« January 25, 2004 - January 31, 2004 | Main | February 08, 2004 - February 14, 2004 »
Public Defender Interviews
Any 1Ls still looking for a job for the coming summer?
I just interviewed for a position with a public defender's office and it sounds like it would be an incredible way to spend the summer. Days would be packed with client interviews, factual investigation, memo-writing, court-watching, and weekly mock-trials with practicing attorneys and your co-interns. If, like me, you hope to use your J.D. to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted, there may be no better way for you to spend your time.
My interviewer suggested that the biggest challenge to working as a public defender is managing the moral or ethical challenge of defending people who are often guilty. As a public defender, your job isn't to find the truth, it's to defend your client. (In fact, often you'll work to suppress what appears to be the "truth" because it's prejudicial to your client's goals.) Obviously, it's not for everyone, but our legal system would crumble without people to defend the accused, who, after all, we must presume innocent until they're proven guilty.
Tip: As with any job, if you're going to interview for a public defender internship, think about how you might convince the interviewer that you understand the unique challenges involved with the job and that you're prepared to meet those challenges. Also, be sure to visit the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers so you can sound like you know a bit more about what you'll be getting into. It might also be good to have a clue about recent high-profile criminal cases in your area and who defended the accused in those cases. Finally, is there a well-known criminal defense attorney you admire? Dropping Johnny Cochran's name might not score too many points, but how about Judy Clarke, "the patron saint of defense lawyers"?
I have another interview this afternoon and obviously I'd love to have more in the near future. Any other tips for such things? Even better: What's the best way to get the interview in the first place?
Posted 10:17 AM | Comments (2) | law school
ConLaw "Jeopardy Moment"
Is law school a super-geek paradise, or what? In an attempt to lighten the mood, Prof ConLaw opened class the other day with a "Jeopardy Moment." She said the U.S. has had eight presidents who were born in Virginia. The challenge was to name them all, Jeopardy-style. Prof ConLaw became Alex Trebek, and four students became contestants. This is what passes for good times in law school classes, but now you can play, too! Can you name all eight?
- This president famously handed in his sword at the end of the Revolutionary War.
- This president, beloved by all, was actually a rather scheming character.
- This president started out as a nationalist, but became a state's rights kind of guy, and was the mentee of the lying scheming president we just discussed.
- This president was only an infant living in VA, a president of the deeper south, always rough and ready.
- This president was the first really to use federal power for significant internal improvements. He had is own doctrine.
- There's not much to say about this president because he was only in office for a month.
- This president was famous for the four principles or something like that. The four freedoms?
- Lucky for him, this president, who at the time was known as "his ascendancy," was the first Vice President to succeed a president who died in office.
Answers:
- Who is George Washington?
- Who is Thomas Jefferson?
- Who is James Madison?
- Who is Zachary Taylor?
- Who is Monroe?
- Who is Harrison?
- Who is Wilson?
- Who is Tyler?
Oh, and in other "law fun": We glanced at laws governing western water rights in Property this week and Prof Property recommended "Chinatown" (in which people apparently get killed over water rights) and the "Milagro Beanfield War." You know, if you've got some free time...
Posted 06:40 AM | law school
Code v. Common Law
Just a random thought: As we learn about the U.C.C. we get another chance to think about the pros and cons of a "continental" system of law—where every law is written into statutes, or codified—versus a common law system, where the law develops sort of evolutionarily through judicial decisions, each building on the other. My thought is this:
Codified or "continental" systems are very "modern" in the sense of 19th and 20th century modernity and its almost infinite belief in the perfectability of systems and human progress. When you set out to write every law into formalized statutes, you seem to be making a sort of implicit claim that it's possible to eventually write the law down exactly as it ought to be, in its most perfect form, and thereby have a complete and perfect system of law. Codified law assumes solid foundations and fixed rules.
On the other hand, common law systems are actually more "postmodern" in the sense of postmodernity's rejection of the idea of perfectability and certainty in almost every subject. By refusing to write the laws down in explicit, formal form, you're implicitly admitting that you'll never get the law "right" -- you'll never find the perfect statement or formulation that captures the law as it "ought" to be, in its best form; therefore, you're admitting that this decision is merely temporary, applicable to this set of facts only, and subject to change by all future decisions. Common law assumes contingent foundations and differance.
Yes? No? Is anyone familiar with any scholarship on this subject?
Posted 05:11 AM | Comments (3) | law school
Call Me Mad Cow
Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Dean's Dead. Everyone keeps almost saying it, so it must be almost true, right? Well, listen to Jeff Greenfield:
Call me Mad Cow, but suppose you went to these big states and said "isn't it time that the larger states help pick a nominee? Aren't you tired of letting Iowa and New Hampshire run your campaign? You, California, New York, Ohio, Georgia, you never have any power. This is your chance to say to the democratic party, all right, we're going to help pick the nominee." We're talking about a long shot strategy for Howard Dean. But it doesn't seem to me impossible. When people say he's toast, he's finished, forget it, it's the same people often who said he's the definite nominee two months ago, and maybe we ought to look at what the possibilities are rather than saying, "Oh yeah, I know what the future is."
Posted 04:54 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004
That Primary Thing
Kerry wins, yadda yadda yadda. (Full results.) Hooray for Kerry! Hooray for mediocrity and the status quo!
The pundits are singing choruses of "Dean's dead," but according to Open Secrets, Dean's got much more cash on hand than any other candidate, meaning he's well-positioned to carry through with his plan to make a stand in a later state (Washington, Michigan, or Wisconsin). His strategy is definitely risky, and heavily dependent upon other candidates dropping out of the race so that Dean can draw clear distinctions between Kerry and himself. Of course, that's what Edwards and Clark would like to do, as well, so Kerry's got to be loving the fact that more candidates haven't dropped out. It's time for Kucinich and Sharpton to bow out and throw their support to Dean; Dean's the only candidate whose platform even comes close to synching with theirs. Of course, that's not going to happen, but it would be nice.
Posted 06:52 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004
States and Countries
For fun and money, or just because everybody else is doing it: The states I've visited:
States I've either lived or worked in, include: Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts. The others I've mostly just driven through or stayed a few days and nights in here and there.
The countries I've visited are much fewer:
(Make your own countries map.)
I lived in Finland for 9 months, then biked through Europe for a summer, which is how I saw the rest of those European countries. I also spent a month traveling in South Australia many years ago. Someday I hope to bike from the U.S. to Tierra del Fuego, but first I'd like to bike across the U.S. itself. Don't attorneys get lots of time to travel? ;-)
Posted 06:40 AM | Comments (1) | life generally
Lightly Kept in Bounds
We made the acquaintance of the U.C.C. in Contracts this week, and here is what I learned:
Yeah, I'll bet. Got to give the "invisible hand of the market" free rein to work its magic, right? That invisible hand is sure working well in media markets, don't you think?.
Posted 06:34 AM | Comments (2) | law school
Commissioner Copps
FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps called for change yesterday in the way federal elections are covered in the media and suggested that the FCC place free airtime for presidential candidates higher on its agenda:
Speaking at George Washington University Law School, Copps also said that recent media controversies -- including CBS censoring MoveOn.org, Janet Jackson's bare breast at the Superbowl halftime show* and the censoring of the Dixie Chicks -- are "smoking guns" that prove that media concentration has gone much too far. Copps explained that most of America's media operations (including (tv stations tv networks, tv production operations, radio, cds, internet portals, movie studios, movie theatres, concert venues, etc) are owned by a handful of big media companies.
The event was entitled "Is Media Concentration in the Public Interest?" and was sponsored by the American Constitution Society.
Copps began with a brief overview of recent developments in media deregulation and the situation as it stands today. According to Copps, it's not a pretty picture. Last June the Commission voted 3-5 to relax media ownership rules, giving already huge corporations a chance to get even bigger. Copps called this a "tectonic shift" across a whole range of media issues, saying that with this and other recent actions, the Commission seems to be "rushing pell-mell toward breathtaking change" -- all while doing everything it can to keep the citizens who own the airwaves (you and me) from having any input in the process.
Copps argued that media concentration matters to regular citizens because it threatens the free exchange of information and ideas necessary for democracy to function.
According to Copps, the FCC has been and continues to face a choice about how American media will function. On the one side are the free-market cheerleaders, friends of big media who are pushing for more media control by fewer corporate giants, as if the media is just like any other business: Chairman Powell (son of Colin, yes, the Secretary of State), Kathleen Abernathy, and Kevin Martin. On the other side are the friends of democracy and American citizens, the Commissioners fighting for more local control, diversity, and competition in media markets: Copps and Jonathan Adelstein .
While, Copps said the free-market advocates have recently been winning the fight, there's still hope that their rush to deregulate the media can be turned around. That hope comes in the form of an unprecedented coalition of citizens and advocacy groups who have joined together to stand against media concentration. That coalition helped encourage the Senate to pass a resolution of disapproval against the FCC's changes last June. The resolution has been bottled up in the house by Republicans and the President who don't want it to come to a vote.
But Copps said the best way to save the media is to get involved. For more information, read anything by Robert McChesney, one of the founders of MediaReform.net, where you'll find all the information you'll need to understand the problem of media consolidation, including ten things big media doesn't want you to know. NOW with Bill Moyers also reports frequently on the issue.
* Note: I personally think the brouhaha over Jackson's bare breast is insanely ridiculous; we have much larger things to worry about. Why didn't we hear this much public and official outrage when CBS censored MoveOn and PETA? Why were there no official inquiries and condemnations when Clear Channel censored the Dixie Chicks? We unleash all the indignation and anger we can muster when a breast appears on tv, but we hardly bat an eye when the complete disregard for freedom of speech threatens our very democracy. Sad.
Also, think for a minute about the ad CBS refused to run It's simply a reminder that huge deficits are probably bad for America's future. But CBS refused to run it because CBS would rather subject Superbowl fans to ads about crotches and fart jokes (the Budweiser ads, for example). At this rate, crotch and fart jokes will be the future of our country. Or are we already there?
Posted 06:27 AM | Comments (8) | general politics law school
Jobs and Journals
Now is the time in our law school careers when we despair.
As DG notes, the process of applying and interviewing for 1L summer jobs is in full swing, and there's nothing like this process to beat all hope and self-confidence right out of even the least neurotic law student. Case in point: I had a mock interview Friday, so I went to school in my monkey suit, which prompted the following conversation w/a fellow 1L who spent several years working in some business-related pursuit before coming to law school :
Fellow 1L: Why the suit?
Me: Mock interview.
Fellow 1L: Oh, do you have any interviews scheduled for the public interest interview program?
Me: Yeah, but just one -- out of 15 bids!
Fellow 1L: I didn't get any, but I don't really care about public interest.
Me: That's surprising, since you have some good work experience that I figured employers would love.
Fellow 1L: Yeah, but I didn't try to hard w/those applications. What about you? Don't you have some work experience?
Me: Sure, I spent the last four years teaching college English classes. I figured more employers would like to see that, that I'd get more than one interview out of 15 apps.
Fellow 1L: [frowns] Yeah, right. No one's going to want to hire you when they see you've never been in the real world.
Me: Oh. Yeah. Sure.
See? Conversations like that just make your day! I mean, what a great confidence builder! And I don't think the guy had a clue what a callous and ignorant insult he'd just delivered. But whatever. I went to my mock interview with a great guy from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When it was over he said I did fine, and that the message my resume sent wasn't "academic who has never been in the real world," but "this guy sure has done a lot of things" or something like that. He said I had a good "story" that tied everything together and made my choice of law seem like a logical progression from my past work experiences. Like I said, he was a nice guy, but even if he was just trying to build my confidence, I appreciated it. For most of us, I don't think law school comes with nearly enough confidence-builders.
So now is the time on Sprockets when we dance! Not.
I mean, it appears that now is the time in law school when everyone gets incredibly pissy and jealous and neurotic about grades and jobs and did I mention jealous and anxious and scared? So people lash out at other people, maybe. Like a few people lashed out at Glorfindel last week, and more recently, the Ghost. Jealousy is an evil mistress, but I do hope Adam will reconsider: Don't give up the Ghost!!
As I glance at my bank statements and write yet another huge check for the huge amount of rent I pay in order to live close to school, the thought of possibly not getting a job this summer is, frankly, terrifying. The thought of getting a job that provides legal experience but no paycheck is only slightly less terrifying. But that's just the thing about this law school deal: If you happen to be lucky enough (or work hard enough, or whatever) to get a piece of good news like a good grade or a job offer, even then you don't get the props you deserve. Grad school was the same way -- an elaborate system of ritualized hazing.
And speaking of lack of confidence-builders and elaborate systems of ritualized hazing, GW's journal write-on competition is next month. I started law school thinking I'd try to write on to a journal for sure; now I'm much less certain. Luckily I don't have to decide in a vacuum: Stay of Execution says law review seems seriously overrated, while Notes from the (Legal) Underground says it was a great experience. I'll probably maybe give it a whirl. Probably maybe. Shockingly, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. ;-)
The next few weeks promise a furry of extracurricular confidence-busting opportunities. Next week includes my first oral argument for the brief I turned in last week (only 5 minutes under very relaxed conditions), an interview, a "Client Counseling Competition for the ADR Board, meetings for mock trial preparation, watching the final round of the upper-class moot court competition , and probably some other things I'm forgetting. The mock trial competition itself takes place in three weeks, and that journal write-on competition will be in about a month. I feel like Three Years of Hell: Where did January go? Is it just me, or does every 1L at this point feel like classes and reading are just something you do in your spare time?
p.s.: Happy (late) Birthday to Bekah!
Posted 05:57 AM | Comments (4) | law school
Elections and Audiences
As you may have noticed, the content at ai has recently leaned heavily toward discussion of the Democratic primary process. This wasn't intentional, but yeah, I've gotten a little caught up in it. Now it seems that at least one reader thinks I've gone too far. So, for anyone who would prefer their ai to be more law school, less election, I humbly direct your attention to this page, which collects only those posts that relate to law school in some way. Bookmark that page, and you'll get all the ai law school goodness and you won't have to hear another peep about elections from me. (Unless, of course, I screw up the categories on accident sometime, which has been known to happen.)
Short of reading only the law school category page of ai, you can always skip posts based on their category marker, which now appears in the upper-left corner of each post. (The category for this post is "meta-blogging.") If you don't enjoy reading long and possibly boring posts about the current presidential election process, please skip all posts marked election 2004.
However, while I am a 1L, I never intended ai to focus exclusively, or even primarily, on law school. Nor do I intend to proselytize for Howard Dean (or any other candidate or cause) or convince anyone of anything. I try not to flatter myself by thinking I could really influence anyone on anything meaningful. Instead, my posts about the campaign are simply accretions of data I would like to save for myself, for future reference, because I find them interesting, etc. In fact, that's what this whole blog is -- a bunch of annotated links and thoughts I think are interesting and which I'd like to remember and save for whatever reason. Ninety-nine percent of the time I have very little idea of who my audience is, or why anyone reads any of this, or if anyone even is reading it. But your comments do expand what I know about my audience, and whatever else you decide to comment about. I appreciate every one of them.
In addition to the new category tags that give you more flexibility in filtering your posts, ai has undergone a few other tweaks recently. As Sam noted, the countdown has finally been updated; the one that counts to doom (final) is counting down to the precise start time of my own first final, while the GW finals study period actually begins 5-6 days before that. The blogrolls on the right have also been reorganized. I've updated the "must-see tv" category to more accurately reflect my most frequent reading patterns, and I've added a new section of blogs and other sites that I've found especially helpful in following the election. The many many more excellent blogs that I enjoy very much but can't visit every day can still be found on ai quick & dirty. Finally, down on the right there's a new section called "ai past posts at random." It's driven by the MT Most Visited plugin, and it's supposed to show the top 5-10 most visited posts on ai , but it's pretty obviously not working for some reason (I think the way my server puts logs into zip files is making it hard for the script to properly see all logs so it can know which posts have been visited the most). If you have any secrets for making this plugin work, please let me know.
Posted 05:26 AM | Comments (1) | meta-blogging
Why do you support __________?
I have an open question for anyone who supports anyone besides Howard Dean for the 2004 Democratic nomination: What evidence do you have that your candidate will keep his promises? Now that all the candidates are repeating themes that Howard Dean established over the last year, what makes you think any of them are doing more than mouthing what the people have shown they want to hear?
Here's another piece of information to consider: On his Sunday morning talk show, George Stephanopolous was interviewing Terry McAuliffe and both agreed that "Washington insiders breathed a huge sigh of relief when Kerry won again in New Hampshire." Now why would "Washington insiders" be so relieved to see Kerry doing well? Do you want a candidate that pleases the "insiders" and is himself the consummate insider)? Have the "insiders" been doing such a great job for you?
Again I ask: If you're not supporting Howard Dean, what evidence do you have that your candidate will do, or even really try to do, anything he has promised?
Posted 11:07 AM | Comments (6) | election 2004
