Weekly Law School Roundup #41

This Week: The Jeremy Blachman Edition, in Which Your Editor Takes Time Out to Say Congratulations to Jeremy Blachman

"Who is the Anonymous Lawyer?" Professor Bainbridge once asked. Today, all the questions are answered in Sara Rimer's article in the New York Times: "Revealing the Soul of a Soulless Lawyer." The Anonymous Lawyer is Jeremy Blachman, who reveals how it all started in the article:

"I wanted to see if I could post as a hiring partner and be believable," he said . . . "I thought it would last for a week."

"I was just writing satire," he added. "The stories I'm telling, to me, feel so outlandish. In a way I've been disappointed that I've been able to pull it off. I've painted a picture based on a few months of observation and the worst things I saw, heard about or could imagine about law firms, and experienced lawyers are chiming in, saying, `This is exactly what it feels like.' "

Jeremy Blachman, of course, is the author of Jeremy's Weblog, who also writes at De Novo and Crescat Sententia. As I once wrote about Jeremy's writing on Jeremy's Weblog: "[H]e's one of the hardest-working bloggers in the blogosphere, cares about his audience, and writes in a genuine, friendly tone that makes you want to like him."

Now we know there's another side to Jeremy--not only can he write comedy, but he can write black comedy. You could say that Anonymous Lawyer is to big-firm life what Desperate Housewives is to the suburbs. And Jeremy's satiric send-up of big-firm life works. As I wrote in my August post "deconstructing" Anonymous Lawyer, "Although the Anonymous Lawyer makes frequent use of irony, he never engages in outright comedy.  Instead, he carefully walks the line between gentle satire and full-blown burlesque, leaving his readers to wonder how much of what he writes is real and how much isn’t."

The Times article mentions Jeremy's ambition: to turn Anonymous Lawyer into a book. It's an idea I've written about here. The responses to this idea from around the blogosphere, some of which are collected in this post, might give Jeremy some ideas about how to proceed.

I'm interested to see what's going to happen. I'm also interested to see whether any real lawyers complain that it's wrong for a "mere" law student to lampoon them. As I once wrote, "No lawyer really wants to believe he could be so transparent and easy to dissect by an outsider."

Of course, it's not easy to do what Jeremy has done; if he's succeeded, it's because he's one hell of a kick-ass writer. I think he is. Now that the buzz has moved from the blogosphere to the mainstream media, let's see what it does for his writing career.

Update: There's been plenty of reaction to the Times article from around the blogosphere, which is being ably catalogued by Chris at Law Dork.

[Below the Fold: Most of my prior posts about the Anonymous Lawyer, collected in one place.]

Related posts:

1. It's a Whole New Blawging Genre

2. Anonymous Wisdom from the Anonymous Lawyer

3. Deconstructing Weblogs: An Appreciation of the Anonymous Lawyer

4. One Need Not Be the Hen to Judge the Egg

5. News about Anonymous Lawyer: Will You Do Your Part?

6. New York Times Reporter Wants to Talk to Lawyers and Law Students About Anonymous Lawyer

7. Weekly Report #46: Miscellany, Including News About Anonymous Lawyer and the New York Times

Comments

[David Giacalone]

For far too long, far too many of America's best and brightest have gone to law school, because of the allure of status, wealth and power. The best thing about Jeremy's writing as AL is that it may help persuade many students with the most to offer our society to find ways to fulfill themselves and serve society productively and creatively outside of the law. Saving themselves from a predominantly sick profession is a far more practical goal than ever hoping the profession will cure itself.

As usual, I suggest reading Prof. Patrick Schiltz's article about our trying to stay healthy in our unhealthy profession.

p.s. Jeremy sure does debunk the notion that law grads come out of our elite school not knowing that they will be selling their souls if they choose BigLaw.

[Soup]

It's really not surprising to me that JB is AL. I've never liked Jeremy's writing in any of its many forms (his blawg, Crescat, De Novo) and I despised the drivel that AL was spouting. I am nothing if not consistent.

That said... ease up, man. You're acting like J is the greatest thing to happen to blogging since the invention of DSL. One satire site that a good number of people hated or thought was crap does not make him great. Four different blogging gigs does not make him anything other than a law student with an insane amount of free time. He writes pretty well, I'll grant that. But he's not funny and, 99% of the time, he isn't interesting, either.

I'm sure this all comes off as sour grapes. It's not. I think it's awesome for him that he got in the times and I give him props for fooling so many people for so long. Still, it is what it is. And what it is is nothing special.

[Evan]

Soup: Thanks much for your comment. I don't think that Jeremy's various weblogs or the NYT article means too much for blogging, but it certainly means something for Jeremy. If my enthusiasm is turned up one too many notches, it's only because I'm happy for him. For various reasons, he's someone I identify with. Also, as I know from years of past experience, promoting yourself as a writer is hard work, and there's lots of competition. For Jeremy to get himself written up in the NYT is a hell of an achievement. But it's only one tiny step along the way--who knows what will happen to him from here.

What about Jeremy's writing? Is Anonymous Lawyer "crap"? I don't think so, but reactions to humor and satire are very subjective, so it doesn't surprise that some--even many--don't like A.L. It would be more interesting to know why they don't like it, but I haven't seen any extended criticisms from anybody. Instead, when the NYT article came out, almost everyone posted favorably about A.L., making me think that the site's popularity was greater than I had imagined.

Is there a larger meaning to the Anonymous Lawyer weblog? I thought it was entertaining; I thought it was an interesting experiment; I thought it was one more example that the techniques of fiction and satire can sometimes be used more effectively than straightforward exposition to make a point; and I liked the way that a weblog was fused so seamlessly with fiction and satire. I know Jeremy wasn't necessarily the first to do it, but I think he did it well. At this point, however, I'm not willing to read any more into the Anonymous Lawyer than this. I certainly don't endorse David's comments. I don't think the Anonymous Lawyer website is proof that the best and the brightest are being wasted in the legal profession; I don't think that the legal profession is "predominantly sick"; and I don't think that you "sell your soul" if you "choose BigLaw." If these are the conclusions David draws from Anonymous Lawyer, that's fine, but I disagree with all of them.

It's true the Anonymous Lawyer might reflect on some of these questions, but I don't think it was meant to answer them. Moreover, how one person--Jeremy--chooses to fashion his career is not a criticism as to how others do it. Reportedly, Jeremy turned down an offer from a large firm and wants to write full time. Should all law-school graduates act like this? Of course not. I certainly didn't. As I've said on this site many times, after I graduated from law school I chose to work in the very type of firm that is satirized in Anonymous Lawyer. It wasn't perfect, but generally, I liked the experience. I met many fine people within the firm and at no time was I asked to abandon my soul. I think I can hold these beliefs and still like Anonymous Lawyer.

[Yeoman]

David G's comments are right on the mark here. And my thanks to him for posting on an article to read regarding the nature of our profession. I'll follow up on it.