I'm just going to come right out and say it: I think How Appealing sucks, I never read it, and I'm sick of reading about it (except for those who make fun of it). It's little more than a collection of media links, occasional judicial opinions and legal briefs, i.e., it's not much more than what you could get through news.google.com, findlaw.com and 20 minutes of browsing time. All fluff and no substance. The satirical criticism of How Appalling is, in my opinion, spot-on.
So what, in response to an earlier reader's question, do I like to read in terms of real legal commentary?
At home I am quite the legal nerd, and my personal library includes books written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices Scalia and O'Connor, and one by Judge Posner that I haven't started yet. I also enjoy (yes, enjoy, I told you I'm a freakin' law nerd) reading what I'll call "practitioner literature", to improve my grasp of various litigation skills. In this category, understanding the law of evidence has always been a perennial favorite of mine because evidence pervades every stage of litigation, from discovery requests, to motions for summary judgment, to taking/defending depositions, all the way through to actual trials. And, you'd be surprised at how many veteran lawyers do not have a mastery of the law of evidence.
On-line I just don't have the time to devote as much intellectual energy to the law for amusement purposes as I'd like to, but I do like to peruse De Novo, The Curmudgeonly Clerk, Underneath Their Robes (tongue in cheek of course), Logos (the most underrated blawg on the web, with its superb coverage of 1st Amendment Establishment Clause issues), and f/k/a.
posted by The Uncivil Litigator at Monday, July 12, 2004
4 Comments:
Only one by Posner? For shame!
I mostly agree on How Appealing. I only check it now perhaps once a week, and I skip all of the news aggregation to skim the (few) appellate case discussions.
I admire your forthright opinion, but I don't entirely agree. While How Appealing doesn't consistently display the same degree of quality as when it first started (as How Appalling sometimes points out), I wouldn't put it in the fluff category. First, How Appealing offers the monthly 20 questions feature which is something completely unique and often very informative. I cannot ever remember seeing that degree of coverage of appellate judges and for that, the site is worthwhile. Second, even in its current form, for many judges and clerks as well as the media who cover the court system, How Appealing is probably an extremely useful aggregator of news. Finally, now that Howard Bashman has his own practice, he likely faces the same limitations on those of us bloggers who are not anonymous: striking a balance between putting out decent information and making interesting while at the same time taking care not to be so forthright in expressing our true opinions that we alienate prospective referrals or clients. Sure, it might be nice to hear Howard rant about the stupidity of this judicial decision or not (and I am quite certain that he has many well formulated insights) - but I realize that he may not be in a situation to do that.
Carolyn Elefant www.myshingle.com
Hi Carolyn! Your defense of Howard suggests that I was criticizing him personally, which I'm not. He is probably much busier than I am, and yet he finds the time to produce a far more interesting (to people other than myself) and professional-looking blog than I do. Then again, I'm not trying.
I admit his 20 Questions feature to be somewhat interesting, occasionally. I haven't read it in several months so I don't really know how it's been recently. Other than that, the fact that his blog is little more than an "aggregator of news" is exactly why I don't bother reading it. And I didn't express my opinion to suggest that other people should agree with it; this is just how I feel.
The questions for the last 20 questions were phoned in from previous sessions. No customization. But he's doing Easterbrook next month!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home