{"id":3673,"date":"2005-03-11T21:36:20","date_gmt":"2005-03-12T01:36:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/03\/11\/decloaking-the-nameless-assoc"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:54","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:54","slug":"decloaking-the-nameless-associates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/03\/11\/decloaking-the-nameless-associates\/","title":{"rendered":"decloaking the nameless associates"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

The week, <\/FONT>Dennis Kennedy<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT>Carolyn Elefant<\/FONT><\/A>, <\/FONT>Bruce MacEwen<\/FONT><\/A> and others have decried  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
law firms that are removing information about associates<\/A><\/FONT> from their websites  — e.g.<\/EM>, any<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
biographical and contact information.  Well, why don’t we webloggers do<\/EM> something about it?  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Don’t we have these high-tech pulpits, bulletin boards, file cabinets?  Don’t we get some pretty <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
snazzy search engine results?<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
    \"contactUsN\"<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Seems to me, we could use weblog-power to undo the undue depersonalization of associates.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
We could post lists of the associates working at the various offending law firms, including as<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
much information as we can get about each lawyer.  Then, search engines would find the info <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and make it available to those wanting to identify the lawyers at a particular firm, or wanting<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to contact a particular associate, or one with particular areas of expertise.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Naturally, the anonymized associates would be expected to get this information,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(in as complete, up to date and usable form as possible) to their favorite weblog editors.  If<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the nameless ones can’t be bothered, or can’t figure out how to do this, maybe being merely<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Ms. or Mr. X, Esq is all the identification they merit.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
I know this wall scribbler’s
name…
autumn dusk<\/FONT>     <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
  <\/FONT>  <\/FONT>ISSA<\/FONT><\/A>, translated by <\/FONT>David G. Lanoue<\/FONT><\/A><\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
update<\/STRONG><\/FONT> (March 14, 2005):<\/EM> Kevin Heller at <\/FONT><\/FONT>TechLawAdvisor<\/EM> has offered<\/FONT><\/A> his website as a platform for “decloaking” <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>associates <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>who have been “disappeared” by their law firm websites<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  #200,000<\/EM>:  Meanwhile, one new associate in California has found herself in the media    \"dVittitoe\"<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
spotlight, and is far from anonymous —  <\/FONT>Danika Vittitoe<\/FONT><\/A>, a 2004 graduate of UC’s Hastings College <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of the Law, in San Francisco, works in the litigation department at Arnold & Porter in Los Angeles. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
No, she’s not famous for any big mistakes or scandals.  On Jan. 11, 2004, she was enrolled as<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Attorney No. 200,000, by the State Bar.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (Feb. 21,<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
2005), Ms. Vittitoe described her status as No. 200,000 as being “‘a little embarrassing,” but “said <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
there’s nothing wrong with being a lawyer.”  [rousing endorsement, eh?] <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n