The long-debated issue of whether or not my blog should be on my resume has been resolved in favor of including it. Maybe it wasn't so much the case a few years ago, but at this point in history more people have heard of blogs, and more people are aware of the existence and credibility of legal blogs. So I chose to advertise my own, because I am proud of it and because I think it demonstrates integrity to stand by the things I write. If I left it off the resume I'd have to presume employers would still find it by googling, at which point they could easily feel I was being deceptive by not having mentioned it. I wish to make it readily clear that I take my blogging very seriously and that I'm not at all afraid for them to discover it. I welcome readers of all stripes…
More troubling is whether I can continue to blog and become a member of the New York Bar. This is of significant enough concern that I've thought about not getting sworn in (should I pass the exam) until this issue is resolved (lest I become immediately disbarred…). The issue: that New York wants to treat lawyer blogs like lawyer advertisements and subject them to the same regulations. Some people think this is no big deal. Just throw up a disclaimer (the wisdom of itself being subject to debate) and leave it at that.
Ignoring for a moment the strong policy and free speech problems with a rule like that proposed in New York, the other problem is that it's not so simple to merely throw up a disclaimer and be done with it. New York has stringent archival and registration requirements for lawyer advertisements. Every ad must be filed with the state and retained for at least a year since its distribution. Imagine what that means for regular bloggers! Indeed, would the state even be able to cope with the avalanche of print-outs generated from the regularly-blogging lawyer? Assuming, of course, that the lawyer wasn't completely turned off from blogging as a result of the obligatory hassle.
The normative problems are the most troubling, however. One reason why I doggedly pursue a path of openly and proudly including my blogging as part of my legal career path is because it was part and parcel of what I hoped to achieve by entering this field in the first place. Going to law school was about more than the practice of law - it was about enhancing my civic participation. Both the pursuit of the practice and the blogging advance that goal. A noble goal, dare I say, and one we should encourage more people - including lawyers - to actively pursue. Indeed it would enhance the esteem of the profession if the public at large believed that lawyers were really looking out for the greater good.
So when they attempt to, through projects like blogging, they should be encouraged, not inhibited. The more rarified the profession, the less credibility it has to the wider citizenry. Which seems to be the very thing the ethics rules are designed to minimize - the ability for lawyers to wield power over the public through the myth of their authority. Legal blogging has the power to even the playing field, by making the practice and institution of law accessible and understandable to people without the particular training. That result is highly desirable and should not be squelched through the misplaced zeal to regulate.