"Anonymous 1:50PM" Ironically Demands to Know True Identity of Lawyer Blogger - "Legally UnBound"

So I guess there has been some hullabalou about who I am. I write with a PenName. I don’t need any crazy people coming to my house to shoot my dog or trying to ruin my reputation because they didn’t know I had these opinions & how can someone in my position think like this. Besides, the truth is, if people knew who I was, I would either be black-balled out of Vegas OR I would generate a huge blind following because of who I am. Neither is the goal here. People need to think for them selves, not let “my” reputation form their opinions. I just like to write and voice my opinions. Who cares? Obviously this person just wants to know who I am.

I think this person has given us the first important point to make in identifying a foundational problem we have in the legal community, likely everywhere, certainly in Vegas. This Anonymous poster commented:

Anonymous said...
In the interests of "Investigating" as you say on your blog, I would like to know your Bar Number. Otherwise, evidence would indicate that you are not an attorney.
June 3, 2009 1:50 PM

Here is what I would counsel “Anonymous 1:50 pm”. First, get back to work, you should be billing right now. The biggest waste for firm production is Internet usage. JK.

Wouldn't you like to know my birth name Anonymous 1:50pm...I doubt my PenName has a bar number, so you were probably confused. But, he is very real. I would know, since I am him. It is interesting, you know, to be a guy. People treat you differently.

So, the point you bring up typifies what Legally UnBound is trying to point out as a foundational problem in the legal profession. We are fast losing the ability to think for ourselves, even after thorough analysis and experience in law school. Instead, once we get a piece of information we have to “IDENTIFY THE SOURCE & ITS REPUTATION. Then, we have one of two general reactions:

1. Identify them as lacking once having had a chance to confer with friends & colleagues. The discounting of everything they say comes easy now and you don’t have to waste any time on the information because you were able to do DEEP RESEARCH--heard it from someone that said that they are this or that or not one of us or who cares. So, you disagree without even addressing, researching or thinking about any points. If discussion occurs with the entity it is only to disprove, so you can maintain your place amongst those that you think so highly of. This is the actions of a “goal-oriented thinker.” That person thinks of what his opinion should be and sets a goal to keep it in place, defending his usually newly learned thoughts. This decision could have gone the other way just as easily, if it fit into the goals. Sometimes these goals are old as molasses, those are near impossible to change. This thinker is the opposite of a “free-thinker.”

2. Identify them as a superior source, either by reputation, office or accomplishment. I have no idea whether I agree with the issues, but it does not matter, because I trust the person’s position to not let me down. I mean, how could they have gone to such good schools, and done so well if they don’t know what they are talking about. So we agree. This may be done after having had a chance to confer with friends and colleagues, usually looking to someone you feel is smarter than you. Worst of all, this acceptance is done so without taking the time to digest what anyone has said at all on either side of the issue. You have simply picked a team, as arbitrary as sports. There was no attention to the words used, no studying it, no understanding it and certainly no decision on your own opinion. Well, you did make one decision…who is more acceptable to think like? These are the actions of a “hog-tied thinker”. Again, this decision could easily go either way, because it depends on the people that you value, not the content in question. For example, the clerk values the judge over the Courtroom (usually adopting his thinking), the associate values the partner of the firm (usually adopting his thinking), the Midshipman values the Captain of the ship (usually adopting his thinking) and the consigliore values the Capo dei capi of the Mob (Italian for “Boss of Bosses”) (usually adopting his thinking). It is always the same.

There are far too many psychological, logical and analytical errors in both of these thought patterns, but in my opinion, these are the two prevalent moves we make, ONCE WE IDENTIFY THE SOURCE and ITS REPUTATION.

Oft times, People are more concerned about "who" someone is (the source), instead of what was said (the content). Truth is truth no matter who said it. Dirt is dirt no matter if Emeril puts his best gravy on it and you sop it up with a $1,000.00 biscuit. Nothing changes the content to be more or less true. But the Source can change your perception of the Concept’s truth. It is a dead give away when someone, in the name of “discussion” or “debate”, attacks or insults your reputation, experience or physical appearance. It is all the poor sap has to go on. They have no idea what they are talking about (other than rehearsed and reread lines) because they have no idea how they think about it. So when the insults get personal (i.e. anything other than the opinions and thoughts as stated, ‘cause you can always cap on how someone thinks, if well reasoned), the conversation should really end. That way, you permit insulting debates on ideas and facts only, not on reputation, rumors, physical appearance, etc.

If you really wanna get ahead, you are gonna have to think for yourselves. You have to analyze the info, decide what you think inside, and derive an opinion, a real live one with your own justifications, even if you are wrong. If you get what I’m sayin’, you’ll understand that some pithy comment on a blog or on twitter doesn’t qualify as a well reasoned opinion. But it could qualify for truth. I hope you get that and pursue both. Just know, that if you do pursue both, you are the minority in the legal profession.

So who cares about the identity or WHO is the SOURCE of a writing; you should be concerned with understanding WHAT is being said and what you think about it.

For those of you not from around here, it is funny, 'cause this demand to "know who someone is" is SOOO Vegas. I can always tell someone from Vegas, because if you disagree or demonstrate an opposing view, they immediately want to know who you are and where you are from. If you walk into Court and you are from California and opposing counsel knows it, chances are that in the next 3 minutes the word "carpetbagger" or “California Counsel” will come out of Las Vegas counsel's mouth, even though LV Counsel only moved here 5 years ago from California.

So, you see, if I give you anything other than my PenName, I expect your next move will be to circulate my name, if you hadn't heard of me already and ask your people about my reputation. That way, you can claim that you “know who I am”. You will then draw certain conclusions about me from what you and your people have heard from still more and other people, some of whom I likely beat down in Court. Thereby, now you will "think" you know me, never having met me or read a word of my work, let alone seen me in action in a Courtroom. The worst thing I would want is for you to trust what I say because I’m Mr. Big Pants at a large Las Vegas firm. That does not make me right, well not all the time, anyway. That's Vegas Law Baby!!!

We are a legal society of "reliers" “relators” and “regurgitators”. We are lazy, we want quick answers to complex questions, even ones that take years of hard work and success upon failure to develop an accurate answer. We don't think for ourselves for fear of pissing off someone who is connected to someone else that may have too much juice to jam up our reputation. We don’t want any part of that mess.

So, no, I will not be providing my attorney bar number. Kael does not have any more balls than me, he just has less to lose than me. If unbiased judges existed, it would be a non-issue. Oh, Kael's bar number is -1211.

Since I am Kael, I am an attorney. I will tell you that I practice in Clark County Nevada. This guessing game will grow very boring very quickly, because it is not why I'm here. It is not why I write. I've already blasted most all of the people (i.e. attorneys, judges, commissioners, etc.) that I appear with or in front of, (in person) when they have lied, back dated orders, altered opinions, mishandled procedure, made up procedural rules that don’t exist, stolen money from the less fortunate, confirmed abusive arrangements, covered up their judicial errors to be able to look good in front of their peers and the electorate, and on and on. I don’t tolerate it well, so I'm popular to a few and likely only in their head.

Glad to see you checking on me to see if I am a liar before I have said anything remotely interesting on this blog. Who cares if what I say is actually true, right Chief?!? This is the last statement on the issue of who I am, then there is nothing more to say. I have been practicing in this town long enough to know that it doesn't matter how long you practice in this town, it matters more what judge you know and what judge you have on your case, what court you’re in and how you treat the staff, what opposing counsel you are against and the temperature of his ethics & what kind of a son of a gun is on the other side and can he out spend your client. Who cares about the law and the facts. I can assess any case by knowing the first 4 things. The next 2 only provide interesting probabilities.

Edited 6-8-09
As stated by outed Blogger Jonathan Adler (aka "Juan Non-Volokh")
"[T]he more acceptable it is to expose the identities of pseudonymous bloggers, the more potentially valuable voices the blogosphere will lose. Whatever is to be gained by chastening the intemperate pseudonymous blogger is outweighed by what is likely to be lost."
(See http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1244411084.shtml ).

The value of blogging is in the information. Blogging is the voice of the voiceless. Thus, exposure will serve to only silence us. Once again, it is likely that those with the power will seek to shut us up, instead of debate us.

Edited 6-9-09
Take the chance to review this commentary on pseudonymous vs. anonymous bloggers. Very well thought out & right...
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/outing-publius.html

Edited 6-15-09
My thoughts are similarly in line with Ken @ Popehat.com. Most well stated to date. (Click HERE).
..