{"id":7259,"date":"2006-12-02T23:00:08","date_gmt":"2006-12-03T04:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/12\/03\/lawyers-sentenced-to-haiku-purgato"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:53","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:53","slug":"lawyers-sentenced-to-haiku-purgatory-without-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/12\/02\/lawyers-sentenced-to-haiku-purgatory-without-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"lawyers sentenced to haiku purgatory, without appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

update <\/strong><\/em>(Dec. 6, 2006): Motion to Reconsider r<\/em>eceived – see below \"Alamo\"<\/p>\n

Early this afternoon, I discovered that Colin Samuels, of the Infamy or Praise<\/a><\/em> weblog, would be hosting Monday’s edition<\/a> of Blawg Review<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 BR<\/em> is a traveling compilation of the (purported) best offerings from law\/lawyer-oriented weblogs over the past week; such weblogs have been damnably<\/a> dubbed\u00a0“blawgs”.\u00a0\u00a0In his preview of\u00a0Blawg Review #86<\/em>, Colin warned us<\/a> that “This edition will be based upon the second cantica of Dante’s Divine Comedy<\/em>, Purgatorio<\/em><\/a>.<\/span>”<\/p>\n

Frankly, your Editor does not particularly like theme-based Blawg Reviews<\/em>, and doesn’t believe in Purgatory, but he does indeed believe in both serendipity and duty.\u00a0 It seems, therefore, that fate has condemned me to write this lengthy weblog piece on a Saturday night (instead of reading my advanced copy of Robert North Patterson’s very interesting novel Exile<\/a><\/em>).\u00a0 And, as an avid advocate of “real” haiku, I must make righteous judgment — as explained below — about the\u00a0Texas Bar’s\u00a0so-called “Appellate Haiku Contest<\/em>,” consigning\u00a0its perpetrators to the appropriate ring of Dante’s Purgatorio.<\/p>\n

\"devilG\" As you\u00a0probably know, purgatory<\/a> is, according to Roman Catholic teaching,\u00a0“the condition of souls of the dead who die with some punishment (though not damnation) due them for their sins. Purgatory is conceived as a condition of suffering and purification that leads to union with God in heaven.” (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, 2005)<\/p>\n

Although written in prose, rather than epic poetry, this posting tells of my own journey into the dark realm of Haiku Purgatory<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I<\/strong>mmediately after reading about the upcoming BR#86 <\/em>(and based on a\u00a0pointer<\/a> from Robert Ambrogi), I found myself scrolling down the 78-page pdf. version of the\u00a0The Appellate Advocate (Summer 2006)<\/em><\/a>, which is a publication of the Texas Bar\u00a0Appellate Section<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 However, I never got to the intended article, “Legalese in the Age of IM<\/em>,” by Roger W. Hughes.\u00a0 Instead, my progress was stopped dead in its tracks on page 2, which was captioned, in large bold print, “Calling All Appellate Haiku Poets!<\/strong>” and which began with the words:<\/p>\n

“The Appellate Section is pleased to announce its second Appellate Haiku Contest. A haiku is a Japanese poem of three lines, containing five, seven, and five syllables, respectively.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The announcement then gave a number of [so-called] sample haiku, which were “winners” from their First Appellate Haiku Contest<\/a> in 2004.\u00a0\u00a0 Here are two of the “haiku” winners:<\/p>\n

No reason no word
\nlike a migratory bird
\nyour case is transferred<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

Tarzan, J., concurs:\u00a0 \"devilR\"
\nResult good; reasoning bad
\nAh-o-wah-o-wah<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Barely avoiding a heart attack or stroke, I continued reading, and encountered the Contest Rules, the first of which was: “All entries must comply with the structural requirements of a Haiku (3 lines, 5-7-5 syllables), and the content must relate in some loose fashion to appellate law, appellate courts, or the appellate community.” (Although you can find the results of the 2006 contest here<\/a>, I must strongly caution against the viewing of them by the highly impressionable or the lover of genuine haiku.)<\/p>\n

F<\/strong>ans of this weblog know two things about its Editor and his many alter egos: 1) we believe that “Lawyers and Haiku<\/a>” should<\/em> go together very well; and 2) we are staunch champions of “genuine haiku,” and loathe the pseudo-haiku that is so rampant throughout the internet, and much of American society.<\/p>\n

As confessed last year in the posting is it or ain’t it haiku<\/em>?<\/strong><\/a>,<\/strong> “I\u2019m always in anguish when I see the term \u201chaiku\u201d misused\/abused by applying it to verse that don\u2019t fit even the broadest definitions of the genre.” . . . [Here are two relevant Definitions:]<\/p>\n

\"podium\" Quick Definition of Haiku<\/em>:\u00a0 Haiku is an unrhymed\u00a0\u201cone-breath\u201d poem (no more than 17 syllables) that relates nature to human nature, and usually compares or contrasts a pair of images, which are separated by a pause.\u00a0 At its best, haiku lets the reader share in the poet\u2019s \u201chaiku moment\u201d — a moment of insight or awe.<\/p>\n

Quick Definition of Senryu<\/em>:\u00a0 Senryu is a short poem similar in structure to haiku but featuring ironic, humorous and\/or coarse observations on human nature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That same piece, goes on to\u00a0explain to another weblogger, who was\u00a0about to hold\u00a0a “haiku contest”: Not only is it untrue that haiku must be 17 syllables (in English-language haiku, shorter is better, and many of the best are 10 to 14 syllables), but it is especially<\/em> untrue that any<\/em> poem\/verse set forth in the 5 – 7 -5-syllable format is haiku.\u00a0[See dagosan’s haiku primer<\/a><\/em>.] Most of what we see on the internet \u2014 even if quite funny and imaginative \u2014 is really very light verse, or doggerel.\u00a0 It would be great if you could help correct the misconceptions by calling your next \u201chaiku\u201d contest by another name.\u00a0 Maybe \u201clowku\u201d or \u201chipKu\u201d or \u201chypeKu.\u201d (\u201dku\u201d means verse or poem in Japanese.)\u00a0 What we see at most internet sites are (at their best) \u201csenryu<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

It doesn’t take a hot-shot appellate lawyer to know that the definition provided by the Texas Bar Appellate Section does not jibe with my haikuEsq<\/em> definition of haiku, or even senryu.\u00a0 Of course, getting the definition right — whether based on statute, caselaw, rule, of common law — is at the core of good appellate practice.\u00a0 Their very own Standards of Appellate\u00a0Conduct<\/a> state that “Counsel will advise the Court of controlling legal authorities, including those adverse to their position, and should not cite authority that has been reversed, overruled, or restricted without informing the court of those limitations.”<\/p>\n

\"devilF\" Apparently, the Texas Haiku Chainsaw Gang vaguely remembered a definition of haiku given to them by their 3rd Grade teacher, and then forgot her insistence that nature be part of the poem.\u00a0(As haiku poet and theorist Michael Dylan Welch<\/a> has written at begin haiku<\/a><\/em>: “My schoolteachers meant well, but often presented only a superficial and sometimes misguided notion of haiku.”)\u00a0 They surely forgot to Shepardize<\/a>, or\u00a0use some other citator system, to assure that their Rules were up to date<\/em> (for tips on avoiding stale law, go to the Gallagher Law Library’s Guide for Pro Se Litigants<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Texas Appellate Section also failed to seek an authoritative source for their definition.\u00a0\u00a0They shouldn’t merely take my word on what haiku is (nor even that of the other sources quoted in the above post<\/a>).\u00a0 They\u00a0should, instead,\u00a0check out the definition of haiku<\/a> promulgated by the Haiku Society of America (in 2004), along with its treatment of senryu<\/a>.\u00a0 And, because haiku is an evolving artform, they might take into account the opinion of modern, English-language\u00a0haiku experts and enthusiasts, and (perhaps most important) should take a look at the best modern haiku (e.g<\/em>., at The Heron’s Nest<\/a><\/em> or Simply Haiku<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>in the Collections of HSA contest winners<\/a>, and throughout this weblog, written by our Honored Guest Poets<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Not having done that, it seems our Texas legal colleagues have failed, at the very least,\u00a0to live up to their Professional Responsibility under the Model Rules of Haiku Conduct<\/em>.\u00a0 Beyond the general obligation to bring no disgrace or ill-repute to the haiku genre or community, they have clearly violated:<\/p>\n

\"podium\" Rule 1.1 Competence<\/strong><\/a>: A lawyer-haijin shall provide competently-drafted haiku to all contests, journals, or other public forums.. Competent drafting requires the knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation <\/span>reasonably <\/span>necessary for the creation of genuine haiku or senryu.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Their failure is particularly disappointing,\u00a0in light of the optimism we voiced in the posting Yes,Lawyers and Haiku?<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0What are we to do, then, with this group of Appellate Lawyers who have so misinterpreted and misused the haiku concept, producing haiku abominations aplenty?\u00a0 Fundamentalist or fanatic lovers of “true” haiku might speak in terms of blasphemy and descecration.\u00a0 Imbued with the poetic muse, the f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang is, of course, forgiving of human frailities and willing to assume good faith and potential for growth.\u00a0\u00a0 So, we’re thinking that venial, not mortal, sins\u00a0have been\u00a0committed, meriting consignment to a ring of Haiku\u00a0Purgatorio<\/em>, and not the Inferno<\/em> of Hell.<\/p>\n

Colin Samuels is, naturally, our expert on Dantenian placement.\u00a0 If we had to pick a level of Haiku Purgatory for our Texan Appellate friends, we might go with the Fifth Terrace — which, according to Wikipedia<\/a>, is one of the levels for “those who sinned by loving good things, but loving them in a disordered way.”\u00a0 More specifically, the Fifth Terrace is concerned with those who are guilty of prodigality<\/a>, by not “liv[ing] up to the expectations of those who have launched him or her into a life or career.”<\/p>\n

Can the Appellate Section of the State Bar of Texas hope to make it to Haiku Heaven any time soon?\u00a0 To do so, they must seriously look not just within, but without, for the true meaning of haiku.\u00a0[M.D. Welch’s Ten Tips for Writing\u00a0Haiku<\/em><\/a>, can be found, along with\u00a0guidance from other haiku poets, in our prior post<\/a> on recognizing haiku.]\u00a0The Appellate Section’s haiku\u00a0infidels\u00a0might have to confess that genuine haiku can rarely — and probably only by accident — be based on appellate practice.\u00a0 Perhaps, with diligence, a form of senryu could be crafted that would fit their needs.\u00a0 As we noted in the post senryu is not a typo<\/a>, senryu “can be particularly enjoyable for lawyers \u2014 who are frequently far more attuned to human foibles than to nature\u2019s essence.”<\/p>\n

update <\/strong><\/em>(Dec. 4, 2006): Our Purgatory Expert, Colin Samuels, has confirmed\u00a0the above\u00a0sentencing decision in today’s Blawg Review #86<\/a><\/em>: “It shall be so! Welcome to the Fifth Terrace, my Texan Appellate friends! Perhaps you would have been happier in Inferno<\/span>, where barbeque is more plentiful, but here y’all are and here y’all will stay until you’ve atoned for your sins against “one-breath” poetry.”\u00a0 The f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang is particularly relieved that this posting didn’t land ourselves in Terrace I (Pride) or Terrace III (Wrath).<\/p>\n

Although two of the following senryu were posted just last week, they are as close as dagosan<\/em> has come to Appellate Haiku\/Senryu:<\/p>\n

mid-argument –
\nopposing counsel crosses
\nher legs<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

sua sponte<\/span><\/a> —
\n<\/em>madame justice
\ncatches\u00a0me staring<\/p>\n

\n
two-minute warning — <\/span><\/div>\n
the senior partner has <\/span><\/div>\n
a senior moment<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

. . .\u00a0 by dagosan<\/span><\/em><\/a> \"devilG\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

p.s.<\/em> While the f\/k\/a<\/em> Gang is serious about its haiku, we are just as serious about having fun, and have not\u00a0intended to violate\u00a0the Texan Standards<\/a> for Appellate Conduct, which state, “Negative opinions of the court or opposing counsel shall not be expressed unless relevant to a client’s decision process.”\u00a0 If we have, please note that The Devil Made Us Do It<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"alamoN\" update<\/strong><\/em> (Dec. 6, 2006): Although not captioned as a Motion to Reconsider, or as a request for en banc<\/em> review, and despite our “without appeal” consignment order,\u00a0f\/k\/a<\/em> has received an apologia<\/em> from Kevin Dubose<\/strong><\/a>, of Alexander Dubose Jones & Townsend LLP<\/a> (Houston), an organizer of the Texas State Bar’s Appellate Haiku Contest.\u00a0 Here is the conclusion of Kevin’s Reply.\u00a0 You can read his entire\u00a0message in Comment 2<\/a> below.<\/p>\n

“[T]he point of this exercise was to create a comical juxtaposition\u00a0of the somewhat dissimilar worlds of\u00a0appellate law and haiku poetry.\u00a0 We read the winners at our otherwise dry and boring annual meeting, and the audience was greatly amused.\u00a0 We never intended for this to be a serious attempt at classical haiku, and we never envisioned this being disseminated on the internet where our abuse of the form would cause purists to be plunged into haiku purgatory.\u00a0 If we offended you sensibilities we apologize, we were just trying to have fun, and we did.\u00a0 Maybe we’re just easily amused in Texas.\u00a0 At least it sounds as if you enjoyed your righteous indignation as much as we enjoyed our irreverent ignorance.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Given his lucid writing style, persuasiveness, reputation<\/a> for readibility, and apparent interest in the haiku genre, we can only repeat our earlier conclusion that the Fifth Terrace of Purgatory\u00a0is the appropriate location for those who have not lived up to their expectations and abilities.\u00a0\u00a0 Of course, with sincere attempts at rehabilitation (and perhaps your prayers), Kevin and his co-conspirators may be able to greatly shorten their stay in Purgatory.<\/p>\n

\"podiumF\" Meanwhile, Your Humble Editor has promised himself to try harder to make sure his attempts at satire, even when for an excellent cause, do not stray across the line into prolix and pontificating pedantry.\u00a0\u00a0 After all, I didn’t get into the haiku biz (nor weblogging) to give myself agita or to take myself too seriously.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

afterthought<\/strong><\/em> (March 27, 2007): This morning, I was further scandalized by discovering that the 2nd result in the Google query \/blog haiku and law<\/em>\/ was the post “We haiku. Do you?<\/a>” at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog<\/em> (Nov. 30, 2006), which was directly inspired by the Texas Appellate Haiku Contest.\u00a0 Had we known that our Texan respondents had led so many other lawyers down the path of haiku-parody perdition, their sentence would surely have been more severe.\u00a0 As for the folk at WSJLaw Blog<\/em>, we’re feeling non-judgmental this morning and can only say, “they know not what they do.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

update (Dec. 6, 2006): Motion to Reconsider received – see below Early this afternoon, I discovered that Colin Samuels, of the Infamy or Praise weblog, would be hosting Monday’s edition of Blawg Review.\u00a0 BR is a traveling compilation of the (purported) best offerings from law\/lawyer-oriented weblogs over the past week; such weblogs have been damnably […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-viewpoint"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1T5","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7259"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7259\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12609,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7259\/revisions\/12609"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}