You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

October 10, 2005

have gavel, will travel

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 11:20 pm

Have court, will cavort.   My first-time-visit weblog of the week

is Have Opinion, Will Travel.  Naturally, I found it perusing today’s 

Blawg Review #27, at Lisa Stone’s Inside Opinions  

 

mjudge  HOWT‘s anonymous proprietor gives the impression of

being a jurist, but I can’t vouch for that. I can, however, vouch for his

fine-tuned sense of what is fun and interesting (at least to fossils in

my age cohort).  There’s also enough meat there for those who insist

on serious content at a weblog.  I plan to revisit a discussion on how 

public judicial discipline hearings should be, a topic occasionally on

the troubled mind of ethicalEsq and of our friends at HALT.

 

                                                                                bigger   RumpoleG 

 

In a post titled What Would Rumpole Say?, HOWT informed  

us that UK defense lawyers were about to engage in a

walkout, to protest the failure to receive legal aid fee hikes

since 1997 for criminal trials that last less than 10 days.

Last year, your Editor confessed to enjoying an audio book

involving the beloved and crusty Rumpole, noting he was

an “indigent defense lawyer who takes every case.”  Of

course, that was in the context of the Massachusetts

Bar Advocate boycotts — a subject that has given me

more than enough agita for this Century, thank you. Let’s

hope some ethics-minded barrister will take up the cause

over in Britain. 

 

If you haven’t discovered Have Opinion, Will Travel yet,

get over there and give it a look.

 

 

gavel neg  Since we mentioned Blawg Review above,

and Lisa Stone, and having opinions, I should probably

say something about the new arrangement making Blawg

Review part of the Law.com Weblog Network.  Although

my initial reaction is not extremely negative (like that of

Colin Samuel), I’m not certain that there will be much

effect where it counts — actually resulting in more click-

throughs and new readers at the featured weblogs, and

not just bringing more people to glancce at the weekly

compilation of legal weblog posts.  Only time will tell.

On one score though I do have an instant opinion:


That big, ugly Law.com ad box, which is required   “soldsign”

of all Network members, can be found in the Sidebar

or Margin of prior members.  It may indeed be a bit

less obtrusive at Blawg Review, where it is placed 

after the introductory post.  Nonetheless, invading the

body of the weblog seems to make it — on principle — 

more obnoxious.  Sorry, “Ed,” I know you tried. (see



 

 

 

while selling his dumplings
and such…
blossom viewing

 






morning frost–
yet still a child
sells flowers

 

 

 

  translated by David G. Lanoue   

 

                                                                                     “soldSignN”

 

 

2 Comments

  1. I wouldn’t really call my reaction to the Blawg Review alliance with Law.com “negative”; my comments were meant sarcastically more so than as criticism. I would say that I’m ambivalent about the connection of Blawg Review to the Law.com network (their sites seem worthwhile on the whole) and that I’m dubious about how much traffic this will drive to the host each week. Perhaps this ongoing relationship will push more readers to each week’s issue consistently throughout the week, rather than in a spike, like the referrals from other blogs (including my own) do each Monday. Perhaps it will have no effect. Whatever the practical effect of the change, I think it’s indisputably positively in at least one respect — it reflects a clear recognition of the quality of Blawg Review and the amzing efforts of the mysterious, anonymous Editor and his/her cohorts on the editorial team over the past several months. My congratultions go out to them!

    Comment by Colin Samuels — October 12, 2005 @ 9:48 pm

  2. I wouldn’t really call my reaction to the Blawg Review alliance with Law.com “negative”; my comments were meant sarcastically more so than as criticism. I would say that I’m ambivalent about the connection of Blawg Review to the Law.com network (their sites seem worthwhile on the whole) and that I’m dubious about how much traffic this will drive to the host each week. Perhaps this ongoing relationship will push more readers to each week’s issue consistently throughout the week, rather than in a spike, like the referrals from other blogs (including my own) do each Monday. Perhaps it will have no effect. Whatever the practical effect of the change, I think it’s indisputably positively in at least one respect — it reflects a clear recognition of the quality of Blawg Review and the amzing efforts of the mysterious, anonymous Editor and his/her cohorts on the editorial team over the past several months. My congratultions go out to them!

    Comment by Colin Samuels — October 12, 2005 @ 9:48 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress