Legal Writing

Why Wegener?

So I get this unexpected phone call, and the voice that inspired it starts giving me grief about yesterday’s post.

“What’s your problem with Mr. Wegener?”

To my ear, that’s like asking if Antonin Scalia has a problem with John Paul Stevens because he criticizes Stevens lack of understanding of the law in McDonald v. Chicago, or if Stevens has a problem with Scalia because of his criticism of Scalia’s reasoning in District of Columbia v. Heller.

I say, that’s like asking the folks at Rolling Stone what they’ve got against General McChrystal.

It’s like asking if Roger Ebert has a problem with some producer or director when he pans a film.

It’s like . . . suppose Wegener is litigating some matter and opposing counsel writes a brief declaring that Wegener doesn’t understand the law . . . . Does opposing counsel have a problem with Wegener?

I say the question shows a lack of understanding of critical analysis.

______
Why did Wegener write that piece and why did Fredrikson & Byron publish it? So that people wouldn’t read it and talk it about it?

I don’t think so. I think Wegener wanted us to read what he wrote, and he wanted us to talk about it.

And I don’t think there’s anything immoral or impolite about engaging in critical analysis.

Do you?

______
I don’t have a problem with Wegener, a man I don’t know except for what he’s written and what his firm has written about him.

The reason yesterday’s post focused on Wegener is because he’s such a rich source of examples why attorneys –  those who’ve taken to writing things (promotional pieces) to promote themselves — should do what the pros do: have an editor review what they’ve written before it’s published.

To me, that’s as basic as making sure a paragraph deals with one topic, and one topic only — the stuff of 8th-grade English.

Full post as published by Set in Style on June 30, 2010 (boomark / email).