* ATTENTION LAW STUDENTS: Tomorrow is the last day to enter our annual Law Revue competition. The deadline is tomorrow at 5 so send them in. Entries have been coming in all day, so don’t get left out. [Above the Law]
* It looks like the Supreme Court just made a decision even worse than McCutcheon. [SCOTUSBlog]
* New York’s disciplinary procedures for lawyers are “deficient in design and operation.” So come to New York if you plan on being a shady lawyer, I guess. [NY Times]
* And, hey, while we’re at it, here’s Steven J. Harper’s take on the same Op-Ed. [The Lawyer Bubble]
* UC Hastings Professor Osagie Obasogie is quoted in this informative piece about the changing nature of collegiate debate as it ventures more and more into the domain of critical race theory. As one of the people who helps run the CEDA tournament discussed in the article, I thought this was an interesting account. [The Atlantic]
* FBI makes a cheesy video to teach young Americans not to spy for China. It’s really worth a watch. [National Journal]
* A high school teacher in Australia won a defamation suit against a student who said mean things on Facebook. [IT-Lex]
* The Legal Broadcast Network interviewed Kyle McEntee of Law School Transparency about how improved tools help law students. [Legal Broadcast Network]
Raise your hand if you’re tired of the debate over the value of a legal education. Yeah, me too.
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the debate rolls on. A prominent law school dean and one of his colleagues took to the pages of the New York Times to once again defend the law school ivory tower from its critics.
Who are we talking about, and what are their arguments?
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Conestoga and Hobby Lobby cases, the high-profile challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate. Many ordinary citizens wish they could tune in to the arguments on TV, or at least catch clips on the Daily Show nightly news. After all, how else can Americans access this valuable information that could change their lives forever? I mean, without an Upworthy piece or a Buzzfeed listicle?
Of course, serious folks make serious arguments championing televised coverage of Supreme Court arguments. UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote an opinion piece this week, arguing that “[t]here is no excuse for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court.” (Apparently, Chemerinsky wants cameras in and Justice Ginsburg out, for those keeping track of Chemerinsky’s wish list.) Earlier this month, the Coalition for Court Transparency, a group of press organizations and pro-transparency NGOs, sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, urging the Court to permit the video recording and broadcast of its courtroom.
So, what are opponents of cameras at One First Street so scared of? Do they worry that Chief Justice Roberts will start mugging for the camera? That Justice Scalia will insist on an added laugh track? That Justice Kagan will embark on a dangerous juice fast to slim down like a Hollywood starlet? (Actually, it looks like she already has.)
Those are not my concerns, but here is why I still think video coverage of U.S. Supreme Court arguments is a terrible idea….
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June. She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values.
Dear internet, make me a graphic like this, only for law school prices and with, like, a student crying or something.
So we’re all going to vote tomorrow, and then on Wednesday most of us are going to wake up with the same old problems. I’m going to need to lose some weight. Romney’s going to be an unemployed rich guy nobody likes. And America’s law students are going to wake up in the middle of the night worried about getting jobs.
Last week, the Washington Post wrote an important article on the abysmal state of the legal job market. It sounded notes that are familiar to regular readers of Above the Law, but I feel that whenever the facts about legal education make it into the Post or the New York Times, it’s important because parents see it there. The more parents know, the less likely they are to push their kids into law.
While most of us know the broad picture (it’s a figurative disaster), it is still fun to pick through rubble….
* When thinking of the Penn State situation (the alleged cover-up, not Jerry Sandusky’s crimes), I am reminded of how critically important due process is to the proper administration of justice. You really notice due process when it’s gone. [The Volokh Conspiracy]
* It’s funny to think of law professors getting their pieces rejected by law reviews. Funny insofar as there are people who actually care about what ends up in a law review. [lawprofblog]
* I’m not inclined to believe things coming out of Nigeria, but if this is true, it’s crazy. [Gawker]
* The bright side of losing your job because of the LIBOR scandal. [Dealbreaker]
* Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, thinks that you can’t cut faculty salaries enough to achieve substantial reductions in tuition without losing your top faculty. But in this market, I bet a law school that said, “We hire only cheap professors and pass the savings on to you,” would have a lot of appeal. [National Law Journal]
Over the weekend, the emerging West Coast powerhouse added a new impressive statistic to its quickly filling trophy case. This year, the school boasts one of the highest federal clerkship placement rates in the country.
Keep reading to see which elite law schools have been edged out by UC Irvine….
Judge Vaughn Walker, the man who overturned Proposition 8 in California, is gay. He even admitted it. You know what that means, don’t you? [Wink, wink]. I mean, the man is gay so clearly… like, do I have to spell it out for you? He’s a man who likes to have sex with other men, how can he possibly be impartial when it comes to whether or not God wants marriage defined as something exclusively between a man and a woman. Well, not God exactly, I mean that law… and the voters, you know. The law that has traditionally defined marriage as a union between man and woman under God. You know what I’m getting at. How can he impartially judge the law on this matter when he wants to do it in the butt with another man??? That’s got to make him tainted or damaged or somehow unfit, I mean d’uh, right?
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, at long last the anti-gay marriage movement has been unmasked for what it is; disgusting homophobia and bigotry wrapped up in voter referendums and moving documents. Yesterday afternoon ProtectMarriage (a supporter of the California ban on gay marriage) moved to have Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling set aside because Walker is gay. I’m being entirely serious; the sole basis for their legal argument here is that Walker is gay and in a relationship. Somehow, this made Walker unfit for deciding whether or not gays and lesbians should have the legal right to marry.
ProtectMarriage’s indignation would be more interesting to me if it wasn’t so covered in crap. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall them arguing that married men cannot impartially preside over divorce proceedings.
But I’m sorry, to even pretend like the above are useful analogies gives ProtectMarriage more credit than they deserve. They world they propose living in is truly ludicrous…
Now that you’ve figured out what to give your secretary this holiday season, what about the lawyers in your life? Many of you have friends or family members who are lawyers or law students, and if you haven’t done so already, you need to get them — forgive the expression — Christmas presents (or holiday gifts, if you prefer).
Lawyerly types can be tough to shop for. As we’ve previously discussed, lawyers aren’t great about giving gratitude, and they’re often very critical — so your gifts might not be warmly received. Also, many lawyers earn good incomes, meaning that when they actually need or want something, they often just go out and buy it themselves (or let their firm to buy it for them — e.g., the iPad).
So what should you get for the lawyers in your life this holiday season? We have some suggestions….
When the UC Irvine School of Law first burst onto the scene, the school offered free tuition to everyone in its inaugural class. Then, in its second year, UC Irvine offered a 50% discount to all students admitted to the class of 2013.
And now, UC Irvine will knock 33% off its tuition, for members of its third entering class (the class of 2014).
Students considering UC Irvine will certainly appreciate the money. The National Law Journal reports that, not counting the discount, in-state tuition is $40,000 a year and out-of-state tuition is $50,000 a year. Welcome to public law school in the 21st century.
Despite being a public law school, UC Irvine will fund this tuition reduction through private donations. So you have to wonder: how long can they keep that up?
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.
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: email@example.com.
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.