Da, da-da, da: Done!
And just like that, my adventure in law school has come to an end. I completed my final final and, as far as I know, do not have a single further obligation for law school. Ok, I have to be in court tomorrow for a client, and that's technically law school-related, but only in the most technical sense. I also have law school loans to repay for, oh, maybe the rest of my life, but how about we not think about that right now, hmm? Good, thanks.
The feeling is definitely one of anticlimax. So this is it? This is what it feels like? It doesn't help that I've felt pretty done for a week or more now, really. Or maybe I've really been done since about the first week of last December when I finished my last real final. I dunno. What I do know is that now there is no excuse for not doing the other things that I must do: clean up the apartment so the landlord can show it to prospective renters (anyone want a good place to live in an excellent DC location for a relatively decent price?), arrange a moving truck, find a new place to live, mail off the application for the job of my dreams. You know, little things like that. Maybe I should get to work on all of that, you think?
But first, congratulations to Divine Angst who finished 1L today, and once again to Half-Cocked, who decloaked yesterday to announce that he is also finished with law school. I'm sure there are others who have finished (either with the school year or the whole shebang) or are going to finish soon, so best wishes to you all—may that moment of accomplishment be everything you've always hoped for!
Posted 04:24 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Hey basket, meet all of my eggs!
Although I've tried to keep my whining to a minimum here, for the past six months or so, L. and I have been thinking of little else besides where we're going to be living six months from now. Yesterday, that dilemma was finally solved when she took a great job in Billings, Montana! And we're moving at the end of the month!
In a way it feels like I just took Jay-Z's choice b: “bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor.” Suddenly things seem to be moving very quickly and there's no doubt that this is a huge gamble. Most sane law graduates get a job and then move; I'm going to be doing it the other way around. It feels crazy, and it probably is, but hey, what's life w/out a little risk? Or a lot?
Yikes.
Of course, first I have to successfully complete law school and suddenly even that seems like a gamble. My final final is tomorrow and I still don't have a clue what I'll be expected to summon from my brain (or my notes, such as they are. I better get crackin'!
Oh, a note to all of our friends and loved ones who have been so supportive during our uncertainty and who had high hopes we'd be moving to the Midwest: We will miss you and hope you will come visit us often in the Big Sky Country! Take the train from Chicago and we'll meet you in West Glacier! We'll certainly try to visit you as often as we can and will most likely be moving east again sometime in the future.
Posted 11:05 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack
More LRAP: GW needs a real endowment
Once I get started, I just can't stop. But I'm thinking more about GW's LRAP. In a way you could say I came to GW only b/c of its LRAP b/c I only applied to schools w/LRAPs. That means if GW hadn't had an LRAP, it wouldn't have been on my list and everything would have been different. So I have always planned to get a job that qualifies for the LRAP and I hope to be able to take great satisfaction in the fact that GW will end up paying back some (I hope large) portion of my loans.
I've known from the beginning that as far as LRAPs go, GW's is no great shakes—barely funded, very restrictive in what jobs qualify, etc. But its great advantage is that almost no one uses it. GW grads almost never go into public interest law (the average is 1% of each class) so they almost never qualify for the LRAP. That means that even though it's barely funded, odds aren't bad that those few that do qualify will get money. Last year GW funded everyone who qualified for the LRAP at 100% of what they qualified for. I believe that is true for several previous years, as well. So that's great. The only problem is that available funding changes every year. The LRAP has an “endowment” of only $15,000, meaning there are virtually zero dollars dedicated to the program. Instead, most of the LRAP money comes from alumni donors and, recently, class gifts.
One hundred percent of last year's generous class gift went to the LRAP and they were able to fund everyone who qualified. This year, we have to split our class gift between LRAP and incoming student scholarships. One reason for that is that our new Dean has publicly expressed disdain for the LRAP several times; it's not a priority for him. I don't know how much say he has over where class gift money goes, but I know his antipathy toward the LRAP cannot be a good thing for its long-term health. With so little institutional support, is there going to be any money for people like me next year? The year after that?
Yet, solving this problem would be so simple. If 100% of class gifts for the next 5 years went toward the LRAP endowment (not to payouts, but to the principle), then in 5 years the endowment would go from $15,000 to $500,000. The interest alone on that endowment would probably be enough to fund most if not all of LRAP requirements. In fact, that's what should have been done before the school ever started claiming to have an LRAP. If it would be so easy, why not do it now?
Posted 03:00 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
GW Law Class of '06 Throws Down
I just learned that my fellow graduating (we hope) students at GW have been very generous this year in giving to the class gift. As the chart at right shows, 61% of the graduating class have donated money, with some sections (including 14, of which I am a member) reaching nearly 70% participation. If you're not impressed, just compare that with last year's participation of 51% and you'll realize that the class of 2006 has done a great thing here. Once we passed 52% participation, a group of generous alumni agreed to match all donations 4-1, so the more than $19,000 we've given is going to become over $95,000! Thanks to everyone in my class for their generosity! I take back all those bad things I ever said or thought about you. Well, most of them, anyway. Ok, some of them. Oh nevermind! Just thanks, ok!?
All this class gift money goes either to the LRAP or to incoming student scholarships for “deserving” students—each donor was supposed to designate his/her gift for one pot or the other.
<rant>
I've tried to tell everyone who would listen that the LRAP is a much more worthy cause simply b/c LRAP money goes to people people who have made a commitment to use their legal education helping needy and underserved populations. If you give scholarships to incoming students, odds are 99% at GW that those people are not going to practice public interest law. The counter argument is that if you give money on the front end people don't have to take out loans so the total cost of law school becomes much less b/c there's no loan interest involved. Therefore, the school's money goes further w/scholarships. In other words, if you give $100 to an incoming student, you'll pay for $100 of law school expenses. If you give $100 in LRAP you'll pay around $95 of law school expenses and $5 interest (at an interest rate of 5% ).
My point is: Who does the money ultimately benefit? If you give to an incoming student, odds are 99% that money will benefit corporations and other private clients who can afford to pay top dollar for legal services b/c odds are 99% that an incoming GW law student will end up going to private, non-public-interest law. If you give via the LRAP to an outgoing student who is already working in public interest law, odds are 100% that money will benefit needy and underserved people who may not have otherwise been able to afford legal services. So yeah, a small portion of LRAP money goes toward paying interest to banks, but the lion's share goes toward increasing access to legal services in this country. Therefore, LRAPs are much more worthwhile (at least at a school like GW) than incoming student scholarships.
<rant/>
Are you convinced?
Posted 01:23 PM | Comments (37) | TrackBack
It's now official: Montana is hiring!
As of just a few minutes ago, the Montana State Public Defender began advertising for multiple open positions in its new offices around the state.
Positions are available in Kalispell, Polson, Missoula, Hamilton, Great Falls, Helena, Butte, Anaconda, Havre, Bozeman, Billings, and Miles City. Open until filled encourage interested applicants to apply by May 12, 2006. Applications will be considered for employment opportunities over the next 180 calendar days.
The two best parts for me are that they're advertising a starting salary of $43,999(!!) and this:
(emphasis added) So hey, I'm an ideal candidate! Hooray! Keep those fingers crossed!
Posted 05:29 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
Still in the running towards becoming*
Following a recent job interview comes this letter in the mail:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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.
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
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
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:
- The larger the DB, the more expensive to search. Pick the appropriate size db for your research task.
- The more specialized the database, the more expensive it is.
- 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.
- In the Directory, the sources on the right side are more expensive than those on the left.
- In the Directory, use the “Topical Practice Areas” to narrow your search.
- Charges begin once you enter a search string and hit “search.”
- Once you get a list of results they are included in the transaction; you can read through them w/out extra charge.
- 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.
- 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!
- 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.
- 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.
- Within a search result, “Results Plus” results (in the frame on left side of screen) cost extra.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Narrowing in a search: use Locate in Result—does not count as transaction.
- Use “Field” searching to get a quicker answer. E.g., author, attorney, synopsis digest, etc.
- The Synopsis Digest field restricts search to summary and headnotes.
- The Synopsis field restricts to that.
- “Digest” restricts to headnotes only.
- 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.
- Keycite is a transaction; use it only for those cases you absolutely know are going into your brief.
- Keycite is probably the least expensive transaction on WL.
- Use “limit keycite display” at the bottom of a keycite results page to narrow results for no extra charge.
- 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.
- You can return to those results before 2 a.m. on the next day.
Posted 12:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
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.
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
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
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.
- The average debt for the 2006 GW graduating class is $96,770.
- 25% of those people borrowed over $120,000 in law-school-only debt (not counting any other educational debt).
- 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.
- To get information about your federal loans, visit NSLDS.
- If you consolidated last year before July 1, 2005, you probably locked in an interest rate of about 2.85%.
- 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).
- 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%.
- Every lender by law must offer the option to pay interest-only for the first few years.
- 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).
- Deferment is better than forbearance because the gov't will pay your interest while your loans are in deferment.
- You can only have a total of 3 years of hardship deferment on federal loans over the life of repayment.
- Plan to use those three years wisely.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- If you consolidate, you have rights to keep whatever loans you want out of consolidation. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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
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.
The sweet simplicity of 1L (aka nostalgia)
A 2L named “Trees” at Nolo Contendere is yearning for his/her first year of law school :
“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
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
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 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.
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:
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
Law School Prison Blues
Mother In Law writes:
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
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
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
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