.. Wendy & Windy . . .
.. Today is a travel day, with the f/k/a Gang facing strong winds and trying to stay ahead of a rain and snow storm that will be arriving very soon along the road from Rochester to Schenectady, NY. Two posts have dominated activity at this weblog during our visit home:
- Upset that f/k/a called him “whiny” and would not remove that word from our headline, and feeling that his positions were being distorted, lawyer Kurt Mausert spent much of the past few days assaulting the Editor (and even Scott Greenfield) instead of focusing on his campaign to become Family Court judge in Saratoga County, New York. You can judge for yourself whether the mud he is slinging at us repaired his image or not. update (Nov. 5, 2008): As we report here, Mausert was defeated by Judge Hall, receiving about 42% of the vote. afterwords (January 23, 2009): On January 2, 2009, Kurt Mausert left a comment to this post, and he wants to make sure you see what he has to say. You can click to go directly to his Jan. 2 comment.
- On a more pleasant front, the allure of lovely lawyer Wendy Savage brought an extra 2000 visitors a day to this site over the weekend. We hope all this attention will help sell the Beautiful Lawyers Calendar for the benefit of several public interest causes. Thank you Wendy (who left us a Comment below, plus links to more of her fashion photos), Google, Above the Law, and the FootballGuys.com Forum for all the referrals.
afterwords (Oct. 31, 2008): At Mass Lawyers Weekly‘s weblog, The Docket, Julia Reischel writes “15 Minutes of Beautiful Lawyer fame,” where she states a truth that’s plain to see: “Wendy Savage, the in-house insurance lawyer who graces the cover of the calendar, is really the one responsible for turning the product into an Internet phenomenon.” (Nov. 3, 2008): And, Bob Ambrogi posted “Mild-Mannered Blawger Gets Savage” today at Legal Blog Watch.
.. A year ago today, we featured a post on Richard Susskind’s book “The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the nature of legal services,” (Oxford University Press, 2008), and his End of Lawyers series at the London Times Online. The issues are still important and worth considering. So far, Susskind has not taken our advice to start his own weblog:
An urgent (if somewhat selfish) request to Richard Susskind: Please start a weblog and bring your insights and commentary about the Future of Lawyers to us every day. For the f/k/a Gang, it gets tiring being just about the only voice speaking realistically and consistently about the evolving market-and-digital revolution. Your presence is much needed, Richard. Frankly, within the American Bar and its weblawg community, the members who most pride themselves on being future-oriented and “proactive” (and their consultants and coaches) all paint a happy-face future, where they’ll use tactics such as law firm branding, value billing, and price sensitivity (along with a large dollop of psycho babble) to achieve premium pricing and increased income, in the face of marketplace realities, and at the expense of their clients (while, miraculously, satisfying them more, and somehow working fewer hours, freed from the hourly-billing bogeyman).
Take another look at our list of “signs to look for that will help determine whether the American bar is choosing to act like a guild protecting its own interests first, or like a learned profession seeking to best serve the public interest in creating a truly accessible and affordable legal system.”
update (1 PM): As discussed more fully in our prior posting, U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson issued a temporary injunction yesterday blocking enforcement of the parts of the new Missouri Halloween law that restrict the movement and behavior of registered sex offenders, because they are too vague and confusing to sex offenders and to those who would have to enforce the law. However, Judge Jackson would not block the sections requiring sex offenders to leave their outdoor lighting off during evening hours and post a sign at their home stating “no candy or treats at this residence.” See “Judge: Parts of law restricting sex offenders on Halloween will not be enforce” (Southeast Missourian, Oct. 28, 2008); “Rules limiting sex offenders on Halloween blocked” (Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2008); and “Judge Blocks Rules Limiting Sex Offenders on Halloween” (New York Times, Oct. 28, 2008)
Here are the poems we posted a year ago, by our Honored Guest Matt Morden:
halloween –
part of the moon
follows a bicycle home
harvest festival 
small fingers trace
a saint’s name in slate
post inspection
a bean-counter shakes
my cool hand
halloween
thousands of starlings
flux together
………………… by matt morden – Morden Haiku
A daily update from Susskind would be great! Have you heard back about it yet? Maybe Richard will hop on the bandwagon if enough fans get involved.
Comment by Tanner Christensen — October 28, 2008 @ 11:58 am
To the f/k/a crew,
I just want to thank you for the mentions and the kind words about the calendar (and my picture – those who know me say it is not a good picture of me, unfortunately said photo is all over the internet). Keep up the good work.
All the best
Comment by Wendy Savage — October 28, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Thank you for the support and the suggestion.
In the interim year, I have been finishing the book and have had not much time for anything else. It is to be published on 20th November. I am now turning my thinking to how best to keep my ideas in play, so I will give the weblog proposal some serious thought. All the best, Richard
Comment by Richard Susskind — October 28, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Wendy, It’s great hearing from you. Thank you for brightening the lives of many and playing such a large role in making the calendar a success. I hope all this attention will help launch that next phase in your career.
You must know that we/I (the Gang are my alter egos) would love to have a more representational photo of you, should you want to share a “good” one. See the About page for my email address, if you’d like to send one or tell me more about yourself and goals (for either private or public consumption). Very best wishes.
[See Comments 6 & 7 for further discussion with Wendy, including links to more fashion photos of Wendy; and see this post for two more photos sent by Wendy to f/k/a.]
Comment by David Giacalone — October 28, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
And, Richard, it is also a treat to hear from you. Good luck putting the book to bed, and please let me know if you do start a weblog, so that I can help spread the word.
Comment by David Giacalone — October 28, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
David,
For now, you can see other fashion photos at: http://www.zehrahyder.com (I am on the front page in the red dress); and
http://www.myredesigns.com/spring-summer-launch-party.html
They seem to love my left side…
Comment by Wendy Savage — October 28, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
And, so do we, Wendy — while being absolutely certain we’d feel the same about your right side. Many thanks for spicing up a dull, gray, wintry afternoon.
Comment by David Giacalone — October 28, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Completely off topic, but I thought of you when I read a story yesterday that Charlie Kaufman’s new movie has Synecdoche as (part of) its title.
Comment by Gideon — October 28, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
Hi, Gideon. If you see the movie, let me know your review. Of course, I wrote about it in the posting you dryly called “absolutely riveting” back in May, when the movie was at Cannes.
Comment by David Giacalone — October 28, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
I thought you did – I just didn’t look hard enough for it.
Comment by Gideon — October 29, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Gosh, Gid, I sure hope you don’t say that too often to judges or clients.
Comment by David Giacalone — October 29, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
[…] “15 minutes of Beautiful Lawyer fame” – Under a post regarding the many visitors who have logged onto the blog to view Savage, she wrote: “To the […]
Pingback by Julia Reischel - The Docket — October 31, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Dear David,
You are falsely portraying the facts and passing it off as journalism. While I didn’t like the “whiny” comment (complete with silly cartoon), I really objected to your blurring the issue of fairness by insisting on focusing on the distinction between trademark and copyright.
I also took issue with your seeming inability to debate the issue without resorting to name calling. Now you are showing your dishonesty by claiming that I spend “much of the past few days assaulting” you. I spent a few minutes of my time. You are not privy to my schedule and have no business portraying your conjecture as fact.
You claim to have been a lawyer. “Assault” is a term of art. Why are you misusing it? I challenged you to an honest debate without name calling. Is that what you consider an “assault”?
You have crossed a line in this blog and made false claims about me. I suggest you retract your allegations of “assault” and your description of how I spent my time (an issue you know little about).
If you continue in this pattern, you may find yourself in the area of defamation (depending on how far you go). You will like our discussion then even less than you like it now. You think I “frazzeled” you before? Keep going and I will redefine the word for you.
Kurt Mausert
Comment by kurt mausert — January 2, 2009 @ 11:04 am
PS–I see that you have gone from silly cartoon to scantily clad women. What journalistic standards to you claim to adhere to?
Comment by kurt mausert — January 2, 2009 @ 11:06 am