I think the point is that the style is "affected," and further that neither "cutesy" nor "bench memo" type language is enjoyable to read.

I just read it and found it to be relatively harmless. Much like a Grisham novel. Little substance, but an enjoyable read nonetheless. Especially if you have clerked.

Merck, how do you find time to fill in Lat in between your appearances in Redneckville county traffic court?

I just read the book and it is horribly written, filled with cliches, and does sound in parts like she is trying (too hard) to write "like a lawyer" (i.e., she continuously uses the term "said" like a first year law student might do). This book is horrible and should not be read by anyone but a 12 year old girl.

Ten to one Gimmelman's former boss Maryanne Trump Berry asked him to do this hatchet job on behalf of her good friend Dolores Sloviter.

At any rate, he comes of as a ridiculous d-bag in this review. The man wouldn't know chick-lit humor if it bit him in the butt.

I actually review chick lit for a living, read this book, and agree completely with his review. Sorry. I have no partic affiliation with the law other than friends in the biz and actually wanted to like it, but found the main character supremely unlikable.

I just read it; the book is shite, both as a work of "chick lit" fiction in the "horror boss" genre a la Prada and Nanny Diaries, and as an story about the inner workings of a clerkship.
The characters are poorly developed, the predictable storyline lacks any sort of arc, and ultimately, the judge is way more of a sympathetic character than the overprivileged, ungrateful clerk.
The comparison to a Grisham novel is overgenerous. At least Grisham novels have an element of suspense and some character development.

12:19:

It's "Barry" dickhead. Not "Berry."

OMG, pointing out spelling errorz on teh internetz!

LOLZ! You pwn3d!

"I actually review chick lit for a living"

O RLY?

I just finished reading the book. It's excellent, perhaps one of the most entertaining books I've read in the past few years. I suspect alot of the negative comments on this board are from people who haven't read the book.

12:58 - is that you Saira Rao?

12:58, could you give actual reasons why you think it's "excellent" rather than just spewing platitudes?

Any time this book is mentioned online, a bunch of commenters pop up babbling unqualified non-descriptive praise like, "It's excellent, perhaps one of the most entertaining books I've read in the past few years." These spam-like, planted comments make me loathe the book, which sounds hideous enough to begin with.

LOLZR no --RU Gimmelman?

1:10 - Agreed. It's like comments on books in Amazon.com that are obviously planted by the publisher.

Sox-puppet much, 1:10/1:19?

1:23: Yeah, I thought I would bolster the credibility of a self-evident statement by pretending to be someone else, then agreeing with myself.

Idiot.

Your comment spam is a lousy marketing tool. People doing it deserve to be called out, criticized, and asked to justify their opinions.

I read the book and liked it. It wasn't a masterpiece, but the author has a very good sense of humor and it provides interesting insight into appellate clerkships and working for a psycho boss. It was a fun read.

"Yeah, I thought I would bolster the credibility of a self-evident statement by pretending to be someone else, then agreeing with myself."

People do that all the time. It's called sock-puppetry. Interesting that you understood the allusion. Telling, really.

I just finished it and thought it was an entertaining summer read. It was humurous, believable and the main character was hysterical.

It's not necessarily "bad" simply becuase it's not an intellectual read. Not all of us feel the need to be entrenched in academia and serious thought 100% of the time. And some of us actually have a sense of humor and like to laugh at life.

Rao's only transgression is that she dared offer a description of the inner workings of federal clerkship. The audacity! Just who does this uppity, ungrateful *woman* think she is? /sarcasm

Lighten up, anonymous critics. One wonders how many ficiton books you've gotten published?

It's an amazing book! I loved it!

Having gone to law school with James Grimmelman, I've gotta say I wouldn't trust much of anything he has to say, and particularly wouldn't trust his reviews of novels.

Haven't read the book, and it may be truly awful, but Grimmelman is a status whore and likely uncorked this hatchet job to curry favor with 3d Circuit judges and their friends.

2:19 - "uncorked this hatchet job"

i like the way you write.

For the record, this book is absolutely awful.

Gallion OUT!

Yikes 12:58! If you truly enjoyed the book (and aren't the author or her agent/publisher) you might just say why instead of attacking comments of those that disagree with you. And yes, I do review chick lit (among other genres) for a living. Nothing personal against the author, just thought the characters weren't likable, didn't find the writing humorous, and agreed with the article re: feeling sympathetic toward the judge.

Gallion -

I do what I can. Sounds like I'll just stay away from this book, though I'm becoming morbidly curious.

Then again, my view on clerks who whine about their judges is that said clerks (hey, I can write like Rao!) would do well to sit back and enjoy their privilege rather than calling in the waaahmbulance. It's not like the personalities of circuit court judges are a big mystery to law students applying for clerkships.

2:29 - "O RLY" isn't an attack. (YA, RLY.)

This is merely an example of a form of humor particular to this series of tubes we like to call the 'internet'. Be warned, the elbows are sharper in cyberspace, but don't let that spoil your fun!

Thanks for the clarification 2:43! Writers/proofreaders can be OCD about "correct" terminology (not necessarily a good thing) and O RLY is often used sarcastically, vs. YA RLY, for instance. Sorry if I took it the wrong way! Unfortunately, the review still stands.

"Unfortunately, the review still stands."

NO WAI!

"NO WAI!"

YA WAI!

All your Rao are belong to us

Does this book have the unbearable prose style of that horrid, self-absorbed Opinionistas blog? I wanted to enjoy Lafsky's rants against her firm, but her writing style was absolutely intolerable, like an 11th grader whose mother never told her that her shit didn't stink. Plus, she seems like such a loathsome and solipsistic human being...

If this book is anything like that blog, it should be set alight and used to roast s'mores.

I went to law school with Saira and I liked her even though we weren't close friends. I got an advance copy of the book and could not finish it. There is nothing in the book to really keep it moving - there is no primary conflict to be resolved, nor is it especially "fun and frothy" (Saira is pretty funny and witty in person, so that's a shame). The book is really only going to appeal to a niche of people (lawyers and law students) and unfortunately, that niche is populated with the most critical readers around and I doubt those readers will be very kind to this book, because they are all going to say "I could write something better than this" (and they probably could). Also, it is coming in on the ass-end of the "personal assistant" roman-a-clef tell-all phenomenon, so at this point there really isn't any new ground to cover. I have to give it a B-, and at our law school, that was pretty much the lowest grade you could get.

hey 4:56, sounds like you're a little jealous. what's the matter ... you stuck in some crappy biglaw job, while she's on a booktour?

James Gimmelman is a massive tool. He's an incredibly smug individual with so very little to be smug about.

That said, the book is probably terrible and the glowing "reviews" in this thread are transparent plants.

I am currently clerking. I just finished the book this afternoon. It really wasn’t that good. Also, I find it hard to believe that the main character, who graduated from Columbia Law School, need to ask her co-clerk what an en banc rehearing is. All three of my 1L summer interns know what it is.

I read the book and had an appellate clerkship. The book sucks. Anybody who thinks it is a good book is a complete moron.

"I am currently clerking. I just finished the book this afternoon. It really wasn’t that good. Also, I find it hard to believe that the main character, who graduated from Columbia Law School, need to ask her co-clerk what an en banc rehearing is. All three of my 1L summer interns know what it is."

Did it ever occur to you that she did in fact know what "en banc" meant when she was a clerk, but was attempting to find a way to somewhat subtly insert a definition into the book so as to give context to readers without legal training?

Also, I daresay that the criticism re: this book would not have been nearly as harsh if a white guy had written it, as opposed to an Asian woman.

Dear 12:09:

Bull.

See, e.g., Billy Merck.

This book was just unbelievably bad.

@9:08 - No. I married rich and now I do public interest work that I really enjoy, so suck it.

Rao's main problem is that she has lawyers who hate their jobs as her target audience. this book isn't that bad. you people need a sense of humor.

12:09 -- you are a racist and a moron.

racist remarks, go die

"@9:08 - No. I married rich and now I do public interest work that I really enjoy, so suck it."

I suppose when all else fails and you have succeeded at nothing, you can always find some rich, ugly guy/gal to marry and live off.

So while she's off on her book tour and agonizing over which A-list Hollywood star is going to play the characters in a major motion picture of her book, you're mooching off your rich husband/wife and pretending to better the world in your public interest job. How pathetic.

@9:18: I think if you read my comments on her book, I do in fact say some nice things about Saira, b/c I think she's a pretty cool chick (who, by the way, has also not done too bad in the marry a rich successful guy dept.). By all means, I hope she succeeds in a writing career or whatever she wants to parlay her book into. All I said was that is that the book wasn't good enough to keep me reading it. It's not very good, but I also don't think it deserves some excoriating review like some Gimmelman's either.

Also, I don't think that Saira or her book need to be defended so vindictively and vituperatively by a person as small and angry as you obviously are. Once again, suck it.

I was withholding judgement of Chambermaid until I was able to finish it this weekend. The comments posted, starting with Gimmelman's leading up to today's are hilarious. Do you people have no sense of irony? Your comments merely prove Rao's SEEMINGLY satiric portrayal of lawyers as humorless, self-righteous a-holes. I am embarassed to be associated with a group such as this.

Well said, lawwoman.
This book struck me as a cheeky Grisham novel and was easy to read. I could barely watch the Sopranos finale because I was so engrossed. The depth of the underlying death penalty appeal storyline was more than I expected, and I found myself caring about the outcome of the case as much as the fate of Sheila Raj.

I think Gimmelman has been properly discredited, but I would like to add that I enjoyed the examples used in his critique; my favorite: “And her clerks are too busy flirting with each other to give the deceased’s sister an honest answer about whether the bread is wheat-free, leading directly to severe digestive trouble." Give me a break! Did Sloviter whisper that in his ear after a romp in the Federal hay? You don’t need a law degree to enjoy this book, however, you do need a sense of humor.