We noticed that you guys enjoy trash talking about rival law schools. And we also realize, despite our general ignorance about sports, that we are now in the midst of “March Madness.” So, as several of you requested, we are introducing a March Madness-inspired feature to ATL.
Welcome to ATL MARCH MADNESS: LAW SCHOOLS!!!
Here are the brackets. They’re based, as you might have guessed, on the U.S. News and World Report rankings. At least they’re good for something!
(Where schools were tied, we assigned seeds based on where the schools appear on the USNWR list, which seemed to break ties based on alphabetical order.)
Here’s how the tournament will work. Law schools will advance to the next round based on reader polls, in which we ask you which law school is “cooler.” You can define “cooler” in whatever way you wish. Basically, it’s a popularity contest.
The first set of polls appears after the jump.
Please take a few seconds to fill out our (anonymous) reader survey. You can access it by clicking here.
And please don’t overlook question number 9, in which you can offer us editorial feedback — what you like, what you dislike, what you’d like to see more or less of in these pages, etc. Thanks! Above the Law Reader Survey [SurveyMonkey.com]
That’s the question raised here, by Susan Hackett of the Association of Corporate Counsel, and here, by Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times.
Time for an ATL reader poll. Many of you are either first-year associates or law students who will soon become first-year associates. So we can guess how you’ll vote.
But we also have numerous readers who are in-house lawyers, senior associates, and even partners. Some members of these groups may oppose what they view as excessive salaries for first-year associates. E.g., this senior associate.
So the outcome of this poll is by no means a foregone conclusion. Here it is:
12:12–unbelievable. I can’t believe anyone voted for Janet with a Part. The AG was never the femme de la femme, but with a part, she’s all man. It really draws out that jaw line in a way that makes me uncomfortable (though that’s probably really just a function of which WSJ artist was on call that day).
Yeah, we know — quelle surprise. Or, less delicately, “No s**t, Sherlock.”
Anyway, here’s the data, from a poll in which almost 1500 votes were tallied:
As one of you noted, the results basically form an inverted bell curve. Over 56 percent of respondents clustered at the extremes: “Very Unfavorable” (30.6 percent) was the most popular choice, followed by “Very Favorable” (25.9 percent).
Speaking of SCOTUS-related polls, there’s still time left for you to vote on whether $200,000 bonuses for Supreme Court clerks are too high, too low, or just right. To vote, click here. Earlier: Justice Thomas: The Sphinx Breaks His Silence
It’s time for a quick housekeeping announcement about our Law Librarian Hotties contest. We’re currently in the middle of runoff votes between the two women and the two men who received the most votes in the first round. If you haven’t voted in the runoffs yet (or if you’d like to change your vote), you can do so by clicking here.
If you’d like to vote, though, don’t delay. We will close the polls tomorrow, Thursday, March 15, at 3 PM (Eastern time).
Right now, neither race is close. But it ain’t over until the results are certified by Katherine Harris. To the four remaining contenders, GOOD LUCK!!! Earlier: Law Librarian Hotties: It’s Time for a Runoff!
The issue of hefty signing bonuses for Supreme Court clerks has generated lively discussion in the comments, as well as on otherblogs.
You clearly have strong views on the subject — and we’re curious about them. So it’s time for one of ATL’s (hugely unscientific) reader polls:
Kristina Daugirdas and Nicholas Bagley made a valiant effort in our Couple of the Month contest. Over time, they narrowed the gap between themselves and the leading couple considerably.
But in the end, it wasn’t enough — especially since the leading couple, which started off and remained in the lead throughout the contest, included a sitting federal appeals court judge:
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.