Theodore “Jack” Metzler, the lawyer who runs the @SCOTUSplaces Twitter account.
(Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)
Jack Metzler, a government appellate lawyer in Washington, took to Twitter in 2013 to share his fascination with the U.S. Supreme Court and places connected to it—giving rise to his handle @SCOTUSplaces. Along the way, he picked up more than 4,200 followers and discovered a surprisingly growing and engaging appellate practitioner community.
Metzler works in the general counsel’s office of the Federal Trade Commission. The 10 or so lawyers there handle appeals from cases brought by the agency’s Bureau of Competition and Bureau of Consumer Protection. The office also serves as inside counsel for public-records lawsuits and employment-related matters.
Metzler, a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, keeps his day job off his Twitter account—there’s no inside scoop about goings on at the FTC. And he’s not weighing in on the merits of enforcement or administrative proceedings.
“Government attorneys are reluctant to engage on Twitter for some of the same reasons I was slow to adapt,” he said. “I think it’s because they don’t really see what they could get out of it.”
We caught up this week with Metzler about his Twitter account. The conservation was edited for clarity and length.
National Law Journal: How did you come up with SCOTUSplaces?
Metzler: I have an interest in the Supreme Court and D.C. in particular, ever since I went to law school. You’re surrounded by these important, historic places, and the Supreme Court is just a few blocks away. “Places” comes literally from places in the city that are connected to the Supreme Court in some way. There was a house owned by William Marbury (Marbury v. Madison) in Georgetown and on the anniversary of Marbury v. Madison, I put up a picture of it on SCOTUSplaces.
How is the experience different for a government lawyer?
It’s different in the federal government than it is in private practice. One thing I noticed when I was interviewing with the government for this job and for others is that in private practice, you’re out there for a purpose. A firm puts your bio out there. But the government really doesn’t have that purpose. In some ways, the incentive goes the other way. I thought I would like to be able to share my views and interests but I don’t want any questions or anything that has to do with my job. I often get questions: Why do you use this sort of pseudonym?
I don’t hide who I am but I don’t identify myself with the agency. That’s a good way to avoid any misconception. I certainly don’t discuss any cases that are ongoing. I try to keep that out and don’t talk about it at all. I may have mentioned once or twice that I had a win that day—a decision.
Did you have to get agency authorization to go on Twitter?
No. We have social media guidelines. And there are standards of conduct for government employees. Those two are interconnected. We also have a very good ethics department that is very good about keeping people informed about various dangers. I didn’t have to get pre-authorization. The FTC has its own Twitter account. So a big part of the concern is to make sure you’re not misrepresenting the agency or talking too much about the cases. Setting it up the way I did in advance, I haven’t had a problem with anyone misconstruing anything I said.
Is there a government appellate attorney community on Twitter?
Government attorneys are reluctant to engage on Twitter for some of the same reasons I was slow to adapt. I think it’s because they don’t really see what they could get out of it. I talked to several people and they’re not really getting it. It does take a little bit of expecting to find you’ll get a news story quicker that way, or find an analysis of something you’re likely to want to read sooner or easier than if you’d just wait until a newspaper or magazine comes out. There are a few government lawyers and appellate lawyers on Twitter, but I think they engage less. I don’t think you necessarily need to engage but I think you can get more out of it that way.
Are there dangers for the tweeting lawyer?
This hasn’t happened so much to me, but when you have someone who is pro se, who has a case, and they think you can help them. Once or twice on Twitter, I’ve gotten a follower or someone will tweet about their case. It hasn’t been as much of a problem on Twitter because they tweeted to 1,000 people.
You have to be careful about people who might be unsure you can represent them or think you’re offering them legal advice. I’m probably much more cautious to remove any impression I can represent anyone else. It is a danger I could see happening particularly when you get into more individual back and forth. I tend to do less of that mostly because I feel protective of people in my feed and don’t want to overwhelm them. I try to limit the individual back and forth.
What surprised you most about being on Twitter?
I think people are often surprised there’s this community of appellate lawyers on Twitter. People would not expect that because of the stereotype of appellate lawyers and lawyers in general who are slow to change, slow to adapt to technology. But what Twitter allows you to do is curate your intake of news. If you’re interested in the Supreme Court, you can follow Scotusblog. And then there is the fun aspect of this community of appellate practitioners who are also interested in sort of a geeky way in cases that come out of the Supreme Court, the federal rules and legal writing.
#AppellateTwitter has taken off. I think people are surprised at that. But if you step back, I am an advocate of #AppellateTwitter because it allows me to not only find people who share my interests but also to share my own knowledge. I really like it when a couple of people—[Hogan Lovells'] Sean Marrotta—do this Practice Tuesday and discuss a question that gives people the opportunity to provide advice. One thing about Twitter is it’s always short. What are your tips for oral argument in 240 characters or maybe 480? It’s helpful to remind yourself of the things you care about, the way you approach different things. And then you get some feedback, good advice or follow this. I really like how [Georgia Court of Appeals] Judge [Stephen] Dillard and [Texas Supreme Court] Justice [Don] Willett engage. They’re very good about getting interesting comments from people, not just from lawyers, but the general public, as well as helping people understand when legal concepts come up in the news. I think there’s a real role for them to fill.
