November 2002

Letters

Three things happened during the first part of this year. I completed over 66 years of practice, all in Yakima and in the same office. I also reached the ripe old age of 90. As a result of this, I elected to become inactive in the Bar Association. However, before I sneak into the shadows of oblivion, I want to thank the Washington State Bar Association and its members for allowing me to serve on the Board of Governors, to be the delegate to the ABA, to serve as president of the Bar Association, etc., etc., etc.

I wish to thank the Bar and its members for allowing me to have a wonderful life as a lawyer. So, many thanks to you.

My paralegal showed me a form listing the CLEs now required of all attorneys over the next three years. Included are "six hours of ethics and substance abuse." I know you believe this will help the drug-addicted thieves who practice law. The purpose of this letter is to make suggestions for other mandatory topics.

I hear a rumor that some old, white, male attorney had found humor in a joke about females. I think you should mandate specific CLE hours to gender-based sensitivity and discrimination. This should take care of the sex harassers and wife beaters. May I suggest three days of CLEs with 24 hours' credit.

There's also a rumor of a joke told by attorneys about an Islamic terrorist. Two days or 16 hours should be enough to educate the racists who peddle these hurtful tales.

Finally, I should tell you that there is another vicious rumor circulating that what was once our Bar Association has been hijacked by a bunch of feel-good, politically correct, socialist nitwits who have no real idea how to practice law. I think the entire Bar Association should be sent to your re-education camps — I mean to another CLE to dispel these false rumors. After all, where would we be without you to tell us what's good for us.

Washington Law & Politics Responds to Editorial

After five years of publishing our magazine for Washington's legal community, it's exciting to see Washington Law & Politics finally mentioned in your publication (September Bar News, p. 15).

True, we're a little hurt you would devote two full pages to Patricia Novotny's error-laden, vitriolic screed attacking the reputation of our magazine and the credibility of our Super Lawyer selection process. And yes, it seems unfair that you would provide her this forum when 1) she admits "to not reading the magazine," and 2) she never gives us an opportunity to comment and respond. But we choose to look on the bright side. Despite the many errors in her piece, she did manage to spell Law & Politics correctly.

The sad truth is, had Ms. Novotny spent one minute actually reading our August/September Super Lawyer issue, or had she bothered to check facts with us, she would have spared herself and the WSBA the embarrassment of the errors and omissions cited below:

1. She states that we mailed out 6,500 ballots. Her number is more than 300 percent off the mark. In fact, we sent out more than 20,000 ballots and it clearly says so in the first sentence of the first paragraph of our explanation on page 57 of our August/September issue. We also publish this explanation on the opening page of our Super Lawyer Web site at superlawyers.com.

2. She states that 5,000 votes were cast. Here she does better, erring by only 240 percent. The actual number of votes cast was 12,000. This number is found two paragraphs later, on page 57 (and on our Web site).

3. She raises a good point about how lawyers often answer the question of "Who are the best lawyers?" by naming the most well-known lawyers. But then she goes on to incorrectly assert that our Super Lawyer process "capitalizes" on this tendency. Again, if she read the magazine or looked at the Web site, she would see that our ballot specifically directs respondents to vote for the best lawyers they have "personally observed in action" and to "avoid voting for others based purely on reputation or hearsay" (italics in original).

4. She asserts that without a banner disclaimer stating the list is both under and over inclusive, "the magazine is perpetrating a hoax." As a nonreader of the magazine, she obviously missed the language that accompanied both the 2000 and 2001 Super Lawyers lists where we make disclaimers similar to the one she suggests here.

5. She states the members of the Blue Ribbon Panel are the "final arbiters," and that this is "the most obvious clue to a lack of rigor in the survey." Where does it say that the Blue Ribbon panelists are the final arbiters? Not in the magazine. Not on the Web site. As we point out in the magazine and the Web site, the Blue Ribbon Panel simply casts a second set of votes for the lawyers nominated in each panelist's area of practice. These votes are another factor we consider, but certainly are not decisive in determining who is and who isn't a Super Lawyer.

6. She claims she "learned from Law & Politics that they don't preserve samples of their ballots," implying we discard the documents a la Arthur Andersen. A very cheap (and off-the-mark) shot. The truth is, we box and store all ballots and save them for at least one year beyond the date of publication. Had Ms. Novotny simply informed us she was writing this article and needed to see a ballot to get her facts right, we would have jumped through hoops to accommodate her.

7. She writes that lawyers who don't run a profile have "only their name listed" in the issue. Wrong again. In addition to the lawyer's name, we publish firm names and phone numbers for all lawyers. And this information appears twice in the magazine, once under the practice area listing, and once under the alphabetical listing. What's more, we feature this same information on the Web site.

8. A nit-picky point, but one that reflects the overall carelessness of her approach — "Super Lawyers" is a registered trademark (the ® appears next to "Super Lawyers" at least 20 times in the August issue). We always present it as two words, not one. Ms. Novotny, as a lawyer, should get details like this correct.

9. A final point concerning Ms. Novotny should be clarified. She begins her article by telling us she was nominated a Super Lawyer. What she fails to reveal, however, is that while she was nominated, she is not, and never has been selected a Super Lawyer. In other words, she was rejected by the very process she is criticizing. In the interest of full disclosure, this fact should have been revealed to the reader.

We are proud of our Super Lawyer selection process. It is the most accurate, exhaustive and comprehensive process of its kind we know of. Ms. Novotny's misguided commentary not only reflects poorly on her, it denigrates the accomplishments of those chosen by their peers to be on the list.

Ms. Novotny makes one point I fully agree with: "We should be more careful," she says. "We should insist, in ourselves and in others, on more precision.…" We couldn't have said it any better.

William C. White, Publisher
Washington Law & Politics

Mr. White misses the point of my editorial, which addresses a larger issue than Super Lawyers®. So, I'm not going to debate the numbers with him, except to say that I drew my information from the Law & Politics Web site in early summer (when I wrote the piece). The site has now been changed (and the numbers with it).

I did ask L&P for a survey (referred to in Mr. White's letter as a "ballot"), and was told the ballots had been "purged." I was also told that I'd receive a survey next year. Judging from the positive response I have received from lawyers (including Super Lawyers®), the questions I raised about the methodology of the selection process were not especially original. (One lawyer confirmed that some law firms play the process like a game.)

L&P is not so much the problem as it is a symptom. By discussing it, I did not intend to offend Mr. White. My concern remains enhancing the integrity and effectiveness of the justice system. For that reason, when I received my Super Lawyer® "nomination" last March, I declined to participate until I better understood the process. I wasn't rejected, as Mr. White claims. However, I don't expect another invitation.