Minnesota Litigator almost always publishes news and commentary about lawyers, judges, and their cases. Minnesota Litigator enjoys a First Amendment privilege. The lawyers and judges, on the other hand, have significant constraints on their speech if they disagree with a Minnesota Litigator post. They are at a huge disadvantage. They are virtually bound and gagged by the virtual “news and commentary.”
So, for example, when Minnesota Litigator tears into a lawyer for gross incompetence, his repugnant venality, or her on-and-off friends-with-benefits relationship with veracity (I am joking, I would never do that) (or would I?)(or have I?), the unfortunate recipients of criticism might be put in a difficult and unfair spot.
I understand that. I hope that my posts adequately recognize there might be “two (or more than two) sides to the story” (which, by the way, is not always the case). I also do my best not to use hyperbolic and florid language like “repugnant venality.” I try to soften my sentiment, saying things like “perhaps an unseemly appearance of avarice.”
Even so, how am I to know if I have made a mis-step? If lawyers and judges cannot fight back or respond to criticism (subtle or direct), how will I know? How will readers know?
I count on excellent and insightful readers who call me out, like preeminent Minnesota trial lawyer, Charles Jones (who took me to task here). Charles is one of several commenters who have helped balance posts from time to time (here is another). PLEASE KEEP THE COMMENTS COMING. KEEP ME HONEST. CHALLENGE ME. DISSENT.
But this is not enough. I also do perform quality control on Minnesota Litigator’s own posts.
So, for example, I noted an anomalous large spike in site visits last week on the day of my update on Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Money Centers of America. This caused me to worry/wonder if perhaps I had said something over-critical or incorrect, or inaccurate in the post.
On re-review (“quality control”) of the Mille Lacs Band’s update to U.S. Mag. Judge Leo Brisbois (D. Minn.) I noted Plaintiff’s reference to “a settlement with the Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians stipulating to the release of garnished funds of MCA held at TD Bank and Bank of America.”
Maybe, I wondered, my post erroneously suggested that the Plaintiff’s multi-year effort to recover millions of dollars was in vain?
So I did some further digging as part of my QC.
[Who knows? Maybe the unprecedented spike in traffic on 10/1/14 on Minnesota Litigator had to do with my comments on the boundaries of “voir dire,” posted that same day. Maybe it was some kind of server snafu in Outer Mongolia or a really half-hearted DNS attack. Whatever. The point is that I hope readers recognize that I am often opinionated but I always try to be fair. If it seems otherwise, I hope readers will do their part and call me out.]