Here's a quick morning headline sure to get a laugh: Spitzer call girl sues 'Girls Gone Wild.'. A few weeks ago, when 'Hookergate' was all the news in NY, there was some talk of having this call girl pose nude for 'Girls Gone Wild.' But, upon doing a little internal due dilligence, it turned out she had already posed. See Spitzer escort's 'Girls Gone Wild' videos surface. Offer yanked, so sorry. While there was some earlier talk that she may have been 17 at the time of the videos, it seemed to have died down due to unknown reasons. But, today they have resurfaced.
Apparently, she is claiming that she was drunk and underage when she signed the contract. Obviously both are valid defenses, but I'm guessing there must be some sort of ratification based on payment or subsequent contact if the 'Girls Gone Wild' founder, Joe Francis, says he and his company "have nothing to worry about." In either case, she wants $10 million for her hardships due to this nudery. I'm sure she will have about as much success as those clowns from the Borat movie. How long did that one hang around, a month? Guess those efforts at being a call girl aren't quite as lucrative as one may have initially thought.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Spitzer call girl sues 'Girls Gone Wild' and thinks she has a better chance than the Borat Frat Boys
Sunday, April 27, 2008
A look at the law and salaries from October 1996
I was doing some spring cleaning today and came across an article from the Oct. 28, 1996 edition of US News & World Reports (pp. 89-99). The article was the "20 Hot Job Tracks" and basically outlined what jobs were hot and up and coming. While I can't imagine the actual reasons I saved this article (other than it probably had something to do with my pending college plans and having no real idea of what I wanted to do), the article has a certain nostalgic quality to it now, and warrants brief discussion.
The law entry is somewhat interesting, if only for the going rate a decade ago. The article primarily focuses on its Nostradamus-like prediction that piracy was giving intellectual property lawyers the edge as far as up and coming areas of the law. And Napster wouldn't galvanize and dominate the college downloading scene for another three years.
What is a better water cooler conversation is the salary breakdown. According to the article, the average entry level salary for an IP attorney was $49,300; the average was $312,600, and the top was $600,000. The runner up position? Corporate lawyer: "It's true that many companies have laid off attorneys. But lawyers with years of experience in securities and transactions are in short supply."
As far as the general salary info for our noble profession, here was the breakdown based on ABA's Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1995 (as printed in the article):
First-Year attorney (law firm): $49,300
General attorney (federal government): $67,900
Patent attorney (federal government): $76,300
Circuit Court Judge: $141,700
Chief Justice (U.S. Supreme Court): $171,500
Partner (Law firm): $375,900 (total compensation).
My how times have changed in only a short time. A decade later, a first year associate starts at $160,000 at a big New York firm, $120,000 for a government attorney; ($50,000 average for everyone else), patent attorney makes $115,000, the Chief Justice's salary is $217,400 and partners make much more than that. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts has a fair argument that government salaries aren't keeping pace with the private sector. Of course, the cost of debt has probably risen just as fast if not faster, and that info is much harder to come by, so who really knows whether there actually is a real difference or not. My guess is that we're (speaking on behalf of a certain range of recent grads) still doing better now than now-partners were doing when they first started.
For another interesting discussion on this topic, see Lawyers Starting Salaries-Misleading? and the BLS report dated December 2007.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
High school skipping to meet a presidential candidate costs him his presidency
A rather simple observation on a rather silly story that was on the news today. Apparently a couple of high school seniors caught wind that Senator Obama was taking a pit stop near the high school and two of these guys decided to cut class to run out and meet him. See Students Suspended for Skipping Class to Meet Obama. What makes this story moderately newsworthy is not that the kids bothered to go back to class and then tell everyone about how they skipped school, or the fact that they got caught and basically got an in school suspension for it. No, one of the kids was forced to resign as senior class president.
What a joke. Graduation for high school students there (like anywhere else around the country) is about a month away give a week or two. What message can this possibly bother to send? Chances are this class president isn't a bad kid, and is probably going to go on to college and do great things. Hell, I was senior class president of my high school and I turned out fine.
If this happened to me, with a month of school to go (if that), I would be livid to no end, and would make sure to make it a point to embarrass the school officials for enacting such a ridiculous punishment. It would be almost enough for me to decide to go to law school just out of spite for the absurdity. I particularly like the administration's lame excuse and elitist attitude: "Assistant Superintendent William King says the rules are clear, and adds that if the students had approached a teacher about wanting to leave campus, they probably would have been given permission." Sounds like this guy needs a lesson from his his supervising superintendent in management.
In all seriousness, the press this kid should get out of this, and the opportunity to rip on his school administration for being so short-sighted should provide for some great stories. If this kid plays his cards right, maybe he would be able to get a sweet internship after his first year of college.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
American Idol jumps his contract
I saw this the other day online and thought to myself, "now, I can't imagine his American Idol contract allows him to do that." And sure enough, it does not. See American Idol's David Cook's digital MP3 album yanked from Amazon. The gist of what happened was that this kid David Cook (who is probably going to finish in the top 2 or 3 of this year's poorly rated contest) decided that he didn't want to go through the proper channels and make a quick buck by releasing some tunes through another vendor seemingly unaffiliated with American Idol. See 'Idol' Singer a Ringer? David Cook's Album Already Out.
Needless to say, it's a fair assumption that whatever contract he has signed with American Idol precludes him from doing so. And as quick as that story of his "unauthorized hits" came (story broke April 21), the free-for-all has been plugged (news reports April 22 that it's gone).
Speaking of which, it's time to what Jason Castro walk off into that great Hawaiian sunset of music television oblivion.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Texas polygamy and the family lawyers/judges that are fixing their coffee right now
I make this note only in passing because I have a couple of friends who are involved in the family court system either as lawyers or clerks. Supposedly, or at least according to the attorneys I have spoken to, at some point in one's legal career, one crosses paths with the wonderful world of family law. And sometime today in the great state of Texas, 400 or so kids and their respective attorneys are going to try and explain why they should (and why they should not) be taken away from this alleged polygamy sect. See Custody Hearing to Begin in Polygamist Case.
I saw some of the coverage on tv last night as a few of the parents(?) who live(d) in the compound explained how hunky doory it was there. The interview seemed sort of stilted and rehearsed, but what do I know as an average viewer. The whole case to me reeks of nightmarishness for all those involved (including and particularly the court system itself) and the fact this is going to keep playing on the news for however much longer the press can drag it out almost makes watching the election coverage or who gets kicked off American Idol appealing. Almost. Intead, I am enjoying what is beginning to be nice weather and the wedding season.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Sky is Falling and NASA gets into a pissing match with a 13 year old
I just saw this story this morning and since I vaguely remember reading something about this a few years and again a few months ago, thought I would click on it. Supposedly, an asteroid is projected to come within a few thousand miles (which is close, relatively speaking) of Earth in about 20 or 30 years. NASA put the odds of hitting at 1 in 45,000. Apparently, a 13 year old German boy, as part of a school project, calculated that the odds were actually closer to 1 in 450.
Whether the 13 year old exposed a massive coverup to avoid general panic or these physicists and mathematicians who are among the most elite in the world miscalculated something a 13 year old could do. The funny thing, to me anyway, isn't whether NASA is right or wrong, but how two different groups are reporting the story. See German Schoolboy, 13, corrects NASA's asteroid figures (I'll change this link once I find the more permanent one). Cf. The Register: Schoolboy's asteroid-strike sums are wrong (stating that the numbers the boy used to make his calculations were actually incorrect).
So who is right? Does it really matter? As is plainly evident by the way things are handled nowadays, I see this as being the next generation's problem. For now, I'll stick with NASA's estimations.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Headlines are good at being poorly misleading
I have many more fun things to discuss, based in part on the nice weather and my past and pending travel plans, but for now I'll simply chime in on yet another example of bad reporting, or at least "bad headlining." I only clicked on it because it seemed to be legally related and did not make any sense, and when I read through the article, saw that it made perfect sense and the headline was merely sensational gobbledegook.
The headline (on CNN's mainpage): Boy Who Killed Grandparents Won't Get Appeal. Well, that doesn't seem right at all, I thought. But when I clicked on it, the headline morphed into "Supreme Court turns down boy killer's appeal." Well, that doesn't mean that he didn't get an appeal. I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why cert was denied because it could have been anything. I am certain, however, that had he been denied a direct appeal, this defendant would have been successful in some petition for relief. I also find this sentence particularly amusing, if only for the wonder of what they told the reporter: "The inmate's legal team, from the University of Texas Law School, expressed disappointment at the high court's refusal to accept the case." Well, what did they expect? How about a comment on what the prosecutor initially offered before the jury got to sink their teeth into the case and this kid was sentenced to the mandatory minimum?
And any college that permits a field trip to visit a Nevada brothel certainly must have students lining up on the registrar's door to get off the waiting list. This sort of class almost makes those D1 basket weaving courses pale by comparison.
Read more!
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
AA starts to fly south, will dissenting shareholders skybus back?
I have no idea whether AA is publicly or privately owned, but with all of Wall Street shaking on Bear Stearns, subprime mortgages and other messes, I can only imagine the types of litigation brewing in the airline industry (and particularly AA given that flights are being cancelled left and right). And I don't mean crying over spilled coffee or scantily clad airline personnel or passengers (or airlines). I saw on the WSJ Law Blog the other day that during these tougher economic times, it's the lawyers who survive, so maybe our profession is heading into a bull market. Let's hope so.
And I also heard today that there's a plan for some sort of emergency cell phone system. See Nationwide Cellphone Alert System in Works. See also FCC to Propose Emergency Text Messaging System. I remember how annoying the "tests of the emergency broadcasting system" are when they interrupt a television show with an obnoxious and loud screech and beeps.
Now, I wasn't in New York on September 11, so I don't know if something came across the EBS then, but I can just see how potentially bad this idea is if cell phones are going to start beeping incessantly for 40 or 50 seconds during these monthly "tests." And if everybody's phone is going off at once, I can see patience for the Cellphone Emergency Broadcast System wearing out even quicker. But I'm sure it serves a greater economic purpose on some level that warrants its inclusion into our already saturated airwaves.
And to complete the trifecta of legal news saturating the AP wire today, the ad wizards at Microsoft-Yahoo-Google continue to duke it out. See Yahoo/Google Deal is Anti-Competitive says Microsoft.
Enough ranting for now, I have to read some briefs.
Read more!
Monday, April 07, 2008
Conclusions of Match.com part deux: Still not worth the money
My second attempt at Match.com, this time as an entry-level employee as compared to as a student had much less success. My conclusions as to why are strewn throughout this entry, but essentially echo those found in these other sites: Match.com sucks for the professional type, if there is such a thing. See Life's Little Vent Sessions: Internet Dating: Why it sucks... (correctly positing the three most common dating types found on the match.com site); Looking for Love in all the wrong places with Match.com (explaining why "about average" is a little misleading in most cases among other lessons to be learned); Online Dating: Great for Women, sucks for men (explaining why it appears at first to be a supply and demand issue, but only for women and providing further explanation); and Why Match.com sucks (providing a funny example of an email).
Perhaps these sites are all biased because they are written by guys (my opinion included), and I would be curious to see what Law With Grace would have to say about Match from a woman's perspective. Or if anyone else has comments or anecdotes, I am slightly curious whether my experience is unique or commonplace. I just hope I never have to become associated as a client number.
For what it's worth, my own experiences this time (and last time) are much the same. Most women, ages 23-33, are just as clueless as I am as to what I think would "work" in a relationship; these same women, however, are not as receptive as to just going out to see if there is a spark beyond the internet screen. I base this statement on the large numbers of winks I would get, which I would wink back at, and then nothing. The couple times I would write rather than wink back, I would get a response less than 10% of the time. And this was keeping to the general rule of writing less than 4 sentences in an email.
While I could deconstruct myself as to why I'm much more successful at in-person introductions than online ones, I am left to think that maybe it was my "about me" description. If I try this again (and I may once I relocate to the city of BigFirm), I'll be less descriptive. Even so, I think that it's still simply going to be a matter of looking at pictures first, then a description, in which case online dating is really no different than going to a bar except that it's much harder to translate charm into written wit without coming across as creepy or desperate.
I also decided to see if it is just the part of the country I am currently in or something else. So I tried LA, Dallas, Chicago, Topeka, Miami, Nashville, Augusta, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and D.C. to see if more areas had contact than others. Success in this effort? Zero. Maybe I deactivated my profile by mistake; who knows.
Other things of note: At least three of the girls who I contacted complimented me for having no spelling errors in my profile, which I have accepted as a compliment, even though I thought this was a pretty strange introduction. Another wrote that she liked my profile because I had actually written more than a few lines to give an insight into my personality, which she thought was nice. The opposite however, at least upon my reading, did not appear to be true.
I also attempted to email a few women who I thought matched up with me pretty well - other professionals, doctors, teachers, that sort of thing. Of the emails I sent, only one even looked at me. Now, this either means that they were not paying members (so they could not tell who had sent the email) or that they simply saw my picture and thought, nah, or thirdly, what I wrote did not merit a further response. At first I thought it would be nice to have the closure of "no thanks," but after getting a few emails myself, I'm thinking that saying nothing is probably just as polite. Conclusion: Politeness in the virtual online dating world is satisfied by not responding to barrages of emails.
I also attempted to find my "ideal" match by searching for what I thought were things I look for in women (namely height, age, education, profession, body type), and then figured that I could increase my search by plugging in a 3000 mile radius. To my surprise, 792 women matched. Upon clicking through a few, however, I am nearly positive that the match.com algorithm does not attempt to connect with what you are trying to search for.
At the risk of exposing my secret identity, I will say that I attempted to keep my introduction short, put five or six pictures of myself online, and really only limited what I was searching for by height, age, and education. Knowing that the searches only show you either a picture or a 10-15 word description before seeing the whole thing, I attempted to portray myself in such a way that my cleverness would come through. After three months of doing this, I must conclude that I missed the mark completely. I would say it's frustrating, and it is, but I'm not sure what I can do at this point. For now I will simply put on an optimistic hat and continue the assumption that things happen for a reason. That, and I will simply have to return to the bar scene.
For now though, a couple closing thoughts on the topic: Could you meet your ideal match through an on-line dating service? Theoretically yes, but in reality, probably not. At least not for this under-29 year old. Is it worth the money for a one, three, or six month subscription? I would think that if you can't find success after three months, the match.com market will not change dramatically over the next three or six months. Either try another venue (which may or may not have equal results) or join some local group or organization and hope for better sails. Don't spend another dime on this particular dating service.
Bottom lines: Save your $60 for a real date and ask your co-workers to fix you up with someone. Some other thoughts for those who have read so far: Despite my own inconsistency in practicing this, I think it still may be better to do the auto reply "no thanks" rather than doing nothing. At least this provides closure for either an email or a wink. I fully admit that no response after a couple of days should accomplish the same thing because the need to be polite online unfortunately wears thin quickly, at least in my experience.
Without any response, one is left to about whether the responses went through, which could produce real awkwardness. For me, I assumed that they did and simply ignored it, but I could see how others could "try try again." That doesn't work in real life, so why would it work in the virtual online dating world?
Also, if there is a response: The winks back and forth are fine, but I think there needs to be a response after the wink back by the winker, followed by a response by the winkee. Otherwise it doesn't count as flirting.
How much time is enough time in online dating? I think if you haven't gotten a phone number or set up some sort of meeting at a bar within three emails or a week and a day, whichever is first, you are wasting your time or the other person is wasting yours. Meet up or move on.
While I'm on the topic of suggestions as to a better service, I wonder outloud whether there is the need for another online dating source that is highly targeted (e.g., at professionals). If I think all of this warrants a further entry, I'll write one. For now, my opinions about Match.com are even lower than they were before: If you're thinking about subscribing to it, think about it some more. Are there better services? Perhaps, and maybe some others will chime in on them or with their thoughts on this one. Please post away. For me, I'm going to pass on online dating until I'm finished with the clerkship.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Fancast - probably the best current source for online television - and it's legal
I came across this site today and must provide a slightly unusual free bit of advertising for the service. The site is Fancast, and while it apparently is some subsidiary of Comcast, it has worked out licensing agreements with a bunch of shows, essentially allowing one to watch entire seasons of current and old shows as if you are watching them from the actual network website. For example, if you're a fan of Arrested Development, it looks like the first season is online and parts of the second and third season. You can also watch what I have already disclosed are my favorite episodes of the Practice. You can't watch everything, but the site is a start. You can always get them from itunes or find them on other online sites.
What is interesting about this concept is that it is almost exactly what I had envisioned in an entry from September 2006. It's nice to see my ideas come to fruition in less than two years. Sort of makes me feel better about various pushes in parts of the fourth amendment.
Read more!
Attorneys generally are quite ready to pump themselves up
I do have more relevant and timely topics to talk about, I just have to get the time to talk about them. I have noticed, however, that many attorneys, upon finding out that you are (a) either a law clerk, (b) have worked as a clerk, (c) have an interest in law, or (d) have ears, are more than willing to monopolize a conversation about themselves and their accomplishments. It's rather amusing.
The conversations, at least in my experience, trend along this path: "Hi, I am X, I work at X Firm in the X Department. (Bridge segway to shift conversation about X topic to them). You are interested in (X topic) also? Let me tell you about this time I created a derivation of sliced bread about X topic. I, I, I, me, me, me, the judge, the other party, I, I, I, I. Nice talking to you."
It's not good or bad and the level of annoyance varies, but there certainly is a trend of talking. Myself having accomplished very little, I tend to simply listen and take it in. I haven't been overly successful in being able to shift the topic to something about myself or baseball or something else but maybe that comes with time. Is this just me or have I just wandered into conversations with a certain type of lawyer? How do others deal with these encounters, besides simply being polite?
Read more!
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Some april fools day humor
I am tempted to weigh in on a couple of more timely stories, but at least one of them may wind up in front of me at some point in the next month or so, so I'll simply state that the clerkship work I have been getting lately has been quite satisfactory and interesting, on a multitude of levels. And The Office returns in a couple of weeks, so life is good. And I get to travel to a conference later this week, so that is sure to provide fodder for an interesting anecdote. Words that are being overused in media/the world today: "interesting" and "fodder." Let's add them to the list.
I saw this link yesterday and thought it appropriate for April Fools Day. The Museum of Hoaxes has created a list of the Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes of All Time. Check it out, it's pretty funny.
