The challenge of unconferences and panels at legal conferences

I tweeted yesterday that I agreed with Dave Winer that conference panels suck. Thinking I was a fan of open discussion at conferences, I was quickly asked to comment on Jeff Jarvis’s 2006 post on the ‘unconference approach,’ to a conference, a concept Jarvis cited Winer as the master of.

The ‘unconference’ per Jarvis is where the people in the room set the agenda and they’d accomplish this via a conversation, not a lecture. Jarvis had recent success with the concept.

I do agree with Winer that conference panels can suck.

The idea is to have a panel to discuss why panels with people racing to plug their product or pet idea, in competition with four other panelists, followed by the audience asking questions after lining up at a mike, is the wrong way to organize these things. 

Everyone has figured it out but no one wants to say it directly. 

It comes out like this: All the good stuff happens in the hallways.

So my panel would be a discussion about how to bring the hallways into the meeting room. Or to bring the meeting room into the hallways. Your choice.

I’ve been on panels and in webinars where company CEO’s and product cronies drop the name of their company or solution as well note the thousands of customers they have every few minutes. Maybe they have something of value, but spare me and attendees your podium spam. I want no part of it for fear your stench will carry over to me.

I’ve also found that hallway discussions, coffees, dinners, and beers generate the best collaboration and ideas at conferences. One of the greatest ways to learn is to meet new people.

At the same time, the unconference approach is a not a winner for legal conferences.

Remind you, my perspective is coming from someone who practiced law for 20 years and who’s now asked to present at legal conferences on the subject of networking through the net and social media. When I have the good fortune of presenting at one of the conferences or programs Jarvis or Winer references it’s a different story.

If you’ve got knowledgeable panelists and audience members to pull into a discussion and learn from, an unconference can be great. The best thing about panels and group discussions for me is the ability to learn from co-panelists who are smarter than me — and there are lots of such people.

But if you’re asking lawyers and legal marketing professionals to speak intelligently on the use of networking through the Internet, as opposed to using the net as a way to push things at people who don’t want what you’re pushing and SEO, forget it. You’ll have the blind leading the blind, and drown out those who can challenge the status quo, inspire legal professionals to think differently, and touch a few raw nerves that need to be touched.

Legal conferences can also be driven by sponsors and politically correctness. The dualoply of LexisNexis and Thomson sponsorships undoubtedly effects who gets to present, where they present, and who’s on what panel. They’re not fans of entrepreneurs more innovative than their employees discussing more effective and less costly solutions than the dualopoly sell. Unfortunately, some bar associations and conference organizers let them get away with it.

You’ll also have associations getting the ‘right people’ on the panels so as to reward this or that — or even to incent a prospective panelist’s law firm to pay for the panelist to attend so as to increase conference attendance.

Another problem with panels and unconferences in the legal industry is they can be ‘analized’ to death. Lawyers and other legal professionals like precision, lots of planning, and no surprises (lack of spontaneity). The result is multiple conference calls to be calendared with 4 or 5 people in advance with joint documents to be submitted a month ahead. I’ll take doing a one person presentation over that living death any day of the week.

The legal profession, I guess by its very nature of employing lawyers, takes the joy, collaboration, and learning out of an unconference environment. Even an event such as Ignite Law 2010 put on at ABA TechShow, modeled after the Ignite events around the country lacked the spark and spontaneity I’ve seen at other Ignite events. Though the presenters and topics were good, most presenters looked ill at ease, often trying to cram 30 minutes into 5 while reading off note cards or a script. Let alone dressed in coat and tie.

Sure, unconferences – and great panel discussions are a joy when you get them. I have had the pleasure and honor of participating in a few recently and learned a good deal — and I am sure other attendees and panelists did as well.

With the legal profession though there are challenges.