The One Comment That Got To Me

No, not those comments. I've been the subject of negative comments in print and online for longer than any social media hack has been working from home after their failed law career. I'm not talking about the anonymous online comments. Those generate laughter and some eye rolls, but I'm lucky enough to have been the brunt of hatred ever since I opened my big mouth in college. It rolls off me like another article about how the way I practice law is dead and I must get on the train of a total virtual practice or I will die.

I'm talking about a comment I heard from a lawyer. A lawyer I've been a friend to, a lawyer I've advised, counseled, and helped do some things. This lawyer has become successful in their own right, both professionally and politically, and never fails to say thank you. I like this lawyer, and I'm glad this lawyer is doing well.

So the lawyer tells me that some lawyer asked whether my friend really believed that I helped them out of unselfish motives. There of course had to be some motive, it couldn't be just...that...I like this lawyer and was there for the advice.

I've been dealing with this for my entire career. From the first time I joined a Bar association, went on the board, ran for office, ran for another office, on another board, in another association, the lawyers whose entire practice is the walk from their car to the courthouse and back to car to go home, have always believed that lawyers like me only get involved in things, in other people's campaigns and efforts, out of an ulterior motive.

And that motive is?

To become a judge.

Of course.

This is understandable. There are plenty of lawyers who climb the ladder of bar associations and other organizations with the goal in mind of wearing the robe.

But it's never been mine. No, I'm sorry to disappoint, sorry to shock the world, but my motive has never been to make $142,000 a year, sitting on a bench everyday saying "denied," "granted," "next case," and hoping every 6 years that no one runs against me and takes my job.

Nope, I've never applied for an appointment, never filed to run, never told anyone I was interested.

Actually, about 10 years ago there was an article in the paper about a (failed) effort I was trying to start to have every local bar association pass a resolution banning judicial candidates from joining their organization. I would see the parade of otherwise socially inept judges all of a sudden becoming members of this and that association during their campaign. I wanted it stopped. The associations wouldn't touch it.

I'm 42, I love practicing law. I love a new client, I love writing motions, I love negotiating. I love the fact that my income depends on me, and isn't the same amount no matter what I do. I love that every day is different.

But the morons out there can't see that. No way, I must want to be a judge - why else would I help people, plan CLE events, advocate for changes in the law?

Why must it be that the only reason people get involved in their profession is to leave it and go do something else, like judging?

Yeah, maybe in 15, 20 years I'll change my mind, but no time soon, and it won't have anything to do with the things I've done in bar associations or charities.

I do these things because I like to do them, because I value relationships, because with the people I get to know and work with, I don't have to rely on my twitter account or other website to bring me clients.

What I have realized though, is the same people who will never imagine that there are lawyers out there that just enjoy getting involved in their profession, are the same people who think the only reason to blog is for business. These are the same people who have the robotic script: "I see you have a blog, you get business from it?"

The perception is not limited to any one thing, it's a general perception among desperate and unhappy lawyers that those who don't spend their days banging their head against the wall trying to drum up business and instead are doing other things, can only be doing them with ulterior motives.

So to you, the asshole that asked my friend that question, yes I know you read my blog, I know you read it, hate it, but secretly wonder if you could do the same thing. To you, the one who asked that question wondering if you could get the same advice and counsel from me, wondering if there was something you could hang your hat on to say "AH-HA," it's not there. You've reached a dead end.

And I hope you have a good mirror.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Off Topic: Some Thoughts For Online Wine Merchants About Consumers

Do online wine merchants know how consumers buy wine? I'm not talking about the occasional buyer who doesn't know that Caymus Special Select is $99 everywhere and therefore hyping that you are selling Caymus Special Select for $99 instead of $119 is irrelevant. I'm talking about the person who buys wine on a monthly basis that equals a car payment or two.

Every day I receive a half dozen emails about wine deals. Many are becoming a joke. For those that wonder what matters to frequent online purchasers of wine, here goes:

[1] I'm done with Parker score v. price.

"92 rated Spanish gem for under $19." That's how the subjects fly in on email.

I don't care. If the wine was so great, why is there enough left that it's now on sale on a website? I know, there's a lot of it. That's also a problem. I can probably get it locally for the same price and not have to wait or pay shipping. Which leads me to...

[2} Shipping.

Shipping is either free or not. "Discounted" shipping is a joke. Either charge me or don't. I don't want to buy 12 bottles, I want 3 or 4, so I'm not interested in saving $5 on shipping because I buy more wine. Free shipping is attractive and can be the determinative factor in a purchase. There is a psychology of wine buyers that they will be less concerned about price in favor of free shipping.

[3] A discount is not $6.

I'm going to jump on a deal where the $33 wine is now $27? Really? No. If it's not 30% or more off, I'm not interested.

[4] If you have a website, there are certain things I'm going to look for to determine your pricing.

The first thing I want to see is if you have Caymus (and Caymus Special Select as I mentioned above). Caymus is $59 at a good discount place. Those of you selling it for $79 should apologize.

I also look for things like Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc (it's $12-$15, not $19), D'Arenberg Stump Jump (not a wine I drink, but $9 at most), and Insignia ($129-$149, not $169).

[5] Stories about the winemaker and vineyard are interesting, but...

Some of them are waaaayyyy too long, and only end with the bad news that the $27 wine is now $22. Nope.

[6] You miss an opportunity every time you send wine.

I buy the wine. I open the box. What's inside? The wine, in the box. No letter of thanks? No catalog? No coupon for my next purchase? No extra bottle of something I may like? (obviously only for people who spend good money and would be a good return customer.)

What are you saying about your business if when you sell a product all the consumer gets is the product and no sense that coming back may be a good idea or that the owner values your return?

[7] Do not put me on your mailing list, unless I asked.

I ordered wine from you, not an email a day for the rest of my life. How about an email that says "thanks," and "let us know if you want to hear more great offers." Ask if you can intrude into my life, don't intrude and then tell me I can unsubscribe.

[8] Get personal, if you can.

I just bought a case of Oregon Pinot from you. What does that tell you? You don't know. You do know that the 2009 California Pinots are outstanding. Would it kill you to send a personal email suggesting a couple?

[9] We check cellartracker, for specific reasons

If no one has rated this wine, it probably sucks, unless it's brand new.

If it's rated 90 or above with 2 user ratings, I don't care.

If 14 people rated it an average of 92.5, it's probably good stuff.

And of course, we're also clicking over to wine-searcher.com to check prices.

By the way, some of this stuff applies to lawyering, but I really just wanted to talk about wine.

I'm done now.

Non-anonymous comments welcome. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

A Special Comment On The Departure Of Keith Olbermann From MSNBC

I don't know why Keith Olbermann left MSNBC. I would like to think it's because he told the wrong person to fuck off, or that he pulled the chair out from under some network executive, but whatever the reason, Countdown is gone.

I was a fan of Olbermann and of Countdown. I was a fan when sports reporting was his full time vocation and I always believed his show was one of the best written political shows on television.

Political television has become the fabric of our political discourse. We don't refer to these shows by their names, rather, "Olbermann, or O'Reilly," or "Beck."

The popularity of political television is not based on music, or graphics or other technology, it's simply based on the point of view of the host.

And Olbermann, like O'Reilly, and Beck, had a point of view.

As we ponder the state of our political discourse in the wake of the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, political television is at the center of the conversation.

The real problem is not the highly opinionated hosts, but us. We are an embarrassment, for several reasons.

One, we are unable to listen to anyone with an opinion that differs from ours. Anytime I mentioned Olbermann to a conservative I heard the same talking point: "How can you watch that?" "How can you watch MSNBC?"

I watched Olbermann not because I agreed with everything he said, but because I appreciated the writing, the commentary, the humor. I appreciated the fact that he had an opinion, all his own, developed from his view of the world, and not what someone else told him to think.

And yes, I also watch O'Reilly, Maddow, Huckabee, Matthews, Scarborough (who I note is a conservative on liberal MSNBC who often has MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan on as a panelist), and sometimes Beck (who I will admit is somewhat of a nut. I think he was normal once, but then he got mad about something and hasn't been the same since.) I watch these shows, and form my own opinions. Some entertain me, some make me think. None are the sole source of information which causes me to form my opinions on any topic.

Our inability to listen to those with a contrasting point of view is our shame. It is no surprise though. We live in a world where we only want to be around people who agree with us, and people who will tell us how great we are. We run from those that disagree, and form opinions based on what information to which we choose to listen.

Our nasty, violent political discourse is not based on the opinions of those in political television, it is based on our inability to listen - just listen - to those with other points of view.

We've now lost one of those points of view, for a little while I presume. I predict we'll see Olbermann soon, somewhere else, maybe radio, maybe TV.

There are those that are thrilled that Olbermann is gone. They will tell you various reasons why they are happy. But the real reason is clear:

They didn't agree with him.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.