Career Services Office: Truth About How Big Law Firms Hire
During the first few weeks and months of law school, 1Ls are blissfully unaware of the realities of the legal world. All that matters at that point is getting to class and being prepared. There are no worries about improving grades or maintaining grades, because there are no grades to improve upon or maintain. The ugliness that some students can exhibit hasn’t shown itself fully. Jobs are not a concern, because many law schools prohibit full time students from working, and legal employers are not allowed to talk to 1Ls until November of their first year. Except for a select few who have seen through the looking glass, many believe that whatever job they want will be theirs for the taking, and that employers will fight over who gets to hand them $2000 per week in the coming summer.
In light of this naivety, it is no surprise that when the Career Services office hauled my class into school on a Saturday in early November of our first year, attendance was robust. Sure, we were giving up half of a Saturday, but this was the vaunted Career Services office. They were all knowing, all powerful. With just a simple phone call, they could have potential employers in a bidding war over your services. Or so the story went. By sitting through this meeting, we would know just how much we could expect to be earning come May, and just how easy it would be to get those jobs.
Naturally, when so little is known about an entity, stories about it are invented to make up for the lack of real information. How were we supposed to know that Career Services is typically worthless? That we could get better advice from the homeless guy who hangs out around campus? That the only people it can actually help find a job are those people who don’t need help finding jobs in the first place? That spending your Saturday morning counting the number of tiles in your kitchen would be infinitely more productive?
After listening to the Dean of the school and the Dean of Career Services each deliver the exact same fifteen minute long speech, our guest speakers arrived. They included someone from the Prosecutor’s office, a couple of attorneys from small and mid-sized firms around town, and the hiring partner from a large and prestigious firm in a nearby city. The big firm hiring partner stuck out. He wore a $2000 suit, $500 shoes, a $200 tie, and a $100 haircut, while the other collectively looked like the bargain rack at Sears. As the other people took turns speaking, he looked bored, aggravated, annoyed, and eventually, homicidal. I could tell he didn’t belong, and my mind raced as to why he was there. Finally, it was his turn to speak. Most of the students in the room perked up. After all, the big firms, that’s where the money is. This guy is sure to give some insights, right?
I don’t remember exactly what he said, but it was brief, harsh, and completely deflated the hopes and dreams of many in that room. His message boiled down to this: “We don’t hire 1Ls, and even if we did, we wouldn’t hire any of you.”
Many people were shocked and appalled by his candor, while I was refreshed. For the first time, I could see law school for what it was. Of all people, a big firm hiring partner gave me a better perspective on life.
[thanks to poeloq and barely legal via cc]
The Law School Difference Between Memos, Briefings, & Briefs
First, a quick disclaimer: This is a suggested guide for a law school memo. In practice, legal memo format vary from firm to firm.
Before drafting a memo, do a quick outline denoting key issue(s) and relevant cases (with cites) that support or weakens the case. Keep in mind that a memo is supposed to take on a neutral tone (as opposed to the advocacy tone attached to a legal brief).
Once you identify the relevant cases, group them together into following:
- Group A: Cases supporting plaintiff’s assertion #1
- Group B: Cases opposing plaintiff’s assertion #1 (and in effect supporting defendant’s contention)
- Group C: Cases supporting plaintiff’s assertion #2 (the “Even if contention #1 fails” argument)
- Group D: Cases opposing plaintiff’s assertion #2 (and in effect supporting defendant’s contention)
Once the cases are grouped, make a decision as to who the Court is likely to favor and explain why. Match the key facts to the prevailing rules of law.
Briefing v. Brief: What’s the Difference?
Do not confuse briefing with a brief. The former is a study method used in law school and the latter is a legal document presented to a court of law.
First year law students are encouraged to “brief” a case, that is, to identify the relevant facts, the legal issue, the rule of law (the holding), the analysis (how the court came to that particular conclusion) and conclusion (is the court siding with the lower court’s decision, reversing the lower court’s decision, or reversing in part and remanding/sending back the case to the lower court?)
The name “briefing” is a misnomer. Often, a professor will spend 15-45 minutes on a case and calling various students to share his/her case briefing with the rest of the class. Briefing is a skill you attain by reading many cases and learning to spot the legal issues and rules. This is particularly challenging because the ease of spotting a rule in a case (a holding) is closely associated with how well the judge writes. Some judges write in a straight-forward manner and organize the opinion in a logical format. Other judges like to meander a bit and inject the opinion with his/her opinion about the policy behind the law.
It may be easier to separate the brief into two aspects: procedural (which court is issuing the opinion, what the lower courts held, and what will happen to the case after the decision made by the issuing court) and the substantive aspect (is the court issuing the opinion changing/making law, upholding precedent, or distinguishing current case from precedent?)
As a first year law student, your goal is to try to figure out the general pattern of an opinion and zero in key words associated with the holding/rules of law. As to whether or not to highlight the brief in different colors, it depends on whether you are a visual learner or not. If coloring does nothing to help you differentiate the sections, then the act of slathering highlighters over printed words merely distract you from focusing on the meaning of the words. From my own experience, I find it easier to simply use a color-coded bracket (or straight line) drawn on the side of the paragraph (to denote which section is the issue, relevant facts, key rules from precedent cases, the holding of the court issuing the opinion, and the procedural posture as well as the final decision. I would circle key words for emphasis when necessary.
[thanks to aj82 and shelley via cc]
Random Thoughts on Libaries, Internet, Constitution, & WHORE
Admittedly, there’s no official diagnosis to narcolepsy, but I’m suspecting that’s what I have because I find myself dozing off every 5 minutes or so. One moment I would be reading about “suspect classifications” and my next conscious thought was about something else completely unrelated to Con Law. I looked at my notes and somehow, I had jumped all the way to “non-fundamental rights.” Tomorrow is going to be a very long day.
I’m not sure how to keep myself awake. I’ve tried just letting myself fall asleep naturally. I ended up sleeping 12 hours and feeling like I barely slept a wink. I’ve tried taking sleeping aid but that knocked me off for at least 6 hours, which means if I don’t go to sleep early, I wouldn’t be able to wake up in time for the exams.
I’ve often wondered how often I’d fallen asleep in all of my classes. Looking at my notes, it seems that I’ve missed quite a chunk of lecture (esp. con law). So did my non-narcoleptic friends. It seems like our whole class had a black-out everytime we attend con law lecture. Now I need to figure out how to keep myself focused on this long exam.
It’s not that the subject matters aren’t interesting. They are. In terms of substance, I find this semester more invigorating than last semester. The problem lay in the fact that the schedule is too demanding. We simply couldn’t handle extra classes three days in a row at 8am in the morning. There’s only so much my brain could absorb in one day. More than one professor protested the schedule assigned to my section, but the person in charge of Records & Registration was unmoved.
Almost to the end. Almost. I just need to survive through 5 more days.
W.H.O.R.E. Witness Having Other Reasonable Explanation
Usage: Criminal Law
My favorite quote from my crim law professor:
“If I’m going to be labeled a W.H.O.R.E. by working for free or charging a fee, I rather be a high class W.H.O.R.E.”
The Library or Internet Decision
When the internet was first invented, I barely noticed it. When AOL began its mass CD-mailing campaign, I barely winked. When my brother taught me the purpose of internet (e.g. chatting, e-mailing), I finally began to believe that there is some sort of purpose to this technology called “internet.”
A decade after my first brush with the world wide web, I stopped frequenting the local library. The reason? I can look-up all the information on the internet. With the exception of textbooks, the internet has offered interesting articles in place of out-dated paperbacks. Why bother watch one hour of painful local news when I can simply skim and select the type of news that interests me at my own pace during the time of my choice?
The internet revolution has changed the legal world as well. In our research and writing class, instead of learning the library codes, we learn about using online database to look up case law and treatises. In fact, some of us grumbled when the instructor told us that we had to learn the “traditional” method of legal research — going through rows of old books to locate an annotated case from the early 19th century, and so on.
And now, I can’t imagine what I would do without the internet. It’s not only my source of entertainment, but an essential part of my academic and professional life.
The United States Constitution and Governmental Duties to Individuals
It is common perception that the U.S. Constitution is one of the most powerful documents in the world. The U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights and protects citizens against government abuses.
It comes as a shock that in fact, the Constitution actually says very little about the government’s duties to individuals.
In general, the Constitution prohibits the State from depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law,” but as Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out, the language of the Constitution does not impose an affirmative obligation on the state to protect individuals from each other.
What power does the federal government have? The broadest powers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is the taxing and spending power. When the federal government wants something done, it needs to entice individual states to exercise its powers through financial incentives.
There exists a tension between the desire of wanting the government to stay out of your life, but step in to help you when the time is appropriate. The problem is that no one seems to have a handle on the government.
Another tension is the relationship between the federal government and the state government. The Constitution implicitly grants the state immense power, stating un-enumerated powers (not reserved for federal government) are reserved for the states. Unfortunately, discprencies in state standards for health care and policing make one wonder why is there no national standard?
The Constitution is a flexible framework, but it is a silent document. Is it time to amend the Constitution to make sure it serves the general population and not expose the vulnerable people to political whims?
[thanks to stan.faryna, kaibara87 and shelley's case via cc]
