Professional Advice Needed: Moving from big to little

This is a question for anyone who knows anything about public defender hiring preferences (to the extent that any generalizations can be made from office to office):

Is it likely that a public defender in a large city (e.g., Chicago) would be hesitant to hire someone whose only experience is as a public defender in a small town in a different state (e.g. somewhere in Montana)? Or is there likely to be bias the other way? Or does the size of the city where you get your first defender experience really make no difference?

The situation is this: I don't have a job. For various reasons, I want to get a job in either Montana or Chicago and I have relatively promising leads in both places but know for sure I won't have a job offer either place before late June or early July at the earliest. I have a hunch that if I get my first job in Montana, work there a few years, then decide I want to go to Chicago (or some other big city), I might face some problems. On the other hand, this hunch says that if I start in Chicago and then decide to move to a smaller city or town, I will have an easier time finding a job. Can anyone offer any information or thoughts that would either corroborate or refute this hunch?

Thank you!

Posted 01:44 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack |

One Possible Path

A lot of people go to law school not knowing what they want to do with their lives or legal careers. I was sort of one of those people; I thought I wanted to get into crafting policy with some sort of nonprofit like Public Citizen, but my plans were always pretty hazy. After three years of law school I'm heading in a very different direction—I hope I'm going to get a job as a public defender. Exactly where that happens, or how long I will stay in such a position, are much less clear. But after reading this obituary for Joel A. Scelsi, a “small-town lawyer,” I have a new model for one career path I know I would find very satisfying.

“He did a lot of pro-bono work; he just helped a lot of people,” said his daughter, Sylvana Dodd of Endwell. “Growing up, people would tell me if you ever got in trouble, go to Joel Scelsi and he'll help you. That was a wonderful part of his life.”

Wouldn't it be great to have your friends and loved ones say things like this about you when you're gone?

[via My Shingle]

Posted 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L

Notes on applying for bar exams*

Dear bar exam application designers (aka Brilliant Ones):

Thank you for the many wonderful hours of fun you've provided in designing your bar exam application processes. At first I found some of the questions you asked a little insulting. For example, what business is it of yours whether I have ever had a divorce or had a marriage annulled or set aside? That affects my “character and fitness” to practice law precisely how? But then I realized that I had an entirely wrong attitude so I just put on a happy face found it much easier to understand and appreciate the brilliance of this process you have designed. Let me count just a few of the ways you have made my life much better.

First, I'm glad you want to know every address at which I've lived since I was 18. There have been 17 of them and it was fun to track them all down. Thanks also for making it so stupidly difficult to enter all that information into your webforms. That was fun.

You've actually made the joy of filling out poorly-designed webforms nearly infinite, thanks to the fact that you provide so very many such forms for my entertainment. While I appreciate being able to submit a copy of my application online, it easily takes five times as long to fill out these web forms as it would to simply write out all the information by hand. Thanks for that pleasure. I really had nothing better to do with my whole damn day than fill out webforms. And if you doubt my sincerity, just look at the fact that I'm actually paying hundreds of dollars for the privilege of this pleasure and you will doubt no more!

Speaking of web forms, thanks for requiring me to submit my application electronically and requiring that I print out multiple copies and mail them to you. I like doing the very same thing multiple times in multiple ways. Redundancy is such a joy!

Oh, and speaking of redundancy, the fact that you require me to apply for the right to apply for the bar exam is a stroke of genius. I just worry that perhaps you're missing a step there; wouldn't the process be much easier for you and applicants to manage if you required us to apply to apply to apply? It's just a suggestion. I figure if one redundancy is good, two is better!

Of all the pleasures you provide with this application, I think the multiple forms requiring notarization are among the most exquisite. I especially like that you want me to get two barred attorneys to vouch for my character and to do so in front of a notary. It's really not enough to ask them to sign the form and mail it in; it's much better to ask them to find a notary and pay to help me apply for the bar exam. Very thoughtful of you, really.

Thanks for asking if I have any outstanding parking tickets. The answer is no, but I can totally see how that would be crucial data in determining whether I'm fit to practice law in your great state.

Also, I hope you have fun with the fingerprint cards I had to pay a surly “law enforcement officer” to help me create. It's nice to know you don't believe me when I say in answer to your many questions that I have no criminal record. I mean, we all like to be distrusted and second-guessed, and you're doing an excellent job of that!

Finally, thanks for asking for so much information about all of my current creditors (e.g. mortgage, credit cards, auto loans, student loans, etc.), including the balance on each, as well as wether any are delinquent or disputed. I didn't even know all of that information and you know, I was sort of thinking I was happier in my ignorance. But now that I know for sure that I owe more than $170,000 to various large corporations to whom I've granted the right to charge me exorbitant interest for probably the rest of my life, I realize that knowledge is power—and all thanks to you!

In short, jumping through the many hoops required to sit for the bar in your state and then being able to pay so dearly for the privilege—well, I just don't know how to thank you for allowing me to have this experience. I'm definitely looking forward to the exam and to working with people smart enough to develop such brilliant ways to welcome new recruits into their profession.

Sincerely,

The Imbroglio

*Not all of these great ideas were found within the same bar application process. Instead, I've assembled here a collection of some of the most brilliant requirements from a couple of applications. If you've ever applied for a bar exam or looked over an application, what were the most brilliant parts for you?

Posted 08:14 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack | 3L bar exam

Montana Public Defender Uncertainty

As the July 1 deadline approaches for Montana's move to a statewide public defender system, it's a little hard to tell what's happening. The part I care most about is what they're going to do about staffing. The last news I heard was that the Public Defender Commission had announced that current public defenders (those who have been employed by county governments up until now) will not be guaranteed jobs in the new state system. I know that probably sounds bad for them, but I also assume that, despite that announcement, most of them will actually end up getting hired by the state. So I'm still wondering: Will the state be hiring new public defenders soon? And if so, will they be considering new graduates like myself? The commission met for the second time this year two weeks ago and I sort of assumed they'd be talking about staffing issues at that tim. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a single news report or press release to indicate what happened at that meeting. Uncertainty reigns.

In the only news I have found recently, one county hasnamed an interim public defender to work only between now and July 1. But come on — are we really supposed to believe that people like this are just going to lose their jobs on July 1?

Meanwhile, I've set up one initial interview elsewhere—the first of what I'm told is a 3-step interview/hiring process that can take three months or more. Great.

All this job uncertainty is not fun, but one thing makes it infinitely worse: The bar exam. For this and many other reasons I agree with Professor Solove: We should abolish it!

Posted 09:13 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | Montana

Congratulations, Scoplaw!

Congratulations to fellow law school blogger Scoplaw whose first full length book of poetry, “Ice Sculpture of Mermaid with Cigar,” is now available for pre-order!

Scoplaw (aka, RJ McCaffery) will also be reading from his book next Monday, April 3, at Georgetown law. His blog currently says the reading will be next Tuesday, but I'm sure he'll be updating that soon.

Posted 09:41 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | ai books

Cherry Cherry Bloom Bloom

The National Cherry Blossom Festival started yesterday. If you're in D.C., you better go check it out. After I saw the Tidal Basin in bloom last year I can guarantee you won't be sorry. We went down there this morning and only a few trees were really in blossom. I'm thinking that by Wednesday or Thursday, the Tidal Basin will be awash in white, so plan to go then, if you can.

Posted 04:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | life generally

Cost-effective searching on Westlaw

For those of you about to graduate law school: Your infinite supply of “free” legal research crack is about to come to an end. Many of you have hooked up with a new pusherman (e.g. a firm that's going to bill your continued Wexis access to its clients), but it's unlikely your new dealer is going to be as generous as the one on which you've come to depend. Looks like it's time to check into rehab!

To help you get started, here are some things I learned recently from our Westlaw representative:

Westlaw offers three main pricing options. First, “Plan A” is kind of old school. When you log into Westlaw with Plan A you'll have to choose whether you want your session to be billed hourly or by transaction. If you choose “hourly,” the clock starts the second you log in and it keeps ticking at the same rate regardless of what you do. If you have this option, use it only when you know exactly what you want and you can dive in, grab it, and print it, then get out. If you choose to be billed by transaction, you'll only be charged for the actual searches you conduct. There is no charge for logging in; charges basically begin once you enter a search query and hit “search.”

The second and most common pricing plan is called “Special Plan” (creative, huh?) and it's basically a negotiated flat rate for searches w/in some subset of Westlaw's available databases; each subscriber negotiates which databases are included in their “special” plan. You can do as many searches as you want in databases included in the plan; searches in databases outside the plan cost extra. This is a common arrangement in many firms and government agencies. Talk to your firm/agency librarian to find out exactly what is and is not included in your special plan.

Westlaw's last pricing option is called “Pro Plan.” It's a “mini flat rate” designed for public interest organizations, solos, and really small or boutique firms. You pay a flat rate each month for access to only a couple of sources you know you need. For example, if you're practicing criminal law in Alaska, you'd probably have access to Alaska and maybe 9th Circuit criminal cases, as well as Alaska criminal statutes, and that's it. You'll be shut out of everything else. (I assume you could always have a second login for searching on a transactional basis on your own dime.)

If for some reason you're ever stuck searching on a per-transaction basis, here are some things to keep in mind to keep costs to a minimum:

1. The larger the DB, the more expensive to search. Pick the appropriate size db for your research task.
2. The more specialized the database, the more expensive it is.
3. Use the “directory” to narrow your search (look for the white “directory” link at the top of your screen after you log in). This makes Westlaw a little more like Lexis in that it allows you to choose the most appropriate (and narrow) database for your search.
4. In the Directory, the sources on the right side are more expensive than those on the left.
5. In the Directory, use the “Topical Practice Areas” to narrow your search.
6. Charges begin once you enter a search string and hit “search.”
7. Once you get a list of results they are included in the transaction; you can read through them w/out extra charge.
8. When you want to search, write out the search on piece of paper so you don't waste time and money experimenting w/search terms inside Westlaw.
9. Also, before you search, call 1-800-Westlaw; tell them you want to run search but you're not sure of the results. They will run it for you and tell you how many cases you'll get. If it's a bad search, they will help you craft a better search. This is free!
10. Over time you'll get better at formulating searches, but until that point, don't hesitate to call for every single research assignment you have.
11. If you just know the issue but don't know what kind of search to run, you can also call that number and they will help you formulate your search.
12. Within a search result, “Results Plus” results (in the frame on left side of screen) cost extra.
13. Internal citations w/in cases count as extra transactions. If you just want to click on citations and print them out, use the hourly search.
14. If you accidentally hit “search” before you were finished formulating your search terms, call the number and tell them you messed up and they will credit you.
15. A “transaction” does not depend on the number of hits you get. Make sure your search is not too narrow or too broad. 40-150 might be pretty good number of results.
16. Narrowing in a search: use Locate in Result—does not count as transaction.
17. Use “Field” searching to get a quicker answer. E.g., author, attorney, synopsis digest, etc.
18. The Synopsis Digest field restricts search to summary and headnotes.
19. The Synopsis field restricts to that.
20. “Digest” restricts to headnotes only.
21. Words/Phrases will search for any part of the case that talks about the definition of a term; use for definitions of legal issues related to a word or phrase.
22. Keycite is a transaction; use it only for those cases you absolutely know are going into your brief.
23. Keycite is probably the least expensive transaction on WL.
24. Use “limit keycite display” at the bottom of a keycite results page to narrow results for no extra charge.
25. Research Trail keeps history of your searches; print this trail for every assignment you do to give you a research record for every client/assignment.
26. You can return to those results before 2 a.m. on the next day.

When I started law school and learned about the way Wexis gets law students used to unlimited service and then yanks it away at graduation, I knew it was going to be hard to deal with when the time came. As I think about not being able to just sort of go exploring inside Wexis anymore, I know I'm going to miss that freedom. A lot.

Posted 12:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L advice law school

Online Airline Ticket Ripoffs

Ok people, please tell me I'm insane. Here's what just happened: Yesterday I checked on a flight just to see what the prices were. I checked Expedia and Orbitz. I also tried Hotwire but didn't get far Hotwire can't sell same-day return tickets. On both Expedia and Orbitz I found non-stop roundtrip tickets for $225.

Today, I was ready to purchase a ticket so I returned to Expedia only to find that the nonstop tickets were now $335! If I wanted to transfer flights once, I could get $255, but the $225 tickets were no longer available. Hmm. After just one day? It's possible, but.... So I checked Orbitz. Same thing. What about Travelocity? Same thing. Damn! It looked like I'd just missed it.

But as I was complaining about this to L., she suggested we check it on her computer, just to see if we could get that $225 price again. And guess what? The exact same search in Expedia on her computer gave us that low price—$5 less, in fact. So I bought the ticket through her computer for $220.

At first I thought the travel sites must have set a cookie in my browser; once they saw I was returning to search for a flight I had recently searched, they jacked the price. So I searched with two other browsers (Omniweb and Camino)—they both gave the higher prices, too. This seems like pretty clear proof to me that these travel sites are actually watching my IP address. They track what IP address looks at what flights, and if you return w/in a reasonable amount of time to the same flight, they jack up the price.

Am I insane here, or is this true? L. says Amazon is doing something like this now, too—charging different prices based on purchase history or something. Can this be for real? Swanno suggested the airline ticket sites were doing something similar last summer, but somehow this seems even more sinister. A few minutes searching around Google doesn't reveal any complaints about this, but how else to explain the fact that the same search produced different results on different machines?

Posted 10:04 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack | life generally

Sell your law school debt on ebay!

Speaking of student loan debt, Asian Provocateur points to one of her classmates who is offering us all the chance to help him pay off his loans on eBay.

My name is Erik Mayans. I am currently a law student in my third year of law school. I have done well in school, but I have a problem. A huge problem that only gets more unmanageable as the interest continues to pile on. I am talking about my law school debt, which is currently well above $50,000.00. In less than three years, I have put myself in over $50,000 of debt to cover tuition expenses.

So, in my effort to escape this crushing debt load, I am going to make you a deal. Before I do, I want to ask you one question. When you give to charity, does it make you feel good? Satisfied?

Well, that's what I am offering. Your personal satisfaction!

By making a donation to help me pay off my crushing law school debt, you will be helping a young law student pay off his tuition debt, and that just may give you some of the personal satisfaction that you're searching for. So reach into your hearts, give a little (or a lot!) and get a lot in return--satisfaction! Along with the feeling of warmth and goodness you will get by helping me, you will also receive a personalized thank you card!

Sounds like a great idea! Can't you spare $5 for Erik? And hey, since my debt is more than three times what his is, how about you send me $15? If 10,000 of you would pitch in you'd be making my life infinitely better!

On a totally unrelated note and also from Asian Provocateur, if you're a fan of Russian figure skater and gold medalist Evgeni Plushenko, you have to see this video.

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L

Jury Duty in D.C.

What happens to a law student called for jury duty? The same thing that happens to most of the other people called: nothing.

I spent the other day in D.C. Superior Court in the juror's lounge waiting to be called for a panel, but the call never came. Of course I was disappointed, but it did mean we got to leave at about 3 p.m., so I wasn't really complaining.

Read on for the long and completely stupid story of how I managed to complicate my jury service by getting a judge to issue a warrant for my arrest!

The excitement came before I actually reported for duty. I was originally summoned last fall—I think it was late October I was supposed to show up, or maybe November. I didn't take it very seriously b/c I just assumed there was no way a law student—and one who wants to be a criminal defender, no less—would ever make it on to a jury. In fact, I forgot all about it until sometime long after I was supposed to report, so I just figured they'd send me another summons for a different day. I based this assumption on my experience living in California where I received several jury summonses, never responded to any of them (because I was moving every few months and almost never actually living at the address where I received mail), and suffered no consequences at all.

But you know what happens when you assume something... D.C. apparently takes jury duty a little more seriously than those California jurisdictions because last month I got a notice ordering me to court to “show cause” why I should not be held in contempt for failing to report to jury duty. The notice said I could be imprisoned for 7 days and/or fined $300 if I could not show such cause. Yikes.

But wait, it got worse—I forgot the show cause hearing, too! Yeah. It was scheduled during Spring Break and although I put it in my calendar, I forgot to tell my calendar toremind me about it. And since I was on break, I wasn't checking my calendar; I didn't really think I had anything scheduled, and I just didn't look. Oops. So by that time I'd failed to appear for a court summons twice.

This actually worried me quite a bit. I know that if one of my criminal misdemeanor clients doesn't show up to court when he's supposed to, the court takes that very seriously and simple excuses like “I forgot” just don't fly. Would it be different for jury duty?

So I went to the court the next business day with much trepidation. Were they going to throw me in jail? Would I have to beg the judge for mercy? Would they at least fine me? Was this going to be something I'd have to report on my bar examinations?

Most of you will probably be unsurprised to learn that none of those things happened. True, the judge had ordered the issuance of a warrant for my arrest, but lucky for me the warrant had not been issued yet when I showed up with hat in hand and begging for mercy, so the good people in the jury office just cancelled the warrant and assigned me another day to return for jury duty. That's it. Bing, bang, and I was out of there. I then reported for jury duty as ordered, waited around 4-5 hours, and went home a completely free man.

But you know what? The next time I get a jury summons, I think I'll just avoid a lot of anxiety and hassle and just go to court when it says I should.

Posted 09:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | 3L

Up to your eyeballs in debt

I recently attended a mandatory “exit counseling” session for law students who have borrowed money to pay for law school. Here are a few things worth remembering—especially if you have law school or other student loan debt of your own.

1. The average debt for the 2006 GW graduating class is $96,770.
2. 25% of those people borrowed over $120,000 in law-school-only debt (not counting any other educational debt).
3. Whatever your debt situation, you should always pay off the highest-interest loans first, which means you should pay the absolute minimum on your federal loans until you've paid off your private loans.
4. To get information about your federal loans, visit NSLDS.
5. If you consolidated last year before July 1, 2005, you probably locked in an interest rate of about 2.85%.
6. If you have since borrowed more federal money, you can consolidate again before July 1, 2006 and lock in a rate of 4.7% (I think).
7. Interest on private loans is a quarterly variable rate based on prime which is currently 7.5%. Many interest rates are prime plus 3.5%.
8. Every lender by law must offer the option to pay interest-only for the first few years.
9. You can defer or forbear federal loans if you meet the appropriate conditions (e.g., low income levels or if you're back in school).
10. Deferment is better than forbearance because the gov't will pay your interest while your loans are in deferment.
11. You can only have a total of 3 years of hardship deferment on federal loans over the life of repayment.
12. Plan to use those three years wisely.
13. If you are graduating in May and do not yet have a job lined up, you should apply now to defer repayment for one year while you try to find a job.
14. If you get a job or want to start paying again at any time while your loans are in repayment, you can cancel the deferment and reserve the rest of your 3 years of available hardship deferment for some other time when you need it more.
15. You cannot defer or forbear private loans. Ever. Those loans are what they are and you better get ready to start repayment in either June or Nov., depending on whether you still have your grace period (which depends on whether you consolidated those loans last year).
16. If you consolidate, you have rights to keep whatever loans you want out of consolidation. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
17. You might want to exclude your highest interest rate loans from deferment because the interest rate on your consolidation loan will be calculated based on the interest rates of the loans it is consolidating.
18. If you consolidated loans last year and want to take a second consolidation loan just for the loans you've taken since you consolidated, you should file for that consolidation between May 1 and July 1 2006 in order to keep your grace period on those most recent loans.

I owe, I owe, so off to work I would like to go. Won't someone please pretty please give me a job!?

Disclaimer: You should not rely on what I've written here. Please verify anything you see here with your lender, your financial planner, or someone in your financial aid office.

Posted 12:34 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | 3L

This imbroglio's PersonalDNA

According to this test, this imbroglio is a:

It sounds mostly right. What's your PersonalDNA?

Posted 12:15 PM | TrackBack | life generally

I say we make it a mantra

Yubbledew gave a press conference today. Here's my response:

The tools we're using to “protect” the American people shouldn't be used.

Oh, and your president says he didn't want to go to war. Really?

Posted 07:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | general politics

The incredible tales of G.W.Bush & Co.

Three years ago on the imbroglio:

As the world waits with apparent resignation for the U.S. to begin killing Iraqis and pulverizing Iraq (and losing who knows how many of our own troops), some of us continue to ask: Why this war? Why now? . . . . Are we really going to kill thousands of Iraqis to save U.S. hegemony? What's certain is that we are definitely going to kill many Iraqis, at least some number of American troops, and injure and anger countless people around the world. Whether we're doing this for oil, dollar supremacy, or some other completely insane reason is impossible to say.

. . . .

Yesterday Ari Fliescher said, “the President hopes that people will continue with their normal lives.” Of course he does. We're not supposed to think about what's really going on, we're supposed to go about our “business,” proud of the fact that we live in such a “strong” country. We're supposed to “support our troops,” which seems to be code for “cease all criticism of anything other than the evildoers and what they've done.” It's easier for our troops to kill people when Americans are acting like it's just another day in the best of all possible worlds.

. . . .

The point is: This war was never inevitable until Bush made it inevitable. None of the reasons I've heard for going to war have been even slightly convincing, and I'm sick with the thought of U.S. citizens shopping in malls and going to movies and watching war porn while people die in our names. Why can't people remember that, despite all Bush Administration claims to the contrary, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11?

Three years later, I don't want to say I told you so. Instead, I just want to point out a simple fact: Those who pushed the war and tried to convince the world it was necessary turned out to be completely wrong—as wrong as wrong could be. Nearly every single thing those people said turned out to be incorrect. And whether they were wrong because they were lying on purpose, or because they were just relying on bad information, the fact remains that they were wrong. They have continued to be wrong on just about everything for the last three years.

Meanwhile, those who never believed the attack on Iraq was necessary or justified—they were right in nearly everything they said three years ago. For the last three years, most of their criticisms of the war have continued to be accurate and subsequent facts have shown that they were correct all along.

So now, today, shouldn't we listen to those who always opposed the war? If we have any desire to learn from our mistakes rather than repeat them, shouldn't we start listening to the people who have shown they have a grasp on what's really going on in the world?

Posted 07:51 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack | general politics

Sunday Sermon: Teaching Integrity

What makes lawyers behave badly? And how can we teach them to do better right from the start?

These questions spring from the big legal news of the last week (besides the little fact that our representatives in Congress seem to think the president is above the law)— the prosecutorial misconduct in the sentencing phase of the Moussaui trial. While countless others have already made many interesting points about this attorney misconduct (see, e.g., Concurring Opinions here and here, OrinKerr.com, and Scoplaw), I want to raise it now in connection with the fact that the faculty at GW law are convinced their students are completely untrustworthy cheaters. I believe this sort of law school faculty attitude helps produce attorneys who act unethically.

You see, at GW law you must take your exams when they are scheduled; there are no exceptions of which I'm aware. Therefore, when you pick your class schedule, you must also check to see that none of the corresponding exams will overlap or conflict w/one another. This sometimes means students cannot take the classes they would like to take merely because the exam schedule doesn't work. Therefore, students recently proposed more flexibility in taking exams so that not everyone in the class would have to take the exam at the same time. Professors said (and I'm paraphrasing) “no way; then our students would cheat!”

Students at GW (and any other law school where the faculty act in similar fashion) are getting the message loud and clear, and that message is: I'm expected to cheat. If students then do, in fact, cheat, they are only fulfilling the expectations set for them by their professors.

So we have law students learning that they are expected to behave unethically and break the rules whenever they can get away with it. Is it any wonder we have attorneys like Carla J. Martin, the rule-breaking and unethical lawyer in the Moussaui case? She was just living up to her profession's (and society's) expectations of her as a lawyer—expectations she probably learned well in a law school that didn't trust her.

(As an aside: Putting the President above the law does relate to questions of professional ethics. If our elected leaders don't have to follow the law, why should any of the rest of us (professionals or not) have to follow it either? And if laws are made to be broken, how much more fungible are rules of ethical conduct?)

In the February '06 edition of Student Lawyer Magazine, Professor Lori Shaw addressed similar questions about exam policies; she asked whether cheating really is a problem in law school, and if so, what should be done about it. (The article is not available online.) Professor Shaw is conducting an online survey to collect responses to these questions—I'm sure she'd love it if you took a minute to complete the survey.

The questions Professor Shaw raises are good ones and I look forward to hearing what she learns from her survey. But even without knowing those results, I have little doubt that policies like GW's exam policy are sending exactly the wrong message to law students who are learning to become members of a profession that is supposedly self-regulating.

Hence, the sermon: Law students need to learn from day one that they have an extremely serious obligation to behave ethically and to report ethical breaches (cheating) by their peers. This is vital because they must regulate themselves and each other while in practice. No one likes to tell on their friends, but so long as the legal profession continues to maintain that that's the best way to regulate legal services (a dubious position, to be sure), law students and lawyers are going to have to do exactly that. It takes work to get people to actually become the ethical actors and tattletales that a self-regulating profession requires them to be; that work needs to begin in law school.

(Read on for a couple of the questions from Professor Shaw's survey and my responses to them.)

17. Who within the law school should be responsible for identifying cheaters? Law students often find themselves extremely uncomfortable in the role of accuser, but most law school honor codes place the responsibility for reporting wrongdoing squarely on students. Is that where it belongs?

Students should have the responsibility to not cheat in the first place and to report cheating if they see it or learn of it. If this is going to remain a self-regulating profession, that needs to begin in law school. If you teach students that you don't trust their integrity, you'll teach them to have none. Currently my law school teaches exactly this, which is why I'm not surprised to hear about lawyers behaving badly. Of course, it goes both ways. Law students see that in practice they will generally have to be *seriously* unethical to suffer any serious sanctions, so that may also teach them that breaking the rules a little here and there is no big deal and is expected and accepted by the profession.

19. What is the proper punishment for a law student found to have cheated on exam? What should happen to cheaters?

They should get an F in the course but also a letter that will be forwarded to all the state bar where that student applies for membership upon graduation. The letter should also remain in their professional file permanently.

20. In recent years, many universities have taken the position that the undergraduate years are a time of growth and that even a student's serious error in judgment should be viewed as creating a learning opportunity. Should the same standard apply in law schools, or should expulsion be the rule? Has the time for “living and learning” experiences passed, or is youth still a viable defense? What type of punishment fits this crime? Should we be seeking to rehabilitate, to deter, to punish, to denounce, to incapacitate, or some combination of the foregoing? Should law schools adopt a zero-tolerance policy?

Law school is a learning experience, so no, the punishment for cheating should not be so permanent as expulsion. The goals should be deterence, punishment, and rehabilitation. That's why I think the appropriate punishment is to fail the course and have a letter sent to the bar association in the state where the student applies for admission to practice. This is a serious penalty, but it should not destroy the person's legal career. (Of course, that's assuming the state bar association does not decide to refuse admission to anyone with such a letter. But again, there's no reason for them to be so draconian. Instead, state bars should take such letters as a warning that they need to look over this application more carefully and look at all other factors of the applicant. But mostly the letter should just remain in the student/lawyer's professional file for the rest of his/her life as a reminder and added incentive to follow the rules as a professional.)


22. If cheating is a real problem or is perceived as a problem, how should law students and law schools address that problem? Are there ways to change the culture?

I don't really think it's that big a problem. But regardless of the size of the problem, law schools should teach ethical behavior and put the responsibility on students to meet high expectations. If there's a problem w/bad ethical behavior in the legal profession, part of the reason for that has to be that students learn that they are expected to behave badly (see answer 17 above). We can start changing that by setting higher expectations and showing law students how a self-regulating profession is supposed to work.

(As an aside: If cheating is a problem in the legal profession I also think you can attribute much of it to the rise of law and economics and its cost/benefit analyses that encourage any sort of behavior so long as the benefits outweigh the costs. If that's true, then penalties for cheating need to be greater -- for both law students and practitioners who act unethically. However, this only makes it more important for law schools to teach students that as professionals they are expected to adhere to very high expectations. Exam policies that rely more on the honor system and less on surveillance and suspicion are one great way to start teaching those lessons.)

Posted 09:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L law school

Conviction, Take Two: “Denial”

I just got around to watching the second episode of “Conviction,” the latest addition to the Law & Order tv franchise. To give you an idea of the quality of this show, Blonde Justice can't even watch it, and she's a practicing public defender who knows a thing or two about criminal trials and prosecutors. As Magic Cookie suggests, the degree to which one likes this show may be inversely related to how much one knows about prosecutors. I guess I don't know very much, so the show retains some fascination.

The second episode raised lots of questions for those of us who don't really know the ins and outs of how prosecutors do their jobs. For example, how common is it for prosecutors to run around their jurisdiction chasing down witnesses and otherwise investigating cases? I've always been under the impression that prosecutors never leave their offices except to go to court. Don't the police do their investigation for them? Does it just depend on the jurisdiction? Or the prosecutor? And how often would they pay their witnesses? Here in D.C., witness get $40 just for showing up to court in response to a subpoena, so I guess prosecutors don't have to fork it over so much.

Next, Harry Potter (the baby prosecutor) would not be allowed to go handle arraignments for the first time w/out any supervision whatsoever, would he? I mean, prosecutors might be irresponsible, but...

And talk about your prosecutorial discretion—that blonde “bureau chief” w/the glasses sure has a lot of power. It seems like she's the only one who decides what to charge and what deals are allowed. Sure, they talk about political pressure coming from somewhere, but she's the enforcer. I would so hate to be that person, but I would hate even more working under her thumb and being told how I can and cannot handle my cases. She makes her prosecutors into even bigger tools than they would be on their own.

The best thing about this episode is that it shows that prosecutors often have to be inhuman jerks and prosecute people they don't think they should be prosecuting. I'm referring to the 14-year-old who beats his older brother to death with a baseball bat after the older brother had physically and mentally tortured the defendant for two years. The case also shows how frequently the law can do nothing about the real cause or guilty party in crime. Here, the father supposedly pushed the dead older brother mercilessly, and the older brother then took out his frustrations on his younger brother; therefore, the father is the real person to blame for the fact that the older brother is now dead. This is the kind of emotional manipulation this show (and its Law & Order siblings) is best at, but still, it's a pretty good illustration of one of the reasons I don't want to be a prosecutor—I just could not try that kid (as an adult, no less!) and lock him up for some sizable number of years.

Some might say that this sort of dreck humanizes prosecutors by casting them in the most favorable possible light. No doubt, that's true. But this is still positive b/c I think too many idealistic law students think they want to be prosecutors because they don't realize they're going to have to do these kinds of things and that they will have so little control over what to charge, what pleas they can offer, etc. So this kind of thing might at least give a short pause to some of those would-be prosecutors, and that's a good thing, I think.

The worst thing about this episode is the totally implausible (I hope) situation where the state's witness (described as a homeless, drug-addicted prostitute) doesn't show and instead of dismissing the case (which is what would probably happen in D.C.), the judge “orders” the attorneys to “make a deal.” As if. If I was the defense attorney I'd just say no deal and keep going to court in the hope that the witness would continue to not show and the judge would eventually dismiss. I guess if the offer was really awesome I might think about it, but....

I don't even want to get into the whole “bad” gambling prosecutor plotline. Whatever. I mean, I'm sure there are prosecutors who get into that sort of trouble, but those people—who obviously know their behavior is reprehensible, if not illegal—are not nearly as interesting to me as the ones who think they are doing the right thing.

Anyway, that's episode two. What did you think of it?

p.s.: Tivo should be recording episode three for me tonight, so whenever I get around to watching it, I'll let you know

Posted 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | crimlaw tv land

Is Bush above the law?

Is the President of the United States above the law? Apparently Senator Joe Lieberman thinks so. When asked about whether Bush should be censored for breaking federal law by ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without warrants or any judicial oversight whatsoever, Lieberman said:

I've said before that I disagree with the Bush administration's legal judgment on this one. I don't believe that they have operated within the law as it exists. But this is a critically important program -- the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States. And I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program. If this place was operating as it should, we'd all be figuring out how to sit down around a table and bring it within the law. And I hope that's what will happen. But I'll look at it and let you know how I feel after that.

So Lieberman agrees Bush broke the law, but all he cares about is rewriting the law to make Bush's actions legal.

Go Joe.

Lieberman's comments on this were the most outrageous I heard, but sadly, he's not alone. Yet, a majority of Americans support the censure. Is there only one spine in the Democratic party?

See Also: Sleepy Kid: “Watching the Democrats stumbling around in search of a ”message“ is the only thing more agonizing than watching the Republicans destroy this country.”

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack | general politics

Hellphone Update

Not long after yesterday's rant my mystery caller called back! I played voicemail tag with him yesterday and today but finally got to speak with him a little bit ago. Guess what? He offered me an interview! Hooray!

And then....

Him: So when do you plan to relocate here? You're in D.C. now, right?

Me: Right. And I graduate in about five weeks so I plan to move as soon as possible after that.

Him: *pause* Oh. So you're not a member of the bar?

Me: No, not yet. Does that change things?

Him: Yes, actually. I need someone right away. But be sure and give me a call once you're a member of the bar.

Me: Absolutely. I'll do that.

*click*

Ok, so that's obviously not a verbatim transcript, but that was the gist. So the job search continues but with one less option to consider. I mean, if I do end up taking that state's bar exam (rather unlikely at this point) and/or if I'm still looking come November, I'll definitely give him a call, but for now I'll be focusing on other options—ones that might include a real job offer prior to taking the bar.

Oh well. At least I no longer have to wonder what might have been.

Posted 05:05 PM | TrackBack | 3L

Blawgging for dollars?

Law Books for Less has just started a new affiliate program that will allow bloggers to earn 5% of every sale generated from their sites. You can redeem your commission as LawBooksForLess.com gift certificates or cash—your choice when you sign up.

This is similar to the Amazon Associates program, so it's nothing new. The difference is that law students must buy books, so is it possible they might try to help each other out by buying books through links on the blogs of fellow law students?

It's an interesting idea. What do you think, people? Want to buy all your books through the imbroglio from now on? ;-)

I used to be pretty down on all the different ways to scrape together a few pennies online. However, in the last year I've made enough through different referral programs like this to pay for all my web hosting (not a small bill) and then some. That means I (and everyone on blawgcoop.com) get to blog for free and that's pretty cool. I have no desire to become some web entrepreneur (ok, not much of a desire, anyway), but at least until I get a job and a regular paycheck, not having to pay to blog is a really nice thing.

By the way, the Dreamhost Rewards has been the most lucrative source of income for me by far. Thank you so much to those of you who donated to the hosting of this site or signed up with Dreamhost and named me as your referrer!

Posted 04:22 PM | TrackBack | meta-blogging

The sweet simplicity of 1L (aka nostalgia)

A 2L named “Trees” at Nolo Contendere is yearning for his/her first year of law school :

I’m not saying that first year was easy. It was anything but easy. It was, however, fairly uncomplicated. I went to class, I did my reading (most of the time), I studied for my classes, I did what my LRW professor said I needed to do. I focused on my five classes. I remember how irritated I used to be that a single test would form my entire grade for a class. Now I actually find myself wishing that all I had to do was take a test.

“Trees” dismisses this yearning as stress talking, but I can completely empathize. Looking back on 1L from your second or third years it begins to take on a sort of rosy patina of simplicity and innocence. You realize that it was only hard becuase you made it that way, and that 2L and 3L can get super crazy with the myriad things you have to do (papers, internships, interviews, activities, mpre, bar exam applications, etc). The single-minded focus of 1L can start to look pretty nice, actually.

I wonder if this is how law school as a whole is going to look from the perspective of practicing law...

Posted 09:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L

Hellphones

You know what? I hate cellphones. You know why? Because I'm way too stupid to use them and now it might cost me a job. Here's the story:

I was in court the other day—all dressed up in my monkey suit, my fancy leather briefcase (a great gift from L. to make me look all lawyerlike) all filled with client files, and my cellphone on vibrate in the outer pocket. The judge hadn't taken the bench yet so I was talking to the clerk about what I had on the docket that day. The prosecutor and I had worked out a plea deal that the clerk was not going for and he was saying he couldn't call my case until I did x and y. As he's telling me that basically the best hope I had of getting my client out of jail that day—which was really the whole point of taking the plea—might not work out, my cellphone started vibrating. Now, one thing you learn quickly in court is that the “judicial assistant” (aka “court clerk”) can be your best friend or your worst enemy, so I wanted to do what this man was telling me to do and I wanted to show him the respect he deserved, and I also wanted to get this little matter resolved. So my only thought when the phone started vibrating was to make. it. stop. And since I was really more focused on what the clerk was saying, my automatic response to stop the vibrating was to—wait for it—open the damn phone!

But, of course, when you open my phone while it's ringing (or vibrating), you answer the call. So there I am, in court, talking to the clerk, with my cellphone open in my hand (hanging by my side so the clerk couldn't see it) and someone on the other end saying “hello? hello? *hello?*” What was I going to do? Well, what could I do? I closed the phone. And then I finished the conversation and left the courtroom to do the things the clerk had decided it was necessary for me to do.

A little later when I had a free minute I checked to see who had been calling me. It was a number I only vaguely recognized, so I just called it. And guess what? It turned out to be the number of one of the offices to which I applied for a job a few weeks ago. An office that it might be pretty cool to work in. Maybe. But anyway, it was a potential employer who had been calling me—an unemployed law student w/lots of loans to repay—and I had basically hung up on him (or her)!

But that's no big deal, right? I could just give the office my name and explain that someone had called me and that I had applied for a job so the call was probably about that. Surely that would be enough for them to connect me with whomever it was who had called, right? Wrong. Several days and half a dozen calls later and I'm no closer to learning who called me that day or what it was they wanted. All I get from the office is that it's big and there's really no telling who might have called me and I should just hope they call back.

Awesome, huh? And all because I'm not smart enough to just push the darn “mute” button on the side of the phone instead of answering the darn thing! If I hadn't answered, at least the caller could have left a message with a name and number for me to call! But no. I answered. And the caller heard nothing but maybe some distant sounds from the room and I can only assume that he/she hasn't called back because he/she assumes the number was incorrect or something. Or maybe she/she just went to the next name on the list and I missed my chance. Who knows? I know I don't, and now I probably never will.

Dammit!

Posted 11:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | 3L

Defenders hanging out their shingle

Not Guilty has recently been chronicling the fascinating story of her move from a firm to starting her own firm with a couple of partners. In the latest installment she talks about how wonderfully large her new office is going to be and about shopping for office supplies of her very own. It sounds like an exciting time as she comes closer to being more on her own than she was at the firm.

She also notes that Steven Wells, author of Alaskablawg and the attorney who just won the Rachel Waterman murder case, is also planning to go out on his own. Wells writes:

I am choosing to go into private practice because I look forward to the freedom that allows. There are some things I want to do that I simply cannot right now. I would like, for example, to get into federal work, taking CJA cases. I am also interested in doing international work, which I cannot do right now.

I wish both of them the very best!

Their stories make me wonder if I will ever feel like doing the same. Thus far, I have felt almost no desire to hang my own shingle or attempt to form a small firm with a few partners. And I don't think I'm alone in that. I know only one fellow 3L at GW who is seriously considering trying to make his living next year as a court-appointed criminal defender here in D.C. My own desire is to work in a medium-sized public defender's office where I'll have plenty of experienced people to work with and learn from in my first years of practice.

I'm guessing this desire to work with experienced mentors rather than going it alone is common and stems from the more or less universally acknowledged fact that law school does not teach people how to practice law. Law students graduate with the understanding that they have no idea how to practice the profession for which the J.D. supposedly qualifies them, so we seek positions that will help us learn those things. It's a pretty satisfying thing to pay $150,000 for a degree that basically makes you feel like you don't know your butt from first base.

Posted 10:13 AM | TrackBack | 3L

Spelling does matter, people

At GW we have a password-protected web “portal” that displays announcements that are ostensibly relevant to law students. One of the recent announcements read:

Congradulations to the new editorial board of the [Mystery Journal]!

We would like to congradulate the new editorial board of the [Mystery Journal]:

I think if my name followed that colon I might feel just a bit less happy about being on that journal after a welcome like that. Just a bit.

Posted 08:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L

Congratulations, Seester!

Yesterday was a great day—my sister just got a new job! I don't write much about my family here but this is just such great news I wanted to share it with the world. So: Congratulations, Seester! I hope this position will be as great for you as it looks like it's going to be!

Posted 11:07 AM | TrackBack | life generally

Law School Prison Blues

Mother In Law writes:

Waaayyy back in December, just after finals were done, I received an early Christmas gift from a student at my school. He and another law student had written a parody of Johnny Cash's Folsum Prison Blues called Law School Prison Blues. I had every intention of posting it back then, but ran into some technical problems and couldn't get it done. But I got a little help from ai, and now here it is for your listening enjoyment. Kudos and thanks to Ryan Kasak and Eric Staples!

The brilliance and talent of law students shines again!

See also The Hearsay Exceptions Movie created by one of E. Spat's classmates. And isn't there at least one more brilliant law school musical creation I'm missing?

UPDATE: The song I was missing, again courtesy of Energy Spatula: Come and do your evidence homework with me!

Posted 08:29 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L law school

If Chewbacca lives on Endor....

In a couple of hours I have to give a closing argument in a fictional case for a class. I'm seriously thinking about using the Chewbacca Defense. I mean, I stopped caring about grades a long time ago, so why not? Plus, if it's good enough for Johnny Cochran....

Posted 01:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L

Where did spring break go?

Monday morning after spring break. Ouch. You'd think that knowing that I only have about five weeks left of law school would make it easier to get back to the grind, but you know what? I think the opposite is true. In fact, I just feel done with the whole business. I've had enough of law school. You can keep the last five weeks, thanks.

Of course, it's not that easy, is it?

I have a mountain of stuff to get done before this chapter in my life comes to a close so I'm off to start the climb. Meanwhile, if you're going to be in D.C. this weekend, be sure to sign up for the GW EJF Race for Justice. And if you want to add a “lawyer's lawyer” blog to your reading list, check out OrinKerr.com, the setting up of which was one of my little projects over the break.

Oh, and one more thing: Can you believe what happened on BSG and the Sopranos this weekend? I'm not saying what happened, I'm just saying can you believe it!? Television can be such a cruel mistress....

Posted 07:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L

A Public Service Announcement

(That's supposed to be animated to display all the different things no one could supposedly have anticipated since Bush was elected. I guess resizing it turns off the animation? I dunno; just click it to see the better animated version.)

Posted 10:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | general politics

Ambivalent Question: Preparing for the Bar Exam

This week's Ambivalent Question® (at top right) asks: “Which bar review course will you (or did you) take?”

The poll lists various options, many of which I know nothing about. Those options include:

• Bar/Bri, an all-around bar review course available for every state. Offers video-taped lectures or self-study via recorded lectures on iPod. I believe in some places you can attend a lecture from a real-live person, too. Cost varies by state; I believe Montana is about the cheapest at $800, while NY, IL, and CA are among the most expensive at something like $2400.
• PMBR, a three or six day review focused only on the MBE (Multi-state Bar Exam). The MBE is “a six-hour, two-hundred question multiple-choice examination covering contracts, torts, constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, and real property.” PMBR claims it complements or supplements other review courses b/c they are focused on the law of a specific state, rather than on the larger legal principles tested on the MBE. Cost: $795 for the 6-day course, $395 for the 3-day (discounts for ABA/LSD members).
• BarPlus, which doesn't look like a review course after all; more like just a bunch of information about the bar exam? I'm not sure.
• MyBarPrep, an online review course for the MBE. Appears to be in direct competition with PMBR but it's online-only. Cost: $160.
• MicroMash MBE & Bar Review, a computer-based self-study course, this time from West Publishing. The cost for the MBE review is $795, and the cost for the Bar Review part varies from $1195 to $1495, depending on state. Only about 23 states are available. (And look! A free podcast about opening a law office!)
• The Study Group Personal Bar Review, offers a variety of study-at-home courses that focus on writing state essays, the MBE, and more. It looks like bar review courses start at about $1395 and go up from there.

As the poll mentions, if you are aware of or taking other options, please leave a comment below.

This poll question came circuitously via a link at Divine Angst from which I wandered over to unblague to catch up on “the other Kristine's” odyssey from evening law student, to law school graduate, to studying for the Feb. sitting of the MD bar, and finally taking the bar exam. She's now waiting for May 5th to learn that she passed so keep your fingers crossed for her!

Somewhere along the way, unblague linked to Brazen: Passing the MD Bar, a blog by and about a graduating 3L who is preparing for the bar exam w/out the assistance of Bar/Bri or any other commercial review course. I completely agree with and admire brazen's desire to defy the conventional wisdom and prove that the bar exam can be beat without shelling out another several thousand dollars in “education” after your education (law school). However, bar review courses have a pretty compelling argument, which is always like this: You've spent tens of thousands of dollars on your legal education, but all of that will be for naught if you don't pass the bar exam. Don't you think it would be smart to maximize your chances of passing the bar by taking our course?

Well, do you?

Related: The Bar Review Choice

Posted 09:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions bar exam

Westlaw By A Nose

The most recent Ambivalent Question® asked: “Do you prefer Lexis or Westlaw for your legal research?” After two weeks of voting, the final results were:

• 32.6% of respondents said “Weslaw is da bomb.”
• 27.9% said “Impeach Bush.”
• 25.6% said “Lexis rocks.”
• 11.6% said “They both suck. I prefer free online sources.”
• 2.3% (one person, I think) said “Neither. It's all about the books.”

Total votes: 43.

So Westlaw seems to hold a slight lead in your preferences. To no one's surprise, I am again in the minority here: I prefer Lexis b/c it's just so much faster in my experience, it doesn't force me to turn off pop-up blocking in my browser, and I've learned to find what I'm looking for with it. As others mentioned, Westlaw's drawbacks include its horrible design, frequent timeouts, poor behavior with tabs, and glacial performance—especially on anything less than the most recent browsers. At my internships and in my clinic where the computers are circa 1999, trying to bring up a case on Westlaw is just a joke. Plus, Westlaw is the 900-lb. gorilla in the legal research market, and I have a fairly deep-seated antipathy toward market bullies. For those of you who aren't aware, West owns all the page numbers for legal citation, meaning that its profits are basically assured by court rules all across the country which require citation to West reporters for all documents submitted to court. West also stole much of its online database from a taxpayer-created database of case law in the 1980s and I think it's pretty rotten of a corporation to steal from me like that. So West totally blows, as far as I'm concerned.

Given the choice, I actually use free online resources whenever possible. They're especially good for SCOTUS case law and are generally much faster than Wexis will ever be b/c you don't have to wade through all the click-tracking and fee-assessing code that bogs down those services.

Finally, I'm sad to say that the “Impeach Bush” vote seems to be shrinking from poll to poll. It's down from 28.6% in the cartoon poll, and 27.9% in the spying poll. This obviously may have something to do with the nature of the question, but it's disappointing, nonetheless.

Posted 08:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions

Habeas Schmaebeas?

I just heard the 3/10/06 episode of This American Life and I urge you to find some way to hear this program. It's episode 310, it's called “Habeas Schmabeas,” and it provides a horrifying summary of what the Bush administration has done by creating “enemy combatants,” declaring them outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, and locking them away indefinitely in Guantanamo where they can be tortured at will. The show is great because it puts these acts in their appropriate context and reminds us, as U.S. citizens and voters, that we are responsible for this.

It's sickening, really. The other day Dave! praised Molly Ivins for articulating his utter frustration with the Democratic party. I'm with both of them, and agree wholeheartedly with Ivins that “it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.” One of those stands must be against the whole idea of “enemy combatants” and the train of evils that has followed in its wake. I want a candidate for President in 2008 who will, immediately after taking office, grant full habeas proceedings to all prisoners in Guantanamo, who will forbid the U.S. military from declaring anyone an “enemy combatant,” and who will make clear the the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners of war (including those formerly known as “enemy combatants”).

What point have we reached that we can allow these things to go on in our names?

Posted 04:22 PM | TrackBack | general politics law general

Good Luck MPRE-takers!

Today is the spring administration of the MPRE—the “big” test of “professional responsibility” for lawyers and law students. When I took it last fall, I followed Bar/Bri's advice and ended up doing fine. I hope everyone taking the exam today will have a similar experience.

This means my spring break is over. I can't believe that. Where did it go?

Posted 07:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L

Victory for Alaskablawg!

Congratulations to Alaskablawger Steven Wells on his nearly complete victory in the case of Rachel Waterman, the Alaska teen blogger accused of plotting her mother's murder. Yesterday, the judge dismissed all charges and it seems unlikely the state will try to bring the case back, based on Alaskablawg's explanation of things. He calls yesterday the best day of his professional life and I can only imagine what it must feel like to get such a result after so much work (the case has already been tried once and ended in a hung jury) and with stakes so high. I'm in awe.

[Thanks to Blonde Justice for bringing this latest development to my attention.]

Posted 12:14 PM | TrackBack | crimlaw

Fingerprinting in DC

I know it's not something most people need or want to do very often, but if you find that you need to have police take your fingerprints for some reason and you live in D.C., here's what you do:

Bring proof of District residency (driver's license or utility bill) to 300 Indiana Ave., NW, Room 3058, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. The cost for D.C. residents is $10. Call 202-727-4409 for more information.

I'm posting this here because I couldn't find the info online and I just went through a few phone calls to get it so I thought I might save someone those steps.

Note: If you're a VA resident in the DC metro area, try the Arlington Sheriff's office.

Posted 09:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L advice life generally

Say it ain't so, Half-Cocked!

Sadness. Mr. Half-Cocked says he's hanging up the keyboard. He's a 3L and says:

I have nothing left to say about law school other than incoherent rants about the state bar association and Bar/BRI.

That's exactly what I'm looking for these days—like-minded individuals! Bring on those incoherent rants, please!

As I said before, I understand the impulse to stop blogging. I've taken more and more frequent breaks from it myself recently (such as the last few days), but I'm still sad to watch blogs I've read regularly for years now start to drift away into internet oblivion. It's really too bad b/c I'm sure the next year of our lives (for those of us who are graduating from law school) is going to be packed with uncertainty and new experiences—exactly the kind of thing that makes for excellent blog posts and comment conversations. Law student blogs have become a great resource for law students to commiserate with and learn from each other as we all go through this roughly similar process. Why should that end at graduation?

Ok, I know why—or at least some of the reasons why. It's one thing to blog about how you were so scared you almost peed your pants when you were a 1L getting cold-called, but it's an entirely different thing to be a new law firm associate or other lawyer feeling exactly the same way. The two situations are very similar in how they make us feel—stupid, scared, totally unprepared. Yet, in the law school setting we feel free to blog about it because we know we're expected to be clueless, while in the work setting we seem to think we're expected to know what we're doing so we become afraid to admit to the world how clueless we are. That's silly, really. Anyone who expects a newly-minted J.D. to be anything but clueless about the actual practice of law is sadly misinformed about the nature of law school. We don't learn to practice law, we learn to live with huge amounts of debt!

Another reason I suspect recent graduates don't want to blog is that they aren't sure what they can say in their new lives as working attorneys. In law school you can talk about pretty much anything that happens in your daily life without concern about professional privilege or ethics or whatever. That's obviously not true once you've started working with actual clients and cases. Lawyers who have been at it for a while (e.g., Evan Schaeffer) probably feel more confident about what they can and can't say with regard to work. They are also not overwhelmed by the newness of their working lives and so have time and energy to think and blog about other things.

Still, it's possible to blog about the transition from school to work, about the bar exam and about being a recent grad just starting your first legal job. If you don't believe me, just check out Woman of the Law (WotL). As she noted in the comments here, she's one of the few law student bloggers to make the transition to practitioner blogger. And although she doesn't have much time to post these days, I know I'm willing to wait for each and every post, and I know I'm not alone.

I understand that not everyone can or wants to try to do what WotL is doing. Who knows? I may even end up hanging up the keyboard in the next year or so. But until that happens, I'll still be sad to see great law student blogs die as their authors move into the working world.

Best of luck to you, Half-Cocked. I'll stay subscribed to your feed so if you ever decide to post one of those incoherent rants, please know you'll still have at least one reader.

Posted 08:57 AM | Comments (1) | 3L meta-blogging

Blawg Wisdom Upsy Datesy

A handful of good questions and and answers have appeared on Blawg Wisdom in the last few weeks. Please head on over and offer any advice you can to the law student who works full time but still wants to get legal experience this summer, and to the 1L choosing between a judicial externship and a firm this summer. You may not have “answers” for these questions, but your two cents might be more helpful than you think. Plus, karma-wise, this can only be good for you, and let's be honest here, you can use all the help you can get in the karma department, right?

Your fellow law students thank you for your wisdom and support!

Posted 09:43 AM | TrackBack | advice

Spring Break Shuffle

Question: Spring break starts today, so why do I feel no sense of relief or relaxation?

Answer: Because I'm a 3L and class is virtually meaningless.

In other words, class requires such a tiny amount of my time and energy that a week without class but w/everything else I have to do is not that much of a break. On the to-do list at the moment:

• Call chambers to try to schedule a plea for my client to get him out of jail. Long story, that. I hate that this client wants to plead!
• Work on some research for a professor. Is anyone out there familiar with the Supreme Court Database? It looks like I need a $500 stats program to use that data, making it not very helpful. Am I wrong?
• Write four short (5-page) papers for my Law and Lit. class.
• Apply for more jobs. Grr.
• Finish the bar application: I did get the main packet of the Montana Bar application in the mail on Wednesday but I have about a half dozen additional documents to complete and send on their way.
• Plan that vegan menu w/which you've all been so helpful, then do the shopping for it.
• Clean house for company.

Those are the big ones, but I feel like I'm forgetting something. Really, there aren't enough hours in the day...

Posted 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L

Did we learn that?

On the train the other day I ran into a Class of 2005 GW Law grad. I hadn't seen her since a few weeks before she graduated so I asked how things were going. She works in the city and said she's mostly happy although doesn't feel very challenged by her government job. She stays for many reasons, one of which being that at the time I ran into her it was not long after 3 p.m. and she was going home for the day. Now that's a lawyer's work schedule I could love!

Of course she asked how my job search was going and I said that criminal defense jobs aren't exactly falling at my feet. She said one of her co-graduates just took a criminal defense job in NY about three weeks ago and was finding it quite the challenge. One of their recent phone conversations went something like this:

DC Lawyer: So how's the new job?

NY Defender: It's hard. I'm researching standards of review for motions to suppress and when do you get a hearing on that and stuff like that. Did we learn this stuff in law school?

DC Lawyer: You're kidding, right? Something practical about how to actually practice law? No, we didn't learn anything like that.

Kind of makes your $100-150k law degree seem pretty worthwhile, doesn't it?

Posted 07:13 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L