To be fair to my somewhat one-sided entry the other day, I will note that the New Hampshire independents took Senators Clinton and McCain to heart yesterday in their primary polls. So, the score, at least on the Democrat side, is tied at 1-1 between Harvard and Yale, with UNC still way behind the 8-ball. We'll see how South Carolina (and to some degree, Michigan) shakes things up in a couple weeks. Super Tuesday looms only a few weeks away.
Second, I see that some headway into the MySpace murder trial has begun. See L.A. Grand Jury Issues Subpoenas in Web Suicide case. I wrote about this briefly a few weeks ago; whether this is the same case or another one I don't know. I think it is though. Interesting stuff that I'll have to follow more once more discovery and reporting takes place.
Third and finally, a thread on Above the Law today caught my attention, and for once, the posts aren't so snarky and are actually worth reading for the humor value alone. See Judge of the Day: William Sosnay (discussing his recent reprimand for wearing an ascot in court in violation of a courtroom dress code). The ABA write-up is here. Particularly, I found the frat-esque comments pretty funny, but most of the ones that came around 4 pm (the 4:12 comment, the Lex Luthor comment at 4:05, 4:13, the 4:25, and the 4:35 comments are among the funnier ones). Finally, a thread that simply makes fun at the mundane. If I was to write a comedy called "Clerks" or "Supreme Courtships" (about law clerks, that wasn't a stupid drama), it would definitely have this type of frat character as a protagonist.
Enough for now, I can only hope tomorrow is as entertaining.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Yale strikes back and evens up the score and other news
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).
