« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
Still in the running towards becoming*
Following a recent job interview comes this letter in the mail:
Dear Mr. Imbroglio,
Thank you for participating in the first step of our interviewing process. We are happy to inform you that you have been recommended for a second interview. Due to our lengthy hiring process, we may not be contacting you for several months (or longer) with regard to scheduling this interview. Thank you in advance for your patience . . . .
So... Great? I guess... They sure know how to make a guy feel special!
* Props to anyone who can tell me the origin of “still in the running towards becoming.” Double props to anyone who uses it as the name for their blog.
Posted 01:04 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack | 3L
So tired of Moveable Type!
This site and others living on the same shared server have been down much more often than usual recently. Last night I got an email from Dreamhost saying that part of the recent problems is that my account has been using about 120 CPU minutes/day—twice what Dreamhost considers acceptable for a user on a shared server. A quick look at the logs shows that something close to 80% of that usage comes from two Moveable Type scripts—the scripts for comments and trackbacks. Thanks to an array of plugins (so many I can hardly keep track of them all), I haven't seen much trouble w/blog spam for a while—almost none of it makes it through to the blog. Unfortunately, just because I don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Thanks to MT 3.2's new “junk” system (in which comments get “junked” if they're spam, rather than being rejected), the spammers can still flood the system with comments and trackbacks. The filters will make sure I don't see it, but all that spam is still slamming the server.
So what to do? Close comments? Trackbacks are gone already. I've rarely found them very useful so I don't think I'll miss them. Close comments on old entries? Yes, ok, but the tools available for that all seem a little cumbersome for a blog w/1400 entries. Other than changing the name of the comment script on a regular basis (a hassle, at best), I'm just not sure what to do.
There was a time when playing w/all this blog stuff was just fun. When problems like this would arise I saw it as a little excuse to tinker and learn more about these things. But now I'm feeling a little more irritated by this sort of thing. Blogger/blogspot or even Typepad are looking better all the time. Is it time to move to WordPress?
Posted 10:20 AM | Comments (68) | TrackBack | meta-blogging
ABA Accreditation
Dave Hoffman has some interesting comments on Concurring Opinions about the ABA's role in accrediting law schools. The relevant part for me has to do with how law school accreditation interacts with the bar exam and professional discipline as mechanisms to ensure a minimum level of quality in the legal profession. Hoffman writes:
Hmph. I'd say the expensive version of the legal education is a signal of great personal or family wealth or the foolishness of the law student who took on all the loans required to pay that bill. Diligence? Acumen? I don't see the relationship.
Perhaps Hoffman is correct that the most efficient consumer-protection regime would be to make the bar exam a more rigorous barrier and one that actually tests proficiency in basic legal skills. But even if that's true, how could the exam really do that? And even if it were redesigned, how much protection to consumers really get from the fact that each state has its own exam and that exams are only administered twice a year in each state? Consumer protection is one thing; creating great barriers to geographic mobility for lawyers is something else altogether.
And if consumer protection is really the goal of the ABA (and I'm skeptical that it's as important as they'd like the public to think), why not take all three actions Hoffman proposes? Make law school a greater barrier—not by making it more expensive, but by making it more educational (and thereby more rigorous). I would also shorten it to 1-2 years, as I've said before. Then make the bar exam more of a real assessment of basic legal skills, and make malpractice claims cheaper to bring and easier to win. The last reform would also need to include much less secrecy surrounding lawyer discipline; lawyer's disciplinary record should be free and easily accessible to the entire world.
But who am I kidding? I don't have much hope for serious change in any of the above. In light of that, perhaps the best thing about Hoffman's post is that it led me for the very first time to the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. That's where you'll find all the accreditation standards that ensure we all have to mortgage our futures to get a law degree. The site also has a collection of statistics about law school admissions, basic pre-law advice, and bar admissions information. Did you know that you do not need a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for the bar? I didn't, but that's what this chart (PDF) says. Now that I've almost earned just such an overpriced degree that information isn't very useful to me. I guess it's one of those things to file under “Know before you go...”
Posted 11:55 AM | Comments (32) | TrackBack |
What's “must-see” in the mid-Atlantic region?
Hey traveling people, I need your help: What places and things should I visit in the next 5 weeks before I leave this part of the country for good?
See, it looks like we'll be moving at the end of May—where has yet to be decided. Yeah, we decided when to move before we decided where. Sound crazy? That's just how we roll.
But wherever we end up moving, it's going to be pretty far from the D.C. area, which means there's no time like the present to make sure we've done and seen as much of that area as possible. So I ask you: What mid-Atlantic places would you put on your “must-see” list? Things I know I still want to do before I go include:
- Arlington Cemetery and the Iwo Jima Memorial
- Baltmore—harbor, aquarium, and what else?
- Colonial Williamsburg, VA
- Some beach in Delaware or Maryland maybe (I haven't been to the Atlantic coast once since we moved here!)
- ??
I'm obviously thinking of things that aren't too far from D.C. -- daytrips, a few hours of driving at most, probably. I was thinking about heading down to the lighthouses in NC but they are 300-400 miles away, which is definitely pushing it. Still, if there are must-see places at such distances from D.C., please let me know about them. We might be able to fit in a short multi-day roadtrip somewhere in there. And if not, at least we'll have a list of things to do some other time when we make it back this way. Thanks!
Posted 08:22 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack | 3L life generally
Another opening in Billings?
It seems the chief public defender in Billings, Montana, has decided to resign as of June 30, 2006. It seems like this can only be a good thing for me, considering that this resignation means there's one less lawyer who will be competing for a position in the PD's office in Billings and that's exactly where I hope to work.
The comments on the article about this are quite interesting. The first, from someone calling him/herself “Former Public Defender,” says that the woman who is resigning, Penny Strong, did not resign but was “forced out.” Someone called “Current Public Defender” responds with high praise for Strong, and a short exchange follows, with “Current” defending public defenders and arguing that it's no surprise that judges and prosecutors didn't like Strong, while variously-named interlocutors (who may all be “Former”) complain about Strong and public defenders generally. Based on this, it sounds like the Billings public defender's office has a lot of work to do in educating the public about its role in the criminal justice system. It also sounds like there's some controversy (possibly fringe) about the Yellowstone County Attorney; exactly what that's all about is unclear.
At any rate, it's all fascinating information for me, so thanks to the kind readers who sent me the link! As I mentioned previously, the Montana Public Defender Commission met this week to decide pay rates and hiring . . . at least I was told that's what they were going to talk about; the agendas are too vague for me to learn much from. Anyway, things are moving a bit in positive directions so my fingers remain crossed.
Oh, I also noticed that the Commission has put its Proposed Public Defender Standards online. I'll be taking a closer look at these soon...
It really is exciting to watch this new public defender system taking shape! And remember, “if it can happen in Montana, it can happen anywhere.”
Posted 12:22 PM | Comments (174) | TrackBack | 3L Montana
Quick! Build more prisons!
Mister District Attorney checks in to tell us what he's been up to recently:
Good to know.
Laughing at BigLawyers
If you'd like a daily bit of humor from the BigLaw trenches, head over to The Disassociate, a relatively new blog whose author describes it as:
Posts at “The Disassociate” are generally very short (usually one sentence) and generally worth at least a chuckle. One of my favorites is entitled “Crying out of the law” and reads:
See? I told you it was funny. And in view of the upcoming graduation season, check out “Pomp & Circumstance”:
Ah yes. The golden future that awaits so many of us.... I hope to never concern myself with billing hours, but otherwise....
Anyway, if you're ever looking for a bit of law-related laughter, The Disassociate might be a good place to start.
Posted 11:16 AM | TrackBack | law general meta-blogging
Happy Blog Birthday to Life, Law, Gender!
Denise is celebrating her 2-year blog birthday today—congratulations, Denise! As I said over there, Life, Law, Gender contibutes immeasurably to broadening the understanding of its readers and is unique (as far as I know) in at least the law school blogosphere. Denise writes helpfully and with great honesty about being transgendered and about how political and social developments are affecting the transgender and gay and lesbian communities. Those are obviously valuable contributions to the law school blog discourse, but Denise also has a vast amount of life experience in many other areas, as well, much of which she blogs about from time to time as a way of sharing some of what she's learned along the way. In short, Life, Law, Gender is a great blog and a daily read for me. If you haven't visited recently, I recommend you check it out. Oh, and wish Denise a happy blog birthday while you're there!
Posted 10:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | law school meta-blogging
Tootsie Pop Conspiracy
From a recent comment on this photo of Tootsie Pop wrappers:
More proof that the mysteries of the world are not accidental.
Posted 09:54 AM | TrackBack | life generally
Baffled w/BS
Because I know you care: I just turned in what may be my last academic papers—ever. That's a good thing.
One more final (in two freaking weeks!) and this law school thing will be all over but the shouting. And the debt. Yeah.
Posted 04:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L
Best public interest law school plan ever!
The latest comment on Blonde Justice's great second thread about choosing a public interest law school concludes:
This is really the best plan I've ever seen for those who have some certainty they want to do a particular kind of public interest law when they graduate. Oh how I wish I had done this!
Posted 09:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L advice crimlaw
My lawyer can beat up your lawyer.
Have you ever heard of a motion for a fist-fight? It seems a defense attorney in Western Montana filed such a thing in a criminal case. You can read the motion and response here.
It's an interesting way to emphasize that you think the prosecutor is making a ludicrous argument, but as the dark goddess of replevin notes, the case appears to be quite serious. Apparently one of the authors of the motion has decided to move away from the town as a result of the case. It's hard to know what to make of the case from the published accounts other than that it stems from one seriously scary high school party and that this is one seriously frustrated defense attorney.
In other Montana criminal defense news, the Billings public defender who is currently serving a 30-day suspension of her law license was formally censured by the Montana Supreme Court. Of course the actions that led to the censure are confidential. We wouldn't want the public to know any more than it already does about lawyers behaving badly, now would we?
Finally, the Montana Public Defender Commission is meeting tomorrow and Friday to talk about attorney salaries (among other things). That means next week, if all goes as planned, they will be posting job openings on the state jobs website.
When I tell people I want to move to Montana I mostly get strange looks and silence. Before they can even think of a suitable question to ask I always add, “my family lives there.” This makes the explanation easy, but it's far from the only reason I want to live there (even if it is the most important reason). I sometimes get kind of annoyed with this knee-jerk “why Montana!?” response, but now I'm glad for it. If it means that fewer people will be competing for whatever jobs the State Public Defender posts next week, then people can be as “why Montana?” as they want.
Posted 10:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | Montana crimlaw
Joggling Marathon Magic
This is amazing: Two men ran the Boston Marathon Monday while juggling the whole way—and one did it 2:58:23! (The other was less than ten minutes behind at 3:06:45.) Amazing. Check out the video of these two amazing athletes in action.
Forget the juggling; just running a 3-hour marathon is amazing. But then, they juggled, too! Oh, I hurt just thinking how far out of reach that would be for me....
Feeling a little Lenina Huxley today...
I'm working on my last papers for law school (maybe ever), but it's kind of like all coming out wrong. Like, you know:
*sigh*
Posted 01:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L
Happy Tinker Day!
From my inbox:
This year “Tax Day” falls on Monday, April 17, 2006. On that day we ask all conscientious taxpayers to wear black armbands in recognition that our tax dollars will be used to send and equip American soldiers to a hostile Iraq and Afghanistan where they will face death, psychological suffering, physical injury and inflict the same on fellow human beings, innocent and guilty alike.
Please understand that “Tinker Day” is not a protest; it is simply a peaceful expression of mindful tax-paying and an affirmation of human interconnectedness.
Seems like a great idea.
Posted 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics
Taxes? Done.
Thanks to Turbotax, my taxes were once again pretty easy this year—and a snap to do at the very last minute! It's much simpler when you make almost zero money. In fact, as you can see from the screenshot at right (click to enlarge), my income in 2005 was negative. It's a good feeling, actually—nowhere to go but up!
While Turbotax makes doing my taxes pretty simple, I'm not sure it does them right. I've used Turbotax online for 3-4 years now (always free for the federal return through the Tax Freedom Project) and I've never been audited or had any problems, but for some reason this year it says I get a huge refund from DC even though I only paid about $20 in DC taxes last year. I think it's wrong, but I can't figure out how to make that refund disappear w/out lying, so I'm just filing and we'll see what happens.
Posted 10:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | life generally
Happy Bunny
Two years ago I mentioned the “Thank you easter bunny, bawk bawk” M&Ms commercial that popped into my head for some reason in relation to Easter. Recently, one of the people who claims to have been one of the kids in the commercial (I'm not sure which one) wrote me and sent the link so you can now download or watch it for yourself.
From that entry two years ago it seems I was pretty bitter about world events. Perhaps I've just become resigned to the fact that when things look bad, they can always get worse, so and instead of treating you to another rant I'll just wish you all: Happy Easter!
Posted 01:10 PM | TrackBack | life generally
What is Public Interest legal work?
Every year the GW Equal Justice Foundation (EJF) gives out around 10 grants to students who are doing “public interest” legal jobs for no pay during the coming summer. And every year the GW EJF struggles to answer the question: What is public interest? The question comes up because you have to have a “public interest” legal job in order to receive a grant.
The language we've used the past two years to “define” such legal jobs reads:
The employer must be a non-profit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization or a government agency. • Preference will be given to employers directly representing indigent, historically oppressed, or underrepresented people. • Employers advocating on behalf of indigent, historically oppressed, or underrepresented communities will also be considered. Indigent, historically oppressed, and underrepresented people and communities includes, but is not limited to, low income people and communities, victims of crimes, minorities, and gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons.
So the shorthand for that is if you work directly with needy clients, that almost definitely qualifies as a public interest job. If you advocate on behalf of needy people (e.g. in a more policy-oriented capacity, such as a human rights NGO), then you may qualify, but only if we have sufficient funds.
That all may sound clear enough as far as it goes, but the hard part comes when we have to look at specific legal jobs. For example, which of the following positions would you classify as a public interest job?
- Public Defender intern.
- Legal Aid Intern.
- Human rights NGO internship or similar (working for an organization which may write amicus briefs for litigation, but otherwise only “serves” or “works with” clients in a very broad sense.
- Prosecution intern.
- Judicial Clerk.
- Political intern (e.g. for a member of congress or local government official. These positions often are presented to the EJF tied to a specific project. For example, the student and employer both say “Student X will be researching and drafting model legislation to ensure that all children 18 and under will have full-service health care in our city.”)
I'm sure there are other options, but these are some broad categories that we have to deal with. My own initial preference has always been to fund the first three (in that order), and not the last three. However, many feel very strongly that jobs in the first four categories are clearly “public interest” legal jobs.
What do you think? Which of the above jobs is a public interest legal job and if you had to define such a job, how would you do it?
Posted 12:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L
Advice for careers in criminal law
Professor Kerr recently asked for opinions on good advice for law students who might be considering careers in criminal law.
Coming from a law professor that is priceless! The post generated a veritable goldmine of priceless advice. First, these helpful thoughts on pursuing criminal appeals work, and more generally:
Excellent advice, I'm sure, but not so helpful if you made the mistake of taking internships in geographical areas where you can't/don't want to work. For people in that position (like me), a public defender offered this encouraging advice:
I've probably heard all of that before but it's great to see it all put together like that. In my recent interview one of the questions was: “Why did you spend a whole year working for this civil law thing? And don't they sue attorneys?” I couldn't figure out whether that seemed of interest to them b/c they thought it showed I'm not committed to criminal defense, or if they were concerned about it b/c they thought maybe I don't like lawyers and have some agenda to get them in trouble for malpractice. Now I realize it was probably both and if it comes up again I'll try to be more clear about addressing those potential concerns. (The real reason I did the civil law job was that it was interesting, it paid, and I wanted to learn at least about about the civil side of things while I had the chance.)
Many of the comments on this OrinKerr.com thread are from people doing criminal defense in private practice (like this one) and it's encouraging to hear that so many find that so rewarding since I might end up having to go that route if the public defender options don't come through.
The thread also offers a brief outline of how to start your own criminal defense practice, and this from a public defender that encapsulates why I prefer to find a job in a smaller jurisdiction:
Amen! I could quote just about every one of the comments here b/c they are all so helpful (this one even gives ), but better still, just read the rest of the thread on OrinKerr.com. If you're pursuing a career in criminal law, you'll find this 10 very well-spent minutes.
Law Schools for the Public Interest Student
Professor Appleman has a great post on Prawfsblawg about how law schools might better help law students find public interest jobs. She concludes with the following great suggestions:
The public interest students at GW have had some of the same thoughts Prof. Appleman expresses and we recently lobbied to get a full-time career person dedicated to public interest law. We were half successful; the dean has authorized a part time position and said that whoever takes the job can work as much as he/she needs to in order to get the job done. Apparently the dean does not believe there is enough demand for a full-time person, but we hope to prove him wrong. What we've found is that the demand might be appear strong if you survey incoming 1Ls about their career aspirations, but that demand drops precipitously as loan debt skyrockets, making students feel they are not able to consider a public interest career by the time they reach their 2nd and 3rd years. As I and others have said before, “I can't afford to take a public interest job” is often a fairly hollow excuse, but the fact remains that it's an excuse that almost certainly decreases the demand many law schools feel for public interest career services.
Posted 02:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | 3L advice
No more classes no more books, no more teachers' dirty looks!
I have attended my last law school class ever. That is extremely satisfying. Someday I suspect I'll look back on law school w/more fondness. That day may even be quite soon—as soon as my first loan payment is due, for example. But for now, no more class is a very good thing.
I still have a final clinic meeting tonight, a sentencing for a clinic client, and even a trial scheduled, but none of that is class (and it's hardly law school). I also have some short (5-page) papers to write and one final. So the fat lady has not sung, but she's definitely done with the voice lessons and just about ready to take the stage.
Posted 12:15 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack | 3L
Employment law question: Are you scary?
Is it legal for an employer, during a phone interview, to ask an applicant: “We work with the public. Is there anything about your physical appearance that might make people uncomfortable?”
I have never been asked this in an interview, but people I know have. I vaguely recall something from my employment law class about employers having the right to set reasonable rules for the appearance of employees who work w/the public, but this seems pretty close to the line. Any thoughts?
Posted 12:43 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack | law general
Lawyers: Moonlighting as pizza delivery boy = bad idea.
A few weeks ago Arbitrary and Capricious reported on a Missouri public defender who wasn't making enough money to pay his loans as a PD so he took a second job delivering pizzas and ran into a really awkward situation:
“The guy's mother called us and was very upset,” said Cathy R. Kelly, director of training and communications for the Missouri Public Defender's Training Division. “She said she wanted her son to have a real lawyer, not a pizza guy.”
Although that's a bit funny, it's also sad. The rest of the article details some of the other problems with MO's system of indigent defense. Like too many states, MO appears to be at risk of failing in its Constitutional duty to provide quality defense to the indigent accused. According to this story, the “cumulative turnover rate” for public defenders in Missouri since October 2005 is 100%. Yikes.
I'm posting this now b/c I had written it weeks ago and just never hit “publish,” but I was reminded of it b/c a Deputy Public Defender from Missouri emailed me recently to ask me to correct an error in this post about the contract public defender who was threatened w/having his contract cancelled if he took a certain case that one of his county employers didn't like. I said that this was happening in Missouri; it was actually in Mississippi. I have corrected the error and I apologize for it. I hope the Missouri legislature will wake up soon and give its hardworking public defenders the resources they need to do their jobs.
Posted 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | crimlaw
“It's injustice I hate, not the Normans.”
Congratulations to the GW Equal Justice Foundation and particularly this year's Auction Board for making the 2006 Public Interest Auction a huge success! The auction was held last Thursday and good times were had by all. In addition, the event once again raised over $30k (still waiting for a final total) for summer grants that will go to GW students who work for no pay this summer providing legal services to people in underserved communities. This was the third auction for me; in each one I played a progressively smaller role and each one seemed to go better than the last. I'll try not to read too much into that. ;-)
Friday I flew to Chicago for an interview. It went fine, but I was exhausted after Thursday's auction. Considering this was my first interview for a “real,” career-track legal job, you might think I would be more excited about it. It was exciting, I was happy to have the interview, I think it went well and I have high hopes that I'll get a second interview. That's all for now. Perhaps I'll have more to say on it soon.
Meanwhile, congratulations to Energy Spatula on the interview she landed for tomorrow. I hope it turns out to be everything she hopes!
Posted 07:46 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack | 3L
Criminal Defense Dilemmas
Blonde Justice has had a string of absolutely fantastic posts recently about criminal defense dilemmas. The first jumps off from the witness tampering imbroglio at the Moussaoui trial and asks whether “my supervisor told me to do it” can excuse an ethical breach by an attorney. In the comments, that led to some great discussion, including consideration of the ineffectiveness of relying on lawyers to regulate each other's ethical conduct.
The second post raises an ethical dilemma about the duty of attorney A to tell attorney B about a questionable aspect of a case when A hands off the case to B. The excellent discussion in the comments includes this gem from “jasonpw”:
And this from PD Dude:
And finally this from That Lawyer Dude:
It never fails to amaze me how many people sit convicted of crimes because a lawyer refused to believe the story the client told them and wouldn't put it before the jury.
Blondie's third post in this great series about ethical dilemmas is mostly her reaction to the previous discussions, plus a little twist for further consideration. It also addresses the “interview by suggestion technique,” which an attorney can use to guide a client toward a story that fits well with what the attorney thinks is a good theory of defense in the case. For example, if you're accused of possession of cocaine, in order to be convicted you have to actually know the cocaine was in your bag/pocket/car/whatever, and you had to actually know it was cocaine and not powdered sugar or something else. So in the “interview by suggestion” technique, a lawyer might ask you: “So you had no idea what was in that bag, did you?” or “You saw the baggie, but you thought it was powdered sugar, right? I mean, Joey is a baker, isn't he?” (I apologize for the really bad examples, but I hope you get the idea.) Blondie says this technique isn't her style; it's not mine either. I've learned different things from different lawyers about the extent to which this technique is useful, but in my admittedly limited experience it just has never seemed very helpful.
One of my mentors once told me along these lines that instead of asking a client “what happened?” you should ask “what is the government going to say happened?” Of course, your client can't know this, exactly, but it gives the client an initial clue that what's important is not necessarily “the whole truth” (since the client often does know that any more than you do),* but what the cops know and what the government is likely to be able to determine through investigation. I think this approach can be useful in some cases, but I think it can also lead to a troubling lack of candor between attorney and client which can ultimately be unhelpful. It can also lead pretty quickly to the whole “interview by suggestion” and its related problems.
So what is the best way to approach the initial or even second or third interview with a client? As some of Blondie's commentors suggest, “interview by suggestion” is different from hearing your client's story and then explaining possible defenses. My limited experience has been that a client will usually not tell me much about what “really” happened at first. In fact, I'll get nothing but denial. “I wasn't there” or “I didn't do it” or “It wasn't mine.” But after I explain the elements of the crime and what must be proven for my client to be convicted, the client will often mention some bit of info that conforms at least somewhat to a possible defense. Is the client lying at that point? Maybe. But what matters more is what's going to convince the judge (or jury, but I've never been anywhere near one of those). The client can say anything he/she wants and it can all be 100% true, but none of it will matter if the government has a witness or piece of evidence that is going to make the judge tend to doubt the client's version of the story.
Speaking of Criminal Defense Dilemmas, Gideon's Guardians had a good one a while back, too. I have one of my own I've been meaning to write about, but maybe another day.
* The question of truth in the law is too fraught to go into here but what I'm getting at here is that the client can only know what he saw or heard or did. That's part of the “truth,” but, it's not only reliable. The client's story is always filtered through the stress and fear of arrest and possible (or real) incarceration, so even if he thinks he's telling you the whole truth, he might be forgetting or changing things w/out even meaning to. And what about what the cops did or said? Does the client know those things, or have intervening circumstances messed up his/her memories? And many times the client doesn't know what the cops did or said; he was paying attention to something else, such as the fact that he was totally busted. So obviously even the most honest and trustworthy client can only give you a story. The truth? As the Lawyer Dude said, it doesn't play a big role in our system of justice.
Posted 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack | 3L crimlaw
MT PD Update: Unclear Progress
In the ongoing saga Montana's transition to a new public defender system and my efforts to get a job in that system, the latest is that one of the Assistant PD's in Billings has had her law license suspended for 30 days [via Public Defender Stuff].
Meanwhile, Billings (or Yellowstone County, of which Billings is the county seat) is advertising for every level of public defender. This comes after the new Public Defender Commission decided that all currently-employed PDs would have to reapply for their jobs, and also after another county named an interim public defender whose job theoretically ends July 1 when the new statewide PD system begins.
I don't get it. As of July 1, the state of Montana itself will be the only employer of PDs in Montana; individual counties will no longer be hiring or employing PDs. So what the heck is Yellowstone County doing? Is it advertising for positions that will basically not exist on July 1, or are they jumping the gun to start getting applications that they will end up forwarding to the state PD office? Is this just an expression of the county's frustration? They clearly need public defenders (the Billings office has experienced a lot of turmoil and turnover in recent months and years), yet, as of July 1, they will no longer be able to do anything about that need. Perhaps they're impatient with the pace at which the state is moving in this transition and they're trying to show that impatience by advertising these positions?
I do not know.
What I do know is that the State Public Defender Strategic Plan is interesting reading—at least for anyone who is interested in how this is all coming together. I have also heard from the state PD office that there are “quite a number of openings all around the state” and that job announcements should be posted here around the week of April 24th. I'll be keeping my eye on it.
Posted 10:56 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | 3L Montana
01:02:03 04-05-06
01:02:03 04/05/06.
That will never happen again. Kind of cool, huh?
Yes, very! But it will happen again in a hundred years, won't it? Still, it's definitely a once-in-a-lifetime event for most of us. How should we spend it?
Here's an idea: If you're a student in class at that exact moment, you should stand up and shout “Time!” and then sit down. It will be like a flash mob thing. Speaking of which, what a perfect moment for a flash mob. Let's get a thousand people to storm the WTO bookstore at 01:02:03 today; everyone should shout “Time” and then quickly and quietly disperse. Yeah, me and my 1,000 friends.
Whatever happened to flash mobs, anyway? They seem to be over for some, but don't tell these people.
Posted 08:09 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack | life generally
Good Poetry, Other, Wigs, and Bb-days
Good Poetry: Thanks to the Scoplaw for a great reading Monday night.
Other: Blawg Wisdom just got its most recent monthly update. Please share any thoughts you may have on GPA in the law school application process.
Wigs: One of the things I detest most about my future as a lawyer is that I will have to wear suits far too frequently. However, today I am reminded that it could be much worse—I could have to wear a freaking wig.
Bb-days: Screaming Bean was three years old Monday. You should go wish Beanie a happy blog birthday. Maybe the positive energy will lead her to the perfect job!
Posted 07:52 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | life generally lists
Delay Embargo?
I'm certainly not sad to hear that Tom Delay is resigning his seat in the House, but here's a very little (possibly microscopic) tangent that has me bugged. I just heard a Washington Post reporter on the radio say that they learned this news yesterday around noon, but were “embargoed” and could not publish it until 10 p.m. because that's when Time Magazine was going to release the official announcement.
Huh? “Embargoed”? It doesn't really matter that we had to wait until last night at 10 p.m. to hear this news, but aren't we supposed to have a free press? What kind of screwed up media landscape do we have when major news organizations just sit on stories until they're given permission to publish them?
Posted 10:39 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack | general politics
Reciprocal Criminal Discovery in MA
Dan Filer comments on the NY Times' coverage of Commonwealth v. Durham, the recent Massachusetts high court decision requiring defense counsel to turn over statements it plans to use to impeach gov't witnesses. As Filer notes, the Times is pretty late to the game here—Woman of the Law posted about this weeks ago. Still, both the Times and Filer add some interesting perspective. My first reaction was that this was awful, and like Filer, I can't imagine it's going to help defendants much. On one hand, I agree with the theory that everyone benefits when we minimize the “gotcha” element of trials and try to make them more about who has the most and best facts on their side. Or, as one off the judges in that case wrote:
On the other hand, we know there's always going to be a gotcha element to trials and the state has many more resources available to gather evidence and overpower defendants, so there's a possible equity in allowing the defense to keep a couple of cards closer to its vest. I also agree with one of the defense attorneys involved that this is just a way to make lying witnesses into better liars. I mean, if you have impeachment evidence for a witness, that means that the witness is already of questionable credibility and therefore more likely than the average person to be willing to lie. This will just give those people time and opportunity to strengthen their stories.
The Times story adds the context that only two other states require this reciprocal discovery in criminal cases—NJ and MN. At least one lawyer in MN said this rule has lead to more dismissals b/c the prosecution sees the impeachment evidence and realizes its case is weak. However, that's just anecdotal. This would be a great topic for research—have these rules really led to more dismissals in NJ and MN?
Only one third of law students take BarBri?
The most recent Ambivalent Question asked: “Which bar review course will you (or did you) take?” After two weeks of voting, the final results were:
- Impeach Bush: 36.4%
- Bar/Bri: 34.8%
- Bar/Bri *and* PMBR: 19.7%
- PMBR: 3.0%
- BarPlus: 1.5%
- Other: 1.5%
- None; who needs 'em?: 1.5%
- Micro Mash Bar Review: 1.5%
- MyBarPrep: 0%
- The Study Group Personal Bar Review: 0%
I can make little of this. At my school (GW), my impression is very much that everyone takes BarBri, but perhaps that's just because they've got our school brainwashed that it's necessary. I've heard faculty simply assume that we'll all take BarBri, and it's in the school's interest that we do if they think it will increase our bar passage rates, so that definitely contributes to more people signing up. Still, I have to think this little poll is not very accurate. Shock.
The bar exam is such a very stupid thing. As I've said before, I agree w/Professor Solove that the damn things should be abolished:
That first problem—the exam as a barrier to mobility—is a huge one for me and the most important reason to get rid of the whole charade. But rather than repeat what Professor Solove and the comments to his posts have said, I propose the following three changes to how people become lawyers in this country:
First, the only even slightly credible reason people offer for having a bar exam is as a barrier to entry to ensure some minimum level of competence in the legal profession. I agree this is a lame reason, but most people in the legal profession have been brainwashed to believe it's horribly important. Therefore, rather than abolish the bar exam, we should simply abolish all but one iteration of it. By this I mean that, rather than each state having its own exam, the ABA should offer one bar exam that qualifies those who pass to practice law anywhere in the country. The Multistate Bar Exam is already in place; tweak that however you like, but please, just make one test count for all 50 states.
Second, put BarBri out of freaking business by making the last semester of law school into a bar review course. Many people already agree that the 3rd year of law school is largely a waste; make it meaningful by making sure it prepares students for entry into their profession.
Third, convince the rest of the states to join Wisconsin in allowing graduates of state law schools automatic admission to the bar in that state.
That's it. Very simple. What do you think?
Another suggestion that would leave the current abominable system in place but eliminate the biggest problem for me would be for states to allow people to take their bar exams whenever they want. Why must every bar exam be given during the same 2-3 days each year? That's stupid and unnecessary. If I want to take an exam, I should be able to schedule it with a state bar examiner a few weeks in advance at the most, show up, and take it. If they want to keep it simple, they can offer the exam only on thursdays and fridays, or they could offer it only once a month if they want to be jerks about it, but this twice/year business (and the fact that all states do it in the same weeks as each other) creates a ridiculous and completely unnecessary barrier to mobility.
Please! Stop the madness!
Other interesting bits about the bar exam:
- Someone named Ryan Walters owns abolishthebarexam.com. I wonder if this is him.
- Professor Solove's first post about abolishing the bar exam.
- Solove's followup post.
- Another followup and summary on de novo.
- A Girl Walks Into a Bar (Exam)...: Last year's popular blog about preparing for the bar exam, including some “potentially useful posts.”
- Jeremy Blachman on studying for the bar exam and especially on paying for Bar/Bri: “But unless a firm is paying, it's kind of expensive - I believe the going rate is $2400 if you sign up the morning you arrive at law school, $2600 if you wait until lunchtime, $3000 plus your left leg as collateral if you wait a week, $4000 if they don't like you, and $500,000 anytime after the first day of classes.”
Posted 01:02 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack | ambivalent questions bar exam
