More Thoughts for Future Law Students

After Brett's question the other day, and thanks to the Scoplaw's recent note about Duncan Kennedy, I went back to the archives and found an extended discussion about the value of a law school rank in attending law school, along with a bit more about my impressions of GW as of last fall. The discussion is in the comments to this post, and those of you who are currently trying to figure out where to attend law school might be interested in some of what you'll find there. The discussion started when reader Phil asked whether I was satisfied with my decision to go to law school. I answered, in part:

I have not gotten to the point where if I had it to do over again I wouldn't go, but, I know this: If I had it to do over again, I would have done everything possible to minimize the cost. To do this, I would have picked schools to apply to based on cost first, location second, and rank third. I probably would have gone to a state school, and in order to get in-state tuition I would have moved there for a year and temped or whatever in order to qualify for residency. Unless you want to work at a firm, I really think the rank business is a crock of crap. So the most dissatifying thing is the cost and the way I'm feeling increasingly strait-jacketed with debt. Another source of dissatisfaction is the classes themselves, which I've complained about before b/c they're so large, allow almost no discussion of material, don't even attemp to teach critical thinking or a critical approach to the matieral [sic], etc.

GW professor Orin Kerr (who writes regularly at the Volokh Conspiracy) joined the discussion, and I especially recommend it to those of you thinking about GW b/c he offers his view of student satisfaction at the school. He also offers tips on getting the most out of law school that could probably apply to any school. For the record, I continue to disagree w/Prof. Kerr about how important school rank is for many public interest jobs. He argues that public/private employers give similar weight to where you went to law school and what your GPA was, but I've been told by countless public interest employers that that's just not true. Public defenders, for example, certainly care about your school and GPA, but they care just as much—or often more—about your extracurriculars, your demonstrated commitment to social justice, public service, and the kind of work they'll ask you to do (in this case, criminal defense). A high GPA does not necessarily correlate in any way with a commitment to the principles and mission of a public interest employer, and since there won't be a big fat paycheck to motivate their new hires, it only makes sense for public interest employers to care much more about demonstrated commitment than about grades or school rank. As I mentioned, this post was sparked by the Scoplaw's mention of Duncan Kennedy's essay, “Legal Education as Training for Hierarchy.” I can't help but point out in this connection that, according to Kennedy's logic in that essay, law professors, law school administrators, and many legal professionals will always tell you that rank, prestige, and GPA are important factors in your success as a lawyer. If you dare to think that's not the case, you'll be breaking out of the hierarchy for which law school is preparing you, and we couldn't have that, could we? Because I think tangentially, I'd also raise in this connection the whole idea of Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) statutes as yet another way the legal profession protects its status quo, preserves this hierarchy, and stands in the way of a legal system that really serves people rather than simply protecting property. That's a debate for another day, but I mention it only b/c, hey, if you're thinking about going to law school, it's another part of what you're getting yourself into. UPDATE: See also: Does Law School Rank Determine Success? [link via JD2B]

Posted 09:52 AM | Comments (2) | law school

What is Rational Discourse?

Professor Althouse, possibly the most prolific blogger ever,*is now, according to the Madison, Wisconsin Capital Times, possibly one of the most widely read, as well. Whatever the truth of that, she's the subject of a story about blogging in the paper in which she reiterates an argument she's made recently on her blog:

Althouse said many of the politically left-leaning blogs are so strident they tend to be “self-marginalizing.” Conservative bloggers tend to be smoother and more reasoned, which makes for more convincing arguments, she said.

Althouse recently received an “instalanche” (an avalanche of links after being mentioned on Instapundit) for pointing out that the NY Times changed a headline several times on a story about the Iraqi elections. Althouse suggested that the Times was changing the headline from something positive to something negative, and that the text of the story itself never changed. (See also her followup.) Without getting into the merits of the ensuing controversy, what interested me most was that it sparked a dismayed post from Althouse about the differences she perceives in the tone and approach of bloggers on the left and right. She begins by claiming to be a “political moderate”:

More than any ideology, I care about rational discourse. In the year that I've been blogging I've taken a lot of different positions, some left and some right. What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy, and don't even seem to notice all the times you've written posts that take their side. Why is this happening? I find it terribly, terribly sad.

I disagree with some of the details of this, but I agree with the gist of it. First, I would point out that if you care about “rational discourse,” you care about an ideology—the ideology of rational discourse. It's an Enlightenment ideology that pretends that things like “objectivity” and “reasonable standards” actually exist, even as it actively attempts to deny the ways in which these concepts are continuously manipulated by competing factions in society to serve their own ends. I've seen from my own reading that Althouse does not follow a consistent “party line” in a sense that would be either Democratic or Republican, but that's the beauty of the ideology of “rational discourse” or the political middle—it enables its proponents to claim to be above the fray. This certainly has its advantages, and perhaps in some ways it's preferable to following a more consistent party line, but it's still ideological and a position that carries its own drawbacks and baggage. I'm also not sure that the characterization of bloggers on the left and right is accurate. Are those on the left really more polemic or negative? Perhaps. If so, we have plenty of reason to be. I cringe every time I hear talk of “bipartisanship” or “working together” because that's the rhetoric that has allowed the Bush administration to do so much damage in the U.S. and the world. “Work with us,” they say, “and we'll work with you.” But the truth is, every time the right has extended that olive branch in the last five years, it has quickly stomped on the good faith the left extends in return. From my perspective (and I think from the perspective of many on the left), the right has lied to and manipulated the U.S. and the world to advance a very antisocial and dangerous agenda, and it shows no sign of stopping. See, for example, the “crisis” of social security or the “crisis” in civil lawsuits that is so desperately screaming for “tort reform.” These so-called crises are certainly issues worth paying attention to; it's almost certain we could make positive changes to both social security and our civil litigation system. However, to predicate those changes on campaigns of fear (crisis! the system will be bankrupt by 2012! judicial hellholes!) is not just disingenuous, it's indefensible. Oh, and it's also extremely unreasonable and irrational. I probably don't need to add that this is exactly the strategy the right used to sell the Iraq war—it lied about a crisis so often and so menacingly that it manipulated the world into war. To ask the left to respond in measured or “reasonable” tones to this sort of irrational fear mongering is asking the left to submit passively to the dominance of the right. If one side is screaming it's head off (e.g. “we don't want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud!!”), and the other side is merely making polite comments (“really, we think the inspections are working”), which side is going to prevail? Recent history answers that question pretty clearly. So perhaps the tone coming from the left has seemed more negative, more bitter, more implacably oppositional than in the past. And perhaps that's unfortunate; it would be nice if we could live in a society that could discuss important issues in civil and respectful ways. Maybe someday we can. But the left has tried “reasonable.” I'm happy to see more strident and vehement opposition for a while. Of course, what the left really needs is some serious leadership to help direct that stridency and vehemence, to get it moving in positive directions (so that instead of just being oppositional, it can lead). But that will be a post for another day... *Althouse and some of her colleagues sometimes stay up all night blogging. They blog car accidents from multiple perspectives and “simulblog” the dinners they have together. What's in that Madison water, anyway? UPDATE: See also “Further Ways to Argue Like a Conservative” by Tom Tomorrow

Posted 07:57 AM | Comments (3) | general politics

Survivor Palau 1

Ed. note: The following contains spoilers of the new Survivor. If you don't want to read spoilers, don't click “more.” And even if you don't care about spoilers, I'm certain you have better things to do than read about an episode of Survivor, anyway. Another “season” of Survivor began tonight—the 10th episode. Will it be worth watching? Let's see.... First we learn about Wrold War II and see some bits of wreckage from the big WWII battles that were fought here. Then it really starts with a terrific bit of symbolism: The boat filled with 20 people slowly paddles its way to shore where one immunity necklace is waiting for the first woman ashore, and another for the first man ashore. The two most impatient people (I think) leap off the boat, thinking they are tough and fast and can do better on their own than they can by cooperating with the group. Of course, the two jumpers almost immediately get left in the dust as the boat speeds on toward shore. This is why “reality tv” is awesome—you couldn't script human folly any more precisely. Jolanda eats a grasshopper. Why? Is that little grasshopper really going to make the difference on the first challenge? Oh, she's a lawyer. Coby immediately starts trying to make alliances and plot the first person voted out. Why? Does he want to be the first person voted out? Oh, he's a hairdresser. Koala Jeff (or is he Old War Battle Jeff now?) shows up and says they're going to get rid of two people immediately. Yikes! Ian and Jolanda get to choose teams, just like in gradeschool for kickball, boy-girl, boy-girl. Oops, but then their picks get to pick, just to mix things up even more. The field narrows and Crazy Wanda is one of the first to go. I now owe L. $5 b/c she bet Wanda would be off the show before the hour was up and she's been proven correct in the first 15 minutes. (Note to self: L. is never wrong!) Sad music enhances the melodrama, and some of the remaining survivors cry over losing “friends” they just met two hours ago. Yes, your lives are hard. Boo hoo. We get blue and brown buffs and everyone is all tribal now, except that they're going to continue to share the same beach. Whasup w/that? Tears from those picked last, while we get some reflection about the makeup up of the tribes and what their chances will be based on age, athletic ability, and number of nose rings per capita. Oh, and how many models. There are lots of “models” and “actors” here, so the vogueing challenge is going to be hard fought, for sure. Challenge! Military items, obstacle course, canoes, paddling and flags and racing to shore! Hooray! Immunity back up for grabs and the immunity idol is revealed. Covet covet. Lots of googley-eyed coveting going on. The big challenge is: “Do we take the food and water, or just the fire?” The H-team votes for just the fire, and the O-team falls behind bringing food and water. They'll be cold, but well-fed? Paddle paddle the canoes, tongues hanging out with exhaustion as H-team cruises to an easy victory. H-team wins immunity and gets to keep its fire. Ah-oh. Tribes have to split up. H-team chooses to head to the new beach. Was this a good decision? Um, well, first we have to tip over our canoe and dump our reward on the bottom of the ocean floor. Excellent. O-team decides to vote off the tattoos, which sucks, because I like tattoos. But then Jolanda starts bossing everyone around and effectively paints a big fat target on her back, so, um, who will it be? I know you're on the edge of your seat. I am. But my anxiety is spiced with the sound of the snare drum that they've added to the usual Survivor soundtrack to remind us that we're on Palau and there were big battles here during World War II! Oh, wait, we're at tribal (council, that is, but all the cool kids just call it “tribal”). Jeff schools the team on brains v. braun, Jolanda says she wants to be team dictator but not really, and tattoos says her head is on the chopping block. Vote vote votey vote, putting the little papers in an old ammo box because, did we mention there were big battles here during world war II? Oh and the snares! Tappa tappa tappa. The drama! Edge of seat, private! Votes are being read. Tattoos. Jo. Tattoos. Jo. Who will it be who will it be? Tattoos does some mental calculations, the tide shifts, and Jo's gotta go. Sadness all around. Koala Jeff gives a little lesson about making decisions and flying right, and that's it. So yeah, it's another Survivor. I have to watch, but now you don't. See you next week. Maybe. UPDATE: See also Changing the Rules of Survivor on Crooked Timber.

Posted 09:15 PM | tv land

GW Summer Stipends

Reader “brett” writes:

Hey ai, lurking gw prospective student here. Two quick questions: is there a lot of competition for those summer stipends (the 5k ones) - would a 1L have a shot at one? Also, how does the “ask-a-student” program on the gw admissions site work - are these students hand-picked trolls or random honest students?

I wish I had more to tell you, Brett. First, the summer stipends are pretty competitive, but I have no idea how many people apply and don't get anything. I get the impression that the big variables are whether the funding committee thinks your job is worthwhile (and they seem pretty liberal on that), but also whether you've shown some commitment to public interest law. If it looks like you're just taking a public interest job b/c you couldn't land a firm job and you're going to go to a firm ASAP, I think the funding committee is not as happy about that. I knew several 1Ls who got the $5k grants. A good way to ensure that you're one of them is to spend as much time as you can in your first year working for the EJF or some other public interest-type student organization so that you'll have some good stuff on your resume that shows your commitment to this type of work. You could also volunteer for pro bono legal stuff, or perhaps you're entering law school with a good public service and/or volunteering background so you've already demonstrated that commitment. All of those things will help. The ask-a-student thing I don't know much about. I don't recall using it when I was deciding whether to go to GW, and that's the only time I've heard of it. That suggests to me that the people who participate are self-selected or more hand-picked (b/c otherwise I would have seen some notice for volunteers around the school sometime in the last two years). That's just a guess though, I really don't know. Generally, I will confirm what you probably already know: GW is very concerned about its rank and giving prospective students a good impression, so it's very unlikely to leave that to any schmo who is enrolled. I imagine this is true of any law school. During this decision process, take everything you hear from GW or any other school with some serious salt—they want your money, and once you're locked in, they'll be much less responsive to you. This doesn't mean everything is awful once you accept and begin attending, only that as you make your decisions you should try to filter out the sunshine being blown up your skirt from the more substantive things that really are important: Cost, courses offered, professors you think you'll like (read their publications to see if they're working on anything you'd like), courses offered (e.g., I wanted to learn about labor law and many smaller schools don't regularly offer courses in that area, but GW does), location (considering especially where you'd like to work after you graduate), and whether they support macs. Oh, wait, that last one may only be important to me. ;-) For more insight on GW, I highly recommend you also consult others on this list of GW-related blawgs, but esp. Life, Law, Libido (written by GW grads who were very pleased w/their GW experiences), Extreme Indifference to Human Life (who is now apparently running for student body president), Luminous Void, and Idlegrasshopper. The more perspectives you get, the better decision you'll make. Note: I'm always trying to find other GW bloggers, largely for this reason—so that when people like Brett are looking for info about the school they'll have plenty of perspectives. If you're a GW student w/a blog, please say “hi” so I can add you to the list and send mountains of traffic (little tiny mountains; mountains that would look large if you were a flea) to your site. UPDATE: I just glanced at the above again and realized I forgot to include WonL on the list of highly-recommended GW bloggers to query about life at GW, and she should have been top of the list! I'm very sorry for the oversight. Partly in response to this post she has posted some thoughts on her experience thus far.

Posted 06:48 AM | Comments (3) | law school

Perpetratin' ta be a lawya

Thanks to LawRah for leading me to Gizoogle, I bring you the first paragraph of yesterday's post translated into foshizzle:

I’m in law school, although you may not always be able ta tell fizzle tha content here fo' real. Often, I rap `bout bustin' but law school, whizzich is coz I often thiznink `bout anyth'n but law school, n I sometizzles brotha if I should takes thizzat as a sizzay: Is this really sum-m sum-m I should be doing if I’d so often spend mah time doing sum-m sum-m else? But schoo` is not practice, so I dismiss tha question. In mah spare time (what’s that?) I’m perpetratin' ta read Should You Really Be A Lawya?. Perhaps that should be filed in tha “better late thizzay neva category,” but I do W-to-tha-izzish I’d read this book before frontin' on somewhere near $100k in debt. * To those of you who is going crazy wit anxiety before even start'n law school, I say: Go buy this book or chizzeck it out from yo local library keep'n it real yo. Read it . Keep'n it gangsta dogg. Challenge yoself ta give it tha time n rizzy considerizzles it suggests you devote ta tha question of its title . Boo-Yaa!. You’ll . Boo-Yaa!. be glad you dizzay n this will be an excellent use of this interstice between perpetratin' n actually going ta law school.

I'm perpetratin' ta read now so I can be a lawya fo' real yo. Word.

Posted 05:43 AM | Comments (1) | life generally

Overloaded Update

I'm in law school, although you may not always be able to tell from the content here. Often, I talk about anything but law school, which is because I often think about anything but law school, and I sometimes wonder if I should take that as a sign: Is this really something I should be doing if I'd so often spend my time doing something else? But school is not practice, so I dismiss the question. In my spare time (what's that?) I'm trying to read Should You Really Be A Lawyer?. Perhaps that should be filed in the “better late than never category,” but I do wish I'd read this book before taking on somewhere near $100k in debt.* To those of you who are going crazy with anxiety before even starting law school, I say: Go buy this book or check it out from your local library. Read it. Challenge yourself to give it the time and real consideration it suggests you devote to the question of its title. You'll be glad you did, and this will be an excellent use of this interstice between applying and actually going to law school. And why would you want to take this decision very seriously, even if you're already at the point where you've applied or even accepted admission somewhere and already feel pretty committed to going? Well, for one thing, law school can suck. But wait, this isn't supposed to be a big fat advice post. No, this is a big fat whining post. Or just an “oh my gosh I've been busy recently” post. Last weekend alone I had interviews on Saturday (they went well, it seemed), I had to pretend to judge a “client counseling” competition for the ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Board,** and I had to complete an “editorial competition” in an attempt to become some sort of editor on the journal next year. It was a busy weekend. Today I have three different interviews to become a “Dean's Fellow,” which is what GW calls the group of 20 or 30? 3Ls who help teach a small section of the first year writing and research course. This weekend I have to finish the second draft of my “note” for the journal, and although I never quite got around to posting what the editors thought of the first draft, I vaguely recall their comments ranging from, “What's the point?” to “This would never work.” So, yeah, still a bit of work to do there. Meanwhile, I'm about 60 pages behind in every class (1-2 assignments), which is actually about the most caught up I think I've ever been at this point in a law school semester, so that's kind of a bright spot, actually. Another bright spot: I got a call-back from one of the employers I interviewed w/last Saturday so I've got interview #2 coming up. It would be an awesome job (the more I think about it, the more I like it), and, if they offered me a job in the next month I may qualify for a GW summer subsidy, so that would be nice. Oh, and did I mention that we're currently days away from a 3-day weekend? It's true. As part of our v-day celebrations, L. was kind enough to give me Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando for the PS2 that has been gathering dust on a dark shelf of our entertainment center for, oh, about the last 18 months or more. Will this 3-day weekend include at least a teeny bit of PS2 time? Um yeah, I think so. (Yes, Ratchet & Clank is kind of a kiddie's game, but I'm kind of kiddie player; I haven't even made it through the first one yet—I gave up at a tough spot after playing the same screens for days. Oh, and I started law school and didn't have time to fight the evil robots and fight for truth and justice and the American way all at once. Now that I see that truth and justice are basically dead and I no longer understand “the American way,” I'd really rather play Playstation.) (I'm kidding about the truth, justice, American way part. Really.) * Full disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from the publisher and will review it in full as soon as I finish it. From what I've read so far, it's worth the price of admission even if I'd had to pay for it—at least for me—but you should know that that opinion is so far based on just a brief skim of the whole book and a close reading of only the first chapter. ** Congrats to all who made the Board; I saw three very professional and polished teams. I hope if you competed you saw the humor in seeing 250 law students (mostly 1Ls) running around dressed up in dark suits and carrying pleather portfolios and bottles of water for their clients. Someone remarked that it looked like GW was holding mass funerals over the weekend b/c of all the dark suits (both for the ADR competition and the job fair.) Incidentally, I was shocked almost speechless by the 1Ls who actually gave their clients four-color business cards; I guess the student government's business card sale last fall was pretty popular with the 1Ls. Scary. I know, I shouldn't be scared of 1Ls with business cards that say “Juris Doctor Candidate” or whatever, but um, I am. Please keep your crazy cards to yourselves, thanks.

Posted 08:31 AM | Comments (18) | 2L law school

Not What I Wanted to Hear

Today's weather report does not please me:

Jason was right on the mark when he said in his Monday post that today would be a “significant day weatherwise.” After warm weather during the first half of the day, a sharp cold front will shift winds from southerly to northwesterly and plunge the area back into the heart of winter.

Temperatures around here have been yo-yo-ing from 60 to 20 degrees (with nasty wind chill on the lower end) and I'm really tired of it. Just be winter or spring, already, will you?

Posted 07:30 AM | life generally

When Blogs Do Bad II

Following up on the Eason Jordon story and the question of whether the ability of blogs to “take down” public figures is a positive development, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the recent unmasking of Jeff Gannon. Gannon was a highly partisan reporter who used a pseudonym and somehow gained a seat in the White House press corp where he asked questions with lots of Republican spin. Gannon may or may not have also been leading a somewhat salacious double life. Salon's coverage. So now we can add Gannongate to Easongate and Rathergate. Salon's “War Room” covers them all with lots of good links to more. As I said before, the ability of blogs to hold public figures accountable is a good thing, but it's one thing to uncover what's hidden, and another to destroy careers or lives. Maybe the destruction follows automatically from the uncovering, and maybe that's not the fault of bloggers. However, when prominent people make questionable statements or do questionable things, wouldn't we be better of as a society if we could learn from their mistakes instead of simply destroying the mistake-maker? UPDATE: See also:

• Closing Thoughts on the Resignation of Eason Jordon
• Comments on the aftermath from Jeff Jarvis
• A theory that Jordon got fired for basically doing what bloggers do: Speaking candidly.

Posted 07:59 AM | Comments (8) | general politics meta-blogging

Audioscrobbler: Also very cool

Yet another sound-related toy to play with raises a question for all you audiophiles: Why have you been holding out on me w/the Audioscrobbler scoop? This is muy cool! You create a free account, download a plugin for your favorite music-listening app, install it, and then the track names of everything you listen to get streamed to your user page on Audioscrobbler (like this). Over time it will tell you what your favorite songs and artists are (according to how much you play them), and connect you to other people who like the same music, through which you may find other music you'll also like. Pretty freakin' awesome, if you ask me. Many moons ago I installed iTunes Watcher here, and it also uploads track and album info for recently played tunes, but it doesn't have the “social networking” features and it's also more complicated to set up. The developer posted on his now-defunct blog that he wanted to give iTunes Watcher a lot of the features Audioscrobbler now has, but it looks like that ship has sailed. The one advantage I see for iTunes Watcher is how it allows you to customize the display of your recently-played page. Of course, that's something I never got around to doing, so maybe it's not that valuable. One problem with Audioscrobbler: I don't really listen to music on my computer all that often. More frequently I listen to the ipod through the stereo, or to the iPod itself, or just to a regular cd. Still, this is fun. It will be even more fun when you all set yours up so I can browse your musical collections. hint. hint. Now, could someone please explain to me (or point me to) the easiest way to get an RSS feed to display as a sidebar here on this blog? I futzed around with the RSS Feed plugin the other night and couldn't get it to work, so.... other options or tips for making RSS Feed work? Thanks!

Posted 08:06 AM | ai music

All Hail Slapcast

So you've probably head about this “podcasting” thing, and now that Notes from the (Legal) Underground and Jeremy Richey are getting into it, I thought I'd give it a try. And while creating podcasts sounds like it could be very complicated, thanks to Slapcast.com, all you need is a phone! Here's all you need to do:

1. Create a free account at Slapcast.com.
2. Call an 800-number and leave a message (up to 5 minutes).
3. Log in and enter the phone number you called from. Slapcast finds your recording via caller-id.
4. Give your recording a title and write some comments about it if you want.
5. Publish your recording (or Slapcast can just do that automatically).

That's it! Slapcast does the rest—it converts your recording to mp3 format, creates a webpage and RSS feed with enclosures for you so that people can subscribe to your podcasts, and it can automatically post a link to your podcast on your blog (supporting MT, Livejournal, Blogger, Radio, and WordPress so far) and/or email the mp3 file to you. If you want to get funky you can add sound effects to your recording like Jeremy has done, then re-upload it so it sounds more professional and entertaining. (According to the Slapcast creator, there may soon be an option to do something like this automatically via the slapcast web interface.) So hey, what are you waiting for? We all want to hear what you have to say! Oh, thanks so much to Mother and Sister Imbroglio for humoring me in my early experiments with this. The imbroglio is now seeking jokes, funny stories, deep thoughts, political or social commentary, legal criticism, or anything else you'd like to record. Send me your number (via email) and I'll call you and record and publish what you have to say through the magic of 3-way calling. Or maybe we could do 4-way calling or more -- imagine what two minutes of conversation between Energy Spatula and Soupie might be like. Whoo! UPDATE: Via Memory's Outbox I just also discovered Audioblogger, which allows audio-posting by phone to Blogger blogs (including all you Blogspot kiddies). Of course, I'd like to see Slapcast take off b/c it's multi-platform and b/c I've met one of the developers and he seems like a good guy. But hey, either way, posting by phone can be fun. Just ask Lawrah! (See the post from today, 2/13/05; I can't find her permalinks if they're there.)

Posted 11:07 AM | Comments (4) | life generally meta-blogging

Lynn Stewart Day Of Outrage

From the National Lawyer's Guild:

The National Executive Committee of the NLG calls on all Guild chapters to organize and to take part in local actions as part of a “National Day of Outrage” in response to yesterday's Lynne Stewart verdict, which we see as an attack not only on our cherished colleague and fellow NLG member but also on all members of the legal community who represent unpopular clients and causes. We are calling for this coordinated day of action to be held next Thursday, February 17 in your cities, towns, and, if you are a law student, at your school. We are putting together a list of suggested actions to take and will send this out ASAP. Please begin making arrangements and stay tuned for more information. This will be just one step in our ongoing support for Lynne Stewart and in defense of all of those who take on controversial cases.

Find your NLG chapter here. Read more from the NLG about the Stewart decision, and more coverage from all over the place. UPDATE: See also some good thinking points from Carey and Heidi, and “Selling Indulgences” on Slate, which compares what Stewart did to what Alberto Gonzales and the other “torture lawyers” in the Bush Administration did:

For the Torture Lawyers, the political polarities are reversed, but their gut-level affinity with the client's politics is the same, as is their willingness to bend (or break) the law to make their client's wishes come true. The torture lawyers' protestations that they never sympathized with a pro-cruelty agenda, or with abuses like those at Abu Ghraib, sound very much like Stewart's defense. Both believe that being a lawyer conveys a certain moral immunity. Fortunately for us all, it doesn't.

To me that's really the problem. It seems fairly clear that Stewart broke an agreement she'd made with the court about not speaking about this case. However, that's cause for professional discipline, not a criminal conviction. Meanwhile, the torture lawyers have not been censured in any way for their gross breaches of both professional ethics and basic norms of human rights. This is why the Stewart conviction is outrageous—it reveals the way the law has been manipulated for political purposes and the way the Bush administration continues to get away with murder (literally and figuratively) under cover of its “war on terror.” Instead of putting on their “reasonable” hats and saying, “well, Stewart really did break the rules,” legal professionals of conscience should be outraged at double-standards that make a mockery of both professional codes and the law.

Posted 10:17 AM | Comments (6) | ai action alerts

Leading by Example. Not.

I had two interviews yesterday, both of which went much better than the horror of last week, even if they were perhaps not for jobs I'd like as much. Who knows? Maybe I'd like one of these jobs even more? But the interviews were part of the GW/Georgetown Public Interest/Government Interview Program, and since the US Army and Air Force JAG Corps were there interviewing, the program marked their names with an asterisk followed by this disclaimer:

This employer discriminates against gay, lesbian and bisexual persons under the authority of 10 U.S.C. section 654. The George Washington University Law School policy on equal opportunity prohibits unlawful discrimination. The Association of American Law Schools — of which George Washington University Law School is a founding member — and the National Association for Law Placement each have policies forbidding discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. The presence of this employer at the George Washington University should in no way be construed as an endorsement of this employer's practice of discrimination.

While I was pleased to see this disclaimer, and also pleased that it is so bluntly worded (“this employer discriminates”), I still wish there was more GW could do. And since GW and Georgetown were in this together (GULC had its own disclaimer, more or less similar), it seems they could take this as an opportunity to “make a federal case” out of this. I mean, these are big law schools; what if they gave the JAG Corp the finger and dared the federal gov't to take away all federal funds? I'm thinking the case would probably make it to the Supreme Court and the Solomon Amendment would be history. Or maybe not. Can someone clarify what is going on here? I mean, I see here that the Solomon Amendment was found unconstitutional, yet GW and GULC still apparently fear its consequences. So what gives?

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (5) | general politics law school

Lawyers Investigate DC Arrests

From the DC City Desk:

Lawyers Susan Dunham and Dan Schember are investigating the arrests of approximately 72 persons in the Adams Morgan neighborhood in the District of Columbia on the night of January 20, 2005. Their investigation is on behalf of several persons who were arrested and who have sought their advice. The purpose of the investigation is to assess whether a civil lawsuit on behalf of those arrested should be filed against the District of Columbia for money damages, expungement of arrest records, and change in police practices. If you were arrested in Adams Morgan that night and would like to consider joining others in filing a civil suit, then please contact Susan and Dan by email at dclaw@radix.net and dunham_susan@hotmail.com. Please include “J20 Arrest” in the subject heading of your email message and provide your name; current address; permanent address (if not the same as current); telephone number(s); a narrative of your experience; and a list of any documentary evidence you have, such as film, photographs, and arrest or release papers. Please preserve these documents! As an alternative to email communication, you may call their office, 202/328-2244, and leave a voice mail message for Susan Dunham. Your communications seeking legal advice will be confidential. If you were not arrested, but witnessed the arrests in Adams Morgan that night, please contact Susan and Dan, as stated above, indicate you saw the arrests, but do not include a narrative account of what you witnessed. Susan will call you to interview you by phone.

I have no idea if this investigation will turn up anything illegal, but it's good to see someone looking into it. I think. I mean, I know DC recently lost a sizeable class action suit against the local police force for its conduct during a 2002 IMF/World Bank protest, so perhaps these attorneys are just gold digging here. Then again, I'd rather they investigate than not, even if it's only to find that the police acted perfectly appropriately.

Posted 07:29 AM | ai action alerts