Law professors as a group are about the least likely to adapt to the unconference style. The unconferences I've been connected with have all been about brainstorming, networking, being open to unpredictable outcomes, and trusting that the results will be worthwhile. Also, unconferences generally evolve and are organized online, so they tend to be suitable for highly wired professionals who are very comfortable with online collaboration.

I would love to see a law unconference, but it would take the right mix of participants and topics to make it happen

Jim: "Law professors as a group are about the least likely to adapt to the unconference style."

Why? Because we are not techy enough? Because law does not require the same entrepreneurial mindset as some other communities?

My initial reaction to this story was to wonder why anyone would do this. Does the drive for unconferencing emanate from the need to think differently about certain vexing issues that face a group? Or is this merely a recognition that the best part of most conferences happens during the breaks between sessions?

I may be missing something, but I'm not sure it makes sense for a scholarly conference. Two things I really like about conferences are (1) learning from the Q&A after the papers, and (2) talking with other folks in the hallway about a paper that I read for the conference. If no one has read any papers in advance, what exactly would you spend time talking about?

Maybe it would work for non-scholarly conferences.

Yeah - there's no substitute for a little bit of face to face interaction during the down time. I admit that I kinda like those diavlogs on bloggingheads, though.

I'd want to try it on something more fun than substantive, like "the greatest SEC commissioner," or the "worst-lawyered takeover" or something.

Though I am skeptical about implementation, I think this idea is intriguing for at least two reasons. First, it is sometimes the case that because of the advanced planning needed for a conference, you sometimes get to a conference and find yourself discussing issues that are not as relevant as they appeared a couple of months prior. Moreover, you find yourself discussing the really hot topics in the hall and/or trying to fit them into the pre-existing agenda. So if the "unconference" idea represents a way to allow conference attendees to discuss hot topics it seems intriguing for that reason. Second, I think it is possible that some, especially junior scholars, may feel left out of the conference process (particularly the agenda-setting piece) and perhaps an unconference will allow more participation by a broader range of people. Having said that, I am skeptical about how we could pull an unconference off. And I agree with Vic and David that I do find value in the way in which conferences occur, particularly the value that comes from exchanges between presenters and participants who have thought about a particular paper/topic in an in-depth manner.

Lisa: "it is sometimes the case that because of the advanced planning needed for a conference, you sometimes get to a conference and find yourself discussing issues that are not as relevant as they appeared a couple of months prior."

Written like the Chair-elect of the Section on Business Associations! This is surely the case with that conference, where content is decided way in advance.

You make a good point about junior scholars, too. Most of us have felt that sort of neglect or had the urge to add ourselves to a panel that was unwittingly discussing our current project.

I've done several legal unconferences and I'd love to share my thoughts. They've been great successes, and once lawyers get over the nervousness of a "conference about nothing," they love it.