At some point someone should just namedrop the happysphere here.

If this site had a “Like” button, I’d be clicking it for Punchy.

Then I’d buy everyone a beer.

You are probably right. Ah, well.

As an impartial observer from another state who doesn’t know any of you folks: Lawyer 1 (Norm, I guess is his name) made a lapse of judgment in that his Twitter message could be misinterpreted. It was not intended to, nor did it, reveal client confidences. But it was obviously flippant, and could be misinterpreted.

Lawyer 2 (Mark, I guess) made a lapse of judgment too. He wanted to communicate about what he thought was a lapse in judgment based on the susceptibility to misinterpretation of Lawyer 1’s message. However, Lawyer 2 was a bit too clever in how he wrote his blog post. It didn’t come right out and say anything, it just had insinuating questions. This post included a full screen grab of the message, displaying Lawyer 1’s full name. So, instead of reading clearly as a comment on the the original message (Lawyer 1’s Twitter post), the blog post could be read as a comment on the original messenger (Lawyer 1 himself — his judgment and maybe even his ethics).

The they both started acting like children.

I don’t know how y’all do things in Texas, but here’s how we would man up about it where I come from:

Lawyer 2: Sorry about that, I may have given the impression I was trying to criticize you personally or professionally. I was just trying to comment on the issue of boundaries and judgment when lawyers talk about their cases on social media. I should have redacted your name.

Lawyer 1: Apology accepted. For what it’s worth, I agree with you that I should have either refrain from writing about my cases or only do so for good purpose after some careful thought.

[Everyone drinks beer.]

Pattis just forgot to say “allegedly.”

He’d probably have been better off leaving it at that.

Am I missing something? Under what circumstances, if any, would revealing that an (unnamed) client was sexually attracted to children be in that client’s interest? I mean, like, WTF?

Gentlemen,

I reject the notion that any “history” with Norm played any part in my original post. Norm is, I have said before, one of the smartest lawyers I’ve known; I’ve admired his acute intelligence and the passion he puts into his work for more than a decade.

My post was not about Norm, but about a single foolish and very public mistake he made. I would have written the same if it had been Greenfield or Tannebaum or any other lawyer I admire in his place. Had he been someone against whom I sought revenge, or had I for any other reason been trying to “cause him harm,” I would have at the very least used his name so that the post was more readily Googleable.

Does Norm’s reaction, including his assumption that I was getting revenge for some slight that only he remembers, belie his protestations that none of this matters too much?

Very well said, Brian.

Since Norm has decided to stop allowing my comments as they have become critical of his actions and his response to Mark’s criticism, I’ll post the comment I finally left to his post that was about me though it didn’t name me (apparently Norm also thinks I’m a woman).

“I will probably continue reading here because I enjoy much of what you have to say despite my increasing concern about your reaction to criticism from folks worth listening to and solicitation of adoration from folks, well, not so much.

I will no longer comment as you never saw any need to regulate the completely unrelated rantings in the comments section but were quick to stop allowing comments when they became critical of you personally.

One thing I will always agree with you about is that none of this matters too much and the politically incorrect maxim relating arguing on the Internet to competing in the special olympics is worth remembering. So, good bye, Norm. I hope the uncritical company of fools and conspiracy theorists keeps you well.

And you know my email address as well, but I’ve said my piece here. ”

As I conceded when he decided to publicly respond to my comment without publishing it, I probably wouldn’t have posted it either, but then I would not have handled this situation anywhere near as poorly as he has (again, conceding that we can all make stupid mistakes, me included).