Yesterday was the start of the ABA’s Annual Meeting in Chicago. Bob Ambrogi reports that the Litigation Section will be blogging the highlights of the conference which gives me some reassurance that the ABA has entered the twenty first century.
Still, with so little buzz about the ABA on law related weblogs, I can’t help but wonder whether the ABA really serves any purpose any longer. The debates about John Roberts’ Supreme Court nomination have been thoroughly covered by bloggers that who even knows or cares whether the ABA has chimed in. And the bar has become increasingly specialized; those with niche practice areas are far better served by dedicated bar associations than somewhat costly ABA membership.
But even though the ABA doesn’t benefit my practice directly, that’s not to say that I wouldn’t consider attending a meeting if it could offer me some excitement. But the ABAin most cases still adheres rigidly to the lecture panels, where speakers talk, I listen, maybe have a chance to ask a question and leave with five sheets of paper with three talking points on each (and the law firm name and contact information, prominently displayed, of course!) In comparison to the Lexthink or Blogher conferences with their unique, informal formats and vibrance, the ABA conferences are just too dull to get me interested. Hint to the ABA – have Matt Homann organize a conference for you.
Then, there’s also the cost. Whereas Lexthink and Blogher both came in at $200 and $99 respectively, with meals included, the ABA conference costs $570 for a full day of prgrams or $295 apparently for a few programs. And I don’t believe that even includes meals. The ABA brass will claim that the meeting cost is worth it, and of course it is for them – ABA speakers are reimbursed for travel costs and conference expenses. Why can’t the ABA milk its willing sponsors for fees to subsidize meeting costs and make it more accessible for solo and small firm lawyers?
Which brings me to another point – the role that the ABA plays for solos and small firms. To its credit, the ABA does sponsor the Solosez listserve which has roughly 1200 members. But that’s just a small piece of the population of solos nationwide. I know that the readership at MyShingle exceeds the Solosez listserve membership and reaches a far broader scope. If the ABA had asked me what it could do to make itself more relevant to solos, in addition to lowering cost of attendance (see above), I’d have told it to have live blogging of all of the GP Solo sessions. I’d have paid a couple of solos to fly out to Chicago to attend the meeting and to blog their experience. I’d have invited blog vendors and had them cosponsor a blogging training, where lawyers could set up a weblog on the spot. Maybe podcasts as well.
Why all this focus on blogs? Sure I’m biased. But also because blogs are interactive and they’re live and they’re now! They make meetings and events relevant in real time. And more than anything else, that’s what the ABA needs now, to be relevant in real time. Otherwise, it’s going to wither away and frankly, neither lawyers nor non-lawyers will miss it very much.
Right on on the cost-benefit issue. There must be a better way of transmitting current information without the cash flow hit attending ABA conferences impose on solo lawyers. I’m not sure I want to pay the registration fee for the ABA GP Solo fall meeting in Boston–and that’s my home town!