* Congratulations on your law degree! Here’s a list of the other professions you can go into, because “being a lawyer” might not be in your future. [Associate's Mind]
* Deleting unhelpful text messages is a poor litigation strategy [IT-Lex]
* Aaron Zelinsky wants your help coming up with legal aptonyms for an upcoming article. Do you not know what an aptonym is? It’s okay, just read his post and he’ll explain it for you. [Concurring Opinions]
* Rand Paul spoke for 13 hours. It only took two sentences to make him stop. Eric Holder has a great ROI. [Balloon-Juice]
* Cleveland Judge Pinkey Carr has issued another sentence making a convict wear a sign in public. [Columbus Dispatch]
Personally, I gave up on law reviews in the mid-90s.
For a while after I graduated from law school, I flipped through the tables of contents of the highest profile law reviews, to see what the scholars were saying and to read things that were relevant to my practice. But by the mid-90s, I gave up: There was no chance of finding anything relevant, so the game was no longer worth the candle.
(When I took up blogging about pharmaceutical product liability cases, I began rooting around for law review articles in that field, which could generate the fodder for blog posts for which I was always desperate. Even then, the law reviews rarely offered much that practitioners would care about.)
None of that convinced me that the law reviews were dead, however, because I figured that the academics were at least still relying on the law reviews to screen and distribute each other’s work. But I had dinner recently with an old law school classmate who’s now (1) a prominent scholar in his or her field and (2) a member of the hiring committee at his or her law school. A short conversation with this guy (or gal) convinced me that law reviews are not long for this world. . . .
* Should attractive women in the legal profession be offended when complimented on their appearance? Or should they instead engage in “the strategic use of their own sexuality,” to quote the New York Times (citing a federal judge)? [Shatter the Glass Ceiling]
* Speaking of attractive women lawyers, what do people think of when they think of Megyn Kelly? [New York Magazine]
* MOAR RANKINGS — this time of the most influential law reviews. Yeah, you know you wanna click. [Witnesseth via Tax Prof Blog]
* Everything’s bigger in Texas — including the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. [Dallas MorningNews]
* In other news of alleged government misconduct, a former SEC staffer claims the place was rife with sexual tension and professional backstabbing. [Thomson Reuters News & Insight]
* Might a strip club be a more hospitable workplace than the SEC? Strippers just secured a $13 million settlement in a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit. [In House / Findlaw]
Going to a top law school doesn’t make you any more considerate of others. It certainly doesn’t teach you to clean up after yourself.
But maybe going to this top law school will teach some kids on law review that being a slob has consequences. Monetary consequences.
I think anytime a poor custodian has to scold some slovenly law students, things have already gone too far. I mean, since we’re talking about kids who are going to law school in New York, the rats came out even before the law review students were told to clean up their act….
UPDATE (1:15 PM): And now we’ve got a response from one of the allegedly dirty students.
On Friday, we brought you some controversial news about Julian Davis, a UC Hastings Law grad running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He faces allegations of acting “royally douchey.” One of his accusers is a former classmate at UC Hastings, and after the story went up, we heard from a few more of his former Hastings peers.
One wrote in strong defense of Julian’s “firebrand” personality — and his politics. But a few others wrote to tell about his tumultuous — and unexpectedly brief — stint on the Hastings Law Journal.
Let’s jump right in and learn more about Davis’s interesting law school past…
UPDATED (4:35PM) with a significant response from Julian Davis.
Back in 2010, we brought our readers some news on the state of women’s representation on the mastheads of the nation’s law reviews. According to a study conducted by Ms. JD, on the whole, women at the 2009 U.S. News top 50 law schools were doing just fine in terms of overall law review membership and leadership positions. Good news, right?
Ms. JD conducted a similar study for 2011-2012, using the 2011 U.S. News top 50 law schools, and made the following findings:
The overall percentage of women who are members of law reviews, 42.75 percent, correlates strongly with the number of women awarded law degrees during the same time period, 47.3 percent.
The percentage of women in leadership positions on law reviews, 41.53 percent, also correlates strongly with the number of women awarded law degrees during the same time period, 47.3 percent.
That’s where the good news ends, because when it came to the position of editor-in-chief, the number of women holding the title in Ms. JD’s first study was “disproportionately low,” at just 33 percent. This year, that percentage was even lower — only 28.6 of the EICs at the nation’s top 50 law schools were women. Keep in mind that these are the women who are expected to go on to become law professors, federal judges, Biglaw partners, and Fortune 500 general counsels.
Why, then, are they being overlooked for the title of editor-in-chief, year after year?
* The Village Voice is stepping away from Backpage due to its ties to sex trafficking. “This so unfair! Everyone loves online prostitution,” said no one ever (okay fine, a lot of people probably say that). [paidContent]
* Cybersecurity, drones, and smackdowns, oh my! [Lawfare]
* Right now, millions of taxpayer dollars fund legal scholarship. Considering how expensive law review articles seem to be, it’d be nice if law professors could techcite their own material before turning it over to law review peons associate staff members for further review. [PrawfsBlawg]
* We actually needed 25 volumes of things you can’t do on a plane? Apparently common sense is a relic these days. [Legal Blog Watch]
* Should you go to law school? That’s apparently the question on everyone’s mind, so Professor Deborah Merritt of Ohio State Law and Kyle McEntee of Law School Transparency are here to help you out. [NerdWallet]
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 protected].
Since late last year, things have been booming in Hong Kong / China in cap markets, especially Hong Kong IPOs. M&A deal flow has recently been getting a bit stronger as well. Although one can’t predict such things with any certainty, all signs are pointing to a banner entire 2014 for the top end US corporate and cap markets practices in Hong Kong / China. This is not really new news, as its been the feeling most in the market have had for a few months now and things continue to look good.
The head of our Asia practice, Evan Jowers, has been in Hong Kong for about 10 days a month (with trips every other month to both Shanghai and Bejing) for the past 7 months, and spending most of his time there meeting with senior US hiring partners at just about all the major US and UK firms there, as well as prospective candidates at all associate levels and partner levels, and when in the US, Evan works Asia hours and is regularly on the phone with such persons, as our the other members of our Asia team. Our Yuliya Vinokurova is in Hong Kong every other month and Robert is there about 5 times a year as well. While we have a solid Asia team of recruiters, Evan Jowers will spend at least some time with all of our candidates for Asia position. We have had long standing relationships, and good friendships in some cases, with hiring partners and other senior US partners in Asia for 8 years now.
The evolution of relationships between the genders continues. Currently, in law firms, there is an interesting conundrum; balancing the desire for a gender-blind workplace where “the best lawyer gets the work and advances” and the reality of navigating the complicated maze created by the fact that, in general, men and women do possess differences in their work styles. These variations impact who they work with, how they work, how they build professional connections and how organizations ultimately leverage, reward and recognize the talents of all.
Henry Ford sat on his workbench and sighed. A year earlier, he had personally built 13,000 Model Ts with his own hands. Fashioning lugnuts and tie rods by hand, Ford was loath to ask for help. Sure, there were things about the car that he didn’t quite understand. This explains the lack of reliable navigation systems in the Model T. But Ford persevered because he knew that unless he did everything, he could not reliably call these cars his own.
“Unless my own personal toil is responsible for it, it may as well be called a Hyundai,” Ford remarked at the time.
The preceding may sound unfamiliar because it is categorically untrue. And also monumentally stupid. Henry Ford didn’t build all those cars by hand. He had help and plenty of it. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, Henry Ford opened up the most technologically advanced assembly line the world had ever seen. Built on the premise that work can be chopped up into digestible pieces and completed by many men better than one, the line ushered in an age of unparalleled productivity.
Today, an attorney refers business because he can’t do everything the client asks of him.
There are three reasons why this is way dumber than a made-up Henry Ford story…