« I Have a Date With TSA Next Month | Main | Denver, here I come! »

November 30, 2010


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ABA Journal Blawg 100: Where the Hell Are the Womens' Blawgs? (UPDATED):


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Now one might think that there is a dearth of women attorneys blogging, but that's simply not the case. There are plenty of high quality blawgs written by women attorneys."

What percentage of the blawgs in the ABA directory are written by women?

"Plenty" is a relevant number only if the ABA Journal started with a quota of female bloggers to include. Percentage is what counts. If there were 300 law blogs written by women, hey, they'd look like a lot. But, it'd also only represent 10% of the law blogs in the directory, which means women are proportionately represented in the Blawg 100.

Carolyn Elefant

Also, Kimberly Kralowec - she has been blogging forever - almost 8 years at the Unfair Competition Law Blog. I know that it's a narrow niche but I would love to see her get some recognition http://www.uclpractitioner.com/ Great blogging is not only about sensationalism. Great content, year in and year out deserves some notice too.


While the blogs you list certainly should be on anyone's must read list, I wouldn't worry too much about this issue as the ABA became completely irrelevant years ago. If it weren't for bloggers who make the list linking back to it, I doubt anyone would ever visit the ABA's website at all. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't make the list either. Guess I didn't retweet enough ABA twitter posts last year.

Neil J. Squillante

Nice commentary Niki. Although TechnoLawyer Blog won the Blawg 100's Legal Tech category the past two consecutive years, the ABA mysteriously omitted us this year. I say mysteriously because unlike US News and others, the ABA does not publish the criteria by which it selects the Blawg 100. Anyway, regarding your Post, our blog has several female columnists that also merit recognition -- Marin Feldman, Liz Kurtz, Legal Tease, Yvonne Renfrew, and Allison Shields. You can find their excellent work at these links:


Neil J. Squillante

CJMcKinney, you're mistaken. Although a lot of people seem to have a beef with the ABA Journal, make no mistake about it -- it has an enormous online readership. Its Web site and underlying content management system are first-rate as are many of its reporters. That said, does the Blawg 100 merit criticism? Yes. The ABA Journal should disclose how it chooses the 100 finalists. I assume there's a formula of some sort.


"I don't think a 50/50 split is necessary, but the ~90/10 split is disturbing and evidence of an unconscious bias"

Again, only true if you first establish what the gender split in the pool of nominees was. You spend a lot of time in idea land, but haven't done the underlying fact gathering needed to support your claim. I think you owe it to the editors at the ABA Journal to take an hour or two to make sure you have the facts before you start accusing people of bias. Someone who has worked as a public defender should know better.

As for the lack of women speakers at some conferences, part of the problem may be the many conferences that are directed at women (such as the Audrey-Beth Fitch Women’s Studies Conference). I assume that most people have limited resources when it comes to being a conference panelist; they may be restricted by the time it takes to write and participate, may not have the resources to jet around from city to city, or may just get burned out writing papers all the time. Creating conferences and panels specifically for women may (inadvertently) keep them from the co-ed events.

Neil J. Squillante

bl1y, I agree that serious criticism of gender bias requires statistical research. But how do you feel about the fact that the ABA Journal does not disclose its selection criteria? Also, on a slightly lighter note, what's up with all the bizarre categories like IMHO and Niche? Why is there no "Marketing" category? We have an entire section in our BlawgWorld newsletter in which we link to Posts by marketing blawgs. Why is there no Litigation or eDiscovery category? That's where Bow Tie and Ride the Lightning belong and several others. Half of all lawyers are litigators after all. If I won an award for IMHO, I'm not sure I would promote it because what exactly does it mean? Awards should be named for a recognizable achievement using a generic term (e.g., best actress).



They do disclose their selection criteria. The list is their "favorites," which I assume means the criteria is that they like the blog. And remember, we're talking about an honor that comes with no real prize other than a short spike in traffic.

The reason that there aren't categories like marketing and eDiscovery is that it's a list of favorite blogs. Some of them might be useful and very informative, but that's not the making for a good favorite. Imagine if you were to make a list of your 100 favorite books. You'd probably have categories like British Classics, Americana, Mystery/Detective, Biography, Humor, and SciFi/Fantasy. Doubtful there would be a Grammar/Reference category, no matter how great Elements of Style is.

By the way, there are litigation blogs on the list. For instance, I imagine most of the things discussed in the Torts, Criminal Justice, and Court Watch categories are litigation oriented. A separate litigation category may have been redundant; but none of the categories, so far as I can tell, are aimed at corporate/deals issues. Also, The Namby Pamby and That's What She Said (both in the For Fun category) are litigation oriented.

Neil J. Squillante

bl1y, while you and I may understand the jockeying that takes place behind the scenes of all awards-- and this includes "prestigious" awards like Nobel and Pulitzer -- most people who see an award are impressed and don't bother researching how the sausage was made so to speak. Thus, awards are powerful marketing tools. They have value far beyond "a short spike in traffic," especially for commercial publications.

Regarding the more important point, the ABA Journal has not disclosed its criteria. Its three sentences about choosing favorites does not provide any insight into the process. For example, did they sit around a conference room for an hour or did they meet every week for a year? Did they take votes? If so, who voted? Etc. While I have my doubts, I hope the the ABA Journal used a process like the following:

  • An objective data score based on statistics as number of Posts, comment activity, Twitter mentions, links from other blogs, PageRank, unique page views, RSS subscribers, previous Blawg 100 victories/votes, years of operation, etc.
  • A subjective quality score based on the curriculum vitae/expertise of the blogger(s), quality of the Posts, originality of the topics, style and copy editing, art direction, etc.
  • A weighted formula into which they placed the objective data score and the subjective quality score. The top 100 scores = the Blawg 100.

There is another -- and in my opinion -- superior option that requires less work. Forget about choosing the top 100, which is bound to draw criticism even with transparency. Instead, simply make every blog in the ABA's database eligible and let the voters decide. With this method, the ABA Journal escapes criticism and receives much more traffic and registrants thanks to 3,000+ blogs seeking votes rather than just 100. And if the ABA Journal wants a Blawg 100 for its print magazine, it can have that as well -- the top 100 vote getters.

Finally, you unwittingly reinforced my point about the existing categories by noting that several litigation blogs are scattered across different categories rather than grouped in a single Litigation category.



We may disagree as to what counts as a disclosure, but I think "we picked our favorites" means the editorial board of the ABA Journal reached some sort of informal consensus based on their subjective preferences. The purpose of the Blawg 100 is to feature the blogs they like; the voting is just there to increase interest (outside of politics, Americans really love anything they get to vote on).

The ABA Journal features attorneys, firms, websites, and services in every edition, and I don't think they ever disclose their criteria for selecting article topics.

Remember, this isn't a judicial panel, or some federal administrative body. It's the ABA Journal. On a scale for how much things matter, going from Arsenic-based life (near the top) to the points on Who's Line is it Anyways (at the bottom), the ABA Blawg 100 is somewhere between the Mississippi State - Ole Miss game this year, and The Situation's lasagna recipe.

And yes, while there is no one litigation category, why does that matter? There are three! Would it have somehow been better to lump them all under a more generic litigation heading? It's like complaining that there's not a 1L Litigation class, despite contracts, torts, civil procedure, criminal law, property, and con law all pretty much being litigation oriented.

Next we're probably going to be hearing complaints about how the Sorting Hat didn't explain it's decision to place Hermione Granger and Neville Longbottom in Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, respectively.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About This Blog

Sui Generis Partner

Other Sui Generis Sponsors

Receive Updates Via Email


  • This site is intended purely as a resource guide for educational and informational purposes and is not intended to provide specific legal advice. This site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a professional attorney in your state. The use and receipt of the information offered on this site is not intended to create, nor does it create, an attorney-client relationship.

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail or otherwise. However, please be advised that an attorney-client relationship is not created through the act of sending electronic mail to me.

    The comments on this blog are solely the opinions of the individuals leaving them. In no way does Legal Antics or Nicole L. Black endorse, condone, agree with, sponsor, etc. these comments.

    Further, any information provided on this blog or in the comments should be taken at your own risk.