On being a LexPunk

Since I have downgraded myself to read only access on Twitter, I have been directing my infLAWencer energies to LinkedIn. Let’s check in on how that’s going:

👍🔥👍🔥👍🔥👍🔥

ANYWAY….

A few weeks ago I realized that I need to change my LinkedIn headline from my job title (which no longer existed) to…something. I chose “LexPunk.” In part because I can only handle so much of the sincerity, “Boss Babe” and “Crushing It” vibe on LinkedIn and I react by going 180 degrees from that and partially because after initially worrying about appearing…well, normal…for potential employers, I decided that people better understand what they’re getting with me so there’s no surprises or incorrect assumptions.

As an aside, a few weeks ago I saw this interview with Quinta Brunson about her relationship philosophy and it really resonated me.

Too often in the past I’ve had to dim myself to get by in jobs. Be less experimental, be less controversial, be less vocal, be less…me. And, like Ms. Brunson, I just won’t have it anymore. Which is an interesting life choice to navigate when one works in environments as conservative (psychologically not politically [but also there’s a lot of Federalist Society dudes around]) as law.

I wrote a quasi-LexPunk post on LinkedIn last week and thought I should more explicitly talking about issues in legal tech, innovation, and A2J through a LexPunk lens.

So what is LexPunk and, to a lesser extent, why do I embrace the title and try to guide my work through the ethos?

I was first introduced to the [X]punk concept around 14 years ago with the EduPunk movement. This was back when I was an academic librarian and starting to really see the possibilities of technology and also the problems caused by corporate control of legal information and EdTech tools. Friends and colleagues in the library community began to brand ourselves with the LibPunk moniker and used the punk ethos to guide our work.

So what is that ethos?

As the Wikipedia article for EduPunk summarizes…

• Reaction against commercialization

• Do-it-yourself attitude

• Thinking and learning for yourself

And a contemporaneous Guardian article said:

Personally, I always really liked Dan Sinker’s vision of the general punk ethos:

I transferred my work energies from information science and education to legal services, but it’s still all knowledge work and facing the same pressures and providing the same opportunities as the others. Also, things are definitely fucked up.

So LexPunk it is.

I don’t know if I can define it fully, but I would say that living the LexPunk life means trying to embody the following principles:

• Seeing the problems in the legal world and taking responsibility for being part of the solution

• Understanding that the solution should be based in community and user needs and not serve as means to the end of protecting corporate or existing power establishment interests

• Embracing a maker culture mindset and feeling empowered to experiment and create solutions yourself instead of waiting for someone to make it for you

Around 2011 or 12, I gave a guest lecture to some Reinvent Law students at MSU and debuted my LexPunk idea. Through the years I’ve had reserved LexPunk URLs and tried to figure out what to do to expand this idea. I briefly considered trademarking it, but that didn’t seem very punk rock of me.

Maybe now that I’m footless and fancy free (read: recently laid off) and also secure enough in my professional and personal life to not worry about the consequences (read: I’m old and and tired and two clicks away from yelling “TOWANDA” at people at random intervals. Plus I always have the sheep farm thing) I can devote more time to re-embracing the LexPunk life and recruiting people to the movement.

If I, a middle aged librarian living in rural Indiana can be a punk, what’s stopping you?

Thank you for reading Sarah's Commonplace Book. This post is public so feel free to share it.