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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
California wildfires have a culprit; hopefully his parents have good insurance...and lawyers
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.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The fun of really researching an issue
One thing that I miss from my law review days is the ability to commiserate and complain about various authors' "suggestions" and "papers" (and "ideas") to my fellow board members. As a clerk, the only comparable experience is with the written "briefs" and the "ideas" contained therein to my fellow clerks. But that is not my point to this particular entry. Unlike law school, where you can discuss various aspects of the legal world with your study group or other law school friends or professors, your ability to do so is limited to the court in which you work. And depending on your court rules and judge, maybe it's limited to your chambers. I certainly respect and understand the confidentiality and reasoning behind such rules, but it makes for that much more ground work and hope that your reasoning on a complex issue is right. And in the end, if you're wrong, I guess that gives the academic world something to write about.
In that sense it's no different than how you do work around a firm. Unlike the firm though, the universe of people you can bounce work-related ideas off of is much smaller (acknowledging the universe in a firm is small as it is). It's frustrating in some senses that you see or read something interesting related to a case you are working on and are duty bound not to talk about it. I guess that's the experience that a firm pays for when you get hired post-clerkship. Nevertheless, it's pretty annoying. Less may be more, but sometimes you need more in order to say less if that makes any sense.
On a related note, I saw that the AP wire had picked up a story on something I had worked on (this was last week or the week before, and left over from last year's clerk, but still). It's funny reading things written by a non-lawyer trying to interpret a legal document. Oh, the things you miss, AP reporter. Of course, I also remember a former clerk telling me about some commentator's blog entry about a case, and she told me that the blogger totally got caught up on a sentence in the case that was utterly unimportant to the issues. To both types of interpreters, I can only say that with my various entries, I try and explain things the best I can. With my opinions, I obviously put a lot more effort in. I think the key word with published stuff is "effort." If the WSJ can't do it, I'm not sure what the average newspaper reader is being led to believe. I would venture to say that the answer is "whatever the writer wants the reader to believe." Such biased reporting is fine for blogs, I guess, but somewhere along the line, I think the newspaper has lost its focus. Speaking of which, this entry is long enough and football is about to come on.
In more cheerful news (and unrelated to the topic at hand), a couple of my friends who took the Virginia bar tell me that the results are due out by the end of the week. According to the Virginia Board of Bar examiners website, they are due out Oct. 18. My friends who took Texas, South Carolina and the remaining states still are a few more weeks away, but the day to announce whether or not I passed the bar is certainly inching closer.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Behind the Scenes of an Appellate Court: Clerkship 101
Someone posted a question asking me to describe what my experience as a clerk has been so far. I think if you ask any clerk about their clerkship experience, you're going to get a different story every time. Obviously my story will get better as the year goes on, but I am happy to give my take on my first month of working behind the scenes of an appellate court.
Compared to working in a firm, the first big difference is that you aren't accountable for your time (for the most part). You have plenty of work to do to keep you busy, and obviously organization helps, but you can spend as little or as long as you want on an issue. As long as you get your assignments done on time, with everything perfect, you're doing great. So, in that sense, it is like doing work for a partner or associate; on the other, it's very academic. If you like that sort of thing, you should consider doing a clerkship for a year.
For federal clerkships, I know there is a real trend in working for two or three years before going applying or doing a district court clerkship first, but if you have strong credentials, you will still be fine and still have a good shot. Only about half of the people you'll work with who will be a little older (besides the secretaries and judges). For state clerkships, I think it's a little different, but from my friends who are clerks in state courts, most are right out of law school or clerked somewhere else for a year first. In either case, you will need to have a high GPA, be or have been on a law review, and have an ability to communicate why you want to be a clerk. Once you're in the door, and have accepted your offer, the question turns to this: What's it like to be a clerk? Here's my answer. I'm sure for trial court clerks, their answers would vary.
As far as the learning curve and workload, it all depends. The first month has had some long days, and some shorter days (no golfing days yet). I think the first thing you need to pick up quick is how your judge (and your court) writes. The easiest way to do that is to find opinions that have been previously written in the same area of law that you are working on. For novel things, I usually try and pattern other well-written opinions (or at least ones that seem to be well-written). The faster you can pick up on your judge's writing style, the faster you will get to the top of the curve. Of course, you'll always have to take the edits you are given and learn from them. I would say that it's a work in progress. As far as technical stuff, get used to using short, concise sentences in the active voice.
As far as whether I think I was prepared for the clerkship when it started, I would say I was. Of course, working as an articles editor certainly helped with the bluebook aspect of things, but each court has its own nuances that you have to pick up. For the most part, courts follow the bluebook, so I would make sure that you learn as much as you can from the senior members of your law review if you have any interest in clerking. Of course, there's probably a judge in the court that is far superior to you in editing and can help you out if need be.
Would I have done anything different so far? I think it's too early to tell. Personally, I'm pretty organized, so I can schedule my work day around my assignments fairly easily. Of course, you never know what comes up that needs to be taken care of, so you have to be able to switch gears at a moment's notice. You should also be nice to all the clerks and secretaries. They have been there longer than you, and will remember you if you're good, and even more if you're a jerk.
Is my judge easy to work with? Yes. The most important thing you are looking to get out of the clerkship is mentoring, so if you're personable, it should be easy to get along with most judges. Some judges are more personable than others though, so every clerkship will be different. I'm sure some judges are harder to work with than others, and that's the nature of the working world anyway. I think you just have to hope to luck out. For the most part, you should. One of the most rewarding things you'll get out of the clerkship is the conversations with the judge about the law.
Will you learn a lot? Absolutely. If anything, you'll get an appreciation for how the court thinks about things. You'll also see how ... diverse lawyer's writing styles are. I think you'll be, let's say, surprised at the range of briefs you'll get. You'll be a better writer by the end of your clerkship, that's a guarantee.
I think that's enough for now. The only other thing I would say is important is to get along with all your co-clerks. Dating them is another post for another day. Either way, they are in the same boat with you and pretty much the extent of your social circle for this year of your life.
I'm happy to write about any other questions. Post away.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Clerks, benefits, resumes, and post-bar life
One of my friends who clerks for one of the district courts (who has since passed the bar of her state) tells me that a lot of her non-law school friends have been asking, "Well, what kind of work are you going to do now that you passed the bar?" To which she replies (to the effect of): "I work as a clerk, I'll do that until the clerkship is over." And the reaction is, unsurprisingly, one of utter confusion. As a clerk, are you a lawyer? Yes and no. Of course, that answer is of no help either.
Honestly, I've just about given up trying to explain what a clerkship is, and to some degree, even the prestige of the clerkship is lost on someone who has never gone to law school. Thus, my answer to my friend's questions about what it is I do is more along the lines of, "it's sort of a one-year transition job some law students do after law school." This seems to be get rid of most of the confusion. I have yet to come up with the question I hope to get from my friends once I (hopefully) get my bar results: "So what are you going to do now that you're a lawyer." Again, the answer, "my clerkship" would likely invoke the same dazed and confused look.
Speaking of MBE scores, this same friend reported that the raw curve for the 2007 MBE was 16 points, give or take one or two points. I still say this is unsubstantiated, but I would say she is credible. Apparently the score report, however, doesn't go into any other detail than that. More info on the MBE will be posted in the future once I get the actual results.
Part of the reason I am writing this particular entry is because I recently got the chance to look at some of the resumes of those who applied for a clerkship in my court and did or did not get an acceptance to interview (or the clerkship for that matter). Having worked in the resume business to a certain degree before law school, and assisting my friends with their resumes during law school, I was nevertheless shocked at the resumes, cover letters, writing samples, and letters of recommendation about. Here are my top 5 things for those applying to clerkships in the future should think about.
First. Don't say you're an excellent writer and can benefit from this clerkship and then use incorrect grammar in the next sentence. That are a ding. Also, don't spell the judge's name wrong. Seriously. I would love to see if this happens at firms as well, and I'm sure their reaction is much less amusing.
Second. If your GPA is low, that's okay. I'll find it on your transcript. Failure to attach your transcript, however, leads me to think that your GPA must be really bad and therefore results in a ding. To be honest, the first thing I looked at was GPA (which directed how closely I looked at the rest of your resume package). The second thing I looked at was your undergraduate school and GPA (since I've met enough jokers from Harvard that I am convinced that the next generation of law students taught by these future professors is in big trouble). Law school was third. Recommendations and publications were next....
Third. I've read hundreds of recommendation letters. I could write an entire separate entry on what makes a good letter and what makes a bad letter, and perhaps someday I will. In the meantime, I am convinced that most law professors (and I emphasize most) are very bad at explaining why or why not a candidate is qualified to clerk. I suspect this is because most students make no efforts to talk to the professor outside of trying to get some insight into the final. Perhaps ironically, professors seem to remember this sparse interaction and decide, for whatever reason, that this is a good thing to write in their letters of recommendation. It is not. Please use recommendations of people who know you beyond your grade. Otherwise... DING.
Fourth. I am more impressed with someone that is published (since how many law review students are published a year, one or two for each journal?). You should selectively apply to judges who may have an interest in your publication, but it is impressive nonetheless. For those of you who aren't published, that's not a deal breaker, but you should have a second short paragraph accompanying your unpublished work giving me a brief synopsis of it. SSRN hits, while interesting to put on a resume, are almost laughable, so I wouldn't recommend taking up the space.
Fifth and last on this short list (since there are probably five or six more things I also consider). The cover letter is important, but not that important. I read all of them first, so I want some sort of short summary of why you are applying and why you want to take a year off from "real" work and clerk. Unsurprisingly, I could care less that you are "applying to clerk in your chambers because [you] think it will benefit [your] career." I am much more interested in something more than a conclusory thought. All I can say is get some disinterested person who is law trained to read it and give you an objective opinion. You may be surprised at the insight you get with a little help.
My last point is that you need to be able to convey, within the few minutes that I am spending looking over your resumes, why you want to be a clerk. At least then, you may have a good answer for when your friends ask you the same question from the non-legal end of things.
Any other clerks want to put their two cents in? Feel free to share in the comment box.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Marion Jones returns her medals
I haven't really followed this story that much, but since the news can't seem to get enough of it, I figured I would add one thought to the mix that I haven't seen yet. See Marion Jones pleads guilty to lying to federal investigators about steroids. I find the whole timing issue very odd, and maybe it's just from not reading the stories that much. If this all took place from two or three years ago, why is she deciding to come clean now, after vehemently denying all of the allegations when the story was "hot?" I'm sure there's much to this story that isn't written. Regardless, I see her bigger problem as not being the loss of respect from fans, etc. or her name stricken from the record books. I see her problem with the federal perjury and obstruction of justice charges that could follow.
Of course, the promise to not pursue such penalties was probably part of her deal. And I recognize that prosecutors have to make deals all the time to get what they want. Take a look at that prosecutor that made the joker do push-ups last week in exchange for a dismissal (this is not his blog, but one that made a funny comment about it). See Defendant does pushups, charges against him dropped.
I really don't have a point to this other than to express my disappointment with the way this whole thing has gone down, primarily from a former athlete's perspective. I guess it's good that her integrity kicked in, albeit a little delayed, but at the same time, it cuts against the whole spirit of competition (I think). Perhaps I am being naive. One of my friends made a point about the Floyd Landis issue and said that the IOC penalties are much more strict than they are in, say, the NFL. If Landis was a football player, he would be suspended for the same steroids for a game or two. Although I think my friend is mistaken on the time and penalties (and I'm too lazy to go look them up), I think his point is on target. There is a double standard in the athletic world right now. And, as any second or third year law student is well aware, double standards are easy to exploit. I'm just anxious to see how this one plays out on the legal landscape.
