In most cases, when I blog about misconduct, whether it is police, prosecutor, or defense lawyer, I don’t include the offending party’s name in the post. Scott Greenfield says that if they aren’t worth naming, they probably aren’t worth writing about – this got me to thinking about why I write about any of it, and why I name some names and not others.
Writing about ethics opinions for me is much the same as writing about case law; reading appellate opinions and then breaking them down in a blog gives me an excuse to read appellate opinions and learn them – later I recall the holding of the opinion and sometimes the case name, when I am researching, in conversation, and on the fly in the courtroom.
Reading disciplinary opinions is not only about what an attorney did that is newsworthy, but it is about learning the ethics rules and seeing the conduct that gets attorneys disciplined. Some things are fairly obvious – don’t do drugs, don’t steal from your clients, for example. Others are closer to the imaginary line and bear learning about.
For me, writing about police misconduct is about doing my part to inform the public of the pervasiveness of it – the average sheep refuses to believe it unless they see it, and sometimes not even then.
What about the rest of it? Sometimes I’ll write about a topic because it’s relevant to what I do and it may attract the attention of a potential client – sometimes it is about marketing, although never completely. I struggle with the desire to write completely unaffected by the need to advertise (why I began trialtheory.com, with which I am constantly conflicted – should I move this blog to trial theory and combine them; should I move trial theory here and combine them; should I delete this blog and just use trial theory; should I maintain the status quo?) The need to advertise always creeps in.
Sometimes I write about a topic only because it is interesting, or humorous, and I want to share it. Sometimes it is about the free exchange of ideas, and improving the quality of legal representation across the board – when I find something that makes me a better lawyer or person I want to share it with other lawyers.
I used to name everyone when writing about police misconduct, without really thinking it through or considering the effect of placing someone’s name in a blog post. After I talked to a few officers whose names I had put on my blog, I had to rethink this and decided it was not necessary. The police officer that gets arrested for simple domestic violence or DUI is only discovering that he or she is human like the rest of us. Even the officers that are accused of heinous conduct are entitled to the presumption of innocence like the rest of us should be – I name these sometimes, and sometimes I do not. I am more likely to name an officer in a post when they are involved in conduct that involves an abuse of their authority.
It’s an evolving standard. Also, it doesn’t make a bit of difference to most of our readers, but it can make a huge difference to the person that we name.
