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.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
A book on appellate clerking? Don't necessarily be suckered in
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.
