Congratulations to Overlawyered

Overlawyered today celebrates its 10 year anniversary, making it the longest legally-themed blog around. It has also provided me with one of the biggest surprises that I’ve experienced, and invaluable lessons about how to blog.

Its proprietor, Walter Olson, uses the site to document the high cost of litigation. He has his conservative political views, which are often diametrically opposed to mine. In fact, if the proposals of the Manhattan Institute (where he is a fellow) were followed, the rights of many (if not all) of my clients would likely be eviscerated. That means we knock heads every so often, as I do with his co-blogger Ted Frank.

And despite this, while still in my rookie year blogging, he added me to the blog roll of his site. I wrote at that time, back in August 2007:

When pigs fly, I hear you say.

Would the oldest legal blog in America — dedicated to documenting the high cost of our legal system and, perhaps, savoring some of the outrageousness that exists (Pants Pearson, anyone?) for the anecdotal benefits — actually add a dyed-in-the-wool, 100% personal injury attorney to their blogroll? An individual that takes tort “reformers” to task every so often? One who is a guest contributor at Overlawyered’s arch nemesis, TortDeform? Well, yes. They would.

And he didn’t just add me to his blog roll, but he links to me with some frequency sending me a steady source of readers. And those links don’t just come in where I agree with him about a suit that was stupidly brought — and in a nation of 300 million that will happen with some frequency — but more often when I disagree with him on an issue. He is telling his own readers: And for the opposing view, see this post from a PI guy.

Lesson learned. Don’t ignore opposing views. Read them, consider them, and respond to them if you wish. It is the ideas that matter. Same as in the courtroom.

Another lesson is that he has never once made a personal attack, despite all my criticisms. Which is also something that every legal battle should embrace. Respond to the message, not the messenger. Judges hate personal attacks.

And another lesson: Admit mistakes when they happen. You can’t be constantly writing in the blogosphere, often quickly and with little editing, and not make mistakes. At his sister site, Point of Law, he showed the way mistakes are rectified.

And so, a tip of the hat today to Walter Olson. Not just for figuring out this blogging thing faster than any one else, but for doing it with class and style.


4 Responses Leave a comment

  • Comments 2010.6.20 at 23:19 | Quote

    Nice tribute to Walter, Eric. As a doctor, I find I learn a lot from both of you.
    # posted by Blogger DrWes : July 01, 2009 3:07 PM

  • Comments 2010.6.20 at 23:19 | Quote

    Thanks Wes. And, as you might guess, I learn quite a bit from you and the other med-bloggers.

    # posted by Blogger Eric Turkewitz : July 01, 2009 4:53 PM

  • Comments 2010.6.20 at 23:19 | Quote

    As a German lawyer I work in a legal system where probably 90% of all PI lawyers tend more towards Walter Olson’s views in terms of shaking our heads over many U.S. PI cases – and I learn a lot from both of you, too, agree with either one of you here and there and enjoy reading both of your blogs all the time! – Thank you a lot!
    # posted by Blogger Chris : July 02, 2009 4:19 AM

  • Comments 2010.6.20 at 23:19 | Quote

    Well said

    I think Overlawyered was the first legal blog I started reading and is almost alone in the variety of blogs to which it links. Unlike Tort Deform, which also links to your site, Overlawyered is one of the few that links to opposing views in its blog roll.
    # posted by Blogger pwd : July 02, 2009 6:44 AM

Comments are closed.

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.