Garrett has more on laptops in response to a bit by Waddling Thunder (and of course, Waddling Thunder replies to Garrett's remarks).
I left a lengthy comment on gTexts. But I won't write any more.* I think this topic has been beaten absolutely to death.
* Okay, I might have to renege on that, but I promise it will be useful and thoughtful if I do.
I really thought Cosmo was the last place I would find anything remotely legal. I was wrong!
In the October issue, Cosmo gives advice in one of their latest educational articles, (ahem) How to Seek Pleasure in Public Places. Yes, of course you could get busted for public indecency.
But the laugh of my day was Judge Posner quoted as saying "the law won't side with your lust." Posner edited A Guide to America's Sex Laws.
I don't even want to imagine all the law & economics arguments he must have dreamed up.
Brit Mike Batt has settled a UK copyright suit against him for an undisclosed six-figure amount for "copying" John Cage's silent 4'33" in his own silent A One Minute Silence.
That's right. Infringement of silence. Utterly absurd. Admittedly, Batt credited Cage for co-authorship of the song. But you just can't get around the fact that there is no other way to express the concept of silence except, well, by silence.*
For non-legal types: this is an example of the merger doctrine, which protects ideas that can only be expressed in only one or a few ways from becoming monopolized by a grant of copyright.
* Of course you can describe the silence, or say it was deafening, or paint blue and expect someone to think, "ooh, silence!" but essentially there is only one way to be silent.
It seems a tad silly that this is directed towards first-year students. Those to be selected are likely to have shown promise in another graduate field. It is axiomatic to say that nearly all law students at top schools showed promise in their undergraduate work. To differentiate students who merely profess to be interested in legal academia from those who would excel at it requires something more than an undergraduate record and a great essay, namely, a record of excellence in graduate work and/or teaching.
Another solution -- to award the fellowship to students who top the class in their first year of law school -- doesn't solve the problem, either. I can say without doubt that law school grades are wildly unpredictable. And I can't imagine they predict the ability of a person to do serious, original, and valuable research, as first year doesn't really have anything to do with the ability to teach or the ability to practice law (much like the LSAT is a poor predictor of success in law school).
Targeting J.D. students for academia is neither necessary nor appropriate. I cannot say without sarcasm or humor the J.D. curriculum is designed to educate law students for careers in legal practice. However, it is not particularly calculated to prepare students for careers in legal academia. Separating students 'destined' for professorships is a bad idea in several respects. Legal academics should have training in the real-world practice of law. Otherwise, theory becomes disconnected from reality and legal theory becomes useless. Moreover, those chosen few may find out that they aren't really suited for the academic life -- what then? Theory is great, but it's not exactly contract drafting.
The basic law degree is considered graduate education -- more accurately, professional education -- but it's not the sort of graduate education that is required of students in other disciplines. Many J.D.s already labor under the conceit that their degrees are as rigorous as doctorates in those other fields and it's silly to reinforce that misconception. We aren't required to undergo oral exams or comprehensives or defend serious research [and a "presentation" is hardly a defense]. I couldn't even consider the bar exam to be as rigorous as those tests.
One of the reasons "no law school has offered training comparable to that received by students in other graduate programs" is precisely because a very few institutions do offer graduate law programs. The J.D. is simply not intended to be actual preparation for the professional study & teaching of law. The LL.M. (or S.J.D.) might not currently be the best solution, but it's better than this one. If it takes a few more years, well, what's the rush? Aren't there too many people that want to be professors anyways?
My real difficulty with this is the lauded "improvement" without any. There's a little more research, a little more writing, a tad bit of public speaking. I might be more amenable to the proposal if it included rigorous training on research methodology and classroom pedagogy. Intuition is great, but training is better. Then again, that's probably what an LL.M. should be for. You just can't pack it all in to three years without shorting professors out of the legal (and hopefully a bit of real world) instruction they need in order to connect with future students.
Without a serious attempt at reform of legal academia, just let it all sort itself by the end of law school. The researchers and writers know who they are. They'll publish a note or two in school, go on to clerk, maybe nab an LL.M., and then throw themselves to the wolves at the meat market. They'll struggle through the first few years of juggling classes & writing (publish or perish!): a few will be brilliant, more will falter, some will fail horribly and permanently damage the psyche of an aspiring lawyer.
After all, that's the way it's always been!
A professor from GMU weighs in on the other side of the laptop debate. Professor Davies notes that when there is no keyboard chatter emanating from the lecture hall, students don't think there is anything of interest to write down. Professors get feedback automatically!
This is about the last person I'd expect to see argue that tattooing is a form of protected First amendment speech. Even Massachusetts (headquarters of the blue laws!) allows tattooing now.
You just don't know what funny is until you've seen the guests leave from an illicit tattoo party.
This has got to be a first: the winner of last night's Miss America competition is a future law student. Miss Illinois is deferring her entry to HLS in order to fulfill her duties.
The government may not be compelled to provide sexually explicit materials for sale on DoD installations, but shouldn't they examine said materials for explicitness on an equal basis?
While Playboy and Celebrity Skin are allowed (appealing primarily to men), Cosmopolitan is the only publication on the list that appeals primarily to women. Cosmo is a lot of things, but it's not quite at Playboy's level. Playboy is equally explicit as Playgirl. (Except, you know, Playboy has those great articles...)
Either both should be on the list or off the list. Nudity is neither more or less explicit because it portrays a person of a certain gender. Biological differences in arousal should not lead to the legal conclusion that photographs of males are hard-core pornography while those of women are not. Classifying the two differently merely reflects male biases in the law, allowing men easier access to pornographic portrayals of women.
Frankly, I think the DoD's motivation in placing Playgirl on the banned list reflects a different motivation: a brief search reveals Playgirl's main audience is gay men. Unfortunately, the case involved a facial challenge to the statute on the equal protection claim (which included both gender- and race-based discrimination, p. 13893). It's unclear if the parties argued intent to discriminate against women because of gay men's interest in the magazine. It would be interesting to see what a court would do with it.
I can't believe I just spent that much time talking about porn.
I do believe CNN is hell-bent on getting me to stop visiting entirely. I've noticed in the past six months half of their news stories appear approximately 6-18 hours after an initial appearance on The Drudge Report. Of the remainder, the very few worthwhile ones are posted on Drudge. I can no longer actually read the page because it's so smooshed together.
Yet another media source down the drain! I remember when CNN Online was a novel idea (and we thought we were so cool for watching the '96 presidential returns online!). There's only so much lamenting I can do. After all, CNN's hulking behemoth can hardly be expected to keep up with my feed reader!
Besides, I'm still ticked at them for dumping "News of the Weird" from the home page a couple of years ago.
I guess I must be serving up some rankling commentary to get indexed by CyberAlert, one of those media monitoring companies that crawls for company references. Excellent!
Bear Stearns follows Lehman Brothers and Deutsche Bank in telling employees to "suit up or ship out" [at this point I think we've exhausted the entire lexicon of nautically related metaphors]. Those who dare challenge the leviathan will at least get a stern dressing-down.
I would definitely look for this to happen soon in at least a few firms that switched to business casual.
This month's JD Jungle (one of those hip & irreverent magazines, except it's for law students, so it's kind of an oxymoron) has advice from a legal secretary who's seen 30 new classes of associates buzz through the firm.
Unfortunately, the article isn't online yet. I'll post it when it becomes available. [Post updated to include link.]
Law students should read it for the sage advice, including gems like "Don't Dip Your Quill in the Company Ink."
This is what we call a special-purpose limitation! It seems like a waste of money. If sophisticated copy protection can be defeated with a magic marker, how is a wee bit o' glue going to stop anyone from copying?? [Via those wonderful guys at DE Law Office!]
TPB discusses laptops in the context of classroom respect with some astute asides on the purpose of the professoriate. This year, I've witnessed a student (with a laptop, no less) read a book, a magazine, play on a handheld computer, do a crossword, and generally be disrespectful. I think anyone who is dead set against paying attention to class will find a way, laptop or not.
I think the site had a wee meltdown yesterday. You didn't miss much, as I've been sick! I'll be back to normal soon enough, though.
Lawyers appear low in public status. So instead of doing something productive and substantial about it, we're advertising!
More excellence by Waddling Thunder! My answer, of course, is to never ever become the windbag. Say whatever you've got, then stop. You'll be known as the one that dispenses pearls of wisdom. All will thrill at your speech because they will know you will share no extraneous thoughts. The birds will sing and the heavens will open and shower praise upon you.
Okay, not really, but people won't hate you, either.
I really wish I had blogged my first year.
Jeff Cooper gives a professorial view of laptops in the classroom (responding, in part, to a previous post).
I must protest that the comments (at least mine) on game-playing are largely facetious. I rarely play games on my computer (and 90% of the time it's solitaire -- a game that's easily interrupted). I mostly pop it open when I am falling asleep in class. I haven't had to resort to game-playing this year -- my classes aren't absolute snoozefests (yay!). Of course students with laptops will sometimes play games, but when I prefaced my comments on the usefulness of laptops with a funny remark about game playing, I meant it to be the exception to the rule.
As for paying attention in class, I might pay a little more attention [as I do admit to a few games of dots] if my fellow students actually read the assigned readings. In all of my larger classes it is necessary to beat a point of law to death before everyone understands it. I'm from the school of thought that assumes everyone knows the blatant and blunt ideas that are available; class time should be spent on discovering the intricacies. I prepare for my classes. I know what the professor is speaking of when he or she asks questions. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and class becomes a monumental waste of time when I have to sit through the torture of the socratic method being inflicted upon a skimmer.
And the value of the laptop in the learning process? My notes are all in one place. I have my notes from the cases, the notes from class, and my inchoate class outlines. I can read my cases off my laptop instead of wasting paper printing them out (I have a 97.3% chance of losing any loose piece of paper). I can actually read what I write. I don't have to write down any black-letter law because it's right there. Instead, I can focus on the ambiguities or interesting tangents. I don't concentrate on writing everything down. In fact, I probably spend most of the class with my hands off the keyboard because of aforementioned nonsense.
Comparing my classes now with my undergraduate classes, I can see how my retention of the material has really improved. There, something truly interesting would be mentioned, but I would forget about it because I just couldn't get it down. Here, I can capture everything of interest and whittle later.
As for the observation on the lack of preparedness of today's students, one might also blame the availability of modern how-to guides for law school that repeatedly emphasize the value of learning the black letter law. The conclusion that today's students lack understanding of the material cannot be supported on the rise of laptops alone.
In sum, I truly don't believe I'm losing out because I use a laptop. I pay too damned much not to pay attention. I wouldn't argue that I pay tuition in order to blow off class; that's a truly asinine argument. Anyone who believed me to imply that is just plain wrong.
By the way, if professors want us to pay more attention, don't tell us when we'll be on call. That's a surefire way to get students to not pay attention, especially if the material isn't especially engaging. I know from observation that students are far more prepared and pay much more attention when professors regularly call on fifteen or more students per class. You never know if or when you'll be called on. You can't risk not paying attention or not doing the reading. Ask questions and then call on a student. There are ways of striking the fear of god into a student without focusing on them for an entire class.
No, not me! This is the best Cafe Press gear I've seen yet!
Waddling Thunder has a great little post on the students who engage in psychotic post-class harrassment of professors.
As one of my professors from last year mentioned this week, "Those people? We [the professors] hate those people!"
The admonition to Make Law School Relevant is a good one.
My advice on law school courses: take ones that you love (except for your first year, when [mostly] you can't help it). I love my classes this year! It's like a nice shiny lightbulb snapped on in Wonderland. I'm so damned happy, it's kind of disgusting.
I tried to stay away from the news coverage today. I caught a few things early this morning, but tuned out on the later afternoon broadcasts. The comments that broadcasters make to fill the silences can be downright bizarre. They've never quite gotten the concept that it's okay to just be silent.
I did finally have a chance to see the documentary 9/11 on CBS. It was so raw and so powerful and so honest. I can't believe I missed it the first time around.
Nixon Peabody and Hutchins, Wheeler & Dittmar have signed a "memorandum of understanding to merge." Unfortunately, some lawyers will have to be canned if they occupy "duplicative positions."
The new firm will be keeping Nixon's name. I guess we know who'll wear the pants in the family (and which duplicative lawyers will be disinherited). I'm crossing my fingers they'll keep Hutch's website and dump Nixon's. That blue and red navigation bar really makes my eyes go batty. And HWD has FISH!
Excerpt from Press Release (taken off NP's site)
...
The Memorandum of Understanding will be followed by a definitive agreement that, if approved by the partners of both firms, will result in a combined firm operating under the Nixon Peabody name. Both firms feel that they have strong cultural and practice compatibility and that an eventual merger would be mutually beneficial. Nixon Peabody would move closer to its strategic goal of expanding its services in major metro markets and increasing its depth in several practice areas. Hutchins, Wheeler and Dittmar would be able to significantly expand services to its clients in other major markets and offer them a more extensive range of services. If the merger is completed, some modest staff reductions, dictated by practice synergies, are likely to be necessary.
Citigroup "wants to rid [Salomon Smith Barney] of the legal and regulatory problems confronting it." So it's moving Citi's COO (and former lead counsel) over to Salomon Smith Barney to become its new CEO. Buffett did the same thing in 1991 when one of the bank's traders was caught manipulating the market for US Treasury Securities.
Somehow a former exec believes the 1991 reshuffling was a success. If it was successful, why do they have to do it again? I'd really hate to see what a failure looks like.
I don't think this article accurately conveys the importance of paralegals (and it completely ignores secretaries). I'm pretty sure that it's always a bad move as a first-year to assume you know more than the support staff. They know more than you do about the actual practice of law, they can do it better, and are smarter (if for the simple reason they're not stupid enough to work crazy hours).
And whatever you do, don't piss off the people in the typing pool.
Morgan Lewis is following Dechert's lead and bumping first-year salaries to $125k. Apparently they did so even though they laid off 50 associates last year. Probably not the best of moves for per partner profits.
I am sure the question that is weighing heavily on all our minds is, When will Howard's firm jump into the fray? They're currently at $105k, according to NALP (even in NYC!). Perhaps I should be asking if being in Howard's presence is worth $20k a year. Well, it is Howard!
The Boston Business Journal was very busy this week reporting on major inter-firm defections, the difficulties NY firms face when expanding into Boston, and Testa's use of the "performance review" as a layoff device (not really anything new there!).
Characteristically, Testa's managing partner denies that layoffs were done under the guise of performance based terminations. I've heard way too many rumors to chalk it up to normal firing practices. There are plenty of ways to squeeze someone out of a job, and this is one of them. (Unfortunately, it's also rather nasty, as it hinders the job search for the newly freed associate.)
Things aren't looking good for Mintz Levin. Partners are leaving, profits are dropping, and they've made major cuts of support staff. Now they're bribing incoming first-year associates to walk with $20k or stay with a $3k per month stipend (deferring to next fall) and a non-compete agreement.
That's a pretty raw deal. At least Brobeck is including incentives to work in the public interest in their plan.
Dean Schmalensee says that "management schools are not nurseries for felons" (but see my earlier comments). Other schools are being more proactive in the fight against unethical behavior among b-school graduates.
Something about Sloan's attitude towards ethics really rubs me the wrong way. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it could be the arrogance in assuming that its graduates just don't need ethics instruction. It's as if they're instilling the idea that the students are just too good to worry about public concerns. I'm sure all the handcuffed executives thought they were too powerful or too rich or too smart to worry about such petty concerns, too.
This has to be the most asinine quotation I've read in the past week:
Fortunately, I'm not a public figure, so I can say whatever I'd like!
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the use of the word "seen" in headlines. Why use this ridiculous addition when it can just as easily be omitted? Add the phrase "are said" to the list, too.
I can understand the need to express hesitation or doubt. That's what "might" or "may be" are for. "Is seen" just sounds stupid. What's worse is when news anchors start saying it.
Have you ever seen a blog use such a construction?
While clicking through news stories on my feed reader, I suddenly got this error message from a feed supplied through News Is Free:
The number of times you seem to have been clicked through links in the last few minutes which is not consistant with what we consider regular web surfing behavior. Please try following this link again in a few minutes.
Then again, it's the first time I've ever seen a website actually limit link usage instead of merely threaten to do so.
First Year Associate Salary: $125,000.
New Big-City Firm Wardrobe: $5,000.
Sucking on a partner's shoe: Priceless.
I just might be in love. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan has just revamped their recruiting website. Explore. It's funny. I promise.
Garrett reports that his international law prof banned laptops in the classroom. I've been known to play a few games of Snood on ye olde laptoppe, but I don't abuse it.
In fact -- because I don't have to worry about reading my handwriting later -- I can type what I want to remember from class, freeing myself from stenographer mode. I can't even remember what I've recorded when I'm scribbling down notes. Normally I only type up ideas as to what the professor is really getting at but never does (inevitably because some tool is wasting class time to hear himself speak).
I'd seriously drop the class if the professor banned laptops. I pay too damned much not to be in control of my educational experience.
Ernie ponders on the difference between ethics and professionalism. Sam Heldman adds his own perspective. Eugene Volokh has this* to add (sorry, couldn't help myself).
* See the 5:46pm entry. [Which was blank. In my twisted little sleep-deprived mind, it was funny. Really.]
Held in Contempt is ranting about the atrocious grammar in David E. Kelley's newest show girls club. But she forgot to rant about the title!! We'll forgive her this once. (Or perhaps she deferred to Kelley's artistic license) I'm just upset it's not set in Boston. Where else but on a David E. Kelley show can you hear the atrocious accent that we all love?
I thought I stepped into Blade Runner for a moment, but I was just really just reading about the law school classroom of the future. The description just gives me the willies.
I know I'm a little obsessed with Chirelstein (really, I just can't explain it), but I must note that he never went to class. Law students aren't children -- and they don't need to be compulsively tracked. I also know a few law professors who wouldn't submit to such privacy invasions.
I am just too disturbed that someone thinks this is a good idea to comment any further. Except to ponder why the professor stands behind a desk that is five feet high. I couldn't even see over the top of such a monster!
Corporate board members are going back to school to learn how to play fair. These industry leaders were delighted to learn all manner of fun things, like the definition of retained earnings (even I could tell you that one!) and to whom they owe their fiduciary responsibility (shareholders, stakeholders, or the CEO). It shouldn't surprise you that most of them had no clue. A whopping 80% of directors on audit committees got the question on retained earnings wrong.
Take-a-board-member-to-school-day also covered practical matters, such as how to give a deposition, how to pick an outside lawyer, and when to destroy documents.
Also, for the first time ever, someone told them to tell the truth. I foresee immediate and lasting changes in corporate governance! (Well, at least it's a start.)
And the best quote of the day award goes to the episode "Big Cats" on The Ultimate Guide on the Discovery Channel:
The Boston Business Journal reported to me: 6 lawyers, 5 partners, 3 secretaries all left Peabody!*
The group, which practices real estate, is moving to Nutter. Nutter's managing partner "emphasized that Nutter didn't approach Peabody with the idea of acquiring a practice group." (emphasis added) Of course, if they hadn't bothered to emphasize it, we probably wouldn't think that's exactly what happened. Some lawyers should just learn the value of keeping their mouths shut.
* To be sung to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas"
A new law blogger is writing on the subject of leaving grad school and switching to law school. I recommend these two posts for advice and thoughts about choosing to go to law school.
By the way, a hornbook is a big ugly huge fat book, sometimes with bible-thin pages to accommodate its heft. Unless you're reading Chirelstein. (I am in love with Chirelstein.) Anyways, back to hornbooks, they are normally boring and useless. You can read them if you really have the burning desire, or you could do something actually useful, like volunteer at your community organization of choice.
While I'm on the subject, One-Ls, don't rush to your nearest campus bookstore to load up on study aids. Figure out your classes first, then consider buying the one study aid (primer, outline, &c.) that most closely tracks your course's content. There are classes for which there are no useful study aids (my civil procedure class comes to mind).
Some conservative watch-dog group has called Buffy the Vampire Slayer an "an immoral, violent lust-a-thon," which is totally why I love it!
What I think is really humorous is that this offended watch-dog group actually reprints the foul language that is so offensive.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
This page is the top-ranked page in Google for "law school gunner." How very exciting! (Via some destitute soul's misguided search in my referrer logs)
I think I've figured out the next "perk" firms will dream up. That way you'll get to buy your own gadgets and you'll still be reachable 24/7!!
Note to naive law students -- all those wireless gadgets and other perks aren't all they're cracked up to be.
I'd like to think I am important and influential enough to have inspired this opinion piece (WSJ subscribers only -- if you have Westlaw access, 2002 WL-WSJ 3403839). Of course, I know that is entirely untrue -- most judges don't really surf the web for kicks. It's even less likely that they're huge blog fans. But you never know, do you? (We do know that I am entirely too self-important. I just like to say I have good self-esteem.)
But I digress. The current defectors are (according to the Federal Law Clerk Information System): Justices Chester J. Straub (2nd), Jerry Smith (5th), and C. Arlen Beam (8th).
Iffy: Justice Raymond C. Clevenger (Federal - note that "being consistent with the federal hiring plan" means only to not hire clerks until 3L fall). All other appellate judges that have opened hiring for 2004-2005 positions are only hiring 3Ls or those who have already completed district clerkships.