sign of credibility. Anonymous bloggers may get great feedback and recognition from other bloggers, but ultimately, they don't get the other types of benefits that other bloggers receive (like your book deal, client contacts, notoriety, etc...) because of their anonymity. Thus, I have to assume that these anonymous folks are blogging not for any other reason other than a firm belief that they have something important to offer the profession. My hat is off to them for giving us a peak into a part of the law that we might not otherwise see, while not receiving the rewards they deserve.
Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | October 13, 2004 at 01:23 PM
Thus, I have to assume that these anonymous folks are blogging not for any other reason other than a firm belief that they have something important to offer the profession.
Like UCL, I blog anonymously and I could easily be outed. But the people in the blogosphere are generally good people. Thus, I don't think the UCL is naive to believe that those who know who he is would out him.
Posted by: Crime & Federalism | October 13, 2004 at 02:00 PM
Sir Walter Scott, a lawyer (called to the bar in 1792) and prolific writer of the pseudonymous Waverley novels, would have blogged--technology permitting--perhaps anonymously as Jebediah Cleisbotham.
Posted by: Abnu | October 13, 2004 at 03:31 PM
I second Sir Walter Scott's regret over not having kept a journal my whole life -- not only are lots of interesting stories, people, details gone forever, but a journal offers a great opportunity for current and retrospective self-examination. [Abnu: there is a big difference between using a pseudonym that is recognized as belonging to a particular person and writing anonymously.]
Anonymous webloggers have a lot to offer the profession and public. I do not believe that any person does anything for purely altruistic reasons -- even saints, martyrs, mothers and wives are being true to themselves or their principles, which is an important motive -- so, I'm not quite ready to canonize any weblawgers I know. I've never been very impressed or moved by foul language, and I don't find the freedom to use it to be a particularly strong advantage for society (unless it allows the venter to avoid using actual violence).
Of course, I understand why an employee or public official might need to (we)blog anonymously. Not being in that position, I was never faced with the choice. However, I have never let myself remain in a job situation for very long where I could not speak my mind on an issue of importance.
My biggest problem with anonymity is the cowardly use of it to besmirch other people or distort facts with impugnity. The blawgers who I follow regularly, like UCL and Fed84, do not fall into that category.
Not everyone with access to the internet has the good faith that most of us in with weblawger community seem to possess. For example, if UCL's opponents in the spousal privilege case he discussed yesterday at his weblog should Google that issue when doing their research, they are very likely to run into UCL's weblog. They might be eager to "out" him. Therefore, I hope UCL will keep in mind that the ramifications of being outed are far more than stopping the weblog, as his name will be associated with everything said there and as a Commentor throughout the blogosphere. Only saying things you are willing to have your name associated with is important, even for the currently anonymous (and for their clients). Indeed, if being outed is almost surely a question of "when" and not "if", the issue of client confidentiality becomes very important every time a weblogger posts an entry about actual cases that can be connected to him or her.
Posted by: David Giacalone | October 13, 2004 at 05:10 PM
Like I think all of the above commentators, I read UCL's blog daily, and find it an interesting read - partially because of his open discussions of problems that I too have faced in my professional career, and partly because I find the discussion of American law interesting, as it is often so different to Australian law.
I too could be 'outed' quite easily - not so much by the trail of my referrer stats (I'm quite open about the fact that I work for the Queensland government) but by the personal details that I mostly write about.
But so far, I haven't revealed anything about my work that would cause a problem with client confidentiality. Mostly when talking about the law, I talk about what I am doing in very general terms without revealing anything that the parties to the action would not already know. And I suspect that includes when I complain about them as being a pain in the arse! ;o)
But my reasons are simple, there are a couple of readers of my blog who know who I am. I am certain that they would not knowingly cause me problems, but I would not reveal privileged information to my closest friend, so I would not reveal it on my blog.
This is an interesting thread. I hope it continues.
- OLS
Posted by: OLS | October 13, 2004 at 06:14 PM
David: You write, "Anonymous webloggers have a lot to offer the profession and public. I do not believe that any person does anything for purely altruistic reasons."
What are the reasons why a lawyer might want to blog anonymously? I understand why many lawyers might need to be anonymous to blog, but why do it if you can't have your name associated with what your write? If I take the time to write something, I'd rather have my name attached to my work product. If the only way I could blog was to do it anonymously, I'd soon grow tired of it and quit (I think).
On the other hand, I suspect that most anonymous webloggers have someone who knows about what they're doing--spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend, etc. Keeping in mind that most webloggers don't really "know" many people who read them, having even one real-life reader might significantly detract from what I see as the boredom that would come with anonymous blogging.
Can some anonymous webloggers chime in?
Posted by: Evan | October 14, 2004 at 06:02 AM
People have very different psychological needs and emotional preferences. I believe there are many individuals who do deeds or wield siginifcant influence (whether for good or evil reasons) and prefer to do so anonymously -- from anonymous benefactors to the needy, to "Clark Kent" superheroes, to regular callers on local radio talk shows. Many great teachers say that the mature, realized person does not need outward recognition. The anonymous weblogger might be trying to live up to that ideal.
I agree, Evan, that most mere mortals seek fame or recognition for their deeds, and that most anonymous webloggers almost certainly have a small circle of confidants aware of the person behind the weblog. Also, some probably love living dangerously, or being able to spout off with impugnity, or plan to write a book after their charade is over.
Posted by: David Giacalone | October 14, 2004 at 09:28 AM
Only saying things you are willing to have your name associated with is important, even for the currently anonymous (and for their clients).
The fact is that I'm mindful of this when I post. First, I write under the assumption that I could be outed one day, and if that happens, the most I want to suffer is a bit of embarassment, as opposed to being fired, causing ethical issues to arise in cases, etc. Second, it is for these very reasons that I state pretty clearly, in my introductory post, that "I occasionally change details when I'm talking about various aspects of my work." The wrongful death case I write about one day may very well have been a construction defect case for all you know, and the date you assume an event took place may have been 3 weeks ago. I reserve the right to "fictionalize" any detail I deem necessary, and that's just the way it is if you wish to read my blog. There's nothing revolutionary about this method when it comes to writing about my profession. Lawyers have the freedom to express themselves about their careers, while taking reasonable measures to protect client confidentiality. If you doubt this, pick up an edition of the ABA Journal some time.
Posted by: UCL | October 14, 2004 at 10:55 AM
My wife and a couple of friends know about my blog, but I'd rather they did not. I'm generally a private person. I avoid the spotlight and prefer staying in with my books and pets. Besides, recognition qua recognition has never turned me on. Unless being recognized will lead to money (re enabling me to buy presents for my wife; books, cigars, and wine for me; donations for charity; and toys for my pets), then I don't need it. Some might even say I'm anti-social, though my blogging and commenting on numerous blogs would seem to say less to about me and more about the value of my critics. ;^> But I digress...
The main reason I continue to blog anonymously is to prevent people from letting who I am get in the way of what I say. I'll elaborate.
I've worked on a several cases that would have gone the other way had my boss advanced my theories. But because of my age, lack of experience, yada yada., they'd ignore me, or worse, say things like, "This argument would never work. Your writing is crap." [I quit that job.] I only had one person who would listen to me and let me do things my way. Together we kept a guy off death row; struck down a state criminal law; and had a large dollar judgment reinstated. But he was unique in that he listened to what I had to say. He valued ideas more than identity.
And I suspect people reading my blog would devalue what I say because of personal factors. Though I think it's irrational to ignore someone's legal arguments - since, after all, they are verifiable - due to age or experience, that's the life I live.
Right now many people reading my blog assume I'm an experienced criminal defense lawyer. I'd like to think that's due to my clear writing and insights, given that I spend a lot of time thinking about the issues I blog about. Anyhow, would those people give me the same street credibility if they knew my age? I doubt it.
So, I stay anonymous. After all, if the choice is between having someone accept me or my thoughts, I'd rather they choose my thoughts.
Posted by: FN84 | October 14, 2004 at 01:02 PM
My blog is a little different from UCL's in that I talk about my day to day life more than I talk about the law or my professional life. My blog is like a diary. So I blog anonymously mainly because (a) I don't want to hurt the feelings of my friends and family I write about, and (b) I don't want to cause problems at work by the way I sometimes talk about my colleagues.
I blog as a form of stress relief. I get to vent the feelings of anything that annoys me and share my joy in those little day to day things that are only exciting to me. And I don't have to see readers hitting the page down button when I get boring! ;o)
I don't blog to be read, thought it's nice when I am. I blog to write.
- OLS
Posted by: OLS | October 14, 2004 at 07:57 PM
Interesting comments on anonymous bloggers.
I am anonymous, which I confess is due to my critical tone. There's an element of, well, being careful in it.
I've thought, however, about abandoning the anonymous blog, and starting a new one revealing my identity. The reason is, that there's some opinions I feel I cannot express unless I am identified.
Posted by: Yeoman | May 20, 2005 at 09:23 PM