July 30, 2004
Judges, rappers, felons
Today, during a sentencing hearing, the Judge talked about 50 Cent. The defendant had spoke about his dreams of being a rapper and the judge responded at length, and in surprising detail, with a discussion of 50 Cent and how far he'd come despite the trouble he'd had. Who knew the judge had such far-reaching musical tastes?
Actually, I think it has less to do with musical tastes, and more to do with the Judge's profound interest and concern for people. The Judge routinely spends an hour or more just talking with defendants prior to sentencing. He patiently listens to their excuses, their problems, their plans. He wishes them good luck and he means it. One can only hope all judges are so conscientious.
Actually, I think it has less to do with musical tastes, and more to do with the Judge's profound interest and concern for people. The Judge routinely spends an hour or more just talking with defendants prior to sentencing. He patiently listens to their excuses, their problems, their plans. He wishes them good luck and he means it. One can only hope all judges are so conscientious.
Controversy and Interviews
Apparently, my expressed displeasure about the journal/resume upload fiasco has not been well received at Career Services. I e-mailed them a day or two ago outlining a few of the reasons I feel their recent decision (or indecision) disadvantages students. Rather than simply saying "we're sorry you're upset" or "we understand your concerns," I was treated to a very defensive, coarse, "go screw yourself"-type defense of their decision, rehashing all the "justifications" I had poked holes in originally. Oh well, I guess I struck a nerve.
The funny thing is this whole thing is not likely to affect me one bit! I had no intention of ruffling so many feathers; I simply wanted to point out some consequences which had obviously been overlooked. I never intended to be drawn into such a heated debate.
Update: I just talked with the folks at OCS. They finally admitted their decision may disadvantage certain students. They also finally admitted that the reason behind their decision was not for the students' benefit, as they originally claimed, but because of their own (legitimate) logistical problems. They said they were "sorry I felt let down." And so it ends. Group hug, everyone!
In other career news, I sent three resumes to three Portland, OR firms last week, inquiring about interviewing while I'm traveling in the area next month. All three offered me full (3-4 hour) interviews. If all goes well, I'll have a few offers on the table before OCI even starts.
That's the good news. The bad news is a day and a half of the eight days of vacation I managed this summer had to be sacrificed. For those who care, these firms are my top 3 choices in Portland, and Portland is my second-choice market (SF Bay Area is first, but an offer from one of my top 3 DC firms might have the power to knock everyone else down a peg).
The funny thing is this whole thing is not likely to affect me one bit! I had no intention of ruffling so many feathers; I simply wanted to point out some consequences which had obviously been overlooked. I never intended to be drawn into such a heated debate.
Update: I just talked with the folks at OCS. They finally admitted their decision may disadvantage certain students. They also finally admitted that the reason behind their decision was not for the students' benefit, as they originally claimed, but because of their own (legitimate) logistical problems. They said they were "sorry I felt let down." And so it ends. Group hug, everyone!
In other career news, I sent three resumes to three Portland, OR firms last week, inquiring about interviewing while I'm traveling in the area next month. All three offered me full (3-4 hour) interviews. If all goes well, I'll have a few offers on the table before OCI even starts.
That's the good news. The bad news is a day and a half of the eight days of vacation I managed this summer had to be sacrificed. For those who care, these firms are my top 3 choices in Portland, and Portland is my second-choice market (SF Bay Area is first, but an offer from one of my top 3 DC firms might have the power to knock everyone else down a peg).
July 28, 2004
Journals and Resumes
Today the Office of Journal Administration informed us that the Write-On results will not be announced until August 4th (as opposed to August 2nd, as originally scheduled). I find it a bit odd that OJA can announce going to be late FIVE DAYS AHEAD OF TIME. You have 5 days! You're not late yet; there's still time! So much for optimism. Oh well.
The two extra days really doesn't bother me much, but it's caused a bit of an uproar at the Office of Career Services. You see, originally, the resume upload deadline for OCI was scheduled for August 3rd. When OJA announced its delay, it also announced that OCS would be rescheduling the resume deadline to August 5th. Five hours later OCS e-mails us to announce they would not be extending the deadline and that we would have to upload our resumes without knowing which (if any) journal we were selected for.
OCS justified its decision by claiming (1) one day is not enough time for students to update (add three or four words to) their resume, (2) because OCI bidding is by lottery and not pre-screened, not having journal on your resume won't make any difference in your interview schedule, (3) telling the interviewer which journal you were accepted to will be a great icebreaker at the interview, blah, blah, blah.
What nonsense. One day is more than enough time for such a minor revision. While OCI scheduling may not be pre-screened, you can bet that the randomly-selected candidates are screened before their interview. When half the class bids for firms which only hire the top 10%, it is absurd to think that every candidate gets the same quality interview. I have no doubt resumes are reviewed ahead of time and firms decide who they'd rather not waste their time with. Finally, announcing your journal is only a great icebreaker if (1) you make a journal and (2) you make a "prestigious" journal. How much more is it going to stand out when everyone is announcing their journal first thing, and you're not saying anything?
Perhaps I'm being too hard on OCS, but it really bothers me when I'm fed a bunch of BS justifications for an obviously capricious decision. OCS made its decision and that's fine. But, please don't patronize me by pretending you made it for me. In the end, none of it really matters and I could really care less. I'll get my randomly selected interviews, I'll tell them which journal selected me (assuming one does), and we'll go from there.
That said, I do resent being caught in the middle of some sort of intramural pissing contest between OJA and OCS over who gets to set OCI deadline.
The two extra days really doesn't bother me much, but it's caused a bit of an uproar at the Office of Career Services. You see, originally, the resume upload deadline for OCI was scheduled for August 3rd. When OJA announced its delay, it also announced that OCS would be rescheduling the resume deadline to August 5th. Five hours later OCS e-mails us to announce they would not be extending the deadline and that we would have to upload our resumes without knowing which (if any) journal we were selected for.
OCS justified its decision by claiming (1) one day is not enough time for students to update (add three or four words to) their resume, (2) because OCI bidding is by lottery and not pre-screened, not having journal on your resume won't make any difference in your interview schedule, (3) telling the interviewer which journal you were accepted to will be a great icebreaker at the interview, blah, blah, blah.
What nonsense. One day is more than enough time for such a minor revision. While OCI scheduling may not be pre-screened, you can bet that the randomly-selected candidates are screened before their interview. When half the class bids for firms which only hire the top 10%, it is absurd to think that every candidate gets the same quality interview. I have no doubt resumes are reviewed ahead of time and firms decide who they'd rather not waste their time with. Finally, announcing your journal is only a great icebreaker if (1) you make a journal and (2) you make a "prestigious" journal. How much more is it going to stand out when everyone is announcing their journal first thing, and you're not saying anything?
Perhaps I'm being too hard on OCS, but it really bothers me when I'm fed a bunch of BS justifications for an obviously capricious decision. OCS made its decision and that's fine. But, please don't patronize me by pretending you made it for me. In the end, none of it really matters and I could really care less. I'll get my randomly selected interviews, I'll tell them which journal selected me (assuming one does), and we'll go from there.
That said, I do resent being caught in the middle of some sort of intramural pissing contest between OJA and OCS over who gets to set OCI deadline.
July 25, 2004
Where I'm At
I'm coming in to the final two weeks of my internship, with several projects outstanding and not a lot of time to get them done.
It's been two months now since my last cigarette. I kick arse.
I've begun work on some of the assignments for my Law Fellow duties. So far, I have been less than impressed. Why would a prof instruct students to look up a current law in a regional digest that stopped publishing in 1969? Why wouldn't someone spell-check or proofread assignments before distributing them? Why? Why? Why? So maybe I'm a Type A+ personality, but I am bound and determined to fix some of these problems before they reach the 1Ls. There are few things more frustrating than paying $32K a year only to receive poorly written and conceived assignments (from the WRITING department, no less). Unacceptable.
My OCI bid list is finally finalized. I have culled the 400+ choices to 50 firms, 20 of which I could actually give a hoot about. How one is expected to distinguish between choices 26-50 is beyond me (Oh, you mean they all have the same practice areas, crappy hours. and ridiculous salaries? Who knew?). The bottom line is I intend to get an offer from one of my Top 15 choices. Period. I have no reason to suspect that won't happen, BUT if it doesn't, I may start questioning the soundness of my investment in GULC.
My bid list is focused on the SF Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest, with the remaining spaces filled with DC firms. I want to get back out West and there are really only three DC firms with the power/prestige to make me consider staying here (DC's a nice place, but the weather is dreadful!). Here's hoping the lottery is kinder to me than that of the Registrar.
Oh, and the eAttorney interface sucks. See, e.g. here. For the bazillions undoubtedly invested in the program by Lexis, Matindale, and the participating schools & firms, you'd think they could take 10 minutes and ask some students what they don't like about it. Even the ranking system for GULC's Write-On competition was more sophisticated and user-friendly.
Speaking of Write-On, I am still awaiting the results (first week in August, I am told). However, congrats are due to Ditzy G and AmbImb and numerous other fellow blawgers who have been invited to join Law Review or other journals at their respective (and apparently more efficient) schools.
July 20, 2004
The Haps
My apologies for the lack of updates. The pace of my summer is quickening. Only 2 and half weeks left in chambers before I head out west to the beaches of Oregon for a much needed vacation.
I was able to sit through a jury trial (guns & drugs) from start to finish the week before last. It was eye-opening. Fairly miserable lawyering all around. I'm not entirely sure what the Defense's theory of the case was, but it certainly wasn't a very good one. Numerous questions about and discrepancies in the Governments case went unasked and unanswered, despite practically being lit up in flashing neon, and the Judge alluding to them with his infrequent words from the bench. The jury was out almost three days before returning a guilty verdict. For what it's worth, I believe the Defendant was probably not innocent, but any attorney worth her salt should have no problem making a stronger case for his being "not guilty." Now, the Defendant is facing 10 to 12, and he's only 23! I wish I thought he'd come out a better person in 8 or so years, but I'm not so confident.
I spent last week sorting through a "bulky pleading" in an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff may have a legal argument worthy of examination somewhere, but her attorneys certainly didn't shed any light on it. Note to self: when crafting a memorandum in opposition of summary judgment, don't bury the court in 1,000 pages of "evidence," and hope the interns can figure out your case.
This week I'm tying up loose ends and drafting some orders the judge issued based on my disposition recommendations, all in an effort to leave an empty plate when I leave here next month. Unfortunately (and also fortunately), the Judge has taken to assigning me new cases for that "should only take a minute" on a fairly regular basis. I'm sure I'll get through it all.
As for fall recruitment. My OCI firms are reviewed, rated, and finally ranked. My resume is up-to-date. I'm ready. I'll be sending out a few letters this week to some Portland, OR firms to see if I can land a couple interviews while I'm traveling in the area next month.
As for other school matters, my Law Fellow duties have begun and I will be spending the coming weekend writing the students' first memo and completing their research projects. These things don't need to be done until Law Fellow training next month, but I'm hoping to scratch them off the list before I head west.
That's all I can think of. I better get to work...
I was able to sit through a jury trial (guns & drugs) from start to finish the week before last. It was eye-opening. Fairly miserable lawyering all around. I'm not entirely sure what the Defense's theory of the case was, but it certainly wasn't a very good one. Numerous questions about and discrepancies in the Governments case went unasked and unanswered, despite practically being lit up in flashing neon, and the Judge alluding to them with his infrequent words from the bench. The jury was out almost three days before returning a guilty verdict. For what it's worth, I believe the Defendant was probably not innocent, but any attorney worth her salt should have no problem making a stronger case for his being "not guilty." Now, the Defendant is facing 10 to 12, and he's only 23! I wish I thought he'd come out a better person in 8 or so years, but I'm not so confident.
I spent last week sorting through a "bulky pleading" in an employment discrimination case. The plaintiff may have a legal argument worthy of examination somewhere, but her attorneys certainly didn't shed any light on it. Note to self: when crafting a memorandum in opposition of summary judgment, don't bury the court in 1,000 pages of "evidence," and hope the interns can figure out your case.
This week I'm tying up loose ends and drafting some orders the judge issued based on my disposition recommendations, all in an effort to leave an empty plate when I leave here next month. Unfortunately (and also fortunately), the Judge has taken to assigning me new cases for that "should only take a minute" on a fairly regular basis. I'm sure I'll get through it all.
As for fall recruitment. My OCI firms are reviewed, rated, and finally ranked. My resume is up-to-date. I'm ready. I'll be sending out a few letters this week to some Portland, OR firms to see if I can land a couple interviews while I'm traveling in the area next month.
As for other school matters, my Law Fellow duties have begun and I will be spending the coming weekend writing the students' first memo and completing their research projects. These things don't need to be done until Law Fellow training next month, but I'm hoping to scratch them off the list before I head west.
That's all I can think of. I better get to work...
July 13, 2004
Run On Sentencing
For all the other geeks out there who can't get enough of the Blakely sentencing guideline carnival, Professor Berman's blog is the best resource I've found for the latest developments. Stay tuned because the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet in a few hours to discuss the current upheaval.
Quick Recap: At least six District Courts (I've lost count) have declared the federal guidelines unconstitutional; one Circuit (7th) declared the Guidelines unconstitutional, another Circuit (5th) upheld them, and another (2nd) dodged the issue by certifying three questions to the Supreme Court for guidance.
In the small corner of federal jurisprudence where I spend my days, we had a "guilty" verdict yesterday and the Judge was prepared to have the jury reconvene to separately decide sentencing enhancements, but the prosecution was ill-prepared and could not point to the specific guidelines at issue. As such, sentencing will proceed (pending DOJ appeal) without any enhancements.
Quick Recap: At least six District Courts (I've lost count) have declared the federal guidelines unconstitutional; one Circuit (7th) declared the Guidelines unconstitutional, another Circuit (5th) upheld them, and another (2nd) dodged the issue by certifying three questions to the Supreme Court for guidance.
In the small corner of federal jurisprudence where I spend my days, we had a "guilty" verdict yesterday and the Judge was prepared to have the jury reconvene to separately decide sentencing enhancements, but the prosecution was ill-prepared and could not point to the specific guidelines at issue. As such, sentencing will proceed (pending DOJ appeal) without any enhancements.
July 09, 2004
Destroyer of the Weak
I'm not usually one for online quizzes, but if both Ditzy Genius and Beanie thought this personality quiz was worthwhile, surely I could spare a few moments. My results were eye-opening and fairly insightful (no matter how much I may want to deny it), but I think it vastly underestimated my wackiness.
Here's what I learned.
Wackiness: 8/100
Rationality: 50/100
Constructiveness: 46/100
Leadership: 50/100
You are an SEDF--Sober Emotional Destructive Follower. This makes you an EVIL GENIUS. You are extremely focused and difficult to distract from your tasks. With luck, you have learned to channel your energies into improving your intellect, rather than destroying the weak and unsuspecting.
Your friends may find you remote and a hard nut to crack. Few of your peers know you very well--even those you have known a long time--because you have expert control of the face you put forth to the world. You prefer to observe, calculate, discern and decide. Your decisions are final, and your desire to be right is impenetrable.
You are not to be messed with. You may explode.
Here's what I learned.
Wackiness: 8/100
Rationality: 50/100
Constructiveness: 46/100
Leadership: 50/100
You are an SEDF--Sober Emotional Destructive Follower. This makes you an EVIL GENIUS. You are extremely focused and difficult to distract from your tasks. With luck, you have learned to channel your energies into improving your intellect, rather than destroying the weak and unsuspecting.
Your friends may find you remote and a hard nut to crack. Few of your peers know you very well--even those you have known a long time--because you have expert control of the face you put forth to the world. You prefer to observe, calculate, discern and decide. Your decisions are final, and your desire to be right is impenetrable.
You are not to be messed with. You may explode.
Sometimes People Are Nice
The subway conductor speaketh:
"Metro would like to remind its riders that today is Friday, so perk up, look sharp, and have a great day."
"Metro would like to remind its riders that today is Friday, so perk up, look sharp, and have a great day."
July 05, 2004
No News is Good News
I apologize for the lack of updates recently, but there wasn't a whole lot to report. There have been some interesting cases coming through the court lately. Unfortunately, I can't say too much about them. Federal courts are in a bit of chaos and confusion regarding how to respond to the Supreme Court's Blakely decision. The Court slipped this little bombshell in under the radar the same day Cheney came down (or didn't, depending on how you look at it), and in so doing cast severe doubt over the continued viability of the federal sentencing guidelines.
Many folks are cheering this development, but my response is a bit more measured. I'm not a big fan of the Guidelines, but I truly fear what might replace them. Anyone thinking the Guidelines will be jettisoned and replaced with unfettered judicial discretion is deluded. Instead, I see fixed term sentencing coming into play, with no discretion at all. In the alternative, Congress may drastically increase the length of sentence across the board, and allow judges to depart downward under certain circumstances. The end result of either option is likely to be longer sentences for all and even less corrolation between real conduct and real punishment. If Bush & Ashcroft keep their jobs it could be even worse. But, I digress. If you want the opinion of some other folks, check here, here, here, or here.
Other than that, things have been pretty uneventful. The 4th came and went with barely a whimper. I had no intention to battle the throngs of people down at the Mall, and the thunderstorms just sealed the deal. We were able to watch the show from our balcony and actually could see things pretty well. We barbecued, ate a lot, and watched The Sopranos. What's more American than that? On a sidenote, July 1 was Canada Day and the Canadian embassy across the park from the district court was in full celebration. There was bad music and a giant BBQ with hotdogs and hamburgers (traditional Canadian cuisine?). The whole event unnerved me. Not only is Canada right on our border, but they look just like us. We must all stay vigilant.
I've got my classes for next year pretty well sorted out and am still in the midst of selecting the firms with which I will seek interviews. I've got 10 or 15 I'm certain about and another 50 maybes. One thing I've noticed: the more "presitigious" the firm, the less inviting the culture, and the more miserable it sounds to work there. Oh well.
The only other thing on my plate right now is journal preferencing for the write-on competition. What should be a simple process has become a bit of a headache for me. I can't decide if I want to preference the Main Journal at all. I think I have a realistic chance of getting on it, but have little desire to do so. I'm sure there must be some good folks on the Journal, but the few I've met have been a bit, shall we say, off-putting. In contrast, the folks I know at some other journals seem a bit more down-to-earth and fun to work with. Journal is a two-year committment, and two years can be an awfully long-time if you hate what you're doing.
Main Journal certainly carries the prestige, but at what cost? And it's not like the other journals are "unprestigious"... Advice anyone? I'll probably end up preferencing Main and possibly regretting it for the next two years. But, if I don't preference it, I'll always wonder: what if? I'm growing increasingly tired of the hoops and the jumping through them...
Many folks are cheering this development, but my response is a bit more measured. I'm not a big fan of the Guidelines, but I truly fear what might replace them. Anyone thinking the Guidelines will be jettisoned and replaced with unfettered judicial discretion is deluded. Instead, I see fixed term sentencing coming into play, with no discretion at all. In the alternative, Congress may drastically increase the length of sentence across the board, and allow judges to depart downward under certain circumstances. The end result of either option is likely to be longer sentences for all and even less corrolation between real conduct and real punishment. If Bush & Ashcroft keep their jobs it could be even worse. But, I digress. If you want the opinion of some other folks, check here, here, here, or here.
Other than that, things have been pretty uneventful. The 4th came and went with barely a whimper. I had no intention to battle the throngs of people down at the Mall, and the thunderstorms just sealed the deal. We were able to watch the show from our balcony and actually could see things pretty well. We barbecued, ate a lot, and watched The Sopranos. What's more American than that? On a sidenote, July 1 was Canada Day and the Canadian embassy across the park from the district court was in full celebration. There was bad music and a giant BBQ with hotdogs and hamburgers (traditional Canadian cuisine?). The whole event unnerved me. Not only is Canada right on our border, but they look just like us. We must all stay vigilant.
I've got my classes for next year pretty well sorted out and am still in the midst of selecting the firms with which I will seek interviews. I've got 10 or 15 I'm certain about and another 50 maybes. One thing I've noticed: the more "presitigious" the firm, the less inviting the culture, and the more miserable it sounds to work there. Oh well.
The only other thing on my plate right now is journal preferencing for the write-on competition. What should be a simple process has become a bit of a headache for me. I can't decide if I want to preference the Main Journal at all. I think I have a realistic chance of getting on it, but have little desire to do so. I'm sure there must be some good folks on the Journal, but the few I've met have been a bit, shall we say, off-putting. In contrast, the folks I know at some other journals seem a bit more down-to-earth and fun to work with. Journal is a two-year committment, and two years can be an awfully long-time if you hate what you're doing.
Main Journal certainly carries the prestige, but at what cost? And it's not like the other journals are "unprestigious"... Advice anyone? I'll probably end up preferencing Main and possibly regretting it for the next two years. But, if I don't preference it, I'll always wonder: what if? I'm growing increasingly tired of the hoops and the jumping through them...
