On Monday, we posted pictures of law students protesting the Trayvon Martin killing. We had pictures from Yale and Harvard and a few other top-14 law schools.
But these protests aren’t just going on at elite law schools. Since our post on Monday we’ve been inundated with photos from other law schools. There have been so many scary looking people wearing hoodies around me that I’m almost out of bullets.
Seriously though, I can’t remember another protest where students from so many different law schools stood in solidarity with each other. Let’s look at some of the protests…
* Why wouldn’t you wear specs in court? Ladies love smart dudes. And smart dudes don’t kill people. [Washington Post]
* Vodka? Good. Rape? Bad. Selling vodka with advertising that implies rape? Also bad. Modeling for the part of the victim in said ad? $$$. [KTLA]
* Did Cafe Press take down all its Trayvon Martin gear because of IP concerns or just because the company is scared of controversy?
Whatever. I just want to know the status of the guy with the P**** A** Cracker shirt. [Yahoo!]
* I can understand not wanting to pay alimony. But saying you are broke because you only make a million or two every year is probably not the best way to avoid handing over lots of money to your soon-to-be ex-wife. [Dealbreaker]
* I was sittin’, writin’, wishin’, you believed in journalism. Then maybe you’d learn the rules. But lord knows that this world is cruel. I know the truth, I’m a blogger too. But your tumblr doesn’t mean that I’m just like you. [Legal Satyricon]
* A Bengals cheerleader/high school teacher sues a blogger for defamation because he claims she sleeps around and has STDs. Later, the chearleader gets in trouble with the law for allegedly sleeping with a minor. It would be a fun time to be that blogger right now. [Not-So-Private Parts / Forbes]
* A video interview with Justice Anthony Kennedy, in which he explains why he doesn’t get nervous about the specter of deciding the biggest court case in a decade. Unfortunately, his explanation makes me quite nervous instead. [C-SPAN]
We are at the final showdown for our March Madness bracket, and all the private school sissy-boys have been kicked to the curb. Apparently, you can’t buy your way into a moral or ethical principle. Only the state can inculcate you into virtue.
For the first time, I think ever or at least as long as I’ve been here, in an ATL contest of law schools, the final battle is between two state schools. And it happens in our contest about honesty and ethics. I guess there’s a lot of truth that comes out after a long round of flip-cup….
After writing about enough jurors who get in trouble for posting about their cases online, one begins to feel like Tom Smykowski in Office Space, desperately and hopelessly trying to justify his job to the Bobs. It seems so simple, but no one seems to get it.
You can’t talk about the case on Facebook! Can’t you understand it? What is the hell is wrong with you people?!
This week, we have two more cases of idiot jurors in California and Colorado who simply could not resist going to Facebook to say, ironically, the same thing about the cases they were hearing.
What did they have to say? What kind of titillating trials were they supposed to decide while they were iPhoning instead? And more importantly, how did the attorneys in the cases respond?
And now we come to the part of our day where students at top law schools have their toolishness exposed for the entertainment of the masses.
In the arena today are not one, but two, Harvard Law 3Ls who are in need of a date for the Barrister’s Ball. Instead of securing a date in the normal way, they’re trying to see what their Crimson credentials will net them on the open market of Craigslist.
Oh, they say that they’re looking for two dates, but I’m willing to bet just one woman could take them both on….
Welcome back to our series of open threads on the latest batch of U.S. News law school rankings. Last time, readers weighed in on the law schools that filled out the middle of the traditional first tier. There were some strong moves worth noting in that group (like Arizona State and the University of Washington). Also worth noting are the schools that disappeared from that list, and today, we’ll finally get to talk about them.
This time around, we’ll be taking a look at the law schools at the bottom of the first tier — the schools that some would argue belong in the second tier (no, not the dreaded RNP tier), but charge like they’re the cream of the crop….
Apparently, this is the kind of image that is just too confusing for the children of New York.
I mentioned this yesterday, but I think it deserves further discussion. In a move that can only be characterized as bizarre, the New York State Department of Education has decided to ban words — lots of words — from standardized tests that cause children to feel bad, confused, or bring up “controversial” topics. Yep, the NY Regents was apparently just too controversial for some parents.
And we’re talking about some very common words here. Words like dinosaur. Dinosaur is deemed “controversial” because it brings up evolution, according to a report in the New York Post. Words like “birthday” are banned because Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t celebrate birthdays.
I didn’t know Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t celebrate birthdays. Maybe instead of banning the word “birthday,” they should ask a question like: “Which of the following groups don’t celebrate birthdays?” That way, our children might learn something about other cultures instead of being protected from ever having their precious points of view challenged because of f***ing PC helicopter parenting idiots who are trying ruin America one stupid goddamn rule at a time. It’s not that I don’t care about the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Creationists or poor little children who don’t know what a Mercedes is (“Mercedes” is another banned word). It’s that banning words IN NO WAY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM and is freaking stupid.
In a multicultural society, words are our friends….
In last week’s installment of Moonlighting, we looked into the challenges of just planning a global meeting. This post will continue the theme by examining particular practical issues that arise during global meetings.
The first few minutes of most meetings are passed waiting for people to join, whether in person or on a call. Those who’ve joined early on typically engage in casual social banter to avoid the awkward silence. But on a global call, you need to be careful as nothing says “you’re not an American company” like banter that leads with, “Say, how ‘bout those Knicks?”
Then what should you talk about — world events? Perhaps, assuming you can talk about them without offending anyone (avoid discussing the madness in Western Europe). Safer, but admittedly boring, topics are weather and vacations. And of course, be wary throughout the call of using American business jargon like “get our ducks in a row,” “circle back,” etc. These are best accompanied by a clear explanation of what the idioms mean: “As we say in America, let’s circle back when we have all our ducks in a row. This just means that we’ll give each other a heads up when we’ve got our house in order.” Wait… not that….
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.
Whether you’re fresh off the bar exam or hitting your stride after hanging a shingle a few years ago, one thing’s for certain: independent attorneys who start a solo or small-law practice live with a certain amount of stress.
Non-attorneys would think the stress comes from preparing for a big trial, deposing a hostile witness, or crafting the perfect contract for a picky client.
But that’s nothing compared to the constant, nagging, real-life kind, the kind you get from the day-to-day grind of being a law-abiding attorney.
Connecticut plaintiffs-side boutique litigation firm (12 lawyers) seeks full-time associate with 2-4 years litigation experience, top tier undergraduate and law school education. Journal or clerkship experience a plus; highest ethical standards and strong work ethic required. Familiarity with Connecticut state court legal practice is preferred, but not required.
The firm handles sophisticated, high-end cases for plaintiffs, including individuals and businesses with significant claims in a wide array of matters. Our cases often have important public policy implications, and are litigated in state and federal courts throughout Connecticut. Representative areas of practice include medical malpractice, catastrophic personal injury, business torts, deceptive trade practices and other complex commercial litigation, and products liability.
Additional information can be located on our website, at www.sgtlaw.com.