Flawging lawyers come out of their Chambers

The other day, in my roundup of 2011 on The Time Blawg, I suggested that perhaps 2011 would be remembered for the great flawging debate. I went on to blog:-

I was brave enough to put my head above the parapet and suggest there might be some business advantage to be gained by blogging: The Elephant in the #LawBlogs Room. This was scorned by many ‘purist’ law bloggers who could not imagine anyone blogging other than out of the sheer love of it. If you did you were nothing but a flawger. However, was it as simple as I Blawg. You Flawg. Period? As I concluded in that post:-

“I think that ultimately most, if not all, blawgs result in selling of a sort (even if that is just the blawger themselves rather than a legal service). Some blawgers protest too much on this issue me thinks. If you don’t want to flog don’t blog.”

I fully expect some of those law bloggers who resolutely believe that they do not flog themselves by blogging to put themselves up for The Orwell Prize in 2012. Oh the irony if they do! For an on point and very recent blog post (from yesterday) on this topic do see Charon QC’s: The Ducks wish all…..HNY 2012.

I therefore applaud Adam Wagner for being honest on Twitter yesterday about his motives for entering The Orwell Prize:-

I am definitely a flawger. Flawg, flawg, flawg! And I am entering again, for the purpose of flawging.

Antonin Pribetic, who offered the original definition of ‘flawg’ and ‘flawger’, considered 2011 to have been “a banner year for Flawging” in his recent post: Flawging a dead horse.

Will 2012 see more lawyers coming out of their Chambers as flawgers? Perhaps it will be the year when that Elephant in the #LawBlogs Room is no longer ignored.

Update

The Flawging debate has been continued by:-

Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice: The Year of the Flawg

and

Jamison Koehler at Koehler Law: Toward a “Flawging Quotient”: Justifications of a Self-Professed Flawger