In another affront to its core audience, the RIAA has decided that it wants to try and crack the ten most famous lawsuits of 2007 list by suing people who have copied legally purchased songs for personal use. Today, as the Patriots rest from a so-far perfect season and the Cowboys are beginning to question whether they can win the NFC, the Drudge Report has given me a much more interesting thing to write about: Recording industry says illegal to transfer music from CD onto computer.... Naturally, I clicked on this one. See Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use.
In the article, the Washington Post has reported that the quote-unquote music industry is trying yet again to salvage their precious non-digital market by now arguing that one's personal use does not extend beyond simply listening to a purchased CD (which, let's be honest, nobody really does anymore). Now, I'm all for copyright protection, but this is just beyond ridiculous, at least as the article portrays this new legal position.
I can only hope this nonsense ruffles some intellectual property feathers. Based on this tenable position, it's hard to say how far down the rabbit hole the music industry has fallen: "Copying a song you bought is 'a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,'' says [Sony BMG's chief of litigation]." If it's a personal copy, and it's not being shared, two things: (1) how are you going to discover these alleged infractions and (2) how do you reconcile this position with the idea of buying a digital copy and burning a CD, which is perfectly legal? See also RIAA adds digital downloads to gold/platinum sales certification. Hello?! It's the same difference!
With some deference to published legal articles on this topic, the Post article infers, ever so slightly, that this goofy litigation strategy may be a way for the courts to re-examine the VCR case and its progeny. I think that's a little bit of a stretch, but anything is possible. How these new legal tactics will fit within the Betamax and Grokster spectrum remains to be seen. Personally, I will be following this one a little closer and hope that next year (or within a couple of years) I get a client that is being sued for making a personal digital copy of a music CD they have purchased. That, my friends, will be a fun case to work on.
Am I alone in thinking that there is no way that the music industry can win this one? By all means, point me out to something (beyond a dissenting opinion) that a personal copy falls beyond the scope of fair use. As Ross Perot once said, "I'm all ears."
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The RIAA forgets about fair use and decides that digital is the devil
Abortion, Equal Protection and When and If Raich and the Commerce Clause take abortion out of the scope of Congress's enumerated powers
Although I try to stay out of weighing in on such matters, there was a passage about Justice Ginsburg in The Nine that has got me thinking. Basically, Toobin writes that Ginsburg was selected in part because of how she approached the entire Roe debate from an equal protection standpoint. So, here's one way the abortion issue may play out.
Among other things, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) suggests that the Commerce Clause power granted to the Congress is "breathtakingly expansive." While I will defer the intricacies of this case to the academics, Congress basically has the power to regulate anything dealing with "the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities." What Raich resolved (that Lopez and Morrison arguably did not) was the deference entitled to Congress in these matters. Under either the majority or Scalia's concurrence's view (under the Necessary & Proper Clause), the deference when the Commerce Clause is properly invoked by Congress is great.
The question, as suggested by Scalia in his concurrence in Gonzales v. Carhart, is whether abortion has anything to do with commodities such that it will fall within the scope of Congress's commerce power. Assuming when this gets resolved, the answer is no, the question becomes, I submit, whether, if given back to the states to decide, whether they can either. I think when this question arises, it's going to come down to interpreting how much the states' gave up in passing the 14th amendment.
Put another way, if Roe (and to some degree Casey) is overruled or further eroded or restricted, what happens next? Well, one possible outcome would be that Congress would try and ban abortions, probably under the commerce clause. Regardless of what power they try and pass it under, and assuming it passes, it's going to be challenged immediately. So, on the assumption that Raich will dictate whether or not abortions affect commerce (which seems unlikely), would that mean simply that the choice regarding this issue would then fall to the states? For the purposes of the rest of this argument, let's say Congress ultimately has no power to regulate this area and the states do. Now state A bans and adjacent state B does not. What constitutional issues remain and how will the media attempt to spin this issue?
I see two issues remaining that make it questionable as to whether a state can ban abortion, and regardless of how the courts settle the issue, these issues will extend beyond Roberts' tenure as CJ. Arguably, the practical effect of State A banning would require someone seeking an abortion to engage in interstate commerce such that they have to travel to State B. I'll set aside the impracticalities issues if State A is somewhere large like Montana and a poor citizen in the geographic center can't afford to travel out of state. I see this as a legislative debate issue that would be considered in passing the law in either State A or B, so I'll assume away the rational basis argument on this one. I will save my comments about State A citizens for when I am living in State A.
The stronger issue, as pointed out by Toobin in the book, is Justice Ginsburg's equal protection argument. Because I haven't really studied this area in any great detail beyond what I needed to know for the bar, I can't state whether or not this is a winning argument. Nor do I know whether this is already before the Court and my assumptions are incorrect. It does not matter, however. My point to this exposition isn't to express my position on whether it's Congress's or the State's power, if either can do anything in this particular area beyond what is already done, or where I think the issues shake out. It's only to spark some thought into the debate, based on where I think the state of the law is shifting.
Because I'm probably overlooking something and am otherwise unable to make an informed decision, I'll be happy to debate the issue a little more and research more about it if someone wants to provide cites to relevant law review articles expressing the sides of this equal protection debate. The bottom line is that I think this entire debated area is going to shift into equal protection land and perhaps create a better way to reexamine the Civil Rights Cases. Whether it actually plays out this way or not remains to be seen. In either case, it's an interesting time for constitutional scholars and the law clerks working on related cases. Maybe one of them will chime in on it (although doubtful).
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Calling the Clerk who worked on the Sean Connery lawsuit
Unfortunately, this sort of thing hasn't made it to my desk yet, and I doubt it will. Nonetheless, it's pretty entertaining: Judge to Sean Connery, Neighbors: Stop Suing. And, if all you're looking for is the court opinion (dated December 7, 2007, by the way and the news story just broke today, so take that for what it's worth): Sultan v. Connery.
For those of you not knowledgeable about the appellate system in New York, the "Supreme" Court is a trial court and not a court of appeals (unlike most other states where the "Supreme Court" is the highest appellate court).
Basically, Sir Connery and his neighbors are a modern day Hatfield and McCoy when it comes to getting along. After a series of legal jabs at each other, a judge has finally stepped in to say that enough is enough. See Connery Battling Neighbor in Court (providing multiple links). See also Sir Sean Billed as 'Fat Old Man' and a 'Bond Villain' in Lawsuit. The opinion speaks for itself, and is short enough to read on your lunch break.
I will refrain from weighing in on it; however, I will say that a multitude of quotes came to mind when I saw this article. Most of them came from SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skits and Seinfeld episodes.
Links to the best two celebrity jeopardy episode transcripts are here and here. Other quotes from Jackie Chiles may also be moderately in this same vein of humor.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Some thoughts for 2008
As is often the case at the end of a year, one contemplates the past and looks toward the future. These "looks" are better known as "resolutions."
Since my main goal in 2007 was to pass the bar (and in 2005 and 2006 to put myself in a position to pass), I can now look toward 2008 to make new goals. I think the main one is to prioritize things differently. For the past three years, most of my free time has been spent working toward the bar exam and landing as high up as I can on the so-called "lawyer totem pole." Between this clerkship, my post-clerkship job, and soon being able to afford to pay off this massive law school debt much sooner than later, I think I landed just fine. So, given that these priorities were self-centered (sort of), I can now shift my priorities toward more important things, like planning a vacation to Europe or buying a house.
I realize how arrogant this may come across, and I certainly don't intend it this way. Plenty of my law school friends had much different priorities and were able to balance many more complex issues than my simple and mundane ones. But since I didn't have to balance important things such as a wife or kids or a job or whatever (other than my work and school, really), these priorities tended to fall by the wayside. Not anymore past 2007. Because most of my career and professional goals are in order, it's time to create more personal ones. Hence, I have decided to give this online dating concept another shot. After all, it seems that all the other people I meet nowadays are other lawyers, and those conversations can sometimes leave a lot to be desired in terms of variety.
As I wrote about once before, I made some marginal effort at online dating with poor results. And, granted, I probably handicapped myself because most of the time I had some test or paper or law review crap to work on. And, as a matter of priority to achieve certain goals, those types of things had to come first. And now they can fall a distant eighth or ninth (if not lower).
So, I think I'm going to spend some of my free time going on a series of first dates (which, hopefully aren't all bad). While I may eventually write up my thoughts on this issue, I don't exactly want my blog to turn into some sort of dating review, nor would I want to write something and have it misconstrued as mean spirited. (On that note, there is a blog that basically posted a bunch of fake ads to Craigslist to elicit funny responses, which he posted). However, if I find something noteworthy, I'm sure I will mention it if it's worth mentioning.
In addition to taking suggestions about the pros and cons of being a future lawyer tackling the online dating world, I'm also taking suggestions as to where I should go on my post-clerkship vacation. I've been to most of Europe, but obviously there is plenty left to see (or see again).
In the meantime, I'm going to read some briefs and watch some tv. Some more thoughts on the writers' strike, my current tv shows, etc. will be posted throughout this week.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Lost season 4 trailer, a nice present for the holidays
I saw that Lost Season 4 is definitely going to start on January 31, so I'm glad that my show hasn't fallen victim to the writer's strike. In either case, TV.com has the 2 minute trailer on their front page: TV.com & Extended Lost season-four trailer hits web.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Happy holidays (or winter interval as it is)
I get to spend a few days off from the crazy world of law, which will be good since I can hardly believe that I've already been working for almost four months. So, in the words of Krusty the Clown: "Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Chanukah, a Krazy Kwanzaa, a Tip Top Tet, and a solemn, eventful Ramadan."
I'm sure my internet access will be intermittent between rounds of egg nog, but I may have a few more entries before '08 arrives. And if not, Iowa '08 is just around the corner, Hollywood is moving along in spite of the writer's strike (as I predicted), and I'm sure I'll be able to catch up with all my favorite tv shows. All told, I'm sure there remains plenty to write about.
Happy holidays!
Read more!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The separation of facts from reality
As I've alluded to several times (I think) over the past few months, I cannot discuss the substance of most of my work for the court (and obviously the merits of a case are out of the question). It's the nature of the profession I suppose. Because some of my work deals with criminal matters (as much of appellate work covers I would say), I find it much easier to think about facts in theory than in reality. Let me explain.
Take any criminal matter, or at least one that encompasses very disturbing facts. On paper, it's easy to equate law from previous cases and not really think about the nitty gritty. And, leaving the whole golden rule argument out of this discussion, I'm left to wonder (not much, but a little) how much of an impact court opinions have beyond the legal world. The facts are the same for both legal eagles and the average joe or jane, but obviously to the victim (or the defendant for that matter), they take on a much different context.
Put another way, in creating "law" so to speak, isn't there some inherent thought about the consequences of the words the court uses? I'm not talking about the legal sense per se, but more for the victims who (likely) never read these legal opinions. And the newspapers that report on them. I can't count how many times I've read an article that completely misses the point of an opinion, or adds in flowery language that really makes the court look biased. It's infuriating.
In the end, I'm probably making a little something about nothing. The non-lawyer's take on an issue (and to some degree, the court of public opinion) has only certain bearings on the profession. It's the public opinion when a potentially negative (or positive) case comes out, however, that has sparked this particular topic.
I remember during my first winter break from law school, I was at a party and my neighbor was complaining about the way that criminals can break into houses, get assaulted by the homeowner defending his or her property, and then can sue the homeowner for damages. I sort of remember this being an episode of Boston Legal, and obviously there are plenty of defenses that make it less likely that the criminal will win this one, but the fact that he thought this was the actual state of legal affairs bothered me. And in light of some of the cases I've been working on, I sometimes wonder whether the court (and to a certain extent, myself) am partly responsible for these misperceptions.
In the end, I can't let it bother me, and I must conclude that the court is not responsible (or if it is, a higher court will correct it). Nor can I put much stock into how the press attacks the US Supreme Court for being either too liberal or not liberal enough. All I can say is that I do the best I can and try and be as objective and persuasive as I can be, and hope whatever aspect of the law I am working on is presented as true to the spirit of the caselaw as it can be. And if it's bulletproof to a further appeal or motion, that's good too. If only the briefs were as objective and thought about this when presenting their version of facts.
Anyway, my thoughts on why both Journeyman and Heroes has dropped off of my television list will have to wait until later this week. On that note, if anyone from the major networks is willing to pay me what I'll be making next year in a big firm, I'll gladly work with a team of other law clerks on a comedy series that is sure to succeed on Tuesday or Thursday nights.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The bump to $180k
The firm of Williams & Connolly has bumped its first year associate pay to $180,000. This, obviously, is "well above market," as ATL reports. See Nationwide Pay Raise Watch: Williams & Connolly to $180k. See also Skaddenfreude's earlier report from March about last year's W&C bump. What I find more impressive with this (other than the raw number) is that the annual increase hovers around 7% a year, which is also above most of the other firms' annual 5% increases.
Granted, there is more to the bonus structure and all of that (which W&C purportedly does not pay), but the question I have to all of this (as I always do), is what kind of life outside law do they expect any associate to have? I think the answer to this, as would be expected, is none. But boy, I'm sure this will send chills up any firm's spine as they decide whether NY will now bump to $190k and the remaining markets will bump to $160k. Sort of makes you forget we're heading into murky economic waters, doesn't it?
I'm not going to W&C, but I'm sure any clerk that is has got to be happy about this. This memo must have been a nice present for some people, and probably a bigger headache for others.
Also, and I'm not going to chime in on anything else about bonuses except post a link to the answer to an earlier question I had about Wachtell's 100% bonus structure.
Read more!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
I am Legend review
I saw the new Will Smith movie, I am Legend. Overall it was pretty good, and considering that there aren't too many new shows on tv anymore for a little (or a long) while, and all that is otherwise out is kid's movies, this one is the one to see. A couple quick thoughts (including spoilers) follow.
The premise of the movie is that a manmade virus has killed most of the world's population and Will Smith, one of the scientists who had been working to stop it, was one of the 1/2 of 1% of the population with a natural immunity. The remainder who were partially immune turned into some sort of vampire-type creature. In the movie, he captures them on occasion to work on an antivirus.
My friend who watched the movie with me said that he thought it was great until about 15 minutes left in the movie, where it took a fairly drastic turn from the book. Nevertheless, he said, it was pretty good. After he explained what the book was about, I saw what he meant.
Since I don't want to ruin the movie or the book for those who haven't seen or read either, I'll simply say that this review of Richard Matheson's I am Legend book explains it fairly well. Why Hollywood is so adverse to realistic endings is beyond me. Didn't Interview With a Vampire prove otherwise? I can only hope that the DVD has the true, alternate ending.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Road Less Taken
One of my favorite poems is Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken. So, when I saw ATL's link about Sen. Barack Obama's decision to forgo the clerkship route for greener pastures, I thought it would make an interesting read. And it certainly does. See The Man That Got Away: Judges Dreamed of Having Barack Obama as their clerk. Why did he turn them all down?
Since I went the appeals route, and will be heading to a big firm next year, I sometimes wonder if this is the correct path or not. That, however, calls for a much longer entry and right now I simply do not have to the time to give it to the due diligence that it deserves. I did hear a story the other day of a similar choice made by another clerk years ago. Allegedly, this particular clerk had an offer from Skadden: New York and decided after a year of clerking that he was less enamored with the prospect of corporate law and decided to go work for the public defender's office. Good for this clerk.
Myself, I don't have that luxury for two reasons: one, I highly doubt I would be a public defender, and two, I think I am going to enjoy big firm life and big firm work. While this answer may be different five years from now, I can only hope that it's not. Nonetheless, being in a somewhat similar position (although not from Chicago), I can certainly respect not taking the lesser traveled path and forging through one's own. As Frost says, sometimes the road less traveled makes all the difference. The caveat, as Jerry Seinfeld put it, is that sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason. To each his (or her) own.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Greedy traders are worse than greedy associates
I saw that the stock market reacted fairly negatively to the rate cut. Everything is hunky dory and then, KABOOM. 
Obviously a lot of people are upset. But give me a break. MSN has this as their lead quote: "Stocks tumble as investors see the central bank's interest-rate trim to 4.25% as way too small, putting the economy in danger of recession." Isn't this sort of sell-off more consistent with a mob mentality than actual reason? Who wants to bet that tomorrow's going to close a hundred points higher?
I guess this is the sort of thing I'm going to have to deal with on a more personal level next year (or as I'm sorting through boxes of papers dealing with such tumbles' aftermath. Fun stuff.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Unbelievably busy days
Who would think December would be so hectic? In either case, my schedule is finally starting to settle down again and so I thought I would chime in on what I think is the most interesting internet/free speech/criminal law question around nowadays and that is this cyberspace myspace case in Missouri. The brief facts are that one girl (Megan Meier) pretended to be a boy named Josh, created a relationship with another girl who became devastated when "Josh" told her something that upset this girl, who then hung herself. I'm going to have to spend some more time thinking about this one, and I can't imagine this bizarro fact pattern would show up on the east coast, but the case certainly could represent an interesting intersection of free speech and criminal liability. I would imagine the national press this case has already gotten will spurn some great commentary from more educated free speech enthusiasts.
My thoughts, and they are really only limited to a couple of articles since I'm almost two weeks behind in my RSS feeder, is that free speech may not protect her on this one. Unlike being a pamphleteer shouting from his internet soapbox, this is much more targeted. Somehow I don't think the framers had this sort of thing in mind in protecting speech. But I guess that will be up to either the Missouri courts or some Missouri district court to decide. Should be interesting.
I will save my comments about the recent Supreme Court crack/powder cocaine case after I've read more about it. Since my clerkship doesn't have too much to do with sentencing, I'm not sure how much my ivory tower opinion would matter on this one.
I'm also thinking of taking another bar or at least exploring other parts of the east coast. More on that after I investigate this whole reciprocity idea.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A book on appellate clerking? Don't necessarily be suckered in
Someone forwarded me this book the ABA is offering to sell on its website to anyone interested in clerking: The Federal Appellate Court Law Clerk Handbook. Although some books for prospective law students are good (see my list here), I find it hard to believe that this particular book has much value for the people who are getting these clerkships. I'm sure it has some value for somebody though, and I don't mean the author. Just because there's little chance that I would buy it doesn't mean it isn't worth checking out. As I always say, make an informed decision. This book is certainly one way of going about it. Speaking to your predecessor-clerk is another. Regardless if you figure it out by reading a book or talking to former clerks, once you've started a clerkship (appellate anyway), it is a dive into the deep end, and some learn how to swim faster than others.
I do remember reading an article written by former clerks that was of some use though, and you can get these articles for free with your westlaw or lexis access. That article is Gerhardt & Martineau, Jr., Reflections on Appellate Practice in the Sixth Circuit, 16 U. Tol. L. Rev. 625 (1985). Another one is Bright, Appellate Briefwriting: Some "Golden" Rules, 17 Creighton L. Rev. 1069 (1984). I also wouldn't be surprised if another updated article on the topic isn't published sometime in the next couple years.
If you are interested in clerking, I strongly suggest that you try and do it after your first year of law school. Many courts (trial and appellate) hire 1Ls as summers who work as basically assistants to the law clerk. The odds of you getting a firm job are pretty slim to begin with, so why not take all of your theory and put it to work right away? I would bet that your odds of getting one of these summer positions is much greater. Personally, I know lots of law students that did this after their first year, and the value of the experience far outweighs the money you will make (which is zero dollars). Of course, making two grand a week at a big firm after your first year has its perks also.
My pitch for the value of this summer experience as compared to something else has this nugget as an added bonus: you'll have plenty to talk about during your 2L interviews, and chances are you'll have a much better summer than most of your friends. That's the best advice I can do for all you 1Ls about to start finals. Work on those apps during the winter break and send them out the second you get your first semester grades. As far as states and circuits, you've got 1000+ courts to choose from. Most aren't opposed to turning away free labor if you've got the credentials to back it up. Things to think about.
For those of you still in school, good luck on finals. That, for sure, is something I do not miss about law school or school generally.
Monday, November 26, 2007
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether George Washington was a trespasser
Since this sort of argument only arises once in a blue moon, and I have some flexibility with my current work schedule, I thought I would get up early and take a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow morning. The Court is going to hear arguments about Delaware and New Jersey, in a case appropriately called "Delaware v. New Jersey." 
In this case and in an exercise of its original jurisdiction, the Court will decide once and for all where NJ can dump its garbage. And by garbage, I mean a gas pump. And by dump, I mean build.
Based on my one minute Google search, the Times article, and the special master's report, it appears that we have a good old-fashioned border dispute. The nine sheriffs on Maryland Ave. are hopefully not going to simply flip the Delaware and New Jersey quarters to decide whether Delaware's River is misnamed.
In this clash between titans of corporate law and rock music legends, it will be interesting to see whether Tony Soprano or Caesar Rodney will prevail. In either case, the arguments should be fun to watch. The picture of this disputed area can be found here.
An older case where Delaware and New Jersey fought another area of the river can be found here.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Review of Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles - Undoubtedly, Pass
The pilot to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles can be found online through one of Fox's video websites. I can state, unequivocally, that absent a complete reworking, this show is going to flop. Do I recommend it? Absolutely not.
You can watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles on Fox on January 14, 2008 for yourself if you don't believe me (or find it online when Fox releases it on Yahoo to generate more interest). In either case, I suspect that you will be better off just popping in the movies and wishing that 24 was back on instead. My review of why the Terminator tv show is absolutely not worth watching, mild spoilers included, follows.
As a matter of background, I have previously stated my biases for and against this genre of television shows. Since this is a tv show spun off the movie, I will state that Terminator 2 is one of my most favorite movies, and I liked Terminator 1 for alternate reasons. I even liked Terminator 3, so my expectations for this show really weren't that high. In a somewhat related note, I would have liked the premise for the movie I, Robot to have been the premise for Terminator 3 instead of what that movie actually did, but what can you do.
As I stated a few months back, I thought this show would have some potential. Sadly, there is a reason this show was slated for mid-season, and it becomes obvious after watching most, if not all of the pilot. This is among the worst tv shows I have ever seen. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Fox even picked it up. Even Heat Vision and Jack has more entertainment value.
Here are some thoughts I had as I watched the pilot. The terminators in the show are like the Arnold-terminators from the movies, not the T-1000 (as you would expect). The show presumably picks up where Terminator 2 left off, and ignores Terminator 3's plotline. The graphic shots of the future robots leave a lot to be desired. The plot itself is very slow, and there are multiple storylines, which supports my belief that the writers in Hollywood are risking more than they think they are gaining from this strike. The only plotline that resembles something from the movies is that the John Connor character is a whiny crybaby who doesn't want his life. Imagine the character from Terminator 3 and you will get the idea. The main plot, however, involves Sarah Connor and her quest to take down Skynet.
Basically, the show starts off in 1994. There is a female teenage terminator who is sent to meet up with John and his mother, and programmed to terminate the other terminators (such as the one in the pilot) that were sent back to kill our future world heroes. There is also an FBI agent who is trying to catch Sarah Connor for her actions relating to incidents from Terminator 2. The only thing that this pilot sort of gets right is that the computers and files (like the ones in Terminator 2) are backed up on remote servers. As Terminator 3 points out, it is pretty hard to fathom that blowing up one building will stop a government research project envisioned by James Cameron in T2. Philosophically, it's the only logical reason why John is still in existence in the end of Terminator 2 after they throw in all the chips and Arnold gives his thumbs up as he sinks to oblivion.
Although I don't presume to speak for him, I am pretty sure that James Cameron would not be proud of this pilot. After one episode, I think that will be just about all she wrote, for me anyway. I can only surmise that Fox hopes that by running it January, people will simply be too tired to complain about it and that they are hoping that maybe it can ride the coattails of American Idol. The fact that this is going to be the ride Fox is banking on with 24 temporarily out of commission, I think, has to be pretty scary for its sponsors, and the network for that matter (although that last part is probably a bit of an overstatement).
While the first 20 or so minutes of the pilot sets up all of this rather boring storyline, the real kicker, and where this show takes a nosedive away from any realm of suspended disbelief is with the time machine that is built into the bank. Basically, the last few minutes of the pilot have the teenage terminator telling Sarah and John that she opened a safety deposit box in 1963 in order to get a futuristic weapon hidden in the present. She then activates a time machine, built by a time traveling "engineer" (also "from the future") and strategically placed there in order to help them escape certain death in the past in order to jump to the present. Sadly, I am not making this up.
I'm not going to entertain this ridiculous pilot beyond this closing thought: If the good guys could bother to build a time machine (in the past), why wouldn’t the bad guys simply have gone back to Sarah’s childhood and kill her as a baby in the 50s. Or kill her grandparents? And a time machine? I know T2 explained this away by saying that records were spotty. But if Skynet controlled the machines and knew where all the defense capabilities and vulnerabilities were, wouldn't they presumably have had access to all of the governmental data to find his grandmother's social security number and residency from a less sophisticated time? I admit, I am being way too critical on a minor point.
Anyway, at the last possible second while standing in this bank vault time machine, they shoot the evil terminator and presumably, this futuristic weapon (also assembled in the past) kills him. Then they activating the time machine and leap forward to a highway in L.A. in 2007. Naked (but tame by Fox standards), they get photographed by a teenager with his camera phone (which every network appears to have picked up). The FBI agent who was tracking them in 1994 doesn't see this news broadcast, but obviously someone will fill him in, and he will have a new lead to go on in the future episodes. I will never know since I am never going to watch another episode of this show again.
I think I've made my point as to how terrible this show is. As a result, I will simply give it two thumbs down and say not to bother. Maybe Journeyman will have started making more sense by the time this show airs (and Heroes will have become better), and NBC will continue to corner that timeslot. Only time will tell. Bottom line: Pass.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Final thoughts on PMBR post-bar and post-MBE scores
I certainly did good enough to waive into DC if that's where my career path ultimately takes me. As promised, here are my final thoughts on the MBE, PMBR, Barbri and the whole bar exam experience.
Only PA seems to have any hard data on the MBE average. From my scores, it appears that the curve was 16, which seems to be consistent with what my friends have said. I also heard that the curve was not as high if you scored on the high end (160s/170s) and higher if you scored on the low end (110s/120s).
As previously reported (according to the Pennsylvania bar results release), the mean national MBE scaled score for the July 2007 MBE was 143.73. Similarly, the scaled range went from 78-188.2. If you can assume that the curve of 16 points or so is about right, then the average raw score was about a 128, and the raw range was somewhere between a 62 to 172. Statistics, however, are easily manipulated, so take what they are for what they are.
So, is PMBR worth it? Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth. PMBR is going to give you 2000+ questions and Barbri is going to give you 2000+ questions. Some anonymous poster said she did all of them, which I find hard to believe, but so be it. I think if you are going to go with Barbri, those are plenty of questions, and I strongly suggest that you avoid the "advanced" questions all together in order to save yourself much grief during the summer.
I do not think the PMBR questions were representative of the real MBE, and the exercise of studying multiple choice generally is rather silly. I suggest buying an MBE book from the bookstore and doing the "beginner" and "intermediate" questions from Barbri only. If you do them, along with the Barbri 3-day and the two practice exams in the other Barbri book, that would give you about 1500-2000 questions over the course of the summer to work on, and that is more than enough. Spend the rest of your free time reading Conviser and studying for your essays. Don't spend too much time, if any, on things such as the MPT (unless you are just a bad writer, in which case, you've got bigger problems).
If you are good at multiple choice, I think you could do 30 questions a day and be fine. I did 50 and often found myself spinning in circles by the end and missing my free time. Although I passed, my time probably would have been more productive memorizing Conviser. Thus, I would advise you to spend more time learning the law than learning how to game the MBE. And, in the last week before the bar, don't stress out. (I know, easier said in hindsight than done in reality).
Because my simulated MBE exam scores (at the end) were somewhat representative of (if not slighly higher than) my real score, I think if you can spread them out that you take one at the end of June, one around the fourth of July, and another a week before (in addition to whenever the Barbri 3-day is scheduled), you would be fine - if you have trouble finishing the test within the 3 hour time constraints, then maybe you should work on that aspect of the test. Since Barbri has a 3-day exam, take that one and be done with it. If you aren't doing Barbri or PMBR, then it may be worth it to do the PMBR 3-day just so you get at least one full-length simulated MBE before the real thing.
Of course, some people I am friends with did both the PMBR 6-day and PMBR 3-day and thought they were helpful, so it really depends primarily on whether you are learner by hearing or learner by doing (or learner by reading). As my previous entries regarding PMBR should indicate, I did not get much out of the lectures and could have certainly spent my time and money on better things. To each his (or her) own. By the time you are studying for the bar, you should know your study habits and what works best for you. Treat June (or January) like a job, and July (or February) like finals, and you should be fine. The test is not impossible, and as evidenced by the thousands of people who passed this July, it's just a test. Chances are you've taken finals in college or law school that are much harder.
And honestly, the bar exam isn't that much different than any other law exam you have taken, except that it covers multiple subjects in a much shorter time frame. So, imagine having all of your first year finals in a 3-day span, and that's the bar. Unlike your 1L finals though, you've already learned this material once, and there aren't meant to be any tricks. Sort of makes paying for a 3rd year of law school a money making scam, doesn't it?
Obviously this is easy to say in hindsight. The important thing, and if you are searching whether to take the PMBR or Barbri courses, you really have to just decide what is best for you. If you walk into the bar exam thinking "I've done everything I could to pass this test and I don't know what else I could have done if I fail," you will pass. That isn't a guarantee, but that was my attitude going in, and I was happy to see my name on the list of passers.
I think my initial thoughts on the MBE after the test are fairly accurate, and based on the comments, I am not alone in those sentiments. The months that have passed since then only lead me to think that anyone can pass the bar if they put the time into studying for it. The harder decision, I think, is deciding (1) which bar to take, and (2) what do you want to do for the rest of your life. Questions like these make taking a 2 or 3 day test rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
So, with that, I will end my commentary on PMBR, the bar exam, and the like. For perspective for you narcissists out there who are curious as to where I fall on the scale and what the scale of the July 2007 MBE is, I offer these limited thoughts. Of my friends who passed, the range of scaled scores that I heard of was a 133 (exactly), up to a stellar 179 (just shy of the national record). Mine was in the 150s, which was about the same I had scored in the second PMBR and Barbri simulated 3-day exam. The bottom line with these previous two sentences? Who cares, and why are you searching for this?
Finally, if you have stumbled across some of my thoughts on the bar exam, I would suggest that you spend some time reading what my ongoing thoughts were about it, as well as some others, and then make an informed decision based on your personal situation. To be honest, you will be fine going with either PMBR or Barbri, and at the end, probably wish you had studied something else more. It's like that for everyone; all you can do is suck it up, take and finish the test (and hope that your computer doesn't screw up), and wait.
Don't forget: If you wait to do everything until you're sure it's right, you'll probably never do much of anything (supposedly this is by someone by Win Borden). In other words, don't lose the forest for the trees when it comes to the bar exam. Good luck.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The snarky comments on ATL
I do have some thoughts on the July 2007 MBE, and I will probably make an entry about that sometime later this week. I also want to remark about the RHCP's "Californication" lawsuit (complaint here), but that will have to wait as well. In the meantime, I have been following with some interest a series of posts on Above the Law (mainly because it involves at least one firm that I have interviewed at and a co-clerk has an offer from), and I feel the need to chime in about the uninformed nature of the commentary that pervades that site.
Particularly, I am referring to the thread regarding one firm's seemingly complex bonus structure, which, for whatever reason, has stirred a flurry of comments that reek worse than Loyola2L's sense of entitlement. That pregnant pause aside, the current commentary on ATL's current bonus threads is not unlike any of the other commentaries on the website for any other article that gets posted.
My point with the rants regarding bonus structure and payment is really geared at my previous comments regarding how few people have these opportunities. Now, I know for a fact that firms scout Above the Law (and even this blog) and read it, although I doubt they post as much, and for good economic reasons. The fact that the commentary is so snarky and one-sided though, becomes, I think, misleading. I almost think it's deceptive and could do more harm than good given that the bulk of ATL's readership is law students who hope to be in that lucky 1% of law students who get these opportunities. Perhaps I am wrong, and I certainly enjoy when someone posts a comment expressing a counter view.
What kills me is the complaining about not getting enough money. Now, I am going to take my big firm job and work crazy hours and like it, but that's just me. I have to wonder how many of the anonymous commentators on ATL are simply students who have been dinged by these firms along the way and are using the ATL forums to voice their displeasure at the whole process. Or they are attempting to chip up their own pay and game the legal pay system (see, e.g., Tucker Max's commentary about accomplishing this very idea).
Regardless of the reason, isn't it just as likely that after three or four years of document review and sometimes mind-numbing corporate work, life or something like it starts to play a factor with your work and another crossroads appears? As evidenced by the whole TO Eagles-Cowboys debacle sparked by his agent Drew Rosenhaus, no amount of money is worth working for some place that you despise. So, after working in the highest tax bracket for three years, and with the attrition rate at most BigLaw firms, why are so many students deluded into worrying about a bonus structure that won't affect them for years to come, if at all? And it's easy to "pretend" you are an associate at the firm in order to support your point. (Again, see the Tucker Max story cited above). Granted, some are real, but who has time to sift through the irrelevant commentary in order to find the golden bullet that may or may not be any more relevant or helpful?
What I find funnier than the commentary regarding some of these firms is the thirst for the bonus structure at every other firm. I'm all for making an informed decision, but this is really stretching it. Personally, I would like some confirmation about Uncle Marty's supposedly quarter million dollar salary that first year associates can pull down. Where is that entry?
This is certainly a rant about nothing. If anything, I think regardless of whatever bonus you get beyond the now-common 2000 hour mark speaks more about lifestyle than anything else. But maybe I'm being naive about the personality types that are driven to BigLaw (myself included). I just hope that the people reading these things don't make hasty decisions as a result of an anonymous comment on a self-proclaimed "legal tabloid." As I always say, take free advice for what its worth (including mine).
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Office: The Deposition review
I saw this episode, and since most of it revolved around the legal world, I thought I would chime in and say that I thought this episode was great. Even if I wasn't a lawyer, I would think this episode was pretty funny. It's on the rewind website, so judge for yourself. I won’t speculate on how I think the case would actually go, other than it would provide some humor for whatever clerk or transcriptionist read the transcripts and diary exhibits. Also, I'm not sure why Jan’s whole case would come down to Michael Scott, and I don't think his testimony would be that fatal to her case, but hey, it's tv.
I will also comment that I don't think it's that small a leap to say that the idea came from the HR heroes website. See That's What She Said - The Job (suggesting that Jan may have a suit for wrongful dismissal). The complete write-up on the HR heroes blog about this episode is much more engaging than my review.
At the very least, I see this episode as a rare example of the intersection of the internet and tv (although Arrested Development is a different example of crossing recent pop culture references with tv shows, with mixed results). At the very most (but in a rather abrupt segway), the episode does not change my impression that Hollywood writers have no real basis to strike.
Now, this statement is not premised on my assumption that the writers of the Office lifted this idea from the internet. If at all, the HR heroes website probably just sparked the idea, and there is no problem with that. And I like (for the most part), the writing for the Office. After watching the Office writer's video blurb about the strike though, I'm beginning to think that this strike is more about someone's poor negotiation strategy more than anything else. At the same time, though, I still say that the current writing for tv shows (currently and generally) isn't that spectacular, and the writers are walking on eggshells as a result of this strike.
I just wonder whose lawyers are going to win out in the end. My money is on the networks'.
In response to yesterday's post
In thinking more about my rant against the political coverage of Campaign '08 thus far, I overlooked or failed to mention the biggest problem I have with it. It's great that everyone is looking toward the Internet as the best means of getting a hold of everyone and essentially they are doing what MTV tried years ago with its "Rock the Vote" campaign. And the internet provides massive exposure and publicity beyond all of the traditional modes.
What I see as irrelevant in all of this is the only question that really matters: Whether all of these young generation Iowan bloggers and internet wizards are actually going to go out in the Iowa primary (or any other youth going to their respective primaries, for either party) and actually make a difference. It's easy enough to court favor with CNN (apparently) and put a slick video on YouTube, but in the end, these elections aren't like the stupid online votes than can be manipulated fairly easy. Remember when New Kids on the Block became the best video on TRL? Can't do that in real life. One person, one vote.
So, will the generation traditionally the most apathetic actually come out in February and represent the so-called "MTV generation" and game the political system? Or will all of this internet hype turn out to be a lot of hot air and the generation traditionally controlling the vote (the so-called "retirees") simply go for the most conservative candidate from either party? The best example of this comes from the Simpsons episode "Wild Barts Can't Be Broken" where, at the end of the episode, the old people vote for a town curfew for anyone over 70. As Lisa states in the end, "I warned you guys that seniors vote in record numbers."
In searching around the internet, it appears that this sort of thought also came up in 2004, and obviously met with fairly apathetic results. See RatcliffeBlog-Mitch's Open Notebook: Meta-analysis of the Dean Campaign. Whether this phenomenon repeats itself in two or three months from now remains to be seen.
Read more!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Has the media given any thought to the possibility that the Republicans can sweep in '08?
It is no secret that the media is pretty liberal. Even some of my thoughts are pretty liberal. I'll refrain from my thoughts of where the political parties have spun to for now, but it strikes me that this song and dance about political plants and pre-ordained questions happened in 2004 (and 2000, 1988, 1984, etc.). The fact it simply gets more press now just goes to expose the bias of the mainstream media.
For example, Drudge has reported several times as of late on the hired guns by Senator Clinton at the last debate. The most recent one gives me pause. See "'Diamonds v. Pearls' Student Blasts CNN." Now, I'm not knocking the question or how this process plays out on a day-to-day or debate-to-debate basis. My pause arrives from how the media is spinning this whole process.
It seems to me that the over-reporting of these early debates may be playing into the Republican machine's hand. And I just wonder at what point the Republicans are going to start rallying behind one person and use the discord among the Dems to focus their campaign. The same thing happened in 2004. If you remember, shortly after Sen. Kerry got the nomination, there was a brief pause in support before the Democratic party rallied around him. The Republicans, by contrast, were unified and lock step behind President Bush. I distinctly remember this article, but the only one that I can find that comes close to supporting my point is from the Intellectual Conservative: Why Kerry is Winning the Democratic Nomination. In reading that article, I can't help but wonder if the same story is playing out this go round. And if so, are the Republicans simply waiting in the wings to exploit this back and forth again?
This post doesn't seem to have a point other than I am beginning to think that neither Clinton nor Obama can pull off a victory as president. And if Edwards wins, I will have to see what happens. And maybe there's a fourth candidate that is going to pull out and surge past any of those three. In any case, I just wonder who would be vice president. Yet, given all of this, if the Republicans come through next year and lead for another four years, how will the rest of the world react? I don't think there's a clear answer yet either way.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Bar results are out, in New York anyway
After some delay, I can report that I passed the bar. And no, it hasn't sunk in yet. Once I get some hard numbers on my MBE scores, I can state with enthusiasm and objectivity that PMBR did absolutely nothing for me in achieving this result. In the meantime, I'm going to have to get some work done this morning before heading out to party with the clerks who passed New York. And, as a bonus, I have one outstanding offer so far, so I know I'll be gainfully employed come next fall. Read more!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Moral of the Judge Pants suit story: Choose your battles wisely
A few months ago, all the rave in the legal news world was about the judge who was suing his dry cleaner for overstarching his pants. I wrote about this when it was current. Now, on the news this morning, I saw that this same judge has been asked to resign. See Judge Who Lost Pant Suit Loses Job. Not much to comment on other than the entire circumstance is sort of wrinkled. In the words of Kenny Rodgers, you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.
This may have been one of the times where it would have been easier to simply go somewhere else. I can only wonder how much business for this dry cleaner this entire story has generated. Chances are that they aren't hurting for business right now.
Monday, November 12, 2007
TV Bloggers go on strike? hahahahahaha
This article warrants immediate Monday morning quarterbacking commentary. The headline on Drudge was Bloggers Going 'On Strike' to Support Writers.
I'm not going to comment on this other than by stating that I find this extremely funny; this 'strike' will accomplish nothing; and while sympathetic in intention perhaps, the premise behind this 'strike' has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. I will gladly comment on this further, but for now I will simply laugh and say that these so-called acts of "solidarity" are missing the point that the quality of what these people are being paid for can easily be replaced by any graduating college senior who has a b.a. in b.s., and such acts of 'solidarity' simply will not have their intended effect. But, as always, I certainly could be wrong, and I invite the opportunity to debate why I may or may not be wrong. Post away.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Heroes and the hollywood writing strike
First, I think this writer's strike in Hollywood could be a blessing in disguise. Apparently I'm not the only one. See "'Heroes' creator to fans: I'm Super Sorry (that the season has sucked)." And Kiefer Sutherland doesn't have to worry about his jail time interfering with his shooting schedule; the strike has already postponed the next season of '24' for at least a year. Of course, that means that the bulk of the pressure on Fox doing well will fall on the shoulders of the Terminator tv show. Speaking of which, one of my friends has a copy of the pilot and we're both going to the same event this weekend. A review of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, to be sure, is forthcoming soon.
I'm not going to comment on the details or various plots that are ongoing in this season of Heroes. Needless to say, I still suffer through the show from week to week, only because I mildly empathize with the Peter Petrelli plotline. Nevertheless...
I am going to say that this whole plot line with Claire the cheerleader and West the flying boyfriend is pretty stupid. Not for any tv plot problems per se, but for the whole psychotic boyfriend aspect. Now, I'm not one to give out any relationship advice, but why in the world would a show with the widespread popularity of Heroes give any credence in supporting what I call the worst stereotype on tv today - the stalker boyfriend. I can only hope that the teenagers that are watching this aren't fooled into thinking that anti-social and stalker type behaviour gets you noticed. Well, maybe it does, but not in the way portrayed in the show.
Maybe I'm being far too critical of a minor point. Or that I think that nobody would think this doesn't happen. To my defense, however, I've read too many cases in too short a time to think that I am overstating this position. In real life, the psychotic tendencies of West, based on the couple of storylines he has been in, usually translate over into much more destructive behavior. If that's the point of this plotline and that's where they take it, the writers need to go about it a different way. Which brings me back to my point. If these are the plotlines that are being written right now, maybe it's time to get some new help anyway.
Maybe these plotlines, however silly, are part of the problem. Maybe not. The pending (or ongoing) strike among Hollywood writers begs this question: What the heck are we paying you guys for? Maybe these producers should do what old Ronnie R. did a few years back and hire some new guns. As long as it doesn't interfere with the Lost season premiere in February (which I am purposely doing no research to verify whether this is still accurate or not), I can only hope that the strike will lead these writers to do something a little better in the whole 'solid writing' department.
Some thoughts on national issues
One of my non-legal friends and I were talking yesterday about the state of world affairs. While the range of topics ran the gambit, the one thing that he mentioned that I had not thought of dealt with this passport requirement for Canada. His argument is that it is a precursor to a draft. His basis for this assumption is that during Vietnam, many now prominent Americans fled to Canada to avoid it. By creating a passport requirement, it virtually ensures that "the same mistake won't be made twice." He also thinks that we went into Iraq so that we would have a presence around Iran and the WMD threat and Hussein were merely secondary issues despite what was reported at the time. Since these are interesting points, I thought I would turn to whoever stumbles across this and see if there is any merit to any of these arguments, or at least spark an interesting debate.
Personally, I find these points to be both interesting and disturbing if the assumption can be accurately given. Obviously there is a rational basis for this requirement, and the threats on national security are certainly real enough. But I wonder why the media hasn't thought of this requirement on this dual purpose perspective like my friend obviously had? Feel free to post a comment and maybe someone who is actually in a position to investigate the issue further happens across the debate and does some real reporting on it. And, if the media stumbles across this blog (and if I ever get my link added to Above the Law), maybe I'll become the next David Lat, minus the tabloid elements to his blog.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Legal rumors and some thoughts about hourly pay
First, I've heard multiple rumors now of a NY bar result listing coming by the end of this week (based on last year's results posting) and another that says they won't be out until December because of the computer related issues discussed earlier this summer. I will stick with my belief that the results will be out before Thanksgiving, as vague as that may be.
I have a couple of other topics I may or may not have time to write about this week; namely they involve the importance of law review and first semester grades in the clerkship process. In case I don't have time to write about it, I reemphasize my assertion that law review is probably the most important thing for you to have on your resume for BigLaw or BigClerkships. While it's not necessary, I think that you are necessarily handicapping yourself if you aren't on a law review.
Granted, if you're at Harvard, NYU, Yale, and maybe a couple others, you can probably graduate last and still do okay. Everywhere else, I think you need to be closer to the top 50%. And even that is probably being generous outside of the top 20 or so schools. As I have stated numerous times in this blog, if you aren't in the top of your class (with a sliding scale as to what is the "top" depending on your law school) and if you aren't on a law review, you are struggling to find good work (more on salary considerations below).
Also, while I'm at it, if you're not on the top law review at your non-top 10 school, I want a good explanation as to why not, if it comes up in an interview. More on other interviewing tips (do's and don'ts) from the perspective of a clerk in another entry.
One new tip though; you should assume that I was editor-in-chief of my law review (even though I, admittedly, was not) and have a good idea of what your position does. I would argue that anyone with a board position knows what every type of board position does and associates those positions on their law reviews with the people that were in them. For some positions and in some law reviews or journals, I'm sure that hurts some people by no fault of their own. Nevertheless, if you're interviewing for a clerkship, this is a fair question. And you should also assume that I am aware of the Washington & Lee law review rankings. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.
And now, my thoughts on hourly pay for BigLaw and Clerks. (By clerks, I also include small firm salaries that are in the, say, $75k to start range, even though that may be generous). Second, I recognize that statistics are easily manipulated to prove a point.
Let's say that a Biglaw firm requires 2000 billable hours a year, which, assuming a 50-week year (2 weeks vacation), is a 40 hour billable work week. Assuming that all rumors of an average of 80 working hours/week is true, the numbers wind up getting tweaked a little. I think (based on my friends who are currently at big firms), a 60-80 hour/week isn't that unrealistic. So I'll go for three estimates. One uses a conservative multiplier of 1.3 working hours for every billable hour. That would give you a 52 hour week, or 2600 hours. The second will use a 1.5 hour multiplier, giving you a 60 hour week, or 3000 hours. The second will use the 80 hour week, or 4000 hours. I would suspect that on average, the real number is somewhere in the middle of the middle.
Now let's say that the big firms pay $160k, even though I know that isn't representative of the entire BigLaw market. Now, not taking out deductions for IRA, and assuming federal, state, and city taxes chomp away about 50% of your base salary (exclusive of bonuses), you are going to clear about $100,000 after Uncle Sam takes his cut. Assuming this is correct, and in my 2500 hours/year working week, you are making almost $40/hour. In my 3000 hour/year working week, you are making $33 an hour, and in the dreaded 80 hour work week, you are making a whopping $25/hour. And keep in mind, this is the New York scale, and obviously different markets are lower.
Now, say you took a government or small firms job, which purports to work you only about 50 hours a week on average. If you're starting salary is between $60 and 75k, you are probably pulling in around $50k after taxes. Unlike the big firms, I think you are more likely to be closer to the 52 or 60 hour work week (2600/3000) on average rather than an 80 hour week, but you could also be in the 45/hour week on average if you don't have billables (e.g., public defender or prosecutor). If you work 2600 hours/year (the 52 hour workweek) for $50k, that works out to about $20/hour. At 3000 and 4000, your time is worth only $17 and $12.50, respectively.
What I find interesting with this perspective is the close intersection with the BigFirm 80 hour weeks ($25/hour) and the small firms typical 52 hour week ($19.23/hour). So, one way to evaluate your time is that your big firm value is only $5/hour more than small firm value. I think Above the Law had a similar thread on this a while back, but the point is the same. Just based on time, your value as a lawyer at a BigFirm and at a small firm, is essentially the same.
Now, obviously, at a big firm, you are working many more hours, and you are getting paid far better for the time that you work. In that sense, it's a numbers game. In another, I just wonder if your free time becomes that much less valuable and how much weight that should be given.
Regardless of whether my math is right, or whether you agree or not, my point with this exercise isn't with the money at all. It is that this whole exercise will never happen for 99% of law school graduates. This is the much bigger problem, especially given the staggering numbers of bar-exam takers being churned out by the 180 or so ABA schools and however many non-ABA law schools there are (and LLM's are another category all together).
I can't tell you how many people (clerks and current law students/non-lawyers) that are under the delusional perspective that people are graduating with these BigFirm options. To be certain, they are not. It's one reason law review is that much more important nowadays. And good grades. And creating opportunity for yourself if you were initially handicapped by a bad LSAT and aren't at Harvard, Yale, NYU, Columbia or the rest of the so-called top 20.
This is going somewhere, but I've had enough of this ramble for now. I have to watch tv and destress that way rather than by writing more on work stuff and next year's considerations. Fortunately, I will be trying to balance the $25-40/hour jobs with my rigid television schedule.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
California wildfires have a culprit; hopefully his parents have good insurance...and lawyers
Since I mentioned this briefly last week, I saw on CNN this morning that some junior pyro has admitted to starting one of the California wilfires. See Juvenile admits starting fire that burned 38,000 acres. Maybe Gov. Schwarzenegger will grant him immunity.
Second, I saw that Latham is giving its clerks the same $50,000 signing bonus. Since I am in the midst of this whole process, I can state, definitively, that such bonuses are being taken into consideration. Particularly when they are paid, in full (after taxes), the day after your clerkship. The thing I am anxious to hear is how long you have to work in order to keep the bonus... I've heard between 1 and 2 years, but have not gotten a straight answer. Probably because most, including myself, are confident that they will be working for said BigLaw well past whatever this deadline purports to be.
If there are current second-year associates who just finished their clerkship last year and have started (although I suspect some are starting tomorrow), I am anxious to hear about the whole integration into the firm culture and how the clerkship has helped thus far.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Various legal conundrums and bad reporting
First rule of appellate clerking: Don't spend in excess of five hours working on something if the trial court hasn't addressed it first. I can assure that I won't do that again.
Since a lot of legal stuff has been on the news as of late, I thought I would comment on two or three recent articles that caught my attention. Some thoughts on Blackwater and the Genarlow Wilson case appear at the end of this entry.
The first is the one that said "U.S. Supreme Court lets Liz Taylor keep van Gogh painting." Well, this caught my attention for the obvious reasons. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the advertising cookies that were deposited into my cache), the article title is very misleading, at least from a court perspective. First, as the article reports, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't do anything but deny cert. While the effect is the same, as any lawyer knows, the denial of cert. doesn't mean anything except that the circuit court ruling is upheld. I need not dwell on this point further other than to express my disappointment that I was duped into clicking onto the article
Second, this whole Blackwater thing. See Immunity Deal Hampers Blackwater Inquiry. While I am not working on anything to do with this particular case, there may be some issues involved that could intersect with various things I am working on, so in a public forum and to remain consistent with my other posts and current commentary dialog, I will simply state that the Blackwater contracts as reported throughout the news are certainly interesting on all legal and academic levels. Personally, I think that mercenaries have been used in wars since Roman times, so I'm not sure exactly how, if at all, this issue can be resolved.
Third, and this is the most interesting case from an appellate court standpoint. Genarlow Wilson of Georgia got caught up in a legal nightmare surrounding a party he went to as a teenager. Although it looked like it was finally over back in June, the State of Georgia decided to appeal. After years of fighting the good fight, justice has finally prevailed and the Georgia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, let him go. See Genarlow Wilson: Plea Deal would have left me without a home and the WSJ's Blog regarding that the voided sentence. I'm not sure I would call this "real, strange news" as the WSJ columnist suggests. In fact, I'm not endorsing the coverage of either of these articles. The Atlanta Journal Constitution does a pretty good job covering it, but the link to what you are looking for is right here, and you can read it for yourself. Wilson v. State. The Supreme Court of Georgia also posts their own press release about it. Read both and judge for yourself.
I will reserve any comment about it because I haven't read the opinion, but from my own following of the case, I would suspect that the court reached the correct result. By contrast, I will state that the whole "evolving standards of decency" standard is too mushy for my liking, and the mushiness appears to have helped Wilson win his argument. I guess in a few months, the whole world will know out how exactly the Framer's intended "cruel and unusual" to mean. Enough for now.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
California Wildfires
There are probably ten entries I need to write about based on the events of the last week. Fortunately (or unfortunately), I get to tag along to a conference that will take me away from my precious internet and westlaw research for the next couple of days. It is not a conference in California, but since that's all the news is about nowadays, I thought I would express my sympathies toward the mass migration that is going on at the west coast. I hear that more people have had to temporarily evacuate than during Hurricane Katrina.
If this does turn out to be completely arson related, which is a sad commentary in itself, what remedy does anyone really have against this person or persons? I saw the government is offering a $50k reward, but how fast would that person or persons declare bankruptcy and shield themselves from any lawsuits the thousands of insurance companies would bring? Regardless, I see the wildfires as causing a bigger problem based in part of the subprime crisis currently dragging our economy through the mud.
While I have no understanding of the mortgage business other than what I saw on the news and learned in part in a couple property classes, I have no idea whether it's a safe assumption that the mortgage would be essentially subrogated to an insurance payout. Or are these two different things? If someone could point me in the direction of a site that actually explains this in layman's terms, that would be great. In the meantime, I guess all Chargers fans are going to have to hope that some Cardinal fans help fill the stands this weekend.
Also, what is it like over in California right now? I'm left only with limited commentary on the internet and Yahoo answers. Any west coasters that feel like commenting on the situation, feel free to contribute by posting a comment.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
NBC Rewind back to its mediocre quality
I added this in a comment yesterday, and so that various internet searchers are not confused, I revoke my previous entry praising NBC Rewind and the quick turnaround of quality with NBC's online system. Apparently it was only temporary. Upon watching the Office and Earl the other day, NBC's Rewind was back to its old sucky self. Luckily these two somewhat conflicting entries aren't court decisions or else the court would look fairly silly in its quick and contradictory judgments. Fortunately with my court (and my career for that matter), I only make snap judgments about television shows and the ways to watch them.
Part of its problem with NBC's Rewind, I believe, is that its interface is just not as simple as some of the other networks'. I'm convinced now that it must either vary with show, or it varies with the time you watch it. In either case, only the latter is remotely acceptable as far as quality control goes. I'm not going to waste anymore time on complaining or praising NBC's Rewind. Suffice to say, ABC's system is superior to either of the other four networks, and if you don't feel like watching it through NBC, there are other options (e.g., YouTube), which may or may not be affiliated with the network. I'm beginning to think there is some merit in watching television shows online, and I can only wonder where fair use falls on this spectrum if you don't use the affiliate channels. Only time and a couple lawsuits will tell.
Back to football.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Ellen's pound puppy and the mixing of law and business without any pleasure
Since all the radio has been talking about lately is this nonsense with Ellen DeGeneres and her adopted dog, Iggy, I thought I would chime in with how I would have approached this if I were the adoption agency and why I think that legally, they probably are right, and from a marketing and business, questionably wrong. For fun though, I will say that they have the potential of being just as well-off, if not better once this hot air blows over.
Basically, Ellen adopted a dog, the dog didn't get alone with her cats, and so she gave the dog away to one of her friends. See Outrage Over Iggy, but Not Brit's Kids and Attorney for Group that Set Up DeGeneres Dog Adoption Speaks Out. Apparently, like most pet adoption agencies, there is a contract that the adopted owner signs. According to the radio this morning, these provisions exist because the adoption agencies take in a lot of abused animals and part of the adoption process is to ensure that these animals are placed in good homes. Ellen must have signed this contract in order to get the dog. Obviously. (Hint: Ellen loses at the end of this story.)
One of the provisions of the contract says something along the lines that if you don't want the dog, you have to give it back. Obviously the rational basis behind this provision is that it protects the dog and allows the agency to find them a better home in case owner A (Ellen) doesn't work out. By subverting this contract, Ellen is in breach. I don't think anyone disputes this. The law is on the side of the pet agency.
But, like most people who fight over contracts that don't work out or contain some provision that wasn't understood, Ellen decided to tell her tale of woe to her viewing public. And, like most of the public that doesn't understand these things, they have jumped on her side. Sympathy, however, doesn't change the clear terms of the contract.
From a business side though, the bad press that Ellen has generated from this incident can't be that good for the above mentioned pet agency, for now. And apparently there have been death threats, etc. Silliness. I won't be surprised if they take her to task for some sort of privacy claim, which ultimately settles out for Ellen to give some free positive publicity to the company. Or lots of money.
Days from now, nobody is going to remember this stupid story. If anything, I'm sure it has increased awareness for adopting animals and the reasons why some adoption agencies are strict about these sorts of things. And I'm sure that this pet company could weather this storm. If not, that's just more fodder for the case against Ellen.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
NBC rewind has done a 180 from its previously poor quality
Edit: This entry has been overruled by a different entry. Read this for humor; read the newer one for the true perspective.
I've always liked NBC's programming (for the most part) and am glad that most of their shows are available online (if not all of them that I watch, as compared to the other networks that limit their selection for nonsensical reasons). In watching most of these shows (e.g., Heroes, Journeyman for another couple weeks, The Office, etc.), I've been quite vocal at times in my complaints regarding how NBC's efforts at online broadcasting have been less than stellar. My own internet research shows that I am not alone in this belief.
To recapitulate my complaint, I specifically made this comment on Oct. 6: "Fortunately or unfortunately, NBC again has failed to meet any reasonable expectations for the tech savvy generation of which I am a part. Similar to my complaints from last year, I can only simply voice my concern on the internet with their online entertainment division, and hope that the higher ups at GE hire somebody new." Based on my viewing of yesterday's Heroes episode, it appears that NBC finally took my advice to heart.
Quite surprisingly, NBC, in the course of one week, figured out how to distribute online media without sacrificing the costs of producing/broadcasting the shows (e.g., commercials). Yes, it's hard to believe. Basically, they have changed the commercial structure to emulate Youtube's viral video strategy. The spots are made specifically for the internet and (almost) completely tracked toward the timing of their placement during the show's timeline (as opposed to the previous commercials which were rebroadcasts of crummy regular commercials).
For example, the second to last spot says something to the effect of "Enjoy the final part of the show." Of course, they had one more after that, but at least they are attempting to compensate for their previous incompetence. These are short, non-intrusive commercials that do not change the volume or interrupt the feed of the show (other than the 30-second commercial itself). Additionally, there is only one commercial, at indicated times (as compared to NBC's pathetic attempt to throw multiple commercials at "non-scheduled" times in earlier rebroadcasts this season). I can't say that it will direct me to buy the product, but I'm sure this particular campaign should prove successful.
From a marketing perspective, however, I can state without reservation that this is the correct strategy for the current online market. Because of the nature of the commercial, the content and javascript directs the viewer to that sponsor's website and even employs a clever internet strategy in the process. I'm not going to give any lip service to this particular sponsor because they can pay me for advertising just as well as they can pay NBC, and they have not, so I will not. Nevertheless, I would venture to say that it is just a matter of time before the rest of the networks employ similar online commercial strategies. Of course, ABC has already figured out this tactic on similar grounds, so maybe NBC took my advice and hired someone who understands the internet medium a little better than the last person. Now if they will only listen to my product placement suggestions.
So, I will say that NBC's Rewind has gotten a little better. I'm not ready to give it a ringing endorsement, but it certainly is ten times better than it has been.
