June 11, 2004
A Day Off
Home from work on this National Day of Mourning (It's a shame about Ray Charles...), I have some time to comment on my first days interning for a federal judge.
So far, the experience has been phenomenal. I'm in and out of the courtroom all day, seeing everything from the mundane (status hearings) to the somewhat exciting and often contentious (motion hearings) to the truly eye-opening (sentencing hearings), with some full trials on the horizon. The variety of cases that come before the District Court are astounding. From guns and drugs (and the full range of criminal cases) to the panoply of civil claims (contract, discrimination, general torts, etc.). The judge and his clerks are phenomenal in their vast knowledge of the law in these incredibly diverse areas. It's truly inspiring.
The workload is intense. 15-20 new motions come to the court each day. Many of these can be dispensed with quickly, but some require siginificant amounts of time. My primary responsibility is the so-called "six-month list." Twice year, all federal courts are required to resolve any motions which have been pending for more than six months. Right now, chambers has about 100 such motions (and that's far less than many other judges!).
I am assigned a particular case and then review the various pending motions, research the law behind them, and write a memo to the judge outlining my recommendation for their dispensation. The judge reviews my memo and will either approve my recommendation (in clear cut cases) or will call me in to chambers to grill me on my analysis and reasoning before making a decision. Once the judge decides the motion, I draft an order announcing the court's decision. After some revision, following additional give and take with the judge and his clerks, the judge will sign the order and it will be entered into the electronic filing system where it instantly becomes part of the case record and each side's attorneys are immediately notified of the outcome.
The clerks took it easy on me this first week, only giving me one motion to wrestle with. I finished the memo yesterday and am awaiting the judge's response. In the meantime, I am on to the next case. It's fascinating.
Perhaps the most eye-opening aspect my work thus far has been the prevailing mediocrity in the legal profession. In the two cases I've dealt with, the four lawyers are all equally inept. Misspelled words (including the Judge's name!), missing or incorrect punctuation, inaccurate quotations, incomplete, incorrect, or nonexistent citations, poor grammar, broken syllogisms and fatally flawed arguments (I see your A, I see your C, but where is your B?), and countless other examples of genuinely bad lawyering.
In one case, plaintiff's lawyer's mistakes (filing suit in the wrong court under the wrong law) will cost the plaintiff the opportunity to ever have her day in court (the statute of limitations under the proper law has run). Some of these lawyers are solo practitioners, some work for prestigious "Big Law" firms, some work for the government, some are general counsel for major corporations, all are equally inept (or, at the very least, careless). It's shocking. I think the problem must be systemic. I refuse to believe these attorneys can't write a decent brief or perform very basic research; they simply don't! Undoubtedly, these documents are written at the very last moment and apparently there isn't the time to proofread or adequately research the issues. The trend is troubling.
I talked with the clerks about it and they warned me not to expect it to get any better, and reminded me that the poor lawyering of others should make me feel good about the type of lawyer I intend to be. I suppose, but that doesn't make the incredible mediocrity any easier to swallow. On we trudge...
So far, the experience has been phenomenal. I'm in and out of the courtroom all day, seeing everything from the mundane (status hearings) to the somewhat exciting and often contentious (motion hearings) to the truly eye-opening (sentencing hearings), with some full trials on the horizon. The variety of cases that come before the District Court are astounding. From guns and drugs (and the full range of criminal cases) to the panoply of civil claims (contract, discrimination, general torts, etc.). The judge and his clerks are phenomenal in their vast knowledge of the law in these incredibly diverse areas. It's truly inspiring.
The workload is intense. 15-20 new motions come to the court each day. Many of these can be dispensed with quickly, but some require siginificant amounts of time. My primary responsibility is the so-called "six-month list." Twice year, all federal courts are required to resolve any motions which have been pending for more than six months. Right now, chambers has about 100 such motions (and that's far less than many other judges!).
I am assigned a particular case and then review the various pending motions, research the law behind them, and write a memo to the judge outlining my recommendation for their dispensation. The judge reviews my memo and will either approve my recommendation (in clear cut cases) or will call me in to chambers to grill me on my analysis and reasoning before making a decision. Once the judge decides the motion, I draft an order announcing the court's decision. After some revision, following additional give and take with the judge and his clerks, the judge will sign the order and it will be entered into the electronic filing system where it instantly becomes part of the case record and each side's attorneys are immediately notified of the outcome.
The clerks took it easy on me this first week, only giving me one motion to wrestle with. I finished the memo yesterday and am awaiting the judge's response. In the meantime, I am on to the next case. It's fascinating.
Perhaps the most eye-opening aspect my work thus far has been the prevailing mediocrity in the legal profession. In the two cases I've dealt with, the four lawyers are all equally inept. Misspelled words (including the Judge's name!), missing or incorrect punctuation, inaccurate quotations, incomplete, incorrect, or nonexistent citations, poor grammar, broken syllogisms and fatally flawed arguments (I see your A, I see your C, but where is your B?), and countless other examples of genuinely bad lawyering.
In one case, plaintiff's lawyer's mistakes (filing suit in the wrong court under the wrong law) will cost the plaintiff the opportunity to ever have her day in court (the statute of limitations under the proper law has run). Some of these lawyers are solo practitioners, some work for prestigious "Big Law" firms, some work for the government, some are general counsel for major corporations, all are equally inept (or, at the very least, careless). It's shocking. I think the problem must be systemic. I refuse to believe these attorneys can't write a decent brief or perform very basic research; they simply don't! Undoubtedly, these documents are written at the very last moment and apparently there isn't the time to proofread or adequately research the issues. The trend is troubling.
I talked with the clerks about it and they warned me not to expect it to get any better, and reminded me that the poor lawyering of others should make me feel good about the type of lawyer I intend to be. I suppose, but that doesn't make the incredible mediocrity any easier to swallow. On we trudge...
