Before I go further, let me make it clear that I've never pulled an all-nighter ever in my life. But law school has definitely brought me to the brink several times.
Here's a timeline of the typical last-minute legal brief, as experienced last night/this morning:
1:30 PM: Get back from APALSA Tahoe ski trip
2:45 PM: Sit down in the library and "begin work" on brief due the next day
5:00 PM: Stop surfing the net and start reading cases for the brief
7:34 PM: Look at how many more cases you have to read; despair.
8:01 PM: Go to dinner
8:32 PM: Eat dinner at Asian Food Ghetto
9:37 PM: Get back to library from dinner/boba run
9:41 PM: Keep reading cases; start typing
10:48 PM: Look at the three paragraphs you've written; despair
11:30 PM: Keep reading cases; ignore the library staff anouncing that the library is closing at midnight
11:53 PM: Look at the three-and-a-half paragraphs you've written; sigh
12:03 AM: Leave the law school; sigh heavily
1:13 AM: Sit down at home and begin paper again
1:48 AM: Keep writing paper; make tea
2:21 AM: Start on sixth paragraph
2:55 AM: Curse at self for not starting paper earlier; keep writing
3:27 AM: Notice that you're starting to write things that don't make sense; struggle to keep eyes open.
3:28 AM: Surrender to fatigue; take a "nap" on your futon
6:31 AM: Wake up; curse; start paper again
6:32 AM: Find that in your half-asleep stupor, you've written "The Country of Algeria is excited to begin training" (perfect capitalization and everything) under the section in which you were supposed to discuss the legal definition of "employee."
6:43 AM - 9:58 AM: Type type type; finish paper
10:02 AM - 10:30 AM: "nap" on top of your bed
10:50 AM: Leave for school
Anyways, those ~20 hours were quite the adventure. As much fun as they were however, I think I'd like to try to avoid doing that ever again. Ever.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
"Thank You!" x12
Callback interviews are a lot like Christmas. Granted, there are no jovial Santa-type figures (unless you count some of the partners that interviewed you), but they do involve the bittersweet process of writing thank you cards.
It's common practice to send thank you cards to the firm after having an callback interview. Of course, handwritten ones are more genuine and thus more effective than emails, and so they are preferred whenever possible. As much of a hassle as it is to write the cards, its usually not too big of a deal since you only usually interview with 5 or 6 attorneys in any given callback.
In my case, I interviewed with 12 attorneys. This was the result:
Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad they called me in for an interview. *knock on wood* But I mean, c'mon. Twelve handwritten thank you notes is pushing the bounds of human physical ability. As I signed my last card and sealed it, I was pleasantly surprised and somewhat relieved to discover that, contrary to expectations, I didn't spontaneously develop carpal-tunnel right there.
It's common practice to send thank you cards to the firm after having an callback interview. Of course, handwritten ones are more genuine and thus more effective than emails, and so they are preferred whenever possible. As much of a hassle as it is to write the cards, its usually not too big of a deal since you only usually interview with 5 or 6 attorneys in any given callback.
In my case, I interviewed with 12 attorneys. This was the result:
Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad they called me in for an interview. *knock on wood* But I mean, c'mon. Twelve handwritten thank you notes is pushing the bounds of human physical ability. As I signed my last card and sealed it, I was pleasantly surprised and somewhat relieved to discover that, contrary to expectations, I didn't spontaneously develop carpal-tunnel right there.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Bar Fight
In many ways, law school is a break. It's a nice three-year breather situated between two colossal tests: the LSAT and the Bar Exam.
The LSAT is a bitch. Anyone in law school who has lost weeks and months off their lifespans prepping for the test will tell you that it's almost not worth it. The sleepless nights, the immense stress, and the seemingly endless LSAT problems somehow meld together into a nightmarish cocktail of living hell. The best part is that like the SAT, your score is only useful until you get accepted to a school. After that, it means nothing. For example, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard the phrase "LSAT" mentioned since coming to Boalt.
The Bar Exam is bigger than the LSAT. Way way bigger. The California Bar is a three-day ordeal covering such topics as Property, Constitutional Law, and Trusts & Estates. Most 3Ls devote their last semester in law school to studying for it. And of course, you can't practice law until you've taken it.
The fact that law school is something of a valley between two standardized test peaks is something I think all law students try not to think about too much. But eventually, the time comes to face The Beast, and the recent law graduate discovers what he or she is made of (turns out it's mostly case law with some doctrine filler).
Given the amount of stress that a life-altering test of this magnitude can impose, it's probably not too heartening then to discover (for us Californians at least) that the California Bar is the hardest bar exam in the country. Mayors, famous attorneys, and even prominent legal scholars have all failed it. On the bright side if you fail, at least you''ll know you're in good company.
*goes back to not thinking about it*
The LSAT is a bitch. Anyone in law school who has lost weeks and months off their lifespans prepping for the test will tell you that it's almost not worth it. The sleepless nights, the immense stress, and the seemingly endless LSAT problems somehow meld together into a nightmarish cocktail of living hell. The best part is that like the SAT, your score is only useful until you get accepted to a school. After that, it means nothing. For example, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard the phrase "LSAT" mentioned since coming to Boalt.
The Bar Exam is bigger than the LSAT. Way way bigger. The California Bar is a three-day ordeal covering such topics as Property, Constitutional Law, and Trusts & Estates. Most 3Ls devote their last semester in law school to studying for it. And of course, you can't practice law until you've taken it.
The fact that law school is something of a valley between two standardized test peaks is something I think all law students try not to think about too much. But eventually, the time comes to face The Beast, and the recent law graduate discovers what he or she is made of (turns out it's mostly case law with some doctrine filler).
Given the amount of stress that a life-altering test of this magnitude can impose, it's probably not too heartening then to discover (for us Californians at least) that the California Bar is the hardest bar exam in the country. Mayors, famous attorneys, and even prominent legal scholars have all failed it. On the bright side if you fail, at least you''ll know you're in good company.
*goes back to not thinking about it*
Friday, February 17, 2006
Callback City
Callback interview with Nossaman today in their L.A. office. 4 hours, 6 sessions, 12 attorneys, no holds barred.
They seem like a really good firm in terms of letting their attorneys actually have a life. Everyone was really friendly too, and they all seemed to like where they were.
I think the interview turned out okay. And until I hear back from them, that's all I'm going to say for now. *knocks on wood*
They seem like a really good firm in terms of letting their attorneys actually have a life. Everyone was really friendly too, and they all seemed to like where they were.
I think the interview turned out okay. And until I hear back from them, that's all I'm going to say for now. *knocks on wood*
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Valentine's Day in Law School
...is pretty much like every other day in law school. Except Prof. Bundy was super-awesome and gave us candy hearts before diving into a discussion of personal jurisdiction and service of process. He also took some time to talk to us about his Valentine, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson.
Justice Jackson turned out to be a pretty amazing guy in terms of intelligence, achievements, and good looks. He also wrote a 1952 concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer in which he made an eerily prescient comment about the limits of Presidential Executive power:
[---]
Also, in something that kinda overlaps with the "Boalt = Crusty Old High School" series, there were candy-grams that people could buy from the African American student group and have delivered to other peoples' lockers. I didn't receive any, but that's okay because I can feel the love from my friends, and that's all that matters, right?
I was somewhat jealous of all the candy that people were eating in class, but it's no biggie. Prof. Bundy's candy hearts kept me going, even if they DID taste a little like crunchy Pepto Bismol.
Justice Jackson turned out to be a pretty amazing guy in terms of intelligence, achievements, and good looks. He also wrote a 1952 concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer in which he made an eerily prescient comment about the limits of Presidential Executive power:
"... The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power... With all its defects, delays, and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.
Such institutions may be destined to pass away, but it is the duty of the Court to be the last, not first, to give them up."
[---]
Also, in something that kinda overlaps with the "Boalt = Crusty Old High School" series, there were candy-grams that people could buy from the African American student group and have delivered to other peoples' lockers. I didn't receive any, but that's okay because I can feel the love from my friends, and that's all that matters, right?
I was somewhat jealous of all the candy that people were eating in class, but it's no biggie. Prof. Bundy's candy hearts kept me going, even if they DID taste a little like crunchy Pepto Bismol.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Today in Torts
So today, we were discussing the levels of duty of care imposed on landowners toward visitors and trespassers. It turns out that there are special rules when the visitors are children. Naturally, I had a brilliant and enlightening question for Prof. Charo:
Simple enough question, right? What I didn't expect was her answer:
...weird.
Me:
So like, you know how you mentioned before that children are viewed by the law as essentially mentally impaired?
(I was leading into an even more brilliant point)
So like, you know how you mentioned before that children are viewed by the law as essentially mentally impaired?
(I was leading into an even more brilliant point)
Simple enough question, right? What I didn't expect was her answer:
Prof. Charo:
Yes, but don't put that in your blog.
Me:
*meekly* How'd you know I had a blog?
Yes, but don't put that in your blog.
Me:
*meekly* How'd you know I had a blog?
...weird.
Friday, February 10, 2006
My Hero
In WOA, we're working on writing briefs for a semi-fictional case in which some former partners for a law firm are suing their former place of employment in the grounds that they were forced to retire in violation of the ADEA (which outlaws discrimination on the basis of age). Mod 6 is representing the plaintiffs, and of course my Mod is defending the law firm. Later in the semester we're going to face-off in oral arguments.
Right now, my Mod is researching cases to support our argument that the EEOC (who is representing the plaintiffs) can't file independant charges without the individual persons having had done so already. Alternatively, we're arguing that partners in law firms shouldn't be considered "employees" as defined by the ADEA.
One of the cases we're using to support our side is EEOC v. U.S. Steel, a 1990 case whose opinion was written by none other than that champion of workers' rights, Samuel Alito. I think it's funny that, given all the press about how Alito is so conservative and an opponent of individuals' rights, my Mod and I were relieved and somewhat excited to find this gem of an opinion that supports our position perfectly. Of course, this also has everything to do with the fact that our position is also anti-"little guy."
I guess this is what it's like to work for The Man. :-)
Right now, my Mod is researching cases to support our argument that the EEOC (who is representing the plaintiffs) can't file independant charges without the individual persons having had done so already. Alternatively, we're arguing that partners in law firms shouldn't be considered "employees" as defined by the ADEA.
One of the cases we're using to support our side is EEOC v. U.S. Steel, a 1990 case whose opinion was written by none other than that champion of workers' rights, Samuel Alito. I think it's funny that, given all the press about how Alito is so conservative and an opponent of individuals' rights, my Mod and I were relieved and somewhat excited to find this gem of an opinion that supports our position perfectly. Of course, this also has everything to do with the fact that our position is also anti-"little guy."
I guess this is what it's like to work for The Man. :-)
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Anonymous Lawyer
Thomas told me about Anonymous Lawyer, an awesomely hilarious blog that chronicles the exploits of "a fictional hiring partner at a large law firm in a major city." I couldn't not pass it on, it being related subject-wise to my own blog and all.
The entry from Sunday:
Hahaha wherever this Anonymous Firm is (have a feeling it's somewhere in SoCal), I definitely don't want to work there.
The entry from Sunday:
A few readers alerted me to some recent problems with the Blogger service that hosts this page. There was apparently a service interruption earlier this week. This is why computers will never replace associates. Computers break down. But associates can work non-stop provided the punishment is set high enough for those who disappoint. Computers can't be punished. There are no incentive programs I can devise to make my Internet connection faster or my hard drive less likely to crash. But tell an associate he won't make partner unless he stays in the office for the next 96 hours working on a brief, and he'll do it. Every time. Or we'll fire him and find someone willing to make the necessary sacrifices. Computers don't learn their lessons either. My associates know the punishment for mistakes and they don't repeat past ones. Computers keep crashing, with no worry about the consequences. Devise a computer that can hear me screaming, and quiver in fear -- then maybe I'll hire him. Until then, I'll stick with people.
Hahaha wherever this Anonymous Firm is (have a feeling it's somewhere in SoCal), I definitely don't want to work there.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Of Property And Popcorn
What's the difference between Property class and AP classes in high school? Not much apparently.
The last couple of days Prof. Volpp has been showing us movies in lieu of lecture and discussion. While the documentary about the Emeryville Shellmound came as a much-needed break last Thursday, we thought it was more of a "treat" than a regular thing. I mean, I was told that the first year of law school was the most grueling year of your life. Nobody said anything about movies.
Apparently, the in-class movie thing wasn't a fluke because Prof. Volpp showed us another movie today: Up For Grabs. It's about the litigation that arose out of a dispute between a couple of baseball fans over the historic 73rd home run ball hit by Barry Bonds in 2001. It runs kinda long, so we're actually going to finish it tomorrow. Combined with the fact that Property was cancelled yesterday, this means that we have no new reading this week, at all.
While I'm not complaining by any means (both documentaries are fascinating), it's a little unnerving. Maybe it's the fact that the guilt complex that drives us law students to constantly fill our time with studying is triggered when we spend an entire class period enjoying ourselves. Or maybe it's because this all seems like some sort of elaborate trap. I'm half-expecting a buttload of reading for next week as perhaps some sort of karmic payback.
The last couple of days Prof. Volpp has been showing us movies in lieu of lecture and discussion. While the documentary about the Emeryville Shellmound came as a much-needed break last Thursday, we thought it was more of a "treat" than a regular thing. I mean, I was told that the first year of law school was the most grueling year of your life. Nobody said anything about movies.
Apparently, the in-class movie thing wasn't a fluke because Prof. Volpp showed us another movie today: Up For Grabs. It's about the litigation that arose out of a dispute between a couple of baseball fans over the historic 73rd home run ball hit by Barry Bonds in 2001. It runs kinda long, so we're actually going to finish it tomorrow. Combined with the fact that Property was cancelled yesterday, this means that we have no new reading this week, at all.
While I'm not complaining by any means (both documentaries are fascinating), it's a little unnerving. Maybe it's the fact that the guilt complex that drives us law students to constantly fill our time with studying is triggered when we spend an entire class period enjoying ourselves. Or maybe it's because this all seems like some sort of elaborate trap. I'm half-expecting a buttload of reading for next week as perhaps some sort of karmic payback.
Quote of the Day
“Aww... are you finding law school unsatisfactory? If you want a more clear and definite answer, go to engineering school.”
-Torts Prof. Charo, responding to a student who felt that the law was "too uncertain."
-Torts Prof. Charo, responding to a student who felt that the law was "too uncertain."
Monday, February 06, 2006
Thank You Testmasters
Oh my freeking goodness. I never thought this would happen, but stuff I learned in LSAT prep has actually helped me in law school.
[Stop reading if you don't care about technical legal jargon or other law school nonsense]
I'm reading Burnham v. Superior Court of California for CivPro II, in which the Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether service of process that granted jurisdiction over an individual physically present but lacking minimum contacts with a given jurisdiction was compatible with the Due Process Clause. The Petitioner's argument was that since past Court rulings had established that presence was not necessary in order to satisfy Due Process, presence was also not sufficent to satisfy Due Process. The Court ended up ruling against him, noting that the Petitioner had messed up his logic. While presence was not necessary, it was sufficient.
For those of you who have taken Testmasters- doesn't that sound familiar? Holy S&!*#. After I took the LSAT I threw my books in a corner, convinced that I would never need them again. What do you know... I guess sometimes logic does find its way into the law.
Also, shame on the Petitioner's lawyer for not paying better attention in LSAT prep.
[Stop reading if you don't care about technical legal jargon or other law school nonsense]
I'm reading Burnham v. Superior Court of California for CivPro II, in which the Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether service of process that granted jurisdiction over an individual physically present but lacking minimum contacts with a given jurisdiction was compatible with the Due Process Clause. The Petitioner's argument was that since past Court rulings had established that presence was not necessary in order to satisfy Due Process, presence was also not sufficent to satisfy Due Process. The Court ended up ruling against him, noting that the Petitioner had messed up his logic. While presence was not necessary, it was sufficient.
For those of you who have taken Testmasters- doesn't that sound familiar? Holy S&!*#. After I took the LSAT I threw my books in a corner, convinced that I would never need them again. What do you know... I guess sometimes logic does find its way into the law.
Also, shame on the Petitioner's lawyer for not paying better attention in LSAT prep.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Digest
Posted a couple of back-entries:
1/9/2006: First Day of School, Spring Edition
1/23/2006: Day of Reckoning
1/31/2006: Things That Make You Go Hmmm
1/9/2006: First Day of School, Spring Edition
1/23/2006: Day of Reckoning
1/31/2006: Things That Make You Go Hmmm
Thursday, February 02, 2006
So Like, Tell Me About Yourself
As many of you may know, the second semester of 1L year is job-huntin' season. We have two free summers during law school, and we are expected to make full use of them in order to expedite our conversion to The Dark Side (i.e. get legal experience). What's interesting is that the job offer you get for the 2L summer is the one that usually becomes your permanent job, because (unless you're inept) it's expected that you will receive a job offer at the end of the summer. Thus, where you decide to work for your 2L summer is a very important decision to make.
If it's true that the 2L summer is the make-or-break, life-altering, fate-sealing, end-all-be-all of summers in the law student's life, then it's equally true that the 1L summer is nothing more than free time to dick around. Well, to an extent. Employers during interviews for 2L summer jobs don't really care where you've worked, as long as you've been doing more than just working at IHOP all summer. Most 1L's get jobs with judges, non-profit organizations, public defenders, DA offices, and once in a while, law firms.
The nice thing about Boalt being one of the top-tier law schools is that we don't have to actively solicit interviews if we don't want to. Instead, the employers come to the school and hold interviews on-campus. It's nice because that way we don't have to drive/fly/taxi to wherever the office is, and also because law students are lazy.
Anyways, I had a job interview today with Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, a mid-size law firm. All four of them. Just kidding. I was interviewed by two partners, who were very nice people. So how was it? Pretty fun, actually. It turns out that as long as your resume and other materials are solid, all that the employer is really interested in is what kind of a person you are. As a result, the interview is pretty much just a 30 minute conversation with the interviewers.
I got a good vibe from them and from the firm in general, so I'll see how it pans out *knocks on wood*. I have a couple of applications to various judges and whatnot too, so I'm waiting to hear back from them too. From what I've heard talking to 2L's and 3L's, there's no need to worry, since everyone eventually ends up with a job... *knocks on wood*
If it's true that the 2L summer is the make-or-break, life-altering, fate-sealing, end-all-be-all of summers in the law student's life, then it's equally true that the 1L summer is nothing more than free time to dick around. Well, to an extent. Employers during interviews for 2L summer jobs don't really care where you've worked, as long as you've been doing more than just working at IHOP all summer. Most 1L's get jobs with judges, non-profit organizations, public defenders, DA offices, and once in a while, law firms.
The nice thing about Boalt being one of the top-tier law schools is that we don't have to actively solicit interviews if we don't want to. Instead, the employers come to the school and hold interviews on-campus. It's nice because that way we don't have to drive/fly/taxi to wherever the office is, and also because law students are lazy.
Anyways, I had a job interview today with Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, a mid-size law firm. All four of them. Just kidding. I was interviewed by two partners, who were very nice people. So how was it? Pretty fun, actually. It turns out that as long as your resume and other materials are solid, all that the employer is really interested in is what kind of a person you are. As a result, the interview is pretty much just a 30 minute conversation with the interviewers.
I got a good vibe from them and from the firm in general, so I'll see how it pans out *knocks on wood*. I have a couple of applications to various judges and whatnot too, so I'm waiting to hear back from them too. From what I've heard talking to 2L's and 3L's, there's no need to worry, since everyone eventually ends up with a job... *knocks on wood*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)