Judicial Checksum

I don't have time to do a proper post on this just now, so I'm instead reproducing the mail on which I just copied Howard Bashman and Glenn Reynolds. I hope they and others will highlight the issue of whether and on what terms judges should be permitted to view, and if desired participate in, discussions about their skills.

To me, from "Jonathan" at Judicial Check (at which I find no "About" page telling me who Jonathan might be):

----- Original Message -----

From: Jonathan

Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 15:17:31 -0700

Subject: Do you want Judges banned from JudicialCheck.com?

To: judge@judicialcheck.com

Did you see the recent feature article in the Los Angeles and San
Francisco Daily Journals about www.judicialcheck.com? Clearly the Judges
have based on the amount of contact we are getting from them.

Here's a letter from one of the Judges:

"Gentlepersons: I read about your site in
today's Daily Journal. Since postings are anonymous, I think it would
be of great assistance for the administration of justice to allow judges to read the comments that are being made of them without actually subscribing to the service. We are somewhat isolated from critical (constructive or otherwise) colloquy, and this source would be an excellent tool for us to 'self-evaluate'. Please advise your thoughts. Thank you."

The request by Judges to enter JudicialCheck.com poses an
interesting question; should we allow Judges to view the site? Should we allow
Judges to see reviews about attorneys and experts appearing in their Courts? Or
is the correct analysis that anything that allows Judges to improve court
functions and temperament paramount?

Well as the JudicialCheck.com motto states "Built by
attorneys, for attorneys", as such we are letting you, the Attorneys,
decide.

If you think Judges should not be allowed in, then simply
reply to this email with a simple no response.

Sincerely,

www.judicialcheck.com

My reply:

Jonathan,

> If you think Judges should not be allowed in, then simply

> reply to this email with a simple no response.

What a sneaky double bind you've constructed. A no-reply is a vote
the recipient might not approve of, a reply lets you know you have a
live email address to continue sending unsolicited mail.

Oh well, I'll bite anyway (and if necessary add you to my spam filter
later). I think every attorney and judge included—involuntarily, I
might add—in your database should be allowed to view and respond to
the comments about themselves on your site without registration. I
have particular sympathy for members of the judiciary who have
excellent reasons for not wanting their online activities tracked, and
I have seldom seen a more gracious and well intended letter than the
one you forward from your judicial correspondent.

Howard and Glenn, this might be of interest to you as well. For
context, please peruse the send to which this responds, and the
(unlicensed?) reprint of the Daily Journal article Jonathan references
available at the Judicial Check site:
http://judicialcheck.com/news.asp?ID=25

--

----------------------------------------------

Denise M. Howell * dhowell@gmail.com

http://bagandbaggage.com * [phone omitted]

"Fire alarm sounds like 'Whoop Whoop'"

California Blawging

The California Lawyer looks at legal weblogs in its June cover story by Susan E. Davis: Rants, Rulings, Recipes: Lawyers and other legal professionals speak their minds on the Web.

There Oughta Be A Law

Kevin Heller mined Craig's List and found a casting call for a "last lawyer standing" reality TV show à la The Apprentice. Turns out, as Kevin describes, both Fox and NBC have such shows in the works for fall. Truth is unquestionably stranger than fiction — let's just hope it's more entertaining, too.

"Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess."

The Gucci iPod Case. Wilde would love it.

In The Clear

In my comments, Westy, in addition to providing some great WEP and networking tips, points to a Slate article by Jack Shafer, E-mail Confidential, in which the author turns his "175-pound Samoan attorney" loose on the "extraordinary 114-word 'disclaimer' sloshing around at the bottom" of an email from a Time, Inc. journalist. Pithy observations abound, such as "[S]ending a confidential or valuable message via insecure e-mail is a funny way to preserve a secret," plus there are links to the disclaimers dubbed the longest, most PC, and most incomprehensible by the Register in 2001.

[Update:] Speaking of disclaimers—