Who Owns The Fox?

Nothing new or interesting here.

2009-05-09T00:00:00.000-07:00

Just the shriveled remains of something that used to pass as a law student blog.

The End

2009-05-08T15:30:00.000-07:00

Epilogue

2008-09-14T23:20:00.000-07:00

This is not a comeback, but merely an epilogue to the blog, to inform you that I survived my summer at the alcohol-imbibing summer camp. And to let you know that all of my predictions in my last post have come true.

1. I had a great 12 weeks and did not do anything stupid at summer camp (at least nothing that got back to the partnership or the recruiting department). It seems that WORM, the sponsors of the summer camp, liked me enough to give me the wonderful opportunity to come back after graduation to bill 2000+ hours a year so as to help finance 2L summer camp in the future. Which I will not be taking (at least not immediately).

2. I will be clerking post-graduation for the Hon. Lifetime Appointment, someone smart enough and/or politically connected enough to earn him/herself a spot on the federal bench. He/she was also smart enough to be a so-called "off-program" judge who hires law clerks before the official process. I attribute my good fortune of being able to avoid the awful mess that is OSCAR to a combination of people skills, a decent golf game, and a lot of luck. Did I mention that I briefly dated in college his/her daughter, something I found out only by looking at family photos in the judge's chambers?

3. I am in school 2 days a week, and am having a blast as a 3L. I can't say that I will miss law school, but I will definitely miss life as a 3L. Life is good.

4. Advice to all the new 1Ls: the ONLY thing you should focus on this year is your grades. Whether you earn them by cramming every night in the library or by sleeping with your professors, getting good grades should be your sole focus. Journals, professor recommendations, and extracurricular activities are all meaningless without grades. Even if you don't want to work for a big law firm, good grades will provide you with something even more valuable: choices.

With that, I bid you farewell.

I say high, you say low

2008-03-31T13:12:00.000-07:00

I've always had an inherently rebellious streak in me.

When I was 9, I opened one of those little packets that protect things against humidity. Because the packet said "do not eat," I ate it. I was fine.

When I was 16, I bleached my hair. When my parents told me to get rid of it, I shaved my head. When my parents got pissed about that, I told them that I merely did what I was told.

My rebelliousness has also led me to eschew labels. I'm the same guy who has voted for both the Governator and Barack Obama. And think that Coastkeeper is a great organization but drives a gas-guzzling SUV at the same time. My rebellious attitude of defying convention has also been taken by some in law school as arrogance.

But how rebellious can I be, you ask, if I went to law school because I was just another English major with no employable skills or job prospects, and did what a million other liberal arts kids have done before me? Or went through OCIP merely because it was what everyone else was doing? I'll admit--you've got me there.

But I doubt that many other law students have ever answered an OCIP interview question about his greatest weakness with a response of "cheap beer." (I still got the offer) Or have taken the managing partner of his summer firm out to eat dollar street tacos from a cart in South L.A. Or turned down an offer from Boalt solely because he wanted to be able to surf while in law school.

I did not start this blog to earn money. (I have not earned a cent). Nor did I start this blog to satisfy my inner fame-seeking exhibitionist (I purposely avoid writing about my personal life) or to get laid (I have only hooked up once as a result of this).

If I don't blog for money, sex, or fame, the traditional motivators in life, then why do I do it? I started this blog to poke fun at as well as to criticize mainstream legal education, as an act of rebellion. The same rebelliousness is also why I am calling it quits. Despite a loyal readership base, I feel that that it is time to go out while I'm ahead. Its purpose has been served. Time for a new generation of law school bloggers to step up.

What's next, in my life you ask? I will be spending this summer at White Old Rich & Male. And take the bare minimum of classes and spend as little time as possible in the law school as a 3L. And enjoy life to the fullest as a 3L.

My rebelliousness is also why I will definitely apply for a clerkship after the summer. Not because I necessarily want to clerk, but because I want to show the establishment that a non-Law Review rebellious surfer-type (though admittedly with a good GPA, the ability to chat up just about anyone, and dashingly good looks) can be in the same position to clerk in the highly traditional federal judiciary as my classmates who carefully made sure that they did all the "right" things in law school.

After that, I'll probably go back to WORM to be a document reviewing drone. While I purposely picked WORM because it is known as an overall "fun" firm, I know that my lack of deference to authority and my tendency to resist being told what to do will not do wonders for my longevity in the law, no matter now "fun" the firm. Which is why, probably after two years there, the best decision of my life will be made when I quit/get fired.

My inner beach bum will then probably take over, when I move to the beach and start a surf school. (What's scary is that I will not be the first biglaw turned surf school owner UCLA Law has produced--but this should come as no surprise given who and where we are.) I will then also get my chance to write the next great American novel, something I have always wanted to attempt. Maybe I'll set up a small legal practice for locals on the side, run out of my beach bungalow/surf school. The greatest part: even after my detour into the formal world of the law, I will not even be 30, and have my entire life in front of me.

Everyone knows that lawyers are generally a risk-adverse bunch who are envious of bankers. Most will roll their eyes at my life plan and scoff at how unrealistic it is or how I'm an idealist. But I'm rebellious enough where I don't care what others, especially lawyers, think of me. At the end of the day, I don't measure personal success via a 7-series or a S-class sitting in my Pacific Palisades driveway. I am not afraid of falling off the "track" simply because I was never on the "track" to begin with.

And I'm comfortable with not getting a secure paycheck if what I get in exchange is the freedom to be my own boss and having the the rush of being solely dependent on myself. And it gives me great comfort knowing how many lawyers will be secretly jealous of my plan, but cannot imagine doing the same because "they're too afraid to" or "they can't afford to."

So, with that, I am officially hanging up my spurs. I had fun. I hope that you did as well.

Given that this is L.A., it would only be appropriate to end with a movie quote. The last scene from The Sum of All Fears.

Grushkov: "I will miss terribly my conversations with Cabot. Perhaps from time to time, we can talk."
Ryan: "I would like that."

One down

2008-03-28T12:29:00.000-07:00

So, apparently, the new US News law school rankings have been leaked. Undoubtedly, there are some people angry that UCLA fell a spot to #16, overtaken by Vandy. Others will be disappointed that we did not crack the mythical "t14." Especially given the efforts that the school and the Dean has made to increase its rankings.

I might be in the distinct minority at the school, but I really don't care that much for its absolute rank--whether UCLA is ranked 14 or 16 or 20. As long as it is the highest-ranked school in Southern California and as long as it is ranked higher than USC, I'll be a happy man.

------------------------------

Email from a reader:
"Just wanted to let you know that you look so scrumptious. Your lady friend as well ;)"

Umm, thanks? I've never been called scrumptious before.

I am on spring break

2008-03-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

I'm currently south of the border with TheLadyFriend, some of her friends from college, and some of my friends from college. And no law students.

See you all soon. Be well.

The hardest part

2008-03-19T16:01:00.000-07:00

Law school is an institution that is heavy on normative influences. Why? Because it is preparing you for the practice of law, a very normative institution that emphasizes propriety and decorum. Which is why there is a desire and a trend in law school to conform to what everyone else is doing. To conform to how everyone else acts. To conform to how everyone else dresses. To conform to how everyone else speaks. Students who come in with varying interests and public interest orientations are channeled and molded on the singular path to jobs as document reviewers and due diligence checkers at big law firms.

But we can't be blamed, can we? Lots of us were probably nerdy in high school and our parents pushed us to achieve so that we could attend the best colleges. In college, after realizing that we are scared by numbers and that we're queasy at the sight of blood, we decided to go to law school. That we are at UCLA tells us that we did pretty well in college and that we spent $1,300 on the right LSAT prep class. In short, we've been guided along the normalizing path since we were all pimple-faced, braces-sporting teenagers.

And now in law school, we shed our personalities and our passions, so that we can become what we think the legal profession expects us to be. We're taught that we need to learn to think like a lawyer. That we need to participate in a student clinic to show our interest in public service. That we need to get to know our professors for references. That we need to do Moot Court. That we need to do Law Review. That we need to apply for clerkships. And that the true geniuses in our class will become law professors. (As a completely unrelated aside, most of my non-law school friends tell me that law students are boring.)

I'm about to set off for a 10-day Spring Break, just as I did last year. I know that most of you are all already committed to torturing yourself for Spring Break. I know that there's a part of you that wants to say "screw it" to "doing what everyone else is doing" but cannot do so because you are simply "too afraid to." I don't ask much--I merely ask you to, probably for the first time ever in your lives, do what you want and not to do what you think others expect of you.

A how-to-guide

2008-03-17T07:09:00.000-07:00

When I was a freshman in high school, I attended a makeout party in a classmate's house (yes, these parties actually exist). There, I also spent 7 scary minutes in a closet with Courtney S. (hey, you too would be scared if you were a cool but dorky 15 year-old guy who finds himself alone in a closet with one of the most popular sophomore girls in school). We all took a purity test there as well, and the main rule was that "all technicalities count" (hey, we all wanted to seem less pure than we actually were). What "all technicalities count" meant was that Jim in the first American Pie technically got to third base with Nadia.

So, how does my embarrassing repressed pubescent memories of a high school party have anything to do with the Law Review writeon?

No, it doesn't mean for you to lock yourself in the closet with the Editor in Chief. It's because my approach I advocate to you for your writeon diversity essay is called "All Technicalities Count." Having let you guys in on the horrors that awaits you on Law Review, I will now show those of you who've nonetheless decided to do the writeon how to approach the diversity essay in a way that maximizes your diversity.

I have no idea what this year's diversity essay will be about. But last year, it was something like "name one issue that was inadequately addressed by your first year classes and what unique perspective would you bring to Law Review" (though I would not be shocked if this was the same essay prompt this year because of Law Review's general lack of creativity). But regardless of the question, what Law Review basically wants to get at is a two-fold discussion of your diversities: your "intellectual" and "racial/ socio-economic/ sexual orientation" diversities.

While Law Review will claim that there are no right answers to the question, there are some answers that are more "right" than others. So, regardless of whether you actually believe in any of the enumerated list, here are some topics I "highly suggest" you write about.

"Right answers" for the intellectual diversity question include:
1. more interdisciplinary approach, known as the "law and" movement (law and economics, law and philosophy, law and gender, etc.)
2. more public-interest focus
3. more focus on sexual orientation impacts and stereotypes in the law
4. more focus on law as a mask for perpetuating the power of elites (critical legal studies)
5. more focus on the impact of race and discrimination in the law (critical race studies)
6. less black letter law and more theory, history, and policy

"Wrong answers" include:
1. more of the law from the white, rich, heterosexual male perspective
2. less of what the law should be and more on what the law is
3. law school is full of liberals and professors should reign in the liberal slant

Don't believe me? Here is an actual line from another internal Law Review memo: "A nondoctrinal approach could draw from critical legal studies, public policy, law and economics, law and literature, feminist jurisprudence, law and philosophy, political theory, critical race studies, or sexual orientation law."

For the "What unique perspective would you bring to Law Review" question, I advocate "All Technicalities Count." Basically, make yourself technically as diverse as possible. Some examples:
1. If you're only a very tiny bit Native American and once went gambling in a Native American casino, write about how you're "a Native American who spent time on a reservation."
2. If your father/mother is a Fortune 500 CEO who didn't spend a lot of time at home because he/she was jetting around the world for business meetings, write about how you were raised "primarily without my dad/mom."
3. If you went to a fancy magnet school in LA or any other "good" public school in LA, write about how you are "a proud product of local LAUSD schools."
4. If you got into USC for college only because your CEO dad is a big sports booster, write how "due to unfortunate family circumstances, I was forced to go to a second-tier university in a bad urban neighborhood."
5. If while in a sorority at the aforementioned University of Spoiled Children you kissed another girl because of a group of frat boys cheered you on, write about how you are LGBT. It is my understanding that among of the cornerstones of sexuality studies is how sexuality is (a) self-identified, (b) fluid, and (c) can change over time.
6. If you're a descendant of British/French/other European colonizers in Africa, write about your "African heritage." Likewise, if you're Egyptian.
7. If you grew up anywhere in LA County, where the "majority" is statistically the "minority," write about "growing up as a racial minority."
8. If you once went to spring break in Cancun/ Acapulco/ Cabo/ Negril/etc., write about how the "time you spent in a developing country really changed you."

While many of you are probably seething at how I am "gaming the system," I present these recommendations as ways to counter what I view to be an illegitimate evaluation mechanism. There is simply no statistical reason why selection of the best 35 Law Review writeon comments and production tests will not produce the requisite diversity (however you want to define that term). Through my "All Technicalities Count" mantra, I'm not encouraging lying, but merely suggesting ways to get as close to the line as possible without crossing it. After all, you cannot be blamed for any inferences Law Review makes about a 1L with "African heritage."

If anything, following my advice will actually help you for your future: isn't showing big corporations aiming to screw over the little guys how to get as close to the line without crossing into illegality what you will be doing anyway in Biglaw?

Law Review and Diversity

2008-03-14T01:43:00.000-07:00

(Note: This post in particular will be condemned by Law Review for it exposes supposedly secret discussions. But because I like my freedom of information, I thought it would be particularly valuable to tell the true story of the diversity essay, something that I was against last year and continue to be against. Because common law views truth as a defense to defamation, the following is a factual recount of how Law Review diversity initiatives came into being. Only in the last paragraph of my post will I give my opinions and conjectures. Law Review leadership: you've got to do a better job to prevent the dissemination of your confidential discussions and memos to people like me.)

Early 2006: A new editorial board of Law Review takes over. One topic that is addressed is diversity on Law Review. A rudimentary outreach program takes place, where a select few minority students in the class of 2008 are "handpicked" and Law Review offers mentoring to those students. A small rift among minority students chosen and those not chosen develops as a result.

Spring break 2006: The writeon for the class of 2008 takes place. Out of 140 students who attempt the writeon, around 1/3 are racial minorities. No diversity statement is used, and thus the selection process is completely blind.

Late-spring 2006: Results of the writeon are announced. 41 students are selected. 39 students are white. Only 2 are minorities (both are East Asian). Law Review is dismayed at the composition, and decides to take steps to counter the impact on racial minorities, particularly on underrepresented students of color.

Summer/early fall: One of the tasks the editorial board does to create a diversity committee to examine ways to increase diversity on Law Review, with increased racial diversity being the main objective of the committee. Knowing framing the issue in terms of increasing racial diversity will be problematic, the issue is framed in terms of "minimizing the disparate impact on students of color."

Fall 2006: The diversity committee starts to meet. Racial diversity continues to be a concern. One member of the committee circulates a memo to members of the Critical Race Studies faculty. The committee starts talking about ways to increase diversity. Among the suggestions are outreach to minority students via the Critical Race Studies program and the ethnic student organizations, providing mentors, and holding special workshops for all minority students to focus on how to do the writeon, and all of the aforementioned proposals eventually gets adopted.

Early 2007: A new editorial board arrives. The memo-writing member of the diversity committee is selected as the new Chief Comments Editor, the head of the department in charge of the writeon. Another committee member is selected as one of the comments editor. The committee continues to meet. The issue becomes framed as of the need of Law Review to edit not just traditional legal scholarship, but also non-traditional interdisciplinary and theoretical scholarship, and hence of the need for Law Review to have members proficient in nondoctrinal theory. The committee also looks at how other Law Reviews at elite schools have responded to a quest to increase diversity. Outreach begins in full force, including the writeon workshop/tutoring sessions for minority students.

February-2007: a draft committee proposal is submitted to the Law Review chiefs. They meet and provide feedback. A final proposal is hammered out. The main focus of the calls for the introduction of a personal statement to sort out applications that are borderline as well as balancing the Law Review packet sources so that they support both doctrinal and nondoctrinal arguments. The proposal is presented during an all-Law Review meeting, and during this very contentious general meeting, there was a heated debate since it is the first time the general members are presented with the planned changes to the writeon process. One of the main topics of discussion is whether the whole intellectual diversity framework is just a guise for race. Finally, by a vote of 24 to 11, the new personal statement is approved to the Law Review writeon. Law Review is careful to stress throughout the meeting of the need for secrecy, asking that the proposal not to be disseminated and all paper copies to be shredded (Whoops!).

Spring break 2007: The writeon occurs for the class of 2009.

April 2007: The members of the class of 2009 who made Law Review are announced. The racial composition of the 36 new staff (before grade-on and transfer writeon) is as follows: 28 whites, 3 East Asians, 3 South Asians, 1 African American, and 1 Latino. [N.B.: the law school admissions office considers South Asians, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans to be underrepresented minorities.] 25% of the new staff are also members of OUTlaw.

Early 2008: A new editorial board is elected. For the first time in its history, the editor in chief and all of the chief editors, the top 4 positions on Law Review, are all occupied by students of color. The diversity committee continues to exist.

-------------------

Note that I have not stated any conclusions, but have merely stated facts, all supported by evidence. Any conclusions and inferences are up to you to make. But lets hope that the increased racial diversity on Law Review, despite the somewhat damning "legislative history," was due to its increased outreach of minority students. Or that the low minority composition of the Law Review class of 2008 was a mere statistical anomaly. Because I would hate to think that the Law Review of a state entity used race as a selection criteria, a direct violation of Proposition 209. As much as I support affirmative action for admissions purposes, I believe that the response should not be through unilateral actions to defy it, but rather to challenge it through the courts or to present additional voter propositions to repeal it.

5 dirty little secrets

2008-03-12T06:01:00.000-07:00

As today is the annual Law Review banquet to celebrate its achievements, I thought it would be appropriate to present its downsides as well (and for there to be something else to talk about at the banquet other than hearing Volokh make grand pronouncements of law).

1. There are many unhappy Law Review members.
The following is a line from an internal memo from the Chief Comments Editor (the person in charge of the writeon) to the rest of the board as to what to say to 1Ls at recruitment events: "But please, if you are in the middle of a cite-checking assignment, remember that Law Review was probably helpful when you were interviewing for jobs." (I'll get to the fallacy of her jobs argument later.) Why did she need to write this to supposedly happy Law Review members? Because more than a handful of its members dislike being on Law Review. Why? Because citechecking sucks. The motivated staff members just recently got promoted to substantive editorial positions. What did the unmotivated and unhappy members get? Managing editor by default. So, they're making unhappy members supervise citechecking, the very activity that made them uphappy in the first place? Great logic.

2. Grades are more important than Law Review.
There are three groups of people who I believe have a legitimate need to be on Law Review: (1) aspiring law professors, (2) aspiring federal appellate clerks, and (3) prestige-conscious masochists. For the rest of you, good grades and not being socially awkward will trump Law Review membership each and every time. Ask any upperclassman with a Biglaw job, and I guarantee that they will corroborate 100% what I just said. Which is why last year, a student who was offered a gradeon spot actually turned it down, an incident that Law Review doesn't publicize for obvious reasons. Having talked to him, I know that he ultimately figured that his grades would land him a job with any firm he wanted come OCIP, without the annoyance of having to be a citecheck slave. Which brings me to...

3. There are Law Review members still without jobs.
What Law Review wants you to believe is: Biglaw ↔Law Review membership. For those of you who just had a dreaded flashback to the LSAT--I'm saying that Law Review wants you to believe that you can get Biglaw if and only if you're on Law Review. What they don't want you to know are the bare numbers. Nor do they want you to know that there are some low GPA and/or socially awkward Law Review members still without jobs. Nor that there were Law Review members who went into fall OCIP shooting for "LA Big 3" but wound up settling for less than they were hoping for.

4. Law review membership doesn't stop people from transferring.
One of my friends last year wrote onto Law Review. He also wound up with pretty good grades 1L year. One would think that Law Review membership is so valuable that members would hold onto the credential for dear life (this is the rationale behind UCLA four years ago instituting the limited gradeon --to hold on to its "stars"). He was accepted as a transfer to Stanford Law and happily gave up his spot on Law Review to go to Stanford. What does it tell you about the value of Law Review membership when other newly-minted members of Law Review applied to transfer last summer as well? Or that the only other UCLA student Stanford accepted as a transfer did not even attempt to writeon?

5. Law Reviews matter less than they used to.
I will admit that Law Review mattered before computers were invented because Law Review articles concentrated information for a judge to cite in his opinion without having to reinvent the wheel. That's why Law Reviews are ranked by the number of times they are cited. But since the advent on the Internet (invented by Al Gore, as we all know), Law Reviews are becoming less and less relevant, leading to less and less cites by judges who can get their research elsewhere. One reason for the Law Review demise is the proliferation of search engines and blogs. Pre-internet, writing, researching, citing, editing, and publication of a Law Review piece took over a year. Now, technology allows professors to disseminate their thoughts instantaneously by clicking "submit," without the annoyance of law student editors dictating their vision of the law to tenured professors--an average one knows infinitely more than even the smartest 3L editor. Likewise, search engines like Google can bring judges a legal answer much faster than a tedious JLR search on westlaw.

And just for kicks, here's another one--
6. This blog is read by many on Law Review.
One of the great things about being technologically sophisticated is that I get to play big brother via my blog and I get to see who my visitors are. And a lot of my visitors are Law Review members themselves. Law Review dislikes me, yet seem to be strangely attracted to this online abode that spews, in their opinion, nothing but absolute falsehoods.

If this whetted your appetite, stayed tuned for something even juicier on Friday, where I will expose the "diversity essay."

It's going to get interesting

2008-03-11T06:12:00.000-07:00

In an effort to commemorate the annual passage known as the spring writeon, I will be publishing a series of posts on the UCLA Law Review over the next few days. These posts are a product of quite a bit of investigative probing, and contains many things that Law Review would rather you not know.

As part of what I consider to be my grand effort to put together a complete picture of Law Review, so that 1Ls get a complete picture of the organization that they are clamoring to join, I will present the following posts in my series:
Wednesday: "5 dirty little secrets"
Friday: "Law Review and diversity"
Monday: "A how-to-guide"

While most people, including me, will grant you that Law Review publishes some good legal scholarship, people still buy too much into its hype and aura, a notion I hope to dispel. These posts have been extensively researched and I have evidence to back up each claim I will make. (I also invite Law Review to respond to any of my claims it feels is inaccurate/unfair.)

Who were my sources? Maybe they were disgruntled Law Review members (there are more than a handful of them!). Or maybe it came from content Law Review members, but who dislike the secrecy of Law Review and believe in the freedom of information. Or maybe from all the Law Review members I slept with to get this info (look at all the things I do for my readers in the pursuit of truth!) Or maybe I hacked into Law Review office and computers at 3AM (you really need to get that weird Kozinski photo off the famous alumni board!). Or perhaps the most outlandish theory of them all--I'm really a Law Review member, and the whole "I'm just a carefree 2L surfer dude not on Law Review" image I try to portray is all just an elaborate shtick. The possibilities are as limitless as Law Review's paranoia.

But, don't worry Law Review. It's not as if anyone reads this piece of garbage, so you don't have to worry about this affecting your image. My blog has managed to get over 54,000 pageloads only because I have no social life and clicked "reload" 54,000 times as I sat alone in my dark room. Or, in the words of the AAA hotel reviewer in Ocean's 13, "I'm just a nobody."

Check back tomorrow for some feather-ruffling.

ka'ching

2008-03-09T21:11:00.000-07:00

Some dumbass rear-ended me today. Apparently he was never taught to recognize that when the traffic light is turning from yellow to red and I have my brake lights on, it means that I am stopping. Oh, well. Another settlement collected by me from someone who realized that buying me off was cheaper than a hit on his insurance.

One thing puzzles me. LA is probably the most car-dependent city in the country. Yet, the drivers in LA are probably the crappiest drivers in the country. For people who regularly put in two hour commutes in addition to their one-block drive from their house to Starbucks, they are really aggressive and don't know how to follow traffic laws. Including the latest one, I've gotten into three accidents in my life (when I was 17, I backed into a woman's grocery cart). And two out of those three were in the last two years in LA.

LA also happens to be the most car-conscious country, and people here think nothing of dropping 100K on the latest automotive offering. Yet from a purely economic perspective, I would think that if I put that much into an investment, I would make sure that it maintains its value. Like bringing it in for regular service, installing a security system, and learning to drive properly so that I don't crash it into some poor law student's piece of crap car while a light is turning red on Sepulveda. Not only will I have to pay off this law student, but I will also then need to spend money to fix up the fancy German automobile I bought to make up for my small "insecurity".

Public service announcement

2008-03-06T19:56:00.000-08:00

Saturday, 3/8 from 6:30-11:00 at Covel Commons is the annual PILF auction. Proceeds go to support summer stipends for students working in public interest. $15 in advance/$20 online/$30 at the door for dinner and open bar, all while helping to support a great cause.

In the meantime, bid for items on the online auction at http://law.ucla.edu/home/apps/pilfauction/Default.aspx

Follow the leader

2008-03-05T00:18:00.001-08:00

1L year, people break into their own cliques and do everything together. Sit in class together, eat together, study groups together, bar review together, spring break, etc. While I personally disapprove of it, the idea of spending your waking moments together with the same group of people is understandable, since you're all forced to take all your classes together with people in your section and need a support network to replace the old one you left behind in college.

But what I find absolutely ridiculous are 2Ls and 3Ls who take classes together. They usually consist of couples or groups of friends who take all the same classes together. There are at least three couples who are consistently in my classes, as well as a group of obnoxious 2L boys that I always see take classes together. For me, one of the luxuries of being a upperclassman is that no classes are determined for you and you get to pick whatever you want. But then, these groups are purposely picking the same classes even if they're not that interested in them, just so that they can spend time together and study together, at the expense of their academic development. Whatever floats your boat, people. But it's not something that I would ever want.

Prom

2008-03-02T00:01:00.000-08:00

Quote of the night at Barristers Ball:

"I am soooo drunk right now."
-repeated countless times by many single female and male law students over the course of the evening on the dance floor.

If you're not socially retarded, you'll understand the significance of the quote, and how those six words leads to a lot of gossip come Monday morning.

All in all, it was a good time.

Prom

2008-02-29T18:20:00.000-08:00

Law school prom tonight. Let's hope for less drama this year (2Ls will know what I mean).

I will be out of action/recovering all weekend.

Woe

2008-02-27T01:44:00.000-08:00

Last year as a 1L, another male 1L and I were out at a local watering hole known for being a undergrad hangout. We were talking to two girls. They said they were first-years. [UCLA doesn't use the freshman, sophomore, etc. categories but uses instead 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years.] Assuming that they were first-year college students, my friend and I said that we were first-year undergrads as well (well, the first-year part was true).

Except that the two of them turned out to be first-year med students. So, I had just talked my way into being 4+ years younger than them. Way to go, genius, I thought to myself. And by then, it was too late for a save.

Fast forward a year. Yesterday, I ran into one of the girls on campus, and who remembered me. And she asks how my 2nd year of college is. Good, I say. Have you decided what you want to major in? English, I say. What do you want to do after college? Probably law school.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

something in the water

2008-02-24T18:09:00.000-08:00

Something to be proud of.

And the best tap water goes to ... L.A.?

"It means they give special care and attention to their water and how it is processed," said event producer Jill Klein Rone.

Spare a dime?

2008-02-22T00:47:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine from college is now in grad school somewhere in a "flyover" state. He was telling me how annoyed he was that his rent for his apartment just got raised. From $275 to a whole $300/month.

As a resident of Southern California, where I pay just a slightly bit more (and by slightly I mean 400% more), he was not getting any sympathy from me.

I did inhale

2008-02-18T00:14:00.000-08:00

Professor A in my previous post is none other than UCLA's libertarian child prodigy Eugene Volokh (also legal advisor to the Yes on Proposition 209 campaign). Professor B is Richard Sander, a specialist in affordable housing and housing discrimination. And as shocking as it may sound, I will go as far as to claim that Sander is more reviled than Volokh by liberals, or at least by a segment of liberals. According to them, Volokh has always been Volokh, but Sander has sold out.

Why? Because of Sander's 2004 well-publicized law review article, where he claims that affirmative action is responsible for the high failure rates by African-American students on bar exams around the country. To prove his theory, Sander this year asked the CA State Bar for data from previous bar exams, including individual scores, race and academic credentials, a request that was rejected. One of his colleagues on the faculty wrote opposing his request (see here and here [registration required]). And not surprisingly, a Wall Street Journal article written by a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights supported Sander's request. (Current 2Ls have even emailed 1Ls who have Sander for property both to alert them of Sander's research but also to assure them that he is a very good property professor.)

As I've made clear many times in previous posts, I am a strong supporter of affirmative action for admissions purposes. I believe that it is a great shame that the undergrad and the law school's racial composition are so far skewed so as not to reflect, in the slightest, the broader racial composition of LA and of California.

Despite my support for affirmative action, I also feel that its supporters are bullying Sander and the CA State Bar to keep secret the information. I personally don't know whether or not Sander's theory is valid. But I would like to know. And the way theories are proved or disproved in an institution of higher education is through research and experimentation. The hallmark principle of secular universities, I believe, is academic freedom. And the withholding of CA State Bar data, arguably public data, stifles the development of legitimate academic research.

If Sander's theory ultimately is false, why not release the data, and have affirmative action backers be able to say "I told you so" to Sander's face? For those scared that Sander will artificially manipulate the data, have the CA State Bar make available the same data to the pro-affirmative action researchers to serve as an effective check on Sander's work.

If Sander's theory ultimately is supported by the data, denying the data is only serving to deny the truth, and is a great disservice to minorities. Ignoring the existence of a problem, if there is one, is akin to being the proverbial ostrich head in the sand. If there is some truth to Sander's theory, the provision of the data will enable law schools and the CA State Bar to understand how to create corrective solutions that will ultimately help minority lawyers.

The anti-Sander crowd is being rather hypocritical, I feel. They consistently use CA State Bar racial statistics to back up their claim of the lack of minority lawyers, yet are loathe to allow the same statistics to be used for "unapproved" purposes. But by selectively using data to further one's own purposes and excluding it for "incompatible" purposes does not good research and educational policy make.

Ultimately, my position in based on my belief in the value of free-flowing information, both good and bad. Not to be philosophical here, but I believe that truth can come into being only through a unfettered access to information. And much of my disapproval of Bush 43 (AKA Shrub) has been based on the secrecy and paranoia that seems to pervade his version of democratic government.

As an Obama supporter, I recognize that his past drug use and his "present" votes in the Illinois state senate represent potential liabilities. But I am more appreciative that these harmful facts came out rather than have them hidden by a political spin machine. Likewise, even if the CA State Bar data is not pretty and might weaken current affirmative action theory, our academic pursuit of truth demands its release. In my view, the data's release will ultimately help, more than it hurts, minority lawyers.

Quiz

2008-02-15T02:07:00.000-08:00

There are two law school professors here at school who garner a lot of press:

Professor A according to his biography, "teaches Constitutional Law II (Free Speech), Copyright, Firearms Regulation, and the law of government and religion. He is a nationally recognized expert on the First Amendment, cyberspace law, harassment law, and gun control...clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit...graduated from UCLA with a B.S. in math-computer science at age fifteen."

Professor B "has been working on questions of social and economic inequality for nearly all of his career...was one of seven UCLA faculty members and staff who launched the Program in Public Interest Law and Policy, which created a distinct curriculum aimed at public interest students...and [helped] launched the Empirical Research Group (ERG), an entity designed to help faculty members undertake ambitious empirical projects and introduce more quantitative and methodological sophistication into their policy-related work."

Which professor do you think is more controversial? Which professor is better loved by conservatives? Better yet, which professor do you think is more vilified by liberals?

Stay tuned for my take...

"I share the lament and disgust about the general level of associates' attire"

2008-02-12T00:27:00.001-08:00

The latest flap in the legal profession recently were remarks by a biglaw partner lamenting how biglaw associates dress too informally. I will not opine about whether they do indeed dress too informally. But obviously, there are certain firms where casual dress is the norm (e.g. Quinn) and other firms (e.g. Wachtell) where business formal is expected everyday and there are firms somewhere in between (most firms).

But the comment that seemed to get the most flap was how this biglaw partner was partial to expensive $3,000 suits. And a bunch of associates responded that they can't afford nice suits because they make only $160,000 and not the millions of a partner, and hence they are forced to dress casually.

All I know was that when I was at the evil legal enterprise last summer and when the partners would take me along to court, I definitely saw prosecutors and (gasp!) federal public defenders in nice suits, even though I'm pretty sure that they don't make what a 25 year-old 1st year makes.

V

2008-02-10T13:59:00.000-08:00

This upcoming week features basically the worst known day for the segment of the human species that have Y chromosomes.

It should be bred into human male DNA to avoid starting any sort of new relationship in the month before then dreaded V-day. Why? Because financially it makes no sense to do so.

The female species has evolved to expect things like dinner at Spago [Wolfgang Puck's restaurant in Beverly Hills] and other similarly expensive things. What ever happened to homemade cards made of construction paper and having the guy cook for the girl? And I would fear the wrath that would befall me if I were to use a line like "why do we need a special day to celebrate our feelings for each other when we should celebrate it everyday?" Or, "It's just a holiday made up by companies to sell stuff."

Basically, why start something before when you can start something on, say, February 15, and escape all sorts of expectations?

But for those who've been together since before the one-month window, I guess you'll just have to give in and fork over your dignity and wallet. [Lesson for me: D'Oh!]

[P.S. I was talking to a friend at Northwestern Law who told me that it was 3 degrees today in Chicago. I was in flipflops and shorts enjoying 80-degree weather as we spoke--another reason I'm glad to have chosen school here over school in colder climates.]

EIC

2008-02-08T00:25:00.000-08:00

Q:

A: Because you're masochistic and/or insecure and/or have very demanding parents.

Young turks

2008-02-07T12:09:00.000-08:00

1L OCIP has arrived.

They're all dressed up, ready to explain to firms how "working at a firm for the summer will allow me to put my legal skills to use and to see law in practice and not just in theory, something that I felt was lacking in law school." And how at your firm, "working with the brightest and most talented lawyers in town will teach me and challenge me, and how my one year of legal education will hopefully provide a valuable addition for your team."

They've started to master the art of interview nonsense-speak.

My 1Ls have all grown up. (sheds tear)

Quote of the day

2008-02-06T00:34:00.000-08:00

(Background: law school, generally speaking, are pretty liberal places, and lots of attention was paid in school today to Super Tuesday democratic primaries. My state has apparently been won by Clinton.)

Two law students are having a discussion:

#1: "For the good of the party, I don't understand why they don't just create a dream ticket. Afterwards, in 8 years, Obama can have his turn at the White House."
#2: "I agree. They should just join forces and create a dream ticket that will unite the party. And in 8 years, Hilary can get her own shot at running for president."

pssst...

2008-02-03T13:31:00.000-08:00

If any of you (and I suspect most of you) follow the legal gossip on the various legal blogs, you will undoubtedly know about the rough time that one of the "Big 3" LA firms has recently been having. Likewise, another big LA litigation firm boasting of trial lawyers that win 92% of their cases has also been recently dragged through the online mud.

Whether or not any of the information is true or not, the presence of the rumors on the legal blogs is something that law firms really need to keep track of. How these rumors affect their business, I don't know. But I do know that the rumors have definitely affected their law school recruiting efforts.

Since us law students don't know any better, we turn to rumor mills contributed to by anonymous individuals to inform us and shape our opinions of the various law firms out there when it comes time to picking where to interview and what offers to accept.

At least at our school, both of the aforementioned firms had tough times recruiting this year, as many of students with offers from both these firms chose to go elsewhere. I'm not sure the degree to which the rumors on these rumor mills were the students' deciding factor that contributed to their decision not to accept their offers, but I know that it definitely did play a part.

Despite the degree to which law firm partners bemoan the existence of the rumor mills, they do serve an important democratic purpose in terms of making it harder for firms to hide potentially damning information. I do admit that the rumors spread can sometimes be misleading or downright false, but a form of collective validation tends to weed out the false rumors from the real ones. If I were ever a law firm partner (and I sincerely hope that I will never become one), the legal rumor mills would be something that I would pay religious attention to, given their ability to change and shape the main asset for a law firm, namely the field of public opinion.

Wait, what? Drama and rumors in the legal profession? Shocking, since there's absolutely none of that in law schools.

bling bling

2008-01-30T00:09:00.001-08:00

I was pulled over today for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. In contrast to the last time I was pulled over, I admitted that I was wrong, and I got a ticket.

The police car that pulled me over was a unmarked police car, yet it was not very difficult to spot. It was a dark-colored Ford Crown Victoria. Since an incident 10 years ago, where the LAPD was outgunned by bank robbers and had to raid a nearby gun store for additional firepower, all police cars in LA now carry assault rifles. And these guns are visibly stored vertically in a case between the center console of all LAPD cars, even unmarked cars.

After I got my ticket, I started wondering what the point of unmarked cars are if everyone can tell that it is an unmarked car.

Perhaps the counterargument is that since lots of drug dealers/ rappers have assault rifles in their cars, you can't automatically be sure that any car with guns in it is an unmarked car. But when have you ever seen a rapper riding around in a Ford Crown Victoria?

(Actual line from 50 Cent's "Get In My Car": "So much chrome on my Benz, you see ya face in my rims."--Something tells me that "So much chrome on my Crown Victoria" wouldn't have sold as many records.)

2 more months

2008-01-27T00:28:00.000-08:00

Dear UCLA 1Ls: (post doesn't necessarily apply to other schools)

So, I usually save Law Review discussion for closer to the spring writeon. But I felt that this post is important now for 1Ls since they are considering right now whether or not to spend spring break doing the writeon competition. Law Review will also be beginning their recruitment/publicity efforts soon.

I am not anti-Law Review as some people would like you to believe I am. I am merely against the notion Law Review tries to sell that everyone needs to do the Law Review writeon.

There are some legitimately valid reasons to do Law Review:
1. I aspire to be a law professor.
2. I want a federal appellate clerkship.
3. I want to help influence legal scholarship.

But there are also some extremely poor reasons to do Law Review:
1. Because I think that it is prestigious.
2. Because everyone else is doing it.
3. Law Review members tell me to do it. (any surprise?)
4. I will regret it if I don't try.
5. Being on Law Review will get me a biglaw job.

The last point that mere Law Review membership alone will get you a biglaw job or that Law Review is required for biglaw is the biggest myth perpetuated by Law Review. Since its aura of prestige is maintained only if students continue to view being on Law Review as valuable, why not make impressionistic 1Ls believe that they need Law Review in order to get a job?

To debunk the whole Law Review=Biglaw myth, let's do a simple study. We will pick a large representative L.A.-based firm, and see whether or not current 2Ls needed Law Review to get hired (in a bad economy, no less) .

How about the L.A. firm of Latham & Watkins? (1) It is UCLA's largest employer, (2) it is the highest ranked West Coast based firm, according to Vault, (3) it was surveyed this year as a popular firm among students, and (4) more UCLA students did on-campus interviews with them than with any other firm.

So below, are the numbers of students going to each Latham office and the numbers of Law Review members out of the total number. Example: 2/5 means that out of 5 total people going, 2 of them are on Law Review. If people are splitting between offices, they are counted in the office where they will spend the majority of the time. This list includes most, but probably not all, of the summers. (How do I know so much about Latham? Hmmm...)

Los Angles: 1/10
Orange County: 1/2
San Francisco: 1/4
San Diego: 1/3
Chicago: 0/1
Washington DC: 1/1

Total: Out of us 21 Latham 2008 summers, only 5 are on Law Review. I think this ratio alone debunks the myth that you need Law Review to get a biglaw job.

So, in conclusion, you 1Ls have 2 months until the writeon. I'm not telling you not to do the writeon. During these two months, I merely want you to ask yourself, "What do I want to achieve after law school and will being on Law Review help me accomplish those goals?"

(Oh, in case Law Review tries to convince you that Latham is an exception, consider the following--it is also the firm where the 2008 Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review spent her 2L summer. And where the 2007 Editor-in-Chief spent his 2L summer.)

Rain

2008-01-26T12:44:00.000-08:00

Rain, rain, go away.

I was recently forced to go and buy an [overpriced UCLA bookstore] umbrella. Believe it or not, I had gone a year and a half without owning an umbrella. But due to the recent uncooperative weather, my dreams of going three years without an umbrella have been dashed. And because of the rain, I have been forced to stay inside and (gasp!) study.

Dear Mr./Ms. Weather, this is Southern California, and it's not supposed to rain.

That's why we have massive brush fires and drought, and rob the Colorado River of all its water.

2008-01-19T10:41:00.000-08:00

blahblahblah <-- this is what I hear

2008-01-16T16:34:00.001-08:00

Why do people gun? That is the proverbial question.

Regardless of the reasons, I have been glad that many of the former 1L gunners have calmed down, and no longer feel the need to say something for the sake of hearing their own voices. That ridicule from the rest of their peers have perhaps had its desired effect. (There are a few exceptions, like with any rule.)

But that doesn't mean upper-level classes are free from this particular annoyance.

So the question I would like to pose is, why do transfer students and foreign LLM students like to gun? LLM students presumably disliked gunners while in law school in their home country. Likewise, transfers presumably disliked the gunners while at their former school as well.

I don't think it's because the two groups feel the need to gun because they want to seem smart in front of their new peers, because we all know that hearing something smart coming from gunners' mouths is a rare occurrence.

My proposed explanation is this: gunners tend to transfer to a higher ranked school and seek a foreign law degree at a higher rate than non-gunners, since the same competitive attributes that explain their desire to gun tend to correlate with their seeking to transfer and do a second law degree.

Now, please shut up gunners so that I can return to my solitaire, snood, and scrabulous. They enlighten my brain more than listening to you ever will.

P.S. I'm not saying that all transfers and LLM students are gunners--many of them are actually quite nice--but that they tend to be gunners at higher rates than the general law student population.

Grades

2008-01-12T20:12:00.000-08:00

My grades have all come in, and I find myself shocked. I spent most of last semester getting wined and dined, missing class and not doing reading, yet I managed to do around the same as I did 1L year when I was actually a diligent 1L. I chalk it up not to any brilliance on my part, but to how none of my classes this semester were curved (well, brilliance that I decided to take non-curved classes and independent study, and leave the fancy schmancy curved business associations and fed tax and accounting to the hardcore types). Almost like undergrad all over again, where I took all the wishy-washy English major seminars (my personal favorite: Literature and Motion Picture, where we read books and watched their movie adaptations) and stayed the hell away from any kind of math or science or econ.

To the 1Ls who weren't satisfied with your grades, here are some pointers:
1. First-year classes are curved, so only 1/4 of you will get some sort of A. [25-70-5]
2. Law school is different from undergrad, so what worked for you in undergrad does not necessarily work in law school. So, no more of the cramming and regurgitating that served you so well during undergrad.
3. Y'all focus too much on classes and not enough on exams. No matter how smart or stupid you sound in class and whether you gun or not and whether you suck up to the professor or not does not make the slightest difference in terms of your grades. It is your ability to take exams and wrestle with the material that matters. So, focus on the exam primarily. From day one. Do practice exams, practice problems, practice exam writing, practice arguing in the alternative.

Living in a closet

2008-01-10T18:54:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to catch up with the first week of classes, so hence the lack of posting.

Winter break is over. Back now to the second half of law school.

Ventured to New York City for a few days over the holidays, and it reminded me of why I prefer the West Coast, and why I did not even bother to apply to law school in New York. And how the whole "New York holidays" thing is highly overrated. Oh, and it was also cold like you would not believe.

Random thought...why is it that "boutique" hotels in New York think that they can charge $450 for a room barely big enough to fit a bed? Does the price justification go something like this--sure the room is tiny and the bathroom is like a prison bathroom, but hey, there's neon blue lights in the room and we have an overpriced martini bar in the lobby, so you not only get the tiny room but also get to savor the (neon-blue tinted) "ambiance."

Happy return to law school!

2008-01-06T12:47:00.000-08:00

And, we're back

2008-01-03T10:34:00.000-08:00

The theme of law student blogs at this time of the year all seem to be about grades (or the lack thereof). I offer below my explanation and the explanation that has been given to me by many professors. You can choose which makes more sense.

My explanation:
The root of the problem lies in the kind of people who become law professors. It should be of no surprise that the vast majority of people who have law degrees practice law [law school»law firm]. With the practice of law comes deadlines requiring promptness (e.g. deal closings for corporate types and motions and briefs for litigators). If you don't get them in by the deadline, [client loses case»client loses a lot of $»lawyer is out of a job--see here]. Therefore, experienced lawyers learn to get things done quickly and efficiently.

But law professors are a different breed. The standard trajectory of law professors is [law school»clerk»firm/govt for 2 years (optional)»academia]. Professors thus either have practiced law and hated the billable hour expectations or have never practiced law altogether (if you don't believe me, there are several professors at every law school who are not even admitted to the bar). How professors really earn their paychecks is not by teaching 4 hours a week but by thinking of ideas and putting them on paper. And they all claim that you can't set deadlines on geniousness. Also, while firms expect associates to work during the winter holidays, professors feel that they need a break because thinking of ideas and putting them on paper is taxing on their brains.

Professor's explanation:
Objective and careful grading takes a lot of time. You have to (1) read each answer carefully, (2) reread, (3) assign points, (4) count up points, (5) make curve, (6) submit to records office. [N.B.: at most schools steps 4-6 are done by professor's assistants]. And because teaching is a small part of their job, they have to balance grading with their other academic (e.g. committee work) and family commitments .

Really?

2007-12-14T01:05:00.000-08:00

I'm sure you've all seen the headlines on every single news outlet by now, the release of George Mitchell's steroid report. I'm not the biggest baseball fan, having lost interest during the strike, but the item that every article leads with is how shocking Roger Clemens was named. The same Clemens who was given up for dead by the Red Sox while in his mid-30s, but somehow had the best seasons of his career and threw with increased velocity, all after the age of 40? That his defying of human aging was not all due to his secret intense Texan workouts? Is the media going to tell me next that Santa Claus is not real?

I also learned today that Mitchell was a U.S. Attorney, federal judge, and actually declined a nomination by Clinton to the Supreme Court to stay in the Senate.

Anyway, off for break. See y'all in 2008.

P.S. Did I mention that I am 1/2 done with law school?

This is what we resort to...

2007-12-10T23:56:00.000-08:00

I wrote previously about law students' crazy obsessions with craigslist personals during finals. A post was recently written by Legal Bachelor about craigslist personals. I was forwarded the following post by a (female) reader to ask me to ridicule this supposed UCLAW student.

If you (like most people) think craigslist personals are shady, you might make an "acception" after reading this wonderful post. Because this is a family-friendly blog, I am not posting his NSFW pictures that came with the ad.

los angeles craigslist > westside-southbay > casual encounters

hi 25 years old 6 ft 180 lbs 8 incher looking for hot girl for nsa - m4w - 25

Reply to: pers-497556033@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-12-03, 12:44PM PST

Hi I'm an educated 25 year old ucla law student 6 ft 180 lbs 8 incher here. I am looking for a hot girl near my age but I"ll make an acception if you are good looking. I'm open to all races but it's a plus if you are Asian, Latin, or Eastern European. Please let me know if you are intersted in having some fun. Please send a pic if you are intersted(i don't mind if it's a naughty one

PLEASE NO MEN WOMEN ONLY! I'm not into that so please don't even try I will just delete your message.

Location: brentwood
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

Q&A

2007-12-09T17:00:00.000-08:00

Q:

A: depends on if it was mortally wounded.

Interview advice

2007-12-08T12:34:00.000-08:00

Interview advice from male 3L to male 1L at school:

"Law firm interviews are like talking to girls. When you're hitting on girls, you just pretend to act interested and let them talk about themselves, responding with only an occasional "hmm...that's interesting" or "wow." Same thing with lawyers. Both like to talk about themselves and hear the sound of their own voices."

Law school

2007-12-07T16:59:00.000-08:00

Fan mail

2007-12-06T00:15:00.000-08:00

The following question was emailed to me by a 1L at school.

Dear Fox,
As I am studying for finals right now during the eve of our first 1L final, I am wondering what GPA one needs from UCLA to get a job at a big firm during 2L interviews? I know it's hard to get a firm job 1L summer, but what will I need for 2L year?

My response:
1) Stop worrying about the 2L job hunt now. Study for finals.
2) That being said, I think the magic number is around a 3.2 for a "biglaw" (i.e. firm that pays 130-160) job. This number doesn't guarantee a job; there are people with GPA above this but interview poorly and don't have a job yet. On the other hand, there are people lower than this who have connections or interview well who have firm jobs. But generally, straight B+ with a scattered B should put you in good shape.

Interesting readership

2007-12-04T00:22:00.000-08:00

I don't know much about Chicago, except that I didn't apply there based on some bad things I heard about it, but given my blog's history with the school, I apparently draw all the crazies from there. See here and here for past stories. And because the hits are not just from one computer or IP, it's not just one poor soul at Chicago with issues.

Today's gem:
That you resort to the internet (at 1:54AM Central Time, no less) to find out how tells me that you're way beyond help.

After all, we're lawyers

2007-12-01T23:27:00.000-08:00

Interesting article on law firm bonuses...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/business/02deal.html

The highlight, in my opinion, is the last 2 paragraphs:

"IT’S a nice thought but somewhat specious. Partners at law firms are a notoriously greedy bunch — that’s why they accept so few new partners — making it hard to believe that they are willing to part with their money so easily. I suggest there is something else at play: Law firms match bonuses to secure bragging rights.

Within their risk-averse, insular world, it’s a way of saying, “We’re in the top tier.” But it doesn’t necessarily make good business sense. Though partners at elite firms routinely pocket millions, law firms have never been run as efficiently as truly great companies. After all, they’re run by lawyers."

It's the most wonderful time of the year

2007-11-29T02:12:00.000-08:00

Finals are approaching, and the stress level at school is at a high. It was remarked to me last year by the (then) 2Ls and 3Ls how are so much more hardcore than they were. And now, looking around the school, I feel that the current 1L class is more hardcore than we were last year. I'm not sure if it is indeed true, that in the school's quest to rise up the rankings and base admissions decisions more and more on numbers, that each year we're admitting more of the uber-competitive types. Or were we equally as crazy last year but my scarred and repressed memories of 1L year has been dulled by the passage of time (and by the massive consumption of alcohol)?

Anyway, I've goofed around for most of the semester, and tomorrow is the last day of classes, so I guess I better hunker down and start preparing for exams, in order to not fail out of law school so that I may continue to amuse you with my posts.

This blog will be in semi-hibernation mode for the next few weeks, so I suggest that you check elsewhere for your legal amusement.

Quote of the day

2007-11-28T00:02:00.000-08:00

"Wait, Paul Hastings is a law firm? I see their building downtown, and always thought that it was the L.A. campus of Hastings Law School."

-1L, while doing mail merges in the computer lab

For those of you not from L.A., the PH building is a recognizable part of the LA skyline:

Ups and downs

2007-11-26T00:01:00.000-08:00

Having gone through the OCIP process, I realized how the entire hiring process can be a crapshoot. Sometimes you just click with an interviewer and other times, you don't. Little things you do or ways you respond to questions perhaps rub the interviewer the wrong way, and you get rejected. What constitutes "I like him" or "I don't like him" vary from interviewer to interviewer, even from the same firm.

What firms don't fully realize is that little things a firm does or does not do can rub the interviewee the wrong way, and my opinion can change drastically about a firm based on a limited interaction with them.

Here is my list of 3 firms that went up and 3 firms that went down in my head.

UP:
Reed Smith: Best food in their hospitality suite.
Quinn: Two gorgeous interviewers (male and female) both looked like the walked out of a GQ and Vogue cover, respectively.
White & Case: $20 Starbucks cards.

DOWN:
MoFo: Almost sad how they tried too hard to be different-- chocolate fountain, T-shirts, the "Mojo of MoFo" slogan. Everyone knows anyway that Orrick is the new MoFo.
Jones Day: I know that they rejected some people via phone. Not cool.
Sidley: Had 3 different sets of interviewers and no one could tell me where I was supposed to go. I declined my callback invitation due to their disorganization.

Note: I don't have an agenda against or for any particular firm. I am also only posting this now, as 2Ls have all but done their acceptances, so my views of firms will not affect whether offerees accept or decline.

EDIT: I've been getting a lot of hits from Cleveland, the hometown of and from the IP addresses of a certain firm on my down list:

It's me

2007-11-21T01:15:00.000-08:00

As Thanksgiving rolls around, most of us with firm offers will have done all our declining, and have figured out where we are going to go this summer. I never really thought about etiquette for declining offers, but I've heard students describe it as breaking up with someone in a relationship.

My routine when calling up firms to decline can be described as the "it's not you, it's me" explanation. That the firm I'm calling up to decline is the best place to work in the world, and that me, as a ignorant law student has problems being around greatness.

I made one of these calls to a firm in the courtyard in between class one day. Someone who heard me told me that it was one of the best firm declines s/he has heard, and that I must have had lots of experience with "it's not you, it's me."

-----------------

Here is a UCLAW alum in the news (all I know is that recruiting must have sucked for her, since she couldn't take advantage of all the free alcohol). Also, if you haven't heard, alum Alex Kozinski was recently appointed the chief of the 9th Circuit.

Happy holidays!

[joke about UChicago]

2007-11-20T02:00:00.000-08:00

Ask, and you shall receive.

But seriously, you should know that I make fun at my own expense more than at other people's expense.

Open casting

2007-11-18T19:19:00.001-08:00

So, I've been at this blog thing for a year and a half now. I was recently toying with the idea of having a co-blogger, and I'm putting the idea out there. If anyone at school consistently reads this, thinking that this is entertaining or insightful or thinks they can do better than me (not that hard, I assure you), this might be your opportunity. Or if a newbie wants to take a stab at this blogging thing, this might also be your opportunity. I don't even need to know who you are, and you can blog anonymously if you so choose.

Pro: instead of building readership from scratch, potential blogger would get immediate readership of around 200 hits a day, about half of these hits being from the law school.
Con: potential blogger could potentially be viewed of as a #2 to me.

I don't have particularly high standards (insert self-deprecating joke here), so I only require of any potential blogger to a) go to school here, b) can write moderately well, and c) be moderately funny and be willing to make fun of yourself.

Email/ call/ write a letter/ fax/ smoke signals/ carrier pigeon/ telegram if you're interested.

Nov. 8

2007-11-17T00:01:00.000-08:00

Disclaimer: This post will not make sense unless you're a current UCLA law student.

I wasn't originally inclined to write anything about another email that was sent to all about another incident that happened. But then I realized that the SBA sent out a strongly worded email, yet the email basically told us nothing. The email went something like this: something big happened on Nov. 8->people need to be respected->hence we need to create a non-hostile classroom environment->which is why we're making a resolution against hostile classroom environments. It's basically the equivalent of 3rd graders saying "I have something to tell you but I'm not going to." I think SBA is making things worse for itself, since it has just stirred up a hornet's nest full of law students, and instead of having one version of the event, people are now going to start gossiping and inquiring and there will be dozens of versions of the event which SBA or the Dean will eventually have to dispel.

While I pretty much know one version of the story, I'm not going to take sides or comment on the event in question itself since I don't know the other side's version. I'm merely commenting on the way in which SBA chose to go about the situation. (But if the events happened as alleged, I do think the professor was out of line.)

If you want to know about what happened, ask anyone in the 1L class. I'm sure they've all heard about it, and like the game telephone I played as a kid, each retelling by one to another is never perfect and winds up being further and further from the truth. The SBA apparently intends the consequences of its actions, so let the rumors fly.

[if you don't know any 1Ls, email me for one version of the events, as relayed to me by a 1L who was in the room when it happened]

Fishing

2007-11-16T00:43:00.001-08:00

I was requested to do a post on the 1L job hunt. Here it is...

Extern/Firm (a good approach would be to plan using all four routes)
Route 1:
a. GET YOUR STUFF IN BY DECEMBER 1. This is important! Judges and firms will start considering applications on Dec. 1, so make sure your application is in by then. Both of these groups want to fill their summer class/externs as soon as possible, and to get "the pick of the crop," and hence, they hire early.
b. Make sure your resume is free of typos. Work on your writing sample. Write a good cover letter. Collect your undergraduate grades.
c. Buy a good suit.
d. Because people will be hiring before your have any law grades, they will be hiring based on undergraduate grades, any graduate degrees, past work experience, unique skills, etc. Figure out what you will highlight and what your "pitch" will be.
e. Figure out which judges you want to apply to (i.e. don't mass mail the entire 9th circuit, since judges want to know why you're applying to them, and that your political leanings match theirs). But for firms, figure out what city you want to work in, and then mass-mail every single firm in that town.

Route 2:
a. Prepare for spring OCIP. Repeat steps (b) through (d).
b. BUT employers will have seen your first semester grades when they interview you, so realistically, you better have high grades to expect a shot at a firm job during spring OCIP.

Route 3:
Network. Hit up relatives, ex-significant others, your alumni mentor, your doorman, etc. Hope you can get your foot in the door this way.

Route 4:
Sleep with the recruiting coordinator/hiring partner/judge. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how to do this.

Government/Public Interest
-Figure ou t which organizations you want to apply to.
-Know what deadline they have.
-Look for the organization where you think you can have the best legal experience as opposed to finding an organization that fits your interests but where they will have you photocopy for 3 months.
-Repeat steps (1b) through (1d).

tsk tsk

2007-11-16T00:17:00.000-08:00

Sorry to break it to you 1Ls, but you're not going to find the answers to your graded memo through google.

Math time

2007-11-14T00:18:00.000-08:00

Lots of prelaw students are seduced by the belief that they will be in the top X% of the class necessary to get the $160,000 biglaw job. And then in law school we learn that the people not in the top X% will wind up working in smaller firms without the same prestige as biglaw and without the same biglaw paycheck. And for the people who can't get jobs at smaller firms, we are told that they wind up as contract attorneys who are paid by the hour to do document review for large litigation cases at large firms.

There recently was a very interesting article written about contract attorneys. The article also links to the online gathering place for contract attorneys. Also interesting is a review of the per-hour salaries of these contract attorneys at various firms.

Even though I am decidedly bad at math (hence law school), I decided to crunch some numbers to see how these contract attorneys come out.

First off...biglaw
-Students often forget to calculate non-billable hours when taking into account the total number of hours. Assume that at the average firm, billable hours are 2,000 (for ease of math purposes). Non-billable hours (going to the bathroom, lunch, internal firm work, waiting for faxes, goofing around reading AboveTheLaw, etc.) I've been told come out to around 500. So, $160,000/2,500 total hours = $64/hour. 2,500/50 weeks a year (2 weeks of vacation) = 50 hours/week. Total salary per week ($160,000/50 weeks)=$3,200.

Next...contract attorney
If a contract attorney works 50 hours a week, and assume he/she gets paid at the top of the market at Quinn, (s)he will earn $55/hour for the first 40 hours, and then overtime of $82.50 for the next 10 hours. Total salary per week ($2,200 + $825 overtime): $3,025. If (s)he works more than 53 hours a week, (s)he would actually get paid more than biglaw.

I know that my math is skewed because I'm comparing total biglaw hours (which includes lunch, etc.) with only "billable" contract hours. I am doing so only because I understand that a significant amount of the 500 extra hours are working on internal firm matters or working on client matters that do not count as billable hours (I believe the legal term is "realization rate"), whereas a contract attorney would get paid for all hours spent working. Another response is that my 50 hours is underestimating hours at biglaw. Average per week at biglaw seems to be around 55-57 hours, which only adds to contract attorney pay.

Additional caveats: I know, contract attorneys don't get health or retirement benefits. They don't get the standard year-end bonus. There's no chance of advancement (to senior document reviewer I guess). There is no guarantee that they will have work every day. Or that they will work at the high-paying firms year-round, since they move on to another firm when the current doc review assignment ends. And they don't get the prestige, training, or exit options that biglaw provides. And I'm assuming that the contract employer pays overtime and abides by all labor laws.

But even if we do not use Quinn's $55 but use the average wage provided in the data of $35.82 + OT in NYC, 50 hours a week would pay ($1,432.80 + 537.30): $1,970.10/week, or close to $100,000/year.

But, still, not bad in my opinion, and aside from doing extraordinarily boring and routine work, I don't see it as being as poorly compensated as many make it out to be. If anyone has any comments about my math, please let me know.

Legal reasoning

2007-11-07T01:44:00.001-08:00

LSAT logic game:

1. This Wednesday we are on a Monday schedule. [I normally have class on Monday]
2. I have a whole day of class on Thursday.
3. 1Ls, but not 2L or 3Ls, have class on Fridays.
4. Monday is Veterans Day. School is closed.
5. Tuesday is on a Friday schedule.
6. I will not be going to class on Thursday.
7. Schedule goes back to normal next Wednesday.

So, the question to law students: How long a weekend will I be having? First one to respond correctly gets a cookie.

For a bonus cookie, how long a weekend will 1Ls be having?

My __-day weekend is another reason I am so glad I am no longer a 1L. Off at the end of class Wednesday for a break. Check back at the end of my extended weekend for updates.

Here we go

2007-11-06T00:45:00.000-08:00

Apparently law schools are places that almost seem to thrive on controversy. Here we go again.

Don't know the whole story, but I assume the facts are pretty simple, as relayed to me. There is supposed to be an immigration panel discussion today. Yesterday, someone finds that the big poster that was made to advertise the event has been defaced by someone who wrote "Deport all Mexicans" on it. Poster was taken down once someone noticed it.

Not an indictment on anyone in the school, since we don't even know if it was a law student who wrote it. (The law school seems to be a magnet for the public who come to use the public law library, for undergrads who have their Testmasters classes, for non-law grad students who come to use the law library, as well as for other assorted random people.) But if it was a law student, I think it was a highly immature thing for a law student to do. If you have a disagreement with current immigration policy, well, I imagine that the logical thing to do would be to attend the panel to voice your objections. But then again, law students are not exactly paradigms of maturity...

[EDIT: Dean sent out usual email today about tolerance and diversity, with the subject line "Zero Tolerance."]

[EDIT #2: Less than flattering news at 2 more law schools. Emory and Hastings]

Fit

2007-11-03T10:23:00.000-07:00

The following is a recent email from our Office of Career Services:

"The new Los Angeles office of a large East Coast law firm seeks 2L candidates for its Summer Associate Program. Candidates should have a 3.3 GPA and journal or moot court experience. Starting salary for the firm is $160,000. If you’re interested, please bring your resume to the Office of Career Services in 77 Dodd Hall by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 31."

I found this email striking for two reasons:
1. Everyone, including OCS, has been stressing about the importance of finding the firm with "the right fit." Yet, the firm is not named, and we don't even know the size of the office or whether they do litigation or transactional work. But we do know that they are a East Coast firm and that they pay market.
2. But, as we all realize, listing the salary is the only thing that matters, and they were sure to list the salary. The firm is apparently the right fit depending on how much it pays.

----

P.S. Another ranking has been released, this time from the ABA and the former head of Cooley Law School. As I said before, while lots of schools don't maintain consistency in the various non-USNWR rankings, it is impressive that UCLA (this time at #13) maintains the same level across the different rankings,

Awards

2007-11-01T18:44:00.000-07:00

During OCIP, my worst fear was that I would, in order to make the interview seem more personable, use the firm's name, and how I would screw it up majorly. (Well, OK my worst fear would be if I forgot my pants or if I farted, but you get my drift). So, in an effort to avoid this, I simply stopped using a firm's name, and replaced it with the generic "the firm."

Real-life example:
Q: So, why do you want to work at MTO/I&M/OMM/L&W/GDC etc.?
A: Because the firm's culture really sets it apart from your peers and because I've heard great things about the firm from my friends who work there. [Start dropping names, and conversation moves to mutual gossip about my friends who work there, and thus the interviewer conveniently forgets about my crappy answer.]

I would like to present Fox's awards for the top 5 firms no one can pronounce correctly.

5. LeBoeuf
4. Dechert
3. Debevoise
2. Stroock

And [drum roll] the winner of the most unpronounceable firm name goes to. . .
1. Sonnenschein

Buy me stuff

2007-10-30T20:44:00.000-07:00

I, through mysterious ways, recently came into possession of a UCLA School of Medicine shirt. (By mysterious, I mean the store recently had med school shirts on sale while the law school shirts were full price and I needed a shirt for the gym.)

Observation: Having been a law student for a year and a half now, it has been my general experience that the girls who are attracted to male law students tend to be the "I want you to buy me stuff" type. My limited experience with the med school shirt indicates that the girls who are attracted to male (presumed) med students tend to be the "Marry a doctor to bring home to the parents" type.

Opine.

Must read

2007-10-28T18:21:00.000-07:00

While we're on the topic of big firms, here is an article that I think is a must read for all biglaw recruits. It is written by a former biglaw partner turned professor turned judge. It's a few years old, but still highly relevant. The cite is (52 Vand. L. Rev. 871) if you want to look it up on WL or Lexis.

A quote from the article features UCLAW's own Rick Abel.

"The partners of a big firm have a third option for making more money. This option involves what big firm partners euphemistically refer to as "leverage." I like to call it "the skim." Richard Abel calls it "exploitation." The person being exploited is you."

A Better Legal Profession

2007-10-27T18:01:00.000-07:00

Perhaps some of you have heard about Law Students Building A Better Legal Profession, started by a group of Stanford Law students. They've gotten a lot of press recently (NYT article here) because they are a student group that aims to rank firms based on three factors: diversity, billable hours, and pro bono, under the assumption that these three factors make law firms more humane places to work.

While I'm not certain to what degree this effort will have on firms in terms of changing their policies, I do think that any effort on the part of law students can only put pressure on firms to clean up their acts.

But I have two critiques:
1. (minor) The group uses NALP data, which is entirely firm-reported, which of course distorts the reality of the situation. Just like in law school where 1/8 Native American or 1/8 Latino will get you put into the law school's diversity statistics, 1/8 will also put you in a firm's diversity statistics. To what degree having 7/8 white "minority" partners will make a firm a better place to work is a philosophical question not to be touched on here. Likewise, the billable hours are also skewed. For example, Jones Day New York reports 1,800 billables. I would have to be stupid to believe that number, since (a) no NY firm would pass with 1,800 billables and (b) the firm's nickname is not Jones Day, Nights, and Weekends without a reason.

2. (major) The group stresses "building a better legal profession," yet their url is refirmation and tabulates the statistics only for major law firms. But to say that biglaw encompasses the entire "legal profession" is both arrogant and naive. Perhaps at elite schools, biglaw is the measure of success, and everyone not in public interest who goes to a firm earning under $100,000 is somehow a "failure." (Note: these are not my words, but is the sentiment of students at many top law schools, including my own.) But at the other 9/10 of law schools in the country, only a select few end up at biglaw. Indeed, only 10.36% of all lawyers in the entire country work for biglaw (14% of the 74% in private practice), so I really don't see how statistics about big law firms will help "build a better legal profession." How does the group help improve the legal profession for the other 89.64% of lawyers?

Sad day

2007-10-24T20:41:00.000-07:00

Driving around LA today, I could see that parts of the sky were slighter darker, remnants of smoke that had drifted here from the fires. The air also smelled differently today.

----------------

I also used up the last card in my pile of Starbucks cards that I collected over the course of recruiting season. (BTW, while I would never work for White & Case, I do give them props for handing out $20 cards while everyone else gave out $5 ones.)

Fire

2007-10-23T18:40:00.000-07:00

Raging Calif. wildfires force 1M to flee

Wow, largest California evacuation in its history, from fires that have burned close to half a million acres, fanned by high winds and 90+ degree temperatures (yes, it was 90+ today in late October and I am in law school in shorts and flipflops).

Quote of the day from a LA Times forum about the fire:
"You can scoff at people for building McMansions in fire-prone areas all you want, but don't forget that developers are the ones drawing the plans and city governments are the ones approving the permits."

Overall, I think that the fires are a huge disaster, and wish that the winds would die down. But, I keep on reading stories about stubborn people who refuse to leave their houses, because they think somehow if they're in their house, they can magically save it from burning (even though the fires have overwhelmed even professional firefighters). See stories here and here. I realize that the houses are a large financial investment, but these die-hards are merely taking away resources from the firefighting effort. And if these people eventually need rescuing, firefighters will be pulled from fighting fires to rescue these people, risking firefighters' own lives. No offense, but if someone tells me that I should evacuate because of fire, I leave. And if I decide to build a house in a fire-prone area, I will be sure to buy insurance in case there is a forest fire.

Like mountain rescues of foolish mountaineers where the government has begun to charge for the rescues, if firefighters eventually need to rescue these people's sorry butts from their house, they should be charged for it.

More rankings

2007-10-23T00:01:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Princeton Review also wants to get into thee rankings game, and they recently published their own list of the top 50 law schools. According to these rankings, UChicago is the best law school in the country, Harvard is #14, Stanford is #24, and Yale is #35, so take the rankings with a grain of salt.

What I am impressed by is how UCLA is ranked #13, a fairly consistent ranking that UCLA has managed to hold across the multitude of law school rankings.

Even more impressive is how Princeton Review also surveys the average number of study hours a day at each law school. Cornell has the distinct honor of being the most studious law school. UCLA is ranked as one of the least studious schools, surpassed in terms of slackerdom among the top schools only by UT, USC, Yale, and NYU.

California burning

2007-10-21T12:22:00.000-07:00

Few things can be predicted with regularity.

One of these things is the annual wildfire in the Malibu canyons, threatening among other things, Ken Starr's Pepperdine. For the record, it rains less than 10 days a year in LA and the fires are always fanned by strong winds.

News story here.

Favorite line of the story:
"Malibu, home of about 13,000 people, stretches along 27 miles of Pacific coastline. The area is home to celebrities including Barbara Streisand, Mel Gibson, Ted Danson, David Geffen and Pierce Brosnan.

Last January, a wildfire driven by Santa Ana wind destroyed the home of actress Suzanne Somers and three other multimillion-dollar residences.

The community also is home to about 25 rehabilitation facilities, including Promises Residential Treatment Center, whose guests have included Brittany Spears, Ben Affleck, Charlie Sheen, Diana Ross and Matthew Perry."

Lawyers of Fortune

2007-10-19T18:56:00.000-07:00

During my interviews with firm partners, sometimes the topic of recruiting would come up and they would mention how competitive the market was for top associate talent. The solution, it would seem, would be to act like the business world and offer signing bonuses.

But in the legal profession, NALP (the National Association for Law Placement, and membership is required if firms want access to on campus interviews) has several guidelines that they make all firms adhere to. The guidelines were created to "promote fairness and informed decision-making during the recruitment process." Among the prohibitions for employers are no signing bonuses, no exploding offers, and the need to keep offers open until 12/1.

I understand the part about exploding offers and the 12/1 deadline, since they're meant to prevent employers from pressuring students.

But what I don't understand is the part about no signing bonuses. Generally speaking, I think that the free market could play an important role in terms of recruiting. Indeed, there are L.A. firms that pay NY market and those that pay below NY market. In terms of attracting associate talent, having firms pay extra for the students they really want is not that strange an idea. After all, law schools pay " signing bonuses" in the form of scholarships to get the students they really want.

Even though I've already decided, for many classmates, the current decision process basically entails choosing the firm where "they really liked the people and the culture." But if something like signing bonuses were on the table, it could definitely be a great tool to distinguish firms from each other. Furthermore, firms pay clerkship bonuses as a clerk recruiting tool and I don't see why the same philosophy can't extend to signing bonuses.

A possible critique of signing bonuses is that they're also meant to pressure students, and that's a bad idea. Well, not really. Sure, they're meant to present a meaningful financial incentive to students who might not really care about where they go--lawyers of fortune. But for those students who really care about "people and culture," signing bonuses should not factor into their decision. Thus, signing bonuses would be quite market efficient, as they would affect/pressure only the people who care about money over culture.

The real reason I think that bonuses are outlawed is that NALP doesn't want the stratification of law firms. If (profitable) firm A is willing to pay a $10,000 signing bonus while firm B is only willing to pay $5,000, NALP fears that stratification would occur--that people would view firm A as better as firm B, and thus potentially jeopardize the cohesiveness of legal employers. But such an argument likewise is faulty, since firms are already stratified (every law student looks at Vault and AmLaw anyway). In short, NALP prohibits signing bonuses for self-interested reasons: to prevent the firms who can't afford to pay signing bonuses from jumping ship and depriving NALP of membership revenue.

Um, yeah

2007-10-16T23:39:00.000-07:00

Random firm I did a screening interview with during OCIP that never got back to me finally called me up today asking me to come into the office for a callback. I tell recruiting lady that I've already been taken. Recruiting lady proceeds to try to convince me that her firm is better than WORM. I tried very hard not to laugh over the phone, and I politely declined her invite.

Almost as funny as when the Davis Law admissions person was trying to tell me that Davis Law was a better school than UCLA when I called to withdraw from Davis.

Law Review, reviewed

2007-10-12T00:15:00.000-07:00

If you are a regular reader, you probably know my position about Law Review. If you don't, it's basically the following--do it if you want to be an academic or clerk, but if you're doing it for the perceived prestige or the perceived job benefits, then you're buying into the hype.

Back during spring break when more than 1/2 the 1L class was doing the writeon, I adamantly refused to buy what Law Review was selling. I have no desire to clerk or to be an academic (utterly dreary professions in my humble opinion). But that is not why most people did the writeon. Most people did it because they thought that "it would look good on my resume" and "help me get a big firm job."

Now that the recruiting season is over for me, let's review on how my lack of Law Review has affected my job hunt.

I recently accepted with WORM, a pretty good firm (according to Vault at least, anyway). Granted the firm extended callbacks and offers to some Law Review members, many other Law Review types who interviewed were shut out by the firm. And the Law Review callbacks were people with high GPAs and good personalities to begin with, and Law Review was thus not the determinative factor. During my callback interviews with WORM and with other firms, at no time was my lack of Law Review ever even mentioned or discussed. (The dirty little secret that Law Review does not want people to know [and thus my obligation to let people know] is that there are some members, including current 3Ls, who are having difficulty with the job hunt.)

So, my lesson I would like to share is that GPA + personality absolutely trumps Law Review, EACH AND EVERY TIME. Membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for the desired end goal for most students: a big firm. Plus, I don't have to write that dreadful required comment.

Basically, everything that I said about Law Review when the writeon occurred has proven very accurate (at least in my case). Whether you think that my experience (to the utter dismay of the Dean and the Law Review leadership who would delete this post if they could) is representative is for you to decide, but I think that it is.

[EDIT: I am not speaking for any law schools other than my own. I do not profess knowledge of the relationship between Law Review and employability at any other law school.]

Story

2007-10-09T00:06:00.000-07:00

I had to save this tidbit, as I could not post it when it happened. But, now that I've accepted my job, here is the quote of my recruiting season.

[Me and alum interviewer talk about UCLA]

Interviewer: Do you read the blog by the UCLA 2L? The one named after Pierson?
Me: [shocked, but with a totally straight face] Yeah, I read it from time to time.
Interviewer: Do you know who in your class writes it?
Me: I'm not sure, but I have a pretty good idea.

One less robot

2007-10-05T20:50:00.000-07:00

*Important Announcement*

The Fox is off the market.

The job market, that is.

After much indecision, I have chosen to accept a summer position at the venerable firm of White, Old, Rich, and Male LLP. [It will be referred henceforth as WORM]

Ten potential reasons why I was chose the firm (Note, only one of them is the real reason, and as a hint, it is not reasons 1 to 9)
-#1 The firm has a low partner/associate ratio
-#2 Associates get plenty of client contact
-#3 Great diversity
-#4 Billable hours of only 100 hours a year
-#5 I get my own ocean-view office
-#6 The firm pays above market
-#7 Partnership track is only 1 year
-#8 I can do unlimited pro-bono work
-#9 The firm invented the cure for cancer
-#10 I really liked all the people I met.

Anyway, I'm so glad the process is over. There's only so much fancy lunches, dinners, and fakeness that I can handle before I puke. I can finally go back to class.

Big Time

2007-10-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

Observation of the day:

You know the people who work in recruiting departments across the country. Generally all female, young, good-looking, personable, seem nice, and who I try to hit on at all callbacks and receptions. Anyway, they're all really nice until you call/email to [decline the callback/cancel the callback/decline the offer]. I called today doing just that, and the nice fake recruiting lady turns into a robot. No, "I'm sorry you won't be joining us next summer" or "do keep us in mind in the future." Just, "where are you going instead so that I can close your file." And then she hangs up the phone. [EDIT: interesting story over at TJs about recruiting coordinators]

Apparently UCLAW has finally made it--We've finally been mentioned/ridiculed by Above The Law: Top Tier Law Schools Have Problems Too

Quote of the day

2007-10-02T00:04:00.000-07:00

I went downtown for a callback today in one of tall buildings housing 6 different firms. I was dressed as usual--suit, tie, with my leather folder. I walk into the revolving door and head to the security guard to check in. Without prompting:

Guard: You here for interviews?
Me: Yes. [firm name]. How did you know?
Guard: Y'all all dress the same and look the same.

Wow. As sure an an indictment as any on all of us law students. We're sheep. We like to follow and conform.

Dollar bills

2007-09-29T10:54:00.000-07:00

Went to San Francisco recently for callbacks.

At the airport, I bought a $3 bottle of soda with a $20. Got back change all in dollar bills.

On the plane, I bought a $5 sandwich. Flight attendant was this no-nonsense mid-40s lady. I took out my wad of dollar bills.

Her: That's a lot of dollar bills you've got there.
Me: Yeah, long night last night at the strip club.

She responds by giving me the death stare.

All I know is that I'm grateful for the lack of prepared meals on airlines, as she would have definitely spit in my food if she had the chance.

Being a rebel

2007-09-27T00:01:00.000-07:00

Standard interview attire for men:
black suit
power red or medium blue tie
white shirt

Having the luxury of sitting on an offer, I can ignore the conventional business advice.

For callbacks, I wear:
dark navy suit
light pastel tie

I am such a rebel!

(for the Quinn callback, however, I will be sporting a Hawaiian shirt)

Best news ever!

2007-09-26T00:34:00.000-07:00

The following was great news in my mailbox today, from the Dean. I have selectively edited the email to show the highlights (in my opinion).

As many of you may have already heard or read in the newspaper, the U.C. Regents approved a fee increase of 15% for our students for next year. They also approved a plan that would increase fees by 13% for each of the two succeeding years. Total tuition and fees for in-state students are therefore estimated to rise to $31,113 for 2008-09 . . . In furtherance of this commitment, we will take several steps to ameliorate the impact of the fee increase for those who can afford it the least. We are going to increase financial aid significantly – more than 1/3 of this fee increase will go to directly to improving our financial aid . . . Since I became dean three and one-half years ago, I have repeatedly acknowledged that fees would need to increase to support our growth, especially in an era where state subsidies are unpredictable and trending downward. At the same time, though, I remain committed to keeping our fees lower than our peer institutions. According to our estimates, once the fee increases are implemented, the total cost of a year at UCLA School of Law for in-state residents will be approximately $6,500 less than peer public law schools such as the University of Michigan and University of Virginia and $13,000 less than our peer private law schools. Our fees will also be slightly lower than Boalt’s . . .

My thoughts:
1. Tuition this year was $26,856 and it will jump next year to $31,113. That's a lot. But at least I'll have to pay the increase for only one additional year.
2. By my math, tuition at my state school will be $35,157 for academic year 2009-2010, and $39,728 for 2010-2011 (adding on a 13% yearly increase--quintuple the rate of inflation).
3. And thus, the entering class next year will pay $105,998 for their three years of law school. I, by comparison, will have paid around $75,000.
4. Assuming the Dean's math, law school tuition in 2010-2011 will cost $46,228 (39,728+6,500) at UVA and Michigan for in-state tuition. Law school at USC will be $52,728 (39,728+13,000). Either law school is going to be really expensive in three years or I don't trust the Dean's math.
5. Again, I might not be the most logical person in the world, but I really don't get the point of increasing tuition and then turning around to give 1/3 of it back to students. Why not only increase the tuition by 2/3 of the proposal and let students keep the money?
6. I was at some 0L recruitment events last year, and I heard the Dean specifically try to sell students by saying "don't you realize that coming to UCLA is like getting an automatic $15,000 scholarship because we're cheaper than private schools?" I find it hard to believe that the school will be able to hold the same sway in terms of attracting T14 students as the price differential becomes smaller.
7. I know that higher education costs money, but did I mention that I am so glad that I will be paying the increase for only one additional year?

Two sides

2007-09-23T21:21:00.000-07:00

Interesting article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about the recruiting season from the perspective of students from lower-ranked law schools.

It's funny, since I hear two different pictures about legal recruiting from lower-ranked schools. The (negative) side is mentioned in the the WSJ article. But I also hear stories about big bad law firms expanding their traditional recruiting pool because of the booming legal market and the need to find more bodies. Even UCLA has benefited from this, since while all the major West Coast firms always come to recruit, the top NY firms have started coming out this year and last year, as the major East Coast law schools produce only a finite number of graduates. This has been a fruitful to the rare kids here who desire to go practice in NY post-graduation.

Which side of the story is true, I'll leave it for you to decide.

Harvard is evil

2007-09-22T13:45:00.001-07:00

You said it, not me.

Like bears to honey

2007-09-21T00:59:00.000-07:00

I had a callback today. Nothing special. 2 associates took me out to lunch at the end. Went back to school. Went to dinner with the screening interviewer (young female associate) to "talk more about the firm," a dinner also paid for by Uncle [Firm Name]. Dinner was highly awkward, as I was basically tricked into a dinner-date. (Fine, I'm not that socially clueless to fail to realize that "talk more about the firm" implies the possibility of not merely only "talk[ing] more about the firm," but still, I was shocked at the forwardness.)

-----------------

Was also real facebook-friended by a [male] associate I interviewed with during a previous callback. Also highly awkward. The pending friend request is sitting idly.

Child's play

2007-09-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

One observation from OCIP: just how much of a joke law firm interviews are.

Having started the callback process, I'm absolutely amazed at the amount of fluff that occurs in interviews. During screening interviews and callback interviews, we law students are expected to talk about ourselves for 20-30 minutes at a time. No offense, but the stock-boy job I had when I was 16 made me go through a tougher interview process than this.

Even during callbacks, we're expected to talk about ourselves and repeat the same pitch multiple times to different people. (Granted, we're expected to ask the interviewer the same five stock questions towards the end of the interview). And as a result of talking about ourselves for 3 hours, we're effectively handed a six-figure job.

Come on, I'm an aspiring lawyer--of course, I can talk about myself. Easiest job I've ever had to interview for.

The Right Loses

2007-09-17T22:08:00.000-07:00

Latest on Chemerinsky...

It seems that all the negative criticism has finally gotten to UC Irvine and public opinion basically neutralized the conservative bloc's power.

Chemerinsky returns to UC Irvine (LA Times)
Furor Ends in Deanship for Liberal Scholar (NY Times)
Official Statement (UC Irvine)

One interesting note: Chemerinsky obviously came out on top here, and was the big winner. It would be fun to know what he was promised to accept the job this second time. It probably wasn't more money, but rather probably something involving greater freedom, responsibility, more discretionary spending, etc.

Question

2007-09-16T16:06:00.000-07:00

During recruiting season, there is much talk about the preferred firms. Indeed, there was a piece written about which firms are the "hot" firms this year.

The piece (written by a east coast blogger) profiles the east coast firms hot among this year's law students. None of the firms in the piece are remotely close to being popular destinations for west coast students.

With the exception of one.

Which brings me to my question...why do law students cream their interview suits over Latham?

I interviewed with them (they had 10 full schedules here at school), but did not find anything special about it vis a vis other firms. I still don't get why L&W is so desired. Feel free to comment or email me to explain the Latham fetish.

And in case people can't articulate a good reason other than "I heard it is nice," it just shows the arbitrariness we law students use in evaluating firms.

UPDATE: The only response I got was that the firm has a laid-back reputation (compared with its peer firms) and that it has nice people. Personally, not very impressive reasons.

I work too hard

2007-09-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

So, OCI (for me at least) ended on Wednesday, and there was no better feeling than not having to go through any more repetitive 20-minute "so how do you like law school " "tell me about your summer" and "why firm x" interviews.

While it is hard to tell during a screening interview how you're doing, here are my general observations:

You know interviews are going bad when:
-interviewer, around the 7 minute mark, starts the "so, do you have any questions for me" routine
-looks at the resume of the next interviewee during your interview
-interviewer tells you that it's been a long day and that he's ready to get out of there
-checks his crackberry during interviews
-you make an anti-SC comment to an interviewer who went to SC

Interviews go well when:
-you talk about your shared favorite sports team for most of the interview
-interviewer says: "when you come in to the office, I want you to meet x,y,z."
-interviewer tells you about the terrible interviews he/she has had today
-interviewer offers you callback on the spot

I also subscribe to the school of thought that you should be relaxed and make several semi-inappropriate jokes during the interviews, something that Career Services explicitly warns us not to do. Granted, it's easier for me to not stress out about the process since I already have a fallback offer from 1L summer, but being fun definitely made me stand out (read: be memorable) when most others go in really professional, be a robot, and give the stock answers we're taught to give (What is your greatest weakness? I am a perfectionist and I work too hard.)

But the downside with the informal attitude is that the interviews I've really bombed have been with really formal interviewers who didn't take too kindly to my semi-inappropriate jokes. My response to the weakness question? I have a weakness for cheap beer and for easy women. (OK, so maybe I don't actually say the second part out loud, but cheap beer is always my response when asked about my weaknesses.)

Anyway, I have a slate of callbacks lined up for the next month or so. Even though we will all continue to hate the process, at least we'll get a free lunch out of each callback. Good luck to all.

P.S. you guys should also continue to watch the UC Irvine Law fiasco continue to unfold.

Growing pains

2007-09-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

I will stop the OCI posts for this one important post, mainly about how a UC to the south/east-ish of UCLA has really screwed something up.

UC Irvine sometimes feels like the ugly duckling to UCLA, and about a year ago, it was announced that there was going to create its own new law school to launch in 2009. The new law school should have some important implications for, not so much UCLA and USC, but for the lower-ranked LA law schools and the existing Orange County law schools. The school got a $20 million donation from a conservative billionaire real estate developer, and will be named the Donald Bren School of Law.

Any 1L who has taken Con Law will be familiar with Erwin Chemerinsky and his hornbook. He spent 20 years at USC before moving to Duke. He is perhaps the foremost liberal Con Law scholars in the country, and supposedly awe-inspiring. And he was recently recruited by UC Irvine to head the law school and he accepted. Getting him to be the Dean was a major coup. Dean Chemerinsky!

At least for a few days.

Mere days after being hired, he was fired, the stated reason being that the school didn't realize how liberal he was when they hired him. If Irvine didn't realize that the country's foremost liberal Con Law scholar was a liberal, they must not have conducted the Dean search very thoroughly or they were just stupid. See news stories here and here. The official response from the Irvine Chancellor is here.

The real reason: the conservative donors at Irvine, including Bren, didn't like liberal Chemerinsky, and threatened to withhold further support unless he was fired.

Honestly, this was probably the worst decision Irvine could have made, made 2 years before the school even opens. Ave Mari...I mean UC Irvine, will now forever be branded as a "conservative" law school, despite its status as a public UC institution. But perhaps more importantly, it tells the academic community that it is subject to outside political influence and that nonacademics will be the ones making the academic decisions. And finally, it sends a warning message to potential faculty members that their academic freedoms will always be subject to check by outsiders.

I might be no university administrator, but I have two words for Irvine if they are so worried about the conservative donors jumping ship: liberal donors.

UPDATE:
Wikipedia entry on Bren: here
Volohk Conspiracy commentary, including nearly uniform criticism by conservative scholars

UPDATE #2:
The LA Times today (9/14) did a 6-page series on the whole affair. Some highlights:
-Main LA Times article today: here
-Chemerinsky's op-ed: here
-Chancellor Drake's attempt at a response: his explanation is that he is convinced that "Professor Chemerinsky and I would not be able to partner effectively to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine."

UPDATE #3:
UCI reportedly working on a deal to rehire Chemerinsky (9/15)

Whatever it takes

2007-09-11T21:23:00.001-07:00

Day 6 of OCIP has finished. So tired.

----------------

Had screening interview recently with a young female associate. Got a callback with said firm. Callback has been scheduled.

So, what does it mean when said female associate has called me twice already asking if I have additional questions about the firm and to see if I wanted to go to lunch or dinner either before of after my callback?

Hey, if it's going to help get me a job...

Poll

2007-09-09T13:57:00.000-07:00

With each marriage of your single friends makes you ponder your singleness (or how much you don't want to be married). With each passing of an elderly person's friend makes him ponder his own mortality. And with the retirement of each law school blogger only makes you think of your own limited shelf life. Here's to you, Lioness.

Being a blogger who doesn't really comment on other blogs, I'm not sure how people feel about this. And so, here is a poll:

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Interview stories

2007-09-08T01:03:00.001-07:00

Today:
(1) Firms will usually print out a copy of the interviewer's bio and stick it on the door of the interview room. I am waiting for my interview and reading over the interviewer's bio. My face is 8 inches from the door. Previous interview finishes. Interviewer opens door to let the previous student out. My face is still 8 inches from the door. Pretty obvious that I was unprepared and reading the bio right before the interview.

(2) Another interviewer to me after interview was over: "Thanks for the highly entertaining interview. I don't think I've laughed so hard so hard during the recruiting cycle this year."

(3) I have amassed a large collection of post-it highlighters and Starbucks cards.

(4) Latham consistently gives out the best toys. They were the first firm to start the USB drive trend about 2 years ago. This year's toy is a 1GB USB drive that is the shape of a credit card and fits into a wallet.

(5) Today was only day 4 of OCIP. I am absolutely wiped out.

All things to all people

2007-09-06T00:10:00.000-07:00

So, I've had a request for anecdotes. It is currently is the recruiting season, and all of my posts will deal with recruiting and going back and forth between the school and the Guest House. But in two days of recruiting so far, I'm already sick and tired of the process.

Two true interview stories:
Interview (a): large firm, young male junior associate. First time at UCLA. Sees lots of good-looking undergrad girls walking about campus. I was his first interview of the day. He starts off telling me about the hot UCLA undergrads he's seen. We proceed to spend most of my 20-minute time slot talking about college girls. How this relates to my abilities as a summer associate, I'm not sure.

Interview (b): large firm, bookish senior associate. Comes out that I wrote a paper on James Joyce in college. Proceed to spend the rest of the interview talking about Joyce and the rest of the writers of that era. How this relates to my abilities as a summer associate, I'm not sure.

And I got callbacks from both these firms.

What this tells about me (and the interview process):
1. I'm simply a renaissance man I guess, being able to talk intelligibly about college sorority girls and modern American writers within a 1-hour period.
--OR--
2. I'm a good BSer and schmoozer, and this ability is the key to getting callbacks (once you've met their GPA requirement, of course).

Advice

2007-09-03T01:23:00.000-07:00

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think your chances are that good.

Food for thought

2007-09-01T17:49:00.000-07:00

On the eve of OCIP, when all of us are preparing our suits and looking over NALP for the three-week process starting Tuesday, thinking about what we will all buy with $160,000 a year, I would like to introduce you all to one concept. The concept is even more striking given the rumors of a salary increase.

It's called the rule of threes.

The rule means that you will have to bill (not just work) to earn your salary. Three times that it. To earn the $160K in a law firm, you have to bill three times that, $480,00. That's right, to earn your salary, you have to bill half a million dollars.

One third of your billing is your salary. The other third of your billing is to cover firm overhead and benefits (health insurance, subsidized gym, car service home, Blackberries, free Starbucks, office personnel, and your office rent). The final third goes to the pockets of the rich white men sitting in the corner offices.

Cheer up though. I've heard rumors that the rule is no longer rule of 3s, but is moving to a rule of 3.5-4 ($560,000 - $640,000 on a $160K scale)

So, when we are all hoping for an associate salary increase or shopping around for the firm paying the highest salaries, just keep the rule in mind.

With that said, let the madness that is OCIP begin.

um, yeah

2007-09-01T15:15:00.000-07:00

Imagine if you gave this answer in a law firm interview...

Tease

2007-08-29T00:35:00.000-07:00

Dear symplicity,

You get my heart all excited when I see that I can sign up for open interviews. I see the push-button. I click it. You then say that no interviews are available for this schedule. Why do you even have this button for some firms when there are no available spots?

You are such a tease.

Sincerly,
me

Public Service Announcement

2007-08-24T21:06:00.000-07:00

To all UCLA 2L/3Ls,

Interview schedules are already available on symplicity. I know we were told that schedules would not be available until Tuesday 8/28, but they lied. Let the fun begin.

Swanky

2007-08-21T17:09:00.000-07:00

Dear big law firms,

There's about a dozen of you hosting swanky receptions for us 2Ls in the upcoming weeks at swanky locations like the W hotel on campus. But perhaps it would be a better use of your recruiting money to host these events before bidding was due. Since bidding was already due, these receptions will simply be an opportunity for 2Ls to get free alcohol and not care which firm is providing the alcohol. I doubt that you care about the effectiveness of your recruitment budgets, but FYI.

Me

On Bidding

2007-08-18T19:24:00.000-07:00

Bidding for OCIP was due on Thursday at 5PM. Some schools have a complete pre-screen, where employers review resumes and select only those who they want to interview. Other schools have quasi-lottery, where employers pre-select a percentage of their interview schedule and the other part is based on a lottery where students bid on which firms they would like to interview. But here, we have a complete lottery, which means that a 2.5 GPA can get an interview with Wachtell as long as you bid high enough on it.

There's about 360 different interview schedules here, and we had to narrow those 360 down to up to 40 bids. Because I have no idea what makes cookie cutter big firm #1 different from cookie cutter big firm #2, I had a difficult time bidding.

Here's how I bid over the course of an hour Wednesday night:
1. Eliminate any firm not in California. By not in California, I mean any firm not located in either Los Angeles/Santa Monica (no, Irvine and the Valley both don't count as LA) or San Francisco. Left with about 190.
2. Eliminate any firm that does not pay market. Left with about 150.
3. Eliminate any firm whose GPA requirement I do not meet. Because I have a semi-decent GPA solely due to luck/sleeping with professors, I was only able to eliminate only 2 firms. Down to 148.
4. Eliminate any firm interviewing on Fridays. I don't have class on Fridays, and there's no way I'm coming to school solely for interviews. Down to about 120.
5. Take the Vault 100 and bid down the list, starting from #3 (Vault #1 and #2, both of which recruit here, were eliminated by Step 1).
6. Around Vault #85, my #40 bid runs out.
7. Click submit.

In about 10 days, I find out which interviews I got.

What's scary is that because firms are so alike, I was far from being the only student I know who bid the way I bid--no research, and bid based solely on name, prestige, and salary.

And on a completely unrelated note, can anyone tell me why there are so many unhappy young lawyers?

Impressions

2007-08-16T22:52:00.000-07:00

So, I stopped by the law school for like 5 minutes today to do some OCI bidding stuff. Today also happened to be the first day of orientation for the fresh1Ls. Here's three general impressions I got from spending some time with them:

1. The 1L girls are most definitely better looking than your average law school girl. I'm sure lots of upperclassboys are excited, being able to play the "wise sophisticated 2/3L' card. The losers will be the upperclassgirls, who will be drawing less attention from the upperclassboys.

2. There's a lot more diversity in this year's class, and I probably attribute it to better financial incentives to the minority students. For example, there is by my count 1 African-American male and 2 half-white males in my entire 2L class of 340. I'm glad to see that there's a lot more color in the fresh1L class.

3. The fresh1Ls are much more hardcore than we ever were (and the 3Ls claimed that we're a lot more hardcore than they were). The fresh1Ls were asking me questions about exams and jobs and all that jazz, when they haven't even had a real law school class yet. But I guess that is the consequence of the whole "lets move to 14" mentality the administrators have, by drawing more students from the Ivies and less from Southern California that typically dominated the class.

WTF?

2007-08-16T10:03:00.000-07:00

back

2007-08-15T01:30:00.001-07:00

Back from the vacation, orientation starts Thursday for the fresh1Ls (this will be what I call them youngins from now on), and classes start on Monday. Should be back to a more regular blogging schedule once school starts.

Hottest Mega-University

2007-08-12T20:01:00.000-07:00

not law school related at all, but...

Newsweek recently named the 25 hottest schools [no, not the kind measured by the quality of the student bod(ies)], and Cornell, in the frozen tundra of upstate New York, was named the hottest school overall.

And the winner for the Hottest Mega-University goes to...

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.

"Coming from a small Roman Catholic high school, Joe Iniguez found the 37,000-student UCLA campus was just what he wanted. "I wanted to experience something bigger," he says. Some students, of course, find the university daunting, but the opportunities are so vast and the undergrads so smart (the freshman class had an average GPA of 4.3) that most find their niche. With degrees in 120 majors, hundreds of undergrads do publishable research with senior faculty."

news

2007-08-11T00:45:00.000-07:00

Sad news.

Harvard snags Bill Rubenstein from UCLA. Strange way it was announced.