Case No. 2433504, Knorps, 7/18/08, Los Angeles Board of Appeals

This is a true first for Flying Houses.  First, a post that directly references the period at which this blog was first created.  Second, a post that will be used a source for a legal article.  Is this permissible?  That is highly questionable.  It does say, on my envelope, "Penalty for Private Use: $300."  Flying Houses is recently copyrighted, but all articles posted are for the benefit of the public.  I reserve the right to use the rest of the material on this site for monetary gain - but I do not claim such a right for this document.    


The purpose of posting this is so that I may refer to it in the paper I am writing for my employment law class.  I cannot attach supplementary materials to legal articles, or refer to the record as in a motion for a court.  Thus, my footnotes will read "available at.....(last visited 3/12/12)" etc.   


My paper is about staffing agencies.  There are some great moments in here, but perhaps the saddest was at the very end, when the ALJ asked the claimant, is there anything else I should know, and the claimant fails to state the "bill-rate issue."  This would not have affected the decision, but the real reason for separating from the job was that issue.  The commute was the argument that came across, and that's a loser.  The bill-rate issue is unconscionable on its face, but legally permissible, perhaps, and needs to be investigated.  Staffing agencies are not the most evil entities in the world -  but they do need to be regulated more closely, and they do need to offer better benefits for their workers.  (Originally, the topic of my paper was going to be, when can temps claim unemployment?  But I decided to do something more ambitious.)  In the event this article is ever published and I am given remuneration, I will send the state of California their penalty payment, even though they never thought I deserved unemployment benefits.


I would like to thank them for their swift delivery of this audio CD, which I transcribe below.  It is 3,619 words.  You've been warned.  

ALJ = Michael Abzug (Administrative Law Judge)

J = Christopher J. Knorps (Ex-Temp)

A = Alexandria Watson (Accountemps)

A: This is Alexandria Watson!

ALJ: Yeah Ms. Watson this is Judge Abzug, are you ready to proceed?

A: Yes I am.

ALJ:  Alright, the record is open, the case number 2433504, the claimant, Mr. Christopher Knorps, is present.  Also present on behalf of the former employer, Accountemps, is Alexandria Watson.  Ms. Watson what is your job title please?

A: I am a Metro Market Manager.

ALJ: The Administrative Law Judge is Michael Abzug, today’s date is July 18, 2008, the time is now 10:00 AM and the hearing is being conducted at the Los Angeles Board of Appeals.  The claimant has filed a timely appeal from a department (indistinct) determination, mailed to him on May 23, 2008, that held that he was disqualified for benefits under code section 1256.  The issue that we are going to be addressing today is how and why Mr. Knorps became separated from his most recent work.  If I find that he voluntarily abandoned work that was available to him, then the issue will be whether he did so with good cause.  “Good cause” is a legal term that is defined as a real and compelling reason to leave available work, the kind of reason that would have caused somebody in Mr. Knorps’s situation, who genuinely wanted to retain employment, to take similar action.  If he voluntarily left with good cause, he will not be disqualified for benefits, and the employer’s reserve account will be subject to charges.  Mr. Knorps, do you understand the issue that we are going to be addressing?

J: Yes, I do.

ALJ: Do you as well, Ms. Watson.

A: Yes.

ALJ: Ms. Watson, was a copy of the appeal file mailed out to you?

A: Yes.

ALJ: Did you review it?

A: Yes I have.

ALJ: Mr. Knorps, did you review….

J: Is this it? 

ALJ: The documents in the file?  The reason I ask that is because in a few moments I am going to mark certain of those documents as exhibits so that I can consider what they say as part of the basis on which I am going to make my decision eventually.  My decision is also going to be based on what other evidence is introduced at this morning’s proceedings, which, at a minimum I expect will include the sworn testimony of Mr. Knorps as well as Ms. Watson.  After I mark these documents as exhibits, I will ask each party if they have any objection to their admission into evidence.  You’re not required to make objections of course, but if you do I will consider them.  After I have considered those documents (indistinct) I will then take testimony.  It at least preliminarily appears that Mr. Knorps is the moving party of the separation, and we will begin by taking testimony from him.  I will ask him to swear to tell the truth which I am required to do by law, I will ask him a few questions about the issues that I have outlined a few minutes ago, and when finished, he can add to his proof either by supplementing his own testimony, introducing documents, calling witnesses, in case he thinks there is something I have inadvertently overlooked that I need to know in order to make a good decision.  I will also give Ms. Watson the opportunity to question Mr. Knorps if she likes.  Ms. Watson you are not required to ask the claimant any questions – I am going to give the employer a separate opportunity to tell me its side of the story – but if you want to ask any questions, I’ll give you that reasonable opportunity to do so.

A: Okay great, thank you.

ALJ: When we’re finished taking testimony from the claimant, we’ll take the testimony from Ms. Watson that will follow the same order of proof, that is I’ll swear her, I’ll ask her some questions, I’ll give Ms. Watson the opportunity to add to her proof the same way I gave Mr. Knorps the opportunity to add to his proof, and then we’ll conclude by giving Mr. Knorps the same right that I gave to Ms. Watson, that is if he wants to ask her questions he can do so, but he is not required to.  When we’re finished I’ll thank everybody for their appearances, I’m not going to make my decision today, I’ve got to make it later in writing and a copy will be mailed to each party, clearly (?) EDD, probably in about 20 business days.  Mr. Knorps do you think you understand the procedures?

J: Yes I do.

ALJ: Do you have any questions about them?

J:  No.

ALJ: Ms. Watson, do you understand the procedures?

A: Yes I do.

ALJ: Do you have any questions about the procedure?

A: No I do not.

(ALJ reads the various exhibits he is marking into evidence, exhibits 1-7, asks if there are any objections, to which Mr. Knorps replies no.)

ALJ: Ms. Watson, have you reviewed 1-7?

A: I have – I do have to say that the record of claim status interview is not legible to me – I can’t read the writing on the document….(A short discussion about this follows)

ALJ: Claimant states that he voluntarily quit because the company did not offer him permanent full-time work at the company.

J: That’s not, really….

ALJ:  Well just a second, I’m just reading it.  I’ll give you a chance to comment in a moment.  Claimant states he is looking for full-time work, not willing to do temporary assignment work.  Claimant states he did not want to be working there anymore.  He wanted to do something different.  He wants to write a book or novel.  Or technical writing, screenwriting.  If he does not have the experience

J: (scoffs)

ALJ: He wants to work in the writing industry.  Um.

A: Now just….

ALJ: One second, please.  I’m just reading it, and then everyone will be given a chance to comment, I’m not going to cut anybody off.  The employer said that the claimant is no longer working with the company and cannot provide any additional information.  The EDD basically concludes that claimant’s decision to voluntarily quit to look for work was personal, a personal decision, therefore, in their opinion, he is disqualified.  So that is the substance of the interview that occurred on May 22, 2008.  Now that I have read that to you, Ms. Watson, any objection to the admission of exhibits 1-7.

A: No, just so I completely understand, so this is the information that was gathered from my company, by the EDD is that correct?

ALJ: No, that’s not correct.  What happens when somebody separates from work for any reason and applies for benefits, there is what’s called a “claim status interview” which is a telephone interview conducted by the EDD to figure out whether the circumstances of the separation merit benefits under the law.  What I just read you were the notes of the department representative who spoke to the claimant and who spoke to the employer representative. 

A:  Okay, so the claimant let the EDD know that he was interested in writing screenplays, because that’s what I’m trying to confirm.

ALJ: That’s the allegation, yes.

A: Okay, then I understand.  Thank you.

ALJ: Any objections to the admission of 1-7?

A: No.

ALJ: Mr. Knorps, now that I’ve read that exhibit, would you like to raise any objections to the admission of 1-7?

J:  Well when I did that interview, I really don’t think the proper scrutiny was paid attention to.  I just feel as if the separation from the company was not as clear cut as being a “quit” or a “fire” or a “laid off,” okay?

ALJ:  Alright, well excuse me for interrupting you, I’ll try not to do it again, I’ll construe your remarks as an objection to the exhibits and respectfully overrule them, as I mentioned to you before the fact that I admit them into evidence doesn’t necessarily mean that I believe every word they say, or that they’re accurate, and it certainly doesn’t mean I am going to rule against you, it just means that I think the documents may be relevant – how relevant I won’t make up my mind until I’ve heard everything that you and Ms. Watson have to say so, 1-7 are received.  Mr. Knorps, please raise your right hand.  Do you solemnly swear, or affirm, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

J: I do.

ALJ: State your name please.

J: Christopher John Knorps.

ALJ: Alright Mr. Knorps I’m going to ask you a few questions.  How long were you registered to work with Accountemps?

J: Roughly six months – between October 28 to May 2, October 28, 2007 to May 2, 2008.   

ALJ: Alright, on May 2, 2008, where were you assigned, who was the employer at the time?

J:  Jefferies & Co.

ALJ:  What was your job title with Jefferies & Co.?

J: I was accounts payable clerk.

ALJ:  Full time work?

J:  Yes.

ALJ: And what was the wage at the time of separation?

J: $13 an hour.

ALJ:  And how long had you been working for Jefferies & Co.?

J:  Six months.

ALJ:  Alright well what caused the separation on May 2^nd?

J:  Well previously, about a month previous, my supervisor Maria Magpantay kind of talked to me about leaving.  It was kind of a mutual agreement to leave.  I did not tell her that I wanted to quit.  She didn’t tell me, that you know, she didn’t think my performance was up to standards.  I asked for a full-time position because there was one person who had recently left, and she said she wasn’t able to hire me full-time….

ALJ:  You mean a permanent position?

J:  Yes, with Jefferies & Co.

ALJ: I understand, okay.

J:  She told me that wasn’t going to be possible.  And when I started working there, Accountemps had told me it was going to be a 6 month temp-to-perm position, so my understanding was that at the end of the six months I would be offered a permanent position with the assignment company.  So when they told me, you know, we just kind of have to leave May 2, I didn’t really have any objection to that, because I had already started looking for new work – I had had a friend who tried to get me a job with UCLA and I was looking for something else, and it’s true I was trying to change careers from accounting, so there is some truth to that, but there is also just, the way it ended was ambiguous I guess, and it wasn’t properly communicated in the interview I guess.

ALJ:  Alright let’s back up a little bit, who at Accountemps assigned you the job?

J:  Shezzad Allaudin.  But Jessica has been my representative.

ALJ:  The person you spoke to about the offer was Shezzad?

J:  Yes.

ALJ:  And what did she tell you about how long the job would last?

J:  He said it would be six months.

ALJ:  Six months?

J:  Yes, but it was temp-to-perm.  And I guess maybe that wasn’t properly explained to me what temp-to-perm meant, but I was under the impression that it meant that, after you were there for six months, they would hire you full time.

ALJ:  The person you spoke to about a month before the separation, what was her or his name?

J:  Maria Magpantay, she was my supervisor at Jefferies & Co.

ALJ:  When you spoke to her and she told you that they weren’t going to hire you permanently, did she tell you that May 2 would be your last day?

J:  Well we agreed.  She said do you want to make it for a month, just say a month from now, and I said yes, I think it’s best if I leave in a month, I want to try to find something else.

ALJ:  Alright, I’m going to ask you a hypothetical, what do you think would have happened if you had said, no, I want to stay on past May 2^nd?

J:  She probably would have said that was okay.  If I had wanted to do I could have stayed.

ALJ:  Alright, so why did you decide to leave on May 2^nd rather than stay?

J:  Well, this is going to be…Well, I switched apartments from the West Side to Silverlake, and the offices were about a 5 minute drive from my place on the west side and now it was going to be like a 45 minute drive, so…

ALJ:  One way?

J:  Yes, I had commuted for a few days doing it, and it was just kind of assumed that once I moved to a new apartment I would move to a new job….In hindsight it was a mistake.  (laughs)

ALJ:  Well I’m not trying to confront you or make you uncomfortable.  I’m just trying to get information.  So you were living in Westwood and you were moving where?

J:  Silverlake.

ALJ:  Oh you were moving to Silverlake.

J:  I live there now.  But I was living in Palms before.

ALJ:   Where the new jobsite is.

J:  Yes.  The new job site is in Beverly Hills.  I just started working there this week.

ALJ: No, no.  I meant, they moved you from the west side to Silverlake at Jefferies & Co.  Is that right?

J: Oh no, no, their offices are on the west side.  I am talking about my personal apartment.

ALJ:  So you moved to Silverlake before May 2^nd?

J:  Yes, I moved there, like, April 28, that’s when my lease began.

ALJ:  Okay, anything else, did you have any other job to go to at the time you abandoned work on May 2^nd?

J:  No.

ALJ: Anything else you want to tell me?

J:  I believe that’s all the relevant information.

ALJ:  Okay, thank you.  Ms. Watson are you still with us?

A:  Yeah, I’m still here.  I only heard bits and pieces of Christopher’s testimony, I don’t know if it was my phone or if he’s on a cell phone that’s cutting out.

ALJ:  Well I wish you would have told me that before this time, we could have tried to make the testimony more audible to you, what is it you want me to do now that you haven’t heard it?

A:  Well I think I got the gist of it, I just want to tell you that I don’t think I heard everything, I just didn’t think I was allowed to interrupt.  I apologize. 

ALJ:  That’s fine.  Let me do this, what I will do, is attempt to accurately summarize what Mr. Knorps has said, and Mr. Knorps why don’t you listen carefully and if I’ve left out anything material at the end you can add it so that Ms. Watson is fully informed.  Okay.  Here’s what he said.  He said that he had been registered to work for Accountemps for six months.  He had one job only – apparently – and that was with Jefferies & Co., which was located on the west side.  He was accounts payable clerk, full-time, and his wage was $13 an hour.  He was given the assignment by a man named Shezzad who told him that it was a six month temp-to-perm assignment, so that, for about five months, he went along and worked, and then had a conversation with his supervisor at Jefferies & Co., Maria Maganya, about whether he was going to be given a permanent position.  Ms. Maganya informed him that he would not and asked him basically what he wanted to do, and whether he wanted to make May 2 his last day, and he said – he agreed.  He agreed.  I asked him whether he believed that continuing work was available to him if he had told Ms. Maganya if he had told her that he wanted to continue working as a temp, and he said that he believed continuing work was available to him, if he wanted to work as a temp, but he decided to leave work on May 2, 2008, because he moved from the west side to Silverlake on April 28, 2008, and he found that the switch from a 5-minute commute to a 45-minute commute one way was burdensome, and that he just generally felt that since he had switched apartments, he should probably switch jobs too, which in retrospect he believes may have been a mistake.  At the time he left available work on May 2^nd, he did not have another job, although he was hoping to switch industries.  Mr. Knorps have I summarized your testimony accurately?

J:  Very accurately.

ALJ:  Anything else you want to add to the record?

J:  Just Maria Magpantay, was her name.

ALJ:  Anything else I material I missed?

J:  No.

ALJ:  Ms. Watson, did you hear me?

A:  I did absolutely, thank you so much.

ALJ:  Any questions you want to ask Mr. Knorps?

A: No, I think it’s pretty clear cut to me.

ALJ:   Then raise your right hand.

A: Right hand raised.

ALJ: Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

A: Yes I do.

ALJ:  State your name.

A:  Alexandria Watson.

ALJ: And your job title?

A: Metro Market Manager.

ALJ: Alright Ms. Watson is there anything that the employer wants to add to the record that you think I need to know before I close it?

A:  The only thing I would add is that Jefferies & Co. is a consistent client with us, and they pretty much never convert candidates to permanent.  So the documentation in my system for this particular assignment states that it was long term, comma, possible temp-to-hire, and we always let candidates know that there is a possibility that things will go temp-to-hire, but this particular candidate…we’ve had candidates work out there for three years on a temporary engagement and not convert.  So I just wanted to make sure that was stated clearly, that I know that we did not assure that this was going to be a temp-to-hire.

ALJ:  Well, okay, that’s fine you have stated it, and I don’t have the impression from Mr. Knorps’s testimony that he was in any way guaranteed a permanent position.

A: Okay.

ALJ:  Alright, anything else?

A:  No.

ALJ:  Alright Mr. Knorps any questions for Ms. Watson?

J: No.

ALJ:  Anything else you want to add to the record that you think I need to know?

J: No.

ALJ:  Alright, okay, well Mr. Knorps good luck out in Silverlake.  I hope things turn around for you, and that your switch to a new industry is successful.  Take care of yourself.  This record is closed. 

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Trust No One, Dr. Jones (The 50/50 Rule)

For my sixth column for BLS Advocate, I decided to write about an issue that's been bothering me a lot this year - the problem of un-cool classmates.  This column is a brief explanation of the 50/50 Rule.  For those that have not heard me speak of it, the 50/50 Rule is the theory that 50% of law students (and lawyers) are cool, and the other 50% are not.  Please note this is a 1,029 word post, thus 279 words longer than my cap allows - and this is by no means a comprehensive exploration of the topic.  

                On the first day of my preliminary “introduction to the law” class last year, our instructor asked us, in the first minute, if we knew any good lawyer jokes.  Half a dozen classmates offered their best, and I put my head down in shame.  Really?  This was the way we were going to start law school?  After about a year, it made sense to me. 

                Your classmates are not here because they want to be your friend.  Your classmates are here because they happen to be at the same school where they hope to earn a J.D.  Of course, many of us have similar reasons for coming (*cough*scholarship*cough*) but many of us have divergent interests.

                Brooklyn Law School prides itself upon its students’ commitment to public service, and indeed there is a very high percentage of students that are members of BLSPI, that participate in Pro Bono Projects, that become involved in other clubs, and that generally have no problem volunteering, provided it is not such a burden that it causes other parts of their lives to suffer. 

                I made the point earlier, in my application for a BLSPI fellowship, that about 50% of the students at BLS are cool, and the other 50% are un-cool.  I did not get offered an interview.  This apparently has nothing to do with my commitment to public interest – but I promise to show you that it does.

                 What makes someone a “cool” BLS student?  First, they are not snobby in who they talk to.  You know what I am talking about here – you have about 100 classmates in your “big” classes, and you may sit next to someone for an entire semester and barely speak a word to each other.  It’s possible you’re both just shy (indeed, this was the case for me my first year) but it’s also possible one of you is a member of the “un-cool contingent.”  Members in this class look upon students that they consider unfocused, lazy, stupid, wasted, or “unclean” in some other way and decide that it is not in their best interests to associate with this person.  This is what I mean when I say that the social life of law school is like a weird cross between the pains of high school cliquery and the freedom of experimentation that college nurtures—hearing new ideas, having an open mind, and making friends with people that you never might have associated with in high school.

                Law school is a reversion backwards from college.  Though we are still interested in hearing new ideas, supposedly, finding students with an “open mind” is more difficult, because by now many of us consider ourselves “informed, responsible adults” who choose our friends wisely and have a firmly set stance on the issues that matter to us.  Public interest students clique around with other public interest students (though they are, actually, really nice…), bankruptcy law students clique around with other bankruptcy law students (and we are the coolest of the cool), IP students clique around with other IP students, public defenders hang out with public defenders and prosecutors hang out with prosecutors.  Of course, reality is hardly so simple – but my point is that, sometimes a law student’s area of focus will affect their personality to a degree that renders them incapable of friendship with non-like-minded individuals.

                The second factor that makes a BLS student “cool” is not judging someone for being cheap.  Some of us have rich parents that float us money and we can go clubbing and buy fancy shoes and dresses and suits and look like a million bucks at the Barrister’s Ball – but some of us are nearing 30 (or older) and feel a bit, oh, childish relying on our parents for so much.  Whether it be pride or necessity, our savings accounts are mostly depleted, we have no income, we carry significant debt, and it’s important that we “spend like law students” and not like lawyers.  This may seem like a petty complaint but I do not think I am the only one who feels left out when they miss out on a birthday party because people would rather have it at a bar than their house.  I am preaching at the top of my lungs from this soapbox: HAVE MORE HOUSE PARTIES, PEOPLE!

                Finally, if law students are un-cool, part of the problem is that lawyers are un-cool.  The 50/50 rule is in effect not only for law students, but also for lawyers.  Lawyers who lie, tell their secretary to tell callers that “they’re in a meeting” when it’s convenient to do so, or act like they’re an expert in the ways of the world and refuse to waste their time giving a thorough explanation of why this argument is going to work and that argument will not, may be considered un-cool.  Lawyers that rent out a shoddy house in clear violation of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and tell the tenants that, if they don’t like that the stairway to the basement has no railing, “Tough.”  Un-Cool.  Professors that talk for 90% of class time because really, WE HAVE SO MUCH MATERIAL TO COVER, and really just like to hear their own voice, and thereby intimidate students to speak with them for extra help, creating an unfair subconscious exam handicap, are un-cool.

                My hope is that this “problem” will be remedied by cold, hard experience in the real world.  Once you get out there, and you realize that really, you are not that important, maybe you go broke once or twice, maybe you move back in with your family, maybe you go through a serious depressive episode – maybe then you’ll wake up and realize it’s better to be compassionate (cool) than fiercely self-interested (un-cool).

Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law and finds the psychology of human emotions fascinating.  Please join him in such explorations at the Open Mic on Thursday April 5, at Geraldo’s, from 7:00 – 10:00.  Please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in performing.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - It's Six O'Clock - Do You Know Where Your Internships Are?

For my 5th column for BLS Advocate, I decided to write about the anxiety of failure to secure a summer internship by spring break.  This is also the first time there has been substantive editing of my column, so here on Flying Houses, you get the un-edited "crappy" version with run-on sentences, tangential parantheticals, and just plain awkwardness.

I do think the version on BLS Advocate will be vastly superior to this (the opposite of the Facebook incident...) but I choose to present this for its "cheekiness."  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: It’s Six O’Clock – Do You Know Where Your Internships Are?

                I am writing this on March 4 (and it may, or may not, be published by March 7^th).  Either way, at present we are two months, or sixty days away from the end of the year.  If you are one of those fortunate individuals who knows what they are doing this summer (or, in the case of 3Ls, after this summer), congratulations, you can live with slightly less anxiety than the rest of us.  However, I don’t think I’m in the minority of 2Ls when I say I don’t have one yet, and I’m getting a bit concerned. 

                I have a theory: with each year of law school comes diminished opportunities.  I believe that it is surprisingly, perhaps remarkably easy for 1Ls to obtain summer internships.  You’ve just been burnt out, and now it’s time to see if you can be a good office worker.  If you are a 1L and are not sure what you are doing yet, don’t worry. 

                Last year, I spent most of Spring Break applying to jobs on Symplicity and doing a bit of reading for class.  I did not concern myself with outlining (nor do I plan to do so this Spring Break).  Last year, I probably sent out about 40 resumes and cover letters.  Here, I can check how many….

                  67.  67 last year.  And 34 this year.  However, I was surprised to see that many of the places I applied to last year were also applied to this year (which is, in large part, a result of the PILC Fair), and so I probably have many more cover letters that I can easily craft—except I must admit that I now I take a very different approach to writing cover letters.  At this point I am able to pop one out in 5-10 minutes.  I’m not sure how I feel about the “fine paper” distinction for resumes and cover letters – I spent $24 at the Court St. Office Supply store, mailed out 9 applications to judges with fancy envelopes, fancy resume and cover letter paper, transcripts and writing samples, and I heard nothing back.  (I should also note here that – one should be able to infer from my comments two columns earlier, that I was not so fortunate in what I thought would be my “big break”—but this is not a column about my life, but all of our lives – and such specificity should be discouraged—unless you want me to tell you in person…)

                The point I was trying to make before I got all caught up in numbers is that I did not have an internship at this time last year either.  And then, without warning, it hit.  After a preliminary interview to be a research assistant that I bombed on March 21 last year, I was contacted by a flurry of organizations (all governmental – none non-profit) around April 4^th.  Four different places called me in two days, and I ended up taking the internship that I interviewed for first.  (Additionally, I was formally offered an internship with KCDA sometime in early May, about a month too late.  And I look at my e-mails now from a coordinator that say, “Are you interning at KCDA?” and I remember writing back, “I have not heard anything yet – but yes, I would accept the internship if offered it.” A former roommate interned there last summer and he said that there were like 100 interns from BLS at KCDA.  I had a friend from University of Michigan come in to intern there.  It would have been great – but I cannot say that it would have been as fun as NYCTA).  By April 6, I knew I would be working there.

                So 1Ls: Relax.  If you don’t know what you’re doing by May, you may still get an unexpected last minute offer from KCDA if you applied for that a couple months back….

                2Ls: I don’t know how we’re supposed to feel at this point.  I will say I have noticed two trends: (1) Overall, more 2Ls have internships at this time than we had as 1Ls last year; and (2) If we do not have an internship by now, we are freaking out a little bit more than last year.  My theory is that, with each year, securing summer employment becomes more difficult—but for those that do secure employment, they secure it earlier each year.  Thus, increased anxiety at earlier points is only natural for those of us that don’t. 

                3Ls: If you don’t know what you’re doing after the summer yet….um……I really don’t think I’m in any place to offer you any advice, except to say (1) I won’t be surprised if I’m in the same position as you this time, next year; and (2) if you’re under 30, don’t worry so much–you’ve got time.  Oh, and start planning for bankruptcy, and a killer argument that you suffered an undue hardship and therefore deserve a discharge of your student loans – join that class-action, or start a new proceeding and remember your basics on collateral estoppel from civil procedure.

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at Brooklyn Law School.  He is Treasurer of the Health Law & Policy Association, and would like to invite you to its Open Mic event on April 5.  Please e-mail Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in reading or performing.   

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Re-liability

I am being restricted to 750 words, as you may know, but I have fallen into the habit of providing the same material on both BLS Advocate and Flying Houses. This is unacceptable. From now on, flying houses will include what parts I "left out" of the column.

SO what was left out this time?

-That I was unreliable by not showing up to a SALSA dance event at Geraldo's on Friday night where the Harvard transferee would apparently be in attendance and where I might be able to get the answer to my question.

-That my back was in truly awful pain, that I spent 3 hours trying to move across the room to unlock my door, and then reach my cell phone, and then did not wake up until 3 PM--though I wrote this column in between 11 AM and 1:30 PM or so.

-That it is probably the worst article so far in the sense that it does not make a strong legal argument. This (along with the severely redacted Facebook Etiquette post on BLS Advocate - which, by the way, I consider the best column I have done in its full 2,900 word form here on this blog, and the worst column in its redacted form) is my second worst column - but I think it could also be considered the best for its poetic quality, reference to Marx, and random tangential quality. This is not just about reliability, but cell phones, answering machines, social life, and default judgments. Maybe I lost some of my focus along the way, but believe me, it could have gotten much, much worse. Enjoy.

It is with great irony that today I opine about reliability, as it marks the first time in my life I have ever committed the sin of the unexcused absence. I woke up at 7:30 AM and could not support and lift myself off of my mattress until after 10 AM because of horrible, horrible, back spasms. 75 minutes after I was supposed to show up, I finally got in touch with several people that work at the library. They understood, did not accuse me of lying, and covered for me.

I have noticed a lot of complaining of late about the alleged scarcity of jobs. Indeed I have written about it before. And perhaps it is no longer just an allegation – but a fact. But I would like to offer an alternative to self-pity: just show up.

A very famous man once said 90% of life is showing up. And when it comes to the practice of law, the statement is accurate (more or less). The only time you don’t show up in court is when you know you have nothing, and you would rather take a default judgment than waste your time fighting a losing battle. But when there is no more than a scintilla of hope, and you still show up, you set a good example. People will respect you for doing that. Unfortunately most of my argument rests on social and not legal grounds.

A spectre is haunting America—the spectre of communication breakdown. We have more tools than ever before to communicate with one another, but people have lost their love for the phone, and fallen for the text. Of course, everyone has cell phones, and few people have landlines, and it would follow that, a person keeps their phone on them at all times – so how come they’re more difficult than ever to reach?

Maybe they just don’t like you, or think you’re ugly. Maybe they’re “shy on the phone” and prefer to send e-mails. Whatever their excuse, it’s troubling. Every cell phone has caller ID (I think). Do you remember the days before caller ID? I do. It was a wilderness. Prank phone calls abounded. Answering machines were the preferred defensive method. I ask people, “Why don’t you ever pick up? Are you screening your calls?” They reply, “What do you mean by that?”

I may be two or three years over the median age, but I am not that old. Still, I have to say, these kids today drive me crazy! Oh, how pathetic it becomes! When, for example, I met with a certain committee a couple weeks ago, and we were waiting for all the other members to show up, and every single person was looking at something or texting something on their cell phone. I don’t have a Smart Phone and people make fun of me for only having 250 Text Messages a month to use.

Answering machines were vastly superior to voice mail because they allowed for a great deal of creativity. Your greeting could be a work of art, if you so chose. Once I left an incredibly long greeting on our family answering machine, and several of my parent’s friends thought it was just about the cutest thing in the world – could they record it and save it as their own? I have heard ONE “creative” voice mail greeting, and it sounded very dumb. The medium is not conducive.

Not only was there creativity – but there was screening. You could have that desperate moment, when you are listening to someone leave a message, and maybe they are saying, “I know you are there. Pick up.” And perhaps you do pick up – in 1993. But if it were 2012, you wouldn’t. You would be too intimidated by the prospect of telephonic conversation. You would write back a text, saying, hey I saw you called, what’s up? And then you are forced to fit your thought into 160 characters. You’re forced to be much more efficient. You’re also forced to ignore the finer details of the matter. Lose your feelings, just state the facts.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at Brooklyn Law School. He has written two novels, a book of short stories, and a memoir of his 10-month-stint in L.A. He enjoys studying bankruptcy law. He ranks in the upper 54% of his class. You may find his blog by visiting flyinghouses.blogspot.com.

Note on Copyright

As you may have noticed, I have copyrighted all material on Flying Houses.

This was done as a result of my friend, who took Copyright Law last semester and wants to practice it, telling me that I had left myself extraordinarily unprotected in perhaps the easiest medium to copy, cut, paste, and steal: text.

Daylight Savings Time, the novel, has also been copyrighted.

While Flying Houses is run as a public service to all of the book lovers of the world, I have become quite interested in the traffic stats of late. Flying Houses is more popular than ever. And it is definitely possible that some of my material is being hijacked.

I won't stand for this as Flying Houses will soon be celebrating its 4th birthday, and I have spent countless hours working to perfect a distinct style and tone to the material. If others profit off the work that I do for no pay, they will be found out and reprimanded appropriately.

That said, please feel free to share any reviews or articles on this blog. After all, I am quite happy about the traffic hitting new peaks each month. But, if you would like to re-publish something, please contact me for permission.

You may do this by commenting on any post and stating your request. I will generally not seek pay - just credit. And if you are trying to write an essay for high school or college about one of these books, please, write your own paper (and know that I will be happy to discuss whatever ideas you may have for it - Flying Houses is not sparknotes - these reviews are not academic in nature - they do, however, provide a springboad for academic commentary, and I am always pleased to discuss such matters).

Copyright Info

flyinghouses.blogspot.com by Christopher J. Knorps is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at flyinghouses.blogspot.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at flyinghouses.blogspot.com.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: I Can't Go On...I'll Go On...(1Ls Considering Dropping Out)

Now, we will stop posting the title and author. Bio will remain, but see how it is shortened. This is column #3. Column #4 will be about reliability, which is increasingly bothering me. BLS Advocate did post the last column, and I'd prefer to post this after BLS Advocate posts it, but it doesn't make a difference one way or another. The point is to get traffic I ordinarily wouldn't get, and to see the other posts (or to provide a more reader-friendly format). Enjoy.

Let me give you a hypothetical. You are 25 years old. You are a 1L at BLS. You have a “pretty good” scholarship. You’ve gotten your Fall grades. They are average – let’s say a 3.2 – you don’t know where you stand in the class but you see those scholarship renewal statistics on BLS Connect and it says you need a 3.35 to be in the top 40%. You need to do much better in the Spring if you don’t want to lose your money, and law school feels like an endless parade of reading, memorization, deadlines, obligations, and opportunities that you would be remiss to ignore. You have no idea what kind of law you want to practice and you haven’t gotten an internship yet. Let’s add into this special fact pattern that you’ve taken out $20,000 in loans (no grad plus), your scholarship covers the majority of tuition and housing, but your parents are still supporting you, and floating you spending money. Let’s say your parents are having financial difficulties of their own and they’ve mentioned the word “bankruptcy” more than once. Soon the Spring will be over, and you will have your full year grades, and you will know your rank, and you will know how much money you will be keeping or losing. And you will hopefully have an internship by then. Let’s say you do slightly worse in the Spring (because those extra two credits weigh a lot heavier than they seem), and you end up with a GPA approximating ∏. The internship is going alright – but your options for OCI are non-existent, and you hear all of this talk, endless talk, about how hard it is for a lawyer fresh out of law school to find a job in this day and age. What do you do?

In my case, I punched my sister on the arm. We were on a beach in Nantucket. She said, “I think it’s amazing how much money mom and dad are giving you. You should be taking out more loans.” I said, “I can’t believe you said that. You should know that is the main thing hanging over my head. I should hit you for that. Wait, I am going to hit you for that.” And I gave her a little “dead arm,” which any boy will recognize, hurts for about a minute, then goes away. And it wasn’t even a hard dead arm, but of course, gender stereotypes being what they are, she gets up, walks away, and starts saying I’m going to be an abusive husband when I grow up.

1Ls Considering Dropping Out: people are going to tell you things like, “it gets better” and “it gets easier” and “it gets more interesting.” In my experience at least this has been true. My first year was an emotionally devastating experience that brought me to the brink of suicide. It is perhaps worth noting that medication may be the only reason I have been able to deal with the 2L year. It truly is an exhausting experience and if you don’t have the energy or the motivation, doing two more years of this seems like a daunting prospect.

And maybe perhaps you’ve seen that members of the class of 2015 entering with a scholarship will be entitled to keep it all so long as they stay in the top 80% and maybe this seems manifestly unfair to you.

But I know two kids who dropped out. They both seem relatively happy. One of them is going to get his M.B.A. The other is working as a paralegal and from what I can tell by her status updates, is partying more than ever. Law school was “not for them” and maybe their grades were not so high – but I do believe whether it is “for you” is the most important factor to consider. Ability to pay, potential for future success, the quality of the summer internship experience, and general comfort and ease with your classmates and professors are other important factors to consider.
I flirted with dropping out up until October 20, 2011. I was able to make a relatively substantial improvement in my grades in the Fall, I am on my third very positive internship experience in a row, and I just had the most important interview of my law school life. I may not be on moot court or a journal or place even in the top 33%, but my post-grad job search anxiety is nothing compared to what it was a year ago. I told everyone I am going to get by on my charm and it feels like it is working. But who knows – come back to me in a year and ask me how I feel then.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at Brooklyn Law School. He has written two novels, a book of short stories, and a memoir of his 10-month-stint in L.A. He enjoys studying bankruptcy law. He ranks in the upper 54% of his class. You may find his blog by visiting flyinghouses.blogspot.com.