* You skip over the footnotes when you’re reading for class, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t think you should. She’s a proponent of the most important footnote in all of constitutional law. [New Yorker]
* New York will modify its pro bono requirement for LL.M. students to allow public service completed outside the country. Well, so much for closing the state’s justice gap. [New York Law Journal (sub. req.)]
* Everything’s bigger in Texas, including the government-initiated trademark infringement actions over “Don’t Mess With Texas.” Like “I <3 NY," the Lone Star State's slogans are off limits. [New York Times]
* You can sue Lady Gaga for overtime pay all you want, but you do not want to face her wrath. The pop star is due in court in early November where she’ll tell a judge “exactly what f**king happened.” [Daily Mail]
This isn’t going to come as a galloping shock to anybody, but recent law school graduates who have just finished their third year of law school think that law school should have stopped after the first two years.
Well, maybe it will come as a shock to Yale Law professors, but I think that people who have actually been listening to the concerns of students and graduates are well aware that the third year of law school does not provide enough utility to justify the time and cost.
You don’t have to take my word for it, Kaplan did a survey…
High atop the ‘Ivory Tower’ of the Yale Law School, a legal academic defends never changing anything ever.
If I were going to write an Onion-style parody of a Yale law professor defending the third year of law school in an op-ed, I wouldn’t come up with what Yale professor Bruce Ackerman just dropped on the Washington Post. It’s too on-the-nose to be funny as fiction. It’s too “exactly what I thought he would say” to qualify as parody. For the love of God, the man starts his defense of the third year of law school by quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes. He doesn’t start with employment statistics or any analysis of economic value or even a newstudy about the value of higher education generally. He’s a professor at the Yale Law School, so of course we’re starting with Holmes.
Since I’m not making it up, since a Yale Law School professor actually did write an op-ed about the current state of legal education in which his first reference is to a man who died in 1935, it’s freaking hilarious. I mean, thank God we have Yale law professors to reanimate Holmes so he can weigh in on our modern debate. When I asked old Ollie what he thought about the value of a law degree during a time of stagnant legal employment and skyrocketing tuition, he just told me, “My, you speak so well for a Negro. Since I’m sure society has evolved much since my death, I’m probably not the right guy to ask.”
It has become a somewhat common refrain from legal education types that law schools should do more to produce “practice ready” graduates in response to the tight job market for lawyers.
You haven’t heard much of that BS coming from me though. I’ve pretty consistently said “the tuition is too damn high.” I think the pedagogical infighting over “theory” courses versus “practical” courses is irrelevant when people are graduating from lower-ranked law schools with $100,000 (or more) in student loan debt. I view the “practice ready” debate as just another attempt by law school deans to justify their high salaries and the salaries of their faculty, salaries that are unsustainable for any school that wants to get serious about cutting costs.
Finally, there’s a law professor who agrees with me. Or at the very least equally disagrees with the notion of “practice readiness” as a panacea to the problems with legal education. University of Maryland law professor Robert Condlin calls the practice-ready concept a “millennialist fantasy.”
Again, I don’t think it’s a millennailist problem so much as it’s the last desperate ravings of old people determined to continue fleecing millennails, but we can figure out whom to blame later…
NYAG Eric Schneiderman: He’s a guy with real power in New York, not that carnival barker Donald Trump.
Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers’ advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm…. Trump University, with Donald Trump’s knowledge and participation, relied on Trump’s name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand.
— New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, standing up for the collection of goobers and yokels who “believed in the Trump brand.” The NYAG sued Trump University yesterday. Trump’s lawyers have called the suit politically motivated — as if any sitting NYAG has a motivation other than becoming governor someday. Law school deans should probably call the suit a “near miss.”
David Lat and I were on CNBC’s Power Lunch with Dan Rodriguez, Dean of Northwestern Law School, discussing whether law school should be two years. As I mentioned earlier today, this debate got started again when President Obama said that he thought law school should last only two years, at least in terms of classroom instruction. Please see my earlier post if you’d like to talk about why Obama’s thought bubble was literally the least useful thing he could have done to effectuate the change he desires.
Here, we’re going to talk about whether Obama’s idea is good in the first place. Should law school be two years long? Let me rephrase that question: is there any possible justification for forcing people to sit through a third year of law school if they don’t want to?
Student loans are a real bitch, and declaring bankruptcy won’t even save you from them — unless you can prove you’ve got undue hardship and a “certainty of hopelessness” about you, which most people have too much pride to admit. Without government payment plans like Income-Based Repayment, Pay As You Earn, and Public Service Forgiveness, a much larger portion of our population would be living in a van down by the river, still drowning in educational debts, but too far off the grid for the bill collectors to come a-knocking.
This is why people absolutely lost their minds when the Daily Currant, a satirical online newspaper, published a story about President Barack Obama’s supposed bid to forgive all student loans. Given the responses, it looks like the youth of America is still in need of some change they can believe in…
Former constitutional law professor and current President of the United States, Barack Obama, has decided to wade into the great law school debate by offering his “thoughts” on the length of law programs. On Friday, Obama said that he thought law school should just be two years instead of three.
Great. It’s nice to know what the President thinks. Too bad those thoughts aren’t backed up with the very simple actions necessary to make his dreams come true.
Obama’s thoughts touched off a weekend debate about the value of the third year of law school. I think I’m clearly on record saying the third year of law school is completely useless. There is no educational value to the thing, but law schools certainly make a lot of money off of it. David Lat and I will be discussing this in more depth on CNBC’s Power Lunch this afternoon around 1:00 p.m. EDT. Check it out.
Regardless of what you think about the value of the 3L year, the timing of Obama’s announcement is certainly curious. In June, Obama’s own Department of Education rubber-stamped ABA oversight over law school regulation and accreditation for another three years. Since the ABA is the organization most responsible for keeping law school at three years and preventing schools from experimenting with shorter programs, I can only assume that Obama’s statement was timed to be as useless as humanly possible…
* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was chatty this week. In terms of same-sex marriage, the Notorious R.B.G. thinks “[t]he court handled both of those cases just the way they should have.” [Bloomberg]
* And just like a mean girl, Ruthie’s claws were out. After calling the Roberts Court “one of the most activist courts in history,” she offered comments on Justice Samuel Alito’s eye-rolling. [New York Times]
* Don’t cry for Argentina, the truth is it never respected you. After losing an appeal at the Second Circuit, the country has vowed to defy any of the court’s rulings with which it doesn’t agree. [Reuters]
* Texas takes the bull by the horns: the state’s Supreme Court will consider if it has the power and jurisdiction to grant gay divorces despite the fact that it bans gay marriage. [Houston Chronicle]
* “I have a temperament that doesn’t adapt well to politics. It’s because I speak my mind so much.” Joaquim Barbosa, chief justice of Brazil’s highest court and one of the most influential lawyers in the world (according to Time), isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. [New York Times]
* Since she was already acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox (fka Foxy Knoxy) will not be returning to Italy for her retrial. That would be as silly as admitting to participation in orgies. [CNN]
* Following a settlement on undisclosed terms, the suit filed against Paula Deen has been dismissed. It’s too bad that the Baroness of Butter’s career sunk like a spoiled soufflé in the process. [Businessweek]
* New York’s AG filed a $40M suit against Donald Trump, a rich man who can’t afford a decent hairstylist and allegedly makes students at Trump University weep with his “bait-and-switch” tactics. [NBC News]
The holiday season is upon us, and yet again, you have no idea what to get for the fickle lawyer in your life. We’re here to help. Even if your bonus check hasn’t arrived yet, any one of the gifts we’ve highlighted here could be a worthy substitute until your employer decides to make it rain.
We’ve got an eclectic selection for you to choose from, so settle in by that stack of documents yet to be reviewed and dig in…
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 six years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
We currently have a very exciting and rare type of in-house opening in China at one of the world’s leading internet and social media companies. Our client is looking for an IP Transactional / TMT / Licensing attorney with 2 to 6 years experience. The new hire will be based in Shenzhen or Shanghai. Mandarin is not required (deal documentation will be in English) but is preferred. A solid reason to be in China and a commitment to that market is required of course. This new hire will likely be US qualified (but could also be qualified in UK or other jurisdictions) and with experience and training at a top law firm’s IP transactional / TMT practice and could be currently at a law firm or in-house. Qualified candidates currently Asia based, Europe based or US based will be considered. The new hire’s supervisors in this technology transactions in-house team are very well regarded US trained IP transactional lawyers, with substantial experience at Silicon Valley firms. The culture and atmosphere in this in-house group and the company in general is entrepreneurial, team oriented, and the work is cutting edge, even for a cutting edge industry. The upside of being in an important strategic in-house position in this fast growing and world leading internet company is of the “sky is the limit” variety. Its a very exciting place to be in China for a rising IP transactional lawyer in our opinion, for many reasons beyond the basic info we can share here in this ad / post. This is a special A+ opportunity.
If your firm is in ‘go’ mode when it comes to recruiting lateral partners with loyal clients, then take this quiz to see how well you measure up. Keep track of your ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses.
1. Does your firm have a clearly defined strategy of practice groups that are priorities of growth for your office? Nothing gets done by random chance, but with a clear vision for the future. Identify the top practice areas for which you wish to add lateral partners. Seek input from practice group leaders and get specifics on needs, outcomes, and ideal target profiles.
2. In addition to clarifying your firm’s growth strategy, are you still open to the hire of a partner outside of your plan? I’ve made several placements that fit this category. The partner’s practice was not within the strategic growth plan of my client, but once the two parties started talking with each other, we all saw how it could indeed be a seamless fit. Be open to “Opportunistic Hires.” You never know where your next producing partner might come from, so you have to be open to it. I will be the first to admit that there is a quirky element of randomness in recruiting.
The traditional job application and interview process can be impersonal, and applicants often struggle to present themselves as more than just the sum of their GPAs, alma maters, and previous work history. ATL has partnered with ViewYou to help job seekers overcome this challenge. ViewYou NOW Profiles offer a unique way for job seekers to make a personal, memorable connection with prospective employers: introduction videos. These videos allow job candidates to display their personalities, interpersonal skills, and professional interests, creating an eDossier to brand themselves to potential employers all over the world. Check it out today!