Yeah,
2026
is
here.
Are
we
happy
about
that?
Now
we
have
the
“Donroe
Doctrine.”
The
rumble
under
our
feet
is
not
an
earthquake
but
our
founding
fathers
and
mothers
turning
over
in
their
graves
at
the
latest
escapade
of
47.
Once
a
real
estate
developer,
always
a
real
estate
developer.
And
we
thought
2025
was
a
dumpster
fire.
Does
anyone
else
feel
ambivalent
about
LinkedIn?
Use
LinkedIn
and
the
end
result
is
the
same:
senses
of
panic,
inadequacy,
insufficiency,
whatever
you
choose
to
call
a
crisis
of
confidence.
And
that
is
the
sense
I
have
every
single
time
I
sign
in
to
LinkedIn.
Who
ARE
these
peeps
who
ask
to
connect?
I
can’t
pick
any
of
them
out
of
a
lineup.
Optimists,
narcissists,
pessimists,
tireless
self-promoters.
I
understand
the
need
to
put
yourself
out
there,
to
get
noticed,
to
get
hired,
but
where
is
the
boundary
between
marketing
and
shameless
ubermarketing?
Right,
I
guess
there’s
not
one
any
more.
What
is
our
profession
going
to
do
this
year
to
speak
truth
to
power?
Will
we
have
any
constitutional
guarantees
left
by
the
midterms?
What
kind
of
country
do
we
want?
What
kind
of
country
do
we
have
now?
What
kind
of
country
will
be
there
by
the
end
of
this
year?
Will
this
be
another
year
of
silence
and
intimidation,
another
year
of
knee-bending?
Are
we
now
so
dulled
by
the
events
of
last
year,
not
to
mention
the
events
of
last
weekend,
that
we
are
now
fearful
of
even
squeaking
up,
let
alone
speaking
up?
Meanwhile,
do
you
know
the
saying
that
too
many
cooks
spoil
the
broth?
The
State
Bar
of
California
is
soliciting
comments
from
its
licensees
(such
as
me)
about
the
“future
of
the
bar
exam.” As
licensees,
fka
“members,”
we
have
heard
this
before.
Survey
questions
include
“considerations
for
exam
development,”
whether
the
exam
should
include
a
California-specific
component,
various
future
bar
exam
options
(e.g.,
new
California
bar
exam,
NCBE
Next
Gen,
and
other
choices
to
be
ranked
preferentially). The
State
Bar
also
wants
to
know
what
kind
of
law
school
education
licensees
had,
if
any,
before
sitting
for
the
exam,
how
many
times
needed
to
pass,
and
other
statistical
data.
The
California
Supreme
Court
had
previously
directed
the
State
Bar
to
create
a
new
bar
exam,
not
an
easy
task
under
the
best
of
circumstances,
and
for
my
State
Bar,
circumstances
are
not
the
best.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
the
results
of
the
survey.
For
so
many
years,
the
mantra
has
been
“critical
thinking,”
which
the
Oxford
Dictionary
defines
as
“the
objective
analysis
and
evaluation
of
an
issue
in
order
to
form
a
judgment.”
That’s
one
of
the
elements
that
has
drawn
a
lot
of
attention
in
terms
of
how
to
redefine
and
rework
the
bar
exam.
Here’s
a
suggestion
for
2026.
It’s
called
“critical
ignoring,”
and
I
am
not
making
this
up.
And
what
should
we
be
critically
ignoring?
How
about
social
media?
If
anyone
has
ever
read
any
of
my
posts
over
the
years
whining
about
social
media
—
aka
“unsocial
media”
—
the
concept
of
“critical
ignoring”
is
very
appealing.
I
love
the
analogy
Christopher
Mims
used
in
his
recent
column
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal:
“If
social
media
were
a
literal
ecosystem,
it
would
be
about
as
healthy
as
Cleveland’s
Cuyahoga
River
in
the
1960s
—
when
it
was
so
polluted
it
repeatedly
caught
fire.”
While
many
of
you
were
not
even
on
the
planet
then,
we
dinosaur
lawyers
remember.
Today,
the
effects
of
social
media
have
led
to
unhappy
consequences,
intended
and
unintended,
for
lawyers
and
judges,
in
other
words,
the
modern
dumpster
fire.
What
exactly
is
“critical
ignoring?”
It’s
avoiding
red
flags;
it’s
protecting
your
own
vulnerability
to
social
media
by
constant
vigilance.
It’s
ditching
social
media
for
mental
health.
It’s
ignoring
all
the
online
garbage,
abandoning
our
online
addiction.
Social
media
has
captured
your
attention:
what
do
you
believe
and
how
did
you
reach
that
conclusion?
Mims
says
that
the
number
one
job
is
“…
to
fight
our
evolutionary
instinct
to
absorb
all
available
information,
and
instead
filter
out
unreliable
sources
and
bad
data.”
We
forget
that
attention
is
a
scarce
resource
—
and
growing
scarcer
every
day,
especially
with
AI.
We
need
to
be
able
to
turn
away
from
social
media,
from
its
fake
news,
exaggerations,
and
downright
malicious
mischief.
Social
media
has
become
the
village
town
crier,
and
you
know
what
can
happen
to
messengers.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at [email protected].